Posted on 02/04/2010 9:03:08 AM PST by neverdem
I think you're right. His point would be that both Wilson and Obama had/have the knack of making grand idealistic statements that, in an ideal world, sound wonderful.
The problem with both men is the same as well: those grand statements don't account for how real people and real situations behave.
And, like Wilson, Obama seems unwilling and/or unable to put in the long-term effort even to approach the desired results.
For both men, it is enough to Proclaim -- it is for the lesser functionaries to put the Grand Statements into action.
I agree. I just read a biography of John Pershing. It showed just how out of touch with reality Woodrow Wilson was. He reminded me very much of Obama. He thought he was really, really, smart. But he simply looked at everything through an ideological filter that was very fuzzy and not aligned with reality. He did enormous damage to the United States.
First by Wilsonian, VDH means that the rhetoric is untethered to reality, idealistic and empty.
Second, actually Obama is a pretty good public speaker by most measures.
We may despise what the man says (or doesn't say), but his delivery is polished and fluent.
There is nothing wrong with his use of a teleprompter. He generally uses it very well.
He pauses for dramatic effect, varies his vocal inflection and gestures naturally.
He is with out a doubt the best public speaker we've had as president since Reagan.
Not that I can stand to listen for long without screaming about the appalling contradictions and manipulating devices.
For proof of my defense of the O man, imagine a Martian coming to earth to study public speakers. He gets to listen to Obama, Hillary, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter. Based on fluency of delivery and occasional eloquence of expression, the Martian would pick Obama as the best.
Flame on.
We have to put up another two years of this garbage.
I agree with your point (contrary to many freepers’) that Obama is a master of speech delivery. We are not talking about the substance here. But, on the matter of delivery: I am amazed that not Obama, not his handlers, reacted to the very specific critique of his style that is now, when the charms worn out a bit, draws fire not just from the opponents, but from sympathizers as well.
I mean the chin up in the air, looking left and right and never straight into your eyes delivery. I understand that there are suckers out there for above the crowd godlike figure of legend. But most of normal Americans regardless of their politics are irritated by “I am so far above you” stance. Obama’s team was very good during the election campaign, polling attitudes, finding just the right words to play different groups of people. And they are remarkably tone deaf on this “I am above you” irritant. I am not complaining really - it works in our favor.
You say that the delivery is good, but the god like lack of direct eye contact is annoying. OK. I have never watched him in person. I wonder if he looks like this because of the camera? His followers used to faint in his presence. I kind of think that in person he must be magnetic.
Still generally he comes off well. Confident, fluent, dramatic in delivery. Substance is almost all rubbish. But, more meaning is non-verbal.
Not that there are other public speakers who are far better. Reagan was the best of all.
Speaking about Reagan. I could not stand listen to Bush senior, Clinton, Hillary, W, Kerry, Gore, Obama. If I have to know what they said, I better read. But I love to listen to Reagan’s speeches. Sean and Mark were playing quite a lot of them on the radio. Here is the sad thing: his speeches going back to 1964 still sound current.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.