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?
