Then John McCain is toast and Hillary Clinton may end her campaign sounding churlish, self-centered, and yesterday’s woman.
Speeches are more than the right words on the page. The ability to engage an audience also depends on the oratorical skills of the speaker to deliver those words with a believable and infectious passion. That means how you look, gesture and sound can be just as important as the words you are trying to deliver.
You would think on the day when the Democratic nominee for President was finally settled that the players who all had a significant stake in the occasion would rise to the oratorical challenge.
Not so much in the case of two of them.
Let’s start with Mr. McCain. He seems to have this extraordinary way of delivering a speech that totally obliterates the efficacy of his message. Go take a look at his website where they are playing selected video extracts of the speech he delivered Tuesday night. Regardless of what you might think of the text he was delivering, watching him deliver it leads you to a single conclusion - rhythm is not his forte. He has this rather alarming habit of stopping in mid-sentence (not a speech delivery sin in and of itself since well placed pauses can certainly heighten dramatic affect) and delivering a cross between a grimace and a grin. It gave the strange impression of a walking, talking corpse out of a B horror flick. Then he would punctuate his points by an odd clenching of the fist and a downward motion of the arm, or with both arms with fingers pointing down, totally out of sequence to the delivery of his words. Like a fellow dancing off the beat. The man needs a speech coach and his handlers should sit him down to watch his delivery style.
Incidentally, the reaction of the audience to his speech, with some occasional proforma cheering, could best be described as muted.
In the scheme of things should style over substance be what counts for the job of POTUS? Perhaps not. In terms of electability it does.
In the case of Hillary Clinton, before clearly adoring crowds, she delivered her message with such a sense of entitlement that I am guessing in that moment a whole group of super delegates, who might have otherwise supported her, suddenly had a change of heart. Actually, 28 of them threw their support to Obama the next day. How many of those switched their support on the basis of what they heard her say and the way she said it, we will never know.
It was all so unnecessary. Of the three she can be the most articulate and likely is the most knowledgeable on the issues of the day. It is hard to believe that she could throw it all away by an extraordinary lack of insight into how she comes across in her speaking style. She too needs to watch videos of herself. Her speech of substance on Tuesday was made less so by an annoying “what does Hillary want” sense of self-importance.
In the scheme of things should tone trump substance in such an important race? Probably not, but it probablydoes.
Then there is Senator Obama’s speech. His oratorical skills have been described as a cross between Martin Luther King and John Kennedy. He so clearly has the best stage presence and oratorical skills, that there is just no contest. The audience didn’t care nearly so much about the substance of his message. They wanted to come away with a sense of optimism about their lives and the possibilities for their country. On both counts the Senator delivered. His was a speech they could cheer about. And they did.
In the scheme of things, should stage presence and performance skills be what counts for winning the job. Probably not, but they just might.
It will be very interesting to watch the proposed un-moderated debates between the two men. How fast they can think on their feet, argue and counter argue, and make their points articulately, without a script in front of them, will be very telling. Not to mention exciting. Political junkies the world over will be keeping score.
Next time - a look at the words they delivered on Tuesday.
June 5th, 2008
Comments:4 Comments Category: Essential Speechwriter
[…] Moorhouse analyzes Tuesday night speeches from John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. You would think on the day when the […]
June 6th, 2008 at 11:12 pmYes, this campaign may very well be won by the best speaker, the one who touches the heart, not the head. Obama does that, so did John Edwards. The opponents came off as either shrill, smug, or disconnected to average citizens. In this political climate and national mood, candidates would do well to lay off the cynicism, and start communicating.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:03 am[…] talked about the various styles of the candidates: Obama, Clinton and McCain. After reading his latest post I googled the videos and was struck by the differences in content, delivery style, settings, and TV […]
June 8th, 2008 at 9:59 pmI don’t trust any of them, and that’s mainly just based on their speeches. Neither the ones who are out of rhythm, nor the ones who have ostensibly have rhythm, because it’s too calculated a rhythm. It’s like music: one is just the really bad, choppy, and amateur sound of someone with no musical talent, and the other, while it might sound good to the ear that is desperate for a melody in an age of screeching dischord, is in fact just a copy - a digitial, electronic copy, a sophiscated forgery. Without soul. If I had to chose between the two, just on the basis of their speech, I’d chose the former. The style seems less sinister, though the speaker behind it may be just as bad for the country.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:18 am