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 lloydgarver@gmail.com
Yeah, we GOT it. And it looks pretty desperate and backed into a corner from here!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I could think of a lot of responses to that line....none of them good....so I'll leave it be.
But you haven't have you?