By that I mean "people on your own staff", not these helpful folks at Vanity Fair who edited Ms. Palin's resignation speech. It really brings into focus how poorly written it was. Politics aside, it is ridiculous that this woman, or any other public figure with a staff, appears in public sounding the way she does. I think she falls into the very very misguided pit of thinking that a) she can do this sort of stuff herself, and 2) she sounds like regular folks. I think this was an afflication of George Bush as well at times. And don't remind me of Dan Quayle--I never could figure out why the handlers allow them to make so many missteps, given that so much of what they say is prepared for them and (I thought, at least) rehearsed.Sorry, but this "regular folk" wants those that represent her to be able to construct a complete and concise sentence. Or at least make use of those that can.
5 comments:
I have never been able to understand what she means to say when she gives a speech, except for the one during the Convention. I find it absolutely hilarious how the media hates her so much, and how they worship Obama. They both really suck at speaking without a teleprompter. People need to get back to being suspicious of the federal government. Live Free or Die!
Actually Obama does quite well without a teleprompter. He may occasionally wander off topic, but he speaks in complete, grammatically correct sentences, which I find quite refreshing in a leader!
Hahahaha! Oh George.
I don't mind people using Teleprompters. It's not reasonable to expect a person, even a President, to develop policies, write his own speeches, and then deliver them masterfully. I also understand how easy it is to misspeak when you are off the script. And I agree, Ave...the power of the media is such that it can be easy to be swayed by someone who looks polished or suave but has little substance behind him. One of my issues was that Palin DID have a teleprompter...or at least a written copy of her speech. It wasn't extemporized--she had ample time and a staff to prepare--but it sounded like she was pulling it up on the spot.
Ronald Reagan was often considered a bit of a doofus...but I don't think he was at all. I think he had a firm idea of what the direction he felt our country and the world should go and clearly understood his policies. And he was a very effective speaker. I think Clinton was another president in that same boat.
But the Bushes--esp. W.--I honestly felt that he was never leading, even in the worst times. I never felt that sense of reassurance and leadership and confidence--part of that was his delivery, part was his speechwriters,and part (I believe) was his lack of thorough knowledge and understanding.
I'm not talking about specific policiies or political parties. There is a necessary quality to being a leader--to present oneself as confident, intelligent, and articulate. I'm puzzled as to why that doesn't happen with some of these people.
Who expects anything great to come out of that woman's mouth? This isn't news.
But I have to say I was taken aback by Obama's recent criticism of the police in the Henry Gates case. I expect better from him. His comments were unpresidential.
Post a Comment