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.