The Big Question: Was Obama's oval office address on target?

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today. ...

Today's question:

What is your reaction to President Barack Obama's oval office address?

Bill Press, host of the "Bill Press Show" and a contributor to the Pundits Blog, said:

President Obama used his first Oval Office address to confront the most difficult challenge his administration has faced so far, and he did so very effectively. He reported on the extent of damage in the Gulf states; he vowed to force BP to plug the leak, clean up the oil and pay all costs and claims; and he called for legislation to end our centuries-long dependence on fossil fuels. That's a tall order, but it's just what the American people wanted, and needed, to hear.


Alan Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University, said:

I thought it was a solid effort addressing both the short-term challenges posed by the spill and the longer-term need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and invest in renewable energy. Mr. Obama showed a solid command of the issues. He was also very clear about putting the onus for the spill and the responsibility for paying for the damage squarely on BP. I was a little surprised by the president's claim that we expect to be capturing up to 90 percent of the oil from the spill in the near future. Making that sort of specific claim could come back to bite the president later if the actual capture rate falls well short of the goal.


Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.org, said:

The guy's serious about dealing with real problems.


Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

I think this was the most ineffective speech I've ever heard Obama give: short of specifics AND devoid of soaring rhetoric. In short, as Gertrude Stein said of her birthplace (Oakland, CA): There was no there there.