Skip to main content

View Diary: Want to know just how good Clinton's speech was? Check this out. (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anyone think that Obama (6+ / 0-)

    Toned down his speech so that clintons can remain the highlight of the convention? The speech was the best defense of the administration ever with facts and repudiation of the republicans. I think he wants people to keep referring back to that speech and the more people talk about the more curious people will go take a look for themselves?

    "I'm not mad at them (tea party) for being loud, I'm mad at us for being silent for the last two years. Where have we been"? "it was never yes HE can, it was Yes WE can". - Van Jones

    by sillycilla on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 08:10:43 AM PDT

    •  I think it was intentionally.. (8+ / 0-)

      ....less "soaring", but not because he wanted Clinton's to be the highlight.

      I think it's tone was dictated by the context of the realities of a down economy, the texture of this election and the great speeches he has given before.

      You can only go to that "soaring rhetorical well" so many times before it starts sounding phony, and I think Obama was keenly aware of that.

      He needed to sound more "human" and humble, and he accomplished that.

      His speech was more than fine, it was excellent on it's own terms. It's just he took a different direction with it from what we are used to getting from him, so people were quick to jump on it and say it was substandard.

      Totally disagree.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

      by jkay on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 11:22:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Josh Marshall's analysis is like yours (9+ / 0-)

        TPM analysis BHO's DNC speech

        summarized the next day as:

        the President’s speech began in a textbook, pretty unexceptional way. But it started building about half-way through. And it became clear — at least it seemed clear to me — that the more plodding style was intentional. The President’s advisors didn’t want that inspirational, rhetorical flourish avatar from four year’s ago. They wanted something steadier and more sober. But then it started to build, loftier and more aggressive. On balance, I think it was exactly the speech they wanted him to give....This was an aggressive, in your face Democratic party.

        "Are you bluish? You don't look bluish," attributed to poet Roger Joseph McGough, for the Beatles' Yellow Submarine (1968).

        by BlueStateRedhead on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 01:53:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not really. (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton kicked it up.  He may have his issues with Obama, but he really has scores to settle with the Heathers of the MSM.  For days, if not weeks, they drooled in anticipation at the shiv that Clinton would put between Obama's ribs;  instead Clinton knocked it out of the park.

      So Clinton kicked the speech up.  You don't write fewer than three thousand words and speak more than five thousand at the last minute if you aren't kicking the speech up.  

      Obama probably stuck to his speech as planned.  As President, every syllable gets analyzed by friends and foes abroad and at home, making any departure from the prepared, vetted text dangerous.  That meant Clinton walked away with the rhetorical laurels.  Michelle Obama got second place, leaving third place for her husband.  

      As a good leader and husband, Obama's probably fine with that.  

      "Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage." -- Lucille Ball

      by Yamaneko2 on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 11:59:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site