by Ruth Haworth
Seems like it was written by someone who has read some Clinton talking points, but hasn't actually been paying attention to the campaign. Obama isn't any less substantive than anyone else running, he just delivers his speeches a lot better.
It's funny how anyone who chooses Clinton over Obama is accused of following Clinton talking points or being a Clinton operative, as if any support of her must be part of a nefarious plot and can't be a well-reasoned position.I didn't reprint the article or make any comment about it because I think it might go too far. But I think the perspective of the author is objectivity, not ignorance, and I think it's worth considering. If you think that Obama is as substantive as Clinton, then I think _you_ haven't been following the campaign that well.And by the way, Obama delivers his speeches better largely because he uses a teleprompter and reads them. I find his incessive head-swivelling to be really annoying. I'd rather he stumbled a bit but said his own words. I'd also prefer that he wasn't quite so stylized; to me the preacher voice he puts on sounds phony. I'm an Obama fan from way back, but I liked his unaffected, straight-shooting, clear talking style, not this empty rhetoric.
Post a Comment