I've heard the praise for last night's speech, but after watching it, I didn't consider it one of his best (I remember being much more impressed with his speech when he reached enough electoral votes to clinch the nomination). Let's see what you think of my criticisms...
First, the early part of the speech, attacking McCain. The conventional wisdom was that this was something Obama had to show in this speech, that he could "go after" McCain. (In fact, I'm fairly sure that the McCain camp was very conscious of this in running their congratulatory commercial before the speech, maximizing the impact of posturing on the moral high ground.) I thought his attacks were too blunt, too crude, bordering at times on cheap. That's the reason the candidate for president leaves these attacks to surrogates. I thought the comparisons could and should have been made in the speech, but could have been executed much better. What he said was received very well by his immediate audience, but that audience is a very partisan group. I'm not so sure it sent the right image to the moderates whose votes he seeks.
My second criticism may reflect some cynicism over the political campaign process (as it is, you'll notice my observations deal with images and impressions, and not really with substance. The reason for this is, I really don't think substance counts for much in campaigns anymore.) Obama is very good at painting an image, at using soaring metaphors and flowerly language. Around the middle of the speech, my impression was that his imagery was cliche. The same stuff you hear from politicians over and over. (That being said, I think the imagery got better as the speech moved towards the end.)
The last criticism may not be a criticism at all. When the speech was done, it dawned on me that Obama's demeanor and tone throughout the speech was a little grim, maybe even reflecting a certain subdued anger. My first thought was, the presidential candidate giving an acceptance speech at the convention should reflect more optimism in the future; his words expressed this, but his demeanor did not. But, then, I thought that may have been deliberate - there may have been a strategy here, to reflect in the speech that the condition of the country is very serious following the current administration, and signaling to the voter, in essence, that this one "really" counts.
(I'm probably just starting something here, but let's see where this goes...)
I think with any political speech, detailed analysis is a trap.
You like it, you didn't like it - but looking for the whys or why not is pretty hard to do.
Most criticisms of the speech that I've read talk about how the speech didn't match the reviewer's expectations.
In your mind - he attacked too much and used imagery you found clichéd.
K.
But if he had gone soft on Bush and McCain - would you have criticized his speech as weak?
Catch-22: he’s either making cheap shots, or he’s not a fighter, right?
Even if you wouldn’t have called him weak - it is certain that his political adversaries would have – to say nothing of the 70,000 partisans in Mile High.
The fact is, this election is being framed (rightly, in my opinion) about reversing the damage done in the last seven years. When 80% of Americans disapprove of the President – there is no political price to be paid for beating him up.
It is a very short (and very justified) leap from beating on Pres. Bush – to lambasting Sen. McCain for being his loyal ally.
That IS the election – and any politician would be a fool not to trot out the shortcomings of an unpopular administration and promise to make things better. That’s not a tactic aimed at partisans – it’s aimed at people who are unhappy. These days, that’s a pretty big demographic.
If you’ve watched any of the earlier speeches you know that plenty of surrogates spent the day excoriating the President and Sen. McCain. Many with considerable more force than Obama (Sen. Kerry – who must have had an emergency charisma implant – gave a particularly damning speech, illustrating how the McCain of today barely resembles the McCain of only a few years ago).
Following those warm up acts, Obama appeared more restrained. Viewed by itself, you might think his speech harsh. Viewed as part of the whole, the night followed your model exactly. Surrogates hit hard – Obama merely lands a few good ones.
Like the one that (to my mind) was the best line of the night
"It is time for [the republicans] to own their failures."
As to McCain attempting to get some moral high ground – let me just say "hah." Civility is just another tactic (whether it comes from McCain or Obama). McCain has been only too happy to sling mud in ways that are anything but civil so I hope you’ll forgive me for doubting his sincerity.
As for cheap and clichéd: I have no real specifics and no way to answer if I did. It’s a matter of personal taste.
I do notice you complement Obama’s speaking ability. Like all the other reviews I’ve read – the fact that Obama is a great orator is simply taken as a given.
The same cannot be said for Sen. McCain – even on a good day. His green-screen speech in Louisiana was easily the worst speech by a national figure I’ve seen in a decade.
When the time comes for McCain to make his acceptance speech I do hope you will search his language for tired clichés – I expect there will be many.
2 comments:
I've heard the praise for last night's speech, but after watching it, I didn't consider it one of his best (I remember being much more impressed with his speech when he reached enough electoral votes to clinch the nomination). Let's see what you think of my criticisms...
First, the early part of the speech, attacking McCain. The conventional wisdom was that this was something Obama had to show in this speech, that he could "go after" McCain. (In fact, I'm fairly sure that the McCain camp was very conscious of this in running their congratulatory commercial before the speech, maximizing the impact of posturing on the moral high ground.) I thought his attacks were too blunt, too crude, bordering at times on cheap. That's the reason the candidate for president leaves these attacks to surrogates. I thought the comparisons could and should have been made in the speech, but could have been executed much better. What he said was received very well by his immediate audience, but that audience is a very partisan group. I'm not so sure it sent the right image to the moderates whose votes he seeks.
My second criticism may reflect some cynicism over the political campaign process (as it is, you'll notice my observations deal with images and impressions, and not really with substance. The reason for this is, I really don't think substance counts for much in campaigns anymore.) Obama is very good at painting an image, at using soaring metaphors and flowerly language. Around the middle of the speech, my impression was that his imagery was cliche. The same stuff you hear from politicians over and over. (That being said, I think the imagery got better as the speech moved towards the end.)
The last criticism may not be a criticism at all. When the speech was done, it dawned on me that Obama's demeanor and tone throughout the speech was a little grim, maybe even reflecting a certain subdued anger. My first thought was, the presidential candidate giving an acceptance speech at the convention should reflect more optimism in the future; his words expressed this, but his demeanor did not. But, then, I thought that may have been deliberate - there may have been a strategy here, to reflect in the speech that the condition of the country is very serious following the current administration, and signaling to the voter, in essence, that this one "really" counts.
(I'm probably just starting something here, but let's see where this goes...)
I think with any political speech, detailed analysis is a trap.
You like it, you didn't like it - but looking for the whys or why not is pretty hard to do.
Most criticisms of the speech that I've read talk about how the speech didn't match the reviewer's expectations.
In your mind - he attacked too much and used imagery you found clichéd.
K.
But if he had gone soft on Bush and McCain - would you have criticized his speech as weak?
Catch-22: he’s either making cheap shots, or he’s not a fighter, right?
Even if you wouldn’t have called him weak - it is certain that his political adversaries would have – to say nothing of the 70,000 partisans in Mile High.
The fact is, this election is being framed (rightly, in my opinion) about reversing the damage done in the last seven years. When 80% of Americans disapprove of the President – there is no political price to be paid for beating him up.
It is a very short (and very justified) leap from beating on Pres. Bush – to lambasting Sen. McCain for being his loyal ally.
That IS the election – and any politician would be a fool not to trot out the shortcomings of an unpopular administration and promise to make things better. That’s not a tactic aimed at partisans – it’s aimed at people who are unhappy. These days, that’s a pretty big demographic.
If you’ve watched any of the earlier speeches you know that plenty of surrogates spent the day excoriating the President and Sen. McCain. Many with considerable more force than Obama (Sen. Kerry – who must have had an emergency charisma implant – gave a particularly damning speech, illustrating how the McCain of today barely resembles the McCain of only a few years ago).
Following those warm up acts, Obama appeared more restrained. Viewed by itself, you might think his speech harsh. Viewed as part of the whole, the night followed your model exactly. Surrogates hit hard – Obama merely lands a few good ones.
Like the one that (to my mind) was the best line of the night
"It is time for [the republicans] to own their failures."
As to McCain attempting to get some moral high ground – let me just say "hah." Civility is just another tactic (whether it comes from McCain or Obama). McCain has been only too happy to sling mud in ways that are anything but civil so I hope you’ll forgive me for doubting his sincerity.
As for cheap and clichéd: I have no real specifics and no way to answer if I did. It’s a matter of personal taste.
I do notice you complement Obama’s speaking ability. Like all the other reviews I’ve read – the fact that Obama is a great orator is simply taken as a given.
The same cannot be said for Sen. McCain – even on a good day. His green-screen speech in Louisiana was easily the worst speech by a national figure I’ve seen in a decade.
When the time comes for McCain to make his acceptance speech I do hope you will search his language for tired clichés – I expect there will be many.
Post a Comment