I can't think of any. The content is either bland or frightening, mannerisms are annoying, and he stammers. I have never been able to understand why people think this is good public speaking.
As a speechwriter myself, and as one who did not vote for Barack Obama, I can say structurally his speeches are solid. Also, like Reagan, Obama speaks directly to those who are interested in what he is saying. McCain offered up only the most tired of cliches, and Obama offered a strong delivery and emotion.
Obama's views are not ones I share, but I cannot help give credit where credit is due. He lacks the wit and delivery of Reagan, but so did every other modern president. Kennedy, whose views I despise, was not as warm as Reagan, Clinton, or George W Bush but was excellent in delivery hard messages.
What makes a good speech? Ultimately, a speech is a utilitarian device. Does he get the job done the speaker intends?
Was Obama elected? Yes.
Was the controversial healthcare bill passed (which I do not like)? Yes.
A good speech does not necessarily influence those who would never vote for the candidate. In fact, it cannot. For those people, he can do no good, and they would reject his claim that the sky was blue on a sunny day. In turn, there are those who would tolerate anything he says because they are in awe of him. Same people, really, only with opposing biases.
Speechwriters across the nation study Obama's speeches. They are asking why a speech works, and what from them can they employ. George W Bush's speaking, on one hand, was pedestrian, but it was effective. Obama has adopted some Bush style technique, just as Bush looked at Clinton's speeches for ideas.
Like Bush and even Reagan before him, what worked for Obama in the election does not work as well 3 years later. I am not an expert in speech delivery but the mannerisms seems to be morphing into peculiarities
4 comments:
You should of posted Obama's Great Speechs: .... And left it blank
I can't think of any. The content is either bland or frightening, mannerisms are annoying, and he stammers. I have never been able to understand why people think this is good public speaking.
As a speechwriter myself, and as one who did not vote for Barack Obama, I can say structurally his speeches are solid. Also, like Reagan, Obama speaks directly to those who are interested in what he is saying. McCain offered up only the most tired of cliches, and Obama offered a strong delivery and emotion.
Obama's views are not ones I share, but I cannot help give credit where credit is due. He lacks the wit and delivery of Reagan, but so did every other modern president. Kennedy, whose views I despise, was not as warm as Reagan, Clinton, or George W Bush but was excellent in delivery hard messages.
What makes a good speech? Ultimately, a speech is a utilitarian device. Does he get the job done the speaker intends?
Was Obama elected? Yes.
Was the controversial healthcare bill passed (which I do not like)? Yes.
A good speech does not necessarily influence those who would never vote for the candidate. In fact, it cannot. For those people, he can do no good, and they would reject his claim that the sky was blue on a sunny day. In turn, there are those who would tolerate anything he says because they are in awe of him. Same people, really, only with opposing biases.
Speechwriters across the nation study Obama's speeches. They are asking why a speech works, and what from them can they employ. George W Bush's speaking, on one hand, was pedestrian, but it was effective. Obama has adopted some Bush style technique, just as Bush looked at Clinton's speeches for ideas.
Like Bush and even Reagan before him, what worked for Obama in the election does not work as well 3 years later. I am not an expert in speech delivery but the mannerisms seems to be morphing into peculiarities
Post a Comment