Not So Inspiring Sans Teleprompter?

It's NOT interesting, not even remotely. So he speaks better with a teleprompter. So what? Funny how brave you MSM people are now that a Democrat is in office after 8 years of toadying to Bush!

If you are going tear the guy down, really go negative with him, can you not find something better than this? C'mon, get your opposition research going. Surely he mouthed off to an teacher in elementary school. Missed church on an occasion or two. Maybe was late with a library book. Innuendo and insinuation. That is all I have heard. Now this garbage about public speaking skills, have you heard our sitting President WITH a teleprompter? Have you listened to John McCain speak? At least argue a point on an issue or other wise get out of the way.

"Consider that this is a conservative source, of course. But it's interesting. What do you think?" I think Jake Cutter has pwned himself. The comments demolish Barnett's thesis, but there is a fine article at Media Matters* which shows that 1) The so-called hateful-liberal "improvisations" are part of Obama's stock of speeches and 2) most media people know this. Why doesn't Jake? Or does he? Why would anyone outside of Limbaugh's audience take A Weekly Standard article as anything other than slanted and possibly untruthful?

Watched the video. And yes, he is a terrible speaker without something in front of him.
As if his stumbling performance in the debates hadn't already proven this.

Um, just wanted to say that I watched the video and I don't agree at all with the assessment that he's "much worse." He looked down at his notes a couple times, but that's fine. Very good speech.

Gee, Jake, seeing this within a few days of your buying into the "cult"idiocy that was being floated last week (really held Obama's numbers down in VA-MD-DC, didn't it?), I'm beginning to think the cheese is slipping off your cracker! The JJ speech was fine -- more akin to the "stump speeches" I've seen him give at rallies, and certainly better than Clinton's speech the same night.

I find her very hard to listen to; she has a tendency to shout and strain her voice and it's not terribly effective. One of the best speeches I've seen her give was on Super Tuesday. It sounded as if it had been written by a different speechwriter and her delivery was very good, measured, almost graceful. And it looked like she was using -- horrors! -- a teleprompter. Let's start talking about substance.

I'm not voting for a candidate on whether they can give a perfectly smooth speech while exhausted and without a teleprompter. Good grief! Are you so lacking in substantive issues that you resort to childish fluff like this, Jake?

I'm voting by how a candidate views the problems in the world, what processes they use to solve those problems and who they include in that process. I want results that doesn't cost my appropriate pride in being an American so I am turning that page, however flawed and authentic it may be, with Obama.

Wow, what are you alking about? I think this blog is definitely biased. I watched the speech on TV, didn't notice that there was no teleprompter, and thought it was more substantive than usual, which I was happy about.

Thought I was reading the Onion at first.

I saw what this writer is referring to and couldn't decipher if it was a stutter or static. Hey maybe thats what our next debate should be about. On the spot surprise speeches. No teleprompter, no written speeches. Why you should be president in your own words? GO!!!
Mr Obama you are no JFK!!!!

This article is right on.......I noticed how obama did really poorly in the debates----he would hesitate, stutter, and then when he did speak, my friend (that I was watching the debates with) said that she couldn't follow his train of thought----his words were kind of jumbled all together and it isn't clear what he was trying to get across. Hello, America!! Hillary is very strong in debates and she would out-debate McCain ANY day......

Over a year of watching, I agree that Obama is not as great without the teleprompter as with. This is a stylistic rather than substantive problem, after all we've elected folks who can't get out a full sentence (ie current White House idiot). The real problem is that his image is built on his ability to deliver sweeping oratory. Like it or not, the guy needs a media coach ASAP to get over this if he plans to score points in debates against McCain.

Not at all surprised. But there are a lot of us who knew Obama before he became the Messiah of today.

"Overall, speeches and debates are not the end in themselves. It's not so much important who wins on "points" as to which candidate convinces the electorate that they would make the better President and leader for our nation."

and Obama has given us NOTHING except speeches.

You can already see it in his past debates with Clinton. Whereas Clinton seamlessly appears to know what the hell she is talking about and can drown you in policy details, Obama is forever stuttering and trying to come up with something worthwhile to say. He gives me the impression of George Bush trying to say something intelligent.

This is clearly an attempt to gratuitously knock Obama down a notch.

I saw the speech in its entirety, and while I noted that Obama was looking at his notes and going off text more, I thought the speech was good. Of course it wasn't quite as seamless as when he has a teleprompter. But in some respects, that made it seem more personable and spontaneous.

Obama does have a tendency to occasionally to pause when he is speaking extemporaneously, which admittedly is not the best speaking habit. It's one reason he doesn't do as well in debates. In general he likes to be measured and precise in what he says, preferring well-rounded perspectives to snappy sound bites.

Overall, speeches and debates are not the end in themselves. It's not so much important who wins on "points" as to which candidate convinces the electorate that they would make the better President and leader for our nation.

What us non-cult members know already. What America will find out by November.

Barnett's piece is complete nonsense, and the sort of incompetent, unprofessional, and sloppy "reporting" we've all become used to these days. Take, for example, the language from the speech that he quotes as evidence of "partisan anger," which he claims Obama would utter when he deviated from the text far removed from the lofty language he has so far been using during the campaign. THis is ridiculous and patently false. The supposed "angry" language that Obama used is language he has been using in perhaps 1/3 or more of his speeches, going at least all the way back to November 2007 (e.g., check out his "One Year From Today" speech from late last year, which you can find on Youtube). Futhermore, I can't believe Barnett can be as dimwitted as he's making himself out to be: Obama's line about his cousin Cheney has nothing to do with anger, but is simply designed to be (and taken by everyone else in the world other than Barnett) a joke. In fact, in some cases, when making this joke, he adds that "everyone has a black sheep in the family. The other so-called "angry" lines he quotes are, of course, partisan (isn't this about an election after all), but they are also nothing new in his speeches (see same "One Year" speech), contrary to this nonsense from Barnett. In any event, they are not spoken out of anger, as Bartnett's overactive imagination tells him, but are simply designed so that the troops will be "fired up and ready to go." Obama generally reserves these lines for more partisan audiences, rather than when his speech is intended for a broader audience (such as a victory speech). Finally, while he was was visibly looking at notes for this speech, his speech was not significantly more halting than his typical speech. It is true that his delivery is not always at the same level, even when he not visibly looking at notes. Very often he gives speeches and it is obviously that he's fatigued. What is truly amazing is that he's able to perform at such a high level after frequently getting only three hours of sleep.

Jake:

I agree! When Obama is delivering a speech that he has memorized or one that is spoon-fed via teleprompter he sounds pretty good, unless you've heard the crap a thousand times like I have-in which case you can probably deliver it about as well as he does.Anyway, watch him think on his feet and you will indeed watch him think---he is all "uhms" and "ahs," delivered in a halting, sleep-inducing monotone. Watch the 60 minutes interview (zzzzz...). I've often noticed it in his debate performances and when he responds to audience questions. This is just one of many ways that the man does not match the hype. He sure does not "Barack my world" as he reportedly does for so many. I suspect that Barack fatigue is about to set in. If people really think about it, they will remember that this election is not a concert--we need to pick a president, not a Barack star.

i've heard obama answer questions during the "meet and greets" he does for his constituents in dirksen (for those of you who don't know where that is, it's a senate building in d.c.). he is terrible. no real answers, no real substance. it's absurd this guy has been able to get this far-- people seriously need to get a grip and actually listen to what he says instead of saying they feel inspired. because inspiration, you know, won't work to get people health care or end the mess that is washington if the "inspiring" person has no credible record or history of doing anything at all.

thanks jake for pointing out to all these people that obama is not god. if you really want to know how obama really works, just go to one of those constituent breakfasts. you'll see that all he does is ride on dick durbin's coattails, which isn't a bad choice at all...