Tips for Obama

[monk222]

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!

Comments

Re: Obama who?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

In the end, he will probably only be known for being our first black president, and that's if we're lucky, since a serious military turn in world affairs could make him a big focal point again.

Re: Obama who?

[poovanna.livejournal.com]

In some ways, I kind of feel bad for the guy - at least personality wise, he is better than Bush. Unfortunately, his (only ?) shortcoming - his lack of boldness, was also the one thing that was most needed when he took over.

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?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

That has to be one of the best summations I've seen, and that includes our pundits and analysts who get paid the big bucks and talk their stuff on TV. I might even have to post that in a main entry. Though, I will say this, what is happening here seems to be part of a larger Western phenomenon. They are rioting in Franch, and even the English are up in arms, over governments moving in this same direction, sticking it to the lower orders while coddling their big economic horses. So, it also may be that Obama is caught in forces much larger than we can easily see. The near future is looking a little scary.