Oliphant: Rushed speech, lost opportunity.

[dand]

For reasons he might like to explain, John Kerry last night raced through an acceptance speech that was way too long for a time slot he knew about for weeks.
At a Democratic convention planned to showcase a candidate and his basic approach to two huge situations-- a bogged-down military adventure in Iraq and a fragile economy-- Kerry obscured his presentation in a blizzard of hard-to-follow verbiage dictated by the clock.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/07/30/rushed_speech_lost_opportunity/

[Gloria]

1. You know, this is damned stupid. I thought he was energized and

clear and not that rushed at all. So, he was supposed to wait for applause and drag it out to over an hour? Of course, then, all you'd hear is that he dragged on and on, how boring he was, how poorly paced, and how he went over the networks' time limit!!!...you know, all that crap.

So, all they have to say is that it was "too fast?" Please, this is a culture getting bombarded constantly....Kerry's speech was direct and forceful. Frankly, I thought it was a THRILLING ride!!

I wish these jackasses would SHUT UP!!! Scarborough was beside himself over how "rushed" it was....

[benfranklin1776]

2. I agree. Pathetic nitpicking since it was a damn fine speech.

He was powerful and commanding.
Interesting that none of Bush's verbal diarrhea is ever dissected with such minute detail by these buffoons some of whom even scrub his transcripts to hide his innumerable gaffes.

[donco6]

3. No way.

I didn't find it rushed at all, unless you think that "un-rushed" means allowing for applause after every other sentence.

[Booster]

4. The wanted it to be slow and drawn out

so they could say "see, told ya he's boring" and I think that's exactly why Kerry did it the way he did it - he done real good and made me stop all I was doing to watch and listen. It's all they got, folks.

[donco6]

7. Yes.

And they wanted it to be wonky, so they could say he didn't get "personal" enough.

He's just not fitting into their box and it's pissing them off. I talked to several today about the speech and they all thought it was GREAT! Solidified the base and actually turned some former Bushites into Kerry supporters.

[non sociopath skin]

21. The press played up the "fact" that Kerry was wordy and ponderous ...

... unlike the bright and articulate Talking Chimp.

Now they say he talks too fast.

Transparent or what?

The Skin

[holly73]

16. Agreed

I just found myself wanting more, more, more .... I can not wait to see Kerry mop the floor with Bush in a debate. I need more dumb Bush sound bites for my animations!!! hehehehe (rubbing her hands together)

[Sperk]

5. I quoted John Stewart in my e mail to Oliphant

"What the f*ck were YOU watching?" HA :evilgrin:

[AlinPA]

6. The pace was good. People like the excitement of someone

speaking at that rate. Taking notes isn't easy, but listening is fun. It work with audience and pundits like Bob Schieffer (CBS) said it was the best speech he ever made..

[Champion Jack]

8. Funny, these nattering nabobs can't refute the content of the speech

so they go after the delivery.
pathetic losers.

[glitch]

9. Isn't Oliphant is better than this - wonder what's up with him? nt

[The Zanti Regent]

10. Oliphant is your typical PRESSTITUTE

A poor poor excuse for a human being. He sold his soul to the golden elephant for those tax cuts.

[gottaB]

11. Dear Mr. Oliphant

go to johnkerry.com

[Jade Fox]

12. I've never been more amazed at the idiocy of the Pundits than...

during the DNC. They live in some sort of alternate universe where
nothing is quite real, but all must be analyzed to death.

Kerry did a great job. If he'd gone slower, they would have taken issue
with that, and complained that it went on too long.

They slept through the Revolution.

[Merlin]

13. This is a legitimate criticism. But it is faulty as hell.

It's true that JK went faster than he should have. There were times when he should have soaked up more of the fantastic audience appreciation for the points he made, but instead he hushed the crowd and pressed quickly on.

Still, as Alterman pointed out, Kerry had just this one chance to speak directly to all Americans. He had to cover the bases, and he had to do it in a limited amount of time.

I believe it was largely masterful. It wasn't perfect, but damn close.

As to whether it was too rushed, we'll judge that when we see the polls in a couple of days. My guess is, it was a knockout punch.

[dumpster_baby]

14. if he went over time, he got into the next time slot, and got more viewers

if he went over time he won votes by going long, because some people who saw the TV schedule and expected the news or whatever to be on at the top of the hour, instead saw the closing of the Kerry speech. The networks could not cut him off without causing a major brouhaha.

Wasn't he over time? Didn't the speech go over the hour mark by a few minutes?

[rfkrocks]

15. Lincoln rushed the Gettysburg address

Oliphant doesn't believe in anything-another member of the inner circle of hell with Maureen Dowd et al-when your country needed you-you just chose to be small minded and snide-this time more than ever ideas matter

[October]

17. I loved the pacing

I wanted to hear what he had to say -- his pace was energized and enthusiastic.

Pausing for applause can be annoying and seem so artificial.

[MichiganVote]

18. It means it went too fast for George Bush to comprehend

[actappan]

19. I actually have to agree

It was a fine speech, though a long, and as for the missed opportunities, I'm still uncertain - I reread the speech transcript almost immediately after watching (west coast + job = Tivoed speech), and I think I probably caught some details there that I might have missed in the presentation.

Also, as Tim Goodman, the SF Chronicle's TV Critic mentioned, Kerry didn't really make use of applause breaks. That meant that at times, he seemed to be shouting over the crowd rather than flowing with the natural (or choreographed) rhythm of frenzied supporters.

[skip fox]

20. Tom Oliphant is a straight-shooter!

I know from first hand experience (he wrote a column about Jack Gillis and my work on the "talking points" memo that Starr used to get extension of authority into the Lewinsky case. If I remember, he called us, thought through our arguments carefully (they were laid out in American Political Reporter) and wrote an intelligent piece.

Tom is not fiercely partisan like Lions or others (I admire them as well), but he is progressive, intelligent, and honest. I admire him, and if this is what he wrote, then this is the way he saw it--not through a partisan lens, but in terms (simply) of effectiveness on the American audience . . . esp. the uncommitted voter (there's a reason why a lot of these people are uncommitted: many don't watch much news or think about it . . . therefore, you have to consider attention span or . . . to make nice . . . "threshold" for political speeches).