In response to:

Obama Lied, Crowley’s Cred Died.

rogermcall Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 4:02 PM
Well, perhaps you CAN take the Africa out of Africa, but in the case of Obama it's a case of his putting on a black accent because he's playing Demagogue and Rabble-Rouser that particular day. You wil notice that the rhythms and inflections of his speech shift from audience to audience, so that one day he's addressing "the people" and the next he's in front of "the folks." Like most gifted charlatans, he knows how to work a crowd, and the fact that so many of them are fatuous enough to get the vapors every time he opens his mouth just makes his work that much easier. One could make the case that working the crowd is the closest he has ever come to actually doing a job. Still. his act is strictly for the rubes.
jayzee Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 11:11 PM
Yep. It's official. If you want to sell something, become like the person you're selling to. Bad grammar, you have bad grammar; they talk slow, you talk slower. I understand now what it takes to be president. A snake-oil salesman.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 7:59 PM
Oh, so you ADMIRE consciously changing your dialect to pander to different audiences? That's not a good thing, eric, and you don't know me well enough to say I'm being disingenuous. I know what I do.
ericynot Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 7:03 PM

I think you're being disengenous. Decades ago I used to use a lot more curse words with my friends than I do now (we were young and often vulgar, frankly). When I went home, I didn't speak that way around my mom. Why? Because it would have distressed her and derailed our conversation.

These days, if I'm hanging around a more blue-color group (I spent years in the construction industry), my language may be a little more course because that's often the norm.

So, yes, really, I adjust my vocabulary , speech patterns, and cadence depending upon whom I'm talking with. And you're clearly a bright guy, so I'm pretty sure you do too, even if unconsciously.

Romney seems not to have that instinct though.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 6:26 PM
Really? I don't change my language, and certainly not my inflection, when talking to different people. You see this from Dems all the time--Hillary's speech to the NAACP was embarrassing. Tell me when you've heard Romney change his speech patterns with different audiences. HE didn't insult his NAACP audience by trying to "sound black."
ericynot Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 6:18 PM

Since when does any politician not want to "build his street cred" whether giving a speech or talking to an individual? BO (and any other politician) would be an idiot not to do that. You have to be careful not to overdo it so as not to sound as though you're caricaturing people, but it's just common sense.

For instance, if I'm talking with someone whose education and vocabulary might not be as developed as mine, I tend to use simpler syntax and language (e.g., "boring" rather than "soporific"). It's not that I'm condescending to that person, but that I don't want my style of speaking to distract from effective communication.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 5:38 PM
ericynotbealiberal, There is a huge difference between "picking up" an accent and doing what Obama did. I, too, tend to pick up accents easily. I get an Irish lilt in my voice when talking to someone with a strong Irish accent. Same with Scottish and yes, Texas. But Obama wasn't speaking with people one on one. He was giving a speech. It was affected and condescending. He wanted to build his street cred.
ericynot Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 4:46 PM

What's wrong with adjusting your language, accent, and cadence to better connect with an audience? I noticed 45 years ago that I instinctively did that as I traveled to different parts of the country. For instance, my native Texas accent did not play very well in Colorado where Texans were widely held in contempt, so I dropped it when I was going to school there. And when I was in Atlanta, my speech not only had a slightly different accent, it also slowed down noticeably.

I wanted people to hear what I said, not how I said it.

President Obama’s lie at the debate--that he made an early call the Benghazi attack was terror-- was petty and ludicrous.

It was petty because, as a semantic dispute, it grasped brief advantage that necessarily had to yield to inevitable fact-checking. It was ludicrous because, as a matter of history, it pretended two weeks of vehement, contradictory spin from the administration never happened.

When Mitt Romney challenged Obama on his failure to admit the Benghazi massacre was terrorism, the president threw down a startling gauntlet: He had indeed called the attack an act...