Did you actually say that? He has had long interviews and discussions on anything any one wants to ask. He has even had talk shows hosts asking off the wall questions. he speaks in complete sentences ,has a complete position he states clearly .Your just not used to it after a stumble bum like the Shrub. He went through a debate series with zillions of questions asked and that is where he gathered followers. He made sense . The teleprompter noise is absurd.
IMHO is is a backhanded way of saying Obama is the Anti-Christ, or the beast. Basically saying he deceived you into voting for the devil himself, and there seems to be overwhelming support for Obama (for those who do support him), which seems very unrealistic in it’s magnitude unless the people are under a trance of some sort.
I don’t suppose you’ve got a cite for that? Or is it just something you heard some right-wing commentator make, and you thought it was a nifty thing to pass on?
The guy’s written books. He’s a Constitutional scholar. He’s given multiple interviews. What’s your evidence that he’s lost without a teleprompter?
Personally I think Obama kindled the feeling of hope we desperately wanted. Now that we’re down to the hard and often imperfect and ugly work of the real world it’s harder to find that hope. I 2nd the notion that Obama is somewhat shackled by his own party and making concessions to them.
I dunno who WE are, by the way.
He isn’t, of course, but he seems uncomfortable without a script for a conversation. It’s my gut, simply, not my main political belief.
First, Bush was better at man-on-the-street style conversation than Obama (not that this is necessarily good).
Second, since I’m Peruvian I wasn’t watching your former president every single time.
Third, a Peruvian politician using a teleprompter wouldn’t get a vote from his mum. I still don’t get how you American are used to having your presidents read their speeches word-by-word written by someone else and then claim that the guy gives good speeches.
Last, I’m amused by the level of admiration towards Obama trying to defend him expressed in a thread mocking that same admiration
Your first point here is simply your opinion, and stating it does not make it a fact; I strongly disagree with you. Your second point illustrates your lack of detailed knowledge of the matter at hand, which weakens your first point. Thirdly, that is completely irrelevant.
:rolleyes:
There is no doubt that both the mockery and the occasional bouts of genuine and spontaneous admiration that inspire some of the mockery come from the same place - Obama’s undoubted charisma and ability to articulate vision.
My concern as a non-American is that this charisma and ability will turn out to be Obama’s long suit. So far, his ability to manipulate, charm and dominate a fractious Congress (let alone other world leaders, international bodies, etc.) and get that vision turned into something approximating reality has not, to this casual observer at least, appeared overwhelming. It would appear that people in positions of power regard him as something of a light-weight - a pretty face with a good line and ability to put bums on seats, but ironically enough too nice and earnest to take seriously.
The worst case scenario I forsee is that basically very little will get done. This may be a positive insofar as nothing bad will get done. Though it is very early days yet, maybe Obama will pull it off and achieve great things once he hits his stride. If he does not, you can look forward to much mockery of the contrast between the idealistic sloganeering and the meagre results.
Of course, if he fails to deliver results, the lion’s share of the blame will be put down to uncooperative congresscritters of his own party and partisan obstructionism on the part of the other party - which will be true enough but also a bit beside the point: what makes a great president is his ability to work the system and get results in spite of faction and friction.
…and Stephen Colbert is relevant how? Did I bring him up?
…and the facts you have presented are? I said “gut” because it’s a simple feeling with no deep analysis. I’d be more than willing to change my mind. IT’s really not a big thing for me.
But I stated my opinion and did not claim it as fact, only as opinion, I can’t see the problem.
Thanks for reiterating my point. Next time, you’ll have to pay royalties.
Irrelevant…nice word, comparing how politicians in other places do speeches with how they do it in the US while discussing making speeches. Maybe irrelevant doesn’t mean what you think it does. Did I say it was the mother of all facts?
Of course, you can also not debate if I have it 100% right.
I didn’t say Bush was a paradigm-shifting speaker who’d make Cicero cut his tongue in shame. I feel, bushisms and all, that he was more comfortable speaking at eye-level than Obama. Obama kick his ass both ways in a more formal setting.
So, unless it’s *Obama teh r0xx0r and Bush teh suxx0r *there’s nothing else we can say about the president of the US.
Isn’t this just making the “Messiah” point? The ability to speak in public settings, both formal and informal, are not a reflection on the person’s ability to lead a country, so even if Bush was/were a better man-on-the-street speaker it would say anything good about his presidency.
Please show me where you clarified it as your opinion.
It is common practise here to quote a refutable point posited by another member;
I’m happy that you’re content with your own smugness.
Your third point was irrelevant, and I stand by that; instead of snidely deriding me, please explain how a Peruvian would vote has any relevance at all within this thread.
Much funnier than the Holy Shit! I was thinking.