Your revision lacks the sense of rhythym and of flow necessary for stirring speech. Its inclusion of the propping "obviously" informs the reader that the phrase following it can be ignored as old news. The overbalancing of the two clauses dulls the sentence to an academic level. In short, it sucks.
It isn't a speech. It's a written article.
However, I won't necessarily argue the point. Perhaps my response written on the fly was deficient in itself.
But I still think the way it was stunk.
Later...