Hillary's Speaking Style
I've been asked a lot of question recently about the relative oratorical skills of the presidential candidates (having just written a book on presidents and their speechwriters, I have become something of an expert).
Obama is easy of course: a rare talent, evoking a classic style of political speechgiving for which few contemporary politicians reach. Hillary Clinton is less easy to define. She aims more for a plainspoken wonkiness -- sort of a midwestern political nerd.
My friend and former colleague Anne Kornblut has an interesting piece in today's WashPo, however, that gives us a fine tour of the Mrs. Clinton's speaking style and stump speech.
The story has become a staple of Clinton's stump speech, a prime example of how, in a campaign year in which lofty phrases have taken center stage, she has rejected sweeping oratory -- "just words," as her campaign likes to accuse Democratic rival Barack Obama of offering -- in favor of a dramatic speaking style all her own.In hushed tones, sometimes with palpable sadness in her voice, Clinton tells dark, difficult anecdotes picked up on the campaign trail. They often relate to health matters, culled from her conversations with voters, and are designed to illustrate a policy point.
Presidential candidates across the decades, from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush, have honed the art of picking out stories to bolster a policy position in particularly human terms. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.), who left the Democratic race this year, often cited the stories of people he defended as a trial lawyer.
Personalizing speeches goes further back. During the Second World War, FDR would search for personalized anecdotes to bring the war home to his audiences. When Ike was making a television appearance to discuss the issues of the day he answered letters from average Americans (though, as I recount in White House Ghosts, in at least one case the letter was written by his staff and came from a fictitious housewife). Nixon liked to recall a sign he -- or a campaign staffer -- noticed at a rally on the 1968 campaign trail that asked him to "bring us together." He did bring us together in the end, though perhaps not in the way he intended.
Bill Clinton of course excelled at recalling the stories he heard on the campaign trail. After embracing adoring crowds he would recount to his campaign aides the stories he had heard. Knowing that the president would recall these same stories at upcoming campaign rallies, his staffers would mingle back out among the audience, trying to track down the stories and make sure he had the facts correct (invariably he did).
Mrs. Clinton's style has its drawbacks of course:
For Clinton, the approach seems to bring together her best skills, especially her ability to listen to voters she meets. In speeches that sometimes wear on and sometimes derail into deadening policy, sharing bleak stories can focus the audience's attention.
Alternating deadening boredom with heart-rending sadness? No wonder she's flagging.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Clintons see this as a marketing problem. They keep test-marketing different labels - "new, improved". "Tried and tested". IT'S THE PRODUCT, NOT THE PACKAGING.
She keeps trying different approaches - shrill, warm and friendly, lecturing, scolding, pleading..
We already had an actor president.
She needs to stick with her true self. Too often she tries to be funny (she is not) or to tell someone else's story. Given her, well, outright LIES about her Bosnia trip, anecdotes about so-called-
When she speaks with knowledge and passion, she is really something to behold. You can see it plainly in her face. When she brings out the sarcasm, and the jokes and the "tough talk" and the sillty comparisons to Rocky and Paul Revere, she just comes off as disingenous and a little weird.
You make a good point, kettletop. It is the Peter Principle on a national stage. She should be tucked in an office somewhere thinking up detailed plans. She would irritate the hell out of her office mates, but it would be limited. She should NOT be unleashed on the general public. She does not have the character or authenticity of a great leader. With all the issues we face, we NEED a GREAT LEADER!
She's apparently very, very diffrent in smaller settings. She has her own strong charisma factor.
She really isn't very good at being "mean." You're right. Once in awhile her humor shines through. She was great at the LA debate.
Alternating deadening boredom with heart-rending sadness?
You're correct in your analysis, but you fail to describe what a total turn off it is when, with an arm extended, she makes those jabbing motions with one finger thrust out. Irritating, irritating and irritating.
You would think someone in her campaign could coach her better, but maybe she just doesn't listen or just doesn't get it.
Irritating, irritating and irritating.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. When she speaks it really, truly, IS JUST WORDS.
When with such transparent and manipulative falseness claimed to "find her voice" in New Hampshire she did get my attention. She has trotted out a long, wild parade of voices since then. Yes, I have heard her "sad story" voice, too.
It is as disgusting to me to see her take her crowds as it would be to see gullible tourists taken by a guy running three card monty on the street. She can work 'em, though! When you see people defending her on her Bosnia story in spite of the obvious VIDEO TAPED proof of deception it lets you know some people simply refuse to engage analytical skills. This is the level of intellectual engagement that got us 8 years of GWB.
SamanthaJaneSalem's description of the unattractive aspects of Hillary's public speaking is right on the money. [P]ostdem's, too.
Election Day remains an open question to me, so I'm not subject to the ubiquitous hysterical criticism that my impressions reveal me as a damned Obama-lover, ergo entirely compromised, null and void.
It's indisputably obvious to me, however, that Hillary talks AT people, but Obama talks TO them. And audiences respond accordingly. Furthermore, the style of speech isn't just a random attribute modified by training and experience; it really does reveal the person's character.
Even assuming that Hillary is fully capable, and truly dedicated to serving ordinary citizens rather than catering to the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Alan Greenspan, her "talking-AT" is reminiscent of a high-priced celebrity criminal attorney making a pitch for your business. It's definitely a "top-down", manic tone-- just put me in, coach, I know I can do it! I'll fight for you, work for you, etc. To dust off the old scheme of transactional analysis, it strikes me as an adult/child stance. She and her writers make sure that her words aren't going over anyone's head. Ultimately, she just screams "banal".
Whereas, though I don't find him as mesmerizing as some (many) do, Barack seems to talk TO his audience as no modern US politician does. His stance is adult/adult. It's much more palatable to intelligent, thoughtful listeners. It's bold, and risky-- but that does him credit, IMO.
"Alternating deadening boredom with heart-rending sadness"
True, true. But you forgot to add: "with sleazy, mean-spirited, ad hominem attacks on Barack Obama that seem designed to help John McCain win the general election.
And: "with out-and-out lies about her foreign policy experience like her 'landing under sniper fire' in Bosnia."
Her style is that she has NO STYLE. Or class.
Actually, every time I see her on TV she seems to be yelling or speaking forcefully, in spite of the fact she has a mic . I find it exhausting and have begun to turn the channel immediately as I do w/Bush. I was a Bill supporter and was neutral about Hillary initially, and even admiring at times at the beginning (though supported Edwards). The "Shame on you Barck Obama", ended that and her voice now makes my bones hurt.
To me, she's like......
The author calls it right. She's mid-western wonky.
I like that. But then, I did attend school in the midwest.
It would be unkind and not very useful to criticize Senator Clinton's abrasive yet flat tone and her tendency to raise her voice unnecessarily for emphasis-- I don't like my speaking voice either, and at least she's out there, saying something, and not cowering in the corner.
What's bothersome about Clinton's style of speaking is how it reflects a certain mindset among the wealthy and the powerful: they don't *need* to speak "good." Let the underlings show off their oratorical talents-- *we* have the rich donors, all the right connections. Just go out, give any ol' boring speech, then leave it to Mark Penn to push the masses into your column.
A friend of mine (and Clinton fan) dismissed Obama today as a "motivational speaker." Think about it, though: that's one who *motivates*. Maybe not such a bad thing. And he's been using his ability to communicate to break through the ranks of power (as Bill Clinton did?). He paid off his school debt writing two best-sellers. More impressively, he gave a speech on race which will be read by millions for decades to come.
But let the upstart use words to win people over. Senator Clinton can make a lame comparison of herself to Rocky, tell us we've got to move the country forward into the future, mention the magic words "home foreclosure crisis" and "Joint Chiefs of Staff"-- and oh well it's good enough. Why be a showoff and say something meaningful and original?
I agree with your friend. Obama leaves me cold because he reminds me of a motivational speaker without a real message.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
