Although I haven't seen enough of him doing it to notice it particularly, I'd be inclined to think he simply hasn't picked up the knack for working with a teleprompter yet. Changing from the more common working-from-notes to working off the prompter can take some getting used to, more for some people than others. Off hand I wouldn't think he's actually worked from one that often in his career to date, seems much more likely that he's used to working from notes on a podium. Heck, it still throws me off sometimes when I'm reading copy that isn't in the position I was most accustomed to, a different format and a different position will throw a lot of people.

That's not to say I don't think he's completely full of it every time he opens his mouth, just that I don't think you.can necessarily make a fair read on his body language when working from a teleprompter at this point.

Are you kidding!? No one can argue that Barack Obama isn't an incredible public speaker reagardless of whether or not he's a motivational speaker or president. You're just being ridiculously partisan.

It depends on what you look for in a speaker. From a scripted standpoint, you're correct that he's very good. From a physical presentation standpoint, it can be lacking. It's a very mechanical presentation style. Once again, it's silly to bring any partisan arguments into this rather than address the core presentation techniques of the speaker.

It's simply silly to argue that Obama hasn't been an abject failure.

Did you just finish that book or something?

agreed on some of what you said however he's an amazing speaker in almost all techniques that Ive seen. When the camera was wide he moved around with grace and ease and was engaging (debates) and when it's in tight (addresses) he is poised and able to go off of script while you argue he just doesnt look at Camera 1 enough which you think is the collective 'eye'.

IF ANYTHING you could argue that he's sometimes wordy but to argue your side falls flat and screams of your faux-shock habit.

{shaking head at this ridiculousness}

Shit it was your side that said he was an empty suit and the only reason he'd win presidency was DUE TO HIS ABILITY TO SPEAK!

Maybe Obama didn't have a speech coach while he was growing up?!

I'm certainly not part of 'your side', but if it suits your argument, feel free to characterize it as such. It's a valid discussion point. I know I can't be the only one who has noticed this constant use of a teleprompter.

LOL. I read the Navarro books a few years ago. I own both of them and reference them occasionally. You should read them. They're very good.

hello!? he uses the teleprompter for massive speeches just like the president's before him although his execution has been spot on. His worst performance was at the podium without a teleprompter and that was still above average just way too wordy IMO. You, once again, are on an island on this one...IMO. Right, you had no dog in the fight over the last 2 years, up until a week ago when you backtracked on your passing judgment on Obama already.

I'm pretty sure that you realize that you are not the only one who has noticed his "constant use of a teleprompter." Either that, or you and Rush Limbaugh are so in tune with one another that you both decided to start hammering Obama for his use of the teleprompter in the same week.

oh. I've been shilled.

Let it go... he is just rehashing Rush's talking points from the past few days.

"Empty suit" was one of my favorites, but I don't think I claimed his speaking ability was the key to his electability.

Hell, I literally can't listen to the guy without immediately hearing Duane Johnson riffs in my head, so I'm pretty sure that wasn't going to be what I hung his electability on.

hxxp://www.hulu.com/watch/61239/saturday-night-live-the-rock-obama

For your viewing pleasure.

No shit, why can't people come up with thoughts of their own these days?

I haven't seen the video, but I have listened to the audio (on conservative talk radio no less!) of Obama's comments on earmarks. I really have to say that he sounds really good. I think that if he were in a different situation with the economy, he would have cut a lot of earmarks out on other bills.

His comments on making sure the public and press could see what goes into things is great and proves he's holding true to his promise of (as much as can be expected) transparency.

Help me out here a little. Other than some comments about a desire for some sort of transparency, how is this budget cycle any different from the ones of at least the past couple of decades? The information about earmarks, who gets what, and so forth has always been out there if you were willing to look and frankly it wasn't all that difficult to do. I've both read & written stories similar to the ones I've seen today about who got what for their district/pet project/etc since at least the mid 80's? What difference am I missing here?

Last time I listened to Rush was October 2008 for a couple of days. Once again, I'm not sure why everything has to be all about partisan politics, but it appears that all discussions in this thread have to be pinned on a red pinata or a blue pinata and beaten to death. It's a shame because there are some people that enjoy talking about politics in these threads without making party loyalty the gold standard.

To somewhat paraphrase (realize I've had a couple beers too), he said that the details of bills would go onto the web before Congress votes on the bills so as to allow the public and press to see what is actually in the bills.

That being said, I'm pretty sure your average American isn't going to look...but it's good because it's available and it's also good because if there's something really out there, then the press will probably tell everyone.

I could really care less about you and Rush or whether you have part loyalty or whether your views are in-line with mine, but I find it extremely hard to believe that you have recently observed, in the same week that Rush and a number of other pundits have been talking/blogging about it, that Barrack uses or seems lost without a teleprompter.

Like I said, either you and Rush are on the same wave-length, at the same time, with that thought (without you realizing it or noticing that bloggers and talking heads have been discussing it the past few days) or you are well aware that you are not the only person who has noticed his "constant use of a teleprompter" and you would like to get others to notice it and/or begin discussing it as one of Obama's flaws.

You're absolutely right. I have not recently observed it. It's something that's honestly bothered me for months now. That's his style and it bugs the hell out of me. Certainly, he's found a portion of the electorate that will buy that as a good speaking style, but it's a relatively basic style of speaking for the most part. It's the modern equivalent of staring at the paper while giving a speech. The only difference is that your staring at glass rather than paper. It's become acceptable in recent years, but it's very impersonal.

Feel free to let me know if Rush said that as well. It sounds like you've listened to him more recently than I.

Fair enough, but if you do a google news search of "Obama" and "teleprompter" you will see that Rush has been on it in recent days, then the blogs, and now the news networks have made an "issue" of it.

To be fair, wasn't this teleprompter business discussed in the election thread on here>

I don't recall it but given the size & scope of that thread just about anything could probably be related to it somehow.

Maybe Rush & the blogosphere are just parroting the FOFC talking points :D

It has become a Rush, Hannity, Rove, etc. talking point in the past couple days. One of the many things that pundits throw out, to see what sticks. It has been picked up, a bit, by the major networks today.

Not a major issue, but one of those things that is discussed when nothing else is going on, I guess.

now that is funny.

I personally don't give a crap about the teleprompter or other similar issues. I felt the same way when people were making a big deal out of Bush using the wrong door that one time while the fact our kids were dying in a meaningless war took a backseat. Same here. Who cares about a teleprompter when we're in a massive recession and fighting two wars?

Not sure where it came from, but I swear I heard the whole teleprompter spiel during the election. Whether it was here or not, I can't remember.

And I'm too lazy to search about something that trivial.

I think the main issue here is that everyone's still shocked that we have a president who can speak in full sentences.

It sure is funny that every time you listen to Rush, which of course isn't very often, that you find something to post about. What are the odds of that?

honestly im shocked.

See, instead of worrying about some piddly-ass earmarks, this is the sort of serious corruption in Washington that needs to be dealt with:

Saw this on the news today:

Obama Outlines Plan to Curb Earmarks - WSJ.com

I've given him the benefit of the doubt at the beginning, but it's sort of becoming a joke. He talks about earmark reform, but keeps signing bills with it in there. Same old government, just new letters next to their names.

Yes. If we can identify the Senators and/or Representatives who pushed through the "no one needs to pay insurance premiums" idea, they should be called on the carpet. At a minimum, we need to see who was supposed to be in charge of it.

Dodd maybe? I'm not sure if the FDIC falls under his banking chairmanship or not. But that guy seems like a totally corrupt tool, so I am betting that his fingerprints are on it.

Well, the banking chairs from 1996-2006 (when the article states the insurance premiums weren't paid) were:

Alfonse D'Amato (R-New York) 1995-1999
Phil Gramm (R-Texas) 1999-2001
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) 2001
Phil Gramm (R-Texas) 2001
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) 2001-2003
Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) 2003-2007

Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth - WSJ.com

Interesting article.

Senator Gregg didn't waste much time showing the 'differences' that caused him to pull his name from consideration for a cabinet post.......

Gregg: Budget forecast a lie - First Read - msnbc.com

that's on MSNBC.com so it must be liberally slanted garbage, right?

Both candidates though are fairly behind the times socially. They both don't believe in evolution and are for the 6,000 year old nonsense. Do you really think that the complete ignorance on basic science will be accepted in 20 years? I think their best hope is to go for the Presidency sooner.

Considering what basic science considered undeniable facts 100 years ago, I'd say "no problem."

Science and technology have come along way from 100 years ago. I just have hard time believing that you'll be able to win an election believing something as retarded as the Earth being 6,000 years old in 20 years.

The next Republican to win the Presidency will have to connect much better with women and young people. You aren't going to do that with views 150 years behind the times. The GOP should be trying to find a young, charismatic guy who can attract those two demographics while still being appealing enough on some issues to hold the base. A guy who builds his reputation on reforming government and not what his social stances are. Going with Palin and Jindal will just cost them another generation of voters that they can't afford to lose.

Since the Earth being 6000 years old comes from fundamental religious beliefs, I think that there are a *large* number of Christians who may not necessarily believe that the earth is 6000 years old, but won't really hold it against a candidate since they do want a good Christian in office.

It's not the Christians that's the issue. Palin and Jindal will have to convince moderates and Democrats to vote for them. I just don't know if people will be able to look past the fact they believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and exorcisms. I'm an independent and can tell you that it would be hard to vote for someone who is at that level of ignorance.

By Christians I don't mean the religious right. I just mean people that put stock in religion, of which there are many across the board. Give us a terrible economy in 8 years, or a terrorist attack on Obamas watch and see how many people care IMO. Most states are decided long before the election, we're not talking about getting 60% of the vote or anything, just enough people in enough states that are close enough to be in play. It doesn't matter at all if people in California or the northeast won't vote for a guy who has these views. Of course they won't. But in Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania? I really think its pretty close to irrelevant if the Obama administration is an unpopular one after 4 or 8 years.

I don't doubt that a Republican wouldn't have a good shot in 4 or 8 years if things really go downhill. I just don't think it'll be them. Those two don't cater to the demographics a Republican will need to sway to win an election. I think it'll be members of the party in the mold of Mark Kirk and Judd Gregg that ultimately rise to win an election.

If this belief of Earth's age is the basis on which people vote, and not the beliefs of how the government should work, then who are the mentally handicapped?

Hey, Joe is back on track!

Political Punch: Oh, That Joe! (No. 48 in a Series) -- Gimme a Break

It would help if the GOP nominee had more personality than Gregg or Kirk.

Would you vote for someone who thought the Earth was flat? We're talking about the same thing here essentially.

The teaching of evolution is important to our nation's health and national security. It's a vital fundamental for many scientific fields. It also shows me a level of common sense among a candidate. If you honestly believe the Earth is 6,000 years old after the littany of scientific evidence against it, you are not someone I want handling decisions that involve processing information.

But hey, maybe we shouldn't care. We can always vote in an alchemist who will get us out of this recession by turning everything to gold.

Yeah, I wasn't saying them per say, just their style. Both are very intelligent and knowledgeable about world issues. They have some conservative beliefs, especially on spending, but are not in the stone age on some social issues.

Nice thing about Biden...he's never met a foot his mouth didn't like.

In 20 years an entire generation will have come of age that considers Twitter, touch-screen computers, SmartPhones, stem cell research, and hybrid cars "old tech". In this environment, if folks like Palin and Jindal still believe then what they believe now, they'll be cast as hopelessly out of date. Perhaps even more so than McCain was this last time around.


You're both right. Slap some charisma on either of these guys and you've got your competitive GOP national candidate.

It's worth noting (especially as I live in Kirk's district) that he's only "re-won" his seat, having it essentially initially "given" to him by Porter. He's clearly inoffensive enough to win re-election numerous times in what's basically a 50/50 district, but I don't know if he has the charisma to go out and win something. But I guess we'll find out if he really does go for Burris' senate seat in 2010.

If that were Bush the press would have been gushing about how "that's the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with."

Even more important is that an entire generation is growing up believing in evolution, abstinence education is a joke, and that gay people aren't really a big deal. They have been losing the young vote since 1992 and seeing bigger gaps every election in women and minorities. They're losing in college educated voters now too.

You just can't lose generation after generation of voters as yours die off. I want to see a competitive Republican party badly, but the way they are positioning themselves seems retarded. I think what Steele said in the GQ article the other day is the way to go. Sure it'll upset heavily conservative people, but they aren't winning them any elections on their own.

I used to live there and my whole family is in that district. It's actually a Democratic district when it comes to Presidential elections. Kirk is fairly moderate on a lot of issues (environment especially) which has helped him keep his seat. He beat a heavily funded opponent this past November who was constantly being endorsed by Obama. I think Seals would make a solid Senator and he would probably get my vote.

Yeap.

And the number of true Christians is dropping in the U.S.

Survey: Percentage of Christians in U.S. drops | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader

They also have to lighten up on the Reagan worship. Nobody under 40 voted for Reagan and nobody under 30 has much of a memory of Reagan. As long as the party keeps looking backward for inspiration they'll have trouble.

Lincoln and JFK called and said hi.

Blinders much?

What contemporary candidate has run on a Lincoln or JFK platform the way every GOP candidate is forced to run on a Reagan platform? As I see it there are two major problems. One, the Reagan held up by many current GOP types isn't the real Reagan that raised taxes to curb the deficit and shore up Social Security, negotiated with our most feared enemy when it seemed prudent and had close personal relationships with some of his political opposition. Two, the specifics of Reagan's policies were for a certain era and don't always translate as the solution to every problem. Even in his most widely quoted statement there was an important qualifier:


It's fine to see him as a great leader of the party and an ideological inspiration, but constantly saying Reagan, Reagan, Reagan as the answer to every problem sure as hell won't stop the hemorrhaging of younger voters.

hahahahahaha! Wait! You're serious?

If past history is any indication, just means we're overdue for a major religious revival of some kind. In the U.S., the pendulum has always swung between periods of rampant materialism/hedonism and religious revival/fervor.

I actually agree for once....could be muslim though theyre on the upswing for your next revival.

Don't sleep on the Wiccans, whatever the hell they believe.

Really peeved about the news story today regarding Obama's attempt to privatize coverage of veterans.

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment - Yahoo! News

I'm not opposed to Obama's health care change possibilities (cover more people) if he really can find a economic and smart way to do it. But I'm dead set that if ANYBODY deserves full goverment health care coverage, it's the military vets. Anyone who is willing to put life and limb on the line for our country has to be backed up in the knowledge that this country will cover their health insurance. Anything less is simply unacceptable.

Sure, we should continue to give them free, shitty care!

In all seriousness, they do deserve better health care and I severely hope the new administration rights the last one's wrongs on this issue.

If anybody deserves good healthcare it's vets. Bush & co. really did a fucking number on vets healthcare - I don't know the details of this plan of Obama's, but I hope this administration can fix the problems.

Sure, everyone has the 'hope' that they'll fix it. But actually implementing any fix is a large hill of beans that could give the government health care system a case of financial flatulence for years to come.

I've worked as a contractor for the federal government overseeing the IT arm of the health care regulating systems a couple of years ago. The changes that are needed to truly 'fix' the system are much more than any administration would ever dare take on. Sad but true. As a result, we get each administration doing some minor tinkering which usually ends up compounding the issues and often making things worse.

I still don't get why people continue to make this a partisan discussion when the real discussion should be whether or not the change is actually a change for the better, regardless of party.

It was a shame that a soldier's dad had to expose the problems at Walter Reed via homevideo cam before Bush and co. addressed the issue. That was such a shameful night for us as a whole.

I'm just a lurker in this thread for the most part, but seriously, you're the one making this a partison issue. He said, "If anybody deserves good healthcare it's vets. Bush & co. really did a fucking number on vets healthcare - I don't know the details of this plan of Obama's, but I hope this administration can fix the problems."

What is partisan about that? Please tell me. He said that Bush screwed a number of vets on healthcare and that he hopes this administration can fix things. Get off your high horse and actually read what people are saying.

So, I read the article, and unfortunately it doesn't explain why (aside from the obvious cost savings) one would want to require private insurance companies to pay for Veterans' care. I mean, aren't most private health insurance policies basically void as soon as you go off to war?

The result would be a significant change in how premiums are handled.

If private health care is to shoulder the load, they would have to charge huge premiums for these people for the obvious reasons. As a result, the most likely scenario is that the government would end up paying those premiums because the soldiers couldn't afford it and we could easily end up with a bigger payout from a premium standpoint than if we would have just left it alone in the first place.

I don't think that the current options are great, but this 'change' isn't any better.

It's the same old song and dance. Rather than addressing the core issue of whether Obama's change is an improvement, the usual stab is taken at Bush to divert attention from the issue. We get it already. Dubya made some mistakes and people on both sides of the issue know that. But on the topic at hand (from the current baseline, is Obama's change good) has little to do with the previous administration. History cannot be reversed, but current proposals need to be judged on their merit given the current circumstances. Partisan shots at previous administrations are distractions from the topic and little else.

I for one distinctly remember MBBF carrying the torch for veterans during their struggles the last eight years. Dammit guys, why do you have to drag him into your partisan squabbling.

As far as the subject at hand, the idea seems like a bad one and toxic politically. I've tried to find more about it, but haven't come up with anything beyond what MSNBC reported.

Well, at least I got someone to respond to the topic at hand (albeit with the mandatory shot at me which ALSO has nothing to do with the topic at hand). It's a positive step! :D

As an aside Im sure Obama will bomb on Leno on Thursday without his teleprompters.

If you don't see the irony in the way you post and the fact that you immediately decry partisanship leaking into debates, then I've got nothing for you.

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.

What the hell? No one questioned your patriotism. This is one of the dumbest posts you've made on this board.

I don't do quotes in sigs. And in 20 years, I doubt there will be internet message board sigs or they'll be quaint little things like IRC chat rooms or Usenet where people remember them but very few still use them, proportionally, but, man- this would be gold :)

SI

Let's see you post an American Legion press release as news, which you likely learned from any of a hundred conservative blogs that are running with this press release today, and it's someone else's fault for being partisan?

I agree! doesnt mean youre arent wrong though especially when you fib on stats and polls or pull crap out of blogs.

I'd agree. I'd even further argue that this comment was gold when it was originally uttered six years ago on April 29, 2003...........


http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/4/29/85003

What are you even talking about at this point? What does that quote have to do with what I was saying?

What's your point? Did Hilary Clinton call someone unpatriotic for questioning the current administration?

I said your statement is dumb because it had nothing to do with the thread. No one questioned your patriotism. So what the hell are you talking about?

It seems like you've really gone off the deep end.

This story was addressed on more than one of the major news outlets and is a big topic today to the point where President Obama is expected to address the issue. Should you choose to, you could conceivably minimize every current event worthy of discussion because a big news story is going to be on a political blog somewhere 100% of the time. It's a very weak attempt to deflect what is obviously a very important topic. Whether you want to engage in the discussion or just sidebar it is totally up to you.

You are trying to make your sidebar the discussion, MBBF.

You didn't post a news story, you posted a press release. If you wanted a non-partisan discussion you should have avoided a press release from an organization generally hostile to Democrats. Would you see it as a fair effort to start discussion if I posted an ACLU press release blasting John McCain?

Not really. Everyone fully knows that this is a left leaning board/thread by a heavy margin. All I'm asking for is a legitimate discussion of the topic at hand. Snipes are certainly par for the course, but they don't add much other than giggles.

The pretty obvious difference between now and then is that people WERE saying that it was unpatriotic to question the administration then. Whereas, here, in this thread, no one has made that claim.

MBBF, You misinterpret me. I think it's patriotic to question my leaders, even in a time of strife. Part of what makes this Democracy great is the freedom to do that without fear of being sent to Siberia or an internment camp or spied on by my own government. That's why I liked your quote

SI

Great. Then address the proposed budget idea regardless of which story or release I put up. You can post the story from whichever source you choose. Do you think it's a good idea to privatize veteran health care?

I love the "everyone fully knows".

Everyone fully knows that Chase Daniels will be a Pro Bowl quarterback.

Everyone fully knows that PS3 is a victim of Wii media bias.

Everyone fully knows that the KC Penguins will hoist Lord Stanley's Cup.

Fixed your quote. :)

And yes, I misinterpreted your point. Thanks for the clarification.

Again, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. What does patriotism have to do with this thread? No one in here said you were unpatriotic. I think most of the posters here agree 100% with the Hilary Clinton quote you provided. We just fail to see that the hell it has to do with this discussion.

Stop infringing on my civil rights. It adds nothing to the discussion, and is willful ignorance at best.

It's a left leaning country these days, not necessarily a message board thing.

And everyone knows that JPhillips couldn't directly address a topic if his life depended on it.

You've put more effort in failing to address the topic than if you would have just made an attempt to say 'it's a good idea' or 'it's a lousy idea'. You obviously were on a high school debate team.

Can we please keep the discussion focused on how much Obama sucks without injecting partisanship into things?

But hasn't the complaint been about the level of care, rather than the cost of it? If the government ends up paying these premiums, then that's fine, since they were paying directly for care anyway. It seems like this is a step toward giving veterans more 'normal' care than one run by an underfunded VA -- or at least giving the VA better funding through private insurance premiums, if the government won't fund it properly.

:D

Wait, you were serious?