I like Obama, but...

[politicasista]

for his "supporters" and others to continue to tear down other Democrats (i.e. Kerry) over oratorical, speaking skills while promoting him isn't helping his cause. (Kudos to ProSense's thread! :))

I respect and understand that each is own, and Kerry's style may not be for everyone, but why not just give them both kudos? But I understand, this is "Rehash 2004" week. And supposedly Obama can handle the media cause he speaks well and is well liked.

Kerry and Obama are both good senators, why bash one just to promote the other? :shrug:

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. I found this interesting

in the Rollingstone. The person named Wright is Obama's pastor at his church.

Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. (this can be found in the 8th paragraph)

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama/print

[politicasista]

2. Very interesting n/t

[JI7]

3. it's a few of the same ones

they aren't really Obama supporters as much as being Kerry bashers.

[politicasista]

4. Yep

Hope you had a nice trip. Glad you and your family made it back safe and sound. :hi:

[karynnj]

5. Exactly,

These comments don't bother me because it is subjective. I countered because none of the "great orators" as designated by the media have yet said anything that resounds like the JFK, RFK, MLK speeches .. or John Kerry's 1971 speech. Even if he would have dropped out of public life after the 1972 loss, lines from that speech would be repeated now in the context of Iraq. I watched every major Clinton speech - but though 1992 is more recent than 1960, I remember no signature lines. (Other than one that does not cover him in glory).

I know what I heard in Boston on April 22, 2006. I saw the reaction of those around me. Almost any line in that speech would have been the best quoted line in anyone else's speech. As to delivery, it was very very strong because you knew that he meant every single word said - and that they were his words, not that of a writer and they weren't focus grouped.

Back when arguing 2004 was more important, the fact that lines of Kerry speeches were so memorable made it easy to google for coverage of speeches - using accurately remembered phrases. Think how many lines you remember. Think how many lines you remember from Edwards' speech - other than "not in my America".

Kerry won the primaries partly because of being articulate, coherent and likable in the primary debates. The election would not have been close without the incredible debates - it was not just that Bush was pathetic. Kerry was incredible. These are facts - no matter how much the media and some people here say otherwise.

[whometense]

7. Yeah.

What you said. :-)

[MBS]

6. I agree

I just keep coming back to the lack of generosity. . and it continues to bug me when people steal JK's lines, and his ideas, and don't give him credit. . . .or people refuse to recognize what he's done. What would it possibly cost to give Kerry the credit he deserves?

[Democrafty]

8. Especially if he's as uninspiring as everyone says. n/t

[whometense]

9. Rolling Stone article has a pretty interesting

take on Obama: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13519157/the_low_post_between_barack_and_a_hard_place/print

if you can manage to ignore the insults Matt Taibbi hurls at Kerry. At least he hurls them in all direction. I sure don't agree with everything he says, but it is thought-provoking.

...The Illinois senator is the ultimate modern media creature -- he's a good-looking, youthful, smooth-talking, buttery-warm personality with an aw-shucks demeanor who exudes a seemingly impenetrable air of Harvard-crafted moral neutrality. If Hillary Clinton even dares to open her mouth within a hundred feet of him at any time during the campaign, she's going to come off like a pig digging for truffles. Even Edwards -- the so-called "slick" candidate from '04 -- sounds like a two-bit suburban Buick dealer next to Obama. You get past the "issues," and it's a wipeout.

Obama knows this, and so his entire political persona is an ingeniously crafted human cipher, a man without race, ideology, geographic allegiances or, indeed, sharp edges of any kind. You can't run against him on the issues because you can't even find him on the ideological spectrum. Obama's "Man for All Seasons" act is so perfect in its particulars that just about anyone can find a bit of himself somewhere in the candidate's background, whether in his genes or his upbringing. You can be white, you can be black, you can be Christian, you can be Muslim, you can be from the American heartland or from Africa...you can even, according to his book The Audacity of Hope, worship Norse Gods or bury your relatives according to Hawaiian rituals:

In our household the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology. On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine and ancient Hawaiian burial sites...

As far as political positioning goes, his strategy seems to be to appear as a sort of ideological Universalist, one who spends a great deal of rhetorical energy showing that he recognizes the validity of all points of view, and conversely emphasizes that when he does take hard positions on issues, he often does so reluctantly. He is a black man from Chicago who gets away with praising Ronald Reagan, which is not an easy task. His political ideal is basically a rehash of the Blair-Clinton "third way" deal, an amalgam of Kennedy, Reagan Clinton and the New Deal; he is aiming for the middle of the middle of the middle...

[whometense]

10. And a Boston Phoenix story

on Clinton and Obama in NH, and the impression they are making on the local activists.

http://www.thephoenix.com/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=33787