Democratic National Convention '08

[Gemini Cricket]

I disagree.
As a coach, I'd say, 'Do your best. But don't get cocky, that could lead to you getting your ass kicked.'

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I find that reading what someone has to say in a speech takes the magic of personality and charm or whatever the individual possesses out of the equation so I can focus on what they've actually said.

All well and good, but don't pretend to know whether a speech was effective or not. It goes way beyond the mere words.


Not that the words aren't important. Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural remains perhaps the best political speech of all time, and I never got to hear it. So I have NO IDEA whether it was effective in its day. Perhaps the speech was ruined by Lincoln's poor delivery, I have no idea.

But I can't claim to know all about the 2nd Inaugural just because I read it in letters four feet high carved in marble on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial and it made me weep. Or just because it's rightly famous and well-studied. I didn't live in Lincoln's times and so I can never know.


Not to equate Obama or Gore or anyone alive today with Lincoln, but what a shame to have the opportunity to hear a speech, to see it delivered, and not take advantage of it. If I'd have been in D.C. to hear Lincoln give that address, but decided to just read it in the Gazette ... I would have jumped in front of that bullet at Ford's Theater.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

All well and good, but don't pretend to know whether a speech was effective or not. It goes way beyond the mere words.

I haven't alluded to that I thought it was ineffective, nor have I suggested that others adopt my.....philosophy, for lack of a better word....of reading rather than listening.

In fact, earlier I said I had no doubt it was delivered brilliantly.

How far does "it" go beyond mere words? If reading the speech of Lincoln made you weep, without the experience of him saying it, than weren't the words themselves powerful enough to evoke that response? If Lincoln were a slow speaker or had speech mannerisms and inflections you found annoying, perhaps hearing the speech would have diminished the words he was saying.

Again, it's just how I prefer to approach political speeches. There is also the advantage of not having to endure endless applause interruptions.

[BarTopDancer]

H, I'm sorta with you on your thoughts of disappointment.

I will admit to voting for McCain back in 2000. I was devastated that he lost. I didn't campaign for him, but the feelings of disappointment were there. I am trying so hard to not think that Obama will win by a landslide. I don't want to go through it again.

CA is ridiculously liberal when compared to the rest of the country. We're surrounded by those who think like we do. It's easy to slip into a mindset that the rest of the country does too. But the truth is, there is a significant portion of the country that thinks Obama is the anti-christ and if McCain doesn't win terrible things will happen.

[Tom]

Then again, when Lincoln gave his speech, he knew that the vast majority of people would never hear the speech and would only read it in their local newspaper. He likely wrote it with that in mind, as Obama wrote his knowing that he would be delivering it before tens of millions of people on tv.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I disagree.
As a coach, I'd say, 'Do your best. But don't get cocky, that could lead to you getting your ass kicked.'

I don't see anyone being cocky. Exactly the opposite, I see people who have never before given an ounce of themselves for a candidacy putting in effort to help where they can. That's not cockiness, that's commitment.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Tom

Then again, when Lincoln gave his speech, he knew that the vast majority of people would never hear the speech and would only read it in their local newspaper. He likely wrote it with that in mind, as Obama wrote his knowing that he would be delivering it before tens of millions of people on tv.

Good point ... If a speech is written to be primarily read, then that's an ok way to experience it (if the letters are inscribed in marble 4 feet high and near a tremendously imposing sculpture of the author, so much the better).


But if it's designed to be interactive with a crowd, it is certainly not composed as if to be merely read. Perhaps the most extreme example of this at the DNC would have been my favorite speech, the one by Dennis Kucinich. The written words would seem nearly stupid ... while the delivered speech was the most crowd-raising oration by the Dems at the entire convention. Lost in a mid-afternoon at the Pepsi Center, and I daresay it got better crowd response than Obama's speech at the stadium.

[scaeagles]

Believe it or not, I like Kucinich. Seriously. He says what he means without reservation. You don't have to guess where this guy is at or what he really thinks and he is uncompromising.

[innerSpaceman]

Wow, well if you want to risk 6 minutes to test my hypothesis, here's the bit of my earlier post with a link to the Kucinich speech:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

My favorite speech at the convention today was by Dennis Kucinich. Short, to the point, invigorating, crowd-pleasing, catchy and enthusiastically delivered. Heheh, it didn't make prime-time tv, but here's Kucinich's Rousing Address at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

[scaeagles]

I'll read it....but be sure I didn't say I liked his policies and I regard him as a little on the kook side....but I like him because of his genuineness.

Oh - wait. It's a youtube link. You mean I have to WATCH it???? That would be violating my policy, ISM. I will consider it.