What's the story behind Thomas Oliphant? He trashed Kerry's speech.

[zaj]

I don't know anything about the columnist, does anyone know his reputation? Is he a GOPig?

[Jim Sagle]

1. No, he's an old friend of Kerry's. Do you have a link?

[wicket]

2. He defended Kerry over the whole medals/ribbons flap

Don't know much else about him though.

[BurtWorm]

3. Not at all. He has a positive article about Kerry in The American Prospect

this month. How did he trash the speech? Where did he trash it?

[truth2power]

4. He was interviewed on NPR yesterday (Thurs.)

and the interviewer said, IIRC, that Oliphant's daughter is a speechwriter for the Kerry campaign.

[Gin]

9. I saw him on PBS..(I think) and he seemed to be all over the board

with his opinion....I thought that was odd since he is a friend.

[LiviaOlivia]

5. He's a personal friend of Kerry

I haven't read his article yet but he was on Charlie Rose the other
night talking about his years knowing Kerry. Oddly Oliphant's daughter
wrote Edward's speech.

Go figure.

[vetwife]

8. His daughter was supposed to..Kerry wrote his own.

Heard that yesterday from AP..that may be the problem !

[JohnKleeb]

11. amazing that Kerry wrote his own

[LiviaOlivia]

22. I know Kerry wrote his own. I said Edwards

Wendy Button.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/9265286.htm?1c

[vetwife]

25. Sorry..misread...

[truth2power]

32. Hmm...that may be, but

the sense I got from the NPR segment was that Oliphant's daughter was the speechwriter more in the generic sense. It's possible I guess that the convention speech might be a special case, where Kerry would feel a more personal investment. Not rally sure, though. :shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

6. Here's a link.

Boston Globe

Mr. Oliphant would appear to be a traitorous weasel.

[geek tragedy]

12. Another journalist that has to "prove his objectivity."

This has been the trend amongst journalists and now even semi-prominent bloggers. Apparently the prospect of media whoredom is just too damn powerful.

[OneBlueSky]

16. he didn't trash the speech . . . he trashed the delivery . . .

and he does have a point . . . Kerry violated a cardinal rule of speech making: don't step on your applause . . . I understand why he did it (he couldn't be sure the networks would carry him past 11:00 . . . he was probably wrong), but the delivery was rushed and some of the lines that would have earned extended ovations weren't given that opportunity . . .

on the other hand, by being generally continuous and unbroken, the speech conveyed a certain sense of urgency that you don't generally get . . . and I think that helped hold peoples' attention . . . Kerry seemed to be saying "What I have to say here is important, and I'm not going to stop just for some self-indulgent applause" . . . and, given the length, pausing for applause would have extended the speech beyond what most people are willing to tolerate . . .

so while Oliphant has a point, I don't think that the delivery really harmed Kerry at all . . . in fact, it may have helped . . . because the overall response has been highly positive, and Kerry came off looking informed, passionate, and fully qualified to be president . . . which is exactly what his task was last night . . .

[soupkitchen]

21. Very interesting observation about Kerry conveying urgency

[KittyWampus]

24. Look, I Noticed The Pace... But ALSO STAYED TUNED IN

I actually HEARD the whole thing.

My attention span did NOT wander once.

So his strategy worked.

End of story.

[LittleApple81]

17. The speech was great . But if he really thought it was hurried, he has

the answer in his article:
Desperate to stay within the broadcast networks' paltry 60 minutes, Kerry stepped on his best thoughts and lines and blurred important proposals and distinctions, committing the sin of interfering with his own ability to communicate with an electorate eager to learn much more about President Bush's opponent.

BUT HE CANNOT ATTACK THE MEDIA. CAN HE?????

28. critique is traitorous?

What Party am I in?

[Selwynn]

29. Don't throw the word "traitorous" around like a fucking neocon, please

He may be an idiot with a dumb opinion, but he is not a traitor for having a different opinion. That's what bush has been telling us for four fucking years and I'm not going to put up with it from our side hehe. :)

[Jim Sagle]

30. You're not going to have any choice but to put up with it.

[Selwynn]

31. Actually, I do have a choice.

have a nice day.

[bookman]

7. Link

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

[Octafish]

33. Thanks, bookman!

Oliphant is correct: The networks are owned and operated by the BFEE. F 'em.

Regarding what Kerry can do: Don't try to say everything at once. Give out little bits at a time. And leave the audience wanting more. That way, they look forward to hearing what he has to say the next time.

[MISSDem]

10. He was on PBS being interviewed about the speech last night

and he didn't really trash it. Mostly, he took up for Kerry but he did say something like it was propaganda or something like that, agreeing with David Brooks, I think it was. But it was not anything serious. As I said, he mostly was supportive. It was so minor I didn't pay much attention.

[AspenRose]

14. David Brooks is a smarmy weasel.

Ask me how many times I NERFed the TV when he came on!

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Oliphant is just wrong.

He is missing the meta-messages Kerry planted.

I already heard a vet/truckdriver type on WI pub radio this AM talking about how the "Reporting for Duty" & salute grabbed him. And ya know what--it did me too.

By repeatedly quelling the applause, Kerry was saying "Thanks, folks, but I'm not just here for your adulation and I have a lot more I need to say, so let's get on with it..."

Kerry went on to outline his promises, to box in the anticipated Rovian dirty campaign and to throw down his glove on the issues where he needed to.

Sorry Tom Oliphant missed it, but he did.

[soupkitchen]

15. Talking about swallowing the Oliphant the simple matter is he's just wrong

In fact, Kerry's speech left David Brooks virtually speechless stumbling all over himself to dig up one of his patented damming with faint praise observations.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. My email response to Tom Oliphant...

"Sorry, Tom, but you're wrong on this one...and Big John has nothing to explain to anyone.

Was he going too fast for you to take notes? Heck, I'm from the South and I was able to follow along very nicely, thanks. Maybe it was the time I spent in OCS at Newport, R. I., that prepared me for the rapid-fire deluge of information. Or maybe it was the speeches of another JFK I remember hearing as a grade-schooler from 1960 to 1963.

As to the time slot, that was artificially generated by the Networks as you stated in your article. And in my humble opinion, the networks deliberately cut Kerry's time short in hopes that he would NOT be able to cover the bases that desperately needed to be covered. But Big John had a lot more to discuss, and the vast majority of Democrats were as willing to listen as lost wanderers in the desert thirsting for water.

Kerry gave a powerful address, one that the vast majority of Democrats are raving about, and one that is already causing undecided voters to decide for John. Even moderate Republicans that I know here in Alabama were moved enough by Kerry's speech to split from the GOP base.

Hope is on the way, Tom...I'm just sorry you missed the message.

Thanks for taking the time to read this...

[soupkitchen]

20. Kudos

Your question, "Was he going to fast for you to take notes," might be
right on the money.
Oliphant is a bit of a dandy, but he's not an idiot and I'm really surprised that he could be this wrong about the speech.

[Tosca]

19. Oh, but Mr Oliphart!

"In parts it was horrid -- the snappy salute at the outset and the distinctly nonpresidential announcement that "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty."

I beg to differ! It was the best opening I've heard in a very LONG time!

[MaryH]

23. I don't understand his response, either

Tom Oliphant is not a conservative. He sits in on Lehrer when Mark Matthews can't be there. And he is very interesting.

But I listened to his comments last nite on PBS and was really shocked. I thought it was a very powerful speech.

And David Brooks even said he had more than met the high bar - he had gone over it.

I kind of felt the same way when I felt like David Brooks bad mouthed Clinton's speech. I thought it was a great speech - and a lot of fun to listen to.

Go figure!

[savistocate]

26. IT WAs presidential

as was the pace, giving just enough time to applause that conveyed recognition..going on gave a sense of his being in
control--subtly modestly, but in charge was presidential. And it did lend the urgency and passion.

[MaryH]

27. Brooks said Edwards hurried his speech

and it didn't seem hurried to me.

But who am I?

[union_maid]

34. Have to disagree with him

The snappy salute was on the front page of at least two papers here, and it looked good. I thought the quelling of the applause was a GOOD thing. He looked in total control of the whole thing. The sense of urgency that built throughout was great, too. I'm sure it was planned to go the way it did. That speech was a homerun. I think it just wasn't the way Oliphant pictured it ahead of time.