Obama’s Victory Speech
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Iowa, VideoI can’t find Huckabee’s anywhere, but when I do I’ll post it for you.
Until then, check this out.
I thought it was pretty good. He definitely sounded presidential and pushed the hope message, positioned him as the underdog and did all the things he should do with a speech like this.
What do you think?
This entry was posted on Friday, January 4th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Iowa, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Fine man, fine speech. Obama wasn’t my first choice, but if he continues to campaign and work as hard as he did in Iowa, he’ll have my support as if he had been my first choice all along.
BTW, Michele Obama is one powerful stump speaker. She’s a natural at it. I wouldn’t be surprised to someday see her use it for a candidacy of her own.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Slight revision to above comment: . . . if he continues to campaign and work as hard as he did in Iowa, and sews up the nomination, he’ll have my support as if he had been my first choice all along.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I’ve always had reservations about Barack Obama, but I still prefer him over Hillary and Edwards, mainly because of the positive, energetic attitude he projects. If the final race turns out to be Huckabee vs. Obama (the two Iowa winners), and Ron Paul doesn’t run as a third-party/write-in candidate, Obama will have my vote too.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I agree. That’s just the speech he needed to give. Yeah, Anderson, Michelle is a great speaker, too. I wonder how involved she is in the daily affairs of the campaign. It generally isn’t a good idea for the spouses to get too involved…
January 4th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Wow. Hope and Change and Unity. Great. Any substance? Do you think he will end partisanship in Washington? Is Obama going to be a uniter, not a divider? What does that mean? We will no longer have to use oil when he’s done, “once and for all?”
Boilerplate platitudes repeated over and over again. He stands for nothing. Maybe if he just does nothing but makes people feel good by making pleasant speeches with a firm speaking voice, people’s happiness will make them more productive citizens…Oh, I don’t know.
What a bunch of crap. You all know it. This is the same speech made by every politician every election cycle.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Jimmy, you hit the nail on the head.
The two people left standing - after all the promises are made to win the nomination - will have to discuss the issues. It won’t matter much how great a speech they gave, unless it can be backed up with solid plans for the “change” they are touting during this phase.
Personally, I thought Obama’s speech and correlations sounded like a wanna-be MLK.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:24 am
January 4th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Elisabetta, considerring that you think the current moron in the white house is a brilliant, eloquent speaker, everything you say is completely worthless.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Yawn. How much is the price of eggs where you live?
David, David, you appear to have a monopoly on distorting people’s words and coming up with canards.
Not once, not ever, have I commented on President Bush’s speaking abilities.
Consequently, the problem lies with:
a. Your wrong recollection.
b. Your wrong understanding of simple English.
c. A well-developed ability to palter.
I vote for all the above.
Do you prefer to be painted a liar or an imbecile? Both will do.
I’ll add that your hatred for President Bush is so embedded that once you peg someone as a Bush’s supporter, you don’t ever HEAR anything they say as your rambling brain just starts spewing off incoherence.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Obama is a good orator and people are impressed by his poise and charm. However, he is too young to be president and his experience in national and foreign affairs is limited. Many are concerned about this. That is why Hillary continues to lead him by a wide margin in the national polls. Meanwhile, Boston Globe has endorsed him for president for having “an intuitive sense of the wider world with all its perils and opportunities.” Intuition may be a laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact, Obama’s “intuitive sense” is no different from Bush’s “instincts” and “gut feelings” which are the hallmarks of his foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.