President Clinton seemed to cover the y2k bases fairly well, evoking the gravity of the issue, calling for an urgent response, and removing some of the legal impediments to its resolution, as well as offering a modicum of financial help to the less fortunate. Does this give anyone hope? Will this prevent the spread of what Ed Yardeni calls "aberrant survivalist behavior"?

-- Joseph Danison (JDanison@aol.com), July 15, 1998

Answers

Uh, no. Why should we start believing anything that this man says now? Someone, with an ounce of logical brainpower, please tell me.

-- John Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), July 15, 1998.

I didn't hear Clinton's comments on Y2K, but considering his past performances, he will use any loopholes he can to increase federal control over more of our lives. When he says, "I feel your pain", I expect a knife in the back or a hand in my wallet shortly.

-- Dave brickner (davebrik@bright.net), July 15, 1998.

Here are the links to the President's comments and the VP's comments:

Prez: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/19980714-5571.html VP: http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0714-141.txt

-- Pastor Chris (chrisbr@ptinet.net), July 16, 1998.

His speech was a "WHITEWASH" of the issue. Had he given it just one short year ago it may have had some impact. This speech lived it's news cycle and now is dead. The importance of this crisis has not been raised. Can anyone say "lip sirvice". He was pressured into making a statement and really did not raise any awareness, as far as I can see.

As far as the legislation to remove legal issues, to late and not enough. I hope to see more on the legislative front to help compainies deal with this problem.

thx,

j

-- j (yada@yada.com), July 16, 1998.

I looked pretty carefully, but I couldn't find ANY mention of the president's speech in our local (Detroit) paper the next day.

-- Edward Morykwas (edog@oeonline.com), July 16, 1998.

My first response was "a WEB site?" -- THAT's the best the President can come up with? Does he really think that these programmers haven't HEARD that they can make a nice living for the next few years??? This is a JOKE, right?

And $12 million dollars to raise awareness around the world? This is a paltry pittance which is going to even so disappear down some bureaucratic government hole...I don't "world awareness" gets raised much by it.

So, for me, the speech was a huge disappointment. I am an Oracle consultant doing remediation work for the State of Texas railroad system. I can understand he didn't want to "panic" anyone -- but this is just as bad -- people are just asleep on this issue - and he had a responsibility to wake them up with more than a new web site.

Too little. Too late. Really a disappointment. How many people ARE going to panic now? Only now they'll be angry on top of it and have no time to make even minimal preparations...

-- Chana Campos (chana@campos.org), July 16, 1998.

From a purely political view, the President's speech was perfect. What else would we have expected him to say? "We're probably not going to fix this problem, but let's give it our best shot anyway?" When you consider all the nuances of the issues involved, he said what he needed to. No, the press didn't give it the coverage that a lot of us on this forum believe it warrants, but that will come, albeit ever so slowly. Having much more impact, I hope, will be the speech delivered by Senator Bennett before the National Press Club yesterday. As has been said, several times by "the experts" and the politicians, "we don't need to start spending more time trying to hold certain factions, parties, professions, etc. accountable for this problem." In the end it will not matter who got us into this mess, who didn't do enough to get us out. All that will matter is will we have the good sense to survive it.

-- Lisa (ldward1@aol.com), July 16, 1998.

(my response was not fully posted first go around, which is good since I get some editing rights now ) No, the press didn't give it the coverage that many of us on this forum believe it warrants, but perhaps the speech by Senator Bennett to the National Press Club yesterday will. One thing that I wish we would all think about is that in the end it won't matter what faction, party, profession, etc. was supposed to be accountable for this problem. All that will matter is whether we, as individuals, and a society will have the good sense to do what it takes to survive it. God forgive my liberal heart for what I'm about to say , but I believe that the mind-set that others are responsible for our well-being, may be exactly what provided the catalyst for this to occur in the first place. If someone sells me a lemon for a car, is it the fault of the seller, or my fault for not having the foresight to look the car over or is it the government's fault for not being my "common sense?" In the end it doesn't matter, I will have to take the bus and hopefully learn that in the future not to have blinders on when buying cars.

-- Lisa (ldward1@aol.com), July 16, 1998.

I agree with the majority.

Clinton did indeed summarize the nature and the scope of the Y2K problem accurately. He TRIED to convey the true gravity of the situation, but without words like crisis, emergency, serious or failure  none of which appear anywhere in his statement  its fairly difficult to alarm people.

Hey, even if he had chosen more accurate terms for the severity of the problem, whos going to hear them? He speaks before the National Academy of Sciences, before a group of people who are already aware of the problem! What about the awareness of the public? Even though the pervasiveness of Y2K was clearly stated, nothing else Clinton said seemed bold enough to cause people to empty the banks or head for the hills. Why isnt he on the major networks, primetime on Sunday night, delivering this speech to the American People? The President is plainly shirking his responsibility.

What is this administration afraid of? What possible plan could it have to emerge from this situation unscathed? Let it happen, then blame the whole thing on a terrorist "cyber-attack"? Have they resigned themselves to the fact that there is very little they can do now, except act as if they have a handle on the problem?

Maybe they just dont have the balls to do what the citizens of this country elected them to do  serve OUR interests.

-- Paul Bednarek (paul_bednarek@quantumdata.com), July 16, 1998.

If the President got on national television with a State of the Union Address, and point by point addressed each issue of Y2K, the very next day the stock market would lose several percentage points, there would be a run on stores and banks. America would come to a virtual halt! What could Mr. Clinton possibly say but what he did say? Too much at stake for him to tell the truth, especially when he has never told the truth, haven't you noticed how big his nose has gotten?

-- Barb-Douglas (bardou@yahoo.com), July 16, 1998.

No hope here.

In the first book of his Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov wrote about a politician who visited Seldon's colony and walked around saying warm, fuzzy politician type things for about a week. When a scientist analyzed what he had said for content, it turned out that there wasn't any. He had essentially said nothing.

I don't know why, but Clinton's speech reminded me of that bit of fiction. It was carefully written to cover the administration's butt while avoiding any content that might prove alarming. What we need right now is a Call to Arms. What Clinton delivered does not fit the bill.

It seems weird to me that Clinton and Gore haven't made a big issue out of this. I thought Clinton was concerned about his place in history and this seems like his big chance. I have to believe that he still doesn't understand just how serious Y2k is.

-- Ed Perrault (EdPerrault@Compuserve.com), July 16, 1998.

Barb-Douglas said "If the President got on national television with a State of the Union Address, and point by point addressed each issue of Y2K, the very next day the stock market would lose several percentage points, there would be a run on stores and banks. America would come to a virtual halt!"

Perhaps, but is it not preferable to panic when the lights are working the railswitches are funtional, the food and water are still in the cities? The assumption that if we wait 17 months the reaction or the situation will be better is false. Now there is time to prepare, then there will not be.

I agree that your analysis is the working hypothesis inside the Beltway, but it lacks courage and will do much more damage. People will die because of this.

We need a Churchill, we got Willy Wonka.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), July 18, 1998.