I took the optimistic side, believing that this is not a case of the emperor having no clothes. I wrote that there was more than met the eye:
Obama seems to understand the importance of words. His delivery has something of the feel of the black preacher, but there is more. There is a depth behind the words that goes beyond the rhythm and cadence by which they are spoken.I continue to believe that. However, the speeches of Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton at this week's Democratic National Convention have led me to "revise and extend my remarks," as legislators say while padding the Congressional Record with speeches never given.
I was gone during much of Monday evening and listened to Michelle's speech in the car, including the closing where Barack appeared on the big screen (from right here in Kansas City) and chatted briefly with his wife and kids.
On the radio the light-hearted repartee sounded awkward, the kids a bit bratty. The whole thing seemed contrived. I was therefore quite surprised to hear the talking heads going on and on about the charm and spontaneity of those exchanges. When I watched the replay I saw exactly what they meant. The words in her speech framed the issues and she delivered them with aplomb. But it took a cute kid on a big stage waving at her daddy to give the moment its soul.
It is said of the Nixon/Kennedy Debate in 1960 that Nixon lost because he had a five-o'clock shadow. People who heard the debate on the radio or read a transcript tended to think Nixon won. Those who watched on television thought Kennedy won. Most scholars believe the debate, the first one televised, was the difference in the outcome. Some think it was appearance. I tend to think it was soul.
Hillary Clinton's speech last night was a masterpiece. I have never been a big fan of her oratory; she often seemed strident and a bit wooden. But this one hit all the marks. It was exquisitely written and masterfully delivered. She drove it home, controlling its pace by running over the tendency of a crowd like this to applaud or give ovations to every other line. She controlled the speech because she had it "written on her inward parts," to adapt the covenantal phrasing in Jeremiah 31:33.
I still believe that words matter and can shape and change ideas. But these two extraordinary women, both delivering the speeches of their lives, have shown us that when they become soulful words they can not only change ideas but they can transform society.
People still seem a bit unsure about Barack Obama's soul. His most significant supporter and his most persistent critic have this week pointed the way to a future that affirms the worth of all persons and embraces a global community living in a world at peace. Now we will see if he can lead us not just with words eloquently spoken, but with heart and soul worthy of this transforming moment in our history.
And Grant, it's always a pleasure to read your words. You have a way with them.
ReplyDeleteI, too, have long been impressed with Obama's way with words. I remember his speech from the 2004 convention and thought at the time how talented he was. I even thought at one point, "this guy would make a good president." Little did I figure he'd be up for the job just four years later.
As for Hillary, I was relieved how how "human" she seemed last night. It almost seemed like she could relax just a little bit now that she didn't have to carry the weight of a potential presidency.
Let's just see what Biden and Obama come up with the last two nights.
Smiles,
Michael Buttgen
Hi Dad,
ReplyDeleteLong time listener, first time caller, but you know I'm a sucker for politics, so figured it's past time I chime into your blog.
I too have been captivated by the political convention this week, despite the pennant race baseball games competing for my TV time. I watched the addresses of both Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton the last two nights and agree both did an effective job promoting their candidate after a convention that got off to a pretty sluggish start. Of course, few would know about that sluggish start as the vast majority of the viewers _ the ones who get their coverage through the networks _ received only an hour of coverage each night. Tonight, for example, that hour didn't include President Clinton's first true, unabashed endorsement of Obama. And even more people _ myself included as I was still at work _ were not tuned in early this evening to what should be the defining moment of this convention _ Hillary Clinton halting the roll call vote and personally moving that her longtime political rival, the one she once said was running for president solely due to a speech, be nominated by acclamation.
I appreciate your comparison of Mrs. Obama's radio address vs. the TV replay, yet with all due respect, I'm not sure you're exactly Obama's "target audience." I think he kind of figures you're in the bag. What frustrates me about political conventions, regardless of which side one leans, is the realization of how many true undecided voters pay much attention. While clearly the convention floor is filled with party activists, I fear that the vast majority of those who tune in to the coverage also have already made up their mind. Sure, a few Hillary fans may be swayed by her truly unambiguous endorsement last night, but gone are the days when Americans watch gavel-to-gavel coverage of both conventions and the debates, then weigh the two candidates and make an informed choice in November. On Monday night, for example, I'm guessing more people tuned in to McCain's appearance on the Tonight Show than the first night of the Democratic Convention. And, tomorrow _ when Obama accepts the nomination as the first ever black candidate to represent a major party in the presidential race, the college football season kicks off on ESPN. (Don't worry, I'll be watching Obama as Mizzou doesn't play until Saturday). But, if there are political ads during that coverage _ and I'm sure there will be _ chances are they could have the same if not greater influence than Obama's critical words. I'll feel the same way next week, when McCain has his moment and the Democrats will have to search for ways to steal equal or greater time from the airwaves. Imagine that ... an ad quoting Hillary Clinton's words from January trumping Hillary Clinton's words from Tuesday. And, the Democrats will do the same thing with their ad campaign against whatever running mate McCain chooses later this week.
In 1988, the first year I can remember closely following politics, I remember watching both political conventions almost gavel to gavel and rooting for Jack Kemp to win the Republican nomination and Jesse Jackson to win the Democratic. Sure, Bush and Dukakis had them clinched going in, and my guys didn't even run second, but that didn't really resonate to a junior high schooler. Kemp and Jackson were the superior speakers. They captivated me. And, their names were placed in nomination, so I stayed up late into the evening waiting to see whether either pulled it out. Of course, they didn't, as that was prearranged just as it is now. I found it amazing that the deciding vote ended up being cast by the home state of Bush and Dukakis _ almost as if it were planned that way! Tonight, however, we had a far closer primary race than any in my lifetime, and the roll call vote wasn't even considered worthy of network news or even prime time cable. Not saying there was much question about the outcome, but isn't the point of a political convention to vote on which candidate carry's the party's flag?
My point isn't about process at all. Obama got more votes than Hillary in the election. He won the primary under any mathematical calculation I can conceive. Nor is my point a gripe that political conventions are no longer "news worthy." Even as a journalist, I'm astute enough about history to understand that the guys who won "news worthy" conventions, more often than not, became also-rans in the general election. Thus, no party wants truly good TV in its convention, because good TV means drama. Drama means dissent, and dissent means losing.
My point is that this November we have a choice between two honorable candidates but who are more different in both style and substance than any presidential opponents since well before I was born. Yet, so many truly undecided voters are opting for alternative programming on the nights these candidates get to make their case. That's how we end up with presidential decisions based on how many homes John McCain owns or how many offensive statements Barack Obama's former pastor made from the lectern.
So, without question, hearing a political message via radio is different than seeing it on TV. But, alas, this isn't Nixon vs. Kennedy when the medium, even more than the message, could determine the leanings of the electorate. This time, campaigns have got to be hoping their message gets through, no matter what medium carries it.
-Jeff
It was my understanding that Nixon was ill that night...besides his five o'clock shadow.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Jeff. Unfortunately the country is full of uninformed voters who will vote with anything else but their brains.
ReplyDeleteI can almost understand why some of our forefathers wanted to limit the vote to the educated few. Almost....
So, even though there are some very good reasons to vote for one candidate or the other, that probably will not be how many, many voters will see it.
Remember the swiftboat ads that helped defeat Kerry. And the phone calls in South Carolina just before the primary election, that helped defeat McCain in the primary earlier.
Hey Jeff. Thanks for an outstanding post. Even your dad learned some things about you he didn't know.
ReplyDeleteI thought your comments about the roll call vote and the motion by Hillary Clinton were spot on. The moment that vote was taken was the precise moment in American history when an African American candidate was for the first time on a naional ticket. Most of the networks blew it completely.
These 24/7 cable networks are a mixed blessing. Many times they feel that their own talking heads are the news, not the events and people they are talking about. You nailed it.