Do words still matter in Presidential campaigns?
02.06.08
by: Nathan James

It’s Super Wednesday, or whatever you call the day after Super Tuesday. (This year, it’s also called Ash Wednesday.) I’d intended to write this entry before Tuesday, because there was the risk that yesterday’s voting results would be decisive for one or both parties, and prediction is more interesting than post-mortem. But vocation trumps avocation in my schedule, so here we are, the morning after.

Anyway, this column isn’t really about who will win the Presidency – at least not directly. Rather, as a communicator, I’m interested in what the candidates are saying, how they’re saying it, and most importantly, whether and how they are connecting with voters. So let’s take the remaining Top Five in turn (apologies to Ron Paul stalwarts), and see if we can arrive at any meaningful conclusions and predictions. Democrats, as the less settled contest, get to go first.


Hillary Clinton
Hill lovers have been consternated for months that their candidate’s warmth and charm in private settings did not carry over to the large arenas of presidential campaigning. Then came her famous breakthrough: her shed tear in New Hampshire, in response to a question about how she can keep pressing on through the rigors of a campaign. It’s odd that a woman of such intelligence can be so emotionally tone deaf to her own public persona, but her win in New Hampshire appeared to teach her a lesson: just because she’s a woman running for president, does not mean she has to be a robotic policy wonk. She learned she can be a real person.

Since then, Hillary’s large-crowd campaign performances have improved considerably. She still has a tendency to nearly shout in large arenas, and, worse, to do so in an irritating monotone. She also suffers from run-on-detailed-policy-promises-that-end-in-a-promise-of-victory-over-the-Repulicans-in-November, that try her audience’s patience in waiting to applaud. But, she has successfully stolen many of Obama’s themes, and most importantly, she says the word ‘I’ a lot less frequently, and the word ‘you’ a lot more often. Her responses are almost always coherent and well organized, and when she ducks a question, she usually states why her answer is more important than the one requested – so at least she’s transparent about ducking.

In sum: Ignoring that she’s up against one of the Great Orators for her party’s nomination, Hillary’s oratorical skills are probably a slight asset in her quest for the presidency. This assumes she can keep her husband’s tongue on a short leash, since as South Carolina showed, his verbal blunders can cost her votes.


Barak Obama
It’s no coincidence that Obama’s main speechwriter has collaborated on a book for six years with Ted Sorensen, who was JFK’s main speechwriter. Those faint evocations of Camelot are intentional, as is the phrasing reminiscent of Martin Luther King. Obama’s content is as hopeful as any Presidential candidate’s since Reagan. (Sorry, Mr. Clinton – you were oratorically amazing without being inspiring.) And to top it off, Obama delivers his inspiring message in a smooth jazz mellow baritone, as reassuring as a bedtime story read by your father.

So what’s his weakness? He’s less clear and certain in debate responses than Hillary, and he earns the frequent chiding for not being specific enough. On the other hand, given the relatively minor policy differences between these two candidates, why should he stand on the ground where Hillary is strongest?

In sum: The best part of an Obama presidency would be listening to him for four years. The question is whether he can achieve the bipartisan breakthrough he promises. If so, he would rank not only as a Great One for oratory, but also for leadership. Will he get his chance to prove it?

Okay, now over to the Elephants, where the race to nomination is clearer, though some mud still flies. (Listed by order of the most delegates currently pledged.)


John McCain
This man is a fascinating rhetorical study, deserving of a PhD dissertation. It’s as if his principles and honor are hard wired on the path from his brain to his mouth, so you know instantly whether he really believes what he is saying. The “true” John McCain – Republican moderate and occasional maverick, morally confident, intellectually curious, and willing to forget party orthodoxy if it stands in the way of improving his beloved America – makes for an interesting listen: occasionally funny, most often good-natured, with an occasional lecture thrown in when he touches on one of his hot spots.

But the true McCain is not the one campaigning now, as he seeks to fend off Romney’s (and Rush Limbaugh’s and James Dobson’s) attacks that he is not a ‘true conservative.’ The McCain who is campaigning now is dull, repetitive, and so dutiful to his ‘true conservative’ script that, while watching him, you can actually see his superego beating the smithereens out of his id. (That is, if ‘true conservatives’ can allow themselves to believe in Freud.)

It’s a sad thing that the more radical elements of both parties control the nominating process, and for McCain’s sake, I can only hope that after emerging with the nomination, he assigns the burden of the ‘true conservative’ mantle to his VP pick (Mac & Huck? - sounds like comfort food served in a log cabin), ands resumes his true, moderate persona.

In sum: If you want a shot at not just the nomination but the Presidency, Mac, you’re going to have to get real.


Mitt Romney
Much as he would despise the comparison, Mitt is the Republican version of Hillary. It’s not meant completely as a criticism: he’s verbally facile, smart, and knows his facts, even if he sometimes intentionally distorts or misrepresents them. He, like she, can be emotionally tone deaf. Like Hillary, he tends to lapse into policy wonkism, boring his audience. But Mitt’s oratory has improved less than Hillary’s. And unfortunately for Mr. Romney, his weak points as a communicator don’t end with those he shares with Hill.

Like McCain, Romney has recast his moderate Republican record of the past into a claim of staunch Regan conservatism, trying to outflank Mac on the right as GWB did in 2000. In truth, Romney’s claim to being a ‘true conservative’ is just as weak as McCain’s. But his – well, ‘migration’ is the pleasant term – on the issues, as he speaks it, is flatly not credible. He comes off as a slick lawyer – interesting, since he isn’t a lawyer – reminding me of Hill’s hubby saying under oath, “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” He fails miserably the test of trust. Too bad – he looks so Presidential.

In sum: Mitt claims he’s taking this fight all the way to the Republican national convention, and if you believe that, he has some swampland in Utah you may be interested in buying.


Mike Huckabee
Here’s a guy who began his career in broadcasting when he was, like, 15 months old. He has a self-deprecating sense of humor that occasionally skews toward corn (thus success in Iowa?), and every so often brushes up against outhouse raunchiness – surprising and embarrassing for a Presidential candidate. Of all the candidates in either party, he is by far the best at immediately understanding the human element of any debate question, and rendering a real, believable, even eloquent response. In fact, this campaign’s heavy debate schedule has benefited Huck more than any other candidate.

But quick wit (“Jesus was much too smart to ever run for political office”) can only take you so far, when you have little money and even less political organization. We all tend to over-rely on our strengths, and it appears Huckabee has relied too much on “earned” media, such as appearances on Letterman and Leno, and not enough on fundraising.

Having won five states on Super Tuesday, but having even less of a mathematical chance than Romney of gaining enough delegates for the nomination, many believe that Huck is staying in the race to act as a spoiler to Romney, thus earning McCain’s gratitude and perhaps a VP slot on his ticket – all the better to buck up Mac’s weakness with social conservatives. I believe this is possible. Huck and Mac’s debate exchanges have stopped just short of a love-fest, and the two men share a compassion for all Americans, instead of merely the wealthiest one percent – a dispiriting trait among post-Reagan era Republicans.

In sum: We may have Huck’s yucks to entertain us all the way to November.


Prediction time
I have biases for Presidential communication. I prefer vision and strategy over tactical detail, because I trust that the real heroes of our federal government – anonymous career bureaucrats – have plenty of detail ability. What we need most in our national leader is someone who can both see and compellingly communicate where we need to go.

So, for communication ability only – not policy – Barak Obama should win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. We’ll see whether this campaign’s one Great Orator can repeat the electoral success of Reagan and JFK.

Back to Fishbone's Blog Menu