Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The full text of Obama's speech to students tomorrow is now posted to the White House website. There's nothing in it even remotely controversial. It's nothing but a pep talk to students about following their dreams and working hard in school, which is exactly what the administration said it would be when they announced it.
Prediction: The right wing loonies who threw a hissy fit over this will respond in one of two ways.
A. Continue to rant like nutballs. Or,
B. Claim a victory because they forced Obama to change his speech and take out all the political indoctrination they hallucinated would be in there in the first place.
Comments
I expect they'll do both.
Posted by: llewelly | September 7, 2009 6:58 PM
I hope the Democrats recognize this as a great opportunity to make the Republicans appear paranoid, stupid, and tantrum prone, and play it up for all it's worth.
Posted by: llewelly | September 7, 2009 7:00 PM
One of my conservative friends has already done B, & I slammed her for it.
The wording of the lesson was poorly worded in places, & that's the only place that the loons can claim even the smallest fraction of a victory. As a teacher, I can sympathize with having such vague questions biting him in the butt.
Posted by: Randallphobia | September 7, 2009 7:16 PM
I agree with llewelly. They'll do both.
Posted by: rmp | September 7, 2009 7:18 PM
OT alert....
Hey Ed,
Ever think about playing poker against god?
(see this clip at pharyngula)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/ever_wonder_why_god_did_such_a.php#comments
Posted by: marc buhler | September 7, 2009 7:24 PM
A rational arguement against the speech.
http://www.popehat.com/2009/09/06/why-i-oppose-president-obama-speaking-to-the-nations-schoolchildren/
Posted by: MadRocketScientist | September 7, 2009 7:33 PM
They were SUGGESTED lesson plans. Most suggested lesson plans suck, it's the nature of the beast.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 7, 2009 7:33 PM
I would be surprised if that didn't occur to Rahm Emanuel within a minute of the idea being proposed.
I wonder what it's like to be in his head right now? He doesn't even have to make his enemies look stupid anymore. They just do it themselves.
Posted by: FishyFred | September 7, 2009 7:43 PM
I agree with PZ; get rid of the God bless America shit.
Obama, Please.
Please.
Posted by: LionDanc er | September 7, 2009 7:46 PM
As a fellow teacher, let me throw my agreement in with dogmeatIB on the utter uselessness of lesson plans like this. I've never even thought about using one, and even where I've used activities that someone else has come up with, I've made significant modifications. Any teacher who's going to have their students watch this (I probably won't because it's just too short notice and I have other things to get done) should prepare something better than these lesson plans for students to get anything out of it.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 7, 2009 7:46 PM
You missed one:
(c) Find some way to twist something in the speech into something controversial by taking it wildly out of context and reading far more into it than any rational human being possibly could.
which, of course, also mandates:
(d) All of the above.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | September 7, 2009 7:46 PM
According to Jimmy James, Obama is still a commie.
Most of the time.
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 7, 2009 8:00 PM
I am disappointed with this speech. While there are some elements in the speech that would resonate in a speech directed towards students, and I have no problem with Presidents addressing students en masse - in fact they should do so at least every other year, it appears this speech is targeted towards some audience other than K-12 students.
It's way too long and dry. And who voted him Pastor-in-Chief? I take this as another cowardly attempt by a Democrat to defend attacks by the delusional idiots on the right given Obama doesn't appear to care about evangelizing. The Right certainly won't grant him any kudos for doing so. Neither H.W. Bush or Reagan promoted religion in these two speeches being distributed around the net as a benchmark to Obama's speech.
If I had to grade these speeches:
H.W. - B-. Started with a joke, kept it fairly brief, didn't get too politicy, stated the facts - even failures, kept the elderly counsel to a minimum, and ended with a challenge. H.W.'s book on his letters is a fascinating read, he did spend a significant amount of time responding to letters he received and came off as a far more impressive man than he did when speaking in public. However, the speech is too long and at a certain age, you will not get students to listen to you about certain topics - better if he'd have brought Arnold along.
Reagan - F. Serious attempt to recruit more Reagan Youth. Argued certain outcomes were the results of things he did when in fact other factors were more important. Read more like a mini State of the Union. Predictions were hilariously wrong, e.g., he predicted his and the Congress' reform of Social Security had financed it to the extent that, ". . . as far as we can see now, Social Security is on a sound financial basis as far as we can see into the next century."
Obama - C-. We can do better. Vote for change, vote for a new speech. The good in this speech will be lost in the drone. There will be sleeping.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 7, 2009 8:39 PM
That must be one Hell of a cave you've been sleeping in.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 7, 2009 9:06 PM
I choose C, All of the Above.
Posted by: Buffy | September 7, 2009 9:33 PM
It's true that he changed the speech. Not sure what it had in it before, but supposedly there were things in there about "serving the president" and "helping the president." With what, who knows?
Like the Popehat post's quotes from Reagan and Bush Sr, Obama's speech was going to have some policy in there.
Kids in school are almost always a captive audience. They don't have much choice in what they have to hear or participate in.
Any politician speaking directly to kids in public schools is creepy to me and it shouldn't be done, IMO.
Posted by: Juice | September 7, 2009 9:36 PM
One of my wingnut readers just did "B." in the comments of a post where I had dumped the entire speech.
Only problem is he cited this as proof:
"Note the absence of anything that a kid could write an essay on how he could 'help President Obama' with."
The essay writing is mentioned in the study plan, which has already been distributed to schools.
Posted by: Mark Gisleson | September 7, 2009 9:42 PM
Juice can read minds in the future! He is going to be so cool on Heroes this season!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell us, Juice, what will happen with Sylar this year!!!!!!eleventy1111!!!!!
Posted by: NJ | September 7, 2009 9:50 PM
Ok, NJ. The speech was APPARENTLY changed because it is not the same speech that was initially touted.
Posted by: Juice | September 7, 2009 9:52 PM
No, you just proved that you don't know what you're talking about. Some of the supplementary materials issued by the Department of Education as suggested lesson plans for teachers contained language that included the phrase about asking kids "what they could do to help the president" -- but, in context, it's quite obvious that it means "help the president achieve the educational goals he laid out in his speech", goals like improving education, working hard, etc.
When some idiot took it out context to make it seem controversial, they promptly clarified what they meant (which, again, was obvious in context).
There is no controversy, no issue, nothing to get upset about, and you don't know what you're talking about. End of story.
Posted by: Sean Michael | September 7, 2009 10:04 PM
Sean Michael loves his president. He loves the USA. Go USA!
Posted by: Juice | September 7, 2009 10:08 PM
Predication B has been fulfilled:
From Florida's GOP Chair Jim Greer
"Clearly last week there was a plan with the Department of Education. When you ask students to write a letter to the President on, how we can help you with your new ideas, Mr. President, that is leading the students in an effort to push the President's agenda. Now that the White House got their hand in the cookie jar caught, they changed everything, they redid the lesson plans, they released the text, and tomorrow he's gonna give a speech that every president should have an opportunity to give."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/florida-gop-chair-white-house-rewrote-school-speech-after-conservatives-caught-them-indoctrinating-c.php
Posted by: Justin Gilmore | September 7, 2009 10:28 PM
Once again we have conservatives projecting. Reagan's speech I linked to @ 10 was the very format that conservatives miraculously divined and predicted President Obama was planning to give.
Juice - please validate your claim the speech was changed attributable to right wing pressure subsequent to the release of some politically tone-deaf, but perfectly benign, rhetoric from the Dept. of Education. Otherwise your attempt to ridicule Sean Michael comes off as well, that of an impotent weasel.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 7, 2009 11:03 PM
I fear mr juice has run off. Although, to be fair, it may be past his bedtime.
As for the speech: I commented over by that the very reasonableness of it will hurt the wingnuts by showing the disconnect between the reality and how obama is portrayed.
How many of the kids will be voting in 2012?
Posted by: eddie | September 7, 2009 11:41 PM
Michael Heath - So you think this will be a 'C'-grade speech with the good lost in the drone, you think there will be sleeping?
Well, when you're listening to the main-stream media nodding-heads and the hyperventilating Right-wing blow-hard nut-cases give their biased round-ups of this speech on the nightly news, give a thought to this, in due season. :) -DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | September 7, 2009 11:43 PM
Juice aka OJ Simpson is kind of a strange nickname for someone who is creapted out by politians speaking at public schools. OJ spoke at many schools. Of course OJ did this before the whole not guilty thing but Obama is guilty with out a trial or even facts.
Posted by: theroachman | September 8, 2009 12:01 AM
My proposal for option C): Sure, that's the speech he SAYS he's going to give....
Posted by: Jessa | September 8, 2009 12:04 AM
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/
get this poll!
Posted by: Legs | September 8, 2009 12:28 AM
What about option Beck: The Obama Code means there's still a subliminal communist oligarhy in there, but no one else can see it..
Posted by: Brian D | September 8, 2009 4:22 AM
All I will say is that Mr. Obama, unlike Bek, is NOT a lueless fuk.
Posted by: democommie | September 8, 2009 4:44 AM
Theres also option Rush: take 3 oxycotin misquote something from the speech and claim it shows that Obama once gave Stalin a handjob.
Posted by: Galen Evans | September 8, 2009 5:34 AM
I too have a proposal for C.
C) The speech itsself is perfectly innocent, but it's really an excuse to allow the socialist teachers (because all teachers are socialist, of course) to write indoctrinating lesson plans.
The incriminating lesson plan will be found, because of the several tens of thousands of classes based on this speech all taught by different teachers, it's inevitable that at least one or two are going to have something incriminating in them.
Thus I predict that within one week of the speech, WND will be carrying a story quoting from the most extreme lesson they can find, and impliying that this is representative of all teachers who discussed the speech.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | September 8, 2009 7:23 AM
There is also the option my wife and I overheard at dinner saturday night, from folks at the table behind us: the speech will be innocent, but the surroundings and obama's body language will be sending hidden messages to the students. the people behind us were retirees (seemingly), looking to be in the late 60- mid 70 age range.
Posted by: dean | September 8, 2009 8:27 AM
Of course my children's school district is refusing to broadcast the speech.
Of course we live in Texas.
Of course I have a Get Us Outta Texas donation button on my blog.
Posted by: Circe | September 8, 2009 9:08 AM
Right now rebpulicans are bleeting that Obama had asked the kdis to write him a letter about how they can help him achieve his goals. How quickly they forget!
>"Every time you walk through that classroom door, make it your mission to get a good education. Don't do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future. And while you're at it, help a little brother or sister to learn, or maybe even Mom or Dad. Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals."
Who said it? Even suggested kids TEACH THEIR PARENTS?? Nope, not Obama. GHWB in an October 1991 televised address to our nation's schoolchildren.
Posted by: AmericanGal | September 8, 2009 9:17 AM
as to those parents forcing their kids to stay home, what will those kids think of their parents after they talk to kids who heard the speech, which will happen on the next day. I know what one 12 yr old said when asked why his father won't let him hear the speech "my fathers an asshole" said the kid.
Posted by: richCares | September 8, 2009 9:34 AM
Obama doesn't give a rabid rat's fat ass about 'education.'
Otherwise he wouldn't have appointed CorpoRat/militaRat/CEO Arne Duncan as Secretaty of Education. Obama is perpetuating the Bushevik NCLB model of high-stakes testing, early and often.
Test results exist for one reason and one reason only: they retrocatively validate decisions made about students, based on their zip code, and not their IQ, long before the ever enter a classroom.
Get that through your fuuking heads, please before you start yammering ab out 'education.'
Murka doesn't DO "education." Murka does "school," which is a LOT different...You "make" your education. You can do that anywhere. You go to school to indoctrinated into the CorpoRat system. Period!
Posted by: Woody | September 8, 2009 9:59 AM
Woody:
A primary reason I attended school was to improve my grammar along with my communication skills.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2009 10:13 AM
Yep.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 8, 2009 11:19 AM
Juice:
I have absolutely no problem with affirming that, yes. Prup "loves his president. He loves the USA. Go USA!" As far back as Vietnam, that was the reason I protested when we went off the rails. I DO love this country, what it has done in many areas, and what it has shown itself capable of doing right. Yes, i will criticize a Bush, a Reagan, qa Nixon, and yes, a Clinton, for going off the rails and leading us astray.
But the only reason I care, the only reason I don't just ignore politics, the reason why I read Steve Benen first and Ed second every morning, and take the time to write things here and at other blogs is that I do care about this country, about the political system -- with all its weaknesses -- that has been a model for a world that -- less than one hundred years ago -- thought hereditary monarchy was a sensible way of distributing political power. We have immense potential for good, and, again, with all our mistakes, have done far more good than bad.
In short I LOVE AMERICA. (And yes, for one of the few times in my life or my study of history, as with FDR, TR, and JFK, I happen to love my current President and truly believe in the direction he's trying to take us -- and every Republican absurdity confirms that love.)
I AM a patriot, and hate the ways the Republicans, Menckenites, and -- sadly -- sneering fellow liberals have made that supposedly a difficult thing to say.
It never has been for me.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | September 8, 2009 11:20 AM
Mad props to Prup, as that post emphatically portrays how I feel about the current political climate. Bravo sir.
Posted by: uafbum | September 8, 2009 9:14 PM
Woody, as a teacher and staunch opponent of high-stakes and norm-based testing, I have to tell you that you're totally wrong when you dismiss Obama's stance on education by the fact that NCLB and high-stakes testing have not been done away with (and I don't think that's coming anytime soon, sadly). Being wrong on NCLB doesn't mean that every position on education Obama holds is invalidated, by any means.
On the other hand, your rhetoric doesn't give me any confidence that you have a clue what goes on in public schools. (Seriously, "CorpoRat"?)
Posted by: Mr. B | September 8, 2009 9:48 PM
Conservative media now claim Obama's plans to indoctrinate children were "thwarted"
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909090003
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 9, 2009 9:43 AM