Obama's Speech

By Big Tent Democrat

Unlike most everyone else, I thought Obama's speech last night was pretty uninspiring and not particularly well delivered. In the end it was too long and boring. But I have heard it all before. While some, like Ezra Klein, think Obama scored a coup by "stepping on Clinton's speech," I saw nothing new in that. The networks have been cutting Clinton off after 10 minutes or so throughout.

What seemed unusual to me, or maybe it was the first time I have sat through the whole thing, was that Obama's 45 minute speech was broadcast uninterrupted. It clearly was less a victory speech than a stump speech. And I wonder if Obama expected that lengthy coverage of it. If the networks thought they were doing him a favor, I think they got it wrong. 15 minutes would have been great. 45 minutes was boring. I would be interested to see what happened on the ratings during the speech.

My two cents.

< The Day After | The Will Of The People: Caucuses Vs. Primaries >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think the long-windedness (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:09:59 AM EST
    just backs up the point many of us have been making: he's not a seasoned politician.  45 minutes may play to the crowd in front of you, but the folks watching at home are going to flip to Dirty Jobs.

    I am so sick of losing presidential elections.  I don't see Obama as experienced enough to take on the attacks in the general election, and I would not blame Bill Clinton one bit if he suddenly had obligations with his foundation that took him away from campaigning for Obama.  McCain has already written off the aa vote and the latte dems.  He's going to come out looking stronger, wiser and more experienced.  Add to that the media turning on Obama, which seems to be happening in drips and drabs...ugh.

    As I have said many times, I will vote for whichever dem gets the slot (so should we all), but I am sick, absolutely sick, at the thought of losing the White House again when so much is on the line.

    Ditto (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by nashville on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:40:29 AM EST
    to this "absolutely sick, at the thought of losing the White House again."  But I am very worried.  Granted Obama is inspirational.  He has turned out all kinds of new young voters.  

    I am just concerned that November will not be a cake walk, even with him.  I know he's not Hillary, but any intellectually honest person should agree he has not undergone the media scrutiny that Clinton has (actually total media hatred!). And by November, please accept the generality, many of those enthused young Obama supporters will be bored and have moved onto the next new thing to get excited about. Not all, I know.  But it will become a question of not if it will happen, but how many.

    Just to add I was worried this summer when the talk was that it would be Hillary.  I was worried about her ability to win the GE. At least with her, we knew what would be thrown at her and how she would respond. With him we do not know the answer to either!


    The two boys in my house (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:46:48 AM EST
    flipped to extreme sports or something like that.  People "noodling" (fishing for catfish by feeling for them under the bank and then shoving their hands down their throats while grabbing the body with the other hand and throwing the whole fish on the bank).

    95% (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:10:03 AM EST
    of that was his standard stump speech.  I can only guess the networks didn't know where to break off of it.  It was on the dull side but contrast it with McCain's.  McCain was doing a Ben Stein impersonation, punctuated with silly grins at awkward intervals.

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:00:32 AM EST
    Obama's speaking style irritates the heck out of me sometimes. When he's good, he's good. But when he's off, as he was in the early debates for example, he's just awful. McCain may be bland, but it's better than the sniggering, mush-mouthed Bush. And probably slightly less dull than Kerry.

    Still chewin' the same bone (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by 1jane on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:41:35 AM EST
    Obama claimed his role as front runner in his speech, the first half. Then he carefully covered plank by plank key areas where he differs from McCain and what he plans to do. He ended the speech in another hard charger, front runner burst. His speech was a clear outline of specific issues. In terms of strategy he opened the window for Ohio and Texas voters to see more of the direction he's headed. He assumed the mantle of the front runner in the speech, an intelligent, specific front runner.

    The Clinton campaign has decided to go even more negative after Obama's decisive victories. A poll of Wisconsin voters revealed nearly 60% of them were turned off by negative campaigning and said Clinton was by far the most negative campaigner. Seems like that strategy has some risks for her going forward.

    The only problem there (none / 0) (#48)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:18:58 AM EST
    is that most of what you said is YOUR opinion. Nothing wrong with that. However as you can clearly see from many of the comments here not everyone agrees with YOUR opinion and have their OWN opinions.

    The whole "Hillary was more negative than Barak" nonsense is mildly amusing. Since headlines in Wisconsin seemed to follow the "Hillary Attacks" and "Obama Responds" rhetoric it is no wonder that many voters, who are not as obsessed with every word and every nuance as those of us who haunt blogs like this, believe what they are told. They know Hillary's worse because they've been told so. And the truth is seldom as important as perception.


    If Obama wants my vote (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:44:17 AM EST
    he might try asking for it.
    As far as I'm concerned, he hasn't yet.

    Following the speeches by McCain, Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by 1jane on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    and Obama MSNBC reported that, "Clinton needs 58% of the remaining pledged delegates just to get in the lead. If you concede Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon, S. Dakota, N. Carolina and Vermont to Obama, she needs 65% of the remaining delegates in order to simply get ahead of him."

    This mornings blogs and news shows give Obama's speech a pretty positive review. Some said the speech was a bit rambling. After learning he delivered the speech to 20,000 people without a teleprompter it became clear he gave the whole speech while referring to just a few notecards.

    The arch of his speech went over well with his partisan crowd of well wishers. After a week long attempt to knock Obama off his stride he gave a speech that was positive throughout.

    Conceding (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    and etc., seems hard to understand how they could calculate the "conceding" number unless they were assigning a margin of victory of Obama.

    This is where NBC in particular overdoes it, just stick to the facts, Obama is in a commanding position. No need to puff the truth here.


    The more of Obama I see, the less (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:52:51 AM EST
    interested I am in his candidacy.
    The guy is DULL.

    Maybe he wouldn't have interrupted her speech (none / 0) (#2)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:57:40 AM EST
    if she had congratulated him, which she hasn't done once during his last 10 wins.
    Why would he let her carry on with a speech that was basically an attack ad?

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:00:58 AM EST
    I am sure Obama's speech schedule was determined in the 10 minutes he heard of Clinton's speech.

    No offense, but are you intent on looking foolish?

    We have higher standards at this web site.

    Please, this juvenile nonsense is not appreciated here. Today I will not tolerate it.

    Be gracious. No gloating.

    I am demanding no lashing out from Clinton supporters as well.

    I demand better from our commenters than some other sites do.


    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by nashville on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:23:44 AM EST
    for allowing people who disagree to debate without the accompanying "hate" that is so prevalent out there.  

    Being a political junkie who is also a Clinton supporter, I  can no longer watch any news channel.  I've cut my self off cold-turkey! I also don't got to most web sites. I was so glad I finally found this one.

    I've had to turn it all off because I have found the media coverage make me resent Obama.  I don't want to be driven not to vote in November after 30 years of voting in every election possible, primaries, run-offs, etc.

    As stated by someone in the Obama Rules thread, Obama will need at least a large proportion of the Clinton supporters.  Sanctimony, gloating, or piling on is not the way to get it.  Reasonable people can disagree...on most things :)


    Interrupting Speech (none / 0) (#18)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:26:18 AM EST
    Who really knows what determined the decision to start speaking 10 minutes after Clinton. It could be that the Obama campaign did in fact listen to Clinton and said, "She's not congratulating/conceding, but making a stump speech.  In that case, let's start" and got Obama out on the stage 10 minutes earlier than planned.

    I'm not trying to be foolish or insult anyone (least of all myself), but it seems reasonable enough to me to speculate that that may have indeed happened.


    It is a fair question (none / 0) (#68)
    by mexboy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    I think to stop posters from questioning either candidates strategy is unfair and stifling to the discussion.

    false (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    that comment should be deleted. It's demonstrably false.

    It wasn't Obama's best speech (none / 0) (#5)
    by maritza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:05:10 AM EST
    but that's okay.  It was more wonkish than inspiring.  But Obama wanted to get all the details out in his speech that is why it was 45 minutes.  It just wasn't about hope and inspiration but wonk too.

    But Obama isn't all about speeches obviously or he would have lost yesterday.

    But it was still BETTER than McCain's and Hillary's.

    It was not effective imo (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:08:29 AM EST
    As Dems maybe it is time to stop bashing Obama (none / 0) (#6)
    by maritza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:06:42 AM EST
    Maybe we should be focusing on how Hillary can inspire people to vote for her rather than bashing Obama.

    How is it bashing? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:15:36 AM EST
    How is it bashing to simply say that Obama's speech was too long and boring? Maybe that's just my impression because I don't like him.

    Still it seems to me that when most people would agree that Americans attention span is about that of a 3 year old, to have that long and rambling of a speech was a mistake.

    And McCain's was, for McCain pretty good. He's not a very inspiring speaker, IMO perhaps again because I don't like him, but I thought he did better last night. Course he really couldn't have gotten much worse.


    it's not bashing (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:44:16 AM EST
    to say a speech was too long and boring. That's opinion and is fine.

    This is not bashing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:08:09 AM EST
    and frankly, as Dems, holding his feet to a progressive fire, something that has NOT been done is what we should have done and need to do.

    Criticizing from the progressive perspective does OBama no harm in a GE.

    Besides, I always say what I think. I will not stop now.


    I love (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:21:44 AM EST
    that SYFPH is now coming from Obama supporters. I've been reaching for "the shoe is on the other foot" regularly for a few weeks now.

    The right puts Obama on top (none / 0) (#16)
    by glennmcgahee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:23:51 AM EST
    This democratic primary season is an eye opener. I have friends in Wisconsin that are George Bush Republicans through and through. Imagine my horror when they told me they were all voting for Obama in Wisconsin's primary last night. How? I asked. They said they were allowed to vote in the primary no matter their political affiliation and were doing it to bring HRC down and help McCain win. Our Democratic primary/caucus system is a mess if this is allowed. Who knew?

    Here, too.. (none / 0) (#40)
    by nashville on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:51:17 AM EST
    A number of my husband's friends, who voted for Bush twice, quite proudly voted for ABC (anything but Clinton) they claim.  Tennesse is an open primary and there was no entusiasm for the republican race so they all voted Obama.  I can not say this strongly enough.  They WILL NOT vote Obama in November.  They will vote republican absolutely.  

    I am not being dismissive of Obama's wins and momentum, but I do think Democrats are being naive if we don't realize some of his margins are due to the ABC vote, which will become republican in November.  

    Sorry friends, it's just the truth.  As I said in about another phenomenon we've seen in this primary, it's not a question of IF it will happen, but the size of it.


    What's our best way out of this mess? (none / 0) (#17)
    by barryluda on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:24:59 AM EST
    I very much want Clinton or Obama much more than McCain as our next president.  But it really does look like the Republicans can just sit back and let us help McCain by fighting each other tooth and nail.  Obama and Hillary, and especially their supporters, are working hard to figure out how to really hurt the other.  And eventually -- if not already -- a lot of Clinton and Obama supporters will prefer McCain over their current "enemy."

    Clinton and Obama are relatively close to one another in their policies.  They both share my values.  It seems obvious to me that either one would be a much better president than McCain.  But it scares me that we Democrats are taking what should be a slam dunk and throwing it away, even though we have two excellent candidates.

    What is the best way for this to end in a way that the Democratic Party can pull itself together to take back the White House?  It seems that either Clinton or Obama need a quick and decisive victory.  If Obama wins in Texas 55 to 45, I think that's decisive and, I'd hope, we'll start to rally around Obama.  What does Clinton have to do that would have her not just win, but win early and decisively?  If she can't win early and decisively, I'd hope that her supporters would start to see that continuing down this path is making it much more likely that we'll end up with President McCain.  Yes, McCain is better than Bush, but that really isn't saying much.

    I respect your concern (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by dk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    but I have to disagree with this.  Poll after poll has shown that an overwhelming majority of democrats have a generally positive view of both Hillary and Barack.  Sure, you see some vitriol on the blogs, but those are the partisans.

    And, being something of a Hillary partisan myself, I'll dare to make a generalization.  I don't think most Hillary partisans hate Obama.  They are just frustrated and concerned because he has run such a non-progressive campaign with regard to domestic issues.  The reliance on the bible and homophobic bigotry has marginalized non-Christians and gay Americans, the Harry & Louise ads have marginalized those who think that health care reform is a critical moral imperative and the linchpin to a progressive economic policy, etc. etc.  

    If I actually heard Obama talking like a liberal, and promoting liberal policy goals, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with him.


    Perhaps trying to find a tone (none / 0) (#20)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:27:12 AM EST
    that could not be dismissed as "messianic." So maybe a little on the defensive.

    On  the other hand, the focus on the speeches, obviously important to the media, and of late to the Clinton camp, shouldn't diminish what is astonishing in the Obama campaign: the ground game.

    If last night's speech was a part of this, as the opening part, where he explained the the caucussing requirements to Texans, certainly was, then perhaps it was more effective, at a local level, than it seemed.  

    Can't hit one out of the park... (none / 0) (#23)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:33:55 AM EST
    ...every time, but his "batting average" is still in Ted Williams' territory, comparatively speaking.

    You have to admit (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:42:56 AM EST
    There is a considerable proportion of people who do not click with the Obama speech.  It just does not do it.  It's not sour grapes, it's not because we prefer Hillary, we just don't buy it.  I truly dislike that it's a given that he is a great orator.  He is an effective orator with a large portion of people, but I think he bombs with another element.  I do not agree that it is a given and if I do not buy into it I am being partisan or irrational.  It just feels contrived and inauthentic, and once you get that feeling, you cannot listen to the guy.  



    Of course (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:36:25 AM EST
    My question is about the choice of speech for the occasion and audience - TV audience.

    It was too long for a tv audience... (none / 0) (#28)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:41:20 AM EST
    ...but probably not too long for the 20,000 or so in attendance.  It's also his opportunity to introduce himself to a lot of people in Texas who haven't necessarily been paying close attention to the race yet.

    I think he started around 9:35 EST and wrapped it up around 10:25, so I'd guess it was at least 10 minutes too long.  He flubbed a couple lines, too, so my guess is that he was a little tired.  He just stood there for a while after the speech, which tends to reinforce that impression.  Obama also sounded a little hoarse at a few points.


    My two previous posts have (none / 0) (#25)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:38:30 AM EST
    failed, and this one may as well. If so, I will assume I am kicked off this list and my profile deleted.

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:44:13 AM EST
    I also had trouble posting this morning (none / 0) (#44)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:52:41 AM EST
    Two posts disappeared after I hit the button, and it said the posts had failed.  But I figured it was just a computer glitch.

    It was (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:40:23 AM EST
    Neither of your comments were deleted. And if I ban someone, I mention it in the comment thread.

    That said, I just deleted the comment of a new poster who titled his comment and called this site "haters." That's the kind of stuff that gets deleted.


    There is a similar comment on (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    BTD's earlier post also.

    Is that how debate works here? (none / 0) (#26)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:39:34 AM EST
    Well, I don't think it's ridiculous. I think it's perfectly plausible that he was waiting in the wings and one of his advisors said "She's not congratulating him - let's cut her off" and he walked out a few minutes early.

    The thing is, we'll never know.  I'm not willing to call any such speculation ridiculous though, but thanks anyway. :)

    It is exactly how debate works (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    You now argue that it is not ridiculous.

    And I leave your argument unanswered as I have nothing to add to my points.

    What's the problem?


    Sorry - (none / 0) (#38)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:50:09 AM EST
    I just think that labeling a plausible speculation about something we both can't know for certain "ridiculous" is not in the spirit of civil debate.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't say that an opposing speculation is simply "ridiculous" without any evidence.

    What is your explanation? Spite? Lack of etiquette?  Could be, but I don't know. I wouldn't say that either of those explanations are ridiculous though.


    You seem rather sensitive (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:54:17 AM EST
    But to be clear, we demand civility directed at the person. If you find my posts ridiculous feel free to say my post is ridiculous.

    Actually (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    please don't call other comments "ridiculous." Disagree with them and explain why. Insults are not appreciated here and will be deleted.  Calling someone else's thoughts "ridiculous" is an insult. Just say you disagree.

    I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    but, like everyone here, I MUST respect your rules.

    To expand on my disagreement (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:58:13 AM EST
    EVERYONE writes or says things that are ridiculous, foolish and stupid at one time or other.

    Doing so make NO ONE stupid, ridiculous or foolish.

    It is the human condition.

    It simply is NOT an insult to recognize that we all, at one time or other, write stupid, foolish, absurd or ridiculous things.

    Indeed, it is rather insulting the intelligence of us all to pretend otherwise.


    What makes you the judge? (none / 0) (#67)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:21:33 PM EST
    Of what is "ridiculous" and not? I think speculating on whether or not and for what reasons Obama may have decided to cut into Hillary's speech in a thoughtful way is not ridiculous.  My speculation may be wrong.

    Here's a ridiculous statement:  "My dog reads books."

    Here's a statement that may be wrong, but is not ridiculous: "Obama may have decided to cut into Hillary's speech because he thought she wasn't congratulating him and was just going to give a stump speech".

    Both statements may be wrong (one clearly is), but one is foolish and ridiculous. You can easily disprove the first one (dog's don't read), but the second one, well - you can't. You could argue that it's not plausible for whatever reasons, but just dismissing it as "ridiculous" does little to foster civil conversation.


    I agree with you (none / 0) (#69)
    by mexboy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    I think  if you delete comments you find "ridiculous" just because they don't seem plausible to you , you cut off the voice of people who have a different view of things. ( I could learn something from them)

    This is an excellent site and I like the civility, but in this case I think it went too far.


    In Big Tent's Defense... (none / 0) (#70)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    ...he didn't delete my comments - just called them ridiculous. :)

    I still haven't heard why they are, but who cares.  I do think that the policing that goes on here can be a tad bit heavy handed (but I've only been a lurker for a long time). But it's a good board and the moderators mean well.


    Obama does, after all, play hardball politics... (none / 0) (#35)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST
    ..I've never bought into his "Mr. Nice Guy" or "New Kind of Politics" schtick.  I think everything Obama does is highly calculated and he plays nasty as he can get away with.  Maybe he just decided to cut her off out of spite.  But I can just as easily imagine he thought, "No congratulations" - okay then, here I come.

    I don't see how it (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    would have mattered either way.  I'm sure she wouldn't have dwelled on congratulating him.  

    I recall Clinton getting cut off recently by CNN because she launched into her stump speech.  That was in Tennessee after South Carolina.  I guess if you win you can stump all you want.


    I don't get it (none / 0) (#42)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:51:23 AM EST
    I am generally happy with both of our candidates, and I have to say that I did not find Obama's speech either boring or too wonkish.  By the way, most polling, for what little it's worth, shows Obama doing better against McCain than Hillary, so the sky is not falling.  Further, I completely fail so see that she is in some way the more progressive candidate.  There is nothing in their voting history so suggest that.  The fact is, based on the campaign she has been running, Hillary has been listening to horrendous advice.  Putting all your eggs into the Texas basket based on the way delegates are allocated -- and failing to get your delegates registered in Pennsylvania -- these are big big mistakes that border on incompetence.  Unfair?  Look, I was an Edwards guy -- my candidate, clearly the one with the most progressive rhetoric of the three, experienced an almost total media blackout.  It has always been like this, you have to find a way to get across.  

    Please (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    For the last time. Keep ALL of your comments ON TOPIC.

    After your statement of approval of the speech you veered wildly off topic.

    Please do not do so again.


    obamas speech (none / 0) (#50)
    by AnnL on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:34:39 AM EST
    What I got from the speech was that "change comes from the bottom up" so if nothing gets done in his administration (assuming he's elected) it won't be because he didn't lead from the top.  You'll only have yourselves to blame if the war isn't over, you still don't have a job or health care or a secure retirement.  You forgot to close your eyes and chant "change" and really believe it.  
    I don't understand why the Clinton campaign doesn't hammer him on Social Security, he wants to "change" it and oddly enough so does McCain.  Do  they want to do the same to S.S. that they did for pension funds and health care?  Do they want to leave you on your own again?  Let's nail these people on issues that matter to real people.  Not this phony "change" rhetoric.

    speeches, tight race is EXACTLY what we need (none / 0) (#51)
    by skiben911 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:39:37 AM EST
    The tighter the race gets, the more interesting it is.  I would say that that vitality is the perfect prescription for ailing participation in our representative democracy.

    I've listened to 45 minute speeches from both Clinton and Obama.  I'm thankful of the opportunity to hear them in a widely distributed format, in hopes that others, maybe not as politically minded or concerned, might get the chance to hear the whole message, straight from the horse's mouth.

    I agree with some posters that our two candidates' platforms are very similar.

    However, the delivery of those messages, and the sentiment contained therein, is a HUGELY important difference in our choice for POTUS.  Example:  you can get news from, say, 12 different stations at 6 pm.  Most carry the same or similar headlines.  Why do we choose one over the other?  Because we like the delivery. One station's delivery rings more true to us than another.  Delivery changes content.

    I would call it a lot of things, but not "boring".

    I'm an Obama fan, but... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Meurs on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:45:08 AM EST
    I'm entirely bored by his speeches these days.  A little goes a long way. I'd like to see him speak more off the cuff.

    I much prefer him in interactive venues these days.

    I am to the point of (none / 0) (#54)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    waiting for Obama to condemn the sexism displayed plus reiterate his progressive values....In last nights speech I didnt hear that....Until that is done, I cannot imagine trusting him enough to pull that lever in November...IMO....

    Senator Obama sounded like he was sick (none / 0) (#55)
    by tsteels2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:58:23 AM EST
    Like he had a cold or something.  That's why I think it (his speech) was not as inspiring as it could have been.

    no teleprompter either... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Meurs on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:14:07 AM EST
    He's always weaker w/o one.

    Interesting that last night, Hillary used one.


    Because (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    it was a new speech. Too bad the networks cut her off so we couldn't hear it.