Shouldn't he have sat at his desk? I see
Callum Borchers at The Washington Post has asked the same question:
Whatever the impetus, let's get one thing straight: Obama's choice to stand at a podium in his office rather than sit behind the Resolute Desk, as is customary in an Oval Office address, was very deliberate — as all decisions about presidential imagery are.
Okay, but that thing is not called a "podium."
It's not as though he keeps a dais parked in front of the desk all the time. The mere fact that he and his staff said, "Hey, let's bring one in," means they believed there was something to gain by getting the president on his feet...
Okay, but that thing is not called a "dais."
What were they going for? And did it work?
Standing up is a simple, unstated way for him to project strength. More important to the president, however, might be what standing up does for his own comfort level. As we at The Fix noted before the speech (and before we knew Obama would be at the lectern), he seemed stiff and uncomfortable in his two previous Oval Office addresses, when he took the more traditional seated posture.
Yes, and thanks for finally hitting on the right word for that thing:
lectern.
Still, I think Obama lost some of the Oval Office impact by using the podium....
Sigh.
पोस्ट्स
५५ टिप्पण्या:
Maybe he was worried that by using the word "lectern" it would carry some sort of religious connotation. Obama the High Priest
Ralph Peters nailed it with his comments and Facebook is blocking the video.
"Standing up is a simple, unstated way for him to project strength."
Poser to the last.
Too much thought went into the optics than the words..........
President Obama is the sad academic lecturer who is upset that the people he is speaking at from behind his lectern "just don't get it". He got addicted to the little-g god mindset that university lecturers are tempted to take on. And the worst ones bath themselves in it.
My God, Ann, you can be such a pedant. I'm damned glad you weren't my professor when I was in law school. Sometimes you really can't see the substance of what's being said at all, because you get so hung up on quibbling about words.
I think it was Edwin Newman who wrote in one of his books on language something to the effect that "if you can speak behind a podium you are very, very short."
Please, people, let's not use this post as an opportunity to criticize President Obama. God bless him, the poor dumb bastard is doing the best he can.
It's the official seal. The seal is big, it's round, and manly. I wish I had an official seal...
The use of the word "dais" immediately beings this to my mind:
"Jabba on the Dais" : http://youtu.be/sTwEVq6VtgA
Ralph Peters looks like a nice grandpa, and then he proceeds to kick the Presidents ass. I love it. "Sorry Mr. Peters, you can't say the President is a Pussy on national TV." :-)
I just had to look up all three of those words professor. I'm clear on the differences now
If only the President and his staff put as much thought into formulating policy as they do into the optics of his speeches. But then, his whole presidency has been built on his ability to read a teleprompter while standing. And to model men's suits.
"Standing up is a simple, unstated way for him to project strength."
LOL. I'm sure ISIS is shaking in their boots. 18 months of swinging and missing isn't going to be made up by STANDING anywhere.
As an aside, if comments are truly moderated how can Dart's triple post all make it?
The Post writer might be a real big Paul Simon fan, is all.
Funny. Neither FDR nor Ronald Reagan had to stand up to project strength.
That's probably because both men were actually strong.
Darn, TOTUS refused to lower to POTUS level.
For the uninformed: TOTUS is the mighty Teleprompter of the United States that keeps POTUS "brilliantly eloquent".
With this guy, it's all show and no go.
Better to look strong than be strong.
Colonel Peters is right!
"My God, Ann, you can be such a pedant."
This isn't pedantic: I object to taking the Lord's name in vain.
Why the Oval Office, simple. Was mentioned a lot last night--the East Room and the FDR Room are both all decked out for the holidays. (Would have been insensitive, I guess, for those of the religion mentioned most in his lecture.)
The podium? I'm guessing since the speech obviously (even to his handlers) did not rise to the usual level of an Oval Office sit-down seriousness, they opted for the podium.
And a hearty thank you to Michael K for that link. Made my day.
Standing up is a simple, unstated way for him to project strength.
He failed.
Google Image for 'podium' shows all sorts of lecterns (and a couple of podiums -- and no, I won't use 'podia')
Can you use a teleprompter from behind that desk?
I suppose you can have a screen in front, like the news announcers do, but then you can see that the screen is what they are focusing on.
The more I think about this (I didn't watch last night) the more bizarre it becomes. If you're not going to sit at the desk, don't use the Oval Office.
"If only the President and his staff put as much thought into formulating policy as they do into the optics of his speeches. "
Oh but they do.
Sharyl Attkisson said ... said, “I have talked to people who have worked in the Obama administration who firmly believe he has made up his mind. I would say closed his mind, they say, to their intelligence that they’ve tried to bring him about various groups that he does not consider terrorists, even if they are on the U.S. list of designated terrorists. He has his own ideas, and there are those who’ve known him a long time who say this dates back to law school. He does not necessarily—you may think it’s a good trait you may think it’s a bad trait—he does not necessarily listen to the people with whom he disagrees. He seems to dig in. I would suppose because he thinks he’s right. He is facing formidable opposition on this particular point.”
Somewhere Richard Fernandez quoted a White House staffer as saying that terrorism is "A speechwriting problem. The president will have to explain to the American people why we can't do anything about this. "
This being an attack by Muslims.
As the descriptivists over at languagelog.com say, "It doesn't matter what you say, actually, as long as you can can google it." Most Americans will use "podium" when they mean "lectern," "decimate" when they mean "devastate," and "they/their/them" when only "he/his/him" or "she/her/her" would be right. If the descriptivists get their way and everyone relies on google or N-gram to cull the possibilities, Proper English and style manuals will go the way of the Dodo.
"You are judged by the words you use," and it seems the only use for Proper English, nowadays, is in selecting employees, friends and lovers from among hoi polloi. Kudos to Althouse for putting her small finger the dike in the futile attempt to hold back the descriptivist debasement of English.
"Shouldn't he have sat at his desk?" Yes, he should have. He wanted to give "an address from the Oval Office"--he likes the sound of that--but he also wanted to use a lectern, as he usually does in all of his speeches. Unfortunately, among his other shortcomings, not only is he incapable of addressing the nation without a cheering audience, he does not even know how a man sits at a desk, because . . . well, Ralph Peters already covered that.
Lecterns are for lecturing.
America got a lecture.
The choice fit the purpose.
I wasn't sure if the objection was to the word "pussy" or to "thugs".
Michael K said...
Ralph Peters nailed it with his comments and Facebook is blocking the video.
12/7/15, 3:23 PM
No, it isn't.
Sure thing Jack.
A lectern is what you "lecture" from. And Obama was in full lecture mode last night. Some jackass over at Esquire magazine, one Charles Pierce by name, wrote Obama seemed to be talking from a different country. By that he meant that Obama was talking to a country of unwashed bloodthirsty rubes.
Pierce on the other hand wanted to be in the country that Obama was talking from. In that regard Pierce is no different from the other journalistic remoras attaching themselves to whatever part or piece of anatomy of Obama's they can reach.
I will say that Obama looked tired, and profoundly disappointed in the country that is shackled (metaphorically speaking) around his neck and dragging him down into the depths. He'd be the first to tell you that he deserves a better country to lead.
Yeah. A lectern for a lecture from a guy who is just a slick liar that sets up straw men all day.
The WaPo needs to focus on the sit or stand discussion. If they didn't they would have to talk about how effective his policies have been.
That is why they are talking about gun control so much. There is no issue that is a bigger loser for dems than pushing gun control. They are willing to do it because Obama is trying to save his legacy. The dems are going to get smeared all over the pavement come next years elections.
He would look even more like Urkel peering over the edge of the Resolute Desk.
"Standing up is a simple, unstated way for him to project strength." Umm, no. It is an obvious, overstated way to project the need to project strength.
He needed his eyes to be on the same level as the teleprompter.
Plus if you are going to lecture everyone, you need a lectern, right?
Regardless of the lecturn language problem, as soon as I saw the set up I called my wife into the living room and said, "Who the hell sets a podium up in front of a desk? Look at that! What the hell is wrong with this guy?" I had Twitter pulled up and Trump's first comment was regarding the set-up. It's all over the internet today. Very strange choice.
My theory is that he wanted the power of the Oval Office but doesn't have the confidence to sit at the desk. I have no idea why he cannot bear to sit behind the desk. But I remember the days of the "Obama Shuffle," when he walked out onto stages and did the quick little three step thing right before getting to the lecturn, podium, dias, or whatever structure he had placed before the teleprompter. Those days are long gone. He has gone from the jaunty, confident adolescent to the sullen, defensive adolescent. I'd say this experience as president has emotionally matured him at least 5 minutes.
Obama stood up so he would look like a giant on the Obama TVs we buy with our government welfare payments. That way we know he is larger than the office of the president itself. The medium is the message.
Two Obama era expressions if I never hear again it will be too soon:
1. Optics
2. Boots on the ground
I stand to praise pedantry.
If you cannot say what you mean, then I must assume you do not mean what you say.
Bush did it, too!
Okay, but that thing is not called a "podium."
In the linked article Borchers 'called it a "podium".' So, regardless of it being a lectern, cannot truthfully be said that it was not 'called a "podium".'
Alan Anderson: He would look even more like Urkel peering over the edge of the Resolute Desk.
Got it on the second reading. First pass I read "peeing."
It's astonishing to see how far Icarus has fallen. Once the man could do no wrong right down to the crease in his pants. Now he stands when he should sit, rebuffs when he should console, golfs when he should emote.
That's what flying too close to the sun will do to you.
LBJ used to address his flunkies while seated on the Presidential Toilet (another TOTUS).
Bob@5:41,
Now that's funny.
So, as always, it's Bush's fault. Some things never change.
BTW, both Bush examples were introducing a second individual where things would look out of place if Bush was sitting and the other standing. But we don't need no steekin' logic.
I Susect you were being sarcastic.
Don't overthink this stuff. The answer is he couldn't sit down. Reggie pounded his ass too hard.
Apparently Google and a number of vendors are confused as well: here
It doesn't get much better than Reggie Love, Body man
That's sort of putting an area rug over wall-to-wall carpeting. I have known people like that. It's only odd if you are American.
Ann, let me be pedantic, God is not the Lord's name. It's his title. His name is YHWH, Adonai or Elohim.
I think it is obvious.
If he sat behind the desk, the TelePrompters would be too far away for him to see without his glasses.
Why he wound need them for a content-free speech is a different question.
"Ann, let me be pedantic, God is not the Lord's name. It's his title. His name is YHWH, Adonai or Elohim."
Let's read and interpret the commandment. What is the scope of the requirement? Will you bet your eternal soul that the narrow interpretation is the correct one? What is the widest possible interpretation and don't you think you'd better adopt it just in case... if you believe in the God of the 10 Commandments? I'm quite serious, even though I understand your cute point. Actually, I think you should worry that your comment itself violates the commandment.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा