What I see from Obama is what I saw from Bush. Alot of tough talk and bravado, but his actions betray him. He has mishandled this mess from the start. He just comes across as someone trying to act tougher and more decisive than he is. He is what he is, in over his head.

...it was a mirror. People saw in it what they wanted to see. Personally, I saw some very encouraging words, and some words that were too vague for my liking.

The speech asked for thought, though. And I am amused watching the media elites tripping over themselves trying to tell people what to think immediately after Obama, in my opinion, made the subliminal case for people to think for themselves.

By Obama?  No way!

lol, I watched the Laker game-- great one!

He should have been down in the gulf within a week of the spill.  I hate to think of what would happen if we had another 9/11.  It would probably take him a month just to realize what happened.  He is like a naive child and a cancer on the Democratic party. 

While Obama has been a huge joke over the last month, this problem does not boil down to Obama - the President. It is the cancer the senate has become. Obama's actions reflect on what he learned as a Democratic senator. Look at how Barney Frank, so called respected senator, is getting schooled by a newcomer like Al Franken. Chris Dodd was supposedly one of our best senators and he has been exposed to be a mildly corrupt weakling. Ken Salazar came from the wing of the party where they supposedly are conservative and are all about "results matter" and "fuck the liberal wing". Well, he failed. These establishment guys are all talk. Obama is so used to the ways of the Senate, I wonder if he knows how to kick some ass as he claims to want to. What I wanted to see from his speech was why people in the MMS should be scared and what he plans on doing to change the culture in DC which causes EXISTING regulations to be overlooked. What is he going to do to twist the arms of enough senators to pass some stronger conflict of interest laws? Obama has a chance to strike back at libertarians who want smaller government by showing that he can reform government. So far, he has shown he lacks the will to do it. One firing in a month so far?? That's it?

Obama's problem is he had a good campaign staff that he mistook to be a good administrative staff. Gibbs is a smug spokesman who makes Obama look worse. He is good at attack ads, but he is terrible communicator for the White House. He is quite simply unqualified to be working in government because of his persona. I can't believe I trust Bush's first Treasury Secretary than the full blown joke that is occupying that position under Obama.

He says that he will make BP pay. Does anyone really believe that? How come he did not use this to call out the senate for not increasing the liability cap?

Why do I not believe OBama? He said similar stuff about Wall Street. What did it end up being ? All talk. Nothing changed. So Obama should have been more explicit in why things will be different now. If he couldn't reform Wall Street despite dangling an immense bailout, what makes him think he will succeed now?

The Healthcare saga is a story in development. But one thing is sure - Obama sure didn't instill any fears in the hearts of insurance execs. They are blatantly raising premiums for several policyholders. So what makes one think Obama can scare BP?

Because his actions never live up to his words. He gave a speech on healthcare and embraced a Heritage Foundation plan. He gave a speech in Cairo but the Israelis are still increasing settlements and he is increasing aid to Israel. He gave a speech about his new financial regulation and now we find out that his point men in his administration want to water down derivatives regulation and as far as his much championed "volcker rule" goes, ain't gonna happen and he is just fine with that. So that's the disconnect between his words and his deeds.

But as far as this speech goes, like I said I did not hear it but did read the contents. What struck me is he purposely downplayed expectations without holding anyone accountable (except BP). Much as people would like to see some theater coming out of the White House, let's be clear the administration can do little to actually stop the flow of oil. What it can do is address the failures of the government, push for more expansive oversight and hold people within the government as well as in BP accountable. This begins with the Secretary of the Interior. Ken Salazar dropped the ball on off-shore drilling regulation, the Deepwater horizon plan was not reviewed by his department and despite its ludicrous nature was given a free pass, and in fact was given a special exemption from a worst case environmental study.

Instead what we heard was a new study commission and a reminder that his Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has a nobel prize. That might be very impressive but unless Stephen Chu is thinking of freezing the atoms in the Gulf with his lasers, there is seriously very little he can do. Right now the cleanup process is in Hollywood territory with such notable scientists like Kevin Costner and James Cameron advising the government.

The other thing he did not address was why did the government play along with the willful deception of BP and low-balled the magnitude of the spill, which included denying the very existence of underwater plumes of oil discovered by independent scientists. When you have nearly a 2 million gallons spilling per day, removal of a couple of million gallons of oily water every now and then is not enough; and the laying down 5 million feet of booms to contain a spill that exceeds 60 million gallons is laughable. These failings needed to be addressed, but was not.

But going ahead here's what we have to look for:

1. Does BP pay for all the clean up?

2. Will the tax payers be made to pick up any of the clean up tab in the name of "protecting capitalism"?

3. What new regulatory framework will be announced and will it have the full backing of the executive branch?

4. Are we going to have bold leadership towards faster transition to new energy?

Many here, among the fans of the administration make this hollow excuse anytime major legislations are watered down: change is hard, no bill is perfect, this is first step towards incremental change. Here's my take: when you have more than 10 million uninsured people in the country dying due to their inability to afford insurance you do not go for incremental change, you change the system. When you come very close to total financial meltdown and have the taxpayers bailout compulsive Wall Street gamblers with more than a trillion dollars, you don't do an imperfect bill, you overhaul the goddamn system. When you have the mother of all environmental disasters due to lax regulation, you do not propose window dressings, you propose tough regulations and overhaul the country's energy policy. These are tough proposals and require a tough executive, unfortunately I don't see substantial change happening anytime in the near future, just more window dressing.