although i understand that the point of this exercise was to compare the mlk day speeches, the speeches themselves are apples and oranges in terms of what went into them and how they functioned in the services. i think it would be much more interesting to compare speeches that are of similar length and function, either both written or both extemporaneous.

the clinton speech was clearly just remarks on the occasion of mlk day (and the 200th anniversary of the church?), not the main sermon. they did not reflect a lot of preparation and were not read. they are thoughtful remarks, but not nearly the level of obama's.

she focused on economic justice as what mlk was fighting for at the time of his assassination. maybe she didn't consider it as appropriate to focus on race since she is not a person of color. i'm guessing that in her mind economic justice is inclusive of other kinds of justice, like racial, but that is debatable.

obama's speech was a very well-prepared, carefully executed sermon-speech. he read most of it, up until the point where he transitioned to the theme of hope. then he was more extemporaneous, although he clearly had prepared carefully and may have memorized parts of his speech. the speech itself is a brilliant tribute to mlk and to the themes obama wishes to address in his campaign and vision for the country.

it would be interesteing to know to what degree the candidates write their own speeches and prepare their own remarks.

The speeches reveal what is to me the fundamental difference between the two candidates. Obama's speech is about unity: it's about ALL of us. Obama is a community organizer, as was King. He recognizes that change comes from the grassroots, that power doesn't shift from the top down, it doesn't shift because one powerful person forces another powerful person to give up some of their privilege in favor of the powerless. It shifts because the powerless join together and in unity, become powerful enough to move whatever it is that oppresses them -- whether it's the broken government, the broken healthcare system, or the out-of-control multinational corporations.

Clinton says, kind of bitterly, "you need politicians to fight for you. You need a president to get it done." Obama says "to change the world, you, we, need to unite, to believe, to persevere together against the abuse of power." That's not just preaching. He's a community organizer, he knows that unity WORKS.

Clinton also, I think, misunderstands or mis-conveys King's message. It was NOT about "economic justice", narrowly. It was about social justice. Lynching was not an economic issue. Being able to use a public bathroom was not an economic issue. Being publicly, constantly, routinely humiliated, made to give up a seat on the bus, use the back door, send one's kids to inferior schools, those were not issues of economic justice. They were issues of social justice. Issues of broken, divided, corroded community, expressed in economic and other symptoms. Obama calls us to social healing.

Politicians, lobbyists, drug & insurance companies, oil companies, they're not going to give up their overwhelming power and influence because the President fights them. Change is only going to happen because WE fight them, and that is the fundamental difference between these two campaigns. Clinton is about Clinton. Obama is about US.

Harry -

A blind man on a galloping horse would have thought both speeches were way too long.

I suggest this rule of thumb, useful to reach an audience that is capable of turning off.

State your point, preferably with elegant simplicity.

Use three compelling illustrations to support your point, restating the point each time.

Conclude, remembering to restate your point.

When you have a captive audience, you are allowed to make three points.

I am only half kidding; go read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. It will still cause your heart to jump to your throat.

A question for Iwoodfield: Are you Mark Penn in disguise?? Seriously. I'm currently neutral, trying to make up my mind as my prefered canidate (Biden) dropped out. But a blind man on a galloping horse could see that Obama's speech was better. Clinton's wasn't bad per se, pretty good actually in parts, but by any measure you slice it, Obama's was fantastic---emotive, substantive. Next to Obama's speech, let's be grown-ups here, Clinton's was weak sauce.

I listened to Hillary Clinton and was moved by her call to keep going, keep striving for a more perfect union. It called me to get involved again. It was simple, honest, even humorous and moving. I listened with interest all the way through.

I listened to Barack Obama for about 7 minutes and didn't get it. Besides being irritated at his fake southern accent, what I got was when we have a problem, blow a horn. So I turned to the comments to see what they got and they were "inspired" and "moved" but nobody, absolutely nobody told me what the speech was about except to be good parents.

They were inspired and moved to call the Clintons terrible names which they always do after Obama speaks. Is that what Obama meant to convey? Is that how MLK would react to Hillary's life? I think the answers were given to you in the comments.

Hillary wins big.

The obvious: Clinton's speech was well-delivered, perfectly nice, and utterly forgettable, while Obama's was gripping and powerful and emotive. (And when I say "emotive," I mean that every time I replay the speech on YouTube, I find my normally shy and reserved self applauding, crying, leaping to my feet, and yelling "Amen!" at the laptop.) The more important point: While Clinton speaks as an appreciative observer of Dr. King and his legacy, Obama flat out takes up the mantle. No matter how polished Clinton's message, she's still condemned to the sidelines.

I'm encouraged to see here that many voters appear willing to choose a candidate without demonizing his/her opponent. We should all be able to agree that all the candidates -- maybe even Republicans -- mean well and think they can do good for the USA.
I'll get back to you on the speeches...

This is a pointless exercise. We are voting for a Commander in Chief -- a President, not a Speaker in Chief. Yes, the ability to communicate is important, but what is more important is the ability to LEAD.

Obama should have been a preacher. I am not looking for a preacher -- not Huckabee, not Obama. I am looking for a leader.

Why not put up clips from the last 400 Democratic debates. Clinton wins hands down. THe ability to be persuasive, to make a point, to debate the issues -- to know the issues -- that is just as important, if not more important as most of the leadership of the presidency is day in and day out in meetings!

So please remember we are not picking a preacher -- we're picking a president to lead the United States. I'm not looking for a sermon. I want content, real concrete ideas and solutions to our nation's problems. Somebody who has proven their ability to lead, to get things done. COMPETENCE.

If you're looking for an inspirational speaker, go to church on Sunday or pay $100 to see Tony Robbins.

It's been a LONG time, I think, since we as Americans, could view our country with pride and the feeling of unity. Clinton's speech did not give me that feeling, did not give me the feeling of the thoughts of this most honorable man, MLK, Jr.

On the other hand, I could not help but feel included in the speech given by Obama. MLK's vision left no one out - and calling us ALL to service is the only way to bring about the changes needed to UNITE us all. It kept me involved, made me think - and I didn't have to have met MLK to understand the importance of this message. Without a doubt, it was powerful...a challenge to all Americans to stand together and make this country proud once again, bring this country back to the values the founding fathers fought so hard for.

Our nation needs Romney. He has spent his life fixing problems, from failing businesses to the Winter Olympics to making significant progress as governor of a state largely controlled
by democrats. He has learned to surround himself with other intelligent persons and to get the big picture before making snap judgments. Romney has demonstrated the leadership, intelligence and personal character to be an excellent president. Please support Romney so that some of his outstanding business and leadership skills can be applied to our national government.

These speeches delineate once more the clear decision in this election- between hope and action, between uplifting rhetoric and down to earth results. One candidate offers a dream, one offers a reality. And the question becomes, in the end, which one do we need at this juncture in history? We've had each in the past- Clinton, the establishment candidate, will have the effect of Bush 41, Nixon, Carter, and many other leaders- propel the country forward without significantly altering its course. Obama is the once in a generation person that can alter the course of history altogether- of the ilk of Kennedy, King, and, yes, Reagan. Whether we grab that opportunity or let it slip away remains to be seen.

Right sheridan. I thoguht it funny in the debate, clinton tried to place the blame on bill, Obama said he doesn't know who he's running agaisnt sometimes. Funny but true. If only all contenders for president had their very own ex-president to do their bidding and lies for them. That would even the feild

THIS IS THE PROBLEM:
Someone here posts "The Clinton's have the best punch and counter-punch in contemporary politics. And while there are some "Democratic Party Leaders" who are reaching for the smelling salts, it's only because they haven't seen a successful Presidential campaign since 1996, and forgot what one looks like.
******************************************
THE CLINTONS - not Hillary Clinton. Do we talk about THE OBAMAS?? And Hillary can send Bill out on attack, he can lie and name call and say whatever he wants and laugh. In the debate, when Obama tries to counter what Bill has said, she can say with a straight face "He's not standing here." Poof - no dirt on HER.

I used to love Bill Clinton and thought what was done to him was awful. Now if I never see that pink face and white hair again, that'll be fine with me.

How do we ever STOP puching and start trying to work together?? I don't want to be told I am an idealist - listening to other people's opinions and especially those you disagree with, is part of being American.

But the Clintons do not listen. They "punch and counter-punch." Is that what makes a good leader for this time in history?

OBAMA '08!

Interesting comparison. I guess I'm a literal person and like to get to the point. I found Hillary's speech to be more authentic, more real. It was a call to action and I knew what I should do. She used humor. I found it to be positive and uplifting.

Obama's speech was depressing. He ticked off so many problems, most, apparently your fault and mine, that I was exhausted. He offers problems...but where are the solutions? We need to change our hearts, our minds, our spirits. That sounds nice...but how? The one specific call to action was to turn off the TV. Okay, I think I can do that...but I don't really want to since I have no children in my home anymore. Finally, we're asked to walk together, march together. Now we're getting somewhere. But, where are we marching to?

I found his speech to be very depressing, don't know how to excape the depression...is it as simple as voting for him? But mostly, it was verrrrrrrrrrry long. No wonder he had to read it. I couldn't listen to him for four years!

Obama is talented, but as he states in his book "Audacity of Hope", he, Obama actually doesn't know how to change. With a giggle and laughter anyone who read just the prologue, Obama makes some very extraordinary truths about himself that totally contradicts his campaign rhetoric.

Chris Matthews's host of Hardball is skillful to avoid Obama's video analysis of Reagan, who, Obama did say "Reagan Made a Trajectory in the nineties far better than Clinton". A perspective that completely dismisses the Clinton Administration promotion of the Internet in education and commerce is considered the most incredible leap of technology in history. One has to be a stupid idiot to dismiss that.

Though what one has to remember in debate "Tone" is a defining factor. That certain tone to frequency, essence of tone meaning good without saying good, the rational of tone being supportive. All clearly fall in the general sense of the context of feelings in tone of ideals in a message to his audience. All said with out saying Obama supports Republican ideals in his tone.

Yes, in a large way, Obama is playing Monkey ball. Only Chris in his Hardball view doesn't get it. Obama clearly gives a Christian pitch with an Islamic curve. It's in his blood.

Indeed in the debate about health care it was very clear Obama left out Mexican Illegals in his proposed Health Care Plan. Obama might as well kiss those Mexican delegates good by, along with California. That was a total goof by Obama, and Chris Mathews knows it, but, would he give Hillary the advantage? Of course not.

But, inclosing something everyone in the analysis missed about Obama talking about Martin Luther King. Obama clearly stated Dr King didn't need anyone to make his movement real, here, Obama is implying mob rule?

I'M Just a Joe Six pack

joze46

I am curious why CC so specifically wants readers to assess these two speeches side by side. I am, admittedly, an Obama supporter, but I think it would be hard even for a Clinton supporter to argue that she made the stronger MLK day speech.

Structurally, Clinton's speech was rambling and her lack of direction made me lose focus on her words even though I made an honest effort to pay attention. Obama's theme of Jericho, referenced periodically throughout the speech, gave his much longer address greater coherence than Clinton's achieved.

Clinton's delivery was much flatter than Obama's as well. I suppose she was going for softness, but she needed more energy.

Finally, in terms of content, Clinton's speech came off as a pat on the back, while Obama's came off as a rallying cry. More than once, Clinton praised her audience for what they had done in the past. She talked about some current issues, but didn't really chart a course forward. Obama challenged people to go beyond admiring MLK's "Dream" and redouble their efforts at making it reality. He managed criticize and empower his audience at the same time by placing individuals' attitudes, behaviors, and openness to others' humanity at the core of meaningful social change. Obama's was a truly exceptional speech.

Alexander Girman wrote "PS> If someone remembers the context of my anecdote, don't hesitate to point it out."

It was about solving the social security crisis. Hillary wanted to keep her plans secret until she was in the Oval Office so she didn't have to have it be an issue in the general election. I guess she forgets sometimes that she has to win her party's nomination first.

Note the similarity to how she handled health care in secrecy in 1993. Hillary needs to learn to practice glasnost (openness)if she wants to be an effective president. This appears unlikely given her "experience."

Has everybody forgotten the crap the Clinton's pulled while in office?

Forget the speeches, are your minds all in such short supply of MEMORY?

Geeeeeeesh...

I find the question as posed to be of little value. Asking which of the two presidential contenders gives the better speech is a bit like asking which of the two candidates would win in a game of pick-up basketball... (hint: It's Obama in both cases).

I find that people apt to comment on these articles are more interested in what's behind the words; and to that end I think that Clinton has better policies and a more 'wonkish' attention to detail. Hillary's policies have been forged in the crucible of Washington D.C., and have been cooling and hardening for many years. This is why I support Obama.

Hillary supporters will usually concede the point that Obama gives a better speech, "But..."--their claim goes--that is all there is to Senator Obama. Do not underestimate how important an ability it is to be able to stir the hearts of men. Hillary's claim that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law, while factual, is naive. Without freedom riders, without Selma and Montgommery, without The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, without King... could the bill have been signed? I would argue that without the movement on the ground shedding light on the abuses of segregation and those who profited from it, any motion toward signing the bill (and prior to that, voting for it [as a representative of certain states]) would have been tantamount to political suicide for whoever was brave enough to do so. It was the work on the ground, by King and his supporters (and indeed, rivals) that created a climate in which the bill could succeed. To that extent, LBJ was interchangeable with any other person who might have been sitting in the office at the time. It was brave of him to sign it, and I don't mean to come off as trivializing what he has done, but it is my belief that it was thanks to the fundamental shift in America brought about by King & Co. that it could have happened.

I bring this up because while I do like and would support Mrs. Clinton in the general, were she to win the nomination; good policies are only half the battle. Policy is just paper unless you can line the nation up behind you, and this is where Obama (and his ability to supply stirring oratory) shines. It is his ability to draw in independents, to listen to those holding opposing views, to build consensus--that are needed in Washington. Policy will be changed and refined, negotiated on, poked, prodded, argued over, and debated at length. Whatever policy is being pitched now will not survive, unaltered, until the moment it reaches the president's desk to be signed. Whatever shape it is in when it reaches that desk will be watered-down, laden with riders, and otherwise mangled, until it is no longer recognizable.

We need someone in office who can fundamentally change the rules of the game. Who but Obama can make his case to the people, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and rally them wholesale, to ask each to lay aside their differences and come together for a common cause? Why is he so often compared to Kennedy and King? What better means to get people moving, than to _move_ them?

I will tell you the moment I switched from equivocation to supporting Obama. During one of the debates, Senator Clinton criticized on of Senator Obama's plans (though which plan it was, evades me). She claimed that his plan was insufficient, and to accept anything less than the contents of _her_ plan--indeed, that any compromise would (and I'm paraphrasing here) "be taken as weakness by the Republicans." Excuse me? Compromise is showing weakness? What? With all due respect Senator, compromise is how things get done. Compromise is how we transcend partisanship. Compromise is how you move from having an assortment of red states and blue states into having, once again, "The United States." Is pouting and holing your breath until the opponent capitulates how you run a democracy?

I will concede that I think Hillary will make an adequate president, should she win the nomination (as I still find her more palatable than any of the Republicans, with whom I identified with until Bush), but for now, my support is to Obama.

Hopeful in '08

PS> If someone remembers the context of my anecdote, don't hesitate to point it out.

Barak Obama for President and at last free ourselves from the connections, web-like that
have governed our country over the past 16 years

Well, although neither candidate gets my vote for Pres, - it will be nice to have a president who is articulate and won't be an embarrassment to listen to.

In Hillary's speech, she mentioned that seeing King in person in 1963 was a transformative experience. It must have been a time-released dosage, then, because she left there self-proclaimed Goldwater girl.

As to the symbolism of Barack's use of the walls of Jericho and the dust up over his mention of Reagan the other day, how interesting to reflect upon Reagan's most memorable line: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Reagan made it a demand of an adversary. Obama summons his people with a call from the ram's horn (his oratory) to unite to cause the walls to come down.

Time to crank up some Pink Floyd!

AndyR3, been swamped with work, but hope you see this. The black civic network is as fragmented as every other civic network these days, but what remains of it is still centered around churches. Abyssinia and Ebenezer extended their influence long ago to the national stage, but every town in America with a significant black population has at least one significant black church. They are community centers, shelters, incubators, junior leagues, chambers of commerce all rolled up into one.

The folks sitting in the pews at Abyssinian and Ebenezer and churches like them vote. They may not be representative of the broader African-American population in terms of age and affluence, but they vote, and they often influence many, many votes of people not sitting in the pews.

Any Democrat at any level who doesn't recognize this doesn't deserve to win. Even if it means shrugging off the concerns of people who want "seperation of church and state" on the campaign trail, a goal neither plausible nor desirable.

I am SICK of commentators equating Bill Clinton's presidency with George W. Bush. If you weren't there it actually was a great time for the country and the world still remembers him fondly. He balanced the budget and left with a surplus. Yes, he had an affair- and the republicans were tough enough to impeach him for it, in spite of his 70% approval rating. We democrats on the other hand are too spineless to impeach the crooks in office now, who have shredded the constitution and lied about a war causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and yet you want to vote for someone who is talking about working with them??> Where is your outrage?

Who conveyed their message more effectively - Obama, I thought.

But to me, all speeches not weighted by a record of achievements, in the end, are just mediocre. Remove the body of achievement framing any speech and you have something that is merely good not glorious. Remove all that MLK achieved and his greatest speeches are merely fine not fantastic. Lincoln, Churchill, Mandela, Gandhi, Roosevelt - their words soared when they were propelled by significant action. JFK brought a great war record and several years of senate leadership to "Ask not what the country can do for you." Nehru declared a nation free with, "A tryst with destiny."

So, yes, Obama was more eloquent and purposeful but I was still not much moved.

Hillary has more achievements on which to build speeches but she too generally falls short there, partly because her achievements aren't as soaring either, and partly because achievements are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for producing memorable speeches. One must write and speak well too.

Clearly Barack Obama gave the more beautiful speech. It was inspirational and he touched every issue across the board from gays to anti-semitism.

But I don't think I am the only one that noticed that Barack Obama read his speech. Hillary Clinton gave hers extemporaneously. I am curious who wrote Barack Obama's speech. Has anyone asked him? If he did it himself I give him credit. But I don't believe a candidate for President has the time to write like that. It takes too many hours. He may have polished it but I would believe someone else wrote it.

He delivered it flawlessly. He is an orator beyond comapare.

But Hillary's speech was from the heart and because she is older, was about Dr. King's impact on her. It is different for Obama who see's Dr. King as history.

I appreciated Hillary's personal story about actually hearing Dr. King.

I had the chance to meet Dr. King and my prized posession is a picture of me presenting an award to Dr. King in New York in 1963 and his signature on the speech I gave when I presented it to him.
I understood and could relate to Hillary when she said that meeting Dr. King was transformative.

Most of the country would tune out a president clinton before she speaks. And not because she's a women, befor ethe paenut gallery starts.

She talks on MLK. But then she cries and goes after the women vote, BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMEN. It would be one thing for her to get the women vote on merits, and also a women. But that is all she has, and the race card. Very sad.

Who would be eager and waiting for a hillary news converance? who would say "I can't wait to hear what the president will do or say today."

I think it would be like when bush speaks now, for many people.

That is one choice.

Edwards-Obama are at the other end of the spectrum. A few would hate all they say, BASED ON POLICES (some on race). But they are a small portion. The fox news zouk rush dittohead mold. But they will not be happy if everything is not exactly how they wnat, line for line. Elementary school kids. Screw them if they want to sabotage. Shwo their face, I say.

Those are the choices. Hope and working together as a nation, or not. I can't do what I have been doing the last 5 years for another 4 years. Nor shold I have to.

for my children's sake. If this goes south, I will do what my ancestros did. Fled, what would be called fascism, for religous and personal freedom. America used to be the place people fled to. If fox and rush and the zouks of the world stay in power, it will be the land people flee from oppression. Think about the histroy books. Think about the big picture.

Is hillary worth it? Is bill? Not to me. My country is more important. If hillary wins we go to the past, one decade. if the gop wins we go back 40 decades if not a century.

you can't drive looking only in yoru rearview as the gop does. The future is now. To fear the future is to eliminate it

Hillary Clinton's message calls for the honoring of Dr. King's dream in terms of providing economic justice. In citing examples of people doing all they can - working multiple jobs, combining vocation and "mission" - she makes a compelling appeal for the need to provide economic equity, which she presumably offers through her candidacy.

Obama's oratory focuses on the shaking of walls--walls of all kinds: walls of injustice, walls of racial animosity, walls of ideological divides and walls of economic constraints.

Not only, Obama says, can those walls be shaken, but they can be broken by the unity that Dr. King envisioned. Obama delivers his thesis in a way that makes me feel the immanent possibility of a new day in American politics.

Not only is Barack Obama the better orator (indeed the best orator of all candidates), but he also offers the best hope for the full realization of Dr. King's dream.

Obama's speech wins hands down. Clinton seems to be aiming for a sensitive and personal tone, but her tone and manner borders on sedate. The lines of her speech that needed to be rising and powerful were flat, and the speech was not terribly coherent thematically. The speech had little vision, and was mostly a hodgepodge of personal anecdotes and vague policy positions.

Obama's speech, on the other hand, demonstrates a thematic flow but also distinctive rhetorical flourish. His voice rises and falls with the energy of his words, and the shape and sound of his words is much more carefully crafted. The parallel patterns of his speech ("If...if...if", "deficit...deficit...deficit", and "No Child Left Behind...money left behind" as examples) work to tie together Obama's ideas. Ultimately, Obama offers more policy positions than Clinton's speech does, and yet he remains more visionary and inspiring in his presentation of those issues.

I cannot entirely understand why people deride Obama as merely a flowery speaker, or to treat this as an irrelevant quality in a president. Many of these same people probably look back to Kennedy fondly as a great president, and yet Kennedy was much like Obama, a young, able speaker. Being able to communicate vision as president is crucial, and all of the greatest presidents are known for masterful speeches.

Clinton would fail as president in her ability to communicate ideas and inspire vision, and despite the softer image she offers in this speech, her style of leadership would be marked by the same divisiveness that we've seen in the previous Clinton and current Bush administrations. Obama, in contrast, can inspire and even seduce with his words, which is powerfully important.

Yes, Obama could still struggle as an executive. This is one thing we still don't know. But then Clinton has also never run an office or administration, despite whatever role she had in her husband's administration, so her ability to run the Oval Office is murky, too. Overall, however, on the basis of this speech, Obama has much more potential to be a public president and a people's president.

"One is a Commander-in-chief, the other a Preacher-in-chief.

We need an experienced, competent, fighter in the White House.
"

AHHAHAH. He was speaking at a church gop (clinton included). no one is buying your gop propoganda anymore. Look at the polls. Clinton can't win. Teh gop is done, unless the pull a 180. Get yoru heads out fo the clouds (gop). Either you are enabling the peopel destroying this great nation of fighting them. but let's put it all on the table, as to the "why's". If you hate this country and freedom, say so. Maybe we can find a place wher eyou would be happy. Austrailia. China. Indonesia. We can help. If you hate this coutnry gop we can help you find happiness elsewhere. Where you do not have the freedoms we have here.

kingofzouk you obviously do not know of Barack's ability to work with all parties and across the isle. We do not have to agree with his position to feel unity. We have become so partisan that we no longer look at the big picture and understand that there is someone who can work with most on the hill. If the women voters are so blinded by making a statement of putting a woman in the White House we are all going to be paying the price. I am not interested in a Bush/Clinton dynasty and I am not interested in suffering through another nasty Repub/Clinton debate and another 4 years of a Clinton gridlock in the White House. Dems - please look outside the box. It is time for someone like Barack.

I am still not following exactly how Obama is supposed to be this great uniter. When it comes down to it, he is espousing some extemely liberal and idealistic views which about half the country will not appreciate. I don't care how articulate he is, I am still not for universal health care and surrender in war. I am not the only one."

your confused zouk. Nobody cares what you peopel want anymore. the last 8 (30 to a lesser extent) years have been all you (and yours) all the time. You had yoru chance. you wasted it.

I though you would have known by your candidates (as well as foxs savages rush's coulters) are the one's who are no longer viable. Facism is dead. For thirty years until the youth forgets.

But make no mistake. No one cares what your 20% is demanding anymore. Majority rule remember? If you will not sabotagign the country and act right that is your choice. But be prepared to be left in the wind if you don't want to re0unite this gret nation. but the choice is yours and those like you.

You would be smart to fight for fox to be removed as well as rush and savage. That would go a long way with AMERICANS ALLOWING YOU BACK INTO THE POLITICAL PUBLIC SHPERE. OR enjoy your irrelevance. You do not own this country. Act right or don't. but there are cansequences for treason.

Yes Mr. Fix we get it. Obama is an inspirational speaker, yet I might mention so is Huckabee (and he has a better sense of humor too). Yet, it seems the republicans are smart enough to know the world wants a leader, not a preacher. I don't need to be uplifted spiritually thank you, I need policies and comprehensive legislation that can uplift me from crushing debt and this nation from the ashes.

OK, both of those speeches were pretty good. But, in my opinion, there is no greater orator who typifies ideal speechifying more so than our current president, George W. Bush. His elegant remarks regarding Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: "just got a couple of comments I want to say. First of all, Martin Luther King Day means two things to me. One is the opportunity to renew our deep desire for America to be a land of promise for everybody, a land of justice, and a land of opportunity. It's also an opportunity to serve our fellow citizens. They say Martin Luther King Day is not a day off, it should be a day on. And so today Laura and I witnessed acts of compassion as citizens were here in the library volunteering their time, and that's what's happening all across America today. But a day on should be not just one day. It really ought to be every day. And our fellow citizens have got to understand that by loving a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself, by reaching out to someone who hurts, by just simply living a life of kindness and compassion, you can make America a better place and fulfill the dream of Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King is a towering figure in the history of our country. And it is fitting that we honor his service and his courage and his vision. And today we're witnessing people doing just that by volunteering their time.

So we're honored to be with you. We're proud to be with you on this important national holiday."

Brilliant.

To all those who were moved by his speech: he is up against a vast and vicious political machine. He needs your help! Remember what he said last night in the debate: change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. These are not just words; they are a call to action.

I myself am donating what time I have to call potential voters through the campaign phonebanking tool. There are many other ways to contribute. But if each of us gives what he or she can, the cumulative impact will be enough to take the walls down. Think of it as an investment in your country's future. We can beat the Clinton machine together.

http://action.barackobama.com/page/s/volunteer/

http://action.barackobama.com/page/s/volunteer/

"As a Democrat who desperately wants a Democrat back in the White House, the Clinton's muscle-flexing gives me every confidence that the they will do what it takes to beat the GOP in the fall"

Despearate indeed to pin your hopes on a criminal conspiracy.

do what it takes to beat the GOP - yes, that is the point, whatever it takes, no matter what.

I am still not following exactly how Obama is supposed to be this great uniter. When it comes down to it, he is espousing some extemely liberal and idealistic views which about half the country will not appreciate. I don't care how articulate he is, I am still not for universal health care and surrender in war. I am not the only one.

doesn't he mean he will unite all the uber-lefties against the moderates and conservatives. How is this different than anything that has passed before?

so as long as we all agree with his positions and methods, he will unite us. if not, then what? glorious speechifying?

One is a Commander-in-chief, the other a Preacher-in-chief.

We need an experienced, competent, fighter in the White House.

The Clinton's have the best punch and counter-punch in contemporary politics. And while there are some "Democratic Party Leaders" who are reaching for the smelling salts, it's only because they haven't seen a successful Presidential campaign since 1996, and forgot what one looks like.

Democrats take note: this is how Presidential campaigns are won!

As a Democrat who desperately wants a Democrat back in the White House, the Clinton's muscle-flexing gives me every confidence that the they will do what it takes to beat the GOP in the fall, something that both Gore or Kerry failed to do.

Obama campaign head speech writer Jon Favreau:
Mr. Favreau also used this time to master Mr. Obama's voice. He took down almost everything the senator said and absorbed it. Now, he said, when he sits down to write, he just channels Mr. Obama -- his ideas, his sentences, his phrases.

"The trick of speechwriting, if you will, is making the client say your brilliant words while somehow managing to make it sound as though they issued straight from their own soul," said the writer Christopher Buckley, who was a speechwriter for the first President Bush. "Imagine putting the words 'Ask not what your country can do for you' into the mouth of Ron Paul, and you can see the problem."
=========================================
Oboma took the "wide road". So much for listening and actually hearing.

milbrooks, I do not disagree with you. My only point is that the Bushes (okay, I guess I disagree with you some, becaues I think yes, at least Bush the Younger has done so as much if not more than Clinton) also lie and distort truth to try and achieve their ends. As do many, many politicians. Especially--and more so than ANYONE, methinks--Giluiani.

Barack Obama is the supreme orator of today. No one comes close to his eloquence. He actually brings tears to my eyes. He is inspirational, moving, and captivating. He has a way of making us believe that we can do better as a country. Why? Because he makes us feel better about ourselves. He convinces us through his words that this partisan gridlock that we have endured for decades can - yes, can - be broken. He makes us believe that government will be able to work as Madison envisioned in the Constitution. The Executive and Legislative Branches DO NOT have to be at odds with one another, resulting in nothing getting accomplished. Obama makes us believe that with him in the Presidency, he will be capable of reaching across party divisions to effect real, substantive change for the common good. As a Democrat on the cusp of this coming to pass, I am thrilled! I just hope that fellow Democrats will see what I see in this extraordinary man. It is a once-in-a-generation - maybe even lifetime - chance to make a fundamental change in our government. With Barack Obama as our next president - yes, we can!!

Obama and Huckabee can talk in the familiar rhythms of skilled pastors. That is an advantage before most audiences.

I could have written HRC's speech. I could not have written BHO's.

These are observations about style, not substance.

Like judge, above, I question the notion of "substance" in a set piece speech. Wonkishness is for policy papers.
------------------------------
The two greatest political speeches in American history were Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, and his Gettysburg Address.

Y'all should read them, again. Together, they will take you seven minutes if you are a slow reader.

The question to ask first would be "What was their message?" and then "How effectively did they convey that message?"

After listening to both, the first question already point out huge differences - Clinton began discussing the importance of the holiday, moved to economic justice, then to justice in its entirety, then the need of politics and politicians, then the importance of the working people to remind us of MLK and finally a remembrance of her field trip that underlined how important it was that she herself had been personally touched by MLK. In contrast, Obama seemed to have one singular message - that of hope through unity.

Clinton's lack of a distinct message made it difficult for her to convey it effectively...each statement in itself seemed to make sense and could have been effective, but strung together the speech came across like a patchwork of ideas without an overall direction. As Obama outlined his overall message - hope through unity - early, developed that message through the various issues (using many of the same issues Clinton brought up) and concluded with recapitulations of that message, he was extremely effective in getting his point across.

Clinton has said before that words can only get us so far...but with the important ideas that lay behind Obama's words, they may be more important than she gives them credit.

The difference between Clinton's speech and Obama's is passion.

Obama has the passion to inspire, to lead and to ask for sacrifice.

Clinton's "passion" seems studied and lacked a call to action.

Thanks for bringing us these speeches, Chris, it crystalizes the differences as only their own words could.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

The fact is that the presidency is as much a leadership and charisma role as it is a policy role. Congress's job is to create legislation and the President's job is to act as a representative for the actions of Congress, aside from veto situations, and rally the American people behind the actions of our government. George Bush has taken a policy-making role and let the leadership role exist only in history books.

Look at the charisma and leadership provided by Reagan and later by Clinton. Both candidates were widely disliked by the core of their opposition's party, but were able to keep enough independents happy, along with their own party, to move the country forward and at least provide a positive leadership for the populace. The War in Iraq could be a complete 180 from where it is today if Bush was a better leader, even if nothing on the ground in Iraq changed. But where Bush should lead he fights and where he should stand proud he gets defensive and whiny, which makes people see his lack of confidence in his own policies and also makes him look weak, mean and frustrated. No one follows a weak, frustrated jerk who can't put a sentence together to save his life.

Congress and the president's cabinet are the sources for policy knowledge. It is the president's job to know a good policy when he sees one and help move these good policies from ideas into legislation that is passed with broad public support. These tasks can easily be achieved by Obama, and his charisma, positive attitude and optimism will help him garner the support from the public to get the job done with the support of voters.

Obama/Biden '08

esmerelda123 - Oh please, the Bush's have nothing on the Clinton's for dishonesty, self serving policies, and money grubbing actions. After Bush-Clinton-Bush, each one worse than the one preceding, what sort of fool really believes that another Clinton is going to be an improvement? I honestly don't think any of the candidates have any concept of the mess both parties have created with Iraq, free trade, illegal immigration, debt, insane tax policies, etc. but I think Obama and Edwards come closest, with McCain right behind them. Hillary is a self serving jerk. So is Romney and Guliani. The rest of them are empty suits. And, bdaugert, I'm 60, too, but not white, thank God!

I appreiate kingofzouk's comment earlier about who is more of a victim. I think both of these candidates could use a good day of politician cleansing. What I mean by that is neither of them are perfect, and we all know it. So why keep bashing each other; why not focus on what is important; the American people and the issues we all face every day!

As to who gave a better speech, they both did very well in what they are good at giving. Hillary with her rants on who she could do what for and how she can fix it all, and Obama with his preaching and dancing around everything but the issues that need discussing. Neither of these candidates have my love or respect. I have more respect for Edwards for not getting involved in the he said she said nonsense Obama and Clinton have been involved in. I am sure he can only be laughing inside watching the two of them fight. I know I am.

The best possible candidates for the 08 election would be Huckabee/Edwards. I think it is high time we have both a Rep and Dem in office together. Two respectful men running decent campaigns without smearing everyone in sight to get ahead. Imagine what could be accomplished if we all tried to get along and stop the bickering and politician lies.

Aren't you sick and tired of the BUSH style of DISHONESTY also practiced by Hillary? In my best estimation, the country needs HONESTY ... and not Hillary.

I listened to both speeches in their entirity and I must say that Hillary's left me cold. Her interpretation of MLK's speech was that it was all about "economic justice". Of course that is part of his mission, but it also happens to be what Hillary is campaigning about at the moment. The underlying current of her entire speech, though well presented, was very political, not as reverential towards MLK as it should have been.

Obama's speech was far more inspirational and detailed about what MLK's mission was and what it means in the 21st century. As usual, he comes off as being far more humble than Hillary.

I am a 60 year old white woman, by the way.

I felt like Obama's speech spoke to specific issues facing African Americans in a way that Hillary Clinton might never be able to. I know that she understands the problems, but to be able to communicate ideas as effectively as Obama does is something she does not possess. She's a great legislator but he has a real vision for our nation. I also believe Obama is willing to challenge the status quo; notice his comments about responsibility in the community and good parenting garnered huge applause from the congregants.

DISHONESTY is Hillary's central campaign strategy to dis Obama (and then accuse him of being "frustrated" with her). We've had seven years of DISHONESTY and we're fed up with it. Hillary is evidently BUSH in Hillary clothing. I say "evidently" because we DO HAVE EVIDENCE of the Clinton lies: "But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm gonna say this again. 'I did not ... tell lies ... about that man--Mr. Obama. I never told anybody to lie [about him]--not a single time--never.' These allegations are false and I need to get back to work for Hillary's [DISHONEST] campaign."

If the Democratic party wants to win this election, they'd better notice how DISHONESTY is NOT a CHANGE. It's the same ol' same ol'.

Obama wins this match up by a long margin. Clinton is not effective as a public speaker, and the irony of her speaking in this venue after the comments of her, her spouse and her surrogates is almost too much to handle. Yet, for some reason she still has appeal, perhaps forced appeal, but it's still there. We may well be stuck with her.

http://www.theglasshammer.com/news/2008/01/22/spotlight-on-leadership-hillary-clinton/#more-266

Hillary is the usual run of the mill speech maker. Her speech hits the expected marks.

Obama's speech makes him the uniter statesman of americans, inspiring me to work for the United States of America. Empathy what a simple word with so much depth.

The people killed on 9/11 and the troops fighting and dying right now for the freedom to even give a speech, or to write a comment on here deserve better than a run of the mill speech or an average joe President. We all know where that has gotten us.

If Obama can unite us like that day did when flags across the country flew to show our unity, what could he do for the world?

Since I was a 9 year old, white girl in 1963, listening to the great voices of the day, I have had a dream...Today do I dare hope it will become a reality? Wake up America destiny is calling.

Novamatt,
"Good thing the candidates have more respect for black political/cultural mores than you."

Except for the Muslim movement in the black community (which I might add was the religion of the second most prominant Black leader in the civil rights movement), or young black males who I would argue make their political beleifs known in their music (try Common if you want to see what I am talking about).

I have a tremendous amount of respect for ALL of the black political concseince in this country, not just the ones that happen to go to Babtist Megachurches.

And this statement "big black churches are more than just places of worship. They are civic institutions" may have been true in the 50s and 60s but they don't have nearly the same influence to the younger generation that they once did.

esmerelda - If I wanted to know something, I wouldn't go to the NYTimes for anything political. no one beleives a word they print any more.

and if you want to talk about ego and vindictiveness, you need go no further than the clintons, who dominate this category.

To folks who've asked about the MN Senate race... Here's some analysis of the state of the race on the D side, which is largely seen as one where Franken will win the endorsement & thus the nomination so is now preparing his ad campaign to pre-but the Coleman/GOP attacks on his background:

http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2008/01/22/643/anticipating_gop_attacks_frankens_ads_make_the_pitch_that_hes_just_like_us

OneTao, unfortunately our current administration is much more adept at lying than Clinton ever was.

And zouk, you need to read more about your man Giuliani. The front page of the New York Times has the most telling article about the man to date--on his affront to the First Amendment, on his retaliation tactics costing the city millions and millions and dollars, on his ego and vindictiveness. If this is the man selected to represent the Republican party, that is the end of the Republican party, I don't care who runs as the Democrat.

"Rather than supporting doing what's in the best interests of the U.S., Obama views illegal aliens and those related to them as a political power base. He is completely corrupt, and it's only MSM malfeasance that prevents others from seeing that.

http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-fifth-grader

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | January 22, 2008 12:34 PM
"

relly. hispanics are supporting obama? Not in my cacues. At my cacues last weekend hillary was signing illegals up at the door.

Reno was won by Obama. Whoa. By some miracle Clinton won vegas. Who did that happen? The illegals you talk about, voting for hillary to make them legal.

Propogandists are funny. At least it is easy to point them out these days. What witht he fox's and rush's of the world marginalized. Oh, once they are off the air. What a great day it will be. When people are responsible for their words and actions again. When truth and credibility are at least on par with propoganda.

"I wonder how much pot Clinton smoked back in the 60s when she was tripping out to Bob Marley and Pink Floyd (both good artists, by the way). I don't know about you but I could totally see Billy saying "pass me the cheetos, babe!" through a cloudy room to Hilly, who is sitting in a bean bag chair contemplating the density of ceiling texture.

Posted by: thecrisis | January 22, 2008 12:25 PM
"

bUT HE DID "NOT INHALE". :)

Just like he did nto touch that woman. Not that it matters to me. I don't liek liars. I would embrace a womanizing president. consetual right. Destroy our government in cover-up. I have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with the women. this is america. the gop are fascists.

Go Rudy, right zouk. go thompson.

hahahahahahhahahah. The fascists are seen now zouk. better stop the sabotage. Your masters don't have long left. your going to be all alone with your fascist propoganda soon. Like I was 5 years ago. I made it here. What will you do? Whine cry and complain, or do soemthing about it. But the fascists don't talk, like I did, do they?

Obama delivers 5 minute answers that were supposed to take 30 seconds...and still doesn't say anything. how long can this tomfoolery go on?

On to Bill Clinton: I was interested to see that he blew up at a reporter, out West. I remember his extraordinary blowing up at Chris Wallace, when Wallace did some questioning about Clinton-administration anti-terror policy. I was amazed at his lack of self-control (or what seemed to be such a lack). Clinton has been a democratic politician all his life -- a fabulously, historically, successful one. And democratic politicians are supposed to be used to tough questioning, even rude questioning. They're supposed to be masters at give-and-take, thrust-and-parry.

Yet, somehow, Bill Clinton seems rarely to come in for questioning -- other than the friendliest, gentlest kind . And that is passing strange.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTRkNjNjOTg4NjBjNjQ1ZWE5NzlhMDMwMjU5YWRlNTM=&w=MA==

did anyone really think cigar-dipping willie had any self control?

Obama delivers great speeches; Clinton doesn't come close.

But that's where it ends for Obama. In my opinion, Hillary beats Obama hands down when it comes to extemporaneous speaking. She is much more articulate and eloquent whereas Obama always looks like he's struggling to organize his thoughts. This shows up again and again during debates.

Funny, but G.W.B. is exactly the opposite of Obama. He can be funny and quick-witted when speaking off the cuff, and yet unbelievably painful to hear when he's delivering a speech.

AndyR3, big black churches are more than just places of worship. They are civic institutions. And the notion that you can somehow dis-entangle religion from black cultural/civic life makes me sort of snicker. Good thing the candidates have more respect for black political/cultural mores than you.

You are right back to framing this nomination as if only Obama and Clinton were running. Edwards did a lot to distinguish himself in last night's debate, but you are right back to burying him in a slew of media coverage that excludes him. Without the media coverage, there is only so much any candidate can do. We had so many candidates drop out after only one state even voted. You should give a more balanced presentation, regardless of your personal opinions.

If we want to select a president based on their speechifying abilities, let's make it a runoff between James Earl Jones and Patrick Stewart.

Perhaps the WaPo should give a little thought to being above that level, and perhaps the WaPo should consider pointing out certain issues with the speeches.

For instance, a large percentage of blacks are long-term and permanently unemployed - and not counted in unemployment figures - and all Obama can offer them is a sales job designed to support current and future illegal immigration.

Rather than supporting doing what's in the best interests of the U.S., Obama views illegal aliens and those related to them as a political power base. He is completely corrupt, and it's only MSM malfeasance that prevents others from seeing that.

http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-fifth-grader

Barrack Obama brings tears to my eyes when he speaks. I listened to Hillary Clinton speaking, and although her speech was short, from the beginning I had trouble concentrating. I kept thinking, "Anything to Win." How cynical the Clintons are.

Obama will always be a better public speaker than Clinton.

And while Clinton tends to handle herself a bit better at debates, I don't think she's necessarily "better." She always has a smirk on her face during debates that says "I'm up to something," and makes me think she's sandbagging another lie or smear pitch about Obama's 30-year old drug use.

I wonder how much pot Clinton smoked back in the 60s when she was tripping out to Bob Marley and Pink Floyd (both good artists, by the way). I don't know about you but I could totally see Billy saying "pass me the cheetos, babe!" through a cloudy room to Hilly, who is sitting in a bean bag chair contemplating the density of ceiling texture.

Ultimately, this identity-politics line of attack -- that someone is an untrustworthy leader by dint of their race or gender -- is inevitable between these two candidates. For one thing, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them on the issues: they both want to expand the welfare state and end the war. And, most important, neither has a substantive record to discuss, or a list of real accomplishments to weigh that would indicate the nature of their leadership. Neither of them has led anything larger than a Senate staff. And so it will come down to identities.

Republicans need only sit back and enjoy this battle between democratic interest groups. They shouldn't moralize. And they need to keep the laughter down. Because if Obama is the nominee, everything Hillary does to soften him up now is something the GOP nominee doesn't have to do later. And if Hillary is the nominee, she may not be able to count on the easy black votes that the Democrats need to win the White House if she antagonizes them now.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Yjk0YTVkOTQ1MGM0Y2JjY2NhODEzMmQzMzkyNTI1NjQ=

And andy. The differance between the right and left on this issue is choice. the right would force their religon on others, as democracy. The left may speech on an individual basis. But they're not out their forcing everyone to conform. this is america.

A man can be a christian/buddist/muslim/jew without it interfering with their work. I do. Anyone else out there religous? Do you interject it into your job? the gop does. As long as your not selling your soul at work, it whould nto be an issue

There is no question or doubt that Obama's speech was more effective. It was moving, challenging, and thought provoking. Hillary doesn't like Obama because she knows she can't be that. Bill hates Obama because he knows that, no matter the outcome of this election, Obama's speeches will long outlast Bill's piece meal programs of the 1990s. Obama is a transformative figure, something Bill and Hillary can never be, and will never be.

The reason obama's speech's resonates is this.

He is a christian man. You can tell by his words and actions. (This is why the "religous" right are nothing of the sort. they pay lip service but do not believe what they say).

......

God is Love. God is Guilt. God Is Hope.

These are universal truths, that have nothing to do with obama, or Dr. King, or the pope. God is in you.

when Senator Obama touches on the aspects of hope and unity, he is speaking to your inner soul. Again, nothing to do with Obama just a universal truth. he is not a normal politician. I've heard when the light shines on him, it is refleceted back on to the people. How? That Hope, inside you and your neighbors and your children. It is universal. this is bigger than Senator Obama. He is the figure head of a movement. But the movement is bigger than the man. To destroy the man with race and personal garbage is sptting in the face of the movement. tread carefully clinton and gop. think about the future.

....

In term sof the obama speech. What got me was when he said they call him a hopemonger. :) But he needed that hope (God). His father left when he was two, HE NEEDED HOPE. Before you sabotuers attack and accuse, think about what it is you are attacking.

think about the future and the histroy books. What will your children and grandchildren say? how will history record this chapter? Is there time to save the world before it is destroyed? If this planet is our house, who's job is it to clean it? God? JEsus to come back to help us clean up our own mess? Your going to be waiting a while. The catholics are false prophets. they sold out the Christ long ago.

t

a

k

e

t

hi

s

p

o
s

t
cc

I wanted to add that I can't stand it when Politicians speak from the Pulpit, and in the same light I don't like it when Preachers politicize religion. There is a SEPERATION of church and state in this country and that seperation should be enforced on the campaign trail as much as it is when these people take office.

I think we can clearly see where all the invective in modern politics began. 1991 in Arkansas. and the Dems proudly carry on the tradition of smear and deceit.

BILL CLINTON FALLS ASLEEP DURING MLK SPEECH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpEckWHSvXk

Criticising Hillary for being a poor speech maker after almost 8 years of listenting to that cretin Bush. Get serious. Hillary for President and Barack for VP (President in training). What a combo. The Democrats (and Americans) should be proud. The Republicans should be terrified.

To the extent that I understand how most Republicans think, it would seem that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani comes closer to the Republican ideal than any of the other viable Republican candidates.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E2E02046-2362-4088-AC6C-9037957C8FCB

I'm more of a victim - I'm a woman.

No, I'm more of a victim, I'm black.

summary of the Dem debate.

WHERE THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY FAILED: HILLARY SHINES
Candidate Clinton Destroying President Clinton's Legacy

Columbia, SC (Jan. 21, 2008.) The democratic presidential candidate, New York Senator, Hillary Clinton is in the process of succeeding where so many others have failed: her candidacy has exposed her husband, the former President Bill Clinton, as a deeply disturbed politician. No matter what role he was to play in her campaign, it was common knowledge that he would be in a precarious, unprecedented predicament. Never before has a former president been the husband of a current presidential hopeful. While not long ago pundits and commentators were speculating on what Bill Clinton would do in the White House as First Spouse, the public is witnessing the dissembling of a man, a family, a political machine and the overblown ambition of them all. The hubris that allowed the former First Lady to run for senate as a carpetbagger pales in comparison to the arrogance of her "right" to be our next president.

As her campaign of what was once touted basically as her "destiny", it has devolved into a campaign blind sided by reality, in serious trouble, with hubby Bill becoming more visible, vocal, venomous and vicious as his wife's most effective surrogate.
Perhaps, that should be, "once effective surrogate". Even the most loyal supporters of the Clinton's seem a little embarrassed watching Bill as a political operative, henchman, attack dog and overall thug. After having survived years of unrelenting
attacks, investigations, scandals, exposes, mistakes, allegations, perpetual hounding by right wing radical republicans and a presidential impeachment, the Clinton's demise will be a double suicide; they are in the process of destroying themselves, anything they ever were individually or as a couple, along with whatever objective accomplishments Bill had as a two term popular President. The signs of extreme stress, of an anger born of the blasphemous notion that Hillary shouldn't be president, is coming ever more into focus, daily more apparent in their remarks and comments. Finally, everything: an entire sordid past is coming home to roost on the largest of public stages. It's as if Bill and Hillary had landed on their feet after being tossed off the Empire State Building and walked away only to be run over by a gypsy cab on 6th Avenue. The irony of this comic-tragedy has a beauty, a symmetry all its own. If you see a turtle on a post you have to wonder how it got there, right?

Think back to the days, recall the formidable opponents hell-bent, yet so unsuccessful, to bring this dynamic political duo down. newly elected Speaker of the House, Newt Gingerich and his coterie of radical right wing zealots, Rupert Murdock and his media empire, Ken Starr, obese Luciana Goldberg and her misshapen rotund, momma's boy, couldn't find-a-job-without-her son, Jonah; pundits and pukes across the spectrum, insiders, outsiders, Arkansas State troopers, Jim McDougal, The House Impeachment Committee, Richard Melon Scaife, that scum bucket Jew lawyer who represented that fat wh*re Monica Lewinsky, Geraldo Rivera, Joe Leiberman and a brigade of others. The list of all their enemies could not be assembled; there were simply too many of them. None of them, and all their powerful resources, were able to inflict any measure of damage to Bill and Hill near the magnitude of what they are now doing to and for each other.

So it all comes home now. Bill and Hill will be consumed by the flames of their own insatiable ambition, stupendous arrogance and old fashioned spite and bitterness. This fire will continue to burn for a few more weeks; perhaps longer. All efforts aimed at extinguishing this blaze will prove paltry in the face of such an intense conflagration. Maybe, when all that remains are smoldering ashes, this fire will be recognized for what it was: a healthy burn-off of underbrush and dead falls. We will all be better off.

Copyright © 2008 TBC All Rights Reserved

I cannot be objective with Hillary, I hate her guts too much for that. She should be doing Obama's laundry as far as I am concerned.
On another note, its time for Edwards to be excluded from debates, he's no longer a serious candidate and he need's to leave the race before he loses all dignity.

Listening to both speeches, there is obviously a significant difference. Clinton gave a good speech, nice tone and hit a positive note....it was a middle of the road political speech that made me feel that she was lecturing, not sharing herself with the audience. Obama, on the other hand, hit many huge points and ideas that, to me, sound like they are from his heart, that he lived and is sharing with the audience. He asks people to look into their hearts and souls and to walk with him, to bring real change. There was passion in his words.....Hillary did not convey anything genuine to me; she just gave a good speech.

As mentioned in previous posts above, unity and crossovers, as Reagan did, transforming politics and the country is a part of Obama's message and of his being. Hillary, as she has been in her 35-year history, will be an agent of divisivness....her words have no affect behind them and her tactics on the campaign trail hopefully will backfire. Bush was "The best politician" and fooled many people(some twice)...pray that Hillary is not successful doing the same.

Hillary will lose in a general election against McCain, if she is the candidate....Obama will win....it is the core of their message that distinguishes them from each other....I hope the electorate hears it, before it is too late.

Americans are looking for leadership, and true hope for a better future....Obama is a leader, Clinton is manager. Leaders inspire people to action, managers manage things.

From the hillary speech. All I heard was affirmative action. That's not cool. the assistance muct come to all poor people. Not just certain designated races

It's a public fact that Bill Clinton will lie and distort truth to try and achieve his ends.
If the majority of the American public chooses to believe a convicted (impeached) liar then those Americans are as deluded as our current president is. What Obama speaks is fueled by a deeper, broader connection to truth than the ego fueled, desperate clawing of the same old political crap Hillary is force feeding us.

Hillary is a passable speaker in short amounts. For real speechmaking she usually falls short.
A person cannot listen to her in full and finds the mind wandering and uninspired. It would be hard to know her points as she fails to keep people's attention on what she is saying.
She is simply not a public speaker.
Obama is an amazing speaker. He has brought back the art of public speaking. Of inspiring rhetoric in the fashion of the great ones like MLK. Something missing in the past few decades.
He is a pleasure to listen to. You find yourself sitting up and listening intently to what he is saying. You notice it.
You feel yourself lighter of soul and a certain pride this is someone America has produced.
Obama doesn't have to be wonky to let you know he is deeply intellectual.
I imagine what a state of the union address would be with him giving it.
If he wanted to, he could read the phonebook and make it sound inspiring.
Such a gift of language and rhetorical skill is so rare.
Wonky addresses are fine for a policy speech. But, not appropriate for this occassion.
This is why Obama limits his wonky stuff to his policy forums, which the press usually fails to cover or talk about as that would not be in keeping with the storyline of Obama lacks substance.

clinton cannot win the general. It is not possible based on what we know. to support her is to hand the election to the republcains. She is a sabotuer. Fear the yale plan.

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney attended Yale, although he did not graduate. Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"

I know clinton supporters are old ladies (republcains) and bought illegals anyway, so speaking to them is moot. But to everyone else. to support clinton is to give up and throw the election. Choose wisely.

I watched both speeches. I thought Obama's was more effective. Clinton's seemed like a laundry list of affected groups. Obama's was inspirational and connected the present to MLK's time better. I guess I'm leaning towards Clinton (it doesn't really matter; I live in Pennsylvania, and we don't get a vote in the primary).
There is something else about the two speeches. Clinton seems like someone who is somehow more familiar with the audience than Obama. I don't know if this is true, but Clinton seems to be addressing the audience as if this was oone in a series of speeches she has given, while Obama is making more of an iconic speech. It is as if Obama's speech is supposed to be remembered for a long time afterwards, while Clinton's is not.

Obama campaign head speech writer Jon Favreau:
Mr. Favreau also used this time to master Mr. Obama's voice. He took down almost everything the senator said and absorbed it. Now, he said, when he sits down to write, he just channels Mr. Obama -- his ideas, his sentences, his phrases.

"The trick of speechwriting, if you will, is making the client say your brilliant words while somehow managing to make it sound as though they issued straight from their own soul," said the writer Christopher Buckley, who was a speechwriter for the first President Bush. "Imagine putting the words 'Ask not what your country can do for you' into the mouth of Ron Paul, and you can see the problem."
=========================================
Oboma took the "wide road". So much for listening and actually hearing.

We are asked to establish who more effectively conveyed his or her message. While we attempt to be objective, how can you quantify the impact of inspiration on effectiveness? Like JFK's "Ask Not" speech, Obama's ability to inspire carries with it far more weight than a wonkish address heavy on detail but light on creating positive emotions in the intended audience.

Wonkishness doesn't necessarily win the White House (see Gore, Al) in the face of negative emotions stemming from childish electorate dislike for "the smartest kid in the class." What is needed is someone who will govern wonkishly but relate to the electorate at the same time. We have plenty of experience with someone who is capable only of the latter.

Obama would make a great preacher, and lousy CIC and leader of a country.

Clinton would make a lousy preacher, and a great CIC and leader of a country.

If only we all did have free speech, what a glorious country this WOULD be. Currently only the right (fascists) have free speech. The rest? We pay for both wha tthey say and what we say. One day all americans will have free speech. And what a glorious country we will be.

"My Statement Before the Judge
By John Dear


It's a powerful experience to stand before a judge and be sentenced to jail for saying No to war, injustice and nuclear weapons, something I highly recommend for all followers of the nonviolent Jesus. It really helps clarify one's discipleship, one's citizenship in God's reign of peace, one's faith, hope and love. In these days of war, genocide, nuclear weapons, poverty, executions, abortion, torture, global warming, and violence of every description, it's a great grace to be in trouble with the empire for practicing nonviolence, for daring to offer a word of peace, for serving the God of peace.

On Thursday morning, January 24th, I'll stand in Federal Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico and be sentenced for our effort, nearly a year and a half ago now, to visit the office of our Senator. Judge Donald Svet asked us to write letters to him about ourselves, and allowed my co-defendants each to make a statement at their sentencing last November. Here below are excerpts from my notes of what I will say in court on Thursday, if allowed. Regardless of the outcome for me, my prayer is that more and more people will speak out against this evil, ongoing U.S. war on Iraq and in the process, we might all reclaim our fidelity to the nonviolent Jesus.

* * * *

In 1999, I led a delegation of Nobel Peace Prize winners to Iraq and met with thousands of Iraqis, including Vice Premier Tarik Aziz, the United Nation's leading officials, the director of every non-governmental organization (including Margaret Hassan, head of CARE, who was assassinated several years ago), the nation's leading imams and the Papal Nuncio, and doctors who explained the effects of the U.S. sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children during the 1990s. I remember visiting the girls' high school in Baghdad, and hearing hundreds of girls cry out with tears, "Why are you trying to kill us?" It was painful to witness so much suffering. Since then, I've been trying to tell the world that we must stop killing Iraqis, including children.

I went to the Federal Building in Santa Fe, NM on September 26th, 2006 to present Senator Domenici's office a copy of the "Declaration of Peace," calling upon citizens everywhere, including Senators and Congressional Representatives, to speak out against the U.S. war and occupation on Iraq, to work to stop the war and pursue nonviolent solutions for the people of Iraq and the Middle East. I wanted the staff of Senator Domenici to fax the statement to him and ask him to sign it. Some of us had already mailed a copy to him, but had not received a response.

As a Christian and a priest who walks in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day and Mahatma Gandhi, I believe no Christian can support this war and still claim to follow the nonviolent Jesus because Jesus commands us to "put down the sword" and "love our enemies." Jesus blesses peacemakers, not warmakers. Christians and all religious people are called to obey a higher law, God's eternal law of nonviolence.

I wanted to explain to the Senator and his staff, that this war is a complete disaster for the U.S., Iraq, and the world. From the start, it was a complete fabrication. The President and the Pentagon claimed they were searching for weapons of mass destruction, even though many people around the world knew there were none in Iraq, and claimed that Iraq was involved in the September 11th attacks, which many also knew was impossible. The U.S. government used these lies to steal Iraq's oil and further establish U.S. military control in the region. This war is illegal (in violation of international law and the Nuremberg Principles), totally unjust and immoral, downright impractical and mortally sinful.

In light of September 11th, this war has turned the entire world against our country, and sowed the seeds for future terrorist attacks against us. It does not promote security but instead threatens everyone's security. It wreaks havoc on the people of Iraq and the Middle East, as well as our country and the people of New Mexico. It is also a complete waste of money. Those billions of dollars spent killing Iraqi children should be used instead to house the homeless, feed the hungry, provide universal healthcare and better schools, heal the returning veterans, and cleanup the environment, here in New Mexico, in Iraq, and throughout the world.

I want the Senator and the New Mexico government and the Federal courts and all government leaders to stop this war because it is killing thousands of U.S. soldiers, including New Mexicans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mainly civilians. No one deserves to die so that U.S. oil corporations can get richer, or for any reason. Our message is: the killing must stop now. That day, I carried the names of every U.S. soldier killed, and some ten thousand Iraqi civilians killed, and read them aloud to remind myself and others of this reality. Although many people are now against this war, unfortunately, the killing still goes on, and still needs to stop.

So I hope that Senator Domenici, his staff, New Mexico's government and the U.S. government will reverse its stand, stop the killing, end this evil war, make massive reparations to the people of Iraq, and seek new nonviolent, non-military policies for the people of Iraq, the United States and the world. I also hope that you, Judge Svet, will join us by working to end this evil war and pursuing God's reign of nonviolence.

This morning, I think of Mahatma Gandhi as he stood before a judge on March 18, 1922. "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good," he said. I think this war is evil, and every effort to legalize this war and our weapons of mass destruction is evil, so I will continue to resist this evil war in a spirit of Christian nonviolence, love and truth. Accordingly, I will not pay any fine, nor will I undertake any community service; my whole life is community service. I can not cooperate with this unjust system which continues to kill sisters and brothers in Iraq and elsewhere.

As Gandhi said to his judge, I think you have two options: either renounce your guilty verdict upon me and join our campaign to end this war by upholding international law and the Nuremberg principles and supporting those who work nonviolently to end this war; or if you really support this unjust system which makes war, maintains weapons of mass destruction here in New Mexico, and kills people in Iraq and Afghanistan, then give me maximum sentence.

The whole world knows this war is a disaster. History will judge us all for where we stood, what we did, what we said at this kairos moment. I urge you to choose life, take a stand for peace, and call upon the whole country to speak out against this war and be converted to the truth of nonviolence.

But I take my case to a higher court, and plead before the ultimate judge, the God of peace, for us all: "Give us a new world without war, poverty or nuclear weapons, a new world where one and all live by your eternal law of nonviolence. Help us to end this war and abolish war forever. Thank you, God of peace, for hearing my plea. Amen."

* * * * *

If John is not in prison, he will lead a special Lenten retreat on Feb. 22-24, "The Passion, Death & Resurrection of the Nonviolent Jesus," in Pennsylvania at www.kirkridge.org . The new DVD, "The Narrow Path," featuring his teachings on Gospel nonviolence, is available from www.sandamianofoundation.org To attend one of his speaking events, or to host him later this fall for a reading from his forthcoming autobiography, see: www.johndear.org
"

r

u

f

u

s

Obama is a smooth talker. So, let's nominate him preacher of the year?

but he's no president.

To me, these speeches make it quite clear that Obama is actually the natural successor to Bill. Think back to when Bill was running for Prez...remember the whole "boy from Hope" thing? Bill was the guy with vision, the man who would unite us and bring us into a new age of prosperity. He made us, okay maybe just liberals, feel like we had someone we could believe in and be inspired by. I still remember feeling energized by his win and hopeful for the future of our country. Now, does anyone...ANYONE...feel that way listening to Hillary? Don't lie. Nobody does. She can't inspire, no matter how great an idea she might have. She is bland and corporate and totally establishment. And that is fine for a senator or an executive, but that isn't what we need in a President. Maybe she is the most prepared to hit the ground running on day one, but she is also going to bore us and manage us and not make one difference in moving our country in the right direction. Who will want to make any sacrifice listening to her drone on and on? Who will feel any reason to make changes, to hear a different side, to commit to bettering our nation and working hard when they listen to the same old pablum from yet another business suit? Yeah, not me either.

I wasn't sold on Obama for a long time, but he has turned me around. The man makes me feel hopeful again, which is what I think we all need. I want to work hard, I am willing to sacrifice, I will listen to his words and heed his call, if he gets the chance to call me and the rest of us to service. In the meantime, I think I need to go open my checkbook and help give him the chance to do so.

Obama's speech was nothing short of amazing. His leadership is exactly what this country needs to start healing the divisions of the last two decades. GO OBAMA!

Obama's speech was fantastic. He really does have the opportunity to be a Reagan-type figure that makes people feel good about the country and politics. In contrast, if the Clinton's tactics and behavior are grating on Democrats during the primary, imagine the negative impression they will have (and are having) on independents and Republicans in the general and beyond. Obama-Biden is a great general election ticket!!!

Hillary's speech is thoughtful and workmanlike. It serves the purpose of the day. She is experienced and can perform all of these functions a president might be called upon admirably.

I've watched Obama's speech twice. It is mesmerizing. How wonderful a gift it was to have such eloquence delivered at Martin Luther King, Jr's very own church. How I wish I there in person and could have infused that power into my soul!

I don't know whether this man will become president in 2008. I don't know what his destiny will be, but I do know that he is a leader for these times, and I am and will always be a peace-soldier in his army.

His oratory if a gift for the ages. I'm confident his other gifts will eventually be recognized.