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.

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.”

In fact, both the Clinton and Obama camps are right. Click here to read the full article.

Honestly folks, I’m really not judging politics here. I am simply attempting to look at how the authenticity levels of candidates are affecting their public speaking effectiveness. Here’s how I rate the top remaining candidates.

1-10 scale

10 equals perfect authenticity

1 equals phony baloney

Republicans

John McCain. Rating 9. McCain is an inconsistent speaker (his victory speech after the New Hampshire Primary was awful), but he does ooze authenticity. He’s not afraid to say unpopular things; in fact he enjoys doing so. His “let the chips fall where they may” attitude doesn’t help him in front of every crowd or on every issue, but over the long haul, it does cement his image of authenticity.

Mitt Romney. Rating 1. Romney has superb public speaking skills, but he comes across as extraordinarily inauthentic. Romney is obviously highly educated, extremely intelligent, very rational, and a huge talent. But he’s been a moderate/libertarian/liberal his whole life. When Romney speaks, you can almost see a thought bubble over his head that reads “I must tell these rubes this idiotic BS, because that’s what the polls say is popular. Once I get elected I can do what I want.” And now when voters watch him mouthing platitudes that he obviously doesn’t believe in, it’s comical. It’s like watching a public service announcement on TV starring Wink Martindale, the game show host (and Romney look-alike) warning kids about the dangers of watching too many TV game shows. It’s laughably un-credible.

Mike Huckabee. Rating 10. Wow, with Huckabee I get the feeling he could get elected as a member of parliament in Japan—without changing any of his positions. You don’t ever get the sense that Huckabee has any doubts when expressing his beliefs and positions.

Rudy Giuliani. Rating 2. Giuliani looks and sounds phony pretending to be a gun-toting, NASCAR loving, Rush Limbaugh fan. Giuliani is authentic when he talks about 9-11, but when he tries to worship at the alter of Ronald Reagan and pretend to be a conservative, the former mayor becomes a joke. Giuliani’s contempt for traditional values and the 2nd amendment are only surpassed by his love of homosexual cohabitation and cross dressing. Giuliani fighting to be the standard-bearer of the Right as the credibility of jess Jackson running to Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Democrats

John Edwards Rating 2. In 2004, the 50-year old Edwards ran for president as a conservative-centrist North Carolina Democrat. In 2008 he is a Huey-long, left-wing populist. Huh? Edwards takes a lot of flack in the media for fancy haircuts and his mansions because he seems so inauthentic. For goodness sakes, Edwards made nearly half a million dollars last year doing part time work at a hedge fund. Edwards would seem much more authentic if he just smiled and said “It’s great to be rich. I love money!”

Barack Obama. Rating 9. Like McCain, Obama has written a universally acclaimed autobiography. He has been candid about past traumas and drug use. It doesn’t seem to twist and turn with new positions on the campaign trail.

Hillary Clinton. Rating 9. I know I’m going to receive hate mail for this one. But I simply don’t think that the average voter who hasn’t been caught up in the Hillary Hating Media Industrial complex has negative views about Clinton’s levels of authenticity. Clinton is basically a very hard-working, centrist policy wonk. That’s how she talks and it appears to be consistent with who she really is.

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.

Clinton. On what she’d like to take back from debate. not buch.

Richardson was candid on wizzer white pick as favorite Supreme Court judge.

Edwards. Funny and self-effacing about hilliary’s jacket.

Obama. fine close.

Richardson. Spoke well on Carbon tax.

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.