Everybody Else Is Blogging It, So Why Can't We?

by Eric Simon on Jan 20, 2009 5:02 PM EST

The White House now has a blog.

I didn't think I could be any prouder today, but now I am.

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hear, hear!

We've got ourselves a ball club, the Mets of New York town!

by kingcritical on Jan 20, 2009 5:07 PM EST reply actions

'Oh yes, I know all about that duty-of-a-citizen stuff. It doesn't go. There are exceptions to every rule, and this was one of them. When a man risks his liberty to come and root at a ball-game, you've got to hand it to him. He isn't a crook. He's a fan.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 20, 2009 5:22 PM EST reply actions

Check out the difference between Obama's whitehouse.gov and Bush's

here

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Jan 20, 2009 7:08 PM EST reply actions

Are you saying one's design is better or worse than the other?

They both seem pretty decent, but I’m no website/Internet/blog expert.

by James Kannengieser on Jan 20, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions

I know only 1 fills me with hope.

IANAW/I/BE probably a bit biased, but Obama’s design looks more…commanding. It projects leadership and has a definite message. To me, it’s the difference in the photos chosen for the front page. The Bush photo is taken from a bit of a distance. It’s got him holding his wife’s hand, waving to someone, maybe the photographer with a goofy look on his face. It looks folksy, not presidential. It’s pretty representative of the administration of a man who was widely accused of being disinterested in many of the duties of being president. By comparison, when one views Obama’s page, your attention is immediately grabbed by two things: the slogan “Change has come to America”, and a very impressive head shot of the new Pres. It projects authority, and it says “I have my agenda, and I am going to make it happen.”

Also, look at the links at the top of both pages. Bush’s page has: President, VP, First Lady, Mrs. Cheney, News. Obama has: the Briefing Room, the Agenda, the Administration, About the White House, Our Government, Contact Us. The placement of the most accessible and most likely to be noticed links is striking. Obama immediately offers you a chance to view what his administration is going to be about, and who is in it. And of course, there’s the use of the word “our” when talking about government. In contrast, Bush offers you a chance to learn about the First Lady and the Vice President’s wife.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 20, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions

D'oh!

That first line should begin, “IANAW/I/BE, and I’m probably a bit biased…”

by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 20, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions

BobbyV

Get your resume’ ready! We could use a good man like you (observational skills / writing ability) down here in D.C.

…and no, not for DHS!
…then again.

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 20, 2009 11:03 PM EST up reply actions

Hmm OK

Devil’s advocate, but I think no matter what Obama’s page looked like people would be putting Bush’s page down and saying “I know only 1 fills me with hope”.

That said, ’twas a great day.

by James Kannengieser on Jan 20, 2009 11:36 PM EST up reply actions

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

Too easy a joke not to make. And yes, it was a great day indeed.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 21, 2009 1:29 AM EST up reply actions

"It looks folksy, not presidential."

But then, “folksy” has always been one of Bush’s distinguishing characteristics, hasn’t it? I don’t think it ever made him a good choice for President, but you’ve got to dance with the girl you came to the dance with.

by JoshNY on Jan 21, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions

Reminds me of a certain someone's quote:

As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. - Don Rumsfeld, former SecDef.

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 21, 2009 8:22 PM EST up reply actions

Of, by and for the people.

Not a bad way to start.

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 20, 2009 7:44 PM EST reply actions

I don't mean to make this all political

But wherever you stand ideologically on the issues it’s hard to deny the magnitude of this day in our nation’s history.

by Eric Simon on Jan 20, 2009 7:57 PM EST reply actions

Received.

Today alone was a referendum on what was. I think it is understood what today means.

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 20, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions

Today was bad for me.

Not politically. Politically and momentously for this country it was great! But taking a bunch of tests all day is never fun.

by squid92 on Jan 20, 2009 10:21 PM EST reply actions

Look at it this way Squid

You’re bettering yourself. The average person? Well, they’re remaining average.

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 20, 2009 11:00 PM EST up reply actions

Point taken, sir.

Well played.

by squid92 on Jan 20, 2009 11:53 PM EST up reply actions

I won't lie

and say I’m a fan of Obama’s politics (though I’m also no great fan of W or McC), but I’m really glad I was living in the DC area for this weekend. Regardless of how you feel about his politics you’ve gotta respect the history that’s been achieved – I was getting chills when I went to the concert at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday, thinking that less than 50 years ago MLK Jr. made his speech from that same place, and now I was there seeing his dream come true. Now let’s hope he lives up to expectations.

Also, let’s hope the Mets buck the trend of only winning a World Series when a Republican is in office.

by cjmulrain on Jan 21, 2009 12:22 AM EST reply actions

+1

I admit I’m ready to stop watching “history unfold” and get on with the thing, but yesterday was undeniably a Great day. Here’s to another 8 years without an attack on American soil, and — hopefully — a World Series. Unfortunately, the Yankees pretty much dominated the Clinton era.

by jasondg on Jan 21, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions

Baby steps

As with most things that debuted yesterday, it’s a good start. But that page (so far) is a blog only in the most technical sense: it’s on the web, and it has content in a chronological order. No comments, no by-lines on the content, no information that isn’t duplicated elsewhere on the site. “Press-release syndicator” doesn’t have the same ring as “Blog,” but that’s what we have so far.

Put it another way: if they had comments enabled over there on “Amazin Pennsylvania Avenue,” first comment for most of those would be “This should be a FanShot, not a post.”

I did it like this / I did it like that / I did it with a Wiffle Ball bat

by Doc Manhattan on Jan 21, 2009 9:57 AM EST reply actions

AhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 21, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions

Is it really realistic to expect posts on the White House blog to be open for comments?

If you don’t moderate them, it becomes an enormous mess that brings in thousands upon thousands of idiots. (Have you seen how many morons comment on even regional general appeal websites like the NY Post or Gothamist or whatever?) And if you want to moderate it, it’s a massive task because of the sheer volume of posts you’d have to filter through.

That being said, at this point it’s just a content aggregator.

by JoshNY on Jan 21, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions

Of course not

But neither is it realistic to expect kudos for “innovation,” much less “transparency” because you republish your press releases in a new-ish medium.

(If only there were thousands of jobless people with experience managing web content to screen all those comments! Oh, wait…)

I did it like this / I did it like that / I did it with a Wiffle Ball bat

by Doc Manhattan on Jan 21, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions

You're onto something.

…it’s a massive task because of the sheer volume of posts you’d have to filter through.

Just think of all the jobs that would create!

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 21, 2009 8:19 PM EST up reply actions

It's certainly better than

Chief Justice John Robert’s flubbing of the oath yesterday.

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 21, 2009 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

I think

Roberts got messed up when Obama started repeating before Roberts was ready for him to repeat. Of course, maybe it’s just me being a big fan of the C.J. that makes me want to defend him.

by cjmulrain on Jan 22, 2009 12:09 AM EST up reply actions

IMO

Though of course I’m no expert on oaths, my impression is that Obama started repeating before Roberts was ready because Roberts broke it up differently from how that normally goes. I always thought there was a pause after “I, [name]” and then another after “do solemnly swear” rather than making “I, [name], do solemnly swear” one verse, though of course I’ve never taken the Presidential oath of office so I don’t know how it’s normally done for that one.

by JoshNY on Jan 22, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions

You both bring up a good point (and JoshNY you're right, there is a standard pause).

I was thinking about the oath that I took as an enlisted person in the military and the person (an officer) administering the oath would say:
“Repeat after me.”
“I, state your full name.” Then I would say: “I, John Q. Citizen [pause]”
“Do solemnly swear.” Then I would say: “Do solemnly swear [pause].”
“That I will support and defend the constitution of the United States.” etc. etc.

If there was a rhythm to the oath, they should have established it when they practiced together (assuming they practiced). In the end, even though the moment was darned important, I’m not going to blame either one of them for being a bit nervous.

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 22, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

not to be the stick in the mud

but hey, this site does like objectivity and fact-checking, no?

Reagan’s Oath

Clinton’s Oath

Bush’s Oath

by cjmulrain on Jan 22, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions

This is all academic, of course

Because the oath is ceremonial.

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 22, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions

it's in the Constitution

I’d say it’s no more ceremonial than the electoral college. FWIW, Obama did re-take the Oath yesterday at the White House, just in case.

by cjmulrain on Jan 22, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah that was funny

after the VP went through the trouble of making fun of the CJ for the flub. Great messaging there.

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 22, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions

Noticeably

Without the bible.

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 22, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions

Meh.

I’d prefer if they all did it that way — John Quincy Adams style.

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 22, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions

I don't care which way they do it

I’m just pointing out a fact.

" PLEASE! CHANGE THE PATCH! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 22, 2009 8:32 PM EST up reply actions

"Amazing Pennsylvania Avenue"

Someone should totally start that blog. I would definitely join that website. Imagine the recurring features: ‘Ranking the Presidents’, Cabinet appointment contests, ‘Name that bill co-signer’…the possibilities are almost endless.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 21, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not writing for Mets Geek or blogging anymore

so it’s safe to alienate my “base” by admitting here that I like GWB and am not a fan of Obama.

And I don’t like how the new whitehouse.gov is basically a new change.org. Continuing the campaign into the administration isn’t a good thing.

Flame away.

by JohnPeterson on Jan 21, 2009 10:46 PM EST reply actions

I hate the GWB

so much freaking traffic. Why the hell do I want to cross a bridge into North Jersey anyway? And don’t get me started on the Cross-Bronx. God should wipe that borough off the map, 26 Championships and all. Apologies to anyone who lives in the Bronx or North Jersey…

by cjmulrain on Jan 22, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions