If you need to issue a statement commemerating National Sheep Herding Day, then yes, the speechwriter writes it, and you deliver it.

When you need to deliver a speech that defines who you are to a mass of voters, then you sit down with speechwrites and make clear what your message is, and, in a collaborative way, come up with some apt phrasings to deliver your message. And you let the writers do the grunt work of editing and suggesting how the flow is working or not working etc. But the product is yours.

The implication that you leave, that somehow Obama's (or Clinton's) speeches are not a true expression of what they wish to convey, because there are speechwrites involved, seems wierd to me.

Maybe you are just trying to defuse the effect of what may be another powerful speech?

I also am not quite clear on what you mean to contrast with those speech snippets. Hillary says, in the snippet you provide, basically - we need a president like me. How is that in any sense more substantive that what Obama says? Its different all right - an appeal to recognize her qualities as opposed to an appeal for citizen involvement.

Props to you for pointing out that Obama did make some substantive points, about the war, habeus corpus, Gitmo etc. I'll assume that Hillary had some points to. But where is the big difference in quantity of substance?

I think it a bit strange and unfair to dismiss Obama's rhetoric as nothing but airy-fairy hot air. He is delivering a message that reminds voters that it is their government, their politics, that they should feel ownership and should be involved and should stand up and express themselves. Seems to me like core messages for any real democrat - ie. someone who believes in democracy, as opposed to being part of a passive lump.

And then I read this from Sorenson here, too.

JFK was not one of our better presidents in terms of getting things done, especially through Congress -- as my family member then admitted.  But, said he, he meant that Obama is "inspiring" and would bring back "Camelot."  

Ugh, I'm so weary of hearing preaching confused with politicking -- and weary of hearing that the early '60 were just wonderful.  Maybe where my family member lived then, in lily-white burbs removed from cities and realities.  But the civil rights movement did not come from nowhere, nor did JFK do much until it got totally out of hand.  The urban riots that came next did not come from nowhere; they came from the anti-Camelot where AAs (those from the legacy of slavery) and others lived desperate lives.

And no matter who writes Hillary's speeches, we have to assume that if she manages to eek out a win at the nomination, she will tack so far to right and leave all her supporters/distorters wondering what happened?

He was the uniter not a divider, remember that? The US has never been been more divided, yet people are still believing this kind of stuff. I can't fall for this stuff again, enough is enough.

I hear Hillary and she's genuine. If her speechwriters are mentioning construction workers and day care centers I'm down with her for mentioning them because she's decided they're her constituents, not the voter who subscribed to Camelot back in the day when the media anointed JFK and AFAIC, Camelot is gone never to be again.

Where does Obama compare himself to JFK or MLK? Other than to point out that he is leading a movement (inclusive, bottom up, like MLK) or bringing back youthful optimism about America and Americans ability to serve (like JFK), I haven't heard him make a direct comparison.

Rhetorically, he is no JFK; he's better. He is a more gifted orator, at least. His rhetoric may in fact be less persuasive, especially in your case. But oratorically, he's on a level with MLK (never heard Lincoln actually deliver a speech, though his rhetoric was air tight).

And promises?? Like HRC's promise to begin withdrawal in 60 days? If she brings 50 people home, will that count? Promising universal(meaning EVERYBODY) healthcare; is that a promise or reality?

Be fair here. It's politics, and people promise what you want, not what they can guarantee.

As for what Obama can deliver, restoring habeas corpus, closing Gitmo, and leading us in the fight against nukes, disease, poverty and genocide all seem like things the president can do by themselves. Climate change will take more work with Congress, but all the rest he can pretty much do alone, though he won't, as he's made clear, b/c he'll rely on the American people to help him. How is that unrealistic? How is it not substantive??

As for his record, he is constantly pointing out the work HE has done to involve citizens in the fight for THEIR communities, HIS work on ethics reform, HIS belief in disarmament and support for it, HIS belief in gov't transparency, particulary HIS support of a database making it possible for AMERICANS to follow THEIR money through the bureaucracy (which I have not heard ANYONE else espouse), HIS work to reform police interrogation in Illinois, HIS willingness to be personally involved in discussions with our enemies, etc. etc.