Don't worry about Obama. As long as he has his teleprompters, he will be fine. Not to derail your thread, but I had the television on earlier today with Obama on and the sound off. Watching him speak is like watching observers at a tennis match. Sarah Palin may not have gone to Harvard, but at least she can look at the crowd and maintain a train of thought, without having to simply bounce from one teleprompter to the other.
What is all the crap about the teleprompter? McCain likes to read his notes and looks down to do so. Obama likes to read a teleprompter so he can look outward. Is one supposed to be morally superior to the other or something?
Agreed- he handled that well. What did the signs say, I could not read them on my computer? I thought I saw somwthing about gay marriage and KKK. Gay marriage I understand, but KKK?
And, BTW, the criticism of Palin's educational background is not that she did not go to Harvard. Its that she bounced around a bunch of crappy schools and thus displayed little interest in learning.
From the picture a few posts up, it would seem McCain has the same problem - so what's the issue? Or are you just trying to disingenuously feed the "empty suit" argument, despite clear evidence of McCain using a teleprompter, too?
There is nothing wrong with using teleprompters, and it is an advantage for any speaker. But you still should be able to make eye contact with your audience, especially when you are reciting what you have said at least five hundred times before, "...hope...change...people losing their homes....stop waters from rising." His problem is that he seems incapable of giving a speech without taking his eyes off the teleprompters, and I find it highly distracting when watching him speak.
Isn't charisma the main draw of the guy that the rabid right likes to call the "messiah?" He electrifies crowds numbering in the tens of thousands. To suggest anyone can do the same just by having teleprompters is beyond absurd, it is idiotic. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama, but saying he doesn't know how to communicate to crowds or rooms is proven wrong every day. I think the best thing about his speaking style is that you have the feeling he is actually conversing rather than using rhetorical device. McCain, at his best, was good at the same thing. Sadly for McCain, he now seems to reading from a teleprompter whether he is or not. "My friends...."
I think he does fine in off the cuff moments, carefully gleened youtube moments notwithstanding. In debates, interviews, and even his much derided Saddleback Church appearance what I see is a thoughtful politician (yes, he' s a politician) who recognizes the difficulty in many of these issues. Oh, and he says "uh" a lot . This may indeed be too "Adlai Stevenson", and McCain's approach at the same functions of throwing the red meat, and tossing out elements of stump speeches may be more effective. For me, however, it makes McCain appear to be the empty suit, though I know he is not. Obama is gambling that a steady calm demeanor, and treating the voters as grownups in interview and discussion settings wil garner some votes. He may be wrong. But these claims that he can't communicate without a teleprompter are just plain silly, if you have watched his interviews and the debates.
One of the signs reads: "Jessie Jackson hates Obama for federal _ _ _ _ support act, Michael _ _ _ _." I couldn't make out the words of the _ _ _ _ And a sign that says something about abortion and "blacks against Obama"
For the reasons discussed, the debates should be interesting. Hillary ate Obama's lunch most of the time in debates because of his dependence on the teleprompter. While McCain is not the orator that Obama is, he does a pretty good job speaking extemporaneously due to all the town meetings he does and, therefore, could have an advantage in the debates. We shall see who does best without a teleprompter and with nothing more than a few notes and their experience.
