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.”
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.
John Kerry today endorsed Barack Obama at a press conference. I have to confess I couldn’t watch more than 30 seconds of the speech. John Kerry spoke, like, well, John Kerry. Buy that, I mean Kerry sounds as if he trying to play Hollywood’s version of a pompous, self-important, sanctimonious wind-bag. As I commented on repeatedly in 2004, Kerry’s problem stems from projecting to loudly, thus robbing his voice of its conversational quality.
Bill Richardson dropped out of the race today. I would have gladly listen to him for the whole speech but he was so boring, bland and tedious that CNN cut away from his speech and I never could find it on another news network. Richardson started off by complaining that the news media had leaked the story that he was dropping out—it’s never attractive to whine. Next, Richardson read his speech (with his eyes bobbing up and down—mostly down) saying boring and predictable things. Why he needed a written script at all is beyond me. Richardson can be a talented and funny speaker—it’s a shame he blew a big opportunity today. It may have been his last opportunity of the national limelight for awhile.
(I’ll post videos of both speeches once they are available)
Once in every election there is a sound bite where something dramatic occurs that supposedly turns the election. Usually, the news media get this wrong. Here is the clip where Senator Clinton allegedly cries in New Hampshire. Only, if you look closely, she doesn’t actually cry—she simply speaks in emotional terms. In 2004, Howard Dean’s scream allegedly destroyed his campaign. In truth his campaign had already peaked and John Kerry had already destroyed Dean in Iowa.In 1987 Gary Hart supposedly destroyed his campaign by issuing a challenge to the press “Go ahead and follow me around. You won’t find anything and you will be bored.” But what everyone always forgets is the story where that this was quoted came out one day AFTER the Miami Herald broke the story about Hart’s Monkey Business. Did Ed Muskie’s crying in New Hampshire destroy his candidacy in 1972? In truth he was an establishment candidate who didn’t campaign very hard and was seen as a sinking ship. Even the supposed tears on his face are questionable, given that it was snowing on him at the time.So what’s the point? I am a lifelong fan of politics and the art of the sound bite. But the more I follow both, I realize that the political media and other observers will often latch on to a sound bite to try to impose a narrative onto a story and to establish a cause and effect when it fact all they are doing is guessing. I think Hillary Clinton’s emotional moment in New Hampshire was a compelling emotional moment. But did it turn the election? I find that a dubious proposition.
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.
