Of all the things to criticize Obama on…

In recent months, conservative criticisms of Barack Obama have become fairly predictable. He’s “too liberal”; his 12 years in elected office make him “too inexperienced”; his opposition to the Bush administration foreign policy makes him “too weak”; etc.

What I didn’t expect was to see the right take on Obama over his ability to give a good speech. Indeed, I thought the conservative line was, “Sure, he’s a brilliant orator, but that’s irrelevant.”

Today, however, the Weekly Standard’s Dean Barnett spends 1,400 words insisting that without a teleprompter, Obama’s rhetorical skills are laid bare. He is, Barnett argued, a “markedly inferior speaker.”

Yes, Obama can turn a phrase better and do more with a Teleprompter than any other modern era politician. But does his special skill set here actually mean anything, or is it instead the political equivalent of a dog walking on its hind legs — unusual and riveting, but not especially significant? Regardless, the liberal commentators have gushed their praise nearly every time Obama has opened his mouth before a Teleprompter the past few months

It was thus interesting to see Obama climb to the stage at Virginia’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on Saturday night. As he strode to the podium, Obama clutched in his hands a pile of 3 by 5 index cards. The index cards meant only one thing — no Teleprompter.

Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. He looked down at his obviously copious notes every few seconds throughout the speech. Unlike the typical Obama oration where the words flow with unparalleled fluidity, he stumbled over his phrasing repeatedly. […]

With no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion. He had to rely on notes. And his memory. And he improvised…. The results weren’t just interesting because they revealed Obama as a markedly inferior speaker without the Teleprompter.

ABC News’ Jake Tapper, whose work has been increasingly disappointing of late, highlighted Barnett’s piece, and suggests that Obama’s skills without a teleprompter “could be a real vulnerability.”

I haven’t the foggiest idea what these people are talking about.

Of all the things to criticize Obama on, his ability to communicate well should probably be at the very bottom of the list of conservative talking points.

When Obama gives a speech at a campaign rally, he’s not using a teleprompter, and from what I hear, the audience still seems pretty impressed. When Obama hosts town-hall meetings, there’s no teleprompter, and based on recent elections results, he still does a pretty effective job of connecting with voters.

But you know what? Let’s just skip the analysis and cut to the chase. Here’s the speech Obama gave at Virginia’s J-J Dinner over the weekend:

Some of this is subjective, of course. Different people can listen to the same speech and come to very different conclusions.

So, go ahead and take a look. Was his delivery “halting and unsure”? Did he “repeatedly” stumble? Did he come across as a “markedly inferior speaker”?

Not as far as I can tell.

Mr. Carpetbagger,

Some of this is subjective, of course. Different people can listen to the same speech and come to very different conclusions.

Clearly reality has a liberal bias.

  • They’re going after his strengths, of course. This is Karl Rove 101.

    Next they’ll be saying “Even Bill Clinton knows Obama hasn’t always been against the Iraq war”

  • Also, don’t forget his outstanding speech at that big event in Iowa late last year (was it their J-J dinner?). Obama didn’t have notes there either.
    His post-election speeches have always been something to look forward to and either put a salve on the disappointment of the night’s results (N.H.) or are the icing on the cake (Iowa). When is the last time we had a candidate who we really enjoyed listening to? I sure can’t remember.
    Here’s looking forward to tonight’s teleprompting!

  • It was a little annoying how often he looked down. And he stuttered a little bit. And the poor guy sounded HOARSE, probably from the shouting he’s been doing for months.

    But he still gave a fine, LONG speech. I didn’t find it discouraging at all. And he’s proven in the debates that he can think on his feet in a big way.

  • LMAO

    Anyone remember Reagan? The first president to use a teleprompter (iirc), and completely out to sea without one.

  • kid oakland, writing his endorsement on Daily Kos of Obama had a great dry come-back to this that he credited to this father…

    “Charisma and the ability to move people through speeches are not exactly qualities we find lacking in great leaders of the past.”

  • I have prayed, made novenas, lit candles, and recited litany’s to the Saints and to the Blessed Virgin Mary, all asking that one lousy petition be granted: PLEASE let the teleprompter explode during one of Bush’se State of the Union speeches! Alas, it looks like one more unanswered prayer.

  • I…don’t think we’re the audience this article is meant to target. The piece is meant for people who never investigate further. “The news” says Obama can’t speak without a telemprompter, so all the evidence to the contrary is meaningless. 8 years of Bushisms – many of them WITH a telemprompter or notes he nonetheless screwed up – will be forgotten like a dog forgets to stay out of the flower bed. I mean, did you hear? Obama can’t speak without a teleprompter!

  • The first part of the speech is a laundry list of names. It would be crazy not to use note cards for that. Although he did look down a lot he was merely very good instead of transcendent on this one.

  • This, from the party that brought us so many ‘is our children learning’ moments that Letterman has a regular feature showing Bush bumbling and butchering the language? I don’t think this is going to play in Peoria or anywhere else.

  • His delivery was halting and unsure.

    If this evidence of desperation is the best they can come up with, then Obama is going to kick ass in the general.

  • Tapper can obviously pass the IQ test low enough to go to work for the Walt Disney Corporation – owners of Dizzy TV and the producers of “The Path to 9/11”.

  • But, yes, I thought it was one of his weaker recent speeches — but still more inspiring than numerous other politicians…

    However, check out Obama’s teleprompter-free speech in College Park the other day… He was completely in his element — and improvising…

  • So the idiots on the right think we should vote for McCain because they remember one time when Barack wasn’t absolutely scintillating on a stump speech? Have these fools ever heard McCain speak even with his cue cards and teleprompters?

    Racer X is spot on that this tactic is out of Rove’s playbook, but for God’s sake you won’t turn anyone against Obama’s strength when it points out just how glaring a weakness it is in your own guy. McCain’s oratorical failings are reason enough to vote against him

  • Obama’s JJ speech was quite a good speech. Wow, what a way to go over Obama’s big strength, his rhetorical ability! If Obama is halting and bumbling, what is George Bush.

  • Comedy. If that’s all they’ve got then BHO is looking pretty good. I’m not sure how it could become a liability. Is there a box on the ballots to vote for the best non-teleprompter using speaker instead of who you want for President?

  • Can’t wait to compare the worst speech Obama does to the best that McCain does….

    That might be a competition.

  • “Is there a box on the ballots to vote for the best non-teleprompter using speaker”

    um, i think that’s part of the academy awards coming up…..

    snark/

  • First the Che Guevera flag and now the sans teleprompter SCANDAL.

    Acts of desperation. And lame ones at that.

    Of course, the MSM loves McCain so does it matter? It’s going to take some serious grass roots organization and great dem 527s to win this, no matter who the candidate. These are so lame, we are most definitely going to see a resurgence of Barack HUSSAIN the terrorist loving, Muslim and Madrassagate. And I have a feeling that we’re going to see more and more of stuff being thrown about just to see what sticks. Then, WHAMMO!

    God, how I mourn more and more for my country. It was once such a fine place to live. A place to be proud of. Alas, no more.

  • I saw Obama give a stump speech in Peterborough, NH this summer and he was the best speaker I’ve ever seen. The speech was given behind a barn and there was no teleprompter in sight. I’ve seen some pretty good speakers over the years, including Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson, and Obama’s got ’em beat.

    The Weekly Standard just ought to be happy that all three leading candidates believe in subject-verb agreement…. something our current president appears to struggle with.

  • Obama seems pretty impressive in the interviews I’ve seen him in, off the cuff and responding to questions that are, perhaps, not unexpected (what is in modern campaigns?) but not pre-planned.
    This sounds like a pre-emptive update on “People who heard that debate on the radio said Nixon won! Hands down!”

  • It is certainly possible they caught him on an off night. After all, especially in a campaign, you can’t give your A+ speech every single time…just too hard (voice worn out, lack of sleep, perhaps eating late, etc.).

  • I second Racer X. It’s going after his strength, but it has another purpose you never hear stated. You see, if Kerry was a war hero, and Bush wasn’t, it’s not in dispute, so journalists can say this as fact. “Kerry, who actually fought in Vietnam.” Obama is a great orator, and since you don’t want media personalities to state the obvious like this, you want to let them know it demonstrates their liberal bias to do so because it’s in dispute.

    We will not challenge McCain’s service, so they can call him a hero who was a POW because we wouldn’t dare suggest otherwise. They can’t say Obama is a great orator. So, score one for the GOP machine.

  • To RacerX’s excellent point I would add the “cult of personality” meme dovetails in nicely to tudblossom politics. My God, McCain’s possibly a worse speaker than shrub. At least the little idiot is somewhat entertaining, in a Norm Crosby kind of way.

  • This reeks of right wing desperation. Obama’s moving up in the polls, destroying the last great Republican hope that hatred of Hillary would ride to their rescue. He’s surpassing McCain, their chosen standard bearer. They can’t fight him on issues. They so far haven’t been able even to Swiftboat him effectively. Well, maybe they can Teleprompt him.

    Crankily yours,
    The New York Crank

  • Oh please…

    Even Obama’s worst speech on his worst day – without a teleprompter – is better than your average politician’s speech.

    You know they’re grasping for straws to attack him with if they’re going after his speechiness. This does not bode well for the republicans in November, if Obama is the nominee.

  • Yes, he’s nothing like McCain, who can give a riveting speech and throw in a song along with it! Sort of mix ’em up, like. Obama better start working on an updated version of “Mammy”.

    Seriously, if you want a laugh about who can and cannot give a speech, give in to nostagia and google “Bush Bulge”. Aside from a probable few longing diatribes from goopers referring to the front of Bush’s jeans while he’s clearing brush on the ranch, you’ll be able to walk down memory lane to the time when Shrubby was revealed to be wearing a transmitter box on his back during the Bush/Kerry debates. If he didn’t have legs and arms, you could probably use him as a Roomba! And hey, what about his speech at Dieppe, when he wasn’t talking, but you could hear somebody else’s voice coming out of his earpiece over the microphone?

    See? Even somebody with a room temperature IQ can be learned to speak good.

  • I’d say that it is better than anything George W. Bush has ever done, even when he had the bump in his back where they pulled the string in 2004. Of course, that is a pretty low standard. It seems very similar in tone and rhetoric as anything else he has done. Of course, unless you are Bill Clinton, it is harder to speak from cards than to read a telepromptor but the delivery is pretty smooth despite being a very long, somewhat droning recitation of talking points.

    I was talking to my wife last night while dozing off to sleep and I guess the approach of slumber loosened my mind and mouth and I rambled on about an Obama/Gore ticket. Gore could continue doing what he is currently doing with the force of the US government behind him. Struck me as an interesting idea and would put TN in play, despite losing it when he ran. He is southern and white which are two things people seem to think important.

    I also said that I thought Obama was probably not reporting his fundraising figures on purpose. After today’s triple win I think he will announce a number that crushes Clinton’s and then follow up with an Edwards endorsement and perhaps not long before March 4, a Gore endorsement.

    But I could have been just sleepy.

    I was

  • actually, i thought it was the worst speech i’ve seen him give. he was looking down a lot and came close to stumbling. still, the speech beat what most politicians would do.

  • When (not if, but when) Tapper gets canned from ABC, he has a place as Rush Limbaugh’s sidekick.

    The guy’s a GOP hack, as his recent work has made glaringly obvious.

  • Obama’s “worst” is still better than many politicians’ best. He still connects with his audience and speaks with conviction and character.

  • “ABC News’ Jake Tapper, whose work has been increasingly disappointing of late”

    Really. That’s like saying Rush Limbaugh is “disheartening”.

    Here’s some more hilarious Tapper:

    “Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand. It’s as if Tom Daschle [D-SD] descended from on high saying, “Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat.”

    Remind you of Rush now?

  • “… the political equivalent of a dog walking on its hind legs”? I’m surprised no one has picked up on that backhanded garbage. Consider for a moment: how would you characterize a dog walking on its hind legs? Rare … borderline freakish … exceeding the abilities of most of “his kind”? Once examined, the insinuation is both disgusting and hard to ignore .. and typical for the new age racist, who knows better than to speak plainly. Better to couch the remark in an analogy, so if anyone calls them on it, they can simply claim it was inadvertent. Or better yet, turn the tables on the accuser and whine about reverse discrimination, hyper-sensitivity, or some other lame defense. Coded slander like this should not go unchallenged, but first it must be recognized.

  • Wasn’t that speech given around the time Sen. Clinton was courting John Edwards? Don’t assume the populism in Barack Obama’s speech, which was the real complaint, was inadvertent.

  • Next the Right will be saying that Barry isn’t really that smart. They’ll “prove” that his Harvard Law class of 1991 had a lower IQ than other classes. They scored only 161average IQ that year.

  • At least he didn’t say, “My friends…” about a thousand times. If being a POW is McCain’s strength, we could pull a page from turdblossom’s book and question his sanity after 5 years of capitivity and torture… It would be low and underhanded, but that’s what they understand.

  • This attack must be from the Rove book of going after the opponent’s strength. In this case, it’s really in defiance of reality. And not exactly an issue that people decide on–or how did Shrub get by?

  • 1. Dean Barnett has obviously never witnessed an Obama stump speech. All the “off-script” stuff from the J-J dinner that Barnett complained about was directly from the stump speech.

    2. Hillary Clinton is a much better debater, to be sure. But you can’t overlook as Barnett does the fact that Obama’s debating style has steadily improved. In the last debate he was fine.

    3. Clinton seems better at Q&A because she is very message disciplined. Obama answers the question. Is that a weakness or refreshing. I say the latter.

  • I can’t be sure but I think Lincoln read the Gettysburg Address.
    We’re not just talking about the sounds Obama makes, we are listening to the words Obama speaks. That’s what makes a great speech.
    But it is foolish to argue with Republican believers: they like Bush, they still do, and they will in no case like Obama.
    They are still pretty annoyed with Franklin Roosevelt. And truth be known, they didn’t like John Kennedy all that much.

  • That was the first full speech I’ve seen of Obama (except I skipped some of the names at the beginning), and thought it was awesome (I’ve only seen short clips of him before). Definitely better than Bush on his best day. As for the “he can only speak with a Teleprompter” meme, that one has been mentioned a few times here in the comments section of this blog and I assumed they knew what they were talking about. But that was a good speech and he obviously had no Teleprompter. I guess it’s unfortunate that he doesn’t have a perfect memory, but having to read off of notecards isn’t the worst thing. I’ve heard that Rove has a photographic memory and look how far that got him (though I actually think he invented that story).

    And I’m assuming he mostly writes his speeches, is that true? I know Bill had a strong hand in writing his speeches, often forcing rewrites and whatnot; whereas the most work Bush ever did on his speeches was learning to pernunciate all the wurds (often not successfully). So does anyone know how much of a role he plays in writing them? I’d really like to know. I have a hard time believing he’s outsourcing this stuff because he delievers them so well. Bush always sounded like he was reading someone else’s lines and not very well.

  • Yes, Obama repeats lines in his stump speech. All politicians do. And they do it because they know that the percentage of the electorate that actually listens to more than one of their stump speeches is probably in the low single digits.

    This is like complaining that a band played a lot of the same songs in their concert in Chicago that they played last week in New York.

  • I did think it was an inferior-for-Obama speech delivery. But much of it was basically his stump speech, which he can definitely do without a teleprompter, and he fumbled some bits that I’ve heard him deliver so many times I could pretty much recite them myself. Watching on tv I had absolutely no sense that he was reading note cards. My take, watching him, was that he was exhausted beyond belief.

  • The Rethugs are getting really desperate if they think this is an effective talking point against Obama. It’s like accusing Clinton of insufficient policy knowledge. I’m assuming the implicit comparison here is with Clinton who is admittedly deft at extemporaneous speechmaking & debates. But Clinton with a teleprompter is simply no match with Obama with one, in either content or style. At his best he simply unrivalled by anyone in recent memory at inspirational rhetoric, dazzling cadence & breathtaking charisma.

    If however the implicit comparison is with McCain, the criticism is frankly laughable. McCain is just appalling as a speaker, as his recent Florida victory speech confirmed. Speaking with notes that appeared to have been shuffled into stunning incomprehensibility by a mischevious gremlin, his faltering, cranky delivery of what should have been a triumphal speech was hilariously awful. His crowd of supporters tried to buoy their tongue-tied candidate with chants of “Mac is Back!” & “USA! USA!”. He rewarded their misplaced enthusiasm with furious, curmudgeonly glares & punished the noisy whippersnappers for making him lose his place by returning, each time, to the very beginning of what he was saying before he was so rudely interrupted. It was agonising, interminable & I was laughing so hard I had tears streaming down my face. Even his anaesthetized, Botoxed blonde 2nd wife managed to register a rictus of horror at her ancient husband’s irate, mood-killing delivery. Others less medicated campaign types looked even more aghast.

    I truly hope conservatives try to use the Rovian tactic of attacking Obama’s rhetorical strength. To do so will inevitably invite comparison with McCain, for on that basis, among many others, they will fail spectacularly.

  • What is wrong with using a teleprompter? You really expect him to remember some of those insanely long and well written speeches he does? Especially the ones on policy. He’s only human. Why would anyone expect him to memorize all that? He writes all his own speeches anyway, its not like he’s an actor. Hillary Clinton just reads from a sheet of paper.

    I have noticed that this is how Obama maintains the illusion that he is constantly giving eye contact to the audience, as he has one teleprompter on the left and one on the right. He just turns his head back and forth from each one.

  • Comments are closed.