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.

“Dark Genius” is a new book out about the life and times of Roger Ailes, the longtime GOP political operative and Fox News Channel founder. The book isn’t great, but Ailes life is so fascinating, it almost doesn’t matter. If you are interested in media, politics, and communication, you really can’t go wrong learning more about Roger Ailes. The book earned its place at the pool this summer.

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.

So how did Barack Obama do in his handling of the Rev Wright Fiasco?

I give him an “A” for properly distancing himself from Wright’s past and current statements. I give him a “C” in terms of positioning himself against Wright for the future. And a “D- in terms of his ability to be positive and change the whole terms of the debate. Overall grade for handling this media crisis: “C+”

For starters, Obama did an excellent job of delivering sound bites using excellent emotion and absolutes in denouncing Rev. Wright’s inflammatory comments. Here are the best sound bites Obama said yesterday:

“…when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.”

“His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.”

“And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either.”

“I’ve already denounced the comments…”

“…an exploitation of those old divisions…”

“Reverend Wright does not speak for me. He does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks.”

“…when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am.”

“…it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country.”

“But the insensitivity and the outrageousness, of his statements and his performance in the question-and-answer period yesterday, I think, shocked me. It surprised me.”

“But I feel very strongly that — well, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not subscribe to the views that he expressed. I believe they are wrong. I think they are destructive.”

“…what Reverend Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything that I’ve done during my life.”

“All it was, was a bunch of rants that — that aren’t grounded in truth, and you know, I can’t construct something positive out of that. I can understand it. I, you know, the — you know, people do all sorts of things.”

All in all, these are high quality sound bites, filled with emotion, absolutes, and passion—all of them irresistible to reporters looking for a quote in a story. No fair minded person can seriously conclude that Obama endorses Wright’s world view.
When it comes to separating himself from Wright of the present, I give Obama an A+ for his sound bites.

But, where I fault Obama is not giving stronger and more memorable sound bites to inoculate himself from Wright in the future. I would have urged him to say something like this:

“I pledge to the American people that if I am elected president, I will do everything I can to make sure Rev Wright has no impact on my administration’s policies. I will make sure he never steps foot onto the hallowed grounds of the White House. Furthermore any member of my administration who invites Rev. Wright to the White house or even calls him for advice will be summarily fired.”

That is a sound bite that would be widely quoted and would allay people’s concerns that Wright might have influence in the future.

Finally, I think Obama did a poor job of repositioning the issue to force the media to move beyond it. He should have said something like this:

“I have denounced my supporter, Rev. Wright’s extremist views in the most forceful manner possible, yet my opponent, John McCain, has not had to denounce the bigotry of his supporter, Rev John Hagee’s numerous bigoted remarks, nor has John McCain been asked to denounce his support, Rev. Jerry Falwell’s remarks that America deserved 9-11 because we are pro-choice. Why the double standard? I want the American voters to start demanding that the media end this double standard. Enough is enough.”

A statement like this would have forced the media to go on the defensive, changed the dynamic of the story, and forced Sen. McCain to go on the defensive, plus it would have reframed the entire issue in more neutral terms. It would also give Obama defenders a chance to feel like they are on the moral high ground and to move on the attack against the media and other political opponents.

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.

Click to Watch 

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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-13.wm.v.html

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.

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.

http://www.nypost.com/video/?vxSiteId=0db7b365-a288-4708-857b-8bdb545cbd0f&vxChannel=NY%20Post&vxClipId=1458_227094&vxBitrate=700