Anyone notice this about Obama?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,947
Points
113
<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>

28 minutes of reading from the left teleprompter, then the right one, back and forth.

That's all I see him do when he makes a planned speech.

No need to watch the whole thing, just the first minute or two will give you the idea.
 
<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>

I couldn't find a speech by McCain from a podium. I don't think he uses a teleprompter. Straight talk, not something his handlers wrote on the teleprompter to read.

The downside is it's easy to misspeak, and youtube is full of him doing so.
 
McCain makes the creepiest hand gestures when he's speaking.
 
I did not notice that. He goes left, right, left, right. His head is like the bouncing ball from Pong.

Still, Obama reading from a teleprompter is not nearly as bad as John McCain reading from a teleprompter. His best stage are these townhall meetings, when everything is unscripted. Obama knows this and I think that's why he turned down 10 joint town hall meetings with John McCain.
 
Barack Obama is a far better speaker than John McCain. His inspiration and eloquence are a big part of what got him the nomination. I really don't see what this thread is trying to prove though. This election should not be about who the better speaker is, it should be about who is more fit to lead this country.
 
<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>

Here's Hillary, who looks quite natural as a speech maker.
 
The faces she is making as the thanks people in the beginning are scary.
 
It looks like Obama doesn't write his own speeches or even really know what he's going to say when he gets up on the podium. If he had most of it committed to memory, the teleprompters would be just that - prompters to help him stay on track through the speech.

I find the lack of eye contact with his audience to be creepy. It's robotic, at best. It also makes me wonder if he's being so handled that they won't let him do anything but read what the handlers write. Verbatim.

I'm no fan of Hillary by any stretch. I find I actually listen to what she says, though it's like fingernails on a chalkboard.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tim @ Jul 4 2008, 10:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Barack Obama is a far better speaker than John McCain. His inspiration and eloquence are a big part of what got him the nomination.</div>

You're absolutely right. For the Democrats, there hasn't been anybody like him since Bobby Kennedy. He is the Ronald Reagan (in terms of charisma) of the Democratic party.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I really don't see what this thread is trying to prove though. This election should not be about who the better speaker is, it should be about who is more fit to lead this country.</div>

Yeah well, it won't be his stances on global warming or immigration going to bring 75,000 to Mile High Stadium in Denver if he does choose to accept the nomination in Denver. It will be his call for change and the way he articulates it to people.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I really don't see what this thread is trying to prove though. This election should not be about who the better speaker is, it should be about who is more fit to lead this country.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah well, it won't be his stances on global warming or immigration going to bring 75,000 to Mile High Stadium in Denver if he does choose to accept the nomination in Denver. It will be his call for change and the way he articulates it to people.</div>
I totally agree. I was just pointing out the lack of purpose for this thread. I find Obama to be a far better speaker and I agree with his policies. He's the total package. Plus he can ball...
 
^^^ Reagan wrote his own speeches. I have never heard anyone else say things the way he did, nor have I seen any similarity between his speeches printed in the paper (or on the WWW) and anyone else's.

What I didn't say about McCain's approach is that he's engaging his audiences as much as anyone possibly can. While Hillary does make eye contact with her audience, McCain has actual discussions with audience members directly.
 
A call for change he refuses to define....or, he cant define until his handlers tell him what it is....really, for a potential president, his accomplishments are lacking....I will go ahead and list them below. Barack Obama's accomplishments:
 
Interestingly, I find this story on the WWW tonight. He had a press conference where he spoke off the cuff. Sure looks like his handlers made him go out and correct himself in a 2nd speech the same day.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/04/america/campaign.php

Changing dynamics in Iraq pose challenge for Obama
By Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny
Friday, July 4, 2008

Senator Barack Obama said he might "refine" his Iraq policies after meeting with military commanders there later this summer. But hours later he held a second news conference to emphasize his commitment to the withdrawing of all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

His two statements, made Thursday in Fargo, North Dakota, reflected how the changing dynamics in Iraq have posed a challenge for Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. He has been trying to retain flexibility as violence declines there without abandoning one of the central promises of his campaign: that if elected he would end the war.

His remarks came as Republicans - including his all-but-certain Republican rival, Senator John McCain - have been arguing that Obama would most likely change his position on the phased withdrawal. They argue that with violence dropping there, bringing the troops home would risk erasing the fragile gains that have been made.

Obama said at his first news conference that he planned a "thorough assessment" of his Iraq policy when he visits the country later this summer. "I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," he said. "That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

Obama has long spoken of consulting with commanders in the field as part of his plan for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but his shift in emphasis in the way he spoke about the situation on Thursday - after weeks in which Republicans and even an outside Iraq-policy adviser to the Obama campaign argued against a withdrawal along the lines he had proposed - fueled speculation that he might not be wedded to his timetable.

So the Obama campaign scheduled a second news conference to try to clarify his remarks.

"We're going to try this again," Obama said. "Apparently, I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq."

The evolving situation in Iraq has, in fact, tested both candidates. McCain, whose support for the unpopular war helped him win the Republican primary, now finds that he must explain his position to a general electorate largely weary of the war. And for Obama, who has been accused recently of changing his positions on campaign finance and a wiretapping law, the suggestion that he was having second thoughts about a central premise of his candidacy holds particular perils.

In his second news conference Thursday, Obama laid out his proposal in less ambiguous terms.

"Let me be as clear as I can be," he said. "I intend to end this war. My first day in office, I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war - responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."

Obama added that when he had spoken about possibly refining his policies, he was referring to questions about how big a residual force should be left behind to train Iraqi forces and conduct counterterrorism operations - not the overall timeline for withdrawal.

Obama's positioning on this issue has been a critical component of his candidacy from the beginning. He, almost alone among the major candidates, opposed the Iraq war from the start, and that helped him beat a crowded Democratic field. And while he has long said that he would consult the commanders in the field when withdrawing troops, the caveat might have been lost on many Democratic primary voters who supported his call to end the war.

With violence ebbing there, though, he has recently spoken less about withdrawal and increasingly emphasized the failure to achieve political reconciliation in Iraq. And in recent weeks he has spoken more of the economic costs of the Iraq war - and the fact that it limits the ability of the United States to send troops to fight what he considers the nation's primary security threat: Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

McCain's support for the unpopular Iraq war, meanwhile, could pose problems heading into the general election. To that end, he, too, has shifted his emphasis. After taking heat for saying that he would keep troops in Iraq for up to a hundred years if necessary, he gave a speech this spring suggesting that he would remove most troops by 2013, without offering specifics. He now talks more about withdrawing, as he did over a week ago when he said "we will withdraw, but we will withdraw with victory and honor."

Iraq, of course, remains very dangerous, as a series of lethal attacks in June showed. But fewer Americans were killed there in May than in any month since the conflict began, and violence across the nation has dropped significantly.

Foreign policy experts attribute the reduction to a number of factors, including the defection of Sunni insurgents who are now paid to keep the peace and the cease-fires brokered with various Shiite militias as well as the addition of more troops - the last of whom are leaving the country this month - and adoption of a counter-insurgency strategy.

Some foreign policy experts say that both candidates may have to adjust their stances once in office - McCain, because strains on the military may make it impossible to station as many troops there for as long as he likes, and Obama, because the threat of backsliding may force him to slow the pace of withdrawal.

Obama said that under his plan, there would still be combat troops in Iraq in 2010, seven years after the war began. And he questioned the premise that the recent gains could complicate the withdrawal.

"Those are the same folks who said that we can't pull troops out because things are too violent," he said. "Now that the violence has subsided, you can't pull troops out because things have improved. It's a Catch-22."
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tim @ Jul 4 2008, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I really don't see what this thread is trying to prove though. This election should not be about who the better speaker is, it should be about who is more fit to lead this country.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah well, it won't be his stances on global warming or immigration going to bring 75,000 to Mile High Stadium in Denver if he does choose to accept the nomination in Denver. It will be his call for change and the way he articulates it to people.</div>
I totally agree. I was just pointing out the lack of purpose for this thread. I find Obama to be a far better speaker and I agree with his policies. He's the total package. Plus he can ball...

</div>

I think he's a great speaker, even if he reads off a teleprompter. I can't speak as well as he could I know that much, and I don't know many that can either.

I won't be voting for Obama only because I disagree with him on the issues. I just see McCain and I see someone that's not afraid to flip the bird to the far right or to anyone else in order to get things done for people. People can say he's nothing more than a third Bush term, but I simply have to disagree on that.

Besides, Gov. Corzine, Sen. Lautenberg, and Sen. Menendez all endorsed him (after getting off the Hillary express), so that seals it. Here's a hint, if you ever want to do something right, do the exact opposite of what those three do.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 4 2008, 08:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A call for change he refuses to define....or, he cant define until his handlers tell him what it is....really, for a potential president, his accomplishments are lacking....I will go ahead and list them below. Barack Obama's accomplishments:</div>

Laugh dammit, this is funny:

Change!

arbus_transvestite.jpg
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'>I won't be voting for Obama only because I disagree with him on the issues.</div>
That's really all it should be about. This "style over substance" crap that's infected politics gets ridiculous at times.
 
Yea, but just for an example. If a short weak ugly guy whose voice cracked up every 2nd sentence and said "umm" all the time, and would pause out of nervousness during speeches. A lot, a big percentage of people wouldn't want to vote for him. Even if he had great ways to implement his ideas and was going to focus on the right things to help his country.

And then you had a guy who looked like a say JFK, and could speak with passion and have really moving speeches, he would have an easier time getting votes.

Usually there is not someone as extreme as the first example getting that far. However I say say umm a lot when I had to make public speeches in highschool lol.
 
What did JFK accomplish once he got in?

Bay of Pigs? Cuban Missile Crisis? Got us into Vietnam?

Just curious if you know something I don't
 
Obama should not be the president because of many reasons but the main one is that he has no experience what so ever with foreign affairs, and would only take this country down with his bring the troop backs in 15 months crappy idea.


VOTE 4 MCCAIN!!!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 4 2008, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What did JFK accomplish once he got in?

Bay of Pigs? Cuban Missile Crisis? Got us into Vietnam?

Just curious if you know something I don't
</div>
I didn't realize that the Cold War began during the JFK administration. From what I have read, Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as you possibly could and was something any president would have had to deal with. Even a guy like Reagan would have had to deal with it.

The Bay of Pigs began during the Eisenhower administration.

We never got into Vietnam in my AP US History class. Yeah I'm smart.


But I do know that the war began during the Johnson and Nixon administration, not Kennedy's.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tim @ Jul 4 2008, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 4 2008, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What did JFK accomplish once he got in?

Bay of Pigs? Cuban Missile Crisis? Got us into Vietnam?

Just curious if you know something I don't
</div>
I didn't realize that the Cold War began during the JFK administration. From what I have read, Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as you possibly could and was something any president would have had to deal with. Even the human debt machine Reagan would have had to deal with it.
</div>

That's a stretch, Kennedy made a number of blunders.

1. About two months before the Cuban Missile Crisis began, the director of CIA came to Kennedy and told him there were French intelligence reports that said that there were Soviet missiles in Cuba. Kennedy didn't believe him, because he believed the Soviets when they said there were no missiles. U-2 planes proved him wrong.

2. The NSA McGeorge Bundy also said there were some evidence of missiles in Cuba, and Kennedy didn't want to believe it either.

3. When it was said there were 16,000 Soviet troops, Kennedy completely denied that. Turns out he was right. There were 40,000 troops.
 
All the missiles were evacuated from Cuba. Although 1 person did die from a U-2 plane, that was the only casualty from that particular event. It's awful to say that as if 1 death isn't that much, but considering the circumstances it had the potential to be been much worse.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tim @ Jul 5 2008, 12:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>All the missiles were evacuated from Cuba. Although 1 person did die from a U-2 plane, that was the only casualty from that particular event. It's awful to say that as if 1 death isn't that much, but considering the circumstances it had the potential to be been much worse.</div>

That's right. It could have been a lot worse had Kennedy continued to taken the Soviet's word over intelligence reports. Thank god for the U-2 planes taking those pictures.
 
The planes were ordered by Kennedy to fly over Cuba. Whether he was reluctant in doing so is irrelevant. He was the one who ordered the flight.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tim @ Jul 5 2008, 12:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The planes were ordered by Kennedy to fly over Cuba. Whether he was reluctant in doing so is irrelevant. He was the one who ordered the flight.</div>

Was that before or after the preliminary reports came from the CIA director sent telegrams from his honeymoon saying there were French intelligence accounts that there were Soviet missiles in Cuba?

He was on his honeymoon in August. The U-2 photographs didn't come until October.
 
My point is, although perhaps the death of the one U2 pilot possibly could have been avoided, JFK handled the missile crisis very well, avoiding any major confrontation. And there was major potential of confrontation.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tim @ Jul 5 2008, 12:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My point is, although perhaps the death of the one U2 pilot possibly could have been avoided, JFK handled the missile crisis very well, avoiding any major confrontation. And there was major potential of confrontation.</div>

And my point is, he could have handled it a lot better.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 5 2008, 12:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tim @ Jul 5 2008, 12:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My point is, although perhaps the death of the one U2 pilot possibly could have been avoided, JFK handled the missile crisis very well, avoiding any major confrontation. And there was major potential of confrontation.</div>

And my point is, he could have handled it a lot better.
</div>
Well then agree to disagree I guess...

Even though I'm right...
 
Politics seems so fake at times, when the Clintons were hugging it all looked like fake forced smiles to me, and I just don't believe a lot of what Hillary Clinton is saying.

I really don't know who will make a better President. there are questions about Obama's experience, would McCain pull a Bush and go into Iran?

Nader for Prez, jokes.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jul 4 2008, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama should not be the president because of many reasons but the main one is that he has no experience what so ever with foreign affairs, and would only take this country down with his bring the troop backs in 15 months crappy idea.


VOTE 4 MCCAIN!!!</div>

Someone knit Satan a sweater because I agree with a CK post!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top