Election News and Features
Can Obama Find the Right Words?
by
findingDulcinea Staff
Obama’s stump speeches have been judged inspirational; but not by everyone. To some the best oratory the primaries offer merely confirms that the days of great political speeches are over.
30-Second Summary
A reporter for the U.K. Daily Telegraph, Andrew Grimson, attended an Obama campaign rally in Jersey City and wrote that the Illinois senator “is a speaker of genius.” Grimson is far from alone in holding that opinion.
But there are objections to the Obama style as well. One was touched on when Sen. Hillary Clinton borrowed the line "you campaign in poetry; you govern in prose." Is there any substance behind Obama’s fine words?
Then again, to some commentators even the fine words appear absent. It was Obama who, after his Iowa victory, put the word “change” on every candidate’s lips. Timothy Noah of the Los Angeles Times sounded a note heard all over the country when he wrote that “the mere promise of some undefined ‘change’ seems a weak basis for choosing the most powerful officeholder in the land.”
Perhaps, if the speeches are limp, the fault is with the people who report on them. According to media analyst group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, “Behaving so much like drama critics who must keep evaluating on-stage performances, most political journalists have become accustomed to looking for—and, in fact, largely concocting—simplistic storylines.”
At the other end of the telescope, today’s public is wary of high-flown rhetoric. "Don't let anybody call you an orator," writes Peter Applebome in The New York Times. Quoting Mario M. Cuomo, Applebome writes, "No dictionary would define that word without some suggestion of pomposity."
In the end, winning voters’ hearts with elegant phrases could prove a curse. “After all, if you succeed in raising hopes with the promise of change you will pay a big price if you can’t deliver it,” concludes Applebome.
But there are objections to the Obama style as well. One was touched on when Sen. Hillary Clinton borrowed the line "you campaign in poetry; you govern in prose." Is there any substance behind Obama’s fine words?
Then again, to some commentators even the fine words appear absent. It was Obama who, after his Iowa victory, put the word “change” on every candidate’s lips. Timothy Noah of the Los Angeles Times sounded a note heard all over the country when he wrote that “the mere promise of some undefined ‘change’ seems a weak basis for choosing the most powerful officeholder in the land.”
Perhaps, if the speeches are limp, the fault is with the people who report on them. According to media analyst group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, “Behaving so much like drama critics who must keep evaluating on-stage performances, most political journalists have become accustomed to looking for—and, in fact, largely concocting—simplistic storylines.”
At the other end of the telescope, today’s public is wary of high-flown rhetoric. "Don't let anybody call you an orator," writes Peter Applebome in The New York Times. Quoting Mario M. Cuomo, Applebome writes, "No dictionary would define that word without some suggestion of pomposity."
In the end, winning voters’ hearts with elegant phrases could prove a curse. “After all, if you succeed in raising hopes with the promise of change you will pay a big price if you can’t deliver it,” concludes Applebome.
Headline Links: ‘The Road to the White House: Can Anyone in 2008 Leave Us Speechless’
Mackenzie Carpenter of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wonders what presidential rhetoric means in the current political landscape. Her article, poses two questions: “Is Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, whose own artful, powerful speeches thrilled audiences … making great oratory politically fashionable again?” and if he is “does it matter?”
Source: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Historical Context: Speeches that have moved America
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is considered one of the great moments in American history. In his commemorative address to the divided, bloodied nation, Lincoln drew from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to insist upon the need for human rights. An overview of the address and its historical implications can be found at findingDulcinea’s “On this Day: President Lincoln Delivers Gettysburg Address.”
Source: findingDulcinea.com
On March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered his famous inaugural address, in which he spoke these famous words: “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.” Listen to this speech (or read the transcript) along with others, like Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech and JFK’s inaugural address at American Rhetoric.
Source: AmericanRhetoric.com
Complete records of historic presidential speeches are available at PresidentialRhetoric.com. Famous speeches delivered by each president are presented in chronological order and include inaugural addresses, State of the Union speeches, war messages and other important speeches.
Source: PresidentialRhetoric.com
Background: Words from the campaign trail
Andrew Sullivan, author of political blog “The Daily Dish,” has compiled quotations and notable moments from Obama’s campaign. Of Obama’s speeches Sullivan writes, “They are, in my opinion, the finest campaign speeches since Reagan and, before him, Kennedy. Even when I find myself in disagreement—I am more conservative than he is on economics and the role of government—I have found his oratory to be peerless, and the steadiness of his character remarkable.”
Source: The Daily Dish
The New York Times blog “The Caucus” posts candidates’ victory speeches after each primary or caucus.
Source: The New York Times
Opinion & Analysis: Oratorical Obama
British columnist Andres Gimson witnessed Obama’s speechmaking at a rally in Jersey City, and interpreted his words as a true reflection of American patriotism. According to Gimson, Obama’s oratory is his major (indeed only) real asset. He writes, “Mr Obama's oratory is the deciding factor: his candidacy will live or die by it. Mrs Clinton has a machine, but Mr Obama only has a voice. And yet, in the case of American ideology, a voice may be the most valuable asset."
Source: The Daily Telegraph
New York Times writer Peter Applebome addresses the potential divide between magnificent speeches and good governance, writing, “If Mr. Obama’s rise has shown the power of effective political speech, it has also shown how much the form continues to evolve and how tantalizingly imprecise the link remains between a great political speech and a great political career.” Indeed, he argues, “For all the hoopla about Mr. Obama’s speech, traditional political rhetoric is a declining art. In the 1950s and 1960s, presidential candidates were still selling themselves in five-minute speeches as campaign ads. Now their speeches are mostly ways to highlight the 15-second sound bite.”
Source: The New York Times
John Vinocur at the International Herald Tribune points to numerous discrepancies between Obama’s policies and the rhetoric he employs to appeal to the electorate. According to Vinocur, “The problem here is in reconciling what look like Obama's basic convictions on how American attitudes towards the world must be firm and constant, and what Obama seems to think is a winning campaign approach that casts him as the unifying antithesis of a confrontational president.“ Ultimately, Vincour argues, it doesn’t matter how much conviction Obama displays if his message is not consistent with his politics. He writes, “From an American presidential candidate trying to personify a new kind of hope (while holding tight to the American say in the world constituency's affairs), the least it asks for are palpable signs of consistency and realism.”
Source: The International Herald Tribune
Timothy Noah at The Los Angeles Times explores the recent trend in campaign rhetoric: “Barack Obama's endless repetition of the word [change] won him the Iowa caucuses, prompting other Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to make it their mantra too.” According to Noah, candidates clung to the “nebulous” concept of change because of its potentially broad appeal—especially important since Independent voters will play a vital role in this election." But, Noah argues, “The mere promise of some undefined ‘change’ seems a weak basis for choosing the most powerful officeholder in the land. Our political rhetoric, I submit, needs to, er, become different.”
Source: Los Angeles Times
Related Links: The risk of rhetoric today
According to an article published in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the media significantly alters the way candidates’ portray themselves through rhetoric and campaign style. It states, "There is often a remarkable eagerness for the media to winnow the field well before voters have actually done so.” The article examines how journalists cling to style and performance to pick out moments that may come to represent a candidate. According to the article, the ramifications of such empty critiques can—and have—devastated American politics. It concludes, “Yes, the rhetorical flourishes and sound-bite moments can be exciting and captivating. But we’ve seen what happens to a government when it’s run by people with stirring rhetoric that is often disconnected from human realities.”
Source: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2012 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
