As we've seen on this site, too, especially during their extra-desperate health care days currently.

It's my opinion. I just find it a tad rich when multiple Republicans, with Joe Wilson being the most egregious, show textbook examples of (unprecedented) disrespect to the President and then turn around and lecture on mutual respect (I do tire of using the “H” word).

I think its been pretty clearly shown that it wasn't really unprecedented. Harry Reids comments and the orchestrated booing of Bush by the democrats wasn't any different except in technicalities. The democrats just don't like it when they have to take it instead of dish it out. Anyhow inappropriate on all counts.

Looks like Ed Morrissey is questioning your analysis a bit:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/10/did-obama…

It may be merely for show, and not entirely believeable after he reversed his previously-expressed position to this effect on the revisitation of torture investigation and possible prosecution (for political reasons). Certainly the Dems have overreached and stumbled and he wants to guide them (or more accurately, the health care change effort) in some way, which he successfully did if you extract the key points and few things of real value from the rest of the junk in the speech he gave. It succeeded.

As to Obama doing just that, no he isn't simply because he was also admonishing his own progressive supporters to also quit the nonsense. When both kids are misbehaving and you take them both to task for it, that's parenting…however, different degrees of misbehavior call for different levels of reprimand.

His exasperation and behaving as one of the childish lib Dems this year is part of their problems that underlie his special speech in order to seek some kind of self-made damage control. Impatience as well as exasperation and insistence on rushing to poor action is also more of the same childishness.

It's also noteworthy that so much of the speech other than the essentials that I identified and listed, as well as treatment of these, were made as though he believes everyone is part of the childish Herd that believes in all that he and the other lib Dems tell them. Rush, rush, rush on behalf of silliness…

It's also funny how it seems some Republicans are only interested in calling for mutual respect after they've slinged all sorts of … stuff…and are called to the carpet for it. Color me skeptical when they start lecturing on “mutual respect”.

Anna did you just pull a “Well, he touched me first!” of your own? or at least isn't Obama doing just that?

Now we have:

* High-risk insurance pool (could be catastrophic only, could be more elaborate), public option, too.

* “Play or pay” by employers; individuals must buy insurance (as in Massachusetts), with fed aid, etc.

And the question now, for unity (or at least enough votes) is, will the Dems do one or the other:

a) Take the kiddie lib Dem House legislation and try to temper it with some sanity from the Senate;

b) Take the Baucus Senate legislation and subject it (at risk) to the kiddie lib Dems in the House.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was telling reporters Tuesday night that a health care bill might survive without a public option when Nancy Pelosi bounded to the microphones to cut him off.

“In order to pass a bill in the House, it must have a public option,” the speaker said

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26956…
ROTFLMAO Democratic unity indeed.

I was incredibly disappointed in the tone of his speech. At times I found his tone to be overly combative and believe he behaved in a manner beneath the dignity of the office. I fear his speech tonight has made it more difficult — not less — to find common ground.

He appeared to be angry at his critics and disappointed the American people were not buying the proposals he has been selling. The president’s confrontational demeanor increased the emotional and political divide. I hope the President will learn that true bipartisanship begins with mutual respect. Criticism of a public official is to be expected and not all criticism is demagoguery.

When it comes to the public option, the President is either being disingenuous or misinformed. The public option, contrary to the president’s claims, will eventually lead to a government takeover of our health care system.

One could easily be led to believe tonight’s speech is the beginning of a ‘go it alone’ strategy. If the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats go down this path and push a bill on the American people they do not want, it could be the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency.

I'm all for costructive dialogue,and constructive debate, I like Senator Graham just don't by demagogery from the Bully Pulpit.

This was no “home run” [snicker]. As I correctly stated, it gets something in the fifties out of 100.

Obama made his set of positions clear, more clear than the lib Dems in Congress and the media:

* High-risk insurance pool (could be catastrophic only, could be more elaborate), public option, too.

* “Play or pay” by employers; individuals must buy insurance (as in Massachusetts), with fed aid, etc.

The GOP has been sidelined by the Dems deliberately. The next questions that follow Obama's speech are to what extent legislation will come from a derivative of the House legislation, or apply what lib Dems in the House want to the Baucus legislation in the Senate instead.

Tarnishing Obama's speech were clear misstatements and deliberate omissions, a disgusting calling of Medicare as a “sacred trust” (like Bill Clinton's “sacred covenant” of Social Security) and bizarre statement that no Medicare trust funds would be used to pay for the new health care (who would even believe this to be relevent in any way?), the collectivist garbage that employer provision of health benefits is a “responsibility” (and the hypocrisy of continuing this rather than ending dependence on the employer-based model and making things truly portable), the laughers about immigrant benefits, of abortion non-provision (it's in the public option legislation already), of no increases in the deficit (by the people all by themselves in the deficit and debt category), and of course the sickening, disgusting appeal to the worst-about-the-worst in society with reference to Teddy Kennedy and making the federal government our surrogate parent, Santa Claus, fairy godmother, magic genie, and womb.

Two polls that matter show President Barack Obama had a strong showing with the American people Wednesday night.

– The CBS News poll said Obama's approval rating soared from 62 percent to 69 percent after the speech.

– A CNN poll said 68 percent of its respondents gave a thumbs up to the speech. Only 8 percent were negative.

Their Editorial Board also writes Obama hits a huge home run:

President Barack Obama’s address to Congress and the nation was clear, simple and direct. He succeeded Wednesday night in promoting a strong package of needed health care reforms in America.

It’s time for Congress to follow the president’s lead. Stop the partisan bickering. Start the constructive debate.

[...]

Now Leonidas we know that you are not interested in constructive debate but most of America is.

Part of this may once again be that often it's as though Team Obama is out of touch with the public.

“So, exactly what new news came out of this speech?”

I would say, a string of ideas and views that at least somewhat clarifies Obama's desires for what he wants to see, more than the Dems in Congress have managed to collect and to present competently.

He mentioned having the feds take over the high-risk pool, and separately he still wants a general or universalist “public option” to engage in rigged competition with the private insurers if he can get this.

There is compulsory payment by employers (who can dump their employee plans in favor of having the employees go to the public option, which everyone with a brain knows is the likely consequence, and what is sought by Obama and other Dems) as well as by individuals, Massachusetts-style.

He appealed to the stupid Herd by saying that employer provision of health benefits is “responsible” or “responsibility.” (Ignore what the Herd cannot grasp, that this is a deliberate continuation of the employer-based health care model that so many have said needs to be ended — and that the system of fines is probably going to be [truly] irresponsible, fiscally.) He also assured the easily fooled that currently (before any details of what finally will be sought, are implemented, and before subsequent obvious consequences and additional changes to the way things are now) immigrants won't get benefits, abortion won't be paid for (the public option legislation in the House includes provision of abortion; only idiots believe abortion won't surface openly sometime in the future), etc.

Overall, somewhere between 50-60 on a scale of 100 was what Obama earns for this. Note it is superior in clarity and coherence to what the Dems (including silly Pelosi behind Obama last night) in Congress have been doing so far. I believe it's now “stale” and moot to what extent Obama has kept in the background up to now waiting to see what appears more promising and what doesn't appear so.

A bit of it:

From a policy standpoint, there was nothing new in President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress tonight. It can only be assessed, therefore, in political terms. I read the transcript rather than watching it, but the speech struck me as reasonably effective. I assume the delivery was standard Obama–smooth, generally flat, occasionally a bit whiny.

One striking aspect of the speech was that Obama kept talking about the “plan” that he “announced” tonight–but there is no plan; not in writing, anyway. Not unless Obama meant Nancy Pelosi's House bill, but he didn't seem to, since he made a point of saying that details remain to be filled in, referred to work still going on in committee, and said that “his plan” is open to alternatives to the public option. This vagueness gives him a sort of deniability: what he was describing was more his concept of the qualities health care legislation should have, rather than a specific bill. Whether that was politically smart remains to be seen. So far, vagueness hasn't seemed to be the President's friend on this issue.

another bit:

I'm not sure whether Obama and his handlers understand how this sort of talk grates on those of us who are not liberal Democrats (a large majority of the country). Debating public policy issues is not “bickering.” Disagreeing with a proposal to radically change one of the largest sectors of our economy is not a “game.” This kind of gratuitous insult–something we never heard from President Bush, for example–is one of the reasons why many consider Obama to be mean-spirited.