What Did You Think About Obama's Speech?

[Townhallsavoy]

I'll hand it to him - No one in politics besides maybe Bill Clinton gives a more charismatic, inspiring speech. 

But I don't know what the hell he was really talking about.  I heard a plethora of dreams and visions.  I heard an allusion to Langston Hughes.  I heard some scriptural references.

But I didn't once hear how he's going to accomplish those goals.  Perhaps he's just setting up for a big two months. 

[dallaswareagle]

I'll hand it to him - No one in politics besides maybe Bill Clinton gives a more charismatic, inspiring speech. 

But I don't know what the hell he was really talking about.  I heard a plethora of dreams and visions.  I heard an allusion to Langston Hughes.  I heard some scriptural references.

But I didn't once hear how he's going to accomplish those goals.  Perhaps he's just setting up for a big two months.

This got him elected the first time, might as well go with it again and see if the sheep still follow.

[CCTAU]

All I heard was FOUR MORE YEARS!  Just because....

[Vandy Vol]

It wasn't much different from Romney's.  The first 25 minutes of Romney's 38 minute speech were dedicated to rhetoric about American dreams, American businesses, and American families, which included stories and comparisons about his own family, businesses, and how he can relate to most Americans.  There were a few jabs about how Obama has done nothing for the country, but no specific details.

It wasn't until about minute 26 that Romney actually brought up some substantive facts about Obama's presidency by pointing out specific decisions that he thought were failures.

That lasts for a minute or so, at which point he starts talking about what he's going to do.  But it's just more generalized statements about how he's going to create a brighter future, create more jobs, create financial security for seniors, etc.  No actual plans on how he's going to do it (other than the vague statement, "I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs").

The only thing he mentioned that sounds like an actual plan was his reference to making use of resources in our own country (natural gas, coal, oil, etc.).  Everything else was just a generalized, "I'm gonna do this!", but no specifics on how.  We only get five minutes or so of these vague plans and promises before he goes back to criticizing Obama and talking about American ideals for the remainder of his speech.

I usually don't bother with listening to political speeches until the debates, and even then, they're still full of "plans" that will allegedly fulfill vague promises, and emotional rhetoric that gets the crowd chanting "U-S-A."

Welcome to politics.

[bottomfeeder]

He's a good speaker, just not a good president. 
It was just like Romney's  . Fuck'em both.

[Jumbo]

I say Obama wins again unless he doesn't.

[GH2001]

It wasn't much different from Romney's.  The first 25 minutes of Romney's 38 minute speech were dedicated to rhetoric about American dreams, American businesses, and American families, which included stories and comparisons about his own family, businesses, and how he can relate to most Americans.  There were a few jabs about how Obama has done nothing for the country, but no specific details.

It wasn't until about minute 26 that Romney actually brought up some substantive facts about Obama's presidency by pointing out specific decisions that he thought were failures.

That lasts for a minute or so, at which point he starts talking about what he's going to do.  But it's just more generalized statements about how he's going to create a brighter future, create more jobs, create financial security for seniors, etc.  No actual plans on how he's going to do it (other than the vague statement, "I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs").

The only thing he mentioned that sounds like an actual plan was his reference to making use of resources in our own country (natural gas, coal, oil, etc.).  Everything else was just a generalized, "I'm gonna do this!", but no specifics on how.  We only get five minutes or so of these vague plans and promises before he goes back to criticizing Obama and talking about American ideals for the remainder of his speech.

I usually don't bother with listening to political speeches until the debates, and even then, they're still full of "plans" that will allegedly fulfill vague promises, and emotional rhetoric that gets the crowd chanting "U-S-A."

Welcome to politics.

Except Romney has success and a resume to show off that he lives that rhetoric he speaks of. What the fuck has asshole Obama done? Ever?

Ths also didn't watch Reagan as a kid like many of us did. Reagan was the great communicator. Obama is the great Teleprompter reader.

[Vandy Vol]

Except Romney has success and a resume to show off that he lives that rhetoric he speaks of. What the fuck has asshole Obama done? Ever?

Yes, but I would like for him to give us actual plans, considering that his success has never been at a political level which encompasses the entire nation, includes a larger debt than he's ever had to deal with, involves foreign relation policies, etc.  Impressive résumé or not, any politician should have some splainin' to do when it comes to what goals they want to achieve for our entire country and how they want to achieve them on that large of a scale with much more at stake.

But like I said, both speeches were similar.  I'm not shitting on Romney for the sake of Obama, or vice versa.  It's tradition for all politicians to exclaim what they're going to do, but not how they're going to do it.  What their opponent failed to do, but not why they failed.  What American can be, but not how we're going to get there.

Promissory rhetoric is all you'll get from any politician at this stage, and they will even continue to spew it during the debates and campaign speeches.  I saw effectively no difference between the two speeches, other than delivery.  Substantively, it's all empty rhetoric with the goal of gaining the most votes.

Make all of the distinctions you want to make between the two candidates based on their résumés, but what I'm referring to is the similarity of the content (or lack thereof) in their acceptance speeches.

[GH2001]

Yes, but I would like for him to give us actual plans

I think you're probably about to see more of this

[Vandy Vol]

I think you're probably about to see more of this

That's why I look forward moreso to the debates than to the acceptance and campaign speeches.  Of course, the debates bring other annoyances, such as questions not being answered because the candidates steer their responses back to a separate issue that they want to continue to highlight.  And there's still always the chance of empty rhetoric and vague references to plans.

It's all frustrating to watch from either side, but yes, at least the debates tend to offer a little more substance.

[GH2001]

That's why I look forward moreso to the debates than to the acceptance and campaign speeches.  Of course, the debates bring other annoyances, such as questions not being answered because the candidates steer their responses back to a separate issue that they want to continue to highlight.  And there's still always the chance of empty rhetoric and vague references to plans.

It's all frustrating to watch from either side, but yes, at least the debates tend to offer a little more substance.

I agree that the conventions are a lot of razzle dazzle and show over substance. Although I thought Paul Ryan did lay out some cold hard facts about the last 4 years which needs to be said. The reason I support Mitt (big surprise right?) over Obama (besides the obvious macro picture) is because I know he actually knows how to run things economically. I always favor a business minded person to run the govt since it does require a lot of the same discipline.

Obama's general philosophy of social engineering turns me off in the worst way and totally goes against how the natural order of man even works. I know its extremely hypothetical and somewhat non applicable but can you imagine if the upper crust of the animal kingdom worked this way? No no mr lion, mr king of the jungle -We know you worked hard to stalk and kill that zebra or gazelle, but youve had plenty. We think it's time you give the hyena some of it since he doesn't have any. No, he doesn't work hard like you and spend the time stalking and perfecting his craft but that doesn't matter. He just needs a fair shake. But you just keep on working and being productive and we'll keep taking your prize catches whenever we deem it necessary. Cool? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But that's pretty much what this guy favors in general. A welfare state where about half of the population supports the other half. Once you cross that 50% threshold of those on govt assitance, its very hard to come back from that historically (i.e. Greece). Remember, when a politican robs Peter to pay Paul, he can always count on the vote of Paul.

Obama is going to lay out plans that "sound" great in the debates and to these crowds. He's gonna tell them what they want to hear. He is going to try and woooo the middle class and pretend he is on their side. Same thing with Latinos. He did it 4 years ago. And most will fall for it again. His track record shows no success in this realm, even as a senator. My point is, at least I know Mitt knows economics and has a track record to show. Obama is a lot of talk. Ive seen nothing from him that will change my mind.