Rush isn't the best example to make that point. He talks, and talks, and talks, and talks about politics, that's his special talent. He's made himself obscenely rich doing it. He wouldn't do much of anything in the radio business if he couldn't.

 

Rush gets knocked not because of his delivery, it's his tendency to make outlandish and at times offensive statements. He gets criticized by the GOP too because sometimes he is a liability to them, and he doesn't know when to STFU.

Eh if you're talking to a local crowd that's probably a lot different than being on TV. I imagine being in national politics is a lot different, much more coaching and image management.

 

Almost every speech Obama gives is to a local audience. He rarely gives a "national" speech.

Almost every speech Obama gives is to a local audience. He rarely gives a "national" speech.

 

It may be to a local audience, but it is followed internationally. The President cannot make a remark that is not immediately translated into 100 languages and studied around the world. How many people are ready to pounce?

Almost every speech Obama gives is to a local audience. He rarely gives a "national" speech.

That's semantics though. When you have cameras, your "audience" is still national, or international. If there are no cameras (i.e., stump speech), it's probably something you've said in front of cameras anyway.

 

Personally I couldn't do it, without some kind of visual aid. I need Powerpoint at the very least.

It may be to a local audience, but it is followed internationally. The President cannot make a remark that is not immediately translated into 100 languages and studied around the world. How many people are ready to pounce?

 

About half as many people as would interpret what he said to be some profound greatness?

That's semantics though. When you have cameras, your "audience" is still national, or international. If there are no cameras (i.e., stump speech), it's probably something you've said in front of cameras anyway.

 

Personally I couldn't do it, without some kind of visual aid. I need Powerpoint at the very least.

Its not so much a matter of could - Obama could, and has previously, made off-the-cuff speeches (with mixed results). Its just that, as you have said, Presidents are virtually not allowed to do so nowadays. The last one to do it with any frequency (once actually in office) was Clinton, but even he was working from prepared material most of the time. He was just better at memorizing it, and working away from it here and there as he saw fit, which made it seem off-the-cuff even if it wasn't.

 

Rush isn't the best example to make that point. He talks, and talks, and talks, and talks about politics, that's his special talent.

And Obama doesn't? The man once told a staff member that he had a gift for speaking. He loves to do it, he's quite proud of it.

And Obama doesn't? The man once told a staff member that he had a gift for speaking. He loves to do it, he's quite proud of it.

Really now? Do you see Obama hosting a liberal talk radio show and making all the millions Limbaugh has doing the same thing, and being as mainstream? I don't. Hosting a radio show and keeping a transient audience's attention is not at all the same thing as public speaking.

Really now? Do you see Obama hosting a liberal talk radio show and making all the millions Limbaugh has doing the same thing, and being as mainstream? I don't. Hosting a radio show and keeping a transient audience's attention is not at all the same thing as public speaking.

 

If he had lost the election, I could have totally seen him getting into the media if he wanted to. He would be perfect for it.

If he had lost the election, I could have totally seen him getting into the media if he wanted to. He would be perfect for it.

TV, maybe, if he wanted to give up the Senate. And he would be orders of magnitude less successful than Rush if he did, but I don't see it because he's a career politician (he'd made it a goal to be president when he was in the IL senate 10 years ago). My point being that in order to keep a radio audience captive, you have to be good at talking constantly and coherently. That's Rush's unique skill set.

Edited June 8, 200916 yr by lostfan

TV, maybe, if he wanted to give up the Senate. And he would be orders of magnitude less successful than Rush if he did, but I don't see it because he's a career politician (he'd made it a goal to be president when he was in the IL senate 10 years ago). My point being that in order to keep a radio audience captive, you have to be good at talking constantly and coherently. That's Rush's unique skill set.

 

Maybe is just me, but didn't Obama do exactly that for about two years on the campaign trail?

Maybe is just me, but didn't Obama do exactly that for about two years on the campaign trail?

Give a bunch of stump speeches and interviews?

Give a bunch of stump speeches and interviews?

 

Sure. Run a few commericals, take a couple of callers, and that stuff turns into a four hour radio show.

Sure. Run a few commericals, take a couple of callers, and that stuff turns into a four hour radio show.

You mean like the many Town Halls that Obama does whenever he campaigns? Or speaking of radio shows, doesn't he do a weekly adress?

My god you guys are killing me. Reciting the same talking points over and over for a campaign, and giving a bunch of speeches isn't the same as entertaining an audience daily. Yes he could probably do it. But he is not Rush Limbaugh. They do 2 totally different things.

Edited June 8, 200916 yr by lostfan