What was all the fuss about? Did you read his lesson plan for teachers before the Dear Leader changed it? Furthermore, why wait until the last minute to release the transcript and on a holiday no less? What was all the fuss about? It is simple. Many people don't trust the Man.

Thanks for your comment, J Moore. I did read the original lesson plan -- which is why I wrote, in my post, that it was the bigger issue at hand, and one that wouldn't have been addressed by keeping kids home from school that day. As for waiting until the last minute before releasing the text of the speech: I don't know about you, but most people don't write out their speeches long before they plan to give them. It's possible that the text was released once it was finalized. At least it was released; neither Bush Sr. nor Reagan released their speeches so parents could approve them beforehand. -- LMA

The Republican Party - America's leading manufacturer of outrage

Well, if you did your homeowrk, you would have seen what the president wanted to say, before the news picked up on this story. There were many changes made to the speech, because people saw this coming and demanded that things get changed. Go to Americasright.com and look around. It shows the cards that were sent out to schools, before and after the outrage was first reported. Major differences were made.

Thanks for the link, DaveK. With all due respect, the changes you refer to have to do with the lesson plan, not the speech itself. As I pointed out in my post, the bigger issue -- which wouldn't have been solved by keeping kids home today -- was with the lesson plan intended to go along with the speech, specifically with the letters students were supposed to be encouraged to write, detailing how they would "help the president." That lesson plan was changed (as I also mentioned in my post). Randy Wills' objection with the plan -- as described in his post at Americasright.com -- has to do with the exact quote I mention in my post. In his more recent post on the speech, Wills' says he was "a little more at ease" with the changes to the lesson plan, and that he thinks the speech itself was "fairly innocuous." So, yes, I did do my homework, but thanks for the pointer. -- LMA

Thank you for your very balanced statement. I was being to feel there was no sanity on this issue.

I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHT IS CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PLD RACIST MOVEMENT TO COMEBACK AND IF SOMEONE DOES NOT SPEAK UP ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT WE ARE GOING TP BE IN A LOT OF PROBLEMS.

Very Inspirational Speech. I liked the intro buy the Senior Class President and the references to other who overcome very tough circumstances and failures to succeed.

Fire Glenn Book for telling parents to keep their children out of school.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

.....ooops, my bad it was wrong for Bush, but ok for this president. I am sure that you took the same stance today that you did in 1991, and expressed your opinion in a similar manner.

Thanks, Pound Cake. My point is that I *don't* think it was wrong that Bush Sr. (or Reagan) spoke to students back then, and the controversy around Bush's speech, as with Obama's, is really about politics, not education. As for expressing my opinion in 1988 or 1991 -- I did, but it was as a student and in the school paper. Blogging wasn't really popular back then. -- LMA

i liked his speech because it is a matter of understanding his good intentions towards the future of our youths.it is a mature message he has given and only encouraged them to think.

nothing wrong

Why aren't we discussing the true issue, which is evident from this before the speech outrage that has been pointed out to have not happenned previously. The issue of us ending up with all sorts of dumb little Republican children. Seriously, if parents took half as uch time talking to their kids about what they disagree with instead of making sure their kids never see anything, we'd be better off as a society. Can't let kids near gay people, they might catch the gay. Can't let kids learn about evolution as they might think their religion is wrong. Can't let kids think the world is over 6,000 years old. Can't let kids listen to the President of the United States, because he's "not one of us". because it's far easier on parents without strong relationships to their kids to make others the outcast instead of their own kids intolerance (due to lack of parental communication or evidence they can point to when confronted with what they believe). It's funny, though, how you equate the 2 arguments in your article. In 1991, the argument was whether or not Bush used public money for what amounted to a campaign ad. Please link evidence that there were Governors (like know nothing Tim up in Minn) claiming some sinister plot to corrupt our children. Please link where Democrats were out stating that his speech was to turn their kids against them. Please link to the radio spots discussing how "um American" and not like us Bush was for doing this.

its not about the speech. God why can't you people understand. Its the questions that the national father wants to ask our children. "what can you do to help the president" I am not sure sure when our national father became bigger then the country itself. I think the question should have been "what can you do to help the country". I am not sure how I would have reacted if my kids were in school when Bush or Regan did it. However, do you all remember the senate hearings after Bush did it? I am sure we will be having those same hearings now. I THINK NOT!!

Glen Book??????

Unbelievable. You want someone whose name you don't even know fired??? Why do you want Glen Beck fired - did Keith Olbermann tell you Glen is naughty or something?

The president of the United States should address students at least annually. And rather than prevent their children from hearing the address, parents should have thoughtful and rational conversations with them about its content and the unimaginable burdens and responsibilies that any president shoulders and how all Americans can "help the president."

My children are 7 and 4, so I looked up the lesson plan, and was disturbed by the original plan. I'm glad that the government did hear parents and revise it. I also spoke to my oldest, who is in school today, to stress that in our house, we do not think it is essential to listen to what politicians think and do what they say. Although we have developed an elite political class, we are not royal subjects. I pointed out many instances of important civil disobedience. I probably annoyed my little ones, but critical thinking about politicians is much more important than adoration.

NYT post today points to a published sociological study of why and how people cannot process information that contradicts the set of opinions/beliefs they accept, facts be damned:

http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

Anyone who refers to the Prez as the "national father" should take a look.

I swear that I am trying to be fair minded. I however can not shake the feeling that this speech was to be politicized. I can tell you that there is real concern (as expressed by many parents that have rejected this notion) is owing to the lack of judgement displayed by this man. I indeed think it is sad when a country does not trust a president but I believe it may be justified to parse what he tells children.

If he were to politicize his health care bill, he would be creating a divide between millions of parents and their children. Many businesses now market to the children knowing that they will guilt/pressure parents into acting on their behalf. He has no right to do that and to address children on issues that they are not capable of dealing with for his own benefit. Leave the kids out of it. When I found out what the speech would cover, I had absolutely no issues.

With regards to people who scream racism, you need to up your medications. He was voted in by people like my parents (80ish) who grew up in more of a segregated world. There are fair minded people who are trying to do the right thing and we are tired of being called a racist. I could care less about Obama's color. I want a good man and I am not really seeing that. He surrounds himself in the world of racism with his associates. You will do more harm by calling people racists because we are getting fed up with that.

I was wondering what all the outrage was about, myself -- evidently these right-wing people can see the future and had already seen the speech from the statements which were being made. I had heard about it and it seems that the right wing bloggers and media folks were stirring each other up in some sort of self-reinforcing feedback loop. I guess Obama was supposed to have the kids give him a "heil" and he was going to set up "Obama youth" programs and also he was going to use mind control rays to make the children believe. Or maybe the mind control came from subliminal sound waves. All of this, of course, would be reinforcement for the fluoride in the water and the drugs put in school lunches.

I can understand the problems and concern with any number of the Obama administration's policies -- spending, war, gay issues, the budget, healthcare, Gitmo -- the list goes on and on and on. This school speech, though -- I really don't know what all of the fury was about.

Conservatives need to get their act together to be taken seriously. Right now what used to provide a real opposition party is being run by loons, and that's sad. Many items that the administration is proposing, as well as items in the Congress are legitimately bad policy that sorely need compromise and real debate. But the propaganda loading up the airwaves, blogs and other sources obscures what should be a real adult debate on adult issues and it's really going to hurt everyone in the long run.

Hey Republicans you lost the election in Nov. 2009. You will lose the election in Nov. 2012 and again in Nov. 2016. Your children will be in college before you even have a chance to control the White House ever again. You have two choices - you can continue to teach your children that Liberals are evil people who only want to take your money and give it to poor people and allow homosexuals to be well homosexuals or you can continue to teach your children that Liberals are evil people who only want to take your money and give it to poor people and allow homosexuals to be well homosexuals. Oh wait, that's only one choice. SorryMy math isn't that good I grew up in the 80s when Ragan was president.

A prime example of the silly partisanship. The Dems deserved to be blasted back when GHWB gave his address to students, and now the Repubs deserve the same tongue lashing for their partisanship and fear-mongering.

But, the Dems shouldn't have expected any better than they gave. When GHWB gave his address, the Dems had Congressional Hearings over it.

Talk about "overblown". Both parties are blowhards.

As for Glenn Beck - his listeners appear to be unable to differentiate between histrionics and rational discussion. And no "whofan", I don't need KO to point that out - he's just another idiot from the other side who's full of hot air.

My understanding is that there are packets of information being provided to kids. That no longer makes it a simple speech. That is the process of entering a kids mind and making a controlling attempt at getting to them. It is frankly creepy.

The speech is a speech. It is the pack of activities that kids were being told to do that also make people wonder about how creepy this guy really appears to be.

The packets of information are the "lesson plans" I mention in my post. They were provided to school principals, not children, and their use was not mandatory. -- LMA

The problem is not the content. The problem is its not his responsibility to talk to my kids, it’s my responsibility. It appears that the President thinks that today’s parents are generally failures at parenting, and thus he needs to step in.

This is what I thought of after reading the text:

George Orwell, Chapter 2, 1984

“With those children, he thought, that wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they would be watching her night and day for symptoms of unorthodoxy. Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it. The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother — it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak — ‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used — had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police.”

Thanks for commending, Tim. A report released in 2008 shows that 42 percent of all high school students in the country's 50 largest cities drop out. (You can read more about the study at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/scho-a03.shtml). With numbers like that, it seems reasonable for the president to urge kids to work hard and stay in school, don't you think? -- LMA

The originial lesson plan asked what children could do to help the president meet his goal of increasing graduation rates. What the hell is wrong with that? He should have left it in. This question was also prepared with the help and input of teachers. What is beyond argument is that the right wing-nuts are getting nuttier--and bolder--with each passing day. I hope Obama soon stands up and says he's right. To keep caving in--on the speech, on Van Jones, on healthcare--is sending the wing-nuts the message that if they keep screaming their hysterical nonsense, the administration will back down. One reason I voted for Obama was that I hoped the reasonable majority would finally dominate public discourse and policy. I'm absolutely despairing that this has not occurred.

"to stress that in our house, we do not think it is essential to listen to what politicians think and do what they say."

This commenter wins Republican of the year, just stand in the way of everything without listening to what the person has to say. no sense being rational and listening, just automatically disregard and fight. the best part is teaching your kids they shouldn't listen to the elected president of this country, brilliant. maybe you should give your kids up, you sound dangerous.

Did BO really think that his 'what can you do to help the president' lesson plan was as lovable as JFK's 'ask not' speech? BO was attempting to prostitute every student in the country to further his healthcare agenda.

This is truly an insane conversation. You do not think that it is just as likely that Obama edited his speech after the public outcry?

If this was his original speech, then explain the lesson plans that came with the speech? Why would someone write lesson plan questions that had absolutely no connection to anything in the speech?

I also can think of at least one comment he made that seemed related to his agenda. He said children should study science to work on "new energy". Does anyone think by new energy he meant new methods for off shore drilling?

Of course npot!

Come on. It wouldn't be politics today if we didn't blow things out or proportion.

The speech is fine. Every President should make it.

We should not have an approved lesson plan. That should come from the schools. There are lots of questions that could be asked.

Like instead of "What was inspirational about the speech" why not "Were you inspired by this speech? If not why not."

Teaching to take responsibility for yourself and not rely on the government is a conservative ideal I hold dear.

I didn't vote for Obama but this speech was as American as apple pie. Any parent who prevented their child from hearing and watching it has done their child an injustice. This is our President and he should be given a chance. If you didn't want your child seeing this then there must not be anybody you trust. That's a sad way to live. You send your children to be taught by people you know nothing about and won't let the Pesident of your own country try to inspire them. This speech was motivating and delivered properly from the most powerful man in the world. How much motivation can you give to our children. Shame on all of you unpatriotic parents. I'm sure we'll see all of you on the news protesting how your kids didn't get provided a good education.

Tim, shouldn't the citizens of this country listen to their elected leaders? Your kids are citizens in the making and should understand their responsibilities in making this country great. Perhaps today's speech would be a conversation starter tonight at dinner about the responsibilities of citizenship in an democratic republic?

I really hope the blowhards leading the charge on this one just had their credibility taken down more than a few pegs. Sadly, though, they will likely claim that they "won" because they made the President change his speech. Of course, this can't be verified, but certainly sounds a heck of a lot more Orwellian than the speech Obama delivered today.

I think its great to see our President make a statement that is not political in nature to get children psyched about learning. If this is a one-time beginning of the year kind of thing I'd have no issue with it.

When people live their day-to-day lives and are forced to think about government over and over, then we have lost our sense of what freedom is all about. I, for one, am very sick of thinking about my government. I want to see less politicians, less programs and less overbearing legislators telling me how they have all the insight into how dollars should be spent in our society and taking that right away from me.

Government is smothering us to death everywhere we turn and marketing their efforts as though we are better off the more involved they are in our lives.

Hopefully, this is the first and last of his 'outreach' program. Obama needs to take care of the security of our nation. That is his biggest priority. Without our security and sovereignty, we have nothing.

When you can wake up in the morning and get through your day without thinking about government, this will be the day you are truly free. We have a long way to go. Be very wary of where Obama is trying to take this country. A very good piece written by Charles Murry (March 2009) should give people something to think about as we see just how much of ourselves we seem to be rushing to give up because we have sadly lost touch with what America is all about:

Read "The Europe Syndrome and the Challenge to American Exceptionalism" ... America's elites must once again fall in love with what makes the United States different.

LINK TO:
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/march-2009/the-europe-syndrome-and-the-challenge-to-american-exceptionalism

CAN PEOPLE PLEASE MOVE BEYOND POLITICAL AFFILIATION???!!!! This is grotesque to me. Telling your children to take the day off from school because the most important person in the nation is going to speak to them about how to educate themselves and acheive their goals. Both DEMS and GOP need to stop this mindless banter because his/her side lost the election and/or they want to instill their political ideologies to their 5 year old children. Sounds like something else I've heard of... hmm...religion. Next thing you know we'll all be killing each other. Is it me... (being only 28 yrs old) or does it seem as though this political war is becoming stronger and stronger between the two sides, and potentially becoming more violent and barbaric? Some of the things that exit Glenn Beck's mouth should not be televised. And I feel the same for many of the left as well. This is far beyond what Obama had to say today... it's strictly political bias. It sickens me to see how this country acts.

The outrage over Obama's speech (pre- or post-edited) was not about education or a feared socialist agenda, it was about politics, plain & simple. The Republican party is hellbent on derailing Obama's Presidency at any cost. Anything Obama supports, the Republicans will be against it.

From healthcare reform to the war in Afghanistan to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Republicans will blame Obama. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

That's fine, Americans are used to gridlock & nothing getting accomplished in Washington. Each day, each month, each year our Country falls further behind ... in debt, in education, in our crumbling infrastructure, in quality & cost of healthcare. But in the name of political ideology, apparently that is all justifiable.

Of greater concern to our democracy is the extent to which the lies & distortions are propagated (eg. death panels). The polarization of our country is getting worse as was evident when a few dingbats decided to carry loaded firearms to "town meetings". I mean, what was the point of that?

Unless our Country can stop the hatred & find common ground to resolve issues, we will continue on a path towards self-destruction & quite possibly a revolution of liberal versus conservative, blue versus red states. A simple Presidential speech to school-aged children seems very trivial.

The President of the United States is The President of the United States is The President of the United States, whether it is GHWB, Clinton, GWB, or Obama. As citizens of the United States we must show this position respect. Until we begin to realize this again, we are destined to live sheltered, ignorant lives. No matter what anyone says, the person in that office is NOT an invalid and is fully capable of leading us. We have a three-tiered political structure to ensure that the balance of power is never too skewed. We have made it through the hard times (not without scrapes and bruises, of course), but the righting of the ship in inevitable. Everyone needs to grow up, take a chill pill, and realize that just because you do not believe in a certain ideology, does not mean that the country is headed on a collision course with failure (GWB) or non-democratic takeover (BO).

You said the chanes were to the "lesson plan" and not the speach.
You don't know that!!
The text was not released until yesterday after they had plenty of time to change it.

With all due respect, WF, the uproar was over the lesson plan, which was released previously, and *assumptions* made about the contents of the speech, which wasn't released until yesterday. So, while revisions probably were made to the speech, there's no way to know what they were because there's no previous version of the speech with which to compare it. What changes, exactly, can you show were made to the speech? -- LMA

I understand that the main problem with a lot of Americans was the lesson plan produced by the Department of Education. I read the speech and liked most of it, personal responsibility I think goes a long way in helping families, communities and countries succeed. Personally I also think that placing so much enfasis in "country" (" If you don't do that — if you quit on school — you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country") instead of community or family does make it sound too heavy for grade or middle school aged children. I don't think is healty to put so much weight on their shoulders being that they are still in school. I mean they are not enlisted in the Army yet, hold on!

I am a conservative, a teacher and definitely NOT a racist. I don't care for this president's politics or arrogance AT ALL, but I do find all of this fuss silly. My understanding is that the state and local boards of education were bypassed, which I believe is wrong too. However, if the president wants to tell kids something positive about education, then that is a good thing. If he had gone political, he would have only further damaged his image and approval rating.

No, you are wrong. I had the distinct pleasure of listening to the speach sometime ago, benefits of my job. And it was not as clean as your article makes it out to be. It was very political. Like the others said, PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK, and dont try to pull the sheets over well informed eyes, it makes you look LIBERAL!

Thanks for commenting, John. If you can share a link to the text or a recording of the early version of the speech, before it was available to the general public, I'm sure many of us would appreciate it! -- LMA

I am saddened by the lack of respect portrayed by those who oppose The President of the United States speaking to school children. Children should be taught to respect our leaders, especially the leader of our great country, not told to stay home from school so you don't have to listen to them. What kind of message is this sending our youth? It's no wonder so many children have such a disrespect for authority. There are plenty of things we should be protecting our children from, a speech from President Obama, politcal or not, isn't one of them.

LMA, I'm sure you knew what the fuss was about before you wrote the article, and that knowledge was in fact why you wrote it.

Plain and simple: The fuss was about nothing but a bunch of lies from the G.O.P., and the resulting outrage spewed by uneducated sheep in human's skin who believe the lies without fact checking.

Same as the fuss about "death panels" and "rationing" (which necessarily exists in any sustainable insurance model).

Worse, the solution of the uneducated here propagated the original problem - they kept their kids at home. But this is all preaching to the choir.

As we speak, parents in trailer parks all around are sitting with their children, smug in their delusions. And I don't know how we can get some sense into those people.

Crazy right wing idiots are good with outrage.

I can believe that these people exist. I cannot believe, however, they are the only voice in the Republican party. It's time for a sane, thoughtful Republican to wrestle control of the party away from these fearmonger radicals.

I am shocked to see the responses here and throughout Boston.com. I felt proud to live in such an open minded, educated area and to see the conspiracy theories and ignorance invade my "home" sickens me. President Obama is an outstanding example of what can happen in America. People from any background can become successful. What an amazing role model for children struggling in home and school.

I am truly shocked and saddened by the response of our country.

I have a son in public school. I am trying to raise my son in my image. For me, that means that I want him to listen to all of the ideas available to him, weigh them against his beliefs, ask me what my beliefs are, and make a decision based on the best thinking available to him. The very notion that a parent, for political reasons is allowed to opt-out of exposing their children to a presidential address in a public school is positively infuriating. The thrust of the address is to inspire and empower the citizens of this country, at any age, to learn and better themselves through the avenues available to them. ‘Here is my story, it was a hard life to build, what will your story be?’ 

To deny your child this, is to say they are too impressionable to hear it. It is to strip them of inspiration and power. Children do not grow on their own. They grow when we raise the bar. They grow when we expect more. The highest officer in the land wants to send a message that hard work and personal responsibility are key ingredients to success. When did that message become offensive to Republicans?

The people who decide their child ought not to be exposed to the president because they do not agree with his direction are practicing tyranny at the smallest level. Tyranny in a family can be good. For instance, “Absolutely do not play in the street.” No vote. That is the rule. But to put your child in a classroom doing a crossword while the other children are watching the address, is to further breed into the youth of the citizenry the very Two-America-Divisiveness exploited to win elections. The message that, “You do not have to listen to him. He is not OUR leader,” is exactly wrong.

When I was in 3rd grade, we watched the presidential debates in school. We had a mock election. We went to Washington D.C. As a result of that election, Nancy Regan told me to “Just Say No!” When my teachers talked to me about AIDS I believed them, but when the President talked to me about it, I really took it seriously. Exposure to the political process has always made it feel approachable, and surmountable. Denial of that exposure can only result in breeding fear and abstraction. I was empowered at a young age and I have voted for people of all parties in all levels of public service. This is what the true political process is designed to do.

In every election, 40% of the people are going to vote democrat and 40% of the people are going to vote republican. It is the other 20% who have all the power. By dooming your kid do a crossword, you send a huge message that the President is some abstract figure on the television with no real bearing on their life. If you would have let them listen to the address, have a discussion about what they felt, and teach them what you believe, you could have help ensure that 20 years from now, when this country is frozen in fear, you could count on your child to step up, listen to both sides and make a decision we can all be proud of. By denying them the opportunity, you have stripped the President of his power, your Teachers of their power, and your Children of their power, all at the expense of your own.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up "No Child Left Behind" yet. There's outrage over voluntary lesson plans to go with a speech, but not over a government mandated curriculum for public schools? Why is one acceptable but not the other?

The right appears to be anti-anything Obama, no matter how good it is for America. This is motivated by bitterness of losing the election and not by what is good for America or America's children. They need to get over this bitterness and work with Obama to move the country forward and not hold it back in hopes that will win the next election for them.

Poster 20 writes "It appears that the President thinks that today’s parents are generally failures at parenting, and thus he needs to step in."

Today's parents ARE failures at parenting. They keep their kids home from school to protect them from the dangerous message "educate yourself!"

They did so because they believed the G.O.P. lies about a speech it hadn't yet heard.

Perhaps, to use today's lingo, one might say of this "Epic Fail"

Why all the fuss? The original lesson plan in which students would pledge their support to Chairman Obama and brainstorm ways in which to support him.

Scary.

To hear some of the liberals refer to the Republicans in general as racists and stupid...simply blows my mind. This only widens the gap between many different types of people. I don't know if you people are up on your history, but Abraham Lincoln and the Northern States (Republicans) were the ones who ended slavery. More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. I think the majority of Americans, Republican and Democrats alike, were happy to finally see a black man in office, hoping to ease tensions and eliminate doubts that America really was a country where you can be anything you want to be, no matter who you are. Don't spew your skewed generalizations to the world in hopes of intimidating people into seeing your way, afraid to seem racist or stupid.

What I see you saying is that I should let my kids see and hear everything is said on TV, the radio, or out on the street. Then I should just hope that I can catch what they hear or see and try to correct it. We want to try to filter what our children see and hear because they are impressionable, and if the wrong impression is made on them, it can be hard to correct that.

A lot of people, including people that voted him in, don't like the direction they are seeing things go. They don't trust him...and why would you just let someone you don't trust who is in a position of power talk to your kids? You don't. I live in a community surrounded by families with parents who just don't care about raising their kids. When you see how much damage not caring about what your kids become can do, you tend to not want to go that way. All you can do is raise your kids the best way you know how and hope that they have a positive impact on the country and on the world. You raise your kids, I'll raise mine, and I will hope that they both contribute positively to society.

Who gets a "lesson plan" for a speech? I have sat through thousands of speeches that were voluntary. How can you make a speech supported by a package of information seem so natural and innocent. It is there where you start to show your true colors. A "lesson plan" makes it a "lesson" rather than a speech.

A speech just ends. A "lesson plan" makes it part of an agenda or why bother.

I agree that the problem was with the initial lesson plan, and not with the idea of a president giving a speech to school kids. I do wonder if he should have waited a couple of weeks until most kids were back in school and settled into a routine. It seems a bit disruptive this early in the school season.

Also regarding the lesson plan - doesn't the President think the nation's teachers are capable of figuring out how to incorporate his speech into their teaching on their own? :-)

Dear #29 (Caliberlink). Mr. Obama is NOT the most important person in this country. That right is reserved for each one of us to assign. My wife, children, family or friends hold that title.

He is not a deity. He is a very flawed politician who is showing his ineffectiveness as a leader. If he is blowing up it is because he does not understand or care to understand the mind of Americans. Not the 70% wacked out cooks in this state but moderates. I sound like a right-wing wack job because you people are so far left. Come back to the democrat side.

The man has 40-50 Czars who are not cabinet positions or subject to the same scrutiny. They are not beholding to the same limitations of these positions and have far reaching authority into all aspects of life.

Please see the reality of some (not all) of the rejection towards him. He is circumventing process and trampling on our system of government. Please, he is a flawed human. He is not a God. Stop idolizing him because you people looked crazed. He is not a great story because he never did anything great. He simply worked his way to power. Look at what he did. Not very much.

If people would take their glasses off the I can stop pointing out that you are worshiping a false prophet. He is a prolific politician and you believe that he is real. It is cultish.

The reublican party is a lot stronger than most think. It forced Obama to choice his words carefuly in the speech to the school kids. No small task!!

Thank you, drahcir61! Well said.

I say, let the children hear the speech, debate its merits, and propose new ideas. A truely democratic and free society encourages debate.Those who want to deny their children the opportunity to think critically have chosen to limit their children's growth and potential.

Thank you post 50. for making our point.

I don't understand why there should be any fuss when the leader of our country wants to talk to school children. He's the President for goodness sake. We're supposed to respect him. What is wrong with everyone?

"The reublican party is a lot stronger than most think. It forced Obama to choice his words carefuly in the speech to the school kids. No small task!!"

Exactly. When we stand up to Obama, he backs down, whether on this or on health care.

And so Chris4, should we respect This president like many liberals respected the last?

Public schools were instituted in our country so that we would have an educated populace who could make decisions for our democracy. Reading, writing and listening are all tools that citizens use to form opinions and those opinions are the basis for our decisions. Encouraging our young people to make the most of their educational opportunities is a foundation of our democracy. It concerns me when adults neglect their responsibility to teach their children to collect information and make informed decisions. I wonder how many parents who do not bother to vote decided that they did not want their children to hear the president's speech today.

Isn't it hypocritical to go from "it's unpatriotic to criticize a sitting president in a time of war" to calling themselves patriotic for criticizing a different sitting president in a time of war?

So, to #55: No, you should respect this president, period. So that you can be a better person than the liberals who treated the last president so badly.

to Dan #45
The political parties have each gone through transformations through the decades.
As a child growing up in the South, the white people voted for the Democratic party because that is the party that had supported them, and that is the way it had been for decades.(I understand there were folks who had twisted guts over the decision of whether to vote for Kennedy (JFK) because he was Democrat or against him because he was Catholic. This really happened! and not that long ago!) My parents' post-WWII generation began to change that. In more recent times, the Republican party has come to be the favored party in the South, but part of that is because the Democratic party supported things like affirmative action. The racists in the South did indeed move to the Republican side of things. That does not mean that all Republicans are racists. But it is part of what goes on. The white folks with any money or power wouldn't be caught dead voting Democratic. (I have a relative or two in this category). I was stunned to hear David Brudnoy bring this up back when the Democratic National Convention was here in Boston. I believe the racists in the South moved from the Democratic party to the Republican party.

So when someone refers to Republicans as racists, well that is clearly a wrong generalization, but there is the feeling that racists vote Republican, not here in Massachusetts so much as in other parts of the country.

Yes all the flap over a speech for kids does seem like much ado about nothing. If I were still a kid and my parents kept me from listening to it, I would be doing my best to hear it or read it!

You sound like a right wing nut job because you are a right wing nutjob, Iamchachiandreallystupid. Which party has lost its entire moderate base? Lincoln Chaffee, Colin Powell, Arlen Spector, seems your group just can't keep any moderates, sorry, the facts are the facts little guy. Try again, lying loser

LMA, nice try, but no can do. Of course I can not disclose that.

Of course you can't, John. But the vast majority of the people who were upset about the speech itself did not have the early access to it that you did. So, what are they basing their comparisons on? Assumptions? -- LMA

One big difference, is that, back in 1991 it was the Democrats making all the fuss on Capitol Hill, this time it's the voters making the fuss in their own communities. You may not think that is a significant difference, but I do. The first is an example of politics as usual, the second is the citizen's of a country having a serious credibility problem with their elected leader.

Yeah, I wonder where the sick, twisted idiots who've been screaming for a week about our President being 'Stalinist' are now. At this point, I'm just thinking that the Republicans are all liars who'd rather the country fail than be run by Democrats, and I've had it with their insults, filth and propaganda.

Because he's African American many see this as the President attempting to empower minority students to live up to their potential. Heaven forbid....Maybe Rush or GBeck could do something for the schools, but then they wouldn't want anyone (especially a minority) to be critical of anything they say.

It would so be worth having a president be "trusted" to do what is right.
Regretabley, I just haven't gained the trust with the current pres yet. As with all presidents they have to earn my trust. Clinton had zero from me and proved I was right in later years. Obama has zero trust and I have to wait for the final outcome of that and am willing to see it be wrong if it be the case. I hope that I am wrong and he can be trusted.
My lack of trust comes from the simple fact, "Currently, our country is of the people, by the people and for the money." This seems to be due to the want of money not righteousness to rule over us from the immoral majority that speaks up. The silent are not as silent and that is showing to be good to bring balance back.

When righteousness comes in to our leadership as it was intended by the founding fathers, my interest and hope for a president to speak to my children will increase 100 fold. Currently, that is not the case..until the change occurs....

When comparing Bush Sr. speech to Obama's speech you are omitting one fact

Bush Sr's speech was Oct 1991 One month before the election. It was rightly criticized for being political because it WAS political.

John,

Regarding your comments 35 and 60: Even if the speech *was* very political in the early stages and even if it *was* edited at the last minute before being released online yesterday and actually delivered today, what harm did it actually cause? What the children of America heard today (if they chose to listen or were allowed to hear) was politically benign. If I shared your political views, I might be more inclined to feel glad that the President and his advisers listened to the worry expressed by the nation rather than anger that any of it occurred. You should sleep easy tonight knowing that your President is willing to moderate his own views in order to better represent the nation as a whole.

Quite honestly, I thought the speech was well done and that parents seeking to protect their children from propaganda should realize that there are stronger influences on a child's political views than a president's address. Not to mention that children have a right to their own thoughts, beliefs, and interpretations. No doubt I'd love to protect my 10 year old sister from the fear and hate so many would push on her to convince her that one party or the other is out to get her, but if I did I would be crippling her ability to make up her own mind. I'll always be here if she has questions; I'll make sure I defend her and help her when I can; I'll always encourage her to peacefully dissent when she has the right and reason. But shielding her from a 15 minute speech? *Telling* her she should dissent? Wouldn't I be behaving as poorly as outsiders trying to make up her mind for her?

The right wingers and Republicans are going to critisize everything the President does from now until 2012, the next presidential election. It is part of an overall stategy to take back the White House.Perhaps George W. Bush shoud have spoken to the students. He could have encouraged them to work for the Federal government, when thet grow up. He could inspire them to give tax breaks to the oil companies, and no bid contracts to Haliburton

Now then, "whats all the fuss". LMA I will spare the discourse and assume you are intelligent which you seem to be. The fuss is about Obama's affiliations. Marxists, Bill Ayers. Obviously Van Jones. His Mentor? Saul Aulinsky? This dude is straight out of 1984 or Hitlers ministry of propoganda. He wrote a wonderful book called "Rules for Radicals".

Thats why people are concerned. I thought Bush was an absolute psychotic disaster...Obama's charm doesn't work on me either. People are sensing a forced change. Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Carbon taxes, and this and that. Its too much, now this Big Brother speech just seems creepy. Sorry, don't trust it.

To me the lesson plan that asked kids to "think about what to do to help the president sounds more in line with "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" as opposed to some ideology mandate.

What's wrong with asking kids to think about their country? How come the only service to the country GOPers think people should get involved with is the military? There are many ways to make this country a better place. And I don't see anything wrong with the president suggesting as much.

I can't believe the liberal posters that suggest a conservative parent should have their children taken away while screaming there is no intent of indoctrination by the liberal POTUS agenda.
Paalleese. Taking the kids away to do what? Why, to indoctrinate them to your left wing bias of course!
Hypocrites.

The Big Brother reference was spot on.

"We don't want a government that is run by people who believe they can change the earth's temperature when they can't balance a budget." (Don Blankenship)

There was a simple way for Obama to avoid any controversy. Instead of insisting on a "live" address which created the opportunity for uncertainty about what was going to be said, Obama should have simply posted a video on the White House or Education dept website that could first be reviewed by the proper local school authorities and then dissemenated to the students if deemed appropriate.

I voteed for Obama but I have also come to believe that he is the most "hyper-political" and partisan President we have had in my lifetime, which spans 8 Presidents to date. I no some will disagree with this statement and that is fine. But he has certainly turned this middle of the road voter very, very skeptical of his overall agenda and what he will do to achieve it. I believe he is probably a very nice and genuine person, but he is much more set in his political dogma than I ever thought he would be.

What do you expect? Obama releases a disturbing lesson plan with socialistic undertones before he releases the speech, including such gems as writing an essay on how you will help the president... not our country, which places the president over the country.

So we get this lesson plan, long before we get the speech transcript, so we don't know what he is going to say, just what is suggested by his lesson plan. Parents and conservatives are up in arms about THIS. If Obama had just released the speech and not the lesson plan, parents would have minimal concerns and Glenn Beck would probably not have started PASS.

The speech itself turned out to be inocuous, but that itself is not the point. Don't buy the lie that us conservatives as a whole oppose Obama's plans and actions just to oppose him. We have good reason to oppose him on many issues, and whats left just leaves us distrustful.

But still, liberal teachers will find it very easy to indoctrinate students after the speech, hell, they teach in middle school that it was the conservatives who opposed freeing the slaves and not the democrats, because conservatives wanted to "conserve" the way it had always been, owning slaves, and the democrats were the cool cats that said, "Its whatever man..." Am not claiming the president will tell them to do this, I doubt that, at least at this point, but it does and has happened during my school career. I am currently a freshman in college and I have fresh memories of liberal propoganda being taught in grades one through twelve. Oh the stories I could tell.

To #69, Country and President are two different things. The President IS NOT the Country. WE are the country. Asking what your child can do for the President is not the same as asking him to do something for his country.

To #71, I think the outrage comes from a lot of people who like you voted for him and now that his true colors are showing are not so sure about their decision. That's why this is different from what's happened before in this country, because is the same voters who now have to stand before their elected President and say: "we don't agree"

"Bush Sr's speech was Oct 1991 One month before the election. It was rightly criticized for being political because it WAS political."

Exactly who was on the ballot in November of 1991 that might have benefited from this speech? It wasn't even a House election year.

My 10 y/o son was not allowed to watch the speech in school, today. When he came home (and after his homework was done, of course :)), we both watched then discussed the content of the speech and the message transpiring from it: a strong appeal to learning, from an intelligent and highly educated person, who also happens to be the United States President. I am just hoping to keep this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/synopsis from ever becoming reality, at least by the way I have been raising my kids (the other being in her senior year in college). Reading some of the comments in this thread, though, I'm afraid we're already down the wrong path :(

Dont be mad at Obama.God put him in there it was by his divine plan,so get over ir.

what happened to letting the teacher and parents teach the child that school is good...maybe the speech should of been to parents and teachers?

To Joe Bob,

I'm not a Republican. I'm a libertarian who tries to teach critical thinking to my children. Politicians have done horrible things, like enslaving people, putting them in camps during WW II, creating rules to separate people who look or worship differently, etc. In my house, we hold people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks in higher regard than FDR. If that makes me dangerous, this country is in trouble.

Regards,

KPCK

Liberals have selective memories

Interesting. Maybe it's the drinking water that creates selective memory for the liberals. The liberal press has posted several opinions lately bashing 75-year-old conservatives who yell at ignorant politicians during town-hall health care reform meetings.

From being called mobsters to Nazis, they sure are a bunch of hell-raisers. But do you think that maybe, just maybe, if the liberal politicians could answer their simple questions, there wouldn't be any fuss? (I forgot, that would mean the Democrats would have to actually read the bill.)

But what is more intriguing about the liberal's response to angry, conservative 75-year-olds, is that they seem upset that the conservatives have taken some of their playbook antics and used it themselves! Furthermore, the liberals seem to forget it was they who advocated "civil disobedience" when they felt "strongly" about a social, environmental or political issue.

I recall "disenfranchised" people torching Los Angeles when they didn't get what they wanted. I remember liberals burning a ski area in Vail, Colo., to the ground because they felt so strongly about the lynx. Some liberals went as far as setting fire to a SUV dealership in Oregon because they believed SUVs were destroying the planet. I recall a college drop-out throwing a piece of salmon at a U.S. representative during a meeting. I have also watched numerous videos of pro-gay activists disrupting church sermons because they thought it would get their pro-gay points across. And the list goes on and on and on.

So, from what I can gather, it is nonsense for the elderly to speak their minds, but it is OK for liberals (celebrating diversity, soft-spoken, caring, co-existing gentiles) to destroy and steal property when they feel justified? It must be nice to have selective memory.

Thanks for chiming in, but what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with this post, which was about Obama speaking to students. It's not nonsense for the elderly to speak their minds -- hence the publication of this comment. Of course, I'm assuming you're elderly, and that you deserve to be heard, even if you're hijacking an unrelated discussion in order to attempt to make people hear your point. But I guess I'm just kind of liberal that way. -- LMA