Hillary Clinton speech

[HAL 9000 96]

I guess my question would be whether its really worth the time the media has spent covering it.

We take it in and gossip over it. Hey it 'pays their bills.'

[Peikko 1,575]

The answer has to be 'not'. Pep rallies? Bah, humbug!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have been to several political conventions in different countries and that is exactly what the 'conventions' are... pep rallies.

Yep. It's not like American politics has the corner market on rhetorical speeches. I happen to like a good rhetorical speech...."Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Churchill had great rhetoric. I'm not sure why some people react so negatively to it now.

[HAL 9000 96]

I have been to several political conventions in different countries and that is exactly what the 'conventions' are... pep rallies.

Yep. It's not like American politics has the corner market on rhetorical speeches. I happen to like a good rhetorical speech...."Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Churchill had great rhetoric. I'm not sure why some people react so negatively to it now.

Different strokes for different folks brother.

Like I said... there are always going to be sub-threshold factors that influence voter behaviors that are easily exploitable.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The answer has to be 'not'. Pep rallies? Bah, humbug!

Do you think the same about Dr. Martin Luther King's speeches? JFK? Churchill? Reagan? Come on, people - this isn't something that was invented yesterday.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have been to several political conventions in different countries and that is exactly what the 'conventions' are... pep rallies.

Yep. It's not like American politics has the corner market on rhetorical speeches. I happen to like a good rhetorical speech...."Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Churchill had great rhetoric. I'm not sure why some people react so negatively to it now.

Some speeches are iconic in their time - but a lot become so in hindsight after the fact.

As I said I just don't think this is a very iconic time for that sort of thing and it seems to happen in pretty much every election. Americans are always "at a crossroads", "on the edge of a knife", "crying out for hope and change". Wake me up when these guys say somethign worth hearing.

Its just extremely pedestrian - and by itself doesn't really merit the coverage that the media lavishes upon it.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's a list of the top 100 American Speeches ever made:

list

Without looking...anyone wanna take a stab at which one is at the top of the list?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The answer has to be 'not'. Pep rallies? Bah, humbug!

Do you think the same about Dr. Martin Luther King's speeches? JFK? Churchill? Reagan? Come on, people - this isn't something that was invented yesterday.

Its not that it was invented yesterday - its just the new ones are pale echoes of what is past. In fact - people like MLK, JFK, Churchill etc were the models for modern political rhetoric. But in most cases these weren't pedestrian non-statements. Churchill's would have been if the west lost WW2, MLK would have been largely irrelevant if the civil rights movement had failed (or not rallied around him in the first place), JFK is associated with specific historical events (e.g. The Moon Landing) and the nostalgia over his assassination.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The answer has to be 'not'. Pep rallies? Bah, humbug!

Do you think the same about Dr. Martin Luther King's speeches? JFK? Churchill? Reagan? Come on, people - this isn't something that was invented yesterday.

Its not that it was invented yesterday - its just the new ones are pale echoes of what is past. In fact - people like MLK, JFK, Churchill etc were the models for modern political rhetoric. But in most cases these weren't pedestrian non-statements. Churchill's would have been if the west lost WW2, MLK would have been largely irrelevant if the civil rights movement had failed (or not rallied around him in the first place), JFK is associated with specific historical events (e.g. The Moon Landing) and the nostalgia over his assassination.

My gripe has more to do with those who've criticized Obama for his oratory skill(z). JFK's speech writer has actually been consulting Obama's. Obama's speeches, including his Keynote speech during the 2004 Convention do stand head and shoulders above the rest of his contemporaries. Some people have reacted negatively to that and I'm arguing that if there is any place where such rhetoric is appropriate it is in situations such Party Conventions where the politicians are trying to rally their constituents.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The answer has to be 'not'. Pep rallies? Bah, humbug!

Do you think the same about Dr. Martin Luther King's speeches? JFK? Churchill? Reagan? Come on, people - this isn't something that was invented yesterday.

Its not that it was invented yesterday - its just the new ones are pale echoes of what is past. In fact - people like MLK, JFK, Churchill etc were the models for modern political rhetoric. But in most cases these weren't pedestrian non-statements. Churchill's would have been if the west lost WW2, MLK would have been largely irrelevant if the civil rights movement had failed (or not rallied around him in the first place), JFK is associated with specific historical events (e.g. The Moon Landing) and the nostalgia over his assassination.

My gripe has more to do with those who've criticized Obama for his oratory skill(z). JFK's speech writer has actually been consulting Obama's. Obama's speeches, including his Keynote speech during the 2004 Convention do stand head and shoulders above the rest of his contemporaries. Some people have reacted negatively to that and I'm arguing that if there is any place where such rhetoric is appropriate it is in situations such Party Conventions where the politicians are trying to rally their constituents.

Well none of these criticisms are specific to Obama - he just happens to be the face of the beast on this particular occasion.

I don't really disagree with you about the rhetoric - but I do question why it is acceptable that a political event - the original purpose of which was to actually debate and choose the party candidate - has now become a stage-managed television event. Essentially all it really does is tell people what they want to hear and I view it in similar regard to the dittoheads during the last election with their foam hands to denounce "flip-flop" Kerry. It just seems very dishonest.

I think this is a classic example of what is wrong with politics in this country - specifically that the superficial rhetoric and oratory has been allowed to supplant discussions of substance. The media perpetuates it. Few people question it - indeed they seem to actively encourage it.

I know its been said that there's more interest in Reality TV than in politics - but seriously...

Edited August 27, 2008 by Number 6

[Frank+Jocelyn 1]

As I said I just don't think this is a very iconic time for that sort of thing and it seems to happen in pretty much every election. Americans are always "at a crossroads", "on the edge of a knife", "crying out for hope and change". Wake me up when these guys say somethign worth hearing.

Exactly. All politicians want to say now is "the sky is falling!". Society has continually improved in every measurable way I can think of. We do have challenges and always will, but if you listened only to the politicians you would think the world is about to end.