Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

State of the Union Address Goes Web 2.0

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the state-of-the-union-is-404 dept.

Government 239

CWmike writes "The White House will be tapping Web 2.0 technology to reach out to Americans during and after the president's State of the Union address tonight. While President Barack Obama makes his annual address starting at 9 p.m. ET, the official White House Web site will have a live stream of the speech, along with charts and statistics to provide context and emphasize key points. 'We're putting the finishing touches on a new feature for WhiteHouse.gov that will offer an enhanced viewer experience for President Obama's State of the Union address,' wrote Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media, in a blog post. Immediately after the State of the Union address, the White House will host an Open for Questions event on Twitter. Several senior administration officials will be fielding questions submitted on the White House Facebook page, the White House Webform, or via Twitter using the #sotu hashtag and responding to @whitehouse. And on Wednesday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will take citizens' questions via Twitter before his post-State of the Union briefing. Anyone interested can follow @PressSec on Twitter to find out when Gibbs will take questions and post video responses. To submit a question for him, respond to @PressSec using the hashtag #1Q. At 2:30 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, Obama will take questions live on YouTube."

cancel ×

239 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Early Copy (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999530)

The early copy of the speech is included below.
I think it needs a bit more tweaking.

"My fellow Americans. I dun goofed!"

Re:Early Copy (-1, Troll)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999564)

My fellow Americans. I dun goofed!"

I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise, but, I just realized how batshit crazy they are.

Re:Early Copy (-1, Offtopic)

Entrope (68843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999678)

And I actually thought liberals might have meant all they were saying about "civility".

Nah, not really. I'm not stupid.

Re:Early Copy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999798)

And I actually thought liberals might have meant all they were saying about "civility".

Conservative - Liberal

Black - White

one - zero

Binary thinking with no shades of gray is so ... adolescent.

Re:Early Copy (2)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999968)

"Binary thinking" might well define the way of thinking in US politics. Unfortunately. Millions of ideas ultimately devolve to two, Or better yet, since both of those ideas are co-opted and worthless, devolve to zero.

Re:Early Copy (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000278)

Or better yet, since both of those ideas are co-opted and worthless, devolve to zero.

make that: devolve to minus two.

Re:Early Copy (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999802)

Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.

How the fuck can someone respond to a speech they haven't heard yet??

Re:Early Copy (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999854)

Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.

Re:Early Copy (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000006)

Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.

Missed that part?

Re:Early Copy (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000024)

Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.

I just tried looking for evidence that this is true, and could not find any through a Google search or through a search of Wikipedia. Can you cite any sources for this?

Re:Early Copy (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000358)

Ask any of the political operatives. Due to the high stakes of national politics, nothing is ever sprung on the populace without first going through several rounds of focus groups and smaller speeches in order to test the reaction and tune the language; for instance, the change from "spending initiatives" to "investment opportunities" in the current speech. None of these guys would be foolish enough to just stand up and give a speech where they say what they really think.

Re:Haven't Heard (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000026)

Re:Haven't Heard (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000064)

Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.

Missed that part? Republicans (and, strangely, Bachman) have been talking about their response for days. Not day: days.

Re:Early Copy (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000142)

Because for one thing, it doesn't much matter what the other guy says, each side has their own set of talking points to stick to. And for another, those talking points don't change much from year to year, so you can usually guess what each side will say long before they put finger to keyboard.

Re:Early Copy (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000166)

Just once, I'd love to see a President's State of the Union speech address points COMPLETELY different than what's written in the opposing party's response. That would be some quality entertainment!

Re:Early Copy (2)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000332)

It's not really very entertaining. Heck, there have been numerous Daily Show segments where Stewart tries to have a serious discussion of some topic, but can't get the politician in question to do anything but quote party lines and generalities. Talking about the issues isn't good marketing.

Re:Early Copy (1, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999864)

And I actually thought liberals might have meant all they were saying about "civility".

Nah, not really. I'm not stupid.

Say what now? How do you know that ravenspear is a liberal? Conservatives and independents hate teahadists too.

Re:Early Copy (1, Insightful)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000188)

Name calling to the Tea Party is your best to refute what they have to say and what the American public did on November 2? I feel really sorry for your political party which ever that is, since it is clear your not interested in actually discussing idea, but instead just want to resort to name calling. Way to promote open debate of American politics.

Re:Early Copy (2, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000296)

The Tea Party has never said anything comprehensible enough to be refuted. The American Public rejected the Tea Party at the polls, in fact the Tea Party cost the Republicans quite a few seats. If you have a political position, you should state what it is. Then we can debate it. As for the Tea Party itself, I have no respect for the loons who identify with the Tea Party. You may as well ask why I do not debate Charles Manson over the morality of getting others to kill strangers for you. Because there is nothing to debate there.

The Tea Party gets my respect when it's members earn it by acting like grown ups. Until then, I can only engage them on the preschool playground level they seem to prefer.

Re:Early Copy (0)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000372)

Until then, I can only engage them on the preschool playground level they seem to prefer.

And you do that so well.

Re:Early Copy (2, Insightful)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000160)

You have to be joking. Given the way the Democrats have been attacking Republican Paul Ryan the last day or so? They are not civil, it's once again do as I say, not as I do. They have been saying he wants to get rid of Medicare and destroy Social Security and wants to see all the old people die on the streets. Which is a total lie. He has never said anything even close to that. No one has ever talked about getting rid of Medicare or Social Security. So much for being civil, and so much for no violent rhetoric. That is the real face of the Democratic party.

Re:Early Copy (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999694)

The question taking will most likely be moderated to only include subjectively good questions. Things like "why did you do the opposite of what 90% of your campaign said" are extremely unlikely to appear

Re:Early Copy (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999832)

If that ends up being the case, I have a feeling it's going to be a really quiet discussion :p

Re:Early Copy (1, Troll)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999914)

That is what I find most baffling about the Obama presidency: The Democrats elected a republican, one who seems to have undergone something of a spinectomy at that, and the republicans are still convinced that the Democrats managed to elect a firebreathing radical socialist muslim who will be redistributing their white women at any moment now.

I just don't understand it. Is his being of the melanized persuasion really that much of a hang-up, or (more alarming) do they think that he is a radical socialist because the republican platform has continued drifting right until it settled on "Hire Haliburton to build a skull pyramid of our enemies that shall reach the heavens, in jesus' name!"

Re:Early Copy (0)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999996)

Its probably a little bit of both.

Re:Early Copy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35000120)

The left is the only side that thinks it's an issue.

Re:Early Copy (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000182)

They don't really think he is a socialist. They know he is a moderate Republican. But people like the Koch brothers fund libertarian groups for two reasons: to repeal all government regulations, and to get rid of all taxation of the wealthy. By those standards, Obama has only given them several thousand inches, and now they want a light-year. I mean, if a guy is bending over backwards to do everything you ask, you could thank him, but then people might realize he was doing everything you asked. Better to call him a commie Muslim fascist Kenyan terrorist, in the hopes that people will not realize what he really is, and what he is really doing.

Re:Early Copy (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999920)

This is what our political reporting has been reduced too. If you do not toe the line, you do not get access. Ask too many uncomfortable questions, and you will only be asking questions of local school board candidates. You can argue, within the bounds set by the Washington elite, but you must stick to the narrative. Argue whichever "side" you like, as the sides have been pre-chosen and approved by the powers that be. Just don't question the narrative itself, or again, you won't be reporting in Washington.

Re:Early Copy (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000218)

The questions answer thing is a total PR gimmick. It going to be a complete cream puff PR answer and question. There won't be a single hard or difficult question in any of the questions the post and respond to. That is just a given. This White House doesn't respond well at all to well thought out factual criticism.

Re:Early Copy (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000342)

Please quote the "Well thought out factual criticism" that you feel the White House has failed to respond to.

Re:Early Copy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999718)

My fellow Americans. I dun goofed!" I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise, but, I just realized how batshit crazy they are.

I've backtraced their emails, reported them to NSA, and - let me be clear - consequences will never be the same.

Re:Early Copy (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000106)

Your best response to the Tea Party is name calling? If that is the best the Democrats or the Republicans have then both parties really have become a joke. Deal with the actual issues leave the childish name calling at home kids.

Re:Early Copy (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000298)

Your best response to the Tea Party is name calling? If that is the best the Democrats or the Republicans have then both parties really have become a joke.

The tea party is just a way to elect Republicans. When you look at people showing up to rallies and looking at tea party information when voting, surveys show them as:

a Tea Party Member “is essentially someone who would've earlier identified as a Republican but now calls himself an independent despite being a conservative and voting pretty much exclusively for Republicans.”

So when you talk about republicans and the tea party, the tea party pretty much always votes for republicans, even if those republicans are now calling themselves tea baggers as well. It's just a rebranding of some of the Republican party in a way to try to lure in Libertarians and Republican supporters who are too upset by their party to vote.

Re:Early Copy (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000232)

I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise

And I never thought liberals would stop referring to libertarians and conservatives using sexual slang, and instead debate based on ideas.

Looks like I was right. I wonder what else all of the Tea Party members have been right about while you've been mocking them?

Re:Early Copy (0, Troll)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000398)

I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise

And I never thought liberals would stop referring to libertarians and conservatives using sexual slang, and instead debate based on ideas.

Looks like I was right. I wonder what else all of the Tea Party members have been right about while you've been mocking them?

Nothing. The Tea Party has been right about absolutely nothing. They are crazy. They do not deserve respect, or a place at the civilized people's table. Nobody wants to debate crazy, it isn't a debate, it is just crazy yelling DIE! DIE! DIE! at you. Seriously, what is there to debate? You make it sound as though the Tea Party has been espousing sensible positions, hell, they haven't been espousing positions at all. The only thing I hear from the Tea Party is an unintelligible scream of rage. The only position they hold true to is a position of unrelenting fear and hatred of the undeserving "other" who is bent on destroying America. The Tea Party thinks that I and everyone like me is a terrorist bent on destroying America. How can you have a debate with that? You can't.

Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999746)

The Republican doesn't understand even elementary logic. They can't be reasoned with.

Barack Obama should execute his legislave agenda with signing statements and executive orders, like his predecessor.

Even trying to explain a cost benefit analysis to a Republican is an exercise in futility. Just get it done.

By the way, Obama actually has gotten alot done. Even when you don't include the fact that he saved us from another great depression, he's had a great presidency so far.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999878)

I am about as liberal as they get. And I have been horribly disappointed in the failures of Obama. Great president? No. Clinton was worth something. Obama is just another devious snake.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000022)

Obama is just another devious snake.

Worse.

CC.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000428)

you must be a racist, too.

Re:Shouldn't have reasoned with Retardicans (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000284)

Great let's all support subverting the legal system and the Constitution and just let the President do anything he wants and screw dealing with Congress. It's after just a hassle to deal with Congress and so much more efficient to just do what you want. That is exactly what ruling by Executive Order is that you are talking about. Obama has already started to do that since it became clear he lost Congress. You sir and your ideas are why America is so screwed up these days. America has always been about protecting the minority against the majority and following the rule of law. If we don't do that then we might as well raise the Communist China flag and get it over with.

feh (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999536)

I won't be watching, The Real Housewives of New Jersey is on.

More honest likable people.

power points for the lies! (-1, Flamebait)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999586)

Oh, great! While he is telling us how wonderful he is about freezing the budget after doubling the debt and lying about how great the bills the dems passed, we get charts to highlight the mis-directions and false information.

Re:power points for the lies! (0)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000334)

Yep after Obama spent more in 2 years than any other President in history in 4 years he wants to freeze the budget. He has absolutely no intention of doing that. They haven't even figured out how they are going to pay for Obamacare. You think he really will freeze the budget when they can't pay for Obamacare? Think again. You think given all the other social programs that they want that Obama or the Democrats will freeze the budget now? There is no way in hell. It makes for a good PR spin but there is no way in hell Obama will actually do it. He will find some way to weasle out it just like he did with lobbyists in his White House and every other promise he as made. The guy go back so often on his promises we should just call him Go-Back-Obama or Flippy-Obama or maybe just simply liar.

what format? (1)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999590)

will it be html5, flash, or something else?

Re:what format? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999738)

It's streaming the video. Therefore the answer to HTML5 is a very definite no.

Re:what format? (1)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999972)

I didn't mean format of the video, I mean the format used to present the video. As in youtube has a flash version and an html5 version. Both play video encoded in h.264

Re:what format? (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999936)

Flash -- can't see it on your iPhone
Silverlight -- can't see it on your Linux box

They really need to finalize that HTML5 spec.

And thus, POTUS will be trolled... (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999592)

Don't open up discussion on Twitter. You can't say anything worth while there. Everyone knows this. All that will be there are trolls and worshipers.

"OBAMA U TARD KENYAN!"
**Comment Deleted**
"CENCERSHYPPP!!!!!!111"

Re:And thus, POTUS will be trolled... (0)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999896)

Sarah Palin uses Twitter... what kind of people do you expect to find there?

Re:And thus, POTUS will be trolled... (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000102)

Keith Olbermann will be tweeting the SOTU at #FOK I think.

Re:And thus, POTUS will be trolled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35000338)

Agreed. I would sooner discuss politics on 4chan and expect rational replies than on Twitter. What's worse than Twitter? I don't know, Youtube maybe? Yahoo! Answers?

"Web 2.0"? Really? (3, Insightful)

karmac0ma (1111641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999604)

Since when is video streaming a "Web 2.0" thing? That term seems to be tacked into everything web-related nowadays.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (4, Funny)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999620)

I think the 2.0 comes with taking comments and questions from Twitter and Youtube-- the bastions of reasonable discourse on the web.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (2)

karmac0ma (1111641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999646)

Doh, you're totally right. Knee-jerk reaction to the first sentence without reading the summary properly. Facepalming now.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (2, Funny)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000178)

Doh, you're totally right. Knee-jerk reaction to the first sentence without reading the summary properly. Facepalming now.

Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (1)

dn15 (735502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999790)

I think the 2.0 comes with taking comments and questions from Twitter and Youtube-- the bastions of reasonable discourse on the web.

I'd question whether those are really "Web 2.0" either. They're just web pages with comments on them. Basically a public forum that got really popular. :)

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (4, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999870)

I think the 2.0 comes with taking comments and questions from Twitter and Youtube-- the bastions of reasonable discourse on the web.

I'd question whether those are really "Web 2.0" either. They're just web pages with comments on them. Basically a public forum that got really popular. :)

Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000088)

Web 1.0 supposedly is static web sites. Web 2.0 encompasses anything that allows users to interact back. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, stuff like that. According to the marketing morons that came up with the phrase "web 2.0", Slashdot is in the list.

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999676)

Everybody's talking about "Web 2.0" and "The Cloud" yet no one can tell for sure what they are

Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999788)

It's obvious. Both are what already existed on the web.

For a more titillating experience... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999610)

watch it on www.WhiteHouse.com.

Re:For a more titillating experience... (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000018)

watch it on www.WhiteHouse.com.

I can't, that's blocked where I work.

I guess they're as much behind the times as you are, seeing as how whitehouse.com hasn't been a porn site for years.

The Haney Project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999624)

I will be watching Rush Limbaugh take golf lessons on The Haney Project.

nothing here to see...move along (3, Insightful)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999628)

Actions speak louder than words. The actions taken by government for the last twenty years show the American people are not of interest.

Re:nothing here to see...move along (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999724)

Its at least 10 years for me. Clinton was slightly above acceptable, Bush Sr was slightly below acceptable. Reagan, Bush Jr and Obama have been horrible. Not old enough to have any first hand opinions of the previous presidents.

Re:nothing here to see...move along (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000274)

Its at least 10 years for me. Clinton was slightly above acceptable, Bush Sr was slightly below acceptable. Reagan, Bush Jr and Obama have been horrible.

Um, Reagan left office 23 years ago.

Re:nothing here to see...move along (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000348)

And Clinton left 10 years ago. I liked Clinton because he did his job well enough. I need to have made a new years resolution to keep tangential subjects in separate paragraphs even if I only intent on using a couple sentences, I also need to avoid excessively long sentences, and possibly excessive comma splicing.

Re:nothing here to see...move along (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000392)

Regan was great for this country. We had great economic growth which drove the Democrats crazy. We had low unemployment and nice growth of entrepreneurs. Everything after that was down hill. Some more downhill than others, but downhill not the less. Too bad Clinton didn't actually help with the Internet. We were just fortunate that he stayed the hell out of the way and let it happen. Now Obama and his Congress seem intent on putting a nice strangle hold on it with all their regulations and what not. So we can blame Obama's Presidency for putting a major damper on the Internet.

BFD (3, Interesting)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999638)

We want to WRITE the state of the union in a wiki, not read about it on the web and make "comments" that are filtered, censored and nobody can read. It's a two-way free access medium, not a TV with a phone next to it.

Re:BFD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35000032)

My fellow Americans, the times have been tough and the challenges tougher. We have been through war and dark times in the economy. Some say[Weasel words] that the Union is no longer as great as it has been, I disagree. The economy is recovering at a rapid pace[citation needed].....

One thing DAMMIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999682)

I hope you bitches realize that no matter what your sorry asses are going to complain. Next election time I wanna see you in the running for president of the USA. If not STFU. I mean, the way I grew up was, "if you are not happy with the situation, do something about it." Are you all just lip service? Don't hate the media... BECOME THE MEDIA! .... end of line .... Beeeechaz

Re:One thing DAMMIT (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000422)

It's called voting. We don't have to run for office to effect change. Also what the hell do you think blogs and YouTube channels are, just distracting fun? They are also forms of media and commenting on public events and policy. You might want to look around more before you make such foolish comments.

Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyway. (1, Insightful)

Bad Labrador (922836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999684)

Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyway. Obama is firmly in the pocket of the elite that run America. Forget the "hopey changy" stuff, it ain't going to happen. His job now is to smother the angry and dismayed progressives who elected him by controlling the internet.

Homey the Man (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35000012)

Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyway. Obama is firmly in the pocket of the elite that run America. Forget the "hopey changy" stuff, it ain't going to happen. His job now is to smother the angry and dismayed progressives who elected him by controlling the internet.

Homey the Man.

So, you're saying that this Black Man is now the Establishment.

I guess our only hope is a chick in the Whitehouse?

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw (0)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000074)

Yeah, and WTF he was born in Kenya! And he's a Socialist! And he's a terrorist! And a Muslim! And he's totally a Republican in a Democrat suit!

It's easy to criticize from your couch, after the fact. If you're not going to do something better about it yourself, shut the fuck up.

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35000184)

Yeah, and WTF he was born in Kenya! And he's a Socialist! And he's a terrorist! And a Muslim! And he's totally a Republican in a Democrat suit!

It's easy to criticize from your couch, after the fact. If you're not going to do something better about it yourself, shut the fuck up.

What do you propose that he do? Right now he's voicing his opinion. I assume he'll vote differently in the next election.

Do you propose he do something crazy, like pick up a gun and shoot some Democrats? Oh wait.

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35000078)

Citation? How is Obama being paid off for his policies? Where is he hording this illicit wealth and how is he preventing his enemies from discovering it?

How do contentless posts like this get +5 insightful?

Re:Who cares what he says? It's all hypocrisy anyw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35000154)

A great way to establish better credibility is to not quote Sarah Palin in your comments.

Mexican citizen, paid US taxes for twenty years (0, Troll)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999690)

Finally I got sick of paying US taxes and having no US rights so I left, and am again a Mexican citizen in Mexico, as well as still a "citizen" of the Web. Can I participate in #sotu and post comments too?

Wait until it's in 3D (5, Funny)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999692)

Wait until it's in 3D, which they are working on using the same technology Cameron used for Avatar. You'll be able to see how you're being fucked in 3D. Imagine that!

3D Obama was Amazing (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000288)

I'm from the future. When they got the 3D tech worked out 3D Obama was amazing, especially the part where he reached right into my pocket and removed the cash from my wallet directly, then I got to see it handed over to Goldman-USA-GM (they have merged in our time and are usually referred to as "The Collective") in real-time!

Oddly though when I tried to give Obama a hug to let him know how awesome he was I received a mild electric shock instead of a warm embrace.

Great improvement (1, Insightful)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999754)

The previous administration used the #stfu tag.

Re:Great improvement (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000294)

Really really really makes me wish the Founders had required the President to deliver a report on the "State of The Federal Union".

Now they can lie to use better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999766)

Oh wow...now politicians can lie to use with live streaming and "web 2.0" technology. The pipes are bursting at the seams...

Text needs one minor correction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999770)

Obama will take questions live from "users".

Twitter Account (2)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999834)

And here today at lunch I just opened a Twitter account. Sort of shatters your image of people you used to think were pretty cool. Except for Nathan Fillion. He rocks.

Anecdote: David Plouffe (once Obama's campaign manager, now senior advisor) spoke at our university last year. When asked by a student why, now that he was elected, Obama was no longer calling on the nation to do for themselves, "Yes we can!", etc. He completely dismissed (complete with dismissive hand wave) that whole concept of team effort, saying now that the election is done, "It wouldn't work. It just wouldn't." And went onto another topic. My question to him was going to be, "Remember when Joe the Plumber told the news that he felt like he needed a shower when he got off McCain's bus? I don't see Obama being slimy like McCain. You seem to fit the bill though. True?" Ran out of time though.

Speech is on the web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999876)

Since thats what everybody will be doing since theres nothing else on TV

Actually I will be sleeping, since I work tonight

Anyway what is the political significance of having it all on Tuesdays? The elections are on 1st Tuesday in Nov, and all the primaries and stuff are on a Tuesday?

The country I was born in has elections on a Saturday - it makes for a higher turnout since more people can get to the polls, and more volunteers are available to count ballots etc.

Come on nah.... Hooowah! (1)

mematron (1611693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999886)

Is this all flash and no substance or does it just reflect the times we live in. Defined: This is the way things are for presentation. This way of acquiring information is here to stay. They must keep up with the state of the art. Especially to appeal to the younger people who will in several years be of voting age. We complained about voter turn out and now it's gotten better that it has been in decades. You all still complain. Do something about it in a literal way. I think the best way to make change is from the inside out. Yes we are in this world. No one ever said anything about us having to be of the world.

Rickroll ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999892)

Someone should try to Rickroll the president on live TV.

I'd watch the State of the Union if I thought that might happen.

Commentator: the President is now taking comments from the internet, and is clicking on the question. "Never gonna give you up, never gonna ... ".

Now that's entertainment. Then, of course, we need a live feed of the poor bastard whose hacked computer did this so we could watch the black-ops guys swoop in and haul him away.

Someone should get on that. Excuse me, I think I hear a knock at the door.

Web 2.0? PFFFT!!! (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999938)

I'm posting this comment with Web3.0!! Way to live in the past Obama! I got iPads and Androids running with 7G, I'm so Web 3.0 even my Sunglasses and Pickup truck are HD.

How long before presidential speeches go the way of the GPU industry and they just start skipping 100's and then thousands, unill they finally realize the number they used in the name of the speech is so long they can't print it on CNNs intro splash screen any more so they have to start preceding the number with an X to represent the digits that are too long to fit?

"CNN Covering Web XX5900HD 11.6.1 Presidential speech on Tax reform in HD, 3D, Dolby Digital and THX"

Re:Web 2.0? PFFFT!!! (4, Interesting)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000172)

On a separate note the whitehouse did the streaming content distribution with Level 3 and Comcast users were unable to see it since Comcast is holding Level 3 up for ransom due to the lack of net neutrality laws.

Drinking games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34999970)

Take a drink when

- His head toggles from one teleprompter to the other. (Don't expect to survive this one.)
- He says consensus.
- He says bipartisanship.
- He says "uhh". (Another killer.)
- He blames something on Bush. (Another killer.)
- He blames something on the Republicans.
- He uses "For the children". (Clinton’s killer move.)
- Someone talks about "Moving to the center"
- Someone compares him to Ronald Reagan. ... Add your own favorites here...

Re:Drinking games (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999988)

Better, simpler game: Choose a side. While that side is standing and clapping, chug. Make sure you have 9-1 already in your phone, you'll probably need it.

Re:Drinking games (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000168)

The Democrats have made this really hard to do, with the "prom dates" that they are having. You'll have to recognize them and their party by their face, which will get very hard as the address goes on, and the picture gets more and more blurry.

Re:Drinking games (1)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000366)

I always wanted to do that during one of W's speeches. Every time he says "Nu-kyoo-ler", everybody drinks. Preferably something potent.

Re:Drinking games (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000360)

Streakers.

Gifford is mentioned, but none of the other victims are.

He uses "attack" phrases, like calling Republicans the "enemy", "bringing a gun", "killing" legislation, or other hate speech he has been condemning (but still using himself).

More plans for spending billions of dollars on "economic recovery".

Apologizing for how evil the USA is.

Oops (1)

el_jake (22335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34999974)

The state seem to be broken....States my Chrome browser..

Propaganda goes high-tech! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35000122)

Cool!

Ignorance is strength!

Will it have a lie counter? (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000256)

I want it to tick over for every lie he makes.

No, this isn't specific to Obama, they all do it. Obama's just most famous for it because Alito called him on one lie during his last SOTU.

Slides, context (4, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#35000268)

I am glad to see this happening, but saddened that it is such a big deal. In the corporate world, no CFO gives a presentation without slides showing the information and references to back it up. In every board room, you have a projector, a conference call system, and attendees with laptops. Every statement is cited with specific numbers and backed-up with links and references.

But in politics, someone can hold a speech or a debate and there are no slides, no links, and no references. Two candidates in a debate can quote entirely different numbers for the same thing, and even change their numbers from speech to speech. It it is up to the listeners to find sources after the fact. It is really quite silly. If businessmen operated like political candidates they would be ousted after the first board meeting.

I always imagined that if I was up there I would say "The US imports XXX barrels of oil, according to Gartner research" and a slide would appear showing the number within context of other nations, and a link to the research report. I know that only .01% of people would actually look that up, but much like open source, not everyone has to do that. It's just all a part of promoting transparency and accuracy. If the other side wants to quote a different number, that's fine, then they can post their links as well.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?