Obama's speech inspired me for 2 minutes, then bored me silly

I want to get inspired and excited by Obama. I really do. Especially now that he has a better chance of becoming the nominee. I keep looking for something to grab onto and get fired up by.

But I keep getting the feeling he is a master of style over substance. Where's the Beef?

Watching his victory speech last night,for example, I did get swept up in the moment. The guy has a very inspirational style. He's got the looks, the charisma, the voice.....His obvious connection with trhe crowd was also palpable, and you could feel the room almost exploding with excitement as he spoke.

But once the glow of that wore off, I found myself getting really bored. After being impressed by the music, the lyrics left me cold.

Rather than a political sppech or statement of principles, it sounded like an endless string of Oprah/Anthony Robbnins/Norman Vincent Peale self-help positive-thinking cliches pasted together with a few references to the safer side of Martin Luther King.

You can succeed if you believe....We can come together if we all have hope....We're not a red America or a blue America, we are one America. We can become a nation of ordinary people doing extroadinary things....etc. etc. etc.

As a national cheerleader, it was great. But as an outline of exactly where he wants to take the country if nominated and elected, I kept scratching my head, waiting for something....

One thing, for example, that seems to be missing in his references to civil rights and MLK, for example, is the direct honesty and teeth that King had. He wasn't merely asking people to be nicer to each other. King was angry. King was challenging formidable forces and entrenched interests. If you look at King's speeches -- especially the ones from his latter years -- King was not just a wonderful orator about wonderful goals. He directly attacked what he saw as the causes of the ills that he was fighting. He directly criticized the economic causes of inequality.

I get the feeling that Obama takes half of that, the sunny side, but leaves out what King really was saying and what King was really fighting for....That's an important word. King was FIGHTING. He wasn't just making everyone feel good.

I guess I hope that Obama is not just an impressive blank slate that will be manipulated by the same powers that he says he is trying to change.

WTF to they mean in adult terms.

Look - whoever is the Dem nominee has my vote - that's a given. But whoever the nominee is is going to have to attract a fair amount of conservative dems and independents. So, gloat and get snarky all you want - pretty words do not win elections.

"At a candidates forum last week, the moderator asked each of us to say something nice about the other candidates. Kerry Healey rather grudgingly said, 'Well, he can give a good speech.' She would know this not because she has ever attended a speech of mine but because she has them filmed by this fine fellow here. But her dismissive point, and I hear it from her staff, is that all I have to offer is words. Just words.

"'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words.

"'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words.

"'Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.' Just words.

"'I have a dream.' Just words.

"Let me say it before you do: I am no Dr. King, no President Kennedy, no FDR, no Thomas Jefferson. But I do know that the right words, spoken from the heart with conviction, with a vision of a better place and a faith in the unseen, are a call to action."

Deval Patrick, October 27, 2006

He outspent Edwards 6-to-1, has the backing of the corporate media, and still only got 38% of the vote supposedly. Doesn't look like much of a movement to me. Like Bush, Obama is a media creation and I for one am getting sick and tired of it.

hollow...

One of the most passive generations in history. So passive they frighten themselves.

I've taught politics to this generation for going on 5 years now at two universities. They themselves admit that they are crippled by an inability to act in any way. Voting is the most active they get. They believe in nothing but non-violence. The only thing they understand is the logic of brands. I gave them an assignment to theoretically battle their way out of historical situations using the historically available tools and they were unable to figure out what to do CONCEPTUALLY. Many said they'd rather die than fight for their communities. Others said they'd rather be prostitutes than go out on strike because management always wins anyway.

These kids are DEMORALIZED. They are also depressed and restless and lost. Sure they look to Obama because he tells them he is their candidate. But WHY would he be THEIR candidate any more than any of the others? Because he markets to them? Because he's 9 years younger?

I've listened to them say that he'd be better for them because he's closer to their age. As if old politicians are going to do things for old people, so a young politician would do things for them, like, I don't know, help college tuition assistance or something.

That is literally the depth of thought I have seen.

I guess it's because he promises things like "hope" and "change." But, frankly, when I met him at my university last year, he didn't seem much interested in talking to the students or anything like that. So I really don't feel that he's offering anything specific to the younger generation.

I think you're just throwing some slogans out there that don't really mean anything.

I haven't seen the steel in him yet, but hope that others who have seen him up close have... I guess we'll wait and see.

that takes leadership, and that's what these elections are about!

That's what I want to know.

Hope is good. Unity is good.

But at this point in our history what is necessary is a set of core values and the willingness to face and deal with uncomfortable realities that aren't going to be solved by inspiration and hope alone.

You'll never know, will you?

See, that's a problem for me. Even though I don't "support" Edwards, I still take the time to watch and listen to him speak. How can I know, otherwise, why I don't support him. I've also read his policy papers.

Problems are solved persuading others to join you in making that happen...whether it is voters, or congress or whatever. The art of politics is persuasion...not Revolution that won't be televised.

At the end of his speech, Obama talks about what hope actually means.....it ain't just a word he uses....it's is way more profound than that. But I guess you'll never know about that, since you are not willing to listen to one of the greatest speakers we have ever encountered in politics. Guess you'll be missing out. :shrug:

only minutes of the speech that weren't boring. Big difference. I hope you are evaluating the candidate's views on issues closer than you evaluated Armstead's statement. This could be what's happening with Obama's supporters. They want to believe so much in the change that they hope he will bring that they jump ahead to their desired conclusions without really, carefully analyzing what he is actually saying vs. the views of the other candidates. I agree with Armstead's initial judgement. I had already felt the same things last night.

I've listened to him speak a number of times.

I just don't hear anything that pins down where he stands in a very direct sense. I also don't see him really putting the powers-that-be on notice. Sure he says that, but it's like apple pie.

I compare that to Edwards. You may think Edwards is too negative or "angry," but Edwards mixes hope with a clear description of what is wrong, and what is required to fix the problem. And Edwards also acknowledges that no gains can be achieved without a fight.

I also compare the effect of an Obama speech with other speeches I've heard (or read) by others. Paulk wellstone, for example, tread on equally lofty ground as Obama, but he also balanced that with realistic assessments and was not afraid to stir the pot of the status quo.

I hope I catch the Obama bug, but not yet.

We need a leader with steel determination and a willingness to fight, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a bully.

We've had eight years of bullies.

ENOUGH.

Sigh

you can be tough and resolute, without bullying, no?

About all that's wrong about america. His solution. We'll fix it!

Those two microphones that he kept playing with his manicured hands kind of distrated me. The fact that he didn't thank his supporters, the unions or congratulate the winner was telling. The audience behind him seemed to have heard it all before.

So, I liked Obama's speech better. It was way more visionary.

I ws out of the room doing otehr things when Edwards made his speech.

It wouldn't surprise me that it was a downer. More than any of his competitors, Edwards had the most at stake, and I'm sure he was disappointed and frustrated that he didn't pull it off.

but we all can nevertheless have hope.

If Obama is attracting people who otherwise wouldn't have been there, then you could say they were really not that interested in the political process, so probably aren't experts on what makes a candidate effective? And it's not giving pretty speeches.

Which is fine.

You logic is forced though. It almost sounds like a veiled jealousy.

"manicured hands" show what level of thinking you are using. Use Republican talking points to deride candidates other than your own tand then claim to be on the bandwagon of vision and hope. This to me shows the caliber of thinking Obama's empty oratory attracts.

He did thank his supporters. He did thank the union support. His 'manicured' hands? Gee...can you get any more petty?

I was one of the audience members behind him on that stage. Every single person on that stage, in in that room last night, supports Edwards with everything they have. Did we seem bored to you? I'm watching Obama on TV at this very moment. There is a woman who just yawned. What does that mean to you? Do you think she has heard it all before? Maybe she is just tired? Yes, that is probably it. I even saw Obama touch the microphone!!! His hands looked a little, shall I say it? Manicured.

Of course you liked Obama's speech better. I would expect an Obama supporter to like it better. I liked Obama's speech, too. I thought it was a great victory speech.

I liked Edwards speech and yes, I have heard it all before. He has a remarkable way of staying on message. I believe in that message and every single person in that room last night believes in it too. He said exactly what we wanted to hear.

Apples and oranges... different times, different causes, different people. Having said that, I know what you mean. I've never been able to watch more than a few minutes of Barak's speeches. Something turns me off and I think you have a handle on it... he seems a little boyish, immature and more than a little boring although he is cute and good eye-candy for this TV world in which we live.

Barack speech had more specifics as to how he would achieve his goals than Edwards'. If you had watched more than just a few minutes, you would know that. Hillary was nice, but her speech was pretty run of the mill.

I wouldn't bet on it myself. Most people have WAY less than I have, in my experience. Perhaps you confuse vision with gullibility.

brave a freezing night right after the holidays.

I believe that leadership is required to move people to action.....in this society.

There's also the matter that MLK was not in a popularity contest. He didn't have to play nice in his speeches.

But, please realize that this was a victory speech, not a stump speech.

I have seen Obama speak many times, and he has been very passionate.

Watch his JJ dinner speech again to see his passion, and then read part of his anti-war speech from 2002 to see how he'll be a fighter.

JJ Dinner(part of it at least) - http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid900841612/bclid900668312/bctid1312371767

Anti-war speech from 2002 - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

...

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil."

I have seen some of his stump speeches too.

If he's the nominee, I'm sure I'll become more enthusiastic, as happened with Kerry last time.

But ultimately, for me what is most important is that he demonstrates that he really does have a progressive/liberal core of values that he is willing to take risks for.

The solutions to our probs is essential and Obama should be soon working on what exactly he would do if/when in the WH.

Hope is always good...Prime Rib is more ono....

...it's the one where he describes the woman in the back of the room in South Carolina who says "fired up...go get 'em" or something like that...and it wasn't very good.

that can fire up people like Obama can do.

Bill Clinton, JFK, RFK, FDR and now, IMO -- OBAMA!

:bounce:

America needs OBAMA!

As you can see, I support him.
But America needs him in the Democratic party to WAKE UP AMERICA, get the attention of the new voters and the sleepy heads that won't get out and march and VOTE!!

Let's stop bashing one of the greatest speakers of this generation.

If he doesn't get the nomination,we still need this man to WIN in support of Edwards or HC or any other candidate.

And HC better stop slapping him around because if she gets the nomination,he just might not want to campaign for her and that would be a shame.

I'm a Clark supporter and would vote for him anytime, anywhere.

I was happy to see him with HC!

I will be voting Democratic in the election ~ may the best man or woman win. :)

Wes had to do the "Tom Harkin" bit from 2004, standing onstage close by his candidate after the loss.

His support of Clinton is virtually his only decision in 4 years that I haven't been able to get behind, unequivocally. Instead, I've moved toward Obama as the best of this year's candidates.

One thing we know about Wes, he won't stop working for what he believes in. So, one of my hopes is that Obama will win, and quickly. I'm guessing that once he's the nominee, Wes will work for him, and hard, just as he did for Kerry. I hope that will heal any divisions between them. Heck, people have even picked their bitter primary opponents as VP's many times.

Or, Hail Mary full of grace, a brokered convention where they all turn to him? OK, I'm reaching.

I think his speaking ablities are vastly overrated. He reads teleprompters in a preacher style cadence with loud conviction.
When he's speaking on his own or answering questions, however, he stumbles and doesn't really make points well.

Similar to George W, who reads teleprompter speeches well, but he doesn't speak his own thoughts well at all.
Nobody considers Bush a good speaker because he can read a teleprompter.

Hillary, btw, seemed to give her post-caucus speech ad-lib, but it's not always easy to tell.

Funny how so many people have this perception.

Democracy can be a tyranny of the deluded: it's one of its few weaknesses.

I think Obama's an empty suit. But we're a nation of empty suits these days, so he's an appropriate choice.

Thank you. I'm pocketing that slogan for future reference. Nice take on de Tocqueville.

You have hit on THE major weakness of democracy.

If the majority believe with conviction that the sun revolves around the earth, which is flat -- because anyone can observe the sun moving while the earth stands still, right -- just go outside, my friends, watch it rise and set...

And of course we know that our Earth must be the exact center of a two-sphere universe while everything else revolves around it (didn't Aristotle say something like that?).

Was that not the majority's CW for a long, long time? Just common sense, folks -- EVERYBODY knew it was so -- God help anyone who dared argue with these "facts." Then the telescope was invented and a few brave geniuses came along: Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe, Kepler... men who cataloged meticulous observations and knew how to construct mathematical models.

POINT: Majority rule can be downright scary. Witches have been burnt at stake while an enthusiastic populace cheered on their tormenters -- yes, a loud and vocal majority of thugs.

There's a sig line somewhere (sorry, can't remember whose but thank you):



Two Cheers for Democracy, wrote E.M. Forster. I guess that's enough.

Not a word was new...outside of commenting on the turnout. Bill looked devastaed,btw.

The Clinton-color-of-the-day-in N.H. is black,btw.

I voted for Obama in 2004. All that year long I was thrilled by his speeches and impressed by his interviews. He wasn't just "articulate," he was witty and savvy and smart.

Now I feel like he's come courting me anew with the same patter. So far as I'm concerned, he's in reruns - what, are his writers on strike too? What's more I've been turned off by the slapfest between him and Clinton. It's made both of them look petty and small.

I don't think he's trying to do MLK. I think he's JFK Lite. More face. Less thrilling.

There's no substance to the man, and I cannot get excited about him no matter how much I try. Our best bets lie with Edwards and Richardson now.

..20-somethings. They're all about style. Ask them about the substance....and wait for crickets.

What is so new about Obama? Name ONE THING that is new about him that is not also true of Edwards.

One thing. He speechifies well. And what else?

Are you screaming that or just demanding?

Help John. Give him $$$,today. He's worth the investment.

Are we going to get a Red Cross transfusion from Obama? Will just anybody 'new' do? Just as long as they have nothing to do with the bad 'old' policians? Unreal.

You should listen to some of the moonie things you say, Katz. 'Obama is the leader of a new American generation.' 'Obama brings new blood to the party.' etc, etc, etc.

We don't need 'new blood', Katz. We need tough, smart politicians that understand how to turn the huge machinery of the federal government around from eight years of extreme misuse. The one thing we don't need is someone who gives vapid preachery speeches off of teleprompters and understands next to nothing about executive leadership or the federal government.

You want us all to just "be happy" and follow "the one" around like moonies. How about instead you get back to reality and join us in putting the best Democratic politicians back in power to push these Publicans down and out?

You know what, just never mind. We're not joining the cult. If cultists want to rejoin the real world then great; welcome back.

..just who is the most glamorous, stylish, and whoever their friends are voting for. The "ooh-ahh!" factor is big with them.

Know nothing of history - particularly the history of the Dem Party or its roots. Know nothing of the issues or the various candidates policies regarding the issues.

They know Facebook and MySpace and what their friends are doing.

I'm not saying they're ALL like that but many of them are. I've talked to a few of 'em recently. And have known quite a few more. Some are quite informed. Many are not. And more are badly informed.

Obama has always left me wanting. If the guy had a longer, more compelling bio, and some gray around the edges I'd be more interested to hear him, but he's all about "hope", and being young, and representing change.
There's a lot more to it than that.

after an Obama speech. I've thought he might be good as Edwards' running mate. Give him 8 years with a real fighter, and then he might be ready to lead.

There's so much going on here - with the effed-up American psyche - a bunch of white people voting for Obama because it makes them feel better about themselves. But that's another thread, for another time.

The only specifics that have stuck with me from Obama are his use of GOP talking points on Social Security and his trashing of liberals.

Nice observation. I disagree 100%.

addition not subtraction seemed to be the substance

want as President.
That and his supporters are...uh...passionate...a little too passionate.

and thinking about how not to rub it in. I guess I don't have to worry about that. I should have known better. Sigh.

I felt very much the same thing - at some point I was paying more attention to the wildly cheering crowd and I almost forgot he was speaking. Once he lost me, my doubts about him began to creep into my psyche again. I hope he can refine and condense his stump speech so he can hold my attention for the whole speech. More focus on the issues that hit home with me would help.

Have a Happy day, friend.

I did find the analysis to be accurate - I hope you are not beyond reading criticism as a positive message to help your candidate improve. If he's already perfect in your mind, well, that may be an issue.

Its as if they think he will sing and dance too. Of course anyone enamored with the
word 'hope' should take the old adage to heart: Hope for the best, prepare for the
worst.

Sure. I'm a "starry-eyed political science prof who worked for Bobby in California and Carter,Hart, and Clinton in New Hampshire"

Starts another war for which he will be apologizing 3 years later. :eyes:

nt

I really do. And as a Dem, I will support him if he becomes the nominee. Obama supporters obviously see something that some of us are still looking for. Yes, I hope for the sake of this country that he is not an empty suit. Coming from the Biden camp...substance is everything. Style isn't going to solve our problems. Only substance.

-P

How inspiring.

n/t

Hardcore Democrats love them, but nobody else does. Democrats aside, Americans vote based on emotions not based on reason. Obama is an astute enough politician to realize this.

IMO, the fact that many DUers are uneasy with Obama is a good indicator that he will do well in November.

But there is a point between meaningless cliches and actual positions.

I've been looking up some speeches by the guy you have as your avatar, Wellstone. He doesn't come across as a policy wonk. His words are inspirational but have a lot more information and teeth in his speeches than Obama.

And sadly that is why they have ended up with the Government we have now.

Perhaps it is what they deserve.

That one sentence pretty much encapsulates what is wrong with this country.

We need more reason and logic, instead of only caring about feeling good and comfortable.

it was a victory speech directed to those that support him allready. His supporters are allready aware of where the beef is.

His policies are all available on his website if you really care. I am pretty sure you dont though.

just something to keep in mind.

Huckabee's speech was more concise, conversational and was delivered without the booming bombast.

I posted some of M. Moore's email, but this is more of it. It's something WORTH thinking about.

John Edwards was supposed to have come in third. He had been written off. He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the road he threw off the old politico hack jacket and turned into a real person, a fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And for that, he came in a surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than the man who was against the war from the beginning. But, as Joshua Holland of AlterNet pointed out earlier today, Edwards is still the only front-runner who will pull out all the troops and do it as quickly as possible. His speech tonight was brilliant and moving!

Check... "He ended up with just ONE less delegate" so THIS is only one reason that Edwards is STILL viable and he DOES give great speeches and "inspires" so many!

in a big way now with his constantly pissed off schtick. It's getting to be like tuning into Lou Dobbs - a cranky guy with a singular message.

That's what politics is all about now. Even the ones who campaign against spin and politics - they are the slipperist ones of the lot. Politics, like every other facet of life, has been completely taken over by the marketroids.

:shrug:

If you think Obama is a blank slate, I suggest getting out more, perhaps reading a book.

I'd hate to think what kind of slate Edwards would be. Color-changing slate? Does he know where he stands?

i'm going to send the link to people i know who aren't that much into politics but do vote sometimes.

When the cliches start to dribble forth, can there be any point worth heeding? Probably not.

Vote your heart and your conscience. If what Obama says, and his plans and vision for the future, are not your cup of tea.....if you want something else.....if you have to ask someone to explain what someone just said......then you need to vote for the candidate that speaks to your concerns.

The acceptance speech was a rally speech, not a "platform" speech where he sets forth all his ideas and plans specifically. It was a "feel good" savor-the-moment, good-work team, let's go forward speech. I thought it was awesome.

King was not a politician. Obama is not a preacher who is a black activist. Their speeches, while similar because of certain things, would not, of course, be identical. If what you want is a preacher with a cause, there is always Huckleberry - Christian values and a flat tax.

we cannot under-estimate the appeal of Obama with the younger generations. If they have finally decided to get involved in the political discussion, it is because they desire a change from the status quo. Obama does not have a lot of experience. Neither does he have any great accomplishments. However, his message does resonate with many people. It is about message. And Obama is delivering it best at this moment. However, with the attention span of the younger generation, will they be consistent and come out to vote in New Hampshire and beyond?

Not sure why his speech was supposed to be held to a higher standard than either of those two. HRC's was far from inspiring. JE was also just a repeat of his stump speech. Big deal.