Were you inspired? Incited? Let down? Disappointed? What were your feelings in regard to the topics he touched on during his speech? Were you pleased? Disgusted?

And with that said, Will You Vote For Him? Why? Why Not?

Did he come across as genuine to you? Smug? How so?


Please feel free to share your opinions.

Gag me with a bent ladel!

There were some religious nuts/neocons who predicted....(A)....he'd have a White House behind him (B)....he'd be shot before he spoke.....and (C).....well, there is no 'c'.....because normal peolpe have brains.

EDIT....there was some right wingnut insane nutjob (forget his name) who wished his followers to 'pray' for rain, in Denver, to screw up Obama's speech.

Hmmm.....what a dooby! Instead, we see another hurricane approaching, and those poor people!!

The Gulf Coast may get hit again....and may delay the GOP convention....guess 'god' has a sense of.....?

[edit on 8/28/0808 by weedwhacker]

Nothing we haven't heard 40 years ago. It's the same plays, from the same play book, now only said by a black guy. Sorry, but that's my opinion.

Get past the white guilt, the messiah worship and what are you left with?

Well spoken rhetoric.

From 1960.

I did notice a few statements that were distortions or lies depending on how you look at it. I can't believe he threw in the $5 million comment made by McCain. The applause seems to prove that a majority of the people at the arena didn't watch the saddleback forum. McCain said it as a joke, laughed when he said it, and said this will probably be taken out of context.

Regardless, it was a great speech.

Good point and conceded =)

I appreciate all of your input.

One thing that I will say at this point is that I appreciate his not using a teleprompter, or reading off of a pre-written script. Now of course, this alone does not qualify someone for a presidential election, but it was a nice gesture. It has always irked me when a candidate refers to and blatantly reads off of a pre-written paper. I'd much rather listen to a candidate speak freely without the the attachment of a paper. And, being as that in today's world his speech will be and was highly televised, I think that this says a great deal. Whereas, in decades past the reliance of reading off of a paper, would have been overlooked, when the radio was number one in media.


I thought it was pretty interesting how he touched upon so many points as well. The economy, the oil crisis, the war in Iraq, John Mcain, George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Russia and Georgia, Education, alternative energy, abortion, outsourcing jobs, the future of america's automobile industry, the environment, taxes, healthcare, guns, Martin Luther King Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, etc. So, being as that he touched upon a minimum of 19 topics many of which are at the forefront in american politics, I wonder what that says about him?

One thing among others I am not fond of is his wife's demeanor and overall look. She came across as excessively smug. Now that may be a good trait or a negative, but something in her look came across odd to me.



[edit on 28/8/2008 by agent violet]

The guy can give a speech, no doubt. Also, I promise he is using a teleprompter & working off a written speech.

His speaking based off of speeches aside, have you heard the guy stumble through the most basic of questions, GWB style? Take away the teleprompter and he is an empty suit. This guy, IMO only, is a total amateur and totally unprepared for the office. Did you see how bad he performed at the Saddleback forum? He was (even acknowledge by his own staff) terrible. I don’t mean a little off, I mean terrible. There is good reason why he does not do ‘town hall’ type stuff: he’s just awful at speaking/thinking, without a teleprompter.

Having said that, 143 days as a senator and before that a "community coordinator" (think Al Sharpton, but paid) for three years in Chicago. He's got the credentials to be the President? Of the United States? No, but he sure makes up for a lot of white guilt and boy, he sure sounds good!

Ever wonder why 'old Jimma Carter had such a low key (as in silent and unseen) role at this convention? Because the comparisons (other than race) are easily drawn, and it ain't good.

About Michelle: why do Democrats always position the wives, in recent history, as co-presidents? We aren’t hiring them, we are hiring the candidate. She is very much like Hillary Clinton. I have no personal ill will against Hillary; although I think her politics suck. What I am referring to is this: during Bill’s presidency, she very much considered herself as the co-president. During her Presidential run, she often repeated the assertion that being First Lady was 8 years of on the job training! Laughable to me but, thems the apples. Michelle is no different. I would assert she is actually more aggressive than Hillary but, more muzzled. I think that’s what your picking up on; that attitude that SHE is a very important person; at least in her mind.

Slightly above par, Thank you for your input.

With that said, of him using a teleprompter do you think that a president and world leader should have the ability to speak freely 'townhall style'? In my opinion, I think that the next leader should in fact not rely on such mechanisms, for if what they are saying they truly mean and believe in, I would think that they would be able to speak from their heart, per se.

As for Michelle Obama, while I am aware that she is not the candidate that is running for president, I do find her of importance. Being as that she if the wife of the candidate running for presidency. And I believe that spouses have the ability to be influenced by their spouses. Correct?