Who is a better communicator? Reagan or Obama

[Renew Deal]

Poll question: Who is a better communicator? Reagan or Obama

[Jennicut]

1. Ronnie communicated well but got lost and doddering at the end

Plus he lied the whole time and let other get away with stuff behind the scenes. He did have a likable, charming personality however. As a kid I liked him, of course I was in elementary school!

[Cha]

41. I was just going to say..

ronnie may have communicated well but what did he communicate? His lies..poor thing was bought and sold to the highest bidder..fucker.

[WeDidIt]

2. Thsi poll is a Freeper Trap

:evilgrin:

[Renew Deal]

6. It is.

:D

[Earth Bound Misfit]

65. LOL n/t

[grannie4peace]

3. looks like a landslide :)

[billyoc]

4. I assume you mean Sasha Obama.

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

5. Reagan was a slick, polished, professional orator

But Obama makes more sense.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Reagan was an actor.

He knew how to play directly upon people's emotions by evoking sentiment-laden symbols, often bereft of meaning. Obama communicates information and understanding, with the listener's sentiments following along congruently with the substantive part of the message. Reagan evoked Dreamland; Obama evokes hope in the face of reality. So if your idea of communication involves the transmission of substantive content, there is no contest between the two. Reagan never transmitted content. That's how he sold stuff like Star Wars--by evoking cloudy, trancelike feelings of safety that had no real meaning.

[ejpoeta]

8. it's apples and oranges. reagan had tv... obama has tv, internet....

but i personally think obama is much better. but then, i was a kid when reagan was president.

[trayfoot]

9. Obama, without a doubt!

Reagan just liked to use "Dirty Harry" soundbites. I want a president to explain their policy thinking to me - even if he/she has to do it in a paragraph or two!

[Hansel]

45. Exactly. Reagan was the king of the big screen tough guy one-liners

and people would swoon at how tough he was. He wasn't even good at delivering the lines, but I knew people who loved him because he talked this way.

Obama's retort to Ed Henry last night is the kind of stuff that Reagan did that made him so popular. The difference is Obama's line was original and from the heart.

I had to laugh when the Republican commentator on CNN (Castenelli?) implied that this was a turning point and indicated Obama was going to be a one term president. I thought something quite different. I think people love this stuff and it just endears him more to them.

[hughee99]

10. I hate to say it, but I was the asshole here...

Both are gifted orators, but IMHO, it's much harder to sell a bad idea than a good one. Reagan had a tougher job because his ideas sucked, but he still sold them every bit as well as Obama is.

[MADem]

15. There are two, so far--and I'm not one of 'em. Even though I see your points.

I couldn't vote for either of 'em--I voted for someone who wasn't there--Clinton. I thought he was the Best Communicator of the Post WW2 Era, myself.

[Dawgs]

24. You've got to be kidding.

Clinton sat on his ass for two years while the right destroyed him. His failure to effectivaly communicate at the end of his presidency gave us a village idiot.

[MADem]

63. Oh, gee--I take it you have a different opinion, then.

You've got a curious and pretty childlike view of history if you think it was CLINTON's fault that GORE didn't want him on the campaign trail with him.

Sheesh. It wasn't that long ago. How old are you, ten? You don't remember the distance Gore and Earth Colors/Let Me Help Him Lose Donna Brazille put between Team Clinton and Team Gore? Clinton was ready to help. He was rebuffed. If he had helped, President Gore would be sailing into a happy retirement in a peaceful world.

But you go on and keep kidding yourself, there, professor!

[FrenchieCat]

38. The difference is that the Media were sucking Reagan's you know what....

while they try to bite Obama's off! :shrug:

[Hansel]

46. They did pretty much gush over him like they did George W Bush

And they didn't have anything like 911 as an excuse. He came in and the Iranians released the hostages, and supposedly he was a hero from then on out. Never mind the illegal negotiations behind the scenes that Reagan's people were involved in to get those hostages released. That whole treasonous episode just kind of got glossed over in the media's and Republican's rewrite of history.

[Politicalboi]

151. And they all forgot about this

http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm

[CreekDog]

146. No, it's easier to sell a bad idea than a good one

the bad one just has to sound good.

the good one has to sound good and BE good.

[hughee99]

148. IMHO, it's harder to make a bad idea sound good

Than a good one.

I've never had someone successfully talk me into getting a $300 neck tattoo, but it didn't take much convincing to get me to spend a lot more to plan for my retirement.

[CreekDog]

149. i said it's easier to *sell* a bad idea than a good one

because it requires 2 things, good salesmanship and a good idea.

a bad idea only requires 1 thing, good salesmanship (lack of ethics notwithstanding).

and if all bad ideas were obviously bad, then your point would apply, but they aren't and the point doesn't apply.

[hughee99]

152. But we're talking about communication here.

Not about coming up with the idea. I'm sure the president isn't the one hashing through the creation of each idea, that's his "people's" job. No president has the time or expertise to do this for all of the wide range of issues they must deal with. Once the idea is ready and the president buys into it, it's his job to sell it. Yes it's harder to come up with good ideas, but a bad salesman can still sell a good idea, but it takes a good salesman to sell a bad one.

I'm not saying Obama's a bad salesman, just that Raygun successfully sold a lot of bad ideas to the American people. I don't know if Obama could do it, because he doesn't seem to have much of a track record selling bad ideas. Hopefully, he never will.

[Deep13]

11. Both are/were good talkers.

Obama is a better communicator because he is conveying actual information and not feel-good horse shit.

[RoccoR5955]

12. Reagan was an actor...

...merely acting the role of President. Obama is the REAL THING!

[ShortnFiery]

13. OMG! Two for The Gipper?!? Too funny! n/t

[MADem]

14. I think Bill Clinton beats them both.

Reagan is a bullshitter. It's apparent. It's obvious. He was a charmer, but a bullshitter. He was an actor--he knew how to hit his mark and deliver his line with "apparent" sincerity. He was also VERY good with "the quip." Probably one of the best with the clever retort.

Obama--sorry to all of you "Obama is the greatest orator" bunch--bores the living shit out of me. Even when I like what he's saying. His voice alternatively DRONES, and then when he gets exorcised, he HECTORS. I hear this dull blah, blah, blah, and then, when he's getting earnest, I feel like he is telling me I forgot to make my bed, mow the lawn or take out the garbage and there will be no ice cream as a consequence. He always starts off well, though--casual and at ease--but then he "devolves." I was with a small group watching his presser last night, and I wasn't the only one who decided that talking amongst ourselves was more interesting than "blah, blah, blah."

To his credit, this isn't at all the case when he's delivering a "soaring speech" though. Those, he has DOWN. But the very second you take him out of the "Big Venue" and put him in front of an intimate crowd...he turns into your very worst college professor, droning on and on and on...and carping at you because you forgot your homework. Buehler, anyone, Buehler?

The reason I like Bill Clinton's style is because when he speaks to a small group, you think he's talking to you alone. When he speaks to a stadium, you think he's talking to a small group, and he has YOUR interests first and foremost in mind. His speeches do not sound like speeches, they sound like CONVERSATIONS. Clinton has the ability to connect on a very intimate and individual level. It's really quite an amazing trick.

Neither Reagan nor Obama can do that. They apparently have/had the ability to "inspire" some folks. While I can admire a well-delivered address, I don't quite approach the "inspired" category.

And I am rooting for Obama to do well, FWIW. I just don't think he's "all that" outside of the "Huge Stadium Venue." He does rule at those, he gets the faithful swooning and screaming like teenyboppers, but those are rare opportunities, in the big picture. Most of his speeches will be to small/medium crowds. He needs to pick those up a notch, or ten.

[wyldwolf]

17. I agree. And that isn't a slam on Obama

Clinton was/is just that good.

[ShortnFiery]

19. Too bad Bubba, like Elliott Spitzer can't control his hormones. I don't trust either man albeit

they're highly intelligent, to run anything other than my bowling alley on the night shift. :(

[wyldwolf]

25. nor could Thomas Jefferson, FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK and I'm sure I'm missing a few

:)

[ShortnFiery]

29. Awe, rationalization of immoral behavior for men who should know better PRESENT DAY.

How very predictable. I can always depend on you to defend Bill Clinton ... no matter what it is. ;)

BTW how many people would want their young daughters "interning" for them?

[wyldwolf]

33. so if it happened before the 1990s, it's bad. Before that, not so much? LOL!

[ShortnFiery]

44. You know my point. Your hero has had several opportunities to "dial it down" - that's his achilles

heel. He just can't STOP. :(

[wyldwolf]

54. uh, so did all the others. LOL! and your attempt to make it alright for them is hysterical

[ShortnFiery]

55. No, I didn't say it was alright for them. However, the times were different.

People and societies often evolve. People who can't control certain aspects of their lives continue to repeat immoral mistakes. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

59. The only thing different in Clinton's time was the GOP smear machine.. which YOU...

... obviously believe did their job. :)

[ShortnFiery]

71. Yes, we forced Bill Clinton to have all those extramarital affairs.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

73. no, you're cheerleading his investigation and applauding FDR'S/JFK's/MLK's cleverness..

... in not being investigated like that. :eyes:

ShortnFiery: "Extramarital affair by leaders before '92 GOOD. After '92 BAD."

[ShortnFiery]

75. You just can't recognize that your hero was rash and even after caught before he was elected

President, could NOT change his behavior. It wasn't the fact that he had an extramarital affair, perhaps two or three, but his WEAKNESS of character in the regard that, when cornered, he couldn't change. That makes him a security threat (blackmail anyone?), irregardless of his super-high intelligence and profound talents as a politician.

In essence, you will not admit to The Obvious. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

76. you just can't resist hypocritical attacks on Bill Clinton

:shrug:

FDR affair before he was president=GOOD
Clinton affair before he was elected=BAD

[ShortnFiery]

77. Hello? Clinton has a "control" problem, it's not the behavior itself but the fact that it's ...

compulsive. That makes a married person a prime target for blackmail. I'm no school marm but the guy has a problem, i.e., psychiatric/behavioral disorder.

[wyldwolf]

78. Hello? Jefferson/FDR/JFK/RFK/MLK had control problems. The only difference is...

... the GOP didn't spend $40 million of our tax dollars (which you obviously approve of) investigating them.

[ShortnFiery]

80. You're hopeless. I've explained myself ... but you're not processing two points: COMPULSIVE

and ONGOING. Bill Clinton is a walking talking Security Risk because he remains married to our Secretary of State and can't control his sexuality. To what extent would people (such as yourself and those closest to the Clintons) go to cover up another "lapse of judgment" by Bill Clinton?

He has a problem but you will not admit it because you adore him so much. That's just tragic. :(

[wyldwolf]

81. hah, you just get frustrated when your extreme unreasonable Clinton hatred is exposed

[ShortnFiery]

82. Yes, your genius prevails.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

83. and your obsessiveness crashes and burns.

[ShortnFiery]

84. Right. We all are in awe of your humble nature ... just like your hero.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

85. and we are all perplexed by your irrational Clinton hatred. Just like...

Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc.

Your line of attack on President Clinton is really no different.


:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

86. Gawd, you really are driven to "win." Holy shit! Not everyone loved Clinton - deal with it!

:crazy:

p.s. it's not just right wing GOPers who have a marked dislike for his compulsive sexual deviancy. I would not want any young woman I know to ever work in the same office as Bill Clinton. If that makes me "evil" then so be it.

[wyldwolf]

87. Gawd! You really are driven to divert the point of this discussion.

But since you want to so bad, how is your hatred of all things Clinton different than that of the right wing's?

[ShortnFiery]

88. You employ FOX like tactics and then call me a "right winger." Kudos for spin. n/t.

[wyldwolf]

89. How is your line of attack on Clinton different than the radical conservatives' line of attack?

You're using the same premises, the same logic, and even some of the same words.

[demhistorian]

94. a very good question indeed. I see no difference.

[wyldwolf]

103. she won't answer.

[MADem]

156. I have that one

on IGNORE. The only time I've used the feature. IIRC, it was a good decision on my part.

[ShortnFiery]

90. Tell ya what? If Bill Clinton does not get into any more "fixes" due to infidelity during HRCs ...

tenure, I'll submit an apology thread ONLINE to all? However, after years of functioning as an addiction counselor, I sincerely believe that Bill Clinton will foist himself into the headlines again due to marked adulterous behavior. If they both would just declare that they have "an open marriage" all would be overlooked. However, they both feign fidelity. Therein lies the rub and the potential for blackmail.

Sexual addiction is not just a cute "water cooler" topic. It's a real disorder. It's not hatred but a pattern of destructive actions that have led to my poor prognosis for your hero. :(

[wyldwolf]

91. avoiding the question? Why, yes... yes you are.

:)

Too bad Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, the Kennedys, and Martin Luther King, Jr. aren't around to heed your dire warnings on sexual addiction.

[ShortnFiery]

92. No, if such behavior was uncovered by The Press of their day, I believe those men would have changed

their behavior. I don't believe their "flaws" in this regard were compulsive.

To my personal bent. I may be MORE put off and disgusted by Bill Clinton because I have close women friends whose ex-husbands have cast their wives and families aside for "trophy brides." Bill and Hillary Clinton remain together in a parasitic marriage and yes, it's not fair, but I find that distasteful and selfish.

I don't fault anyone for straying on one's spouse but when the behavior becomes both compulsive and repetitive without seeking help, then yes, I find the person, man or woman, to be of immoral character.

The above sentiments make me "human" not a right wing FOX viewer.

[wyldwolf]

93. So you're using rightwing lines of attacks on Clinton, justifying indescretions of past leaders...

... playing armchair psychologist, AND pretending to know how history would be different if the GOP spent $40 million in taxpayer money to expose Jefferson, Roosevelt, the Kennedys, and MLK?

WOW! Your extreme unreasonable Clinton hatred causes you to flail about wildly.

[ShortnFiery]

95. No, as any somewhat thoughtful human being, I'm forming perspectives on Bill Clinton's Character.

We all expect our legislators and political leaders to have "good character." If we can't TRUST our politicians to show a minimum of "self-control" then they do not deserve to serve. Bill Clinton is no longer in public office but his actions will reflect on his wife. It's not just me, but society (even in France) that shuns infidelity.

Again, I'm not a right winger but based upon my personal life experiences and those of friends and family, I consider Bill Clinton less than a stellar leader. No, I don't like him and I don't trust him. His wife is in a precarious position because he is all about "himself" and his image.

[wyldwolf]

97. ... and using right wing lines of attack to do it, while rationalizing the same behavior in others.

[ShortnFiery]

99. again, you're hopeless. Being human and drawing on social norms and mores is right-wing

perspectives to you, then that we have reached an impasse. :(

[wyldwolf]

101. again, you're avoiding the question. How is your line of attack different than the right wing's?

[ShortnFiery]

105. again, you will not accept that Bill Clinton was a security risk as President. Bush was MUCH WORSE,

but that does not make it "OK" to lack self-control. It's not a right wing attack to observe the history of his serial infidelity. It's a psychological disorder and it unfortunately, goes to character. Would you trust him around your twenty something daughter? I doubt it. :(

[wyldwolf]

107. that's ALSO a right wing line of attack.

[ShortnFiery]

109. Bullshit! It's an assessment that you don't like. Your attack line is right-wing.

See how that works? :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

112. Right wing author Buzz Patterson wrote a whole book on your line of reasoning

Dereliction of Duty
An Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security.

Hardcover: 256 pages
Dimensions (in inches): 0.89 x 9.26 x 6.40
Author: Buzz Patterson
Publisher: Regnery Publishing; (March 1, 2003)

You're getting your talking points from the same publishers who bring us Hannity and Coulter books.

[ShortnFiery]

120. TODAY, you can lose your security clearance IF ADULTERY can be proven.

Unfaithfulness to one's spouse is not taken lightly with those who run our National Security.

Politicians seem to be the one notable exception. :(

[wyldwolf]

123. which is what Buzz Patterson, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. contend

Just admit you agree with them.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

102. LOL! and you know they would have changed, how?

You do not know what the hell goes on in their marriage. Stay out of their underwear.

[wyldwolf]

104. she has a crystal ball

[ShortnFiery]

108. You're so blinded adoration of *all things Clinton* that you refuse to admit that he has flaws.

Now that's what's tragic. :(

[wyldwolf]

113. Explain how your line of attack is different than the right wing's?

[ShortnFiery]

111. Believe it or not, we are not a totally self-actualized society. Most people can change.

change destructive behaviors with little fall out. Those who have "sexual addiction" need to get help in order to recover. Bill Clinton has not asked for help. Perhaps age and the waning of his testosterone will keep him in line, but I do believe he will "trip up" and end up in the headlines again before his wife's tenure is through. :(

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

116. What are you, Hillary Clinton's mother? How the hell do you even know whether

he's asked for help? Has he discussed this with you personally? Most people could give less of a shit about Bill Clinton's "trip ups" when it happened and now. Thats why he was elected, re-elected in Arkansas, elected, re-elected for President, and had a 70% approval rating when Republicans were trying to witch-hunt.

[ShortnFiery]

118. No, but I do know that I am a human being. I don't admire her for staying with him.

That's a personal opinion but it is valid as any other.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

122. Again, everyone's marriage is different. You have no idea what a person

is going through in their marriage and what decisions they feel are best in their marriage. It shouldn't matter and it didn't matter to how well many thought he ran the country.

Maybe Hillary had this on replay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJYRbQYWSKU

:7

[ShortnFiery]

126. Yes, but if you choose to be a Public Official, then you must consider that even your personal life

will be open to public scrutiny. If you don't declare your marriage "open" then the individual who is unfaithful is a PRIME target for blackmail by either the other party or foreign government interest. Beyond character, it goes to national security.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

130. yet, this only seems to apply to bill clinton in your view.

do you know how easy it would have been for marilyn monroe to blackmail jfk or rfk and been used for the oppposition? or the woman that mlk and fdr had affairs with to blackmail them and used for the opposition? yet you're coming to some bullshit conclusion that those don't matter because they didnt happen in the 90s with cable news?

:rofl: :rofl:

Making sense: you're doing it wrong.

[ShortnFiery]

131. Do you honestly believe that Politicians are not being blackmailed over infidelities ...

back then AND right now?

If not, you live a very sheltered life. :shrug:

p.s. Because Monroe died in very strange circumstances, you could be making my argument for me? :wow: :nuke:

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

135. So let me get this straight. if obama were to tomorrow be found to have had an affair

with someone, you would be calling for his resignation?

wowzerz.

and NO my point was that you seemed to excuse it happening to people like MLK and FDR because it happened in a different time.

plus why do you go back and forth from it being an issue of blackmail to it being about morality and whether or not they're a good person?

either way its stupid. blackmailing someone for an affair? having an affair is national security concern? do you hear yourself? :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

137. of course not. That only applies to Bill Clinton

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

138. I had no idea a public official having an affair is a national security concern

i guess half of congress should pack up and leave right now or be arrested for treason! :rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

141. If they can be blackmailed, it's a national security concern. Many of them can.

:shrug:

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

155. OHNOEZ.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

96. Seriously?? You're harping on him for having an affair?

Was Dubya any better of a President because he kept his zipper up!?

So what if he had an affair? Like that person mentioned, so did FDR, JFK, MLK and lots of other wonderful, historic people.

WHO GIVES A SHIT!?

[wyldwolf]

98. like I keep saying, her hatred of all things Clinton forces her to take right wing positions on him.

[ShortnFiery]

100. Several Affairs. He's compulsive and not trustworthy. :( n/t

[wyldwolf]

106. The Kennedy's and MLK had several affairs. Jefferson fathered a child out of wedlock.

[ShortnFiery]

117. But it did not COME OUT in the Press of the day.

None of us could say one way or another with absolute certainty if they could change. However, most people can if they are not addicted to the particular self-destructive behavior(s).

[wyldwolf]

128. no, so again you are approving of the $40 million spent to bring Clinton's out to the press

[ShortnFiery]

129. No, he should have resigned before then.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

132. so if Clinton should have resigned before the press found out, so should have FDR, the Kennedys, etc

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

134. No, I'm not saying that ... what I am saying is that once the nuts in the right wing produced the

indisputable evidence, the blue dress, he should have resigned. Yes, they were good at denials and the right wing was PETTY, but Bill Clinton could have spared the Country a great deal of misery if he would have resigned at THAT time. :(

[wyldwolf]

136. so you're advocating letting the "nuts in the right wing" win?

[polmaven]

153. Once the "blue dress" evidence

was revealed, the probability of blackmail was no longer a threat,was it? So how, at that point, was he a security risk? You are twisting your own arguments, aren't you?

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

110. Why are you so concerned about their marital fedelity and well-being?

are you even married? if not, why do other people's marriages concern you so much, whether its a Presidents or your best friends?

[ShortnFiery]

114. Because if they are unfaithful and married, they can be BLACKMAILED. That is not good if

in that it threatens our national security. People can be gay and glean a security clearance, however, many people will go to great lengths to *cover up* an affair.

[wyldwolf]

115. OMG! Look at how many leaders you'd erase from history. Jefferson, FDR, MLK!

[ShortnFiery]

119. Again, you fail to take into account the earlier aspects of our discussion. Did I mention ...

that you're hopeless? :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

121. yeah, you think had millions been spend to expose them, they would have "changed their ways."

That is an approval of the Clinton smear machine and the tax payer money spent on it.

[ShortnFiery]

124. I think if Bill Clinton truly loved his country above himself, he would have resigned when the DNA

on the blue dress was uncovered. We then could have been blessed with TWO Terms of Al Gore.

Yes, I believe that we would have a much better situation here in the good old U S of A if Bill Clinton was not so damn arrogant. And for "hanging-on" I will always think less of him.

The foregoing are NOT right-wing talking points but true perspectives and sentiments of a democrat.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

125. Ha ha ha ha ha

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

oh you're serious...:o

[ShortnFiery]

127. Very. n/t

[asteroid2003QQ47]

147. A certain someone here is obviously attracted to Monica,...

besides me and Bill that is.
Don't be ashamed, join us, it's healthy.
----------------------------------------------

People often try to hide unacceptable behavior from themselves or others by engaging in behaviors or causes that speak to the opposite intentions.
--Dr. Judith Kuriansky,
Licensed clinical psychologist in the
Department of Clinical Psychology at
Columbia University

[mitchum]

49. I always thought Clinton sounded like he was addressing the Men's Pancake Prayer Breakfast

or Rotary Club

[MADem]

64. My mileage varies. I always thought he was having a conversation with me and my family. NT

[fujiyama]

72. You have some interesting points

with regards to the contrast between Obama and Clinton's speaking styles. I must admit, Clinton was and still is very strong in such settings and formats.

However, I still feel that looking back, much of his ability went to waste and many opportunities were missed or squandered - and on too many issues he caved in.

Of course, we're just two months into this administration. We have no idea how things could turn out. Obama has a few major advantages than Clinton did - more Democrats in the House and Senate, a Republican party in decline, and greater support of the public. And Obama is also coming in after possibly the single worst president ever. Hopefully Obama can use those assets and build a long lasting legacy and implement a strong progressive agenda.

I'm irritated, like with Clinton in his first two years, Democrats are the ones stifling Obama's agenda. Is it just me, or were Republicans ever this resistant to ANYTHING Bush did? Sure, there was some grumbling here and there, but not the sort of bullshit I see from Bayh, Lincoln, and a few others.

[PRETZEL]

16. Hands down Obama.

Reagan was an ACTOR.

He could repeat lines, not address people.

Obama understands what he's talking about.

[Zenlitened]

18. *snort*

Reagan was not a "gifted orator" -- he was good at reading a script.

I worked in broadcast news back in the Reagan era. When you tried to get a sound bite of when he was NOT reading from a script... well, you basically couldn't.

He was incoherent, rambling in sentence fragments, hemming and hawing. You couldn't get 15 seconds of a declarative sentence expressing a cohesive thought.

Jeebus. Has the right-wing reagan-worship mythology embedded itself even here?

Reagan a "great orator"???!!!11 :puke:

[playerhater]

20. Reagan only spoke to a segment of Americans

and offended millions with divisive language.

[MADem]

66. I hate to tell you this, but the Limbaugh crowd feels the same way about Obama.

You can't make the mistake of projecting your views onto the population as a whole.

I never cared for Reagan, with his catsup as a vegetable and his folksy bullshit, but a lot of people did think he was the bee's knees.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

68. Wow, I was gonna welcome this person to DU, but he/she has been served a Concrete Pizza already.

Did I miss something GOOD?

[MADem]

157. Dunno--maybe it was just a sock puppet. nt

[SKKY]

21. Reagan? Hell, Clinton was better than Reagan!!!!

[Peacetrain]

22. Hands down..Obama

[uponit7771]

23. Obama isn't a fuckin liar

[SPedigrees]

26. If you're talking about communication skills

I would say both rank right up there. As far as WHAT they are communicating, Reagan was communicating toxic policies that deeply wounded our country, while Obama's words encompass just the opposite.

I would put Obama and JFK on a fairly equal rung as great statesmen. Carter and Clinton were also good communicators, but JFK and Obama both were/are inspirational leaders with a similar message, too seldom heard, of 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'

It is noteable that presidents who in recent memory have been most successful communicators share several qualities. They are tall with wide white smiles and outstretched hands to their public. They are comfortable in their skins and can speak off the cuff in an articulate manner. If they stumble over a word it doesn't throw them; they just correct themselves and continue on as if it were inconsequential. They have a sense of humor. They have principals that they stick to regardless of adversity or obstruction. Interesting to note that 4 out of 5 of these men have been democrats.

I honestly believe that Reagan was so insulated that he had no concept of poverty. To have that level of conviction and prowess of speech, one has to believe in what one is saying. I think Ronnie in his own misguided mind was genuine. I can identify a person with a hidden agenda from a couple of speeches. Psychopaths like Nixon and Bush are even more obvious. The repubs found a gem when they got Reagan and we are still paying for it today.

[OwnedByFerrets]

27. Raygun was.....

he was able to say one thing and do something completely different and do it so well that he is still considered St Ronnie by the majority of Muricans. Our President doesnt have this ability.
When he is able to feed us dog shit and make us think its Caviar, he will be at the level of Raygun.
Anyone who is voting for President Obama is doing so with their heart.

[SPedigrees]

28. Reagan did exactly as he said.

He did not hide his plan for trickle down economics or mince words when he said that poor people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and tighten their belts. And to credit his strength of character and conviction, he did not back down on support of gun ownership rights after he was shot.

The fact that money does not in fact trickle down from the wealthy to the poor is evidence of how delusional he was. But what Reagan was not, is a liar.

Call him the father of the neocons, the source of all the right wing policies that have crippled our country since his terms in office. But let's not become liars ourselves by calling him a liar.

[OwnedByFerrets]

30. Raygun was a LIAR!! Period, end of story. If you dont want

to believe it, thats up to you.

"Ronald Reagan, with his twinkling eyes and rouged cheeks, had a way of making people feel good, though there were often some hidden costs involved.
The exaggerations continue, even after his death."
"Besides spawning a couple of generations of right-wingers whose idea of public service was to find a way to cut benefits to poor people, Reagan gave astrologers some short-term credibility and was the best speech-giver the White House has ever seen.
(And while he was a hero to some of the elderly, he also, in 1983, signed into law a bill taxing Social Security benefits and increasing the retirement age.)"
"It was included in the September 2003 Washington Monthly, which printed a few of Reagan's doozies: His 1980 statement that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do," his claim that he had served as a photographer in a U.S. Army unit assigned to film Nazi death camps (he never left Hollywood), and his claim in 1986 that "we did not, repeat, did not, trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."
But the whopper that became legend, and was used to usher in welfare policy changes, is the story of the "welfare queen" living a life of lavish leisure while collecting welfare.
Reagan frequently told a version of the story in speeches, beginning in 1976, of the "Chicago welfare queen" who had 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and collected benefits for "four nonexisting husbands," bilking the government out of "over $150,000."
Suddenly, the enduring image of a person on welfare became a black woman in a mink coat driving a Cadillac to pick up her welfare checks.
The real "Chicago welfare queen" used two aliases to collect $8,000 and didn't get away with it."
"The media tried to debunk it , but it had mutated into common knowledge by the time a newspaper reporter, David Zucchino, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, spent a year with two welfare mothers in that city. The result in 1996 was a highly praised book, "The Myth of the Welfare Queen."


There are many more(the largest of which was concerning taxes), but hopefully this will suffice to show you the error of your thoughts.

[Uzybone]

31. Unfair matchup, 8 years of Ronnie vs 2 months of Barack

and it's Barack by a landslide.

[Phx_Dem]

32. I never thought Reagan was a great communicator; he always sounded

like a dottering old man. Sometimes he came up with some great one liners, but that doesn't make him a great communicator.

[Aristus]

34. Reagan's communication skills were a mile wide and an inch deep.

President Obama's communication skills are top-heavy with intellectual acumen, comprehension, energy, vision, and compassion. Reagan just had an endless repetition of "Government bad; rich people good!"

[4lbs]

35. I can't recall Reagan frequently giving detailed answers to reporters' questions.

n/t

[Brother Buzz]

36. Reagan's oratory skills sank like a stone after he was shot

I used to cringe when he stepped up to the microphone. Prior to the assassination attempt, Reagan spoke like he was rehearsing a script - smooth, but all make believe.

[tabbycat31]

37. i'm voting Obama for one reason

and that is that I am not old enough to remember Reagan's communication skills (or his presidency in general). I was 8 when he left office.

[Deja Q]

52. I was 8 when he got in, and seeing him on TV - even during the 1980 primaries - scared me.

What's scarier is, at the time, nobody had a clue about what his presidency would bring about.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html

[a kennedy]

39. I only remember reagan pointing to his ears indicating he couldn't

hear what the reporters were yelling at him....... ugh.

[Better Believe It]

40. That's an easy one. FDR! :) Obama is obviously better than Reagan

[Pharlo]

42. Ronald Reagan?

Ronald 'Aide running out five minutes after the man spoke saying "What the President meant to say was..." 'Reagan? A great communicator?

He was an adequate actor. As long as he stayed on script, he was fine. The minute he went off script, he was lost. Honestly, though, I don't know how much of that was him and how much of that was an early manifestation of Alzheimer's. But the one thing I remember from the Reagan era was someone always running out after he got done speaking 'clarifying what the president meant'.

[depakid]

43. Reagan appealed to primarily base emotion, Obama appeals primarily to reason

Different sorts of deals.

[Reterr]

133. Kinda huge difference

I don't get the whole Reagan thing. The man was an ass...

[mvd]

47. Reagan didn't communicate like a President should

Many RWers like Jindal imitate his phony sunny, talk to you like you are kids style.

Obama has tons more substance.

[mitchum]

48. Haven't heard a peep from that dead motherfucker for years now

[notesdev]

50. I was more impressed with Obama on the campaign trail

than actually in office. Maybe because it's clear to me that he hasn't the slightest clue as to what is going on with the economy, and that anything and everything he says on the subject is written by someone else. I'd like to know who is writing those lines for him to speak.

[Deja Q]

51. History being 20/20, Reagan doesn't have a chance.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html

President Obama is innocent until proven guilty, and there is NO reason to disbelieve him right now*. His speech from yesterday is on the ball, to be sure.


* if nothing else, it's not been 72 days yet, much less 100...

[BootinUp]

53. Obama can convey intellectual information

Reagan was the master of popular untruths.

[moondust]

56. Reagan was a script reader

with an empty head.

[Uncle Joe]

57. Reagan was a holograph brought to you by the corporate media. n/t

[Kaleva]

58. Too early to compare the two.

If, after 4 years, President Obama wasn't able to get a significant portion of his agenda thru, one really can't say he is a great communicator.

[and-justice-for-all]

60. Obama by far, he is not or ever was an actor...

which is all Raygun did.

[Fire1]

61. No contest. Obama, hands down.

[Political Heretic]

62. Reagan was a good communitator but not Presidential with his communication

Being folksy, appealing to emotion, that stuff is great for a story teller for This American Life, but for the President. So he did a huge disservices to the people in that, even if his style was effective.

Obama has made rational based appeals to support his agenda, and communicates as president in a surprisingly clear cut reasoned way. I say "surprisingly" only because during the campaign he clearly did lots of appealing to emotion (that's not a bad thing when campaigning.)

[Earth Bound Misfit]

67. Can I vote for Mario Cuomo?

After all, he's a paesano.

J/K, Obama, no doubt.

[MADem]

158. Cuomo does the Clintonesque thing, too.

He's having a conversation with you. He's not lecturing you, hectoring you, or talking at you. He's talking WITH you.

Very skilled, Mario is.

[Drunken Irishman]

69. Anyone who thinks Reagan was a great communicator needs to watch this...

This is Reagan without a teleprompter or speech to read from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6I9nXPh66w

[Raine]

70. Sure Raygun was good, he was an actor who plagerized

lines from others and couldn't communicate anything except lies.

[mix]

74. I'll take Obama's clear intelligent humanity any day

over raygun's lies.

[POAS]

79. Reagan needed a teleprompter..n/t

[Skwmom]

139. I'm beginning to realize that Obama is the Democratic version of Reagan.

But what the heck, the big financial money players couldn't have picked a better pitchman.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

140. Obama: elegance with intelligence. Nuff said! (nt)

[Mudoria]

142. I rate them equally I think

The question was "communicator", not whether you agreed with what they were communicating. Both come across as real on the tube and had/have the ability to speak clearly and make their points.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

143. As of 12:46 14 other obviously rotten brains have voted!

re: Reagan-
HE'S GOT A ROTTEN BRAIN! IT'S ROTTEN, I TELL YA! ROTTEN!

--Dr. Frederick Frankenstein

[asteroid2003QQ47]

144. 15 @ 2:18 n/t

[Phoonzang]

145. Ok I combined the title of this thread and the one above and saw "Who is a better womanizer".

That would be an interesting poll though.

[closeupready]

150. As an actor, Reagan knew how to pull the message together in order to deliver the payoff

at the end, and he would do it even if he tripped up here or there.

Obama is a natural at this, too, but he needs more work at it, IMO.

[Joe Chi Minh]

154. All this talk about the Great Communicators is mad. Everything depends on the content.

You can have an insane demagogue, such as Hitler, or a saint, such as Martin Luther King. And all those in between. But it's the content of what they say, and before even that, the content of their lives that counts. The context is everything. Was he a Cheap Jack, grifter, or saintly orator? Did he leave a good legacy or an evil one to the world he left behind him? are the questions that should be asked?