Speechwriters Unite?

After listening to Barack Obama's victory speech in North Carolina and Hillary Clinton's victory speech in Indiana, I am wondering if their speech writers got together and decided to use the same speech outline for them both, with personal details inserted when necessary.

While Hillary accepted victory gracefully and avoided sounding angry, condescending, or scolding, the speech content, itself, was awkward and confusing. Those who listen will inevitably search for clues about Ms. Clinton's outlook for the future of her campaign. Good luck. The tone changes with practically every sentence. Initially, Hillary is enthusiastic about her win in Indiana and ready to head "full speed" to the White House. Minutes later, she looks back reminiscently about the fun she's had on the campaign trail. (Note the past tense.) The speech fluctuates in this way throughout, hitting her key points with a somewhat less aggressive tone than she's had in the past, but still managing to squeeze in a few shots at Obama. However, she also mentions that she'd support whoever the Democratic candidate is in November.

Surprisingly, Barack Obama's speech seems to follow the same roadmap. Both candidates congratulate the other on their respective primary wins, mention the need to change the Washington status quo, and share the personal narrative that has led them to pursue the nation's highest office.

Since the content is essentially the same, the only aspect left to critique is delivery. This was one of the better speeches Hillary has delivered. She seemed relaxed, comfortable, and confident. Her tone in this speech should have come out long ago. A female leader will often be thought of in mothering light, and this tone reflected her loving, caring side, rather than the scolding, tough side that conjures up connotations of being punished for leaving toys out on the floor. The voice she used in this speech was reminiscent of being tucked into bed with a bedtime story. It was comforting. Perhaps if voters had seen this side earlier, the results might have been different.

Obama's victory speech offered an entirely different speaking style, despite following along the same contextual lines. While Hillary was comforting, soothing her audience in their time of stress and trouble, Barack was passionate and enthusiastic, inspiring his audience to change the circumstances that have created their trouble. Two very different styles with two very different results. Perhaps this is why Obama is attracting so many young voters. With new-found independence and confidence in their future, young voters are not looking to be comforted anymore, nor do they appreciate being scolded. They want to be trusted to make important decisions and feel needed and important; Barack Obama tosses them the keys to the car and tells them, "Yes. You Can."

If nothing else, the similarity of speech content draws a clearer distinction between the speaking styles of Hillary and Barack. But I am still left wondering...Did Howard Dean pull their speechwriters into a back room and suggest that in order to unite the Democratic party, the speechwriters must also unite?

All you gotta do is...talk naturally

When I listen to most political speeches, I wonder who their speechwriter is. I try to decipher their key talking points. Sometimes I try to catch a glimpse of the real person beneath their rhetoric.

But when Barack Obama speaks, I don't have to work as hard. He comes across as natural. Honest. Charismatic, but without effort or force. Even following his most difficult debate battle this campaign season, this man has grace under fire. And he just picked up a couple more cool points with the younger generation with his "get that dirt off your shoulder" dance move.

Obama on Race & Politics

Barack Obama's speech about race, in response to comments made by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and Hillary's Clinton's staff member, Geraldine Ferraro, was needed if only to show Americans the character of the man they may elect in November. Unlike others in the media, I hesitate to call this speech "historic." The speech itself will not change how many think about race or how the media report about it. But it draws a stark contrast between Barack Obama and other politicians in regards to how they respond to criticism and attacks. While others will strike back or immediately denounce lifelong friends based on a few comments made, Barack again showed his better judgment and ability to forgive people for their faults and accept them as friends despite their failings. Apparently what he learned in church went beyond Wright's animosity toward those who persecuted African Americans. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Beyond the content of the speech that shows Obama's ability to rise above the mud-slinging of Washington, he delivers it in such a way that you feel as if you're sitting with him in your living room having a discussion. An intelligent discussion. Perhaps it will be his ability to seem approachable that will appeal to voters. After all, many said they voted for Bush because he seemed like a "guy they could have a beer with." But after the beer is gone, it's nice to know that Obama won't denounce you the following day for getting on stage and singing kareoke.

Think Before You Speak

"Shame on You, Barack Obama," said Hillary Clinton. "Meet me in Ohio" for a "debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign." Shortly after, Joe Voter got up from his couch and decided to switch his support from Obama to Clinton because her uplifting message called to him.

Did Hillary really think that was how this scenario would occur? Really?

Rather than convincing voters to support her, Clinton's scolding just reminded them of the characteristics they dislike about her. Is that the type of leader you'd want for the next four years?

Hillary reminds me of the underdog kid in a school-yard brawl. She's thrown the rules and her reputation out the window and has reduced the contest to pulling hair and hitting below the belt.

Nader Needs Attention

Please cue collective sigh of the Democratic party. Ralph Nader has entered the Presidential race. Again. Nader officially announced his candidacy on Meet the Press on Sunday, saying the current Presidential options weren't talking about the important issues, mainly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, single-payer heath insurance, and impeaching Bush and Cheney. This is the same man who in 2000, said there were no meaningful differences between Bush and Gore. This is also the same man who got 2.7% of the vote in Florida in 2000. If his votes had gone to Gore, as many suggest they would have, Al Gore would have carried Florida and won the national election. However, rather than looking back at the mistakes of the past, we'll look instead at Nader's rhetoric of today.



During the interview, Nader sounded less concerned about consumer interests (his trademark issue) and more concerned about getting himself in the spotlight and having some extra media attention. His repeated plugs of his website throughout the interview and his own admittance that the Democrats should have no problem winning the election suggested that Nader's appearance on the scene is more about putting himself in the limelight yet again.

Nader even says that "I would prefer that the American people organize and whoever is President is President. And they give that President backbone." This is an interesting statement from one of Bush's harshest critics. The Bush Administration has used this argument repeatedly--insisting that patriotic Americans support their President no matter what. I think the American people are too smart to be fooled by this rhetoric again. Our nation is founded on the concept of questioning our leaders. The United States itself would not exist if citizens hadn't decided to question the rule of England and demand a better system of governance.

With so much at stake and with good alternatives available, even former supporters are asking, "Why now, Nader?"

Oratorical Perfection: Barack Obama

I hesitated in blogging about Obama’s speeches, because as a self-proclaimed “speech critic,” he is above critique. His Democratic National Convention speech in 2004 is oratorical brilliance. Perfectly written, perfectly delivered.

Obama has often been criticized by his opponents as someone who speaks well but doesn’t take action. However, that minimizes the importance of rhetorical capabilities to ignite action and spur support through words alone. Speaking out IS action, in and of itself. Martin Luther King, Jr. is an example of what can be accomplished through words, delivered well and at the right time. While campaigning, Hillary Clinton suggested that while MLK Jr was a brilliant speaker, it took Lyndon Johnson to effect change. However, would LBJ have pushed for change if MLK hadn’t spurred the movement? If MLK, Jr. hadn’t been so persuasive and inspiring, would the movement have risen to the attention of the President and aroused such a fury of support that action was demanded?

Obama has the rhetorical ability to effect change, too. I am so grateful that someone with such persuasive speaking abilities is inspiring action that I want to be a part of.

Many members of the media have compared Obama’s speaking ability to others who have rallied crowds and supporters, even including Hitler. The comparison stands that both are/were skilled at delivering speeches. However, the distinguishing features between the two are vast. We are lucky, as a nation, to have a leader who is able to inspire action for the greater good. With the turmoil we are experiencing now, the atmosphere is such that any leader with a vision and skill at delivering it would be welcomed, much as Hitler was welcomed by Germany when they were undergoing a state of national crisis. However, it is our good fortune that the leader that has arisen out of today’s chaos is not merely a persuasive speaker, but one repeatedly described by even his opposition as likeable, nice, and hopeful for a brighter future. And his vision for the future is one that unites not just red and blue states, but would improve our relations with other countries, as well.

In speeches, as in life, timing is everything. Barack Obama’s time is now.

State of Irrelevancy

President Bush's State of the Union speech seemed to be nothing more than an attempt by the President to prove that he is not as irrelevant and powerless as the world collectively agrees he is. Repeated threats to veto various bills, including any that raise taxes by even the slightest margin (despite the fact that the U.S. is in tremendous debt), did not improve perceptions of a President well-known for refusing to admit mistakes.

If anything, the State of the Union displayed the persistent denial of the President. By painting sunny pictures of circumstances that are undeserving of such rosy portrails, the President showed just how out-of-touch he is with the "state of the union." By declaring that No Child Left Behind is a success, everything is going great in Iraq, and our economy will be just fine, Bush displayed just how irrelevant, and possibly ignorant, he has become.

Rhetoric or Reality

Hillary Clinton's performance on Meet the Press today left something to be desired. Authenticity? Honesty? Polished rhetorical skills? I would venture to say all of the above. Confronting Tim Russert's quotations from your past is admittedly a difficult task, particularly when running for President and attempting to appeal to all variations of red, white, and blue. However, some are able to do this with skill, grace and class. In this performance on Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton seemed to lack these traits. With every quote displayed on the screen, Hillary countered with an attack on Obama. Rather than explain her positions or the thought-process that caused her to vote for the war, Hillary resorted to belittling Obama's forethought in denouncing the war, even when doing so was unpopular in Washington and throughout the U.S. She described this as speaking out with no action to follow through. However, she has missed the point that speaking out itself is action, particularly when speaking out means going against the powers that be and the authority figures that are saying otherwise. Clinton coupled this attack on the persuasive speaking abilities of Obama by also insinuating that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., while having brilliant rhetorical skills, needed a white President to create action and real change.

Clinton is fighting a losing battle by attacking Obama on his skillful speaking style and ability to inspire hope in millions of Americans who are losing it each day as they see the America they love spiraling downward. She would do better to develop her own inspirational message, as her husband Bill did when he ran for President, than to diminish the value of the hope instilled by her competitors.

Hillary also needs to consider the non-verbal messages she's sending while she's lashing out against other members of her party. Clinton spent most of the interview glancing down nervously, leaving viewers wondering why she felt compelled to do so. Is she looking at notes? No, she glances down too frequently for that. Is it a twitch she developed when lying? The inability to make eye contact is a sign of dishonesty. Is that the message she wants to be sending to voters? Or does Russert's presence make her that nervous? Is she trying to glance at Tim's notes to prepare herself mentally for the next question? These are the questions that Hillary should not want viewers contemplating while she's speaking.

My advice for Hillary: Avoid attacking other democrats, particularly those who are inspiring many to vote, some for the first time. The democrats will need everyone they can rally at the polls when the final voting day comes. You do not want to make any voting populace feel marginalized or disillusioned through the election process.

Also, try to develop your own positive, inspirational message. While Republicans may respond to fear and attack, most democrats, particularly at this point in time, want to hear that things will get better. Steer clear of running others down and try to find a way to build America up.

Finally, work on the non-verbal messages you're sending to voters. Make consistent eye contact with your interviewer or the camera. Show authenticity. Let Americans see that there is a real person underneath all the political jargon.