|
Tonight on Cspan's Road to the White House, they played the speech Barack Obama gave at Sharpton's 'primary' yesterday. The day before Hillary spoke and earlier, I think Wednesday, Edwards spoke. As we all know from 2004, obama can let rip a rousing cry and speech to keep people on their feet whooping and clapping. But, when speaking to an indoor audience, he purposely tones things down and gives more of a talk than a stump speech. But, whether doing one or the other, the audience listens intently. Well, apparently the day before Hillary gave one of her red meat speeches. Good for her. She does those pretty good. And she got the audience whipped up. The next day, when Obama spoke, he did not give a red meat speech but, a good indoor one. It was very good. and the audience sat and listened rapt. This seems to say that both kinds of speeches were appreciated by the crowd and they liked the different styles. Obama drew several chants of his name but, no rousing whip up. However, the msm, always plays the red meat speech as a really great one and the more conversational one as a downer and did not get the same reaction as the other. No duh. but, they don't see or say that both speeches were appreciated for their different messages and styles. I not ranting. I'm just wondering. Not all good speeches are red meat. And why cannot they not see audiences appreciating the difference in all the speakers. it kinda baffles me.
|