I usually make a point of not watching convention speeches, State of the Union addresses, and the like, because I can't stand politicians' blather. But I couldn't resist the opportunity to watch such a historic event--the acceptance speech of the first African American major party nominee.
So here's my purely stylistic take. I've heard Obama's speeches a few other times, and found him to be an unusually compelling speaker, in large part because he delivers his speeches so naturally, as if he's speaking extemporaneously. I was disappointed at first, this time. I thought he got off to a slow start, and sounded like he was reading from a text prepared by someone else. His initial attacks on McCain also seemed that way. Once he got past that, though, he got better and better, until he reached near perfection when he spoke of MLK. I would have ended the speech there.
Beyond that, I thought he should have looked more often directly at the camera, and less at the audience--better to play to tens of millions than to 84,000. And the missing visual, from my perspective, was Bill and Hillary cheering wildly for their recent opponent.
Consider this an open thread on the speech.
UPDATE: Why no comment on the substance from me? I'm not a political expert, so I have no idea how the speech will "play in Peoria." And I can't otherwise take the substance of a speech like this seriously. Some people watch politicians give speeches like this and see statesmen. I see Joe Isuzu.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Weighing In On Obama's Speech:
- Obama's Speech:
Me too. So I didn't watch. Nor will I watch the speeches next week. Unless McCain chooses Sarah Palin as his running mate. I'll *watch* that one. Just won't listen to it.
Your comment doesn't add much of value to the discussion.
Descartes much?
Conservatives should really like him more, he doesn't dwell on race, he talks about personal responsibility a great deal, and he seems pretty religious.
Did Obama offer anything that here that is fundamentally different from the Gore and Kerry acceptance speeches?
:::yawn:::
As speeches go, BHO was fantastic, or maybe my expectations are just low from GWB.
rage.jpg
His speech was full of new programs he wants to propose, budeting items, and nice stories about why people should elect him... for the Senate. He campaigns as a legislator, and as President, he will try to govern as a legislator. Look at how he thinks about the budgeting process- he is going to use the (unconstitutional) power of the line item to go through the budget as Presidnet? Can't do that Barak.
Also, didn't mention once our Constitution, our founding fathers, wars we fought to uphold the Constitution, or any of the main ideas in the Declaration of Independence. Government is instituted to protect life, liberty, and property- not to divert my money to government run schemes. This guy should not be President.
Anyway, that's my theory at least.
Let me guess: You voted for Bush.
Conservatives, yes. Libertarians, not so much.
"Government is instituted to protect life, liberty, and property- not to divert my money to government run schemes."
Let me guess: You voted for Bush."
Or Jefferson.
Obama made a bunch of promises, most of which he can't and won't deliver on because America is not a socialist country. there are a lot of entrenched interests that will prevent him from delivering, too, even Democrat ones. For instance, he isn't going to cut unnecessary and broken government programs or make the other ones more efficient. that is just a laughable assertion. Oh yeah, he has no record of delivering any sort of "change" or whatever liberals call socialism these days.
Just another big government liberal. who needs or wants that?
Louisiana Purchase.
Is that life, liberty or property?
A government run scheme, perhaps?
As for the speech: exactly what [A Conservative Teacher] said.
Funneling that money to more needed programs = more money for welfare, Jesse and Al's pet programs, vote buying, union waste, programs to make Joe Biden liberal lovers like Orin happy, a return to a greater welfare state, more race based programs, increased government support for race baiting, tearing down any border fences constructed before he was elected, tax rebates to people who don't actually pay taxes, etc etc etc.
Says the "Dog"
This speech was half red meat and half laundry list. *This* is when he should have unleashed the soaring rhetoric. This should have been his introduction to the American people, but it was as much about McCain as Obama.
This was a momentous occasion, but a small speech in comparison. The delivery was good, but it lacked vision. It was no more than the sum of its parts, when Obama is capable of so much more.
I think this speech was too negative, too strident, and too partisan, I realize I'm in the minority here, but I think this speech was a flop.
Now I've really heard everything.
And the blessed alternative is ... John 'Amnesiac' McCain?
At least Obama doesn’t refer to Vladimir Putin as “the President of Germany” and educate Diane Sawyer on the “Iraq/Pakistan border” - he actually has his marbles intact.
Awesome speech. Brilliant. This man does America proud.
I’m an Irish/Canadian with a deep fondness for our neighbors to the south, and it has sickened me to see how the current administration has brought the name “America” into disrepute.
Obama:
“What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose - our sense of higher purpose. And that’s what we have to restore.”
Right on.
Let me guess: You voted for Bush.
I.e. the supposed conservative who said that when people are hurting it's the government's job to step in and help.
Of course, Obama classifies himself as African American and maybe that should be a trump of the opinions of others. But it was an amusing call.
Unfortunately, while many of those would be nice, Obama has promised to increase defense spending. Personally, I think it should be going the other way. We spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military. To my thinking, having such a large standing military encourages our leaders to use it in situations where they should not. We should have a military large enough to defend our country, but not one large enough to make us the world's policeman.
True, but if F.W. de Klerk emigrated to the United States and became a citizen, while he would be an American citizen of (South) African origin, I doubt many would call him an "African-American."
If you had watched any of the last several State Of The Union addresses, you might have noticed that this is something that Bush makes an obvious point of doing.
- Pat Buchanan
I once thought Obama had good ideas to offer, but he's just one more left-wing politician.
What he actually said is this:
I highlighted the parts that contain certain words you grabbed. You''re quoting him dishonestly. Why am I not surprised? What you're doing is very much like what McCain is doing, when he runs a dishonest ad (video) that takes Obama's words (video) out of context.
And your distortion is painfully ironic, because Obama's life perfectly embodies the idea of 'pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps,' and McCain's life perfectly embodies the exact opposite of that.
With any luck, McCain will pick Romney, and then the Biden-Romney comparison will express exactly the same striking reality.
I dont see how this is either interesting or a twist.
All in all, I thought it was a very well delivered speech that showed what we already know: Obama delivers a good spech. On substance, I wasn't terribly impressed. I think Democrats have come to believe that the country is in awful shape simply if there is a Republican in the White House. I though the "we are in such a bad place" aspect of the speech was overblown, and the laundry list of things he would do to fix the country laughable.
On thing that struck me that I haven't seen anybody mention is when he said something to the effect of we should be our brother's keeper. That immediately called to mind the ads running in TX concerning Obama's African half-brother living in abject poverty.
Your comment immediately called to mind the fact that you, and the people behind those ads, actually know nothing about what Obama may have or have not done to help his half-brother, or to try to help him.
Speaking of half-siblings, let us know if there's any indication that Obama pretends that this person doesn't even exist. Because I actually know of someone who regularly describes herself as an only child, even though she has half-sisters (link, link).
Thanks for the support, but what else is new. Republican "caught in an outright lie" is like 'sun sets in west.'
Aside from the example of McCain's 'tiny' ad, some of my favorite examples are these:
- we found the weapons of mass destruction
- he wouldn't let them in
- a wiretap requires a court order
And there are other examples all over this blog, that are highlighted by me and others on a regular basis. One recent example is here (since writing that post I have confirmed that the anecdote supposedly in the book is definitely not in the book).
Some facts about that person are here. The disgraceful ad is here.
Of course this is the same Texas GOP that had a party platform which officially proclaimed that "America is a Christian nation" (link, pdf). I guess these people never heard of the Constitution.
That was in 2006. In the 2008 version, they toned it down, but only slightly (pdf). Maybe it was because the ADL complained.
Another link about Cindy McCain's neglect of her own half-sisters is here. The Texas GOP is not in a strong position to make complaints about people who allegedly neglect family members.
Having a poor brother in Africa doesn't make Obama any more or less competent to be president. But that doesn't mean his own oratory can't be used against him to prove that maybe he's being a wee bit disingenuous. Obama's character and forthrightness (and McCain's and the VPs) are fair game ...
The ad is effective only with people who are simple-minded, ignorant, and easily-fooled. In other words, the ad is effective mostly with people who were going to vote GOP anyway.
But the ad offers no proof that he's being "a wee bit disingenuous." That's why it can only be effective with people who have a limited capacity for critical thinking.
I don't think Obama will be elected. But it won't be because he wouldn't be a good leader. It will be because Bush, Cheney, and Rove have so changed the face of political discourse in this country that the majority, a very slight majority, have come to believe division is the path to political power, and sadly they are right. We are a deeply divided country and that, more than anything else, is the biggest threat to the union over the long-run.
When in Rome I think it's proper to act like a Roman. So as I spend time in this particular Rome, I pay attention to the behavior of the local Romans. Like the Romans who use the word 'libtard' (examples here, here, here, here, here, here and here). And the Romans who use the word 'Odumbo' (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). And the Romans who use the word 'Obambi' (examples here, here and here). And the Romans who use the word 'Obamabot' (examples here, here and here). And the Romans who address other commenters using variations on the words 'imbecile' and 'idiot' (examples here, here, here, here, here and here). And for spice, there's the Roman who mentioned "the stOOPID Obamabots on this blog." And the Roman who used "Rat" as a contraction for 'DemocRat.' I could easily harvest a very large number of additional examples, but hopefully these three dozen (roughly) are enough to make the point.
You said this:
As far as I can tell, this number of the above-referenced commenters have been banned: zero. Therefore I'm wondering if you can articulate the standard by which I am "becoming a troll" and they are not.
I said that Republicanism is correlated with being simple-minded, ignorant, and easily-fooled. Some data backing this up can be found here. Kerry beat Bush by 11% among voters with at least some postgrad study. I realize some very educated people are highly ignorant. However, it is at least arguably the case that ignorance is associated with lack of education. Therefore this data supports my claim, that Republicanism is correlated with ignorance.
Some other relevant data can be found via here, where I showed that various social pathologies (divorce, unwed mothers, teen births and pregnancies, violent crime, alcohol abuse, meth-lab seizures, STDs etc) are more prevalent in red states. I would contend that social pathologies are correlated with being simple-minded and ignorant.
I would also contend that electing GWB twice tends to indicate that Republicanism is correlated with being easily fooled.
It seems to me that a troll, virtually by definition, is not someone who makes simple factual claims supported by data. Therefore any clarification you can offer would he helpful.
Also, I wonder if there's any connection between your threat and a recent exchange between you and me where I accused you of misquoting someone. That exchange ended here, yesterday, in a thread that seems to have been locked abruptly.
I have a hard time digesting some of these debunking attempts a few of you have been making in these forums. When are you people going to wake up and realize your current presidential candidate will use the same "theories" and failed policies that our current administration drove this country into the ground with. All in the name of their own prosperity. Corporate loop-holes and unjustified wars are not going to have any long term effect helping the "average joe" feed and provide health care for his family. We're going to need to roll our sleeves up and take back our jobs and make our politicians lobby for affordable health care and public instituitions(such as better schools, free health clinics, and putting that money being spent on failed programs into programs that will create jobs for our citizens ie.,better public transportation) not a war in Iraq that has only helped the grossly over powered oil tycoons.
You need to vote for Barrack Obama as our next president. He is not going to stop at becoming the first black president of the United States, but will usher in a golden era of industrialization and technological advancements that all in this great nation will benefit and flourish from.
He was there for the DNC, to unify the Democratic delegates and accept his candidacy. I don't think he was there to dance like a marionette for the media. After all it was funded by Denver and the viewers at home got to enjoy the fruits of their labor. As far as Hillary and Bill go, they weren't the ones accepting the candidacy and I actually thought it was better to focus on our future and what it was going to look like with Obama/Biden as our leaders. Not whether Hillary and Bill approve.(which no doubt in my mind they did)
Be that as it may, I happened to read today several posts on several different threads in which you made similar comments. I don't police every obnoxious thread, but if I see the same commentor being a repeat violator, I do.
You don't seriously believe that the few thousand delegates in Denver were a more important audience that the 40 million watching on t.v.?
In my opinion, he showed good presence of mind by speaking to the few thousand delegates and tens of thousands there at the DNC. I'm sure a man, trying to sell himself to millions of voters in the United States, would have a hard time not to focus on that camera. He went there did his job and didn't let the media grab his attention.
"Since you use education as a proxy, I'm sure you know that the least-educated people in the U.S. tend to be Democrats. "
I'd like know where you got the statistics that prove that. I live in southern Illinois just out of the St. Louis metro east and around here, the poor and uneducated just barely earning their living expenses line-up to get another Republican in office. I guess your statement just depends on what region in the U.S. you happen to be standing. But you should see the view from here.
It's a minor point, but 80,000 is not my idea of a "few."
You haven't provided anything remotely resembling a reason to dismiss the data I presented. Waving your hand doesn't make the data disappear.
The data I showed regarding social pathologies tends to indicate otherwise. Anyway, the voting pattern is not simple. Kerry did win, barely (by 1%), in the "No High School" category. Bush, on the other hand, had his biggest margin (8%) in the "Some College" category. But Kerry had a wide lead (11%) in the "Postgrad Study" category. So it's probably a mistake to try to summarize this pattern in one flat statement. But it seems that a little education turns a person into a Republican, and then more education turns a person into a Democrat.
In any event, the statement I made that you don't like was not gratuitous. It is backed by data which looks credible to me. Let me know if the people who routinely get away with using, say, "libtard" as a mantra are in a position to make a similar claim.
With all due respect, that strikes me as a feeble dodge, and it's the same dodge you used just a few weeks ago, here:
This is my interpretation of what that amounted to: 'here's an anecdote that discredits Obama, but please don't accuse me of trying to discredit Obama, because what I'm saying about him is true about other politicians; by the way, please ignore the fact that I'm saying it about him, not someone else, and it's not exactly easy to find an instance of me saying something like this about his opponent, even though theoretically his opponent does something like this every day.'
In other words, we'll see if you bring out Mr. Isuzu's photo again when McCain gives his big speech.
It's still pointedly unclear what you regard as "similar comments." You haven't even taken a stab at trying to explain why the roughly three dozen examples I showed you get a pass. They clearly reflect the behavior of "repeat violator[s]," by any rational standard of trolling. Maybe you didn't know about those examples before, but you know about them now. Will those commenters be banned, or threatened? Or is there some mysterious logic that places them in a special protected category?
Republicans are more principled, trustworthy, fair, compassionate, and honest than Democruds. Please don't ban me.
fair-tax breaks for the elite 5% while the middle class carry the burden of paying off the unbelievable national deficit
compassionate-sending thousands of our troops to their death all in the name of record breaking profits
honest-is it possible that any adminstration in this nations history has been more corrupt and unethical than our current one
principled-McCain wants nothing more than to use our countries forces for more personal gain how could anyone say that violence, war, and unneccesary occupation is a principle this country needs to embrace.
democruds-Sandy G name calling does nothing more than shows your inability to have a meaningful adult conversation....GROW UP
*is not
I did "actually read the accompanying text," and I gave you my interpretation of it.
Your claim that you "always have this reaction" will be either be supported or undermined when it comes time for you to tell us how you feel about McCain's big speech. Mr. Isuzu's photo will either come out of cold storage again, or it won't.
The platter I'm using to hand you the information couldn't be much more silver than it already is. Two or three commenters are responsible for the vast majority of the nearly three dozen examples I cited.
Unless you're using a very old steam-powered computer, it couldn't possibly take you more than a minute or two to click on some of the examples I so carefully organized for you. That slight effort on your part will be quite sufficient to indicate the identities of the repeat offenders who are mysteriously still welcome to comment here despite being repeatedly offensive over a very long period of time.
Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of banning, and I'm not asking you to ban anyone. I'm just pointing out a disconcertingly obvious absence of consistency.
You've shown an impressive number of examples of me doing such a thing: zero. But since I do it "routinely," it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with some proof. I'll be waiting patiently.
If what I said is "directly contradicted by the text," then it should be no problem for you to point out where the contradiction is. That's something else you oddly omitted from your complaint. So hopefully you'll let us in on the mystery and tell us where the contradiction is.
And speaking of unexplained mysteries, maybe sooner or later you'll get around to dealing with these questions that you've been ducking for a long time.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.