Taking on Emperor Obama’s new clothes
Bookworm on Feb 15 2007 at 11:24 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, Elections
I am pathetically grateful to Ann Coulter for saying what’s been bugging me for some time: Obama may have charm (although it eludes me), but he is not a gifted orator. He is banal and pedantic, like most lawyers, included Harvard educated lawyers:
Only white guilt could explain the insanely hyperbolic descriptions of Obama’s “eloquence.” His speeches are a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides.
In announcing his candidacy last week, Obama confirmed that he believes in “the basic decency of the American people.” And let the chips fall where they may!
Obama forthrightly decried “a smallness of our politics” – deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, “My fellow Americans, size does matter.”)
He took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: “There are those who don’t believe in talking about hope.” Take that, Hillary!
Most weirdly, he said: “I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this – a certain audacity – to this announcement.”
What is so audacious about announcing that you’re running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you’re officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Coulter ascribes the fawning over Obama’s mediocre speaking to “white guilt.” I differ. I ascribe it to low expectations.
Just the other day, after having listened first to George Bush struggle through a speech (and, while I like him both as a man and a President, he is no orator) and then to Mitt Romney throw his hat in the ring, I complained to DQ about the complaint lack of wit and talent in modern political oratory. God knows, I’m no Kennedy fan, but the man had wit, and he hired writers who had eloquence. My father adored the unelectable Adlai Stevenson, not so much for his political position, as for his verbal sparkle. Lincoln’s quips are, of course, still quoted to this day. And I don’t know about you, but I get a frisson of excitement just reading a Churchill speech.
With regard to Lincoln and Churchill, the thrill of their words is made stronger by the fact that they wrote them themselves. While my intellect understands that there is no connection between statesmanship and verbal dexterity, I still can’t escape the visceral feeling that someone who is witty and eloquent is giving an audible demonstration of his intellect, in much the same way a racer, by running faster than the others, shows his greater athletic abilities.
Read Obama’s speeches, not with an eye to politics, but with an eye to language. Then read something by Churchill or Lincoln. The difference between the paint by numbers political speech of the one, and the intelligence, style and beauty of the others, may shock you. Also, ask yourself when was the last time any politician let go with a quick-witted quip, that managed to cut to the core of an issue. If you’re answer regarding that latter question is Reagan (who, while charming, was no Churchill or Lincoln) that will tell you (a) how pathetic political speech is nowadays and (b) why a windbag like Obama is lauded as an example of eloquence.
del.icio.us
digg it
Email This Post To A Friend
20 Responses to “Taking on Emperor Obama’s new clothes”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I vote for 85% white guilt. I wonder if the paralyzing rigidity of political correctness has sapped humor from what passes for public speaking and also from personal conversation. How many times are a politician’s words vetted so as not to offend anyone?
Anyone, that is, except Christians and Jews? Will we be treated to the never ending PC exam of the religion practiced by Barak Huisen Obama (that would be Islam) or will the MSM jump directly to Romney (Mormon) and Guiliani (Catholic)?
I thought Obama claimed to be Christian.
If I am not misinformed, Obama is a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Old Flyer, Zhombre - I stand corrected - he does claim to be a Christian. The 12 concepts of his house of worship can be viewed at this site - http://www.tucc.org/about.htm and I look forward to the MSM inviting him to discuss Trinity’s adherance concepts, especially points #8 and #12.
Political oratory can be ranked by substance and by style. The speeches of Lincoln, Churchill and JFK had both substance and style in large measure. George W’s have considerable substance but unfortunately lack style. Obama’s speech lacks substance but has a modicum of style, albeit a bit time-worn. For choice, I’d far prefer to have both substance and style, but if I have to choose between the two, I’ll take substance every time.
The $64K question is why is the media fawning over a person with such a glaring lack of both experience and substance? He probably is a very nice person, but no one in their right mind could possibly consider him a serious contender for POTUS. Perhaps it’s “white guilt” or perhaps low expectations, but here’s another possibility: Could Obama be being set up as a stalking-horse for Hillary? Will the day come when he bows out of the race and throws his support to her?
Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations, perhaps?
Can any of us recite from memory the Gettysburg Address? Much of what passes for education now derides memorization. Why memorize it when I can Google it? Hence, oratory rusts away. If the words are not in the human hard drive, they can’t make it to the paper draft.
As far as Obama’s position in the Democrat Firmament, I think the plan has always been to have a Hilary/Obama ticket, with lots of scripted combat between the two prior to a theatrical unifying compromise for the good of the Party/country.
The Democrats are soooo sincere.
Al
I posit that oratory, in Obama’s case, hasn’t so much rusted away as was never there in the first place. A first requirement of oratory, it seems to me, is that you have something to say. Obama apparently doesn’t.
I looked through his book, and have never seen a greater collection of absolutely standard cliches and platitudes in one place outside of a dictionary of cliches. If this is a genuine sample of how this guy thinks, then there’s not much there. I was unable to locate an original thought, expressed originally, anywhere. And a collection of other people’s great thoughts reads like nothing so much as a book written for eight year olds.
Coulter’s correct: very litle going on there.
I’m in agreement with JJ & others above. Nothing really comes out of Obama’s mouth except garden variety liberal pieties. He’s another lawn jockey for the Stepford Democrats.
Bookworm -
This is something I’ve been thinking about recently. Like Marguerite, I think this is a mix of white guilt and low expectations. Maybe 60/40? I don’t know. But as I was listening to a portion of the speech he gave the day he announced his candidacy, I was struck at how, if you had blindfolded viewers and disguised his voice, few would be able to distinguish him from other Democratic candidates.
To me, he says things that are similar to Edwards but obviously the nation is not going gaga over him.
That’s why I think that, unfortunately, race is very, very much a factor with Obama.
d.
I always thought Reagan was a good speech writer and deliverer too. Personally, I am impressed that both he and George W. Bush as speakers actually deliver words that mean something, make a point, and flow in relatively clear, declarative sentences.
On the other hand, I usually hear just blah-blah platitudes and generalities whenever a Democrat gives a speech. Buzzwords: Soak the evil rich, give the little guy a fair deal, piece of the pie to all identity groups, a chicken in everyone’s pot, sweetness and light, etc. Clinton’s stemwinder State of the Unions were excruciating for being empty rhetoric and platitudes meaning big-government lollipops for all. My husband maintains that what glazes my eyes over as empty hot air, however, rings all the right bells and pushes all the right buttons for Democrats. Go figure.
Webb of Virginia is an exception. As a Democrat, he’s a straight speaker, quite forthright about what he wants to say, and evidently writes his own speeches. I disagree violently with his opinions, but it is remarkable to find a Democrat actually articulating a point without hiding behind platitudes.
” …what glazes my eyes over as empty hot air, however, rings all the right bells and pushes all the right buttons for Democrat … ” The Stepford Democrats: like the inmates at the Hotel California, they are programmed to receive, starting when they wake up to NPR. As for Webb, he is an accomplished writer and novelist, thus he has a greater facility with language than his peers.
And in fairness, it has to be kept in mind (came as a gigantic shock to most of the media) that in the wake of his death many of Reagan’s papers have been published and archived, and it seems as though he did a fair old amount of his own writing. A lot of his eloquence came squarely from him. Peggy Noonan polished, but the final edits were always him. (As, also in fairness, she always said - but few believed, until the notes and drafts became available.)
I’m guilty of thinking better of the Obama campaign announcement than it deserved — 100% the result of low expectations. After Shrillary and Kerry and Dean, the mere fact that he didn’t raise his voice in a nasal whine, didn’t drone and didn’t grab opponents by the rhetorical throat and shake them until dead made him look pretty darn good.
No Lincoln or Churchill to be sure, but it’s been a long, long time since someone with that ability to use words has been on the scene — they are slipping into Shakespearean time realms.
Book,
Interesting discussion..
Obama is not just an empty suit.. but a dangerous neophyte empty suit.
Marguerite correctly says that Obama is a “Christian” but I question with his credentials.
I look at him from a Conservative Christian point of view and wrote a post some time ago.. I have been pilloried by the left in the comments.. but it is worth your time to investigate — and read the comments.. Some of them are better than the post.. and more threatening.
http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/2006/06/29/barak-obama-dangerous-neophyte/
ExP(Jack)
Preacherman, you’ve said on your blog you can’t support Romney because of his Mormon beliefs. Could you vote for a Jew or Catholic for office? How stringent are the religious tests you apply?
Zhombre,
Good question about Romney — Mormon, Catholic or Jew.
The question can best be answered by saying that it is important to know and understand how a person’s religion would affect the way he would govern our Republic.
Romney’s religion evidently did not affect his earlier political decisions to support abortion and some homosexual agendas.
The honest character of the candidate is of utmost importance to me.
The primary election is the time to separate the chaff from the wheat. Right now, I don’t see anyone that I could support. Time will tell.
However, if it came down to a general election and a narrower choice say, between Billary (”Methodist Protestant Christian”) and Romney (Mormon), I would not hesitate to cast my vote for Romney, even though his “value switching” does bother me.
I would never vote for a Liberal Jew nor a Liberal Catholic. Character matters and the label “Liberal” does not exude character in my book..
Conservative Catholics and Conservative Jews hold many values to which I subscribe… even many Biblical values which I find important.
ExP(Jack)
Thanks for clarifying, Jack.
[...] cliche alert As you know, I agree with Ann Coulter, who considers Obama a singularly uninspiring orator. She thinks he’s given a pass because [...]