McCain And Clinton To Obama: No More Good Speeches

Finally, John McCain and Hillary Clinton have something in common: They are both against good oratory. In fact, the speeches McCain and Clinton gave after winners and losers were declared last Tuesday were pretty similar. Voters were urged not to trust "eloquent but empty" words by one of them, while the other one said, "We need to make a choice between speeches and solutions,..." I don't remember which one said which, but it doesn't really matter. The point is that both of them warned the country not to trust language that in a previous time would have been called the "silver tongue" or the "fancy speechifying" of Barack Obama. Somehow this year, it has become a bad thing to be able to make good speeches.

Obviously, this is not the first time in American politics that candidates have pandered to voters by seeming to be anti-intellectuals and "just plain folks." Andrew Jackson's campaigns characterized him as a daring adventurer when running against dandies with too much "book learnin'." Adlai Stevenson was derided by his opponents as being too much of an intellectual, or an "egghead." More recently, there was Ronald Reagan who made the statement while running for governor of California that "universities should not subsidize intellectual curiosity." And the books aren't even closed yet on the president who made "nucular" a word and has been anything but an eloquent speaker.

Most American politicians have simply feigned this anti-intellectualism and "aw shucks, I'm just one of you" attitude. The current crop has followed in this tradition. Clinton, Obama, and McCain, schooled at Yale, Harvard, and Annapolis, certainly didn't have an anti-intellectual education. But that doesn't stop them from trying to be "one of us." McCain says "my friends" almost as often as he says, "surge." Clinton and Obama are capable of turning on and off accents and dialects depending upon the group they're speaking to. But I've never heard a candidate criticized before just because he's good with words.

I'm not a fan of demagoguery, but I don't think that's what's going on here. Obama's opponents may say that's the case, but in their doing so, they're using their own brand of demagoguery. I don't remember Senator Clinton criticizing Barack Obama as using empty words back when he made his famous convention speech. She seemed just as excited by his speech as the rest of the Democratic Party.

McCain and Clinton really seem to be trying to convince America that Obama should not be trusted because he is a captivating speaker. One of the strangest aspects of criticizing Obama like this is that it's acknowledging that he's a better speaker, a better communicator than they are. Since so much of running for president is making speeches, is it really a good idea to admit that your opponent is better at it than you? Would any of them admit that the other one was better at kissing babies?

What's really annoying is the condescension that this criticism of Obama reveals. It's as if they're saying that we Americans, we potential voters can't tell what is meaningful language and what is not. If it weren't for our good buddies, Obama's opponents, we might be taken in by all his fancy language. I'm not just engaging in my own demagoguery when I say that I have a lot more faith in the American people than that. I think we know when someone is just trying to manipulate us by his or her language -- and that's exactly what Obama's opponents are trying to do.

Don't get me wrong. Everyone running for high political office speaks largely in platitudes. We always have to listen with an appropriate amount of cynicism. But I like listening to someone who can speak in sentences of more than three words. I don't think there's anything wrong with inspirational, motivational oratory. It wouldn't be the end of our country if we had a leader who spoke using proper English. It's about time for that, ain't it?

Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Home Improvement" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover. Check out his website at lloydgarver.com and he can be reached at [e-mail]

Comments

[efranklin]

Clinton's tired and endless attacks on Obama's speeches are absurd and wholly unconvincing. First of all, a speech in front of 20000+ voters is for the sole purpose of inspiring, energizing, and uplifting. If folks wanted the details of Obama's policy proposals, they can go to his website and they are all there in plain view. Hillary's endless mantra on the speeches issue really comes across as the self-pitying cries of someone that has thought they were entitled to the presidency for the last 16 years.

[cerebralbutdull]

I guess Mr. Garver is part of the media and doesn't 'get it' either. The problem is that Tim Russert and Chris Matthews and the rest of the the media, who savage every guest (as is their job) trying to get catch them in a contradiction, consistently let Obama just 'bless us' with a speech. Never challenging him in the smallest way. Never making it awkward for him. Never testing his mettle. Leaving us NOTHING BUT empty words. Matthews' eyes aren't even dry for gosh sakes! Whether it's infatuation or fear of being called racist, there isn't one media figure who will properly interview Obama. Get it yet?

[DemandTruth]

Okay, show me the "proper interview" of Clinton - the one you'd like to see applied to Obama. I guess you missed the Chris Matthews smackdown of the Obama representative who was unprepared for that interview. Or maybe you just dismissed it because it doesn't fit your desperate theme.

Yeah, we GOT it. And it looks pretty desperate and backed into a corner from here!

[cerebralbutdull]

First, with the exception of Romney, there's nobody in either party who I'd not vote for over Hillary. Second, smacking down an aide is not grilling Obama himself to see if he flusters. Third, I was enthusiastic about Obama before most even heard of him. But I want to see how he performs when faced with the same pressure everyone else gets instead of being protected from it as the annointed one. Until then I will not surrender to the cult of personality, I will not drink the koolaid.

[zebra3]

Amen!

[Leebot]

I certainly agree that candidates and their words should be examined critically; there is no excuse for the Couch Potato method of candidate selection (substituting sound bites for critical thought and research). But Hillary is mistaken when she tries to foist upon us her condescending and flawed premise that suggests rhetorical skill and charismatic personality are incompatible with other leadership skills. For one thing, it discounts how Obama expresses himself in his books (the first written in the mid-90's before he was elected to public office), and how he speaks in unrehearsed, extemporaneous situations. Those of us who have read his books and have watched him in lengthy town hall style meetings on cable or public television have no doubt that the man is intelligent and articulate, unlike the unfortunate Mr. Bush when he belly-flops into off-script mode.

Secondly, when Hillary dismisses Obama's strengths, she paints herself into a rather awkward corner by undermining any comparable strengths she may have.

I think both candidates are very bright, articulate and accomplished and they both have strengths and weaknesses. I can't imagine either of them having a "my pet goat" moment. But no one has a crystal ball, so I'm not terribly impressed with "predictions" about how one or the other will fare in office, particularly since that equation will include variables beyond either candidate's control. I certainly am not about to substitute the judgment of some stranger for my own, so I'm not sure what value there is in readers posting nasty and demeaning comments to each other on these boards. The best we can do is make a good-faith effort to research the candidates, evaluate each candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and make our choice based on what qualities we personally look for in a leader.

[generationyes]

This is one of the smartest responses I've seen on these boards in a long time. Thanks.

[Fuzzback]

"Empty words," huh?
Those "empty words" have created the most powerful campaign in history.
They've revolutionized modern campaign financing, and are now actually steering the narrative of both Clinton's and McCain's campaigns.
With those "empty words" Senator Obama has already changed the way campaigns have traditionally been run and financed. In fact, he's created something larger than a "campaign" - he's created a movement.
He'll do same as president. He WILL change Washington.
Clinton and McCain know that, and that's why they're so desperate to stop him.

[jrockbg]

This is all simple. The biggest turnoff for the American electorate is the immensely divisive politics being played by both political sides today. Obama and McCain represent a move away from those divisive politics. McCain showed his separation from divisive politics by snubbing members of his own party. Obama did so by eloquently speaking about a change from usual Washington politics. But none of this changes the fact that McCain has trouble with the base of his party, and Obama is still inexperienced(even tho representing "change") and has yet to detail exactly how he plans to implement this "Change" movement.

[myskylark]

There's nohing wrong with inspiring oratory, but in Obama's case it's just too much of a good thing. At some point the candidate has to present more than an inspiring mix of catch phrases and slogans. At some point the candidate has to give a better blueprint of what he means by "change" and "unity" and "new politics."
Where is his real definition of change? How does he hope to accomplish unity with congresspeople or foreign leaders diametrically opposed to his core beliefs (if he has any?)

I refer you to Robert Samuelson's article this week. So much of Obama's promises are impossible to keep. So are many of Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's. The difference between them and Obama is that Obama has crowned himself with a halo of goodness verging on saintliness. That is truly reprehensible. A lot of people will be pretty disillusioned when it's finally revealed that the halo is just a cheap tin imitation. Of course, there's a chance they may never be able to face that truth,because the belief of so many of his supporters comes from religious zeal not likely to be subjected to critical analysis.

I find that worrisome.

[ATLiberal]

Repeat the talking points, over and over and over. Maybe they will work this time.

First of all, I watch them both on the stump and she doesn't offer any real policy detaila any more than he does. Do you really think a candidate is going to put people to sleep droning on about the details of their 10 point plans for 45 minutes?? Of course not. Neither one will.

So, that leaves us with debates, of which there have been 18, with 2 more forthcoming. Secondly, both have websites and both have policy plans on their website. Feel free to check them out. I have. But, please, just repeating what comes out of HRCs mouth doesn't really fly.

[grendl]

Does Hillary Clinton hold the same view of Martin Luther King Jrs " I have a dream speech"?

She seems to think speeches should entail intricate policy details, or at least seems to be insinuating that. Well, Hillary you try to keep an arena of twenty thousand people captivated with the minutaie of your universal health care plan, or your time table for withdrawal from Iraq and see how that goes.

We want to hear platitudes sometimes. We want to hear talk of hope, and a better future and don't need you googling those terms to see who used them before. I don't even care if Barack Obama tells us he has a dream, I'll believe him if he does. ( anyone can dream )

It's getting late in the game, and your desperation is showing Ms. Clinton. You're like Tracy Flick in " Election ", hell bent on winning the nomination at all costs, even if it means besmirching this eloquent orator, Mr. Obama. He obviously is saying things which connect with the electorate, why not acknowledge and applaud such insight, rather than characterize it as moke and mirrors meant to trick us into voting for him.

It's becoming, Ms. Clinton. But entertaining nonetheless.

[FreedomLoverX]

Not only does he give a good speech, but if you look at his senate record as compared to Hillary or McCain, you will see he really shines. Not just best oratory, but most substance.

[iswearington]

i know not what course others will take...but as for me...give me obama or give me death!

but in a larger sense...we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground..for the brave man who struggles here...barack obama...consecrates it...far above our poor power to add or detract.

he hath brought home to washington...many delegates...whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. but hillary says he was ambitious...and hillary is an honorable woman. when the poor hath cried..obama has wept. ambition should be made of sterner stuff.

but soft...what candidate through yon window peeks. it is hillary...but obama is the sun. her vestal livery is old and tired...and none but fools do wear it...so cast it off...for it is obama..he is my prez

[KDH]

"give me obama or give me death!"

I could think of a lot of responses to that line....none of them good....so I'll leave it be.

[Eoin45]

"I could think of a lot of responses to that line"
But you haven't have you?