The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What is the deal with the need for a teleprompter? Drives me nuts how he always looks back and forth exclusively at each teleprompter panel with ever looking straight forward. My speech coach always said that a guy who never looks you in the eye during a speech is likely feeding you a load of bull**** that he doesn't agree with. I'm not sure that's totally accurate in this case, but it doesn't annoy me any less.

Although I haven't seen enough of him doing it to notice it particularly, I'd be inclined to think he simply hasn't picked up the knack for working with a teleprompter yet. Changing from the more common working-from-notes to working off the prompter can take some getting used to, more for some people than others. Off hand I wouldn't think he's actually worked from one that often in his career to date, seems much more likely that he's used to working from notes on a podium. Heck, it still throws me off sometimes when I'm reading copy that isn't in the position I was most accustomed to, a different format and a different position will throw a lot of people.

That's not to say I don't think he's completely full of it every time he opens his mouth, just that I don't think you.can necessarily make a fair read on his body language when working from a teleprompter at this point.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Obviously a brutal overgeneralization. Dubya looked forward quite a bit. I thought he genuinely believed what he was saying, but was totally wrong about it in many cases. But it's easier to make this a partisan argument like you attempted to do than actually judge the speaking skills on their own merits.

There's a lot you can tell from the body language of an individual.

Are you kidding!? No one can argue that Barack Obama isn't an incredible public speaker reagardless of whether or not he's a motivational speaker or president. You're just being ridiculously partisan.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Are you kidding!? No one can argue that Barack Obama isn't an incredible public speaker reagardless of whether or not he's a motivational speaker or president. You're just being ridiculously partisan.

It depends on what you look for in a speaker. From a scripted standpoint, you're correct that he's very good. From a physical presentation standpoint, it can be lacking. It's a very mechanical presentation style. Once again, it's silly to bring any partisan arguments into this rather than address the core presentation techniques of the speaker.

[JPhillips]

It's simply silly to argue that Obama hasn't been an abject failure.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Did you just finish that book or something?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It depends on what you look for in a speaker. From a scripted standpoint, you're correct that he's very good. From a physical presentation standpoint, it can be lacking. It's a very mechanical presentation style. Once again, it's silly to bring any partisan arguments into this rather than address the core presentation techniques of the speaker.

agreed on some of what you said however he's an amazing speaker in almost all techniques that Ive seen. When the camera was wide he moved around with grace and ease and was engaging (debates) and when it's in tight (addresses) he is poised and able to go off of script while you argue he just doesnt look at Camera 1 enough which you think is the collective 'eye'.

IF ANYTHING you could argue that he's sometimes wordy but to argue your side falls flat and screams of your faux-shock habit.

{shaking head at this ridiculousness}

Shit it was your side that said he was an empty suit and the only reason he'd win presidency was DUE TO HIS ABILITY TO SPEAK!

[Swaggs]

Maybe Obama didn't have a speech coach while he was growing up?!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

agreed. He's an amazing speaker in almost all techniques that Ive seen. When the camera was wide he moved around with grace and ease and was engaging (debates) and when it's in tight (addresses) he is poised and able to go off of script while you argue he just doesnt look at Camera 1 enough which you think is the collective 'eye'.

IF ANYTHING you could argue that he's sometimes wordy but to argue your side falls flat and screams of your faux-shock habit.

{shaking head at this ridiculousness}

Shit it was your side that said he was an empty suit and the only reason he'd win presidency was DUE TO HIS ABILITY TO SPEAK!

I'm certainly not part of 'your side', but if it suits your argument, feel free to characterize it as such. It's a valid discussion point. I know I can't be the only one who has noticed this constant use of a teleprompter.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Did you just finish that book or something?

LOL. I read the Navarro books a few years ago. I own both of them and reference them occasionally. You should read them. They're very good.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm certainly not part of 'your side', but if it suits your argument, feel free to characterize it as such. It's a valid discussion point. I know I can't be the only one who has noticed this constant use of a teleprompter.

hello!? he uses the teleprompter for massive speeches just like the president's before him although his execution has been spot on. His worst performance was at the podium without a teleprompter and that was still above average just way too wordy IMO. You, once again, are on an island on this one...IMO. Right, you had no dog in the fight over the last 2 years, up until a week ago when you backtracked on your passing judgment on Obama already.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I know I can't be the only one who has noticed this constant use of a teleprompter.

I'm pretty sure that you realize that you are not the only one who has noticed his "constant use of a teleprompter." Either that, or you and Rush Limbaugh are so in tune with one another that you both decided to start hammering Obama for his use of the teleprompter in the same week.

[Flasch186]

oh. I've been shilled.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

hello!? he uses the teleprompter for massive speeches just like the president's before him although his execution has been spot on. His worst performance was at the podium without a teleprompter and that was still above average just way too wordy IMO. You, once again, are on an island on this one...IMO. Right, you had no dog in the fight over the last 2 years, up until a week ago when you backtracked on your passing judgment on Obama already.

Let it go... he is just rehashing Rush's talking points from the past few days.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Shit it was your side that said he was an empty suit and the only reason he'd win presidency was DUE TO HIS ABILITY TO SPEAK!

"Empty suit" was one of my favorites, but I don't think I claimed his speaking ability was the key to his electability.

Hell, I literally can't listen to the guy without immediately hearing Duane Johnson riffs in my head, so I'm pretty sure that wasn't going to be what I hung his electability on.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hell, I literally can't listen to the guy without immediately hearing Duane Johnson riffs in my head, so I'm pretty sure that wasn't going to be what I hung his electability on.

hxxp://www.hulu.com/watch/61239/saturday-night-live-the-rock-obama

For your viewing pleasure.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Let it go... he is just rehashing Rush's talking points from the past few days.

No shit, why can't people come up with thoughts of their own these days?

[Raiders Army]

I haven't seen the video, but I have listened to the audio (on conservative talk radio no less!) of Obama's comments on earmarks. I really have to say that he sounds really good. I think that if he were in a different situation with the economy, he would have cut a lot of earmarks out on other bills.

His comments on making sure the public and press could see what goes into things is great and proves he's holding true to his promise of (as much as can be expected) transparency.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

His comments on making sure the public and press could see what goes into things is great and proves he's holding true to his promise of (as much as can be expected) transparency.

Help me out here a little. Other than some comments about a desire for some sort of transparency, how is this budget cycle any different from the ones of at least the past couple of decades? The information about earmarks, who gets what, and so forth has always been out there if you were willing to look and frankly it wasn't all that difficult to do. I've both read & written stories similar to the ones I've seen today about who got what for their district/pet project/etc since at least the mid 80's? What difference am I missing here?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Let it go... he is just rehashing Rush's talking points from the past few days.

Last time I listened to Rush was October 2008 for a couple of days. Once again, I'm not sure why everything has to be all about partisan politics, but it appears that all discussions in this thread have to be pinned on a red pinata or a blue pinata and beaten to death. It's a shame because there are some people that enjoy talking about politics in these threads without making party loyalty the gold standard.

[Raiders Army]

To somewhat paraphrase (realize I've had a couple beers too), he said that the details of bills would go onto the web before Congress votes on the bills so as to allow the public and press to see what is actually in the bills.

That being said, I'm pretty sure your average American isn't going to look...but it's good because it's available and it's also good because if there's something really out there, then the press will probably tell everyone.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Last time I listened to Rush was October 2008 for a couple of days. Once again, I'm not sure why everything has to be all about partisan politics, but it appears that all discussions in this thread have to be pinned on a red pinata or a blue pinata and beaten to death. It's a shame because there are some people that enjoy talking about politics in these threads without making party loyalty the gold standard.

I could really care less about you and Rush or whether you have part loyalty or whether your views are in-line with mine, but I find it extremely hard to believe that you have recently observed, in the same week that Rush and a number of other pundits have been talking/blogging about it, that Barrack uses or seems lost without a teleprompter.

Like I said, either you and Rush are on the same wave-length, at the same time, with that thought (without you realizing it or noticing that bloggers and talking heads have been discussing it the past few days) or you are well aware that you are not the only person who has noticed his "constant use of a teleprompter" and you would like to get others to notice it and/or begin discussing it as one of Obama's flaws.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I could really care less about you and Rush or whether you have part loyalty or whether your views are in-line with mine, but I find it extremely hard to believe that you have recently observed, in the same week that Rush and a number of other pundits have been talking/blogging about it, that Barrack uses or seems lost without a teleprompter.

You're absolutely right. I have not recently observed it. It's something that's honestly bothered me for months now. That's his style and it bugs the hell out of me. Certainly, he's found a portion of the electorate that will buy that as a good speaking style, but it's a relatively basic style of speaking for the most part. It's the modern equivalent of staring at the paper while giving a speech. The only difference is that your staring at glass rather than paper. It's become acceptable in recent years, but it's very impersonal.

Feel free to let me know if Rush said that as well. It sounds like you've listened to him more recently than I.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're absolutely right. I have not recently observed it. It's something that's honestly bothered me for months now. That's his style and it bugs the hell out of me. Certainly, he's found a portion of the electorate that will buy that as a good speaking style, but it's a relatively basic style of speaking for the most part. It's the modern equivalent of staring at the paper while giving a speech. The only difference is that your staring at glass rather than paper. It's become acceptable in recent years, but it's very impersonal.

Feel free to let me know if Rush said that as well. It sounds like you've listened to him more recently than I.

Fair enough, but if you do a google news search of "Obama" and "teleprompter" you will see that Rush has been on it in recent days, then the blogs, and now the news networks have made an "issue" of it.

[lungs]

To be fair, wasn't this teleprompter business discussed in the election thread on here>

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

To be fair, wasn't this teleprompter business discussed in the election thread on here>

I don't recall it but given the size & scope of that thread just about anything could probably be related to it somehow.

Maybe Rush & the blogosphere are just parroting the FOFC talking points

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by lungs

To be fair, wasn't this teleprompter business discussed in the election thread on here>

It has become a Rush, Hannity, Rove, etc. talking point in the past couple days. One of the many things that pundits throw out, to see what sticks. It has been picked up, a bit, by the major networks today.

Not a major issue, but one of those things that is discussed when nothing else is going on, I guess.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't recall it but given the size & scope of that thread just about anything could probably be related to it somehow.

Maybe Rush & the blogosphere are just parroting the FOFC talking points

now that is funny.

[RainMaker]

I personally don't give a crap about the teleprompter or other similar issues. I felt the same way when people were making a big deal out of Bush using the wrong door that one time while the fact our kids were dying in a meaningless war took a backseat. Same here. Who cares about a teleprompter when we're in a massive recession and fighting two wars?

[lungs]

Not sure where it came from, but I swear I heard the whole teleprompter spiel during the election. Whether it was here or not, I can't remember.

And I'm too lazy to search about something that trivial.

[flere-imsaho]

I think the main issue here is that everyone's still shocked that we have a president who can speak in full sentences.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're absolutely right. I have not recently observed it. It's something that's honestly bothered me for months now. That's his style and it bugs the hell out of me. Certainly, he's found a portion of the electorate that will buy that as a good speaking style, but it's a relatively basic style of speaking for the most part. It's the modern equivalent of staring at the paper while giving a speech. The only difference is that your staring at glass rather than paper. It's become acceptable in recent years, but it's very impersonal.

Feel free to let me know if Rush said that as well. It sounds like you've listened to him more recently than I.

It sure is funny that every time you listen to Rush, which of course isn't very often, that you find something to post about. What are the odds of that?

[Flasch186]

honestly im shocked.

[JPhillips]

See, instead of worrying about some piddly-ass earmarks, this is the sort of serious corruption in Washington that needs to be dealt with:

The federal agency that insures bank deposits, which is asking for emergency powers to borrow up to $500 billion to take over failed banks, is facing a potential major shortfall in part because it collected no insurance premiums from most banks from 1996 to 2006. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures deposits up to $250,000, tried for years to get congressional authority to collect the premiums in case of a looming crisis. But Congress believed that the fund was so well-capitalized - and that bank failures were so infrequent - that there was no need to collect the premiums for a decade, according to banking officials and analysts.

[RainMaker]

Saw this on the news today:

Obama Outlines Plan to Curb Earmarks - WSJ.com

I've given him the benefit of the doubt at the beginning, but it's sort of becoming a joke. He talks about earmark reform, but keeps signing bills with it in there. Same old government, just new letters next to their names.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

See, instead of worrying about some piddly-ass earmarks, this is the sort of serious corruption in Washington that needs to be dealt with:

Yes. If we can identify the Senators and/or Representatives who pushed through the "no one needs to pay insurance premiums" idea, they should be called on the carpet. At a minimum, we need to see who was supposed to be in charge of it.

Dodd maybe? I'm not sure if the FDIC falls under his banking chairmanship or not. But that guy seems like a totally corrupt tool, so I am betting that his fingerprints are on it.

[miked]

Well, the banking chairs from 1996-2006 (when the article states the insurance premiums weren't paid) were:

Alfonse D'Amato (R-New York) 1995-1999
Phil Gramm (R-Texas) 1999-2001
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) 2001
Phil Gramm (R-Texas) 2001
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) 2001-2003
Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) 2003-2007

[Galaxy]

Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth - WSJ.com

Interesting article.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Senator Gregg didn't waste much time showing the 'differences' that caused him to pull his name from consideration for a cabinet post.......

Gregg: Budget forecast a lie - First Read - msnbc.com

[Flasch186]

that's on MSNBC.com so it must be liberally slanted garbage, right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Palin and Jindal are both very, very young in terms of politics. I wouldn't write either of them off at this point, as they could each wait 20 years to run for president and still be a good bit younger than McCain was during this cycle.

Both candidates though are fairly behind the times socially. They both don't believe in evolution and are for the 6,000 year old nonsense. Do you really think that the complete ignorance on basic science will be accepted in 20 years? I think their best hope is to go for the Presidency sooner.

[SFL Cat]

Considering what basic science considered undeniable facts 100 years ago, I'd say "no problem."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Considering what basic science considered undeniable facts 100 years ago, I'd say "no problem."

Science and technology have come along way from 100 years ago. I just have hard time believing that you'll be able to win an election believing something as retarded as the Earth being 6,000 years old in 20 years.

The next Republican to win the Presidency will have to connect much better with women and young people. You aren't going to do that with views 150 years behind the times. The GOP should be trying to find a young, charismatic guy who can attract those two demographics while still being appealing enough on some issues to hold the base. A guy who builds his reputation on reforming government and not what his social stances are. Going with Palin and Jindal will just cost them another generation of voters that they can't afford to lose.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Science and technology have come along way from 100 years ago. I just have hard time believing that you'll be able to win an election believing something as retarded as the Earth being 6,000 years old in 20 years.

Since the Earth being 6000 years old comes from fundamental religious beliefs, I think that there are a *large* number of Christians who may not necessarily believe that the earth is 6000 years old, but won't really hold it against a candidate since they do want a good Christian in office.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

Since the Earth being 6000 years old comes from fundamental religious beliefs, I think that there are a *large* number of Christians who may not necessarily believe that the earth is 6000 years old, but won't really hold it against a candidate since they do want a good Christian in office.

It's not the Christians that's the issue. Palin and Jindal will have to convince moderates and Democrats to vote for them. I just don't know if people will be able to look past the fact they believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and exorcisms. I'm an independent and can tell you that it would be hard to vote for someone who is at that level of ignorance.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not the Christians that's the issue. Palin and Jindal will have to convince moderates and Democrats to vote for them.

By Christians I don't mean the religious right. I just mean people that put stock in religion, of which there are many across the board. Give us a terrible economy in 8 years, or a terrorist attack on Obamas watch and see how many people care IMO. Most states are decided long before the election, we're not talking about getting 60% of the vote or anything, just enough people in enough states that are close enough to be in play. It doesn't matter at all if people in California or the northeast won't vote for a guy who has these views. Of course they won't. But in Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania? I really think its pretty close to irrelevant if the Obama administration is an unpopular one after 4 or 8 years.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

By Christians I don't mean the religious right. I just mean people that put stock in religion, of which there are many across the board. Give us a terrible economy in 8 years, or a terrorist attack on Obamas watch and see how many people care IMO. Most states are decided long before the election, we're not talking about getting 60% of the vote or anything, just enough people in enough states that are close enough to be in play. It doesn't matter at all if people in California or the northeast won't vote for a guy who has these views. Of course they won't. But in Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania? I really think its pretty close to irrelevant if the Obama administration is an unpopular one after 4 or 8 years.

I don't doubt that a Republican wouldn't have a good shot in 4 or 8 years if things really go downhill. I just don't think it'll be them. Those two don't cater to the demographics a Republican will need to sway to win an election. I think it'll be members of the party in the mold of Mark Kirk and Judd Gregg that ultimately rise to win an election.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Science and technology have come along way from 100 years ago. I just have hard time believing that you'll be able to win an election believing something as retarded as the Earth being 6,000 years old in 20 years.

If this belief of Earth's age is the basis on which people vote, and not the beliefs of how the government should work, then who are the mentally handicapped?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hey, Joe is back on track!

Political Punch: Oh, That Joe! (No. 48 in a Series) -- Gimme a Break

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't doubt that a Republican wouldn't have a good shot in 4 or 8 years if things really go downhill. I just don't think it'll be them. Those two don't cater to the demographics a Republican will need to sway to win an election. I think it'll be members of the party in the mold of Mark Kirk and Judd Gregg that ultimately rise to win an election.

It would help if the GOP nominee had more personality than Gregg or Kirk.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

If this belief of Earth's age is the basis on which people vote, and not the beliefs of how the government should work, then who are the mentally handicapped?

Would you vote for someone who thought the Earth was flat? We're talking about the same thing here essentially.

The teaching of evolution is important to our nation's health and national security. It's a vital fundamental for many scientific fields. It also shows me a level of common sense among a candidate. If you honestly believe the Earth is 6,000 years old after the littany of scientific evidence against it, you are not someone I want handling decisions that involve processing information.

But hey, maybe we shouldn't care. We can always vote in an alchemist who will get us out of this recession by turning everything to gold.