ImNotBlue says:

Leading up to President Obama’s address to schoolchildren on September 6, at least some Americans were upset about the president’s direct access to the hearts and minds of their children. But after Obma’s [sic] remarks were revealed to be wholeheartedly apolitical — really more of a pep talk for the first day of school — the news cycle moved on and no immediate harm was reported.

Zeke… if this is what you got out of that story, then you missed the point. It was revealed before the speech happened that a worksheet would be distributed to the school and students. The question, “What can you do to help the President?” or something similar, appeared. THAT was the source of the outrage!

The question should not have been, “…to help the President,” rather it should have been, “…to help America.” Obama often talks about how it’s not “about him,” and then distributes something like this, where the text makes it clear it IS about HIM?! After the complaints, the White House correctly apologized for it’s poor language, and made the appropriate edit.

Either you’re purposely misrepresenting the facts of the situation, or you don’t know the facts. Either way, a mistake.

ImNotBlue says:

Ted Silliman says:
September 26, 2009 at 11:20 pm

You do recognize that your YouTube video wasn’t of a PUBLIC SCHOOL… right? Do you not see a difference between a PUBLIC SCHOOL run by the government, and a private organization? Yeesh.

Dan Abrams says:
September 27, 2009 at 12:30 am

On the other hand, Imnotblue you were not listening to the debate before the speech if you think it was all about “a worksheet.”

Sure there were people who were upset about this from the start, but there are always going to be those people. However, those people and their claims aren’t what drove this story… what drove the story was the actual evidence, the controvercial content found, that gave this story legs. Without that, the story is just “a bunch of people complaining” (which is how Zeke tried to present it)… with it, the complaints have significant merit.

The issue of the worksheet was the most substantial claim to why this was wrong… substantial enough to get the White House to change their plans. Sure there were other claims, but aren’t there always? Shouldn’t we focus on the most important and relevant of all the claims, the claims that turned out to be undeniably true? That’s what makes Zeke’s report so unfortunate… it’s missing the “important fact,” in favor of more general terms, which wind up bolstering HIS opinion!

Re-read Zeke’s opening paragraph:

Leading up to President Obama’s address to schoolchildren on September 6, at least some Americans were upset about the president’s direct access to the hearts and minds of their children. But after Obama’s remarks were revealed to be wholeheartedly apolitical — really more of a pep talk for the first day of school — the news cycle moved on and no immediate harm was reported.

He states the issue as only being relevant to “some Americans,” and attributes their anger to the President attempting to have “direct access to the hearts and minds of their children.” That’s a great way to gloss over legitimate concerns of the issue. Again, if those concerns weren’t legitimate, why would the White House of reacted the way it did? Then he states this, “But after Obama’s remarks were revealed to be wholeheartedly apolitical,” well, the remarks WEREN’T “wholeheartedly apolitical,” they BECAME “apolitical” after the complaints! Isn’t that an important distinction to make? I would certainly hope so, as it changes the facts of the situation completely. Wouldn’t you agree?

So while I wholly appreciate you getting involved in the discussion, and am honored you took the time to address my comments… I stand by my original statement: “Either Zeke is purposely misrepresenting the facts of the situation, or didn’t know the facts to begin with. Either way, a mistake.”