Depends on what he says. If he say study hard and stay in school because on day you might be president than it's ok. If he is pushing propaganda then it's not OK.

They're the only one gullible enough to eat up all of comrade Barack's socialist words anyway.

No. Can't be anymore less inspiring to children than reading "My Pet Goat" and then stopping midway through to stare into space for 10 min like a blinded rabbit.

The students will already be bombarded with liberal ideology prevalent in the education system. One speech from Obama is not going to make a difference to a bunch of K-6 students.

I for one would pull my children out of schools altogether if the President wanted to speak with them. Home school them! No, even better, lock them in a shed! And ban textbooks!

You know what? People should relax. I remember Ronald Reagan being president and saying a lot of stuff on TV when I was in elementary school, but I became a committed lefty. Those truthers out there don't have to worry about their kids gaining any militant values like compassion or empathy from one little speech that'll probably be over their heads anyway.

Why is it any more inappropriate for any President to speak with school kids than any other political leader?

It is only inappropriate to the group who get their “news” from Fox.

It may not be appropriate but it makes great political sense. Most high school kids will be of voting age by the next presidential election, and Obama is all about politics.

What's inappropriate is Loudon and Charles pandering to the tinfoil hat bridgade. Don't give students a lesson in fear of controversy. If it was ok for Reagan and Bush I to do, it's ok for Obama.

Other presidents have done it. I don't understand what the big deal is.

And it's not like the kids will be paying attention anyways.

Presidents have spoken at schools for years. Why is it a problem now? As long as he stick to the topice of education and staying in school let the man be!

Infactily No! All the way back to Eisenhower, presidents have made speeches to schoolkids. Why, all of a sudden, is it inappropriate for this president to speak to them?

@Common Kevin

Hello pot, meet kettle.

No! What sickens me is that this issue has gotten so far out of control! Having the President (or just about ANYONE for that matter) try to encourage our kids to do better and take responsibility should be applauded. The fact that the administratioin took the time to develop discussion activities to encourage much needed critical-thinking skills in our kids is a bonus.

This "president"/administration was subversive in the manner in which they arranged the "talk" (bypassing notifying the districts), they fully intended to have the children pledge allegiance to the president (as opposed to the country) and, despite comments that the content "...is not going to make a difference to a bunch of K-6 students..." or will "...probably be over their heads anyway..." or "...it's not like the kids will be paying attention anyways..", children are very impressionable at a young age and should not be underestimated. Google search the neuroses kids are already experiencing thanks to The Corpulent One, Al Gore. NOTHING this "president" or his administration does should be trusted offhand...nothing.

Why is it ok for both President Bush (the father and the son) to talk with kids, but not Obama???

In fact, Bush (the son) was READING to school kids when 9/11 attacks happened!

Bush (the father) addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991. ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' Bush said, according to news reports from the time. He told students to ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.''

Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" Gingrich said at the time. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education."

No! Not everything has to be political.

All, just ignore crazy Kevin and maybe he will go away.

I know the US education system is going downhill, but hearing a speech from the President is appropriate. They should hear what the man has to say straight from his mouth, not filtered by the media. Other than telling them school is important and they should help other people (both are true), he probably did not contradict any parents.

You're kidding, right? When would it ever be "inappropriate" for an elected official to speak to the populace? We certainly don't want our kids learning to think for themselves, so let's not risk exposing them to thoughts we don't like.

I went to sleep last night in America, or so I thought. Today I'm living in some nightmare country where I am not allowed to hear anything "they" decide is not appropriate.

What express should be asking is if it is inappropriate for parents to let kids watch whatever they want, listen to whatever they want, stay up as late as they want, talk to others however they want, play whatever videogames they want, or should parents be parents?

There's nothing wrong with him giving a speech to schoolkids. However, asking that all schools across the country interrupt their plans and make their students watch his speech on tv, in real-time, is way too Orwellian for comfort.

This story has the stink of Fox News all over it! Are you kidding me!!??

My answer is No -- it is not inappropriate and is very appropriate he talk to youngsters. They are citizens too and can use all the encouragement they can get. The complaints about this type of thing are getting way out of hand - the GOPers love to complain about EVERYTHING. It gets old and is not very constructive. For me, I am very happy the President finds it important to do what he can to help our children -- GOOD FOR HIM.

Why only one? I think the youth of our nation should begin every morning with an inspirational speech from the Dear Leader. And why only schoolkids? Wouldn't all Americans benefit from a daily reminder of how lucky we are to have Obama as our leader?

Nice wording, Express. What kind of lunatic is going to say the President shouldn't give a speech to schoolkids? I'm pretty sure the real issue here is whether or not it's appropriate for the President to ask that students nationwide be forced to listen to a live broadcast of him.

Will this finally end the remaining talk of how "cool" he is?

No, as long as everyone realizes he isn't talking to the kids anyway - it's just another excuse to talk past them to their parents in another attempt to stir up support for his failing health care initiative rather than actually have to compromise.

Anonymous said "they fully intended to have the children pledge allegiance to the president (as opposed to the country)" – where did you hear this? I hope you did a double take when you heard this and said to yourself “wait a minute, this may not be true”. Of course it isn’t true and you should have realized that. I find it ironic you mention that people shouldn’t trust “out of hand” but that appears to be exactly what you’ve done. This is how crazy rumors start like the death panels, etc. Do yourself a favor and THINK about what you are being told before posting a comment. Posting stuff that is obviously false doesn’t do anything to further the debate – all it does is muck up the waters and does nothing but hurt your cause.

Anonymous @ 9:44 AM = Common Kevin?

You can not truly think that the president given a speech to the school age children as something inappropriate, he could actually teach the kids something and inspire them to get in the classroom instead of hanging out on the trains durning the day,

@ Special Olympic Bowler:
Perfect summary of the issue. More importantly, though, your name brings up another red-flag:
What if Obama is just using this as another excuse to ridicule the disabled on national television, knowing that schoolchildren are more likely than adults to share his fondness for laughing at them?

School administrators who decide to take the time away from instruction should allow students to watch the speech only on informed consent from their parents.

JH: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/02/wh-withdraws-call-students-help-obama/

This is way too reminiscent of the old Apple Macintosh commercial. How fantastic would it be if, just as Obama is saying "We will prevail!" or something along those lines, some student somewhere ran up and hurled a hammer at the television?

I do find it amusing that there are complaints that BHO wants to speak to all students nationwide, while GWB was criticized when only 75 students were allowed to attend his speech at JEB Stuart HS in 2005.
http://www.fcnp.com/445/protest.htm

I think all the right wing nut jobs are worried that after their kids hear Obama, they will discover how clueless their parents are. l

You're kidding, right? What could be more appropriate than the president urging schoolkids to value their education? I don't seem to recall a problem when the senior President Bush addressed students and told them to stay off drugs. How is this any different?

It's painfully obvious that our president highly prioritizes getting his mug in front of people. Most kids don't care about politics, so this is his only way of getting to work his leg-tingling charm on them.

So, for future reference, is "GWB did it" now considered acceptable justification for any presidential action?

It is perfectly acceptable to have role-model figures (fire-fighters, astronauts, Presidents) speak to children. How many of y'all were inspired to follow in the shoes of a role model you saw at school?

Common Kevin must have seen Joe McCarthy.

Having the President of the United States speak to school children is a great idea. President Obama is very inspiring to many adults, why not have children listen to him? I think a speech during school hours wouldn't hurt. This may prevent a child from making a few less paper airplanes, or being lost in a subject they will never use again in their life time, i.e. Long division. They can become more politically aware and knowledgeable.

May be other presinents were OK, but this guy is different: he is really into brainwashing our kids and prepare an "Obama generation" from them. I saw the agenda of his speech and remembered my days in aSoviet school. Still can recall all this nice poetry about "dedushka Lenin".

I have three children and i would rather have them listen tor Obama than James Dobson of Focus on the Family or Rush Limbaugh the drug addict..

I fail to see what the issue is.

So, I'm sure everyone here was equally outraged when Bush did the same thing in 1992, right?

No, it is not inappropriate to speak to them, indoctrinating them in another matter entirely. Granted that's what most parenting/educating is, but making it partisan is pretty shady.

Brilliant comment, "African", as clearly the only alternative to having Obama give a Dear Leader speech to every classroom in the country is to have all of our schoolchildren listen to one by Dobson or Limbaugh.

You think any of 'em will carry posters and signs, shout each other down, and bite each other's fingers off? Or is such behavior too immature for schoolkids?

It's not even appropriate to have the government running our schools!

And people wonder why there is so much misinformation, government propaganda, and COMPLETELY INACCURATE HISTORY being preached in schools. It's a crime against humanity!

Looks like someone is jealous of me and taking Saul Alinsky's teachings to heart. I am so flattered and appreciate the complement that someone wishes to be me. This is my first posting of the day. It is ok if the president gives a speech to school children, as long as it is "stay in school, work hard, stay out of trouble, and make something of yourself," but when he sends out information to teachers requesting students write a letter to the president about what they can do to help him that is crossing the line. I do not want my children being indoctrinated. That is what college is for, to get the weak minded individuals there to "come to the dark-side." I am keeping my children out of school on Tuesday. Better safe than sorry. This is just another deflection to take the people's minds off the government takeover of 1/8 of our economy (health care) to turn us even more socialist than we already are.

MajorlyMisanthropic,
Hey there kettle. You are right. You are a communist, just like Van Jones admits he is. When have I ever posted a single line? Get a clue you paranoid freak.

Anonymous @ 9:44 AM,
Very eloquently said. I could not have said it better myself.

MTL (Much Too Loony),
Good points and I actually agree with you on this issue. As long as the president encourages the kids to work hard and make something of themselves it is ok, but when he starts requesting that they have an assignment about what they can do to help him, that is crossing the line.

Anonymous @ 10:11 AM,
I am baaaaaacckkk.

Brett,
I actually heard about it on MSNBC when I was at work yesterday.

Anonymous @ 11:04 AM,
Sorry to disappoint you. Wrong again Diogenes.

Anonymous @ 11:19 AM,
Perfect!

Just Wonderin',
Yes, it is appropriate since we have Bush 3 in office. The only difference between this administration is what they call things, other than that it is business as usual.

V,
Not me above, but I was inspired by no one to choose my career, ok, maybe the military inspired me a bit, but I am obviously my own person and not a follower of the dear leader whose approval rating is now BELOW 50% (48% somewhat approve, while 52% disapprove according to Rasmussen). Didn't he win with 52% of the vote? I guess some people have come to their senses and they are having buyers’ remorse. Obviously these people are not in D.C. since those in D.C are still mesmerized by BO.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

African,
What a perfect racist comment.

Little Brother,
There is a difference in encouraging kids to do well in school and requesting they work for him to do his bidding like Obama initially wanted until the people caught on to his scheme and became even further outraged. If it was just the first, I would not have a problem with it, but when you inject politics to school that is going too far. Just read Tim's post below yours.

Why not? He's had plenty of practice speaking to Congress...

The idea of giving a speech is not inappropriate, I'm sure however he will say something that is

This disruption is unnecessary. It is too early for our nation's K-6 children to follow such politics.

Since when is asking students, parents and teachers to personal responsibility in the classroom became a partisan issue? I find the fact that people are making this a political issue more harm to the kids than whatever comes out of Obama's mouth!

@Common Kevin

"Hey there kettle. You are right. You are a communist, just like Van Jones admits he is. When have I ever posted a single line? Get a clue you paranoid freak."

Communist? Paranoid Freak? I might just as easily differ to your level and reply; fascist, sociopath. I merely commented on your assertion that Obama was choosing to speak to School children because they are the most impressionable and therefore the easiest to persuade. My comment "Pot, meet kettle," was a reference to the neocons targeting the some of the nation's poorest and least educated, as they are easiest to manipulate. Nevermind that evangelical conservatism has no interest in improving the plight of the poor or the uneducated. Rather the neocon agenda is simply to maintain the status quo, through fear, intimidation, and misrepresentation.

I'm not the one suggesting the government is introducing health care reform as a means of killing off it's elderly population. I'm not the one suggesting that writing an essay about how school children can help their country is some form of mind control. Nor am I the one who responds to criticism with such profligate rage.

I think it is an utter shame what has become of this country over the past 30 years. The parties -- in large part the republican party, but to some extent the democratic party as well -- have fostered a divide in this nation. One so large it verges on unbridgeable. This must be a window into what it was like to live in the U.S. in the mid-Nineteenth Century.

MajorlyMisanthropic,
I do agree with you on your last point that "it is an utter shame what has become of this country over the past 30 years," but I would go back in time a bit more that that to before we implemented social welfare like welfare in general or social security. As a result of the last century our current youth have too great of a sense of entitlement and think they deserve everything given to them on a silver platter (i.e. health care). This country was founded on the principles of hard work and you will succeed and grow rich, but not it has turned into be lazy and get a handout. Why can people not save on their own? Why do we need a hugh failing ponzi scheme like Social Security? You are correct that BOTH parties are to blame for what the U.S. has become and the Republicans under Bush acted more like Democrats and therefore it is hard to distinguish between them. I have said it before and I will say it again. We need to wipe the slate clean and start over fresh in 2010. If a Republican is in office, replace him/her with a Democrat and if a Democrat is in office, replace him/her with a Republican. A better choice would be an independent and someone who is not tied to party lines, but I think you get my point.