Media establishment pronounces Obama’s plan serious

[babylonsister]

FWIW.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/media-establishment-pronounces-obamas-plan-serious/2011/03/03/AF7my8cD_blog.html

Media establishment pronounces Obama’s plan serious
By Greg Sargent

snip//

The Post editorial board praised Obama for “an important and welcome contribution to the debate,” and said the President is “correct to call for new taxes.” Joe Klein hailed Obama’s “sense of proportion and sanity.” Marc Ambinder’s piece described Obama as “reasonable” and “courageous.” The Times editorial board pronounced Obama “reinvigorated.” Fareed Zakaria declared the speech “important” and “serious.” The Los Angeles Times editorial board said Obama’s plan “offered more concrete steps than the GOP did.” Chris Cillizza pronounced the speech “successful.”

There are exceptions: Ron Fournier flirted with the notion that Obama’s speech was overly political. Some news articles did describe it as “partisan.”

It’s true that some of the above voices hailing Obama’s performance are center left. But they represent an important chunk of the political media establishment. And the clear consensus among them was that Obama’s speech was eloquent and effective, and that his proposal was — yup — “serious.” Some of them even hinted that Obama’s plan is more serious than Ryan’s, if such a thing is possible.

Halperin and Politico are, if anything, in the minority. The important story here is that the Beltway media establishment by and large treated Obama’s speech with real seriousness of purpose, and in so doing, ended up giving it pretty high marks.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I'd like to know just why the President's speech shouldn't be partisan?

This is politics, after all.

And the Republicans have been sniping at him for years. Time they got some of that back, IMHO!

And it is a serious plan.

Recommended.

[Pharaoh]

2. Yes it was a fine speech,

just like all the ones he made last time in campaign mode~

But I must ask, where's the beef?