![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
3. Get rid of the TelePrompTer.
The members of India's legislature were astonished to find Obama reading from it as he addressed them.
It was the first time the device had ever been used in India's Parliament House. As one Indian official put it: "We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact."
We thought so, too. But the president simply can't seem to function without having his talking points projected in front of him. He's addicted.
Why? As someone who's written many speeches and teaches public speaking, I believe it's a sign of insecurity. When you have to use a TelePrompTer (and speak from a script), you're afraid of messing up.
If Obama is to be taken seriously, he must master the most common speaking style of the modern age, incorporating extemporaneous or impromptu remarks. If he can be clear and articulate without a manuscript, it will boost his credibility.
-- Daniel A. Cirruci for The Philadelphia Daily News
I'm finally starting to accept the idea that Obama isn't really that smart. I remember when I was first blown away by his big race speech, after his campaign got in trouble over his preacher, but I didn't think that he was merely reading aloud.
Of course, George W. Bush was no brainiac, and neither was Reagan for that matter, and as we can see by all this current rage of anti-elitism, Americans seem to resent their leaders having too much intelligence, reading all those books, like they're better than us, but I liked to think that Obama was different, as Clinton was different in having some genuine brain power, if not a lot of self-restraint.
Maybe Sarah Palin would be the perfect president for America!
The members of India's legislature were astonished to find Obama reading from it as he addressed them.
It was the first time the device had ever been used in India's Parliament House. As one Indian official put it: "We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact."
We thought so, too. But the president simply can't seem to function without having his talking points projected in front of him. He's addicted.
Why? As someone who's written many speeches and teaches public speaking, I believe it's a sign of insecurity. When you have to use a TelePrompTer (and speak from a script), you're afraid of messing up.
If Obama is to be taken seriously, he must master the most common speaking style of the modern age, incorporating extemporaneous or impromptu remarks. If he can be clear and articulate without a manuscript, it will boost his credibility.
-- Daniel A. Cirruci for The Philadelphia Daily News
I'm finally starting to accept the idea that Obama isn't really that smart. I remember when I was first blown away by his big race speech, after his campaign got in trouble over his preacher, but I didn't think that he was merely reading aloud.
Of course, George W. Bush was no brainiac, and neither was Reagan for that matter, and as we can see by all this current rage of anti-elitism, Americans seem to resent their leaders having too much intelligence, reading all those books, like they're better than us, but I liked to think that Obama was different, as Clinton was different in having some genuine brain power, if not a lot of self-restraint.
Maybe Sarah Palin would be the perfect president for America!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Obama who?
Date: 2010-11-12 03:35 am (UTC)From:See, Obama's arrival didn't capture much of our general public's attention. This was because of poor showing by the Democrats in your recent elections.
The Republicans have managed to stymie his brain-dead efforts to curb outsourcing, & with them capturing the House, there was no point in listening to a President who can do precious little to advance his agenda.
Re: Obama who?
Date: 2010-11-12 04:17 am (UTC)From:Re: Obama who?
Date: 2010-11-12 04:39 am (UTC)From:Obama had a great chance to reduce the huge social inequality in society. The fat-cat lobbyists were @ their weakest; & he had the momentum of populist anger against Wall St. supporting him. He could have passed stricter banking regulations, better taxation laws. But he dilly-dallied too much & the moment was lost.
Given that corporate influence is usually so strong in Washington, I don't think you'll ever get another chance like that - a chance to do some real good for society! And that's what hurts me the most - that he squandered such a great opportunity :(
These days, banks are once again back to their nefarious ways; & the only people walking around with big smiles are the corporates, who are reaping record profits from saving money via outsourcing. And none of that money is reaching the general public, thanks to the stupid tax laws.
Re: Obama who?
Date: 2010-11-12 09:04 pm (UTC)From: