Does the President Ever Smile When He Speaks?
Perhaps, it was the juxtaposition of reading Daniel Henniger’s essay pondering the “point and purpose of the President’s orations” while watching the President’s speech to the NAACP on CNN as I was doing my cardio just moments ago that this thought returned to me.
Obama doesn’t seem to smile when he speaks or even to look at the audience (but then I’ve never been in the audience to see him speak so that could just be my perception). Unlike Reagan (whom I have seen speak), when Obama pauses, he barely changes his expression, not responding to his listeners or even appealing to them, instead titling his chin upward and waiting for acclaim (or expecting deference?).
And this from a man who, in Henninger’s words, appears to be “making the public speech the central act of his presidency.“
Why does he always so earnest? (Perhaps more on this anon.)
34 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
there’s that ‘tit-ling’ again. . .
Comment by rusty — July 16, 2009 @ 8:40 pm - July 16, 2009
watching him speak reminds me of “Il Duce”.
Watch old footage of Mussolini and he is an Obama 33 1/3 at 45 rpm. Same moves, slightly faster. Always looked up and to the sides like he was in an Amphitheater, even though he is above those he is talking to.
Not to mention I despise both politically.
Comment by JP — July 16, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - July 16, 2009
Well, he seemed to get a kick out of killing that fly.
Comment by Ashpenaz — July 16, 2009 @ 9:25 pm - July 16, 2009
JP, I’ve noticed that similarity too. If you can find the right photo of Il Duce, you could produce an effective side-by-side comparison. Poster? T-shirt?
Comment by pst314 — July 16, 2009 @ 9:46 pm - July 16, 2009
He doesn’t smile in public. He only smiles in private, with his friends. They look at the pictures of homosexuals hanging from construction cranes in Iran and laugh. He smiled big at the sight of Neda, bleeding out on the street in Tehran.
Sure he smiles, you just have to catch the moment.
Comment by Peter — July 16, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - July 16, 2009
He does not look at his audience because he is too damn busy reading from his teleprompters and even that he does not do too well.
Comment by Not Always Right — July 16, 2009 @ 11:48 pm - July 16, 2009
If you can find the right photo of Il Duce, you could produce an effective side-by-side comparison. Poster? T-shirt?
Well, Superkommissar Maksim came up with this:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?p=39474#39474
I’m sure if you asked him or comrade Red_Square, they might put it up on their Zazzle page.
http://www.zazzle.com/red_square/gifts
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 17, 2009 @ 12:44 am - July 17, 2009
when Obama pauses, he barely changes his expression, not responding to his listeners or even appealing to them, instead titling his chin upward and waiting for acclaim (or expecting deference?).
I saw that body language gal on O’Reilly after the Wanda Sykes kerfuffle. She said that he does that to look for validation or approval of what he’s saying, especially when he looks at Michelle. She said that both he and Wanda did the same thing. They would look over at people to see if the others approved of their jokes as if “maybe I went too far?”.
I could really dig studying body language, I think, but I don’t know what you could do with it other than party conversation.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 17, 2009 @ 4:31 am - July 17, 2009
He does not look at his audience because he is too damn busy reading from his teleprompters and even that he does not do too well.
Comment by Not Always Right — July 16, 2009 @ 11:48 pm – July 16, 2009
He is intentionally doing it though. All he’d need to do was lower TOTUS, and the new replacement TOTUS and make it look like eye contact.
At least he isn’t quite using the rhythm of speech that other rather unpleasant dictators used to rile the crowds. His is a slightly different pattern. The problem (or goal, as is likely the case from his point of view) is the lack of recall one has about his speeches. 20 minutes after he is done and you can ask anyone what he was saying and get a vague answer.
Off TOTUS, the man’s speaking skills make GWB sound loquacious.
Comment by JP — July 17, 2009 @ 4:34 am - July 17, 2009
He can’t smile or look US in the eyes because he is a liar! Hope & Change my foot. Socialism, yes!!!
Comment by PatriotMom — July 17, 2009 @ 6:50 am - July 17, 2009
Three Words: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Comment by V the K — July 17, 2009 @ 7:32 am - July 17, 2009
I do like this clip from his speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2epf5G3v3o
Comment by rusty — July 17, 2009 @ 8:06 am - July 17, 2009
le sigh
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 17, 2009 @ 8:42 am - July 17, 2009
GayPatriotWest, you apparently did not watch his entire speech to the NAACP or watch it closely. There were a number of times he looked down toward the crowd and smiled — and even chuckled — at audience response to some things he said.
BTW, a number of things he said about education and parental responsibility should be winning applause from conservatives. He addressed several topics dealing with education. One message that stood out was that throwing money at it wasn’t the answer to improving our system of public education. Reform is also necessary, he said. And, he added, reform includes finding good teachers and getting rid of bad teachers.
Comment by Lee — July 17, 2009 @ 11:49 am - July 17, 2009
Lee,
Sonia Sotomayor said a lot of things this week too;
She meant them as much as President Obama did. Ask the school kids in DC who were on the voucher program.
Comment by The Livewire — July 17, 2009 @ 11:55 am - July 17, 2009
The big weakness with this type of analysis is that all Obama has to do is, start smiling occasionally when he speaks. All he has to do is have his handlers advise him, like that other shrill left-liberal narcissist who couldn’t smile for awhile, what was her name? Hillary.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 17, 2009 @ 11:57 am - July 17, 2009
Oh, we know Obama has a sense of humor. Do you remember this interview?
That shows Obama’s narcissism. We’re the ones on the gallows. We’re the ones paying the $1.8 trillion annual deficits that he and Kroft were discussing, losing jobs, about to have health care severely damaged, losing freedom, etc. Gallows humor is supposed to be for and by the one on the gallows, and that’s the American people. Obama is the executioner. But, Obama thinks “gallows humor” should be a concept for his benefit.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 17, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - July 17, 2009
Not really, because after he says these things, his actual policies promote dependence on government, block real school reform by kowtowing to teacher’s unions, and diminish opportunities for individuals to succeed.
Comment by V the K — July 17, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - July 17, 2009
BTW, a number of things he said about education and parental responsibility should be winning applause from conservatives.Not really, because after he says these things, his actual policies promote dependence on government, block real school reform by kowtowing to teacher’s unions, and diminish opportunities for individuals to succeed.
Oh come now, VtheK. It’s not about his policies. We need to celebrate Him for what He says, not what He does.
Comment by John — July 17, 2009 @ 1:40 pm - July 17, 2009
i.e. We need to become liberals.
Comment by V the K — July 17, 2009 @ 2:09 pm - July 17, 2009
#13 – “le sigh”
Only thing we have come to expect from “le doofus.”
Regardement,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 17, 2009 @ 2:48 pm - July 17, 2009
When he tosses out a juvenile insult that he thinks is clever, he smiles and even laughs as he looks around his audience to make sure they got the joke. Like when he gave Hillary the finger and called Palin a pig.
Comment by tim maguire — July 17, 2009 @ 3:27 pm - July 17, 2009
Let’s face it, Obama is a bully who is trying to punish us because various members of his family failed to love him. But bullies always get their just desserts in the end and he will too.
Comment by Not Always Right — July 17, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - July 17, 2009
OT, but I’m disappointed in the business community’s lack of opposition to Obama’s agenda. They’re entirely too willing to lobby for bailouts and offload their health care costs onto the taxpayers for short term financial benefit rather than take the long view, let alone accept another world of regulations in the so-called Cap-and-Trade legislation being considered. If any group of influential spokespersons could speak directly to the American people around our increasingly ubiquitous presidential figurehead, it is the businessmen — particularly in this economy. Fear of reprisals? I doubt it.
Comment by Ignatius — July 17, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - July 17, 2009
I’m not. I mean, it’s what I expected. They reflect our ‘bailout society’ and have been this way for generations, going back to the Roosevelts. (Either one; take your pick.) Goldman-Sachs is virtually running the government, at the moment, and is the company that collects money indirectly (or in some fashion) on every bailout. Such business people want to have the results and status of being great businesspeople, without the necessity of actually being great business people. As vicious little mediocrities, they don’t want capitalism; they want what Ayn Rand called “the aristocracy of pull”.
Yet, for the ones who do have the guts to speak out, the threat of reprisals is real.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 17, 2009 @ 4:27 pm - July 17, 2009
Yet, for the ones who do have the guts to speak out, the threat of reprisals is real.
For example, Joe the Plumber, Frank Ricci, and Gerald Walpin.
Comment by V the K — July 17, 2009 @ 5:12 pm - July 17, 2009
#26 – Don’t forget Carrie Prejean. All she did was answer a friggin’ question, and Ms. Perez got her panties in a knot.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 18, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - July 18, 2009
Speaking as a straight person, I would never judge any poster here by their feminist mannerisms, and assume they were gay, nor view it as a negative trait, if in fact they were. I know that being the first black President, that Obama sometimes has to be very careful of his verbiage and reactions, less he fall victim to the negative stereotypes of both the black and non-black community bashers, that seek to dissect his personality, looking for an indication that he’s really not one of us. But I know when I saw President Bush smirking, as he gleefully joked to America that his dog Barney couldn’t find any WMDs under his desk, that Bush wasn’t intentionally disparaging the widows and orphans of those that had died looking for these imaginary WMDs, because truthfully that was his signature of uniqueness-not really giving a damn about whom he offended. So if you draw strength in that type of anti-intellectualism, who am I to judge your sense of justice as perverted? Personally, I find most people see Obama as a warm, intense, intelligent and hard working person, that saved this country from the greater economic malaise that surely was to follow from 8 years that the BUSH/GOP mismanaged the economy. And most intelligent people understand that Obama still will face many more economic pitfalls left in place by the irresponsible power stooges that preceded his ascendacy to President. Obama works hard, and long hours, there is so much more on his plate, and he’s doing an admirable job, juggling the massive disarray of 8 years of slipshod tomfoolery that disguised itself as middle class greed. The only smile I care to see from Obama is a smile of triumph over those that put their political agenda above their country’s fiscal and physical health and stealth.
Comment by oreilly@foxynews.com — July 19, 2009 @ 1:39 am - July 19, 2009
Wow, how many talking points can you put in one post?
Comment by The_Livewire — July 19, 2009 @ 9:30 am - July 19, 2009
Wanted to add my old post of WMD links
You are entitled to your own opinion, sockpuppet, not your own facts/
Comment by The_Livewire — July 19, 2009 @ 9:41 am - July 19, 2009
On reprisals: We could just keep the examples to the business world. There are so many regulations now, enforced so selectively, that even authentically good business people *must* kiss regulators’ asses and do what they say – or else find some political patron who will club the regulators for them.
We’ve all heard about Ken Lewis at BofA, how he was basically strong-armed by the government into acquiring toxic assets in the form of Merrill-Lynch, against his judgment and the best interests of his shareholders and the integrity of the banking system. I also heard recently about a respected, ethically clean stockbroker with a booming business in international stocks. Because this brokers’s business is booming, he wanted to hire more brokers – creating jobs. What America needs, right? But he goes around on TV and Youtube exercising his First Amendment rights – criticizing the government, especially the Fed. By his account (and I accept his account), regulators are now invoking the pickiest regulations on him that you can imagine to keep him from expanding or hiring people. Regulations that Goldman-Sachs is theoretically subject to, but which of course are not enforced disruptively on them. Reprisals? You be the judge. But I would have to say “yes”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 19, 2009 @ 10:39 am - July 19, 2009
#28 – “Speaking as a straight person, I would never judge any poster here by their feminist mannerisms, and assume they were gay, nor view it as a negative trait, if in fact they were.”
Typical libtard response. Conservatives like you for WHO you are. Libtards appreciate you for WHAT you are.
Quit bloviating, o-r-a-f-n.com
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 19, 2009 @ 12:08 pm - July 19, 2009
#30 – Sounds like sockpuppet’s pompous little screed was written by Barbara Boxer.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 19, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - July 19, 2009
Good Lord, did anyone bring a mop and bucket to clean up the slobber after comment #28?
Comment by V the K — July 20, 2009 @ 7:14 am - July 20, 2009