The Great Orator

[thxleo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc

[ProfessorChaos]

i'm pretty sure those fingers towards the eyes which he was trying to depict as a "breathalyzer/inhaler" is actually code for "quick, fix my fucking teleprompter!!!":lol::lol::lol:

[thxleo]

i'm pretty sure those fingers towards the eyes which he was trying to depict as a "breathalyzer/inhaler" is actually code for "quick, fix my fucking teleprompter!!!":lol::lol::lol:

I think you might be right about that. :lol:

[Kaos]

Showing a gaffe or two does not make him a poor orator. Considering the number of flawless speeches I have seen, makes the attempt to use this video as evidence of anything a huge joke. Nothing will compare to the inability for Bush to speak in public. I don't hate Bush at all. I would get embarrassed for him to the extent that I would get a pit in my stomach every time he opened his mouth. He had the worst luck and the least talent in public speaking in modern presidential history. But if the conservatives are floating this video around as a statement of some kind, such as implying that Barack Obama can't consistantly deliver a good and sometimes great speech, then they really need to go back to school about what being a good orator means.

[strayrider]

Showing a gaffe or two does not make him a poor orator. Considering the number of flawless speeches I have seen, makes the attempt to use this video as evidence of anything a huge joke. Nothing will compare to the inability for Bush to speak in public. I don't hate Bush at all. I would get embarrassed for him to the extent that I would get a pit in my stomach every time he opened his mouth. He had the worst luck and the least talent in public speaking in modern presidential history. But if the conservatives are floating this video around as a statement of some kind, such as implying that Barack Obama can't consistantly deliver a good and sometimes great speech, then they really need to go back to school about what being a good orator means.

True. Bush couldn't give a decent speech even with a tele-prompter. Obama is much more "slick" when it come to "talkin' purty".

I don't believe that either of these men are as dumb, or as brilliant, as their opposing sides make them out to be. They're both good men, likable enough as people if you put your bias aside, and they're both human which makes them inherently flawed.

Politically, though, I don't agree with either one of them.

Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we really need him?

:D

-stray-

[Tricky]

The main thing that people seem to fail to grasp,is that good speeches dont make a good leader!tony blair made endless "great speeches" but he was absolutely cack as a prime minister & never followed up any of his promises that he made in his speeches,actions speak far louder than words

[MinionZombie]

The main thing that people seem to fail to grasp,is that good speeches dont make a good leader!tony blair made endless "great speeches" but he was absolutely cack as a prime minister & never followed up any of his promises that he made in his speeches,actions speak far louder than words
Nor do rubbish orators make good leaders though...

5stftd5qv3M

Sorry ... couldn't resist ... it was pretty much the political talking gaffe of 2008 over here.

Now a bit of analysis of said gaffe from Sky News:
gSKYBWmUteo

I'm sure Liam will hit back with some Cameron gaffe just to spite me or something, hehe.

But back to Brown - the man can't stand up and make a good speach. It's always clunky - he doesn't do self-deprecation - jokes are prepared and delivered in a stale, laborious fashion - he trots out the same old tired lines week-after-week-after-week in PMQ's (while ignored the point of PMQs - which is for the PM to answer questions, which aren't planted). The man can't even control a smile - when and where to use them, how to form one even.

Numerous times I've seen him at press briefings, or on PMQs, and he's smiling at the most inopportune moments, or when serious matters are being discussed - this past week he was grinning like an idiot at Cameron's PMQs on the sorry state of the economy - he'd be grinning about Cameron no doubt, but it's the juxtaposition of the smiling and the topic being discussed - just no Gordon ... no.

Blair was a much better speaker - but even he lost it towards the end - Blair's bloated pauses got beyond ridiculous that it took about eleven years for him to get a few sentences out, it was unbearable.

Mind you, when Blair was recently on The Daily Show, I thought he did quite well ... I wonder how many of the audience members had thought he was still the UK PM? That's not a diss, I'm genuinely wondering, as I remember a while back when Brown went to the USA at the same time as the Pope, they did vox pops and barely anyone had heard of Brown, let alone knew who he was - but they all knew the Pope of course - mind you, that's not exactly a level playing field, but still.

Anyway - gaffes are bound to happen, or there are going to be times when you're not on top of your game - but in response to that, it comes down to how you deal with the gaffe, or the troubled delivery.

They may be politicians, but they're still people, and standing up in front of not only a big crowd - but everyone watching on TV - is a scary-ass thing, and it's bound to get the better of even the best orators at some point. But equally, as a politician, you've got to get on with that (it's part of the job).

I don't mind teleprompters so much - just as long as you don't rely on it like it was your lifeblood, that if something does go wrong you most likely can fanagle your way around it, or shrug it off - not that I expect people to memorise whole speaches multiple times a week - I know I couldn't - not even the best actors could, nevermind a politician.

Anyway - thought I'd share that recent gaffe from the UK PM as we discuss America's new President, in relation to gaffes.

...

As for the video posted originally, specifically - he does flub quite a bit, and grounds to a halt almost - but - he does shrug it off, calls attention to it, and goes about excusing himself.

If he'd just barged on desperately without calling attention to it, then that would have been cringe-worthy, but instead it doesn't really play out that way in the video.

[Kaos]

The main thing that people seem to fail to grasp,is that good speeches dont make a good leader!tony blair made endless "great speeches" but he was absolutely cack as a prime minister & never followed up any of his promises that he made in his speeches,actions speak far louder than words

No one here is failing to grasp anything, Trick. This is a discussion about speeches, not governance. :p:lol::evil:

[Philly_SWAT]

The main thing that people seem to fail to grasp,is that good speeches dont make a good leader!tony blair made endless "great speeches" but he was absolutely cack as a prime minister & never followed up any of his promises that he made in his speeches,actions speak far louder than words
This is a thing that people fail to grasp, but I dont think it is the main thing. The main thing people fail to grasp in my opinion is that exceptional speaking skills, or lack thereof, has no bearing at all upon intelligence and/or ability to make good decisions. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they dont.

Saying "Obama is a good speaker" in and of itself does not give an indication that he is smart or has good decision making abilities. At the same time, saying "Obama is a good speaker" also does not fit into an argument that he isnt smart and doesnt have good decision making abilities. I have seen both arguments made, with comments along the line of "Obviously Obama is smart and can make good decisions, look at how well he speaks" and "Obviously Obama is a talented speaker, BUT...(insert comment about how somehow this by definition means that he can not be smart and would make poor decisions).

Unfortunately, most people tend to take what they personally believe and assume in any argument that they by definition are correct, then take any comment made at all, and twist it/interpret it/etc. in such a way that it supports their overall point.

Along with this line of thinking, a person could have a 100% correct premise, but make non-logical, ill conceived supporting arguments in support of their 100% correct premise. Conversely, someone can have a premise that is seriously flawed, but they make brilliant, well conceived logical points in favor of it. The problem I have seen in many online discussions (as well as discussions irl) is that people fail to understand this. Discussions about an overall point devolve into discussions about supporting arguments, supporting arguments that people refuse to yield on even when they are obviously wrong, because they fear that by admitting defeat on a supporting argument, they are somehow admitting defeat on their overall argument which may in fact be 100% correct. It is humorous to me to see these types of arguments, and frustrating at the same time.

[Mike70]

obama certainly might not be marcus cicero or demosthenes when it comes to public speaking but he is far cry from the gaffe a minute, "can-you-actually-speak-english" antics of bush. i doubt if lysias himself could've helped out bush.

[DawnGirl27]

It didn't really help to have the guy giving Obama the lines to repeat flub up and throw him off, either...

[MinionZombie]

It didn't really help to have the guy giving Obama the lines to repeat flub up and throw him off, either...
Indeed.

...

Although did anyone see Bush's speach once he'd returned to Texas? He actually did a good speach - probably one of his best ever speaches (and I'm being sincere here) ... I mean, it wasn't weighty or whatever, but it was entertaining and consistent and not full of Bush-isms.

Anyway, just thought it was interesting - also interesting that the news networks here in the UK quickly grew tired of it and just had their anchors talk all over it in a pop up window (so then why show a video feed of Bush talking if we can't hear him?), and then they just ditched it completely - not even a box in the red button interactive bit on Sky News.

...

And speaking of Sky News ... or is it BBC ... whichever, they're almost identical really - this "Obama: Day 7" stuff is stupid - are we going to have "Obama: Day 786" or what? It's just silly.

Have Inauguration Day ... then sum up his first month, then his first year, then his first term - don't be treating every day with it's own damn title. :rolleyes:

Bloody Sky News/BBC News ... bunch of nobs most of the time anyway...

[DjfunkmasterG]

They did it with Bush...


Day 7, they usually cover the first week, then you get bits here and there until they summarize the first 100, after that you won't hear a peep until the 6 month to 1 year mark, unless some major disaster strikes.

[SRP76]

They're all just trained reciters, anyway. So who cares?

Take away the teleprompters, pre-written speeches (that someone else writes for them anyway), and make them address the public freestyle, speaking solely from their own knowledge. I'll bet that 99% would look like an extra from Diary in that situation. Even worse, if there is a Q&A session involved.

[blind2d]

Sad but true, for most people (non-politicians) as well, I'm sure. God knows I'm no mean oralist, but I do love the English language. It helps me to communicate, don'tchaknow?

[Philly_SWAT]

Sad but true, for most people (non-politicians) as well, I'm sure. God knows I'm no mean oralist,

I heard that you were quite the "oralist"... :)

[strayrider]

Sad but true, for most people (non-politicians) as well, I'm sure. God knows I'm no mean oralist, but I do love the English language. It helps me to communicate, don'tchaknow?

You betcha!

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/09Lr7Kg2shfYc/610x.jpg

:D

-stray-

[MinionZombie]

Dj - guess what we had last night on our news...

OBAMA: DAY 8!

Ugh ... I can see this running and running ... cah'-maaahhhhn...

Bloody news channels. :rant:

[DjfunkmasterG]

They might run with it the full 10 because

A. he is the first black president, leader of the largest super power in the free world, in a country known to have issues with racism.

B. The bush administration fucked things up so badly, they're probably trying to see what he does to fix most of the shoddy work Bush did in his 8 years.

C. He made a lot of promises during the campaign trail and they want to see if he keeps those promises.

However, I am going with A. It is a pretty big historical thing for the US, so they will probably play it up to death in the media.

[kortick]

The media is always a double edged sword.

yeah it seems like they are following everything
he does like they worship him but really it comes down
to a few things:

the first 100 days of a new president is usually followed
if you remember when Clinton came into office it was the case.

they are looking to see what Obama will do about all the
things Bush set in motion and how many of them he will reverse.

they are keeping track so that they can say "its been 3 years
and Obama hasnt kept the promise he made on his 5th day in office"

they always build people up so they can knock them down.

[blind2d]

Aww, stray! You fell for my trap! Thanks!

[AcesandEights]

They might run with it the full 10 because

A. he is the first black president, leader of the largest super power in the free world, in a country known to have issues with racism.

B. The bush administration fucked things up so badly, they're probably trying to see what he does to fix most of the shoddy work Bush did in his 8 years.

C. He made a lot of promises during the campaign trail and they want to see if he keeps those promises.

However, I am going with A. It is a pretty big historical thing for the US, so they will probably play it up to death in the media.

Sounds like all three, but mainly A and B. I mean, hell, Obama is all but diametrically opposed to Bush so people are looking to see just how much...change (yeah, I said it)...there will actually be.

[Mike70]

i'm gonna wax poetic here for a bit so excuse me, i'm in that sort of mood. it's cold as a frost giants nuts outside and there's ten inches of snow on the ground.

anyhoo, i think that winston churchill was the last truly great orator in the classical style. his speeches, even almost 70 years later, literally can send shivers down the spine.

the ancient style of rhetoric is pretty much dead. everything now is focus groups, mass appeal and the media of various types dissecting your every word. the days where a dude wrote his own speeches are done as well.

if you want to read the speeches of someone skilled in elegance of thought and expression, read marcus cicero, the roman senator, consul and defense attorney. his rhetoric is awe inspiring even in english translation and read in latin is an almost spiritual experience. his political speeches are widely considered the best ever. he saved the republic in 63 bc by uncovering a plot by another senator, lucius catalina and in an incredible series of speeches, both to the senate and the roman assembly, denounced him and drove him from the city.

his moral courage to attack mark antony in a series of speeches as last attempt to save the republic is not only amazing but also moving when you consider that they cost him his life.