Thread: Barack in Berlin

I saw Barack Obama's speech at the Tiergarten in Berlin earlier. It was the first time I had heard him & have to say he is an impressive orator. it was also the first time any of us outside the US of A really had a measure of the man. He is being compared with Kennedy here. His points such as they were, were impressive. My friends agreed that he would get our vote, not that it counts. One thought it was so brave that he should be watching for the assassins bullet right now.

So what did you think? It was one of the finer orations of recent years IMHO. Opinions from all corners welcome, especially fellow Europeans
Yankees welcome too

Originally Posted by Spike J

So what did you think?

Listened for the first time to a speech of the fella in full length. Could not help it, mind you. My home is within shouting range of the Siegessäule, so to speak.

Damn good show. Roughly one hour of free speech. Flawlessly delivered. And he made one point that certainly won the hearts, if not minds, of the people of Berlin: "This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom," Yes, we do. Because we can, too.

Schizophrenic as it may sound, Germans love the US, but hate George W. Bush. That is fine, because 99% of the rest of the world do, too. Got to give that to the man: He tried hard, and he succeeded, in alienating the rest of the world from US politics. Democracy in countries with a 2000 year old tradition of fiefdoms and civil war? Yeah, right.

The speech in itself seemed to me somewhat thin. Personally, I would have expected a tad more substance. But maybe it was not the right occasion. What he did deliver, though, was a speech that instilled some hope into the hearts (not, mind you, minds) of my peers that the US, under his leadership, might find back some of the things that made it our role model in the 50s and 60s. There is a tangible "yearning for a new America" over here. I wonder, though, if the man will be able to deliver.

It is all nice and dandy delivering speeches about foreign politics in a foreign country. But that will not change the domestic problems the US appear to be facing. Global warming, free trade, non-proliferation. All good. But I doubt whether he can grab the American voters's serious attention for these problems.

Now, enough whining already. The wife and I were moved by his speech. And yes, he would get my vote.

Originally Posted by Spike J

Opinions from all corners welcome, especially fellow Europeans

Well, you know what they say about opinions: "Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody's got one, everybody is entitled to his or her own." Might be an old Europe thing, though.

Is the entire thread off limits to Americans or just the poll. Wont feel bad if I cant play, it would be interesting to sit back and listen for a change, If I can just keep my da&@ mouth shut. Thats what would hurt.

This is one of the greatest problems I have with Obama, yes he is a great orator, but what he says has little substance, he talks about hope and change,hope and change, but never a plan of action. He stirs the heart but not the mind.

More fluff,. but I guess it was time for the rest of the world to see a great show by Obama. He is mesmerizing, isn't he? Many of us in the US are ready for some specifics and some clarity under all of the smoke and mirrors, and many don't mind one way or the other I guess

Personally I don't think either candidate is that great.
Obama says what his writers and staff tell him to say in order to get him elected. He has an entire staff whose only job is making him look and sound good in the correct light. Which is why, IMHO the man does very well at rehearsed speeches, but not so well at off-the-cuff work. His opponent is played in the media to be a feeble old man, about to die, which is also misguided.
The part that bothers me most, is that for many of the topics I care about, the candidates are exactly the same only with a different political party attached to their titles.
I know also that many hate the current US president, but I also wonder how much of this is because of the truth and how much of this is because of the blatantly one-sided coverage aimed at him in the past couple years by the US media, who, to be honest, have lost all credibility at being balanced, and are essentially an engine of the democratic party. If anything is done that can be perceived as a blunder, it airs for months and months and months, with each opportunity being taken to make sure the whole world knows this occurred under Pres. Bush's watch-the implication being, if a democrat were president, the world would be a better place. Perhaps it's just circumstancial but to me it is interesting that former Pres. Clinton could bomb the @#$ out of Belgrade and other areas conveniently when a certain dress was aired, and he was loved as a savior of the Kosovar people, preventing "evil Serbs" from their "ethnic cleansing". Now, I honestly don't know what happened or didn't happen in Serbia or Croatia and the like, but there were all sorts of claims of mass graves and such, which didn't pan out. In another instance, a medicine factory or some such was bombed with cruise missiles. A warlord essentially a gang leader intimidated the administration into withdrawing troops with the deaths of just a few soldiers. No wonder OBL felt we were harmless at the time. Contrast this to coverage of the current president in Iraq. One of OBL's money trails led straight to Iraqi intelligence (although admittedly not all of them did) Iraq had lots and lots of yellow cake Uranium and not a single power generating reactor, and certain areas were deemed "off limits" to UN inspectors prior to the invasion. So, of course, they didn't find anything in the places they were allowed to look. This has since been morphed somehow from "UN inspectors didn't find anything" to "Bush lied-or invented the whole thing". Mass graves have indeed been found in Iraq, mostly old ones, but there all the same, and people were stepping over each other in the beginning to point out officials who had made their entire families disappear. Yet, Pres. Bush is not a democrat, he is a republican. Election years being what they are, efforts have been called "Bush's vietnam" "unwinnable war" Marines have been called murderers by high ranking democrat officials before even the evidence was looked at (they've since been tried and exonnerated, btw) not because it was true, but because they felt that by making America look bad under a republican president, they in turn would look good. We all know this is flawed logic, but unless people dig deeper than the surface, it works. Tragically, most Americans aren't interested in digging, and Europeans, who would have to dig even deeper still (hey, if our OWN networks are saying it it MUST be true...) if they want to know the truth. So, rather than make Americans hate the republican party, the net effect has been to make EVERYONE hate America. Great job, guys.
I think both political parties in the US have been hijacked, the democrats by people even the Soviet Union would have considered too extreme on the left, and the Republicans by globalists who cow to anything that will help their standing in the international groups they seek to appease.
It's all a shame and a sham at the same time.
Just my thoughts, anyway.

Obama is a great orator-and projects himself well. Unfortunately, as has been proven in the past, such does not make a good leader. His speeches often contradict each other and almost always agree with whatever his advisors say is popular with his current audience. A polished liar is still a liar. From what i"ve seen of McCain, it is apparent to me that globalists and others have taken over perhaps both parties. Otherwise there were a few candidates I would much rather support who perhaps, were quietly asked to bow out. Waiting one's "turn" has no place in America IMHO if one happens to be who the people want. I believe the parties have overextended their usefulness and are now contributing to a lack of leadership choices here, because each party knows it has at least a 50% chance of having it in the bag, regardless of whether they truly represent their constituents once elected.
Sorry, I'm rambling (it's what I do best, apparently) again.
Back to you Europeans and what you thought of Mr. Obama's speech delivery.

John P.

I guess I had to see the speech. As expected, Mr. Obama performed quite well. All candidates have always had staffers write their speeches (at least the ones who actually plan to get elected), some are better at delivering them than others and from what I understand Mr. Obama has been a lot more involved with the speech writing than it's the norm in this business. Which is good - he is a politician and his primary job is to convince people to vote for him (and as far as I understand that's something he has learned to do in recent years as his first speaches are reported to be a rather unimpressive).
Apparently Mr. McCain has some ground to gain as far as show goes. As far as public speaking goes he seems to be somewhat behind, but at least he's followed the advice to loose the sarkasm - rather european trait which tends to backfire in frong of big crowds.

Good speeches of course don't imply good leaders, but good motivational speeches certainly don't hurt one's prospects to get a leadership position in the first place. As far as what he was saying in that speech - well as expected he is saying what his audience would like to hear - that the former US policy of "we're doing what we think is right and don't really care what you think" is probably going to change if he gets elected. To what extent it will happen is a whole other question. To his credit he did mention immigration, which is not all that popular point in Europe.

Interestingly he tried to make a compelling case to support Afganistan, but somehow the Iraqi people didn't qualify for the same. Of course, the Iraqis don't have to fight the oppression of the Taliban and poverty and oh, their poppy production has somehow been lagging in recent years - better step it up if they want to qualify for the joint American-European help.

Yes it's just words, but the "we shall fight on the beaches" and "I have a dream..." were just words as well. From what I've seen from (mostly US) elections, policies don't really matter that much - what matters is how much people 'like' the candidate. So if those are the rules, a smart politician will just play by them - secure as much money as they can (cerainly more than the opposition), then buy as much and as good ads and media exposure as they can, and certainly make sure that they are likeable....

And no I'm not blaming America - in my country things are even worse than that. I'm just noting that the world we live in isn't necessarily what our ideal world would be. So what's that got to do with the speech of Obama - ah yeah the poll. Well, I don't vote, not in US elections, but if I were to vote his speeches wouldn't be enough.

Originally Posted by JohnP

The part that bothers me most, is that for many of the topics I care about, the candidates are exactly the same only with a different political party attached to their titles.

Which issues are those??

I am SO ibtl.


anyhow, I've never listened to any political speech and I never will. I just look at a candidate's voting record... that tells me all I need to know. even without hearing the speech, I know ahead of time that it's full of deception and half-truths... because a politician gave it, not an honest human being.

there's an old joke that goes, "how can you tell when a politician is lying? his lips are moving"

voting record is only way to know what a candidate is really like.

When in Rome, say what the Romans want to hear