REPLIES TO THE CURRENT QUESTION

Our question last week was:

After hearing Mr. Obama's inaugural address, how would you rate it, and why?

Here are your answers.  The name of a writer is included only if he or she actually placed a name at the end of the message.  Otherwise, we assume the writer wished anonymity and "name withheld" is inserted.

Rating: B

Why:  He failed to meet expectations, but gave a solid speech.  Since his many media sycophants  have built up an aura of brilliance around his ability to give a great speech, it would be nearly impossible to meet expectations.  Only someone blinded by Michelle's dress could "see" brilliance in his speech this morning.  It was solid and paid lip service to all of the appropriate themes but left totally unanswered how he plans to carry out his promises.  The gap between resources and commitments remains a chasm to be bridged.  It will take more than rhetoric to do this.  

Don Newell

Many have said the speech was cliché ridden and lacking in content.  My biggest concern was the assertion that he will not pursue a specific agenda but will experiment with what works regardless of where the idea comes from.  On first glance this sounds like a harmless non-ideological bromide.  However, this is straight out of FDR.  The lack of direction by FDR left businesses scratching their heads.  If you know the rules (whether they are good or bad) you can plan your actions and move forward.  But, you cannot do either if the rules can change willy-nilly depending on whatever criteria the politicians devine as "success".  Many, including Amity Schlaes have made the point that this non-policy was a contributing factor in the continuance of the Great Depression.  "Fasten your seatbelts.  It's going to be a bumpy night!"

Alan Weick