People ask me all the time if I was a natural born speaker and communications expert. I tell them “no.” Then they want to know if I have special or rare talents to make it easy for me to speak well. Again, the answer is “no.” But there is one skill I have that many people don’t have: the ability to listen and learn from people who I have absolutely no ideological or philosophical agreement with.
As a kid growing up in the 70s in North Caroline< I developed a fascination with Sen. Jesse Helms, the Rush Limbaugh of his times. Helms became famous for his television, radio and print commentaries in the 60s and his hard-core conservative viewpoints. Even though I never agreed with Helms on much or anything, I developed a respect for his passion, clarity, and forcefulness of speech. Most people don’t seem to be able to separate message from technique, so they intstantly tune out anyone with whom they have disagreements. This is a mistake. Jesse Helms passed away last week http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/politics/00helms.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=jesse+helms&st=nyt&oref=slogin. I can’t say I mourn his loss, but he was a role model for me in many ways–he won’t soon be forgotten.
John McCain can be a great speaker, especially when he is a little bit angry and speaking without notes. The problem is that he consistently (at least 50% of the time) is boring, mundane and flat, due to poor reading of a speech. Barack Obama is occasionally flat and has too many “uhs” and “ums” (especially during a media interview), but Obama is consistently (over 80% of the time) a great speaker. He’s smooth, fluid, emotional, and compelling.
My prediction: This spells doom for McCain. Since the modern TV era (1952), the general election candidate who is the better speaker has always won the presidency. (I grant you 2000 and 2004 can be debated due to the poor speaking skills of Bush versus the irritating speaking styles of Gore and Kerry).
But 2008 is a very clear-cut contest between someone who is a great speaker most of the time (Obama) and someone who is a poor-to-middling speaker most of the time (McCain). I’m predicting a clear-cut Obama based purely on his oratorical talents.
I’m not weighing in on the politics of the day regarding Bill Clinton’s involvement with his wife’s presidential campaign. However, I am interested in his thought process regarding public speaking. I take as a given that no serious person doubts Bill Clinton’s prowess as a public speaker.
In today’s New York Times, we get a glimpse of exactly why:
“When former President Bill Clinton took to the podium on Friday at the Chapman Cultural Center in Spartanburg, he told the audience a story. He said he had just inadvertently walked into the adjacent auditorium and was mortified to see that all the seats were empty. Then, he recounted, he saw a ‘tech guy’ in the back of the room and said to himself, ‘well, I’ll give my best speech to one guy.’ He pounded his fist. ‘I’ll give my best speech if it’s the last thing I do today.’”
There reeally are no small speaking audiences, just small speakers. Bill Clinton may be many things to many people, but he is never an unenthusiastic speaker.
Here is an interesting piece on CNN that compares this year’s crop of political candidates with leading orators of the past half century. As I’ve mentioned in this space before, the 2008 candidates, as a class, have been the best speakers I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Mitt Romney—I thought he seemed down, depressed, and as if his whole world were caving in. Other pundits thought it was his best speech of the campaign—candid, genuine and personal.
Mike Huckabee—He was his usual Huckabee, i.e., funny, personal, emotional, and empathetic. Huckabee is Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, James Carville and Gomer Pyle combined. He looked and sounded like a winner.
John Edwards—He is Mr. Sunshine. You might not like his populist, left-wing politics, but Edwards has a strong grasp of classical oratory. He doesn’t talk about “people” who need healthcare. He talks about “Natalie” who needs a liver operation by 10 AM tomorrow. He is extraordinarily clear, understandable and memorable.
John McCain—What an awful speech! He read, head down, poorly. Whether he was stumbling on his own lines or repeatedly poorly written bromides, McCain did himself no good.
Hillary Clinton—“I found my own voice”—great sound bite from Clinton. She resisted gloating after the whole world had written her off. Clinton did a great job of speaking in an earnest, conversational manner. She resisted the urge to increase her volume, which tends to make her sound stilted and condescending. It was a euphoric speech in front of a euphoric audience.
Barack Obama—Obama played it exactly right—he properly congratulated Senator Clinton, and then he proceeded to give a speech exactly as if he had won the election. It reminds me of precisely how Bill Clinton handled his second place finish in 1992. Obama did a great job of concealing what must have been extreme disappointment about losing a race that nearly every poll said he would win by double digits. P.S. Obama did a fantastic job of using a teleprompter!
Below you will find a real time analysis of both the Democratic and Republican Presidential debates.
Here is final analysis of the Democratic debate.
This seems like a horrible dodge, but I have to give a three-way tie for first to John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. all three were at their best. They all played to their strengths. No one made any big blunders or mistakes. Each used compelling logic and made forceful appeals, plus showed signs of likability.
Richardson had a few good moments, but he was clearly not at the same level as the top tier candidates in terms of his polish, positioning or presentation skills.
Obama. He seems well-versed on this and all other subjects. Obama comes across as quite knowledgeable.
Clinton. Nice tailoring of energy costs as they relate to people of New Hampshire. clinotn does not sound shrill or strident. The format of sitting down and beign close to people helps her sound conversational.
Edwards. He has really refined his populist message and delivery. But he’s not sounding protectionist or anti-globalism.
Obama. He is sounding mature. He does not sound callow or inexperienced.
Edwards. Making populist arguments and sounding convincing.
Edwards on what he accomplished in the Senate: patients bill of rights. he made a good argument here and was personal and named names of people it would help. Came across as committed and passionate. Great energy.
Clinton. She nailed Edwards on the fact that his legislation never passed. i.e., he didn’t accomplish anything. She nailed Edwards. Then she nailed Obama. “Words are not actions” she is slamming Edwards and Obama in a forceful and fair manner.
Clinton made stirring defense of her husband being an agent of change.
Edwards. Gave great Teddy Roosevelt example. Strong populist messages.
Obama. Seems to be mkaing a defense of words and rhetoric as an important part of statecraft.
Richardson. Is constantly trying to float above the free.
Edwards. Strong populist rhetoric against special interests.
Clinton. Was really funny when she said “it hurts my feelings.” she seemed genuine and funny and likeable. And she said Obama was likeable. Did a great job of dealing with issue that voters think edwards and obama would create more change.
Obama. Seemed funny saying he was watching football instead of gop debate. seems positive, upbeat and inclusive.
Richardson. stressing his credentials and expereince. Only one with a “national security clearance.” Doesn’t he realize that no one cares?
Richardson is hitting the table again and it is highly distracting.
