Rate President Obama's speech

[angus]

Wow, the Bill Clinton Lovefest went on for eight pages.  Even Sandra Fluke got four pages.  Barry is only getting two pages so far.   I don't know quite how to interpret that.  Maybe not too many people watched it. 

I watched most of it.  It was decent.  He meandered a bit.  It felt as though it was prepared in haste and re-hashed several times.  However, I liked the nod to personal responsibility.  I gave it a B. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I was too busy watching Pitt get crushed by Cincinnati ( my pick for Big East champ)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

B

Delivered well, as all his speeches are, but it was nothing new. A rehash of the state of the union with a lot of plays on emotion, which he does well. Of course, I felt inspired, hoped this man would be a great president, but then remembered what he was doing in office.

I enjoyed Clinton's more, but the US was in good shape when he was in office so I guess it took me back to a better time.

[Emperor Dubya]

Well delivered, but as usual it contained his gut-wrenching mentions of the middle-class. The Democrats, certainly their base, don't give a damn about the middle class, or the working classes for that matter. Instead they exist soley for the purpose of funneling money to the lazy and the feckless unemployed, inner city underclass. Obama doesn't care about the middle class.

[opebo]

Good lord, Obama's kids are so cute!  Way cuter/more charming than the previous set of first daughters.

[Cobbler]

A. It was a much more optimistic speech and unlike the GOP, it talked about a future. I realize its all rhetoric, and Obama still has a record that is not up to what expectations were, but honestly I don't think he's been that bad and is genuinely trying to help this country. He may not be the best president, but he is at least talking about issues (unlike the GOP, who is just trying to get by with a "referendum"). I am having a harder time justifying my support for the GOP ticket, and could possibly vote Obama this November.

[5280]

A. It was a much more optimistic speech and unlike the GOP, it talked about a future. I realize its all rhetoric, and Obama still has a record that is not up to what expectations were, but honestly I don't think he's been that bad and is genuinely trying to help this country. He may not be the best president, but he is at least talking about issues (unlike the GOP, who is just trying to get by with a "referendum"). I am having a harder time justifying my support for the GOP ticket, and could possibly vote Obama this November.

If you're not satisfied with the GOP, why not vote third party? Clearly Obama isn't living up to his own standards of promises from 2008.

[Cobbler]

A. It was a much more optimistic speech and unlike the GOP, it talked about a future. I realize its all rhetoric, and Obama still has a record that is not up to what expectations were, but honestly I don't think he's been that bad and is genuinely trying to help this country. He may not be the best president, but he is at least talking about issues (unlike the GOP, who is just trying to get by with a "referendum"). I am having a harder time justifying my support for the GOP ticket, and could possibly vote Obama this November.

If you're not satisfied with the GOP, why not vote third party? Clearly Obama isn't living up to his own standards of promises from 2008.

Well, because in our system, I just don't think voting third party accomplishes anything. I mean, if suddenly Gary Johnson had a chance/was allowed in the debates, I'd probably vote for him. But that is incredibly unlikely. With the system as it is now, if I were voting for Gary Johnson, in essence it would mean the same thing: that I'd prefer Obama to win over Romney.

Plus, while Obama hasn't lived up to the hype, I do credit some of Obama's shortcomings to the congressional GOP being obstructionists. And to me, it looks like pure politics, about them just wanting him defeated so they can win. I often find myself asking, should I be rewarding this behavior?

[Donerail]

A. It was a much more optimistic speech and unlike the GOP, it talked about a future. I realize its all rhetoric, and Obama still has a record that is not up to what expectations were, but honestly I don't think he's been that bad and is genuinely trying to help this country. He may not be the best president, but he is at least talking about issues (unlike the GOP, who is just trying to get by with a "referendum"). I am having a harder time justifying my support for the GOP ticket, and could possibly vote Obama this November.

If you're not satisfied with the GOP, why not vote third party? Clearly Obama isn't living up to his own standards of promises from 2008.

Well, because in our system, I just don't think voting third party accomplishes anything. I mean, if suddenly Gary Johnson had a chance/was allowed in the debates, I'd probably vote for him. But that is incredibly unlikely. With the system as it is now, if I were voting for Gary Johnson, in essence it would mean the same thing: that I'd prefer Obama to win over Romney.

...except Johnson is taking roughly evenly from both candidates.

[Cobbler]

A. It was a much more optimistic speech and unlike the GOP, it talked about a future. I realize its all rhetoric, and Obama still has a record that is not up to what expectations were, but honestly I don't think he's been that bad and is genuinely trying to help this country. He may not be the best president, but he is at least talking about issues (unlike the GOP, who is just trying to get by with a "referendum"). I am having a harder time justifying my support for the GOP ticket, and could possibly vote Obama this November.

If you're not satisfied with the GOP, why not vote third party? Clearly Obama isn't living up to his own standards of promises from 2008.

Well, because in our system, I just don't think voting third party accomplishes anything. I mean, if suddenly Gary Johnson had a chance/was allowed in the debates, I'd probably vote for him. But that is incredibly unlikely. With the system as it is now, if I were voting for Gary Johnson, in essence it would mean the same thing: that I'd prefer Obama to win over Romney.

...except Johnson is taking roughly evenly from both candidates.

That's not the point though. My individual vote means the same thing. As long as I am aware that Johnson cannot win, and I cast my vote for him, then its really in essence saying I'd prefer Obama to Romney, since it is a vote that otherwise Romney would have from me. That may not be the motive; after all, I might actually like Johnson the best. But in essence its the same thing.

[stegosaurus]

D+

I enjoyed that he took the sacred cow of "tax cuts" to task, but it was otherwise vapid noise - like most convention speeches. I gave him a D because he neglected to mention the stimulus or the ACA; which I think is a cowardly move.

[Lief 🗽]

Though the pundits seemed to think it was mediocre, the speech has gotten very good press in swing state newspapers apparently (link).

[mondale84]

D+

I enjoyed that he took the sacred cow of "tax cuts" to task, but it was otherwise vapid noise - like most convention speeches. I gave him a D because he neglected to mention the stimulus or the ACA; which I think is a cowardly move.

Stop trolling. It was a great speech that laid out a vision for the future and didn't relitigate the past four years.

[Lincoln Republican]

D+

I enjoyed that he took the sacred cow of "tax cuts" to task, but it was otherwise vapid noise - like most convention speeches. I gave him a D because he neglected to mention the stimulus or the ACA; which I think is a cowardly move.

Stop trolling. It was a great speech that laid out a vision for the future and didn't relitigate the past four years.

Typical Dem tactics.  Someone criticizes Obama's empty speech and you call it trolling.

If someone wants to criticize the speech they are free to do so, and they don't need you throwing ridiculous attacks on their integrity.

[Eraserhead]

D+

I enjoyed that he took the sacred cow of "tax cuts" to task, but it was otherwise vapid noise - like most convention speeches. I gave him a D because he neglected to mention the stimulus or the ACA; which I think is a cowardly move.

Stop trolling. It was a great speech that laid out a vision for the future and didn't relitigate the past four years.

Typical Dem tactics.  Someone criticizes Obama's empty speech and you call it trolling.

If someone wants to criticize the speech they are free to do so, and they don't need you throwing ridiculous attacks on their integrity.

If Obama's speech was empty, what does that make Romney's

[J. J.]

D+

I enjoyed that he took the sacred cow of "tax cuts" to task, but it was otherwise vapid noise - like most convention speeches. I gave him a D because he neglected to mention the stimulus or the ACA; which I think is a cowardly move.

Stop trolling. It was a great speech that laid out a vision for the future and didn't relitigate the past four years.

Typical Dem tactics.  Someone criticizes Obama's empty speech and you call it trolling.

If someone wants to criticize the speech they are free to do so, and they don't need you throwing ridiculous attacks on their integrity.

If Obama's speech was empty, what does that make Romney's

Both were lacking specifics, badly.  The problem that saw with Obama's speech was that it clashed with his own "forward," message.  You don't cite FDR, specifically his 1936 reelection, and say "forward" in 2012.

That said, it is a question of which speech is the least worst in terms of substance.

[Torie]

I didn't watch the speech. I was on a plane flying to my 35th law school union. I got a chance to chat with supreme court justice Kagan for a bit. She is a very impressive person. Her discussion before with the law school dean and the ensuing Q and A were superb. More on that when I get back. She was quite revealing as to what goes on behind closed doors. I was also so very proud of the quality of the questions the law school kids asked. They were superb, sophisticated, pithy, and well phrased, and covered everything that I would have asked. It was really a joy to be surrounded by the "best and the brightest" as it were.

Enough about me; now about you. It seems that this forum has lost any veneer of objectivity it may once have had.  The correlation between partisan preference and the grade given to Obama for his speech seem to be just about absolutely perfect. Does that bother anybody?  Is anyone even a tad embarrassed by that?  Or does each side now consider than other to have descended to the bottom of the hackery pit?

Just asking.

[Mechaman]

Enough about me; now about you. It seems that this forum has lost any veneer of objectivity it may once have had.  The correlation between partisan preference and the grade given to Obama for his speech seem to be just about absolutely perfect. Does that bother anybody?  Is anyone even a tad embarrassed by that?  Or does each side now consider than other to have descended to the bottom of the hackery pit?

Just asking.

[Sbane]

I didn't watch the speech. I was on a plane flying to my 35th law school union. I got a chance to chat with supreme court justice Kagan for a bit. She is a very impressive person. Her discussion before with the law school dean and the ensuing Q and A were superb. More on that when I get back. She was quite revealing as to what goes on behind closed doors. I was also so very proud of the quality of the questions the law school kids asked. They were superb, sophisticated, pithy, and well phrased, and covered everything that I would have asked. It was really a joy to be surrounded by the "best and the brightest" as it were.

Enough about me; now about you. It seems that this forum has lost any veneer of objectivity it may once have had.  The correlation between partisan preference and the grade given to Obama for his speech seem to be just about absolutely perfect. Does that bother anybody?  Is anyone even a tad embarrassed by that?  Or does each side now consider than other to have descended to the bottom of the hackery pit?

Just asking.

It was a speech to inspire those who voted for him once but may be disillusioned now. There was more substance than Romney's speech obviously, even you cannot deny that, but there needed to be more. At least to attract swing voters. In that department I would give this speech a C. Leaving that aside, I would give the speech either a B+ or an A-. I'll go back and see it and see if I need to re-evaluate but I don't think I do. The entire DNC was about turning out the base and this speech was a continuation of that, in stark contrast to Clinton's speech which appealed better to swing voters.

Also while Obama might not have mentioned the PPACA or the stimulus by name, he did mention what they actually did. I think that is a smart political move because the individual parts of those bills, especially the PPACA, are more popular than the whole. It was a smart political move, not a cowardly one.