Obama delivered a forceful, at times combative speech making the case for the nuclear deal with Iran. As someone who supports the deal, I found it unbelievably lucid, well-argued, and reasonable, so much so that it really enhanced my overall opinion of Obama. All of which is to say, I was already in the choir.
However, I’ve gathered that people who either dislike Obama generally or oppose the Iran deal found the speech obnoxious, insipid, and insulting. Specifically, his point that hardliners in Tehran are making “common cause” with hardliners (esp the Republican caucus) in the US. But then, I don’t think Obama was trying to convince them, either.
What did people who are on the fence think about the speech? Was it effective? Convincing? Insulting and juvenile?
I’m just trying to figure out how the speech played on the middle of the political spectrum. Thanks.
I was referring to persuasiveness. I’ve never seen a President go straight to villifying his opponents, even if they are in his own party, the way Obama does. It persuades no one who isn’t already on his side.
And his excuse for basically comparing Democrats to Iranian hardliners? If this was just the GOP, he wouldn’t have to make speeches. It would already be a done deal. It’s threatened because his own party is divided.
I don’t think it is fair to say he went straight to vilifying the opponents to the deal. He played relatively nice for a while. At least until he was personally equated to Hilter exterminating the Jews because of the Iran deal.
In another thread, you emphasized the importance of a leader accurately describing his opposition. Now you’re saying that the President shouldn’t say that both Iranian hardliners and some Americans oppose the deal and want to see it rejected because they think any deals with the opposing country is a waste of time.
Are you contending that Obama is lying about that opposition? If he isn’t lying, isn’t he accurately characterizing the opposition to the deal?
I’m supportive of the deal, but not in the least supportive of Obama’s insistence that it’s either this deal or war. I’m sick of hearing that. I didn’t think he speech was very good, but I doubt it matters either way. Congresscritters are either going to vote their conscious or their politics, regardless of what Obama says in a speech.
Thanks for addressing my OP. Curious if you thought the speech was bad because he vilified opponents, or for other reasons.
Also, I think a more charitable reading of his argument isn’t that it’s “this deal or war,” but that it’s either this deal, or a worse deal, or no deal at all; and if there’s a worse (or no) deal, we’re much more likely to find ourselves either acquiescing in a nuclear Iran or having to go to war to stop them. What do you find objectionable in that argument?
So the President is also claiming that he was negotiating from a position of weakness. Inspiring, really.
We now know this President is a bluffer. He laid down a red line on Syria, then didn’t follow through. He said that the military option was on the table for Iran, then gave up nearly everything we wanted in order to get a deal that’s pretty much just promises. Putin hasn’t missed this fact, I assure you. Obama is creating a very dangerous situation in the world when other leaders think that we are bluffing when we say we’ll use force.
Which still doesn’t make them the enemy. Domestic political opposition is opposition. An enemy is an enemy. The fact that many liberal politicians and their base doesn’t see a distinction will be explored at length in the coming campaign.