D
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Guest
Obama Unplugged
Lost without a Teleprompter.
By Dean Barnett
THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Usually when Barack Obama gives a major speech, the
overdone hosannas from the liberal commentariat follow as
surely as night follows day. The American Prospect's Ezra
Klein wrote of Obama's post-Iowa victory speech, "I've been
blessed to hear many great orations. I was in the audience
when Howard Dean gave his famous address challenging the
Democratic Party to rediscover courage and return to
principle . . . But none achieve(d) quite what Obama, at
his best, creates. . . . Obama's finest speeches do not
excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire.
They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment."
It would be unfair to say this childish lefty gushing has
been without cause. Obama is indeed a magnificent speaker.
A few days after his Iowa address, I emailed a friend of
mine and called it the finest political speech I had ever
heard. Then again, I cannot claim to have been in the
audience for Howard Dean's "famous address."
In spite of Obama's obvious strengths in this area,
questions linger regarding Obama's gifted speechifying. Do
his speeches give us a glimpse at a very special man with a
unique vision? Or are we merely witnessing a political one-
trick pony? Yes, Obama can turn a phrase better and do more
with a Teleprompter than any other modern era politician.
But does his special skill set here actually mean anything,
or is it instead the political equivalent of a dog walking
on its hind legs -- unusual and riveting, but not
especially significant? Regardless, the liberal
commentators have gushed their praise nearly every time
Obama has opened his mouth before a Teleprompter the past
few months
It was thus interesting to see Obama climb to the stage at
Virginia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on Saturday night. As
he strode to the podium, Obama clutched in his hands a pile
of 3 by 5 index cards. The index cards meant only one thing
-- no Teleprompter.
Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His
delivery was halting and unsure. He looked down at his
obviously copious notes every few seconds throughout the
speech. Unlike the typical Obama oration where the words
flow with unparalleled fluidity, he stumbled over his
phrasing repeatedly.
The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his
website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. All the
Obama dramatis personae that we've come to know so well
were there -- the hapless family that had to put a "for
sale" sign on its front lawn, the factory forced to shutter
its doors and, of course, the mother who declares
bankruptcy because "she cannot pay her child's medical
bills."
The tone was also vintage Obama. The prepared text reached
out to all Americans, including (gasp!) Republicans. It
also evidenced Obama's signature lack of anger. While his
colleagues have happily demagogued complex issues and
demonized the Bush administration, Obama always has taken
pains to strike a loftier tone.
But Saturday night's stem-winder turned out quite
differently from the typical Obama speech. With no
Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to
deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless
fashion. He had to rely on notes. And his memory. And he
improvised.
The results weren't just interesting because they revealed
Obama as a markedly inferior speaker without the
Teleprompter. Obama's supporters have had ample notice that
the scripted Obama is far more effective than the
spontaneous one. The extremely articulate and passionate
Obama that makes all the speeches has yet to show up at any
of the debates. For such a gifted and energetic speaker, he
is an oddly tongue-tied and indifferent debater.
What was especially noteworthy about his Virginia speech
were the diversions Obama took from the prepared text.
Because of Obama's improvised moments, this speech was
different than the usual fare he offers. We didn't get the
normal dosages of post-partisanship or even "elevation."
Virtually every time Obama deviated from the text, he
expressed the partisan anger that has so poisoned the
Democratic party. His spontaneous comments eschewed the
conciliatory and optimistic tone that has made the Obama
campaign such a phenomenon. It looked like the spirit of
John Edwards or Howard Dean had possessed Obama every time
he vamped. While Paul Krugman probably loved it, this
different Obama was a far less attractive one.
At one point, Obama launched an improvised jeremiad against
the current administration that took special note of the
recent revelation that he and Dick Cheney are distant
relations:
"Now I understand some of the excitement doesn't have to do
with me. I know that whatever else happens whatever twists
and turns this campaign may take, when you go into that
polling place next November, the name George Bush won't be
on the ballot and that makes everybody pretty cheerful.
Everyone's happy about that. The name of my cousin Dick
Cheney won't be on the ballot. That was embarrassing when
that news came out. When they do these genealogical
surveys, you want to be related to somebody cool. So, but,
his name went be on the ballot.
"Each of us running for the Democratic nomination agrees on
one thing that the other party does not -- that the next
president must end the disastrous policies of George W.
Bush. No more Scooter Libby Justice! No more Brownie
incompetence! No more Karl Rove politics."
None of this was in the prepared text. And all of it was a
marked departure from the kind of successful campaign that
Obama has run. One can imagine Obama, if he thought things
through more fully, using the revelation regarding Cheney
as an occasion to note something vapidly uplifting like how
in America, we're all part of the same family.
Looking past the missed opportunity regarding the vice
president, how many times has Obama deliberately pushed
angry-left hot buttons like Scooter Libby and Karl Rove?
Obama has run looking to the future, and thus hasn't felt
it necessary to dwell on the purported horrors that the
Bush administration has visited upon the nation. This tack
has made him look above the fray.
Other improvised moments also contradicted the generally
lofty tone of the Obama campaign. At one, point when
addressing what we have to do for the economy, Obama ad-
libbed, "The insurance and the drug companies aren't going
to give up their profits easily . . . Exxon Mobil made $11
billion this past quarter." This is the kind of empty class
warfare shtick that earned John Edwards an early exit from
the race. What's more, it displayed the kind of simplistic
sloganeering that Obama had previously eschewed.
Obama's shot at Exxon Mobil's profits is strikingly
disingenuous. He seems to be implicitly saying that the
healthy earnings are good news for Mr. Exxon and Mr. Mobil,
who will promptly stash most of the profits underneath
their obviously outsized mattresses. The two will then
likely invest the remainder in foreign sweatshops that will
facilitate the outsourcing of even more American jobs.
Of course, who benefits from corporate earnings is a
slightly complex matter, and thus vulnerable to simplistic
demagoguery. Just ask John Edwards. But Barack Obama is far
too intelligent to not realize that many of the school
teachers and union workers and working moms that so often
people his more elegant speeches likely have an interest in
Exxon Mobil's profits either from their retirement plan's
portfolio or their union's holdings or their own
investments that they actively manage. The implied notion
that corporate profits matter only to the corporations in
question is risibly counterfactual.
Worse still was the threat to take away the profits of the
drug and insurance companies. Perhaps Obama thinks that the
drug companies will continue to develop life saving
therapies out of benevolence, and that their employees will
happily take the pay cuts that will accompany the loss of
profits. This is yet another simplistic piece of us-
against-them politicking, the kind of thing that Obama has
reliably eschewed -- at least when he's on script.
What makes Obama's Jefferson-Jackson speech especially
relevant is where he went when he went off script. The
unifying Obama who has impressed so many people during this
campaign season vanished, replaced by just another angry
liberal railing against George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Exxon
Mobil, and other long standing Democratic pi
Lost without a Teleprompter.
By Dean Barnett
THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Usually when Barack Obama gives a major speech, the
overdone hosannas from the liberal commentariat follow as
surely as night follows day. The American Prospect's Ezra
Klein wrote of Obama's post-Iowa victory speech, "I've been
blessed to hear many great orations. I was in the audience
when Howard Dean gave his famous address challenging the
Democratic Party to rediscover courage and return to
principle . . . But none achieve(d) quite what Obama, at
his best, creates. . . . Obama's finest speeches do not
excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire.
They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment."
It would be unfair to say this childish lefty gushing has
been without cause. Obama is indeed a magnificent speaker.
A few days after his Iowa address, I emailed a friend of
mine and called it the finest political speech I had ever
heard. Then again, I cannot claim to have been in the
audience for Howard Dean's "famous address."
In spite of Obama's obvious strengths in this area,
questions linger regarding Obama's gifted speechifying. Do
his speeches give us a glimpse at a very special man with a
unique vision? Or are we merely witnessing a political one-
trick pony? Yes, Obama can turn a phrase better and do more
with a Teleprompter than any other modern era politician.
But does his special skill set here actually mean anything,
or is it instead the political equivalent of a dog walking
on its hind legs -- unusual and riveting, but not
especially significant? Regardless, the liberal
commentators have gushed their praise nearly every time
Obama has opened his mouth before a Teleprompter the past
few months
It was thus interesting to see Obama climb to the stage at
Virginia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on Saturday night. As
he strode to the podium, Obama clutched in his hands a pile
of 3 by 5 index cards. The index cards meant only one thing
-- no Teleprompter.
Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His
delivery was halting and unsure. He looked down at his
obviously copious notes every few seconds throughout the
speech. Unlike the typical Obama oration where the words
flow with unparalleled fluidity, he stumbled over his
phrasing repeatedly.
The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his
website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. All the
Obama dramatis personae that we've come to know so well
were there -- the hapless family that had to put a "for
sale" sign on its front lawn, the factory forced to shutter
its doors and, of course, the mother who declares
bankruptcy because "she cannot pay her child's medical
bills."
The tone was also vintage Obama. The prepared text reached
out to all Americans, including (gasp!) Republicans. It
also evidenced Obama's signature lack of anger. While his
colleagues have happily demagogued complex issues and
demonized the Bush administration, Obama always has taken
pains to strike a loftier tone.
But Saturday night's stem-winder turned out quite
differently from the typical Obama speech. With no
Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to
deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless
fashion. He had to rely on notes. And his memory. And he
improvised.
The results weren't just interesting because they revealed
Obama as a markedly inferior speaker without the
Teleprompter. Obama's supporters have had ample notice that
the scripted Obama is far more effective than the
spontaneous one. The extremely articulate and passionate
Obama that makes all the speeches has yet to show up at any
of the debates. For such a gifted and energetic speaker, he
is an oddly tongue-tied and indifferent debater.
What was especially noteworthy about his Virginia speech
were the diversions Obama took from the prepared text.
Because of Obama's improvised moments, this speech was
different than the usual fare he offers. We didn't get the
normal dosages of post-partisanship or even "elevation."
Virtually every time Obama deviated from the text, he
expressed the partisan anger that has so poisoned the
Democratic party. His spontaneous comments eschewed the
conciliatory and optimistic tone that has made the Obama
campaign such a phenomenon. It looked like the spirit of
John Edwards or Howard Dean had possessed Obama every time
he vamped. While Paul Krugman probably loved it, this
different Obama was a far less attractive one.
At one point, Obama launched an improvised jeremiad against
the current administration that took special note of the
recent revelation that he and Dick Cheney are distant
relations:
"Now I understand some of the excitement doesn't have to do
with me. I know that whatever else happens whatever twists
and turns this campaign may take, when you go into that
polling place next November, the name George Bush won't be
on the ballot and that makes everybody pretty cheerful.
Everyone's happy about that. The name of my cousin Dick
Cheney won't be on the ballot. That was embarrassing when
that news came out. When they do these genealogical
surveys, you want to be related to somebody cool. So, but,
his name went be on the ballot.
"Each of us running for the Democratic nomination agrees on
one thing that the other party does not -- that the next
president must end the disastrous policies of George W.
Bush. No more Scooter Libby Justice! No more Brownie
incompetence! No more Karl Rove politics."
None of this was in the prepared text. And all of it was a
marked departure from the kind of successful campaign that
Obama has run. One can imagine Obama, if he thought things
through more fully, using the revelation regarding Cheney
as an occasion to note something vapidly uplifting like how
in America, we're all part of the same family.
Looking past the missed opportunity regarding the vice
president, how many times has Obama deliberately pushed
angry-left hot buttons like Scooter Libby and Karl Rove?
Obama has run looking to the future, and thus hasn't felt
it necessary to dwell on the purported horrors that the
Bush administration has visited upon the nation. This tack
has made him look above the fray.
Other improvised moments also contradicted the generally
lofty tone of the Obama campaign. At one, point when
addressing what we have to do for the economy, Obama ad-
libbed, "The insurance and the drug companies aren't going
to give up their profits easily . . . Exxon Mobil made $11
billion this past quarter." This is the kind of empty class
warfare shtick that earned John Edwards an early exit from
the race. What's more, it displayed the kind of simplistic
sloganeering that Obama had previously eschewed.
Obama's shot at Exxon Mobil's profits is strikingly
disingenuous. He seems to be implicitly saying that the
healthy earnings are good news for Mr. Exxon and Mr. Mobil,
who will promptly stash most of the profits underneath
their obviously outsized mattresses. The two will then
likely invest the remainder in foreign sweatshops that will
facilitate the outsourcing of even more American jobs.
Of course, who benefits from corporate earnings is a
slightly complex matter, and thus vulnerable to simplistic
demagoguery. Just ask John Edwards. But Barack Obama is far
too intelligent to not realize that many of the school
teachers and union workers and working moms that so often
people his more elegant speeches likely have an interest in
Exxon Mobil's profits either from their retirement plan's
portfolio or their union's holdings or their own
investments that they actively manage. The implied notion
that corporate profits matter only to the corporations in
question is risibly counterfactual.
Worse still was the threat to take away the profits of the
drug and insurance companies. Perhaps Obama thinks that the
drug companies will continue to develop life saving
therapies out of benevolence, and that their employees will
happily take the pay cuts that will accompany the loss of
profits. This is yet another simplistic piece of us-
against-them politicking, the kind of thing that Obama has
reliably eschewed -- at least when he's on script.
What makes Obama's Jefferson-Jackson speech especially
relevant is where he went when he went off script. The
unifying Obama who has impressed so many people during this
campaign season vanished, replaced by just another angry
liberal railing against George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Exxon
Mobil, and other long standing Democratic pi
