Obama in the public eye Sunday

Your next level of coverage will have to do with is respiration rate.
And so it is with the content desperate media of 2007 8.....

Do you mean "lying" low? Is it important?

Well, did you REALLY expect him to be in church???

Wait. No I don't care. This man is such a phony. Now he started the third clinton term.

It's "lying low" not "laying low." Mr. Rhee may be familiar with the phrase "Bre'r Rabbit, he lay low," which is correct.

How funny is the line "this week he only held a news conference to announce his national security team and a briefer one to name Bill Richardson as commerce secretary"?

I just read that George W. Bush held a grand total of nine press conferences in his first 34 months in office. Barack Obama's press conference this coming Sunday will be his sixth...in 33 DAYS of being President-Elect.

To the Editor: What is this? You have a "deputy national political editor" who thinks it is correct grammar to say that Mr. Obama is "LAYING LOW the last few days"?? I can remember a time when the Boston Globe was a model of correct English language usage. What is needed here is "lying low," the intransitive verb. "Laying " is transitive, as in "laying the foundation for" or "laying bricks." Please, continue to respect the language. One of my wittier Boston friends used to say that the Globe kept in its cellars 3 parochial school grads,who checked everything before it got into print.These three had had grammar drilled into them by the nuns using raps of a ruler over the knuckles.Oddly, he was an MIT grad.

Posted by Jane Curran December 5, 08 08:54 PM:
"...One of my wittier Boston friends used to say that the Globe kept in its cellars 3 parochial school grads,who checked everything before it got into print.These three had had grammar drilled into them by the nuns using raps of a ruler over the knuckles.Oddly, he was an MIT grad."

Jane,
Did your friend speak with a "proper American accent" as well? As semantics go, meanings are in people, not in words. I got the author's meaning. Incidentally, the double "had" in your sentence is redundant. The meaning of your sentence is the same with one "had".

Yes, we still have those omisicent Obama detractors who forever insist Obama has done nothing. That he is a phoney. Well guess what. All your assertions are phoney. Even Republican's admit he has done an exceptional job of assembling a strong cabinet and way ahead of the normal schedule. Phoney is thinking Bush still runs this country.

You people need to go hide for the next 8 years.

Laying low, lying low...seriously... I do care about grammar and spelling, but isn't this a little ridiculous? Why is it so natural for people to always pick, pick, pick? Why is it that someone can read an article and instead of focus on the ideas, content, information, and any merits of the article--find one grammatical error that is very commonly made and freak out over it? Do we need to start pumping xanax into our water supply to get everyone to calm down and stop being so hostile? Has it really come to this?

The CHANGE we all have been waiting for, buckle kids we are going to be taken for yet another ride. I cant wait to see him walk on water.

To Preston:

You criticised Jane's entry, writing "Incidentally, the double "had" in your sentence is redundant. The meaning of your sentence is the same with one "had"."

Preston, you are incorrect. There is a difference between perfect tense and pluperfect tense. Jane was using pluperfect tense and it was precisely correct to use "had" twice. Jane was writing about two events that happened in the past and was indicating that one of the past events happened prior to the other past event.

If meanings are in a person how does one come to know it? If a person cannot communicate these ideas, what good is such meaning? It seems to me that with the consistent destruction of language, grammar, and accuracy of ideas that these ideas which are 'in people, not words' can come to mean anything and nothing simultaneously since no one will know what the other is saying.

Laying low? Like laying an egg? Where did the writer of this piece go to school? Shame on you Globe, not satisfied enough to give the public nitty information, you mangle language as well.

Would you consider removing the Intelligence from the title of this collection of bird droppings? Just a thought.

There ya go, just like all the other self serving politicos, trashes Sunday as a Day of Rest and does not bother with Shabbat, and thinks he will impress people? Who is gonna want to listen to him on their day off. Unreal! Stay in Mr Obama try to do normal stuff, for at the end of the day you are a mortal man and if the Almighty rested on day 7 we rather wish -ALL Politicians would do. Did you not know modern people are stressed and need a break.
SO far your advisors are not really helping you are they.

...ahhhh, I love to hear the whining from our neocon friends-- it merely signals an amplification/ parroting of the fascistic right 'news', and as such tells me what they fearfully consider dangerous, means we're moving exactly in the correct direction. Who would have thought 180 degrees wrong predicted a true course.

Regards,

Say what you like about your new President - from the viewpoint of the rest of this planet he looks pretty good, and a 100% improvement on the last incumbent. Plus he speaks passable English in whole sentences. Off the cuff. Without gaffes. You did well to elect him - now give the man support !

hahahahahahahahahahahaha
I like what NotSweatingtheSmallStuff wrote. Some of the people commenting on this thread need to calm down and find more urgent problems to solve.
Two days ago, I was on a treadmill at the gym, when I was forced to watch two idiotic CNN reporters criticize Obama for not being assertive enough. Then the first comment on this thread is from a reader who thinks the Boston Globe is over-reporting Obama's scheduled appearances. I have no idea whether Obama is going to make the right decisions or move this country in the right direction when he becomes president. And at this point, it seems pointless to make gloomy predictions or use snotty sarcasm about a man who is having a recession and two wars dumped in his lap. I give props to Obama for what he is doing now -- getting to work, forming his government, formulating plans, talking to his country about his plans, and get a jump on the job he was elected to do. Do I like all of his appointments so far? NO. I think that appointing former Senator Clinton as secretary of state was a terrible idea! I was hoping we'd heard the last of the Clintons for a while. The Clinton name does not represent the "change" for which Obama has campaigned. But I like his plan to launch a massive infrastructure program to help create jobs. So I'm going to judge him for what he's doing now and for what he "says" he's going to do. At least the man is acting like a leader, because our current president doesn't seem to be doing a damn thing.

George Bush laid low for 8 years. When he spoke in public it was a screened, contrived GOP town hall meeting, a White House press conference, or a saluting, sympathetic military crowd in an Air Force hangar. Obama has said more to formulate his presidency in a few weeks that George Bush spoke of in a whole term. Obama speaks clearly, is concise, is a people person, is focused on the future and can pick a team that is mostly approved of on both sides. This presidential activity is something sorely missed for some time. Maybe that is why people are listening.

W-E-L-L-, Aren't we a bunch of disgruntled, critical, grammar focused people. Throw in some bigotry or hypocrisy and you have a bonafide extreme right wing V.P. candidate, or southern gentleman in politics. Like Dan Akroyd use to say to his co-anchor, "Jane you insufferable, incredible bitch." macebolt

GET OVER IT. YOU RIGHT WINGERS WOULD BE WHINING IF JESUS HAD WON AS A DEMOCRAT. GO GET SOME OLD GLOBES AND READ ALL ABOUT REAGAN.