Tony Schwartz, creator of the “Daisy” commercial, died this past week. Schwartz will long be remembered for his insights into communication, namely the power of emotion and the role of ads to surface feelings from the audience rather than to educate the audience with facts. I made the pilgrimage to Schwartz’ compound upper West Side Manhattan compound in 1985, where he was nice enough to further elaborate for me the theories from his book “The Responsive Chord.” Anyone who is serious about being a master communicator should watch all of Tony’s old TV commercials as well as read his books.
NBC’s Tim Russert died yesterday. One of the things I will remember him for was his expert use of videotaped soundbites of his interview subjects. Russert could host nearly any politician on his or her own petard. Russert was convincing because the video didn’t lie. Russert, more than any other modern journalist, taught politicians the importance of crafting every single soundbite out of their mouths, unless they wanted the soundbites to come back to haunt them.
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.
Barack Obama and his wife are great communicators and wonderful speakers. I like them both. But for the love of hanging chads, could somebody, PLEASE, tell them that “I” can not be the object of a preposition? Last night on CNN Michelle Obama said “for I” and then this morning on the Today Show Barack Obama said “for I.” What they said after that I couldn’t tell you because my teeth were still hurting so much. Come on, you are both Harvard Law grads. It is “for me, for me, for me!” It can never be “for Michelle and I” or “for Barack and I.” Now, me glad me got that off my chest.
TJ Walker gives his in depth analysis of the recent statement by United States Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama while attending a San Francisco fundraiser.
Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kansas) made the Democratic response to George Bush’s State of the Union Address last night. Sebelius looked professional, smooth, competent, and knowledgeable.
But…
She read from a Teleprompter, and the truth is, it’s darned hard to read form a Teleprompter without putting people to sleep. Why? Because when non=professionals read form a Teleprompter, they tend to speak at the same speed, the same tone, the same volume throughout. The result? Sameness, which means boredom.
I happened to be watching Sebuelius’ speech with people who supported her politics and agenda. But after five minutes, everyone in the room was complaining about how boring and how long the speech was.
If you are going to use a Teleprompter, just realize that it is harder to do than working from notes. It is crucial that you get comfortable not only with the words, but with where you will change your speed, volume, tempo and where you will insert pauses. If you don’t prepare and rehearse these, you will bore your audience to death.
At the risk of having people think I am insane, if I give President George Bush an honest appraisal of his speaking skills as demonstrated in the 2008 State of the Union Address, I have to give him a sold B+. Bush used to rush, squint his eyes, freeze his body, speak in a monotone fashion and look scared. He no longer commits those blunders. Bush is now pausing, changing his speed and tempo, moving his body, and gesturing. Judge for yourself.
I feel for former President Bill Clinton. He is, by all accounts, an indefatigable campaigner, often getting by with less than four hours sleep. Well, apparently even Clinton gets tired. Below is a video clip of Clinton snoozing and attempting in vain to stay awake while on the stage behind a speaker. My cheap easy advice is for everyone to get at least 8 hours of sleep, not only on days when you are speaking, but also when you are going to be near any0one else who is speaking and might have a video camera pointed at him or her. If you need motivation to get a good night’s sleep, then you need to watch this.
As much as I think Bill Clinton is a master communicator, no one is perfect. Lately, he has been a little too quick to appear angry at reporters. There is a role for anger, but it must be used sparingly and for big issues only, especially if you have the stature of being a former president.
Great piece on evolving political oratory in today’s New York Times. In the current political season, Hillary Clinton has been making the case that oratorical skills don’t mean much without the ability to work behind the sense to get things done, an endorsement for her experience and an implied attack on Barack Obama and John Edwards—good speakers both. Obama supporters make the point that rhetorical skills are intertwined with political skills. The article quotes Ted Sorensen:
“The most important quality for a president, as Kennedy and Roosevelt demonstrated, is not how many roll call votes he answered sitting in the Senate, but his qualities as a leader who can mobilize people, inspire them, galvanize them, arouse them to action,” Sorensen said. “The ability to inspire and excite an audience on the campaign trail is one of the reasons I think Obama will be a success as president.”
