Not So Inspiring Sans Teleprompter?

I think that Weekly Standard column was the result of Dean Barnett's disappointment that Mitt Romney dropped out. Dean was a Mitt supporter for years and years, and I suspect he's been feeling a bit eeyore-ish lately. It happens. Maybe someone will send him a Pooh bear and some brownies to help him feel better. Whatever works.

Please post an update noting the following false statement in Barnett's piece:

"At one point, Obama launched an improvised jeremiad against the current administration that took special note of the recent revelation that he and Dick Cheney are distant relations"

The quoted paragraph that then follows has been part of Obama's standard stump speech since Iowa, as could have been easily discovered with a 10 second search on Google, YouTube, or Obama's web site.

Please don't give partisan hacks like Barnett legitimacy by quoting and linking to their hit pieces uncritically.

I thought the speech was really good. I think that all humans fumble lines in their speeches (see George W. Bush). I also think that this doesn't change my vote.

Obama '08

P.S. Somebody needs to analyze the way Senator Clinton always bugs her eyes and starts kind of yelling when she is really bringing home a point. Also, her tendency to nod her head as if agreeing with herself. It kind of bugs me! :)

Not enough angry Obamabots for today's posts. Where are you all, 'cause some guy actually wrote something somewhat negative about your god today. Destroy him! Hey, got an idea to help you out, why not blame Hillary? Heck why not throw in Bill and the daughter as well? Gotta be their fault Barnett wrote stuff like that.

No changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean must be prepared to deliver that message to Sen. Hillary Clinton and her allies.

With a razor-thin delegate margin separating them and ever-fewer states left on the campaign calendar, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are working all angles to get to 2,025 - the number needed to win their party's presidential nomination.

Source: NY Post

I think that the issues of teleprompters and Obama's oratorical skills are easily checked by reviewing other speeches where he had no teleprompter. If he's done well in other places without a teleprompter, then we can assume that the Virgina J&J speech was due to fatigue. If he's done poorly everytime he's without a teleprompter, it means that he's not as gifted and spontaneous as everyone believed.

How about some good old-fashioned journalism? This issue can be easily checked by ABC News staff.

I think his a lot like Bush, I mean the way he talks, his torturing to the ears .The stutering is very anoying.

I watched the speech in question and yes he stumbled here and there and in places was halting rather than smooth.

It was fatigue, nothing more or less. He has given numerous of speeches and talks sans teleprompter which were smooth and without stumbling disproving the allegation that it's all about the teleprompter.

It was fatigue. Folks don't want to agree that's fine, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Fact is Obama has given many a speech just fine without a teleprompter.

Um, that was pretty much his stump speech, something he does many times a week without a teleprompter. I'm going with the obvious explanation of "it was late and campaigns are exhausting."

It has been obvious in the debates. He sounds like a car that does not want to start. He is not smooth like a TV anchor. Forget about the poll McCain will banish this amature. I am a Dem. going Rep. To risky to test someone in the White House.

I could not agree more. I watched both speeches that night and Sen. Clinton's speech was far more superior, inspiring and exuded a "hope" based in the geo-political realities of our time.

Republicans destroyed this country

$8 Trillion of the $9 Trillion in debt is because of Reagans and Bushs

HELLOOOO is right. I agree with Patty. This is just more of the same Republican mudslinging, and unfortunately, just the tip of the iceberg regarding future lies, distortions, political games, etc, that Obama will have to endure. We have all witnessed similar lies, lies and more lies from the Bush administration for the past eight years, and it will only get more brutal since they realize that the world is now on to all their lying and deceitful ways. Obama should be able to win at the ballot box this year (hands down), but what about all those illegal ballot boxes? We need to all demand accountability and honesty in order to solve the world's woes -- global climate change, hunger, poverty, recession, war and talk of war. Go git 'em, Senator Obama!

Jake, did you actually watch the speech? I just don't see what you're talking about. Thanks to Tom J for posting the link so we could see for ourselves. It's frustrating to hear and read so many lies and innuendo.

Harvard Law, Harvard Law Review, experienced trial attorney, social advocate, U.S. Senator......problems with public speaking? I think not.

I think Obama does well in debates. Other than that one comment about Clinton being "likable enough," where has he ever stumbled?

By contrast, Clinton has had some major problems in debates, even on substantive policy issues: her bizarre answer re Iraq and the Levin Amendment; her bizarre answer re drivers licenses for illegals; her claim to have been glad the bankruptcy bill failed, even though she voted for it; her inability to say how she would enforce her healthcare mandate; her obvious tactic of responding to a critical question by posing a critical question about Obama; and her suggestion that Obama was naive for being willing to talk to our enemies.

Everyone knows it's easier to give a prepared speech, and every speaker does better with a teleprompter (hello - that's why everyone uses them).

One more thing, anyone recall John McCain sans teleprompter after New Hampshire?

"My friends, my friends, my friends, my friends, my friends..."

And yet Tapper imagines Obama having trouble against him?

It is pretty amazing that Obama's oratory skills fall short without the teleprompter. Perhaps this is why he is so bad at debates...wonder how he would do in debates opposed with McCain?

I agree with DickC's comments above. Interesting story, yes, but extremely suspect as an impartial journalistic source. After I read Mr. Barnett's account, I had to ask myself if he or the company he works for have any axes to grind or any ideological differences with the subject of his piece. The answer: OF COURSE they have axes to grind, since he works for "The Weekly Standard," one of the most extreme right-wing publications of our times, and OF COURSE they have ideological differences with the subject of their piece. So, if Mr. Barnett wishes to write about his personal reactions to a candidate and what he himself thinks about the candidate's oratorical style, he should be intellectually honest and label his work as "commentary," and not reportage.

I agree w/ the above poster as well.. I was on hand for a stump speech as well and there wasn't a teleprompter in site..

And to rebuff the above mentioned article he mentions Obama going off his speech when talking about brownie/libby/rove.. but those who follow his speeches know that it is a staple of all of his stump speeches..