Of course I know politicians have speechwriters. But it's not a matter of having someone read a speech off of a teleprompter. Whatever the words the speeches have to be interpreted by the person giving them. And the speech has to fit the person--it has to seem like it authentically came from them. I don't think a great orator can be someone who is solely or mostly the product of a behind the scenes speechwriter. There is a collaborative effort involved in giving a political speech, but there has to be significant input from the candidate himself, I think. So I stand by my statement that oratory signifies some political talent.

I don't know, I am guessing the people in the late 60's were a bit more politically actively than at your school, what with Vietnam, civil rights , women's rights. But you might be right--maybe the fact that she was so politically involved influenced how people saw her. However, I would distinguish between actually thinking that a person might be president and a class naming who is most likely to be president. With regard to the latter you got to select someone so you do. But it doesn't mean anything. But sometimes people stand out at an early age as potential stars. It is pretty hard to tell if her classmates actually thought at the time thought she was going to go far, though.

But no one ever stood out in high school, college or law school as being someone I could conceive of as being president. Did you ever think that about anyone?

freeman3 wrote:I don't have any doubt whatsoever as to whether Hillary and Trump are patriotic in the sense they want what's in the best interests of the US. Maybe you mean something else? As for integrity ("a man of honesty and moral uprightness")...think you are going to have go back to Abraham Lincoln to find a presidential example who really fits that description.

I was not casting aspersions on ANY candidate. Both are in the same boat as it goes there.

As for patriotism, I am sure that they both feel they are patriotic.

Sassenach wrote:

Secondly, I think oratorical ability is a sign of political talent. The ability to look at the world, analyze it, and interpret it in a manner that moves people requires a great deal of intelligence to be an effective political orator.You need to understood the culture, the concerns of people, history and then use words, sentence structure,and gestures, voice pitch, etc to tap into people's emotions. To me it is how similar to how really good comedians (who tend to be quite intelligent, I think) can analyze the world and find the humor in it. It's not an easy thing to do.

He doesn't write his own speeches, you get that right ? No senior politician writes their own speeches, that's what specialist staff are for. Yes, Obama has an easy manner which translates well to set-piece speechmaking, but let's not make more of it than it is.

And, to be candid, while he is incredible with a TelePrompTer, he is nearly inept without one. In fact, GWB after 9/11 at the WTC with a megaphone was more impressive than anything Obama has ever said without a prepared text in front of him.

Oratory has its place, but personally I'm suspicious of it. Tony Blair was a fantastic speaker, Winston Churchill was a poor one (most of the witticisms you'll have seen attributed to Churchill were urban myths). Which of the two would you rather have as your leader ?

In terms of leadership, Obama has repeatedly missed chances to appeal to a broader audience and establish himself as a national leader. I don't expect to agree with him on much, but there have been many times (too many) of national import (think terror attacks, the Dallas PD shootings, etc.) when President Obama has made sure to make his base happy while being willing to antagonize everyone else. He consistently plays politics. He is a consummate politician and not a statesman whatsoever.

I cannot believe how blithely the liberals here ignore Clinton's lack of integrity. She's not just a liar and a liar about lying, there's also the corruption angle. Here is a woman who beat odds no one would take to win a ton in cattle futures, who has since been "dead broke" and now has a net worth well north of $100M while "serving" the public.

Come on! The emails leaking daily show the connection between Bond and Abedin, between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. And it's oh so coincidental that Bill is making 2x his normal speaking fees from groups with business before Hillary?

To quote Bill (in 2008): "Give me a break!"

You guys aren't this gullible, are you?

fate

In terms of leadership, Obama has repeatedly missed chances to appeal to a broader audience and establish himself as a national leader

Then how do you figure this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1044.html

rickyp wrote:fate

In terms of leadership, Obama has repeatedly missed chances to appeal to a broader audience and establish himself as a national leader

Then how do you figure this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1044.html

It's easy.

Close to 40% of the country genuinely likes him and his policies. 10% ish are kind of meh about him and don't like his policies, but they won't tell a pollster they don't like him.

Look beyond the "approval" to the policies. He rarely gets a plus rating in specific areas.

Economy 48/50 http://www.gallup.com/poll/1726/preside ... roval.aspx
Foreign Affairs 48/48
Immigration 44/54
Terror 45/53
Guns 37/59
Healthcare 44/54
ISIS 30/64



He inspires no one beyond his base.

Doctor Fate wrote:
He inspires no one beyond his base.

Who was the last president to "inspire" beyond his base?

Serious question -- while I think you're right, it seems that most presidents in recent memory have been pretty polarizing. Half the country really likes them, half the country really doesn't, and that's at best.

theshrizzz wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
He inspires no one beyond his base.

Who was the last president to "inspire" beyond his base?

Serious question -- while I think you're right, it seems that most presidents in recent memory have been pretty polarizing. Half the country really likes them, half the country really doesn't, and that's at best.

I think GWB for a brief moment in time.

Obama had his inauguration. Since then, it's been downhill.

I think Reagan, overall, did. Clearly, hardcore Democrats were not going to like him, but I think there were some moments and some speeches that all Americans could invest themselves in.

I think Obama has intentionally vilified and alienated those with whom he disagrees. I can't think of another President in my lifetime who has been so partisan.

theshrizzz wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
He inspires no one beyond his base.

Who was the last president to "inspire" beyond his base?

Kennedy

bbauska wrote:

theshrizzz wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
He inspires no one beyond his base.

Who was the last president to "inspire" beyond his base?

Kennedy

I think Reagan had plenty of Democrat supporters. He was probably the last.

George Bush tried to ride the coattails, but having to renege on his "read my lips" promise killed that off. Clinton only needed his base, thanks to Ross Perot.

GWB only had extra support really after 9/11, so it was less him, and more a desire for national unity.

danivon wrote:GWB only had extra support really after 9/11, so it was less him, and more a desire for national unity.

And yet, he did it.

We have had many opportunities for President Obama to be a leader, to really try to viscerally connect with more than his base. Count all the disasters, terror attacks, etc. However, his penchant for making everything political eliminates the possibility of him being more than a leader of his sycophantic base.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:GWB only had extra support really after 9/11, so it was less him, and more a desire for national unity.

And yet, he did it.

For about 5 minutes. And I think a lot of people regret the Patriot Act, waterboarding and invading Iraq now, and those tainted his brand somewhat.

If you want to base it upon approval ratings... See below..
Clinton was the last . He hadover 60% in his second term. And averaged 55%.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presi ... rends.aspx

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
GWB only had extra support really after 9/11, so it was less him, and more a desire for national unity.

fate

And yet, he did it.

Fate
For about 5 minutes. And I think a lot of people regret the Patriot Act, waterboarding and invading Iraq now, and those tainted his brand somewhat

.
He squandered amazingly high approval (90%) reaching only 29% late in his second term... You could argue he did nothing to deserve the high approval ratings but pick up a bull horn. And every to deserve the low approval ratings.... which probably would have been lower if the crash of 08 had occurred only a few months earlier.

rickyp wrote:If you want to base it upon approval ratings... See below..
Clinton was the last . He hadover 60% in his second term. And averaged 55%.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presi ... rends.aspx

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
GWB only had extra support really after 9/11, so it was less him, and more a desire for national unity.

fate

And yet, he did it.

Fate
For about 5 minutes. And I think a lot of people regret the Patriot Act, waterboarding and invading Iraq now, and those tainted his brand somewhat

.
He squandered amazingly high approval (90%) reaching only 29% late in his second term... You could argue he did nothing to deserve the high approval ratings but pick up a bull horn. And every to deserve the low approval ratings.... which probably would have been lower if the crash of 08 had occurred only a few months earlier.

Nope, I want to base it on reality, not popularity. Obama has been a permanent campaigner and partisan. Period.

These are very partisan times Steve. Obama was faced with a Republican party which was determined to obstruct anything and everything he wanted to achieve and a base which would not have tolerated too much compromise. Whoever wins in November will face the exact same problem, only vastly worse given who the candidates are.

Your political system is one which relies on compromise and grown-ups working together for the common good. There don't seem to be a whole lot of grown-ups left.

Sassenach wrote:These are very partisan times Steve. Obama was faced with a Republican party which was determined to obstruct anything and everything he wanted to achieve and a base which would not have tolerated too much compromise. Whoever wins in November will face the exact same problem, only vastly worse given who the candidates are.

Your political system is one which relies on compromise and grown-ups working together for the common good. There don't seem to be a whole lot of grown-ups left.

All true.

However, there are also times that should transcend politics--terror attacks, for example. These are times when Presidents have the opportunity to reach beyond their base and address the entire nation. There are maybe half a dozen such times a year. I can't think of a time when Obama has failed to take a partisan cheap shot instead of being a statesman.