Blogs and Stories
9/11 in Reverse
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
As Obama euphoria crescendos with the inauguration, the man himself has become more serious and purposeful than ever.
It struck me as the Marine band played and I joined the river of people heading up C Street away from the west front of the capital. This was 9/11 in reverse. The last time I turned round and saw so many people behind me, it was that terrible day in New York when the twin towers burned and we poured out of our offices downtown and swarmed up Fifth Avenue. Then the faces were distraught. Now they were joyful. Then America had been assaulted by terror. Now it had been renewed by hope. A mysterious exchange has already taken place between our burdens and the president's demeanor. The more joyous we have become, the more sobriety Obama has assumed. His inaugural speech was free of literary exhibitionism. It was a litany of our challenges and his solemn promise to meet them. His words were purposeful, almost business-like, with the tautest of poetical flourishes.
The more joyous we have become, the more sobriety Obama has assumed.
And yet all day he was surrounded with astonishing poetic symbolism. Not only the helicopter bearing away the ills of his predecessor in democracy's spell-breaking moment of regenerative wizardry, but the high drama of the old democratic guard itself, Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd literally collapsing as the torch was passed to the new generation. The physical transfer of power has marked the passage of eras before—from the Southern sympathizer James Buchanan to Abraham Lincoln; from Dwight Eisenhower, the heroic general, who as president presided as a figure of reassurance and complacency to John F. Kennedy, the young war hero who blew the bugle for action. From George H.W. Bush, the last World War II president and representative of Wasp ascendancy, to Bill Clinton, the first Baby Boomer president who had never served in the military. But Obama represents the new both in his person and himself. The first African-American president, the first digitally wired president and the first president who has seemed to be in charge from the day he was elected, not, like other presidents from the day he was sworn in. The rest of the world, of course, elected him a year ago and have just been waiting to see their longing ratified.
As our relief exploded yesterday into national outpourings of relief, we have watched the new young president elect become daily more cognizant of the burdens facing him.
On Inauguration eve, I attended a "bipartisan" black tie dinner for some of Obama's top donors at Union Station. It was a typically gracious gesture of the president-elect's inauguration planning to stage three dinners on the eve of the big day, one honoring Sen. John McCain, one Colin Powell, and one Joe Biden. It took grace too, for McCain, at any rate, to agree to be honored by the very man who beat him and the very people who had funded his political rout, but he agreed to be honored because he too understands that Obama is trying to live right from the start the bi-partisan rhetoric of his campaign. At the Union Station event Biden arrived in time for dinner looking handsome and proud escorting his wife and mother. He spoke of his determination to heal wounds across the aisle and the friendships he has with Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, and John McCain, which he never lost sight of even in the harsh moments of the campaign. Obama himself appeared from behind the stage to speak of Biden and how his choice to make him vice president was informed as much by Biden's decency and belief that he would nurture relationships across the aisle as by his political gifts. Afterwards some of us got into line and had a picture with both of them. I was struck by how much less casual Obama looks behind the big, world beating smile. He exudes purpose and authority now. I told him my husband still has the contract he signed as president of Random House when their imprint Times Books acquired Dreams from My Father. "Worth something now, huh?" he told me, as he draped a long arm to gather me in between himself and his even taller vice president and easefully lit up for the camera. I felt safer and calmer than I have for eight years.
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown. She has written for numerous publications, including The Times of London, The Spectator, and The Washington Post.








Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I voted for Mccain!!
You're doing a great thing here,Tina.
Yes, you have written well & assembled a tour de force of web delivery of news. You have given your competition a worthy example of coverage of a big news event. Your competition will try to better your efforts. And this competition will better web news gathering, organizing & distribution. That was your plan. When everybody aims at bettering their personal best, it is exciting.
I suppose it is the difference between running for the CEO position and actually getting it. Yesterday, BO was out selling himself to get the top job and today, after he won the CEO position, he is bringing in line people's expectations. Being CEO can be a sobering experience.
How can he not be more somber? As a candidate, he did not have access to all the information he has today, all the top-secret stuff. Sounds like a silly movie line, excpet that much of the intelligence that governs decision-making is top secret of necessity. Now, Mr. Obama knows what he did not know before, and if it isn't sobering, he isn't the man for the job. Nice to know he is taking it seriously.
Thank so much for this webzine it is truly a fount for the intellectually news hungry.. I for one do not feel safe yet. I do know that with President Obama we do stand a chance to feel that way again
I hope that Obama is not a rhetoric kind of person. His speech called for unpopular choices and didn't invoke easy street addresses.
Calling for the rule of law to be adhered and enforced in a time of lush corporate greed, when separate laws exists for the common citizen and no law for others, when terror is redefined to become palatable to disenfranchised and hate groups breed with amazing fortitude, when those of superior intellect fall to the common con and jeopardize their futures for a few minutes of illegal fun, is not going to be an easy enforceable pledge. I hope, and refused all day to catch the hype of hope wave, that he can enforce the rule of law in this land.
Oh, Tina. Has anyone around here not sipped the Kool-aid? I
find Joe Biden--and his wife--to be somewhat embarrassing. (Wasn't he the man who seemed so impressed during the campaign that Obama was so "clean?" And do you think his wife could have been any more ridiculous and clueless on Oprah?) If a conservative had just said his oath, you media folks would have had a hey-day with all of this, but of course, it hasn't been mentioned.
Were you not embarrassed by the Bush haters booing him during the ceremony? Forget what this chidish act says about Bush....what does it say about the booers? Have we no class?
Does it not bother anyone that in this time of financial fiasco we just witnessed the most expensive inauguration in history?
I'm all for passing the torch----yadda, yadda, yadda. But I'm not anxious to watch the next eight years turn into a circus. We have heaved so many expectations on this man---unfairly so. Let's get past the "lemony dresses" and the mad gushing and get back to the business of fixing our country. And it would be nice, too, if the media got back to doing its job with some objectivity-----if that's not too much to ask.
I wonder how the "reaching across the aisle" is going to pan out in practical terms.
There are Americans on the right with no intentions of compromising on their positions.
You can not . . . for example . . . effectively smile and utter platitudes all day long in the face of people that want to argue that what we call "global warming" is not a scientifically-verified phenomenon.
At some point, you have to declare that you will not suffer any further arguments from people arguing counter to the science; only then may meaningful debate occur.
Also, when it comes to various classes of bigotry, I don't want somebody "reaching across the aisle." I want somebody forcefully stating that bigotry is wrong. A lot of anti-immigrant feeling is a cover for anti-Latino hatred. That social atmosphere has led to widespread abuses and even murders of working class Latinos. That population is now terrorized within our borders while those doing the terrorizing feel not only justified but actually empowered by the system.
I do not want to reach across the aisle to hateful reactionaries that do not respect the human rights of people within our borders.
Yes, this is a moment of great uplift for those of us feeling it that way. But let's not forget that the ongoing victims of hate need for us to fight for them, not to "reach across the aisle" to those that would perpetuate their victimization.
OMG. Enough. Good lord. I hope he does a GREAT job as president! But give the man a chance to actually lead and govern before you start talking about clouds parting and angels trumpeting. Good grief. He's not in office a full day and already im sick of it. I HOPE he does a good job but count me as one who is NOT full of hope.
Margot62 did you volunteer to help at the inauguration to keep the cost of the celebration down?
Instead of griping I think helping would be more productive.
But if we all helped there wouldn't be anything to gripe about.
BUMMER
Margot62 -
will you give it a rest already? i'm so sick of your mind-numbing posts that do nothing to generate actual debate on important issues. forget about the obama "kool-aid" you have been sucked in to the fox news/drudge report propaganda cycle from which most of the mainstream media has only recently been able to pry themselves.
if you don't like this site, which i do find *actually* balanced, you should find your news and punditry elswhere. i'm sick of your negative comments junking up actual thought. with the country in a financial mess and two quagmires, you can't find anything more productive to cite than audience members obama has no control over and a few harmless gaffes??
other conservative posters, please don't misread my comments and think that i don't appreciate a contrarian point of view. that is just what this country needs, as long as it is thought-provoking and stimulating. Margot62's comments have been about as insightful as if i were to go around posting how devilish cheney is for shooting his friend in the face on every bush article.
let's move past the rhetoric and get some real discussion going on.
I was not a supporter of Obama. I wanted to see HRC in office and I still think she is better suited for the job than BO. Having said that, yesterday was a great day. And it is time to get going on fixing things after GW and his crew (though the House Dems and Senate Dems are not innocent in all the mess that has happened)
I am new to the Beast. I started coming here after seeing Ms. Brown on Morning Joe. I was a huge fan of MSNBC until they totally threw themselves in the tank for BO. They are no longer journalists but advocates for one point of view. It is ironic for MSNBC to criticize Fox News so much since they have become just like them!
Please don't become like that. There are 2 sides or more to every issue. Stay impartial......
ac-slater: I have to admit I'm not familiar with this poster's other comments, but I find myself agreeing with her assessment of Biden. He doesn't know when to stop talking -- and, obviously, neither does his wife.
And, if you recall, some in the media made a fuss about the expense of Bush's inauguration when we were at war. Is it not understandable that some might see the expenditures on this event just a tad excessive? Yes, it's historic and profoundly important -- but these are seriously trying economic times.
And, despite your being "sick" of certain posters, everyone has a right to post here. Don't be like so many other people who can't stand hearing viewpoints they don't agree with. Who can post here is, quite frankly, not yours to decide.
AndreainNY, i guess you didn't read my entire post. of course margot 62 has a right to post here, and i don't have a problem with the fact that we would probably disagree on many things. what i'm sick of are the superficial, blindly loyal arguments that she(?) keeps putting forward. don't get me wrong, this happens on BOTH sides and what i would like to call for is a civil discussion from both.
the point you bring up about the expense of the inauguration is valid. to be honest, i am not really happy about it. i have, however, heard about just as much flack from the media (excluding MSNBC) about obama's inagural costs as 2005, from what i can remember.
i will say this... the money raised was in an open and honest forum, and only collected from individuals (as opposed to lobbyists and corporations expecting favorable legislation in return) with a maximum cap. this inauguration also provided an unprecedented amount of free events that were open to the public (which was an also unprecedented amount of attendees). add to that -- the highest expense of the celebrations went to security, which i hope everyone agrees is a necessary expenditure.
i welcome anyone's response to this. i just hope they actually make a point.
Let's see the picture of you with the president, Tina
Here is a different way to experience yesterday's Address...as a flow:
http://www.textflows.com/ObamaInaugurationFlow
It is slower than the speech itself, but you see the whole thing newly.
AC Slater---- I think I'll just let Andreain's comment stand--- as it was better than any remark I could have written (or anything you could have written, for that matter). But for the record my friend, I really gave your request some thought and uh...no..I will not stop posting. In fact, I hope I drive you up the wall for months to come.
Have I finally made a point? I hope so.
And one more thing. I don't watch FOX news. I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself. And while this is sure to elicit a comment from you---I am actually an employee of the media. I've worked up and down the whole eastern seaboard as a reporter and a news broadcaster. A producer, too. I'm rather proud of my record of being fair and letting my listeners think for themselves.
Have a lovely evening.
Obama is "What he is".
Perosnally, I think he was very gracious in his speech when addressing the damage that the "idiot", GWB has done to our Nation, Society, and our Retlations thoughout the world
You have no idea how the election of Obama has made your enemy stronger. After 9/11 America dared not blink. What happened .. the country viciously turned on President Bush and itself. Your enemy now understands too well that the majority of US citizens have no stomach for this fight.
Be prepared to be smacked hard again soon !!
writerforhire: "I hope that Obama is not a rhetoric kind of person."
He is the KING of rhetoric. That is how he gained so much traction. The catch is, he was not ALL rhetoric, he is indeed proving even to those a bit tripped out by his celebrity (me) that he is not in this thing solely to stand on the shoulders of his protectors, as he seemed to be in Chicago politics (c'mon! you know it).
Of course, I still have to suffer boorish haters like zoetrope here. Can't see anything but what flailed in front of him by an amateurish media, it seems.
I am for Obama, the man, not his doling fans, that's for sure.
ac-slater, etc.: "i have, however, heard about just as much flack from the media (excluding MSNBC) about Obama's inaugural costs as 2005, from what i can remember."
First, kudos for acknowledging what MSNBC --and NBC -- are incapable of doing: conceding their creepy bias which keeps their ratings so low.
Second, complaints about 2005 mean nothing by comparison, as what I'd seen is Jan 20, 2009, costs were FOUR TIMES what was, ever. EVERRRRRR.
That's not becoming of the state of money in the U.S. currently, to say the least. But you know what? If we can call this, being cheesy like MSNBC, a "people's inauguration" (I mean "people's" as in "We the People"), then why not! Have at it! I think the country earned a celebration of its political system. Smooth transition and all that! Hurrah!
The price is a drop in the bucket compared to the slobbering greed of select rows of people who are now "unemployed" (and still raking it in) from Wall Street, insurance and mortgage firms, those money whores -- not the admin assistants making $10/hr, etc.
But let's pray we keep it at earth level. We need groundedness and sensible policies, not, umm, jolly-mandering.
CHANGE IS A PROCESS. IT BEGINS WITH US. YOU HAVE TO BE THE CHANGE THAT YOU WANT TO SEE. EVERYONE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME THE NXT PRESIDENT OF THE USA. SO BEING THAT OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. REMEMBER CHANGE IS A PROCESS!!!!!!!!
i get around with my reading the 'sheets' and press... think it's important, like no other time, to remain well informed...so as to take up 'responsibility' for myself. and Tina, this piece is all of it in a nutshell...well done. thanks for doing it. a capsule. ta. ghb
The expense argument is an odd one, when you consider that the money has to go somewhere. It's not as though it magically disappeared.
Isn't this Republican 'trickle-down' economics at its finest? D.C. employed a lot of people for the inauguration, among them caterers, restaurant owners, waitstaff, hoteliers and their staffs, security people - not to mention the hundreds upon hundreds of people who are making a tidy little fortune on Obama paraphernalia at gatherings like this.
Most of the money spent in Washington for the inauguration went right back into the pockets of the people. You were perhaps hoping that there would be no inauguration and that all the people who work in Washington would forgo the profits of tourism? What good would that do anyone?
Before anyone goes there, I'll say that this is entirely different from big CEOs spending tons of money on lavish getaways as their companies ask for government bailouts. For one thing, the CEOs are responsible for running their companies efficiently for the shareholders - none of whom benefit from their spending money. Obama is responsible for running the country efficiently for the sake of the people - many of whom benefit from the country spending money in Washington this month.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.