Two things struck me about Biden’s speech, one of which Jim touched on in his list of five nobodies, namely it was factual. Which reminded me once again how Biden’s immediate predecessor departed from facts at virtually every turn, whether it was COVID, Russian interference with our elections or his own culpability in the January 6 insurrection. If Biden sounded angry when he should have sounded mournful or clung to the teleprompter when he became distracted seems moot to me compared to his insistence in telling the American people the cold, hard truth.
Thanks, yes — the plain-speak approach does indeed work best when it is tied to actual facts. Biden departs from facts some times, but his WH is quick in following up.
And, to be clear, those five points are quoted from David Kipen, in his pitch for a new Writers' Project.
Agree also on tone-vs-substance in this presentation.
I have flowed your analyses of presidential speeches for a while. In this particular analysis, it seems like you heard a different speech than either Kai Ryssdal or Jonah Goldberg.
I saw it first *in writing*, so probably paid more attention to that than the spoken version. (Which I later listened to in background mode rather than fully focusing.) It *sounded* to me better than what they are saying, but I may have been influenced by liking the written version.
Two things struck me about Biden’s speech, one of which Jim touched on in his list of five nobodies, namely it was factual. Which reminded me once again how Biden’s immediate predecessor departed from facts at virtually every turn, whether it was COVID, Russian interference with our elections or his own culpability in the January 6 insurrection. If Biden sounded angry when he should have sounded mournful or clung to the teleprompter when he became distracted seems moot to me compared to his insistence in telling the American people the cold, hard truth.
Thanks, yes — the plain-speak approach does indeed work best when it is tied to actual facts. Biden departs from facts some times, but his WH is quick in following up.
And, to be clear, those five points are quoted from David Kipen, in his pitch for a new Writers' Project.
Agree also on tone-vs-substance in this presentation.
Comment re: the one speech.
I have flowed your analyses of presidential speeches for a while. In this particular analysis, it seems like you heard a different speech than either Kai Ryssdal or Jonah Goldberg.
https://twitter.com/kairyssdal/status/1436459198653472769?s=21
If I read the text, I see your point.
If I hear the delivery I agree with Kai/Jonah.
What do you think?
I saw it first *in writing*, so probably paid more attention to that than the spoken version. (Which I later listened to in background mode rather than fully focusing.) It *sounded* to me better than what they are saying, but I may have been influenced by liking the written version.