You gotta be kidding? Jimmy Carter?!!! The only reason he has any relevance politically is that he opens his mouth every few years to say stupid shit.
But the real th8ing you’re wrong on is Gingrich. He might not be electable, but in a debate he’d absolutely shred Obama, and just about anyone else. The guy is whip smart and he’s a freakin’ encyclopedia. He’s make Obama look like he was sitting there in a little boy suit with shorts.
The word “stupid” does not mean what you think it does.
He did address the public. He didn’t do it soon enough, and the issue was not passion. It was specifics. People didn’t know what the bill was about, and that allowed for the confusion the Republicans took advantage of.
Then why do you think he spent a year on the health care reform debate? I agree he made mistakes, but mistakes don’t make you a hypocrite.
Do you have a cite?
It doesn’t. The health care debate was a good illustration of the fact that the administration and Congress don’t always see eye to eye even when they are in the same party. They have different concerns. Right now the Democrats in the Senate can’t agree on what to do about filibuster rules. I would not be surprised if the rules are not changed.
Obama isn’t a bad speaker, but he has never really had the occasion to give a historically important speech. And he doesn’t have inspiring ideas that might form the basis for some really good rhetoric. He doesn’t have the opportunity to give anything equivalent to “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” or “we have nothing to fear except fear itself” or suchlike.
Compared to that, “we need to get health insurance for these people” is just not soul-stirring. It’s not his fault, it is more a function of the times. Probably fortunately.
Bush (of course) gets bashed hereaabouts pretty reflexively, but compare Bush’s speech post-9/11 with anything BHO has done. The Bush speech was not better because Bush is a great speaker, he is not, but the occasion was different and more important, and therefore an opportunity to do a dramatic speech worked for Bush where Obama’s speech at the memorial service was that much less significant, and therefore much harder to bring off.
Although the Obama part about the kid jumping in puddles in heaven was as lame as any clinker Bush ever dropped.
Clinton never did anything memorable (apart from the bomb he dropped at the Democratic convention before he was elected) for many of the same reasons - the US was never at war during his tenure or like that. No doubt if 9/11 had happened during the Clinton administration, Slick Willie would have done just as good a job as Bush did.
It’s a pity - there are very few Presidents with the kind of rhetorical power that used to be common. Talk about brevity - compare the Gettysburg address with Obama at the memorial service. Somewhat similar occasions, but one is an example of the greatest rhetoric in American political history, the other an over-long Hallmark card.
Obama didn’t get to the White House because he is inspiring, he was someone that people discovered when they wanted to be inspired. IYSWIM. His inspirational powers are not inherent, he was in the right place at the right time and got swept to office. Now he is working out (to the extent he is capable) of the ideas he ran on, and they don’t catch the imagination.
It is really hard to deliver a real stem-winder on the deficit or health care reform.
Maybe if he were a genuinely brilliant speaker, he could bring it off, but that would take a genuinely brilliant speaker, and realistically speaking, he ain’t that much better than average.
Regards,
Shodan
The President could walk on water, and Shodan would say, “Obama can’t swim!”
Or he could stick his foot in his mouth, and some people would say he was demonstrating his sympathy with the disabled.
Regards,
Shodan
Or babies.
No, they wouldn’t. Don’t you get it? That’s just the difference. Your riposte does not work in an asymmetrical situation.
I’m a bit taken aback by the snooty sniffing about how he’s not a strong leader, not pressing his agenda full speed ahead and damn the Tea Partiers! You may fire when ready, Grizzly Mama! We have not yet begun to negotiate!..
Or some such. First of all, I’ve had quite enough of alpha lemming leadership, thank you very much, especially when conducted by a bumbling bassoon. I didn’t want him or anyone to have the power he was claiming as his legitimate Constitutional right, I don’t want another man to have such power simply because he’s ten times as smart.
Secondly, I think such firm leadership on his part would provoke too much backlash. I doubt there’s anyplace in this country you couldn’t walk outside with a cheapass Dollar Store radio and not pick up some shithead screaming about how Obama’s the AntiReagan, plotting tyranny and insurance.
They’re already barking mad as it is. Its hard to see how a more forceful President would generate enough benefit to counteract that infectious rot. They’d be screaming like nine cats on meth with their tails tied in a knot.
Anyway, if I had to elect Mr. Rodgers or Patton, it ain’t Patton.
Wow. So inventive, so cutting.
“And by the way Newt, when you refer to ‘family values’ do you mean the family you had when you dumped your first wife while she was in the hospital, or the family you now have with your third wife?”.
That makes mo sense. Speeches used to be much longer, and the wording much more extravagant in the use of language than they are now in the days of TV.
Furthermore, Lincoln’s speech was roundly criticized after it was given.
No - it makes perfect sense. What presidents are remembered now for their oratorical skills consistently rising to the occasion? Really it boils down to Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Kennedy and Reagan.
Reagan is remembered for speeches? I highly doubt even the politically-minded remember much other than, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
And under Memorable Presidential Speeches, we really must include Eisenhower’s about the Military-Industrial Complex.
And, for that matter, Carter’s “malaise” speech, which was perhaps the most ill-timed, ill-considered speech ever but had the advantage, such as it is, of being the truth.
And Bill Clinton’s speech at Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral was amazing!
Yeah, I hate it when those stupid woodwind blowhards are mucking things up. I’m not fond of the brass either; they’re a little too militaristic for my taste. I so prefer it when the strings are in charge. They’re the really plucky ones.
Indictment pending.
A successful speech always contains certain specific elements, whether it’s mostly political as all Presidential speeches must be, or persuasive as trial closings or project proposals, or humorous as Leno strives so effortfully toward in his monologues. A speech must have a clearly understood and enunciated Purpose. This is the thing that has brought the speaker there or compelled the assembly. It must have a Theme; what is the emotion, ideal or vision that underlies the single Message of the speech. And it must deliver that Message effectively, whether it is subtextual or explicit, delivered through suggestion and innuendo or bold directness.
A good speech contains those elements and has a consistency of tone and pace. A good speaker moderates his speech to match the ebb and flow of feeling in the text of the speech, but a good speech should be successful in plain text as well.
A great speech does all that and captures something essential about time & place, satisfies emotionally as well as intellectually, crystallizes the Message into a bright lined Idea the listener or reader is brought to with inescapable internal logic.
Brevity is no absolute measuring stick for the quality of a speech. At the Gettysburg dedication, Lincoln perfectly summarized both message and theme in a few scant paragraphs, while repurposing the speech from a memorial to the fallen into a dedication toward the greater ideal for which they fell. No one, in my opinion, has ever done it better, but the speech is great not because of its abbreviation of Theme, but because of the clarity and force of the Message. Lincoln distilled his thinking into a lens through which the entire conflict, and the decades leading to it from the very founding of the nation can be viewed. That is the achievement which makes the Gettysburg Address an enduring marvel.
That sort of intellectual distillation is lovely, useful and proper – and completely useless as persuasion. Dr. King’s “dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and his “mountaintop” speech in Memphis show a great speaker developing his theme more carefully, taking the listener through familiar allegorical territory to deliver him, thirsty and desirous, to an unfamiliar wellspring of hope. It’s a conclusion not yet achieved in the real world but perfectly rendered, justified and imagined in the speech in a way that still works the sensibilities of later beneficiaries of a world much closer to the one imagined by King. The wordcount is irrelevant. The emotional intelligence of these speeches continues to surprise and inform us, and makes these speeches lasting achievements as well.
Obama’s race speech in Philadelphia has been mentioned. If you don’t remember the context of the speech, you should read the text, as it is spelled out for you without embellishment. This is a campaign speech that has the same relationship to a stump speech as grits and gravy has to beef bourguignon. Here is a black politician, campaigning to be elected as the leader of a country that had never by popular vote allowed one of his ‘race’ within the chain of succession for that office. The speech is delivered before the Democratic nominating convention in Denver and after he has been criticized not only by the opposing party but by rivals in his own party for his association – as a congregant – with a black minister accused of sowing racial divisiveness.
I invite any critique of this speech, either text or performance, as an example of the ‘ordinariness’ of Obama’s rhetorical abilities. This speech is to mundane rhetoric, IMO, as this is to this.
The problem with electing a Mr. Rogers is that maintains the current flow which is to corporate America. Last years Supreme Court decision will probably hasten this trend. We need someone bold, like one of the two Roosevelts. Not a dictator, but someone who will genuinely fight for whats right instead of allowing the currents to continue to flow as they are. If Obama had made a courageious effort then I’m quite certain there would have been massive invective launched at him but there was anyway. And if it had meant the loss of House and Senate seats then it would still be worth it. And of course there were huge losses anyway. But if Obama and the democrats had charged ahead full steam, maybe there wouldn’t have been the losses. We’ll never know.
