Not So Inspiring Sans Teleprompter?

Sour Grapes?

Wha? I saw Obama’s speech & Clintons and I have no idea where this is coming from. Did he do as well as with a TP – no, especially at first but a)he did better then 90% of the pols I have ever seen give speeches and b)he still ran circles and circles around Ms Clinton. It was good that they scheduled her more than an hour before his speech.
To be fair, she gave a good speech, but not remotely in the same league as Obama.
Hence my confusion over this assessment.

Obama has only speech template:
Blah blah blah HOPE, blah blah CHANGE blah blah HOPE OF CHANGE blah blah blah blah I HATE HILLARY blah blah America….
No WONDER Reagan is his role model. Soon all of his speeches will begin with “Well, my fellow Americans…”

I must admit, I am disappointed to find out that the inspiring speeches by Barack Obama are read off a Teleprompter and are written by someone else.

This is such non-sense. I saw the Virginia speech as it was being delivered live. Is he better with a teleprompter? Sure, who isn’t? And has this writer even seen a Democratic debate? There have only been, what 72 of them. Obama has done fine every time. I just saw him yesterday at the U of MD Comcast Center before a crowd of 20,000. He spoke for 45 minutes without notes or teleprompter and was phenomenal. Yes, its a “stump speech”, but he had the audience eating out of his hand. I’d take this over McCain or Hilary any day!

I agree w/ the above poster as well.. I was on hand for a stump speech as well and there wasn’t a teleprompter in site..
And to rebuff the above mentioned article he mentions Obama going off his speech when talking about brownie/libby/rove.. but those who follow his speeches know that it is a staple of all of his stump speeches..

It is pretty amazing that Obama’s oratory skills fall short without the teleprompter. Perhaps this is why he is so bad at debates…wonder how he would do in debates opposed with McCain?

I think Obama does well in debates. Other than that one comment about Clinton being “likable enough,” where has he ever stumbled?
By contrast, Clinton has had some major problems in debates, even on substantive policy issues: her bizarre answer re Iraq and the Levin Amendment; her bizarre answer re drivers licenses for illegals; her claim to have been glad the bankruptcy bill failed, even though she voted for it; her inability to say how she would enforce her healthcare mandate; her obvious tactic of responding to a critical question by posing a critical question about Obama; and her suggestion that Obama was naive for being willing to talk to our enemies.
Everyone knows it’s easier to give a prepared speech, and every speaker does better with a teleprompter (hello – that’s why everyone uses them).

Jake, did you actually watch the speech? I just don’t see what you’re talking about. Thanks to Tom J for posting the link so we could see for ourselves. It’s frustrating to hear and read so many lies and innuendo.

Republicans destroyed this country
$8 Trillion of the $9 Trillion in debt is because of Reagans and Bushs

It has been obvious in the debates. He sounds like a car that does not want to start. He is not smooth like a TV anchor. Forget about the poll McCain will banish this amature. I am a Dem. going Rep. To risky to test someone in the White House.

I watched the speech in question and yes he stumbled here and there and in places was halting rather than smooth.
It was fatigue, nothing more or less. He has given numerous of speeches and talks sans teleprompter which were smooth and without stumbling disproving the allegation that it’s all about the teleprompter.
It was fatigue. Folks don’t want to agree that’s fine, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Fact is Obama has given many a speech just fine without a teleprompter.

I think that the issues of teleprompters and Obama’s oratorical skills are easily checked by reviewing other speeches where he had no teleprompter. If he’s done well in other places without a teleprompter, then we can assume that the Virgina J&J speech was due to fatigue. If he’s done poorly everytime he’s without a teleprompter, it means that he’s not as gifted and spontaneous as everyone believed.
How about some good old-fashioned journalism? This issue can be easily checked by ABC News staff.

Not enough angry Obamabots for today’s posts. Where are you all, ’cause some guy actually wrote something somewhat negative about your god today. Destroy him! Hey, got an idea to help you out, why not blame Hillary? Heck why not throw in Bill and the daughter as well? Gotta be their fault Barnett wrote stuff like that.

Please post an update noting the following false statement in Barnett’s piece:
“At one point, Obama launched an improvised jeremiad against the current administration that took special note of the recent revelation that he and Dick Cheney are distant relations”
The quoted paragraph that then follows has been part of Obama’s standard stump speech since Iowa, as could have been easily discovered with a 10 second search on Google, YouTube, or Obama’s web site.
Please don’t give partisan hacks like Barnett legitimacy by quoting and linking to their hit pieces uncritically.

i’ve heard obama answer questions during the “meet and greets” he does for his constituents in dirksen (for those of you who don’t know where that is, it’s a senate building in d.c.). he is terrible. no real answers, no real substance. it’s absurd this guy has been able to get this far– people seriously need to get a grip and actually listen to what he says instead of saying they feel inspired. because inspiration, you know, won’t work to get people health care or end the mess that is washington if the “inspiring” person has no credible record or history of doing anything at all.
thanks jake for pointing out to all these people that obama is not god. if you really want to know how obama really works, just go to one of those constituent breakfasts. you’ll see that all he does is ride on dick durbin’s coattails, which isn’t a bad choice at all…

Barnett’s piece is complete nonsense, and the sort of incompetent, unprofessional, and sloppy “reporting” we’ve all become used to these days. Take, for example, the language from the speech that he quotes as evidence of “partisan anger,” which he claims Obama would utter when he deviated from the text far removed from the lofty language he has so far been using during the campaign. THis is ridiculous and patently false. The supposed “angry” language that Obama used is language he has been using in perhaps 1/3 or more of his speeches, going at least all the way back to November 2007 (e.g., check out his “One Year From Today” speech from late last year, which you can find on Youtube). Futhermore, I can’t believe Barnett can be as dimwitted as he’s making himself out to be: Obama’s line about his cousin Cheney has nothing to do with anger, but is simply designed to be (and taken by everyone else in the world other than Barnett) a joke. In fact, in some cases, when making this joke, he adds that “everyone has a black sheep in the family. The other so-called “angry” lines he quotes are, of course, partisan (isn’t this about an election after all), but they are also nothing new in his speeches (see same “One Year” speech), contrary to this nonsense from Barnett. In any event, they are not spoken out of anger, as Bartnett’s overactive imagination tells him, but are simply designed so that the troops will be “fired up and ready to go.” Obama generally reserves these lines for more partisan audiences, rather than when his speech is intended for a broader audience (such as a victory speech). Finally, while he was was visibly looking at notes for this speech, his speech was not significantly more halting than his typical speech. It is true that his delivery is not always at the same level, even when he not visibly looking at notes. Very often he gives speeches and it is obviously that he’s fatigued. What is truly amazing is that he’s able to perform at such a high level after frequently getting only three hours of sleep.

This is clearly an attempt to gratuitously knock Obama down a notch.
I saw the speech in its entirety, and while I noted that Obama was looking at his notes and going off text more, I thought the speech was good. Of course it wasn’t quite as seamless as when he has a teleprompter. But in some respects, that made it seem more personable and spontaneous.
Obama does have a tendency to occasionally to pause when he is speaking extemporaneously, which admittedly is not the best speaking habit. It’s one reason he doesn’t do as well in debates. In general he likes to be measured and precise in what he says, preferring well-rounded perspectives to snappy sound bites.
Overall, speeches and debates are not the end in themselves. It’s not so much important who wins on “points” as to which candidate convinces the electorate that they would make the better President and leader for our nation.

“Overall, speeches and debates are not the end in themselves. It’s not so much important who wins on “points” as to which candidate convinces the electorate that they would make the better President and leader for our nation.”
and Obama has given us NOTHING except speeches.

Over a year of watching, I agree that Obama is not as great without the teleprompter as with. This is a stylistic rather than substantive problem, after all we’ve elected folks who can’t get out a full sentence (ie current White House idiot). The real problem is that his image is built on his ability to deliver sweeping oratory. Like it or not, the guy needs a media coach ASAP to get over this if he plans to score points in debates against McCain.

I saw what this writer is referring to and couldn’t decipher if it was a stutter or static. Hey maybe thats what our next debate should be about. On the spot surprise speeches. No teleprompter, no written speeches. Why you should be president in your own words? GO!!!
Mr Obama you are no JFK!!!!

Wow, what are you alking about? I think this blog is definitely biased. I watched the speech on TV, didn’t notice that there was no teleprompter, and thought it was more substantive than usual, which I was happy about.

Gee, Jake, seeing this within a few days of your buying into the “cult”idiocy that was being floated last week (really held Obama’s numbers down in VA-MD-DC, didn’t it?), I’m beginning to think the cheese is slipping off your cracker! The JJ speech was fine — more akin to the “stump speeches” I’ve seen him give at rallies, and certainly better than Clinton’s speech the same night.
I find her very hard to listen to; she has a tendency to shout and strain her voice and it’s not terribly effective. One of the best speeches I’ve seen her give was on Super Tuesday. It sounded as if it had been written by a different speechwriter and her delivery was very good, measured, almost graceful. And it looked like she was using — horrors! — a teleprompter. Let’s start talking about substance.

Watched the video. And yes, he is a terrible speaker without something in front of him.
As if his stumbling performance in the debates hadn’t already proven this.

If you are going tear the guy down, really go negative with him, can you not find something better than this? C’mon, get your opposition research going. Surely he mouthed off to an teacher in elementary school. Missed church on an occasion or two. Maybe was late with a library book. Innuendo and insinuation. That is all I have heard. Now this garbage about public speaking skills, have you heard our sitting President WITH a teleprompter? Have you listened to John McCain speak? At least argue a point on an issue or other wise get out of the way.