They came, they saw, they spoke

Speechwriter’s Newsletter/October 2000

SN asks several experts about what worked—and what didn’t—at the recent political conventions

As the focus of conventions has shifted dramatically through the years from choosing nominees to rallying voters, acceptance speeches can turn the tide of campaigns in the crucial months before the election.

“Acceptance speeches are like the opening moves in a world championship chess match; or, more dramatically, like the opening of a military campaign,” says Janet Larsen Palmer, Ph.D., president of Communication Excellence Institute (CEI), which analyzed all convention speeches.

“The keynote speeches must clearly identify the strengths of the candidate and of the party, and they must clearly identify the weaknesses of the other party’s opponent and party,” she says.

TELL IT LIKE IT IS

Speechwriter’s Newsletter asked several experts to share their opinions about the conventions’ most notable speeches. Palmer says a refreshing surprise was that the speeches that needed to be good—the presidential and vice-presidential speeches for both parties—really were good in that they engaged their audiences, got specific and produced emotion.

More of what worked, what didn’t and what’s notable:

THE GOOD

Bush’s freshness. As the convention “season” began in August, experts say George W. Bush’s speech contained a number of well-crafted lines.

Bush’s comment that he believed “’in grace because I’ve seen it, and peace because I’ve felt it, and forgiveness because I’ve needed it’” was “one of the more refreshing, because it invoked some beautiful religious concepts in a political format that seemed humble and not cynically manipulative,” says Palmer.

Cheney’s powerful attack. Perhaps the most devastating line of the Republican convention was in Cheney’s acceptance speech, in which he launched a powerful attack by using the simple device of a rhetorical question, Palmer says.

The question: “If the goal is to unite our country, to make a fresh start in Washington, to change the tone of our politics, can anyone say with conviction that the man for the job is Al Gore?”

Gore’s efficient multitasking. Al Gore faced a very complex rhetorical situation and a political challenge in the wake of the Republican convention, says Jane Elmes-Crahall, associate professor of communications at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

“He had to be seen as presidential, separate himself from Clinton without appearing to reject or discredit his working relationship with the President, and he had to distinguish his ideas from George W. Bush’s,” she says.

Elmes-Crahall also says Gore also needed to lose his reputation for being a listless speaker.

“He accomplished all of these tasks with flair—with and a serious kiss, as well,” she says, adding that his down-to-earth rhetoric also was effective.

The pure ethos of Joe Lieberman. “This was a man truly enjoying being there, genuine and engaging in what he said,” Elmes-Crahall says. “‘Seeing through the eyes of…’ was a great device for identifving with people from many backgrounds. He needed to self-disclose, to introduce himself to the viewing audience and he did.”

THE BAD

Bush’s tense and vague delivery. Palmer says Bush did little to counter critics who’ve accused him of being to general about policy proposal, and that his body language contradicted the ease with which he tried to speak.

“His non-verbal cues portrayed an image of a humorless presidency, full of tension, worry nd discomfort,” she says. “He was pinched, tense and forbidding with an unfortunate look of confusion. His demeanor was that of a joyless, uncomfortable man.”

Ill-planned verbal attacks. Bush’s speech contained several blunt, powerful lines about the Democrats that actually gave Democrats the opportunity to rebut the remarks. For instance: “’This administration had its chance. They have not led. We will.’ ”

“This may have sounded good at the time,” Benoit says. “However, Bill Clinton listed many accomplishments where his administration did lead.”

Bush “should have said it couldn’t have gotten better without the Republican Congress and that in the midst of this prosperity we have a poverty of values. He should have said I want to make this prosperity permanent and lead America back to better values. But to try to pretend that nothing good had happened was, I think, an error.”

Misguided words. President Bill Clinton was charming and attuned to his audience during his speech, but he didn’t do much to advance Gore’s candidacy, Palmer says.

“Instead, Clinton basked in the warmth of an adoring audience and used the moment to build up his presidential legacy in the American public’s mind,” she says. “Clinton’s speech was self-serving, not Gore-serving, and that is really his right. But he could have done more for Gore.”

SOFT RHETORIC

William Benoit, professor of communications at the University of Missouri, thinks the Democratic keynote was not as negative as recent keynotes have been. That may be disadvantageous, however.

“I am not one who thinks attacks are necessarily bad. As long as they are accurate—neither false nor misleading — and especially if they focus on policy, attacks can inform voters of a candidates weaknesses, disadvantages, or limitations,” Benoit says.

Palmer says Gore also could’ve done more to “appease alienated liberal democrats, and a bit less of a grocery list of policy changes,” she says, adding that his rapid speaking style undercut the impact of his words.

“He often kept talking when the effect would have been more inspirational and intense had he simply stopped and paused,” she notes.

WORTH NOTING

It’s what you say. Benoit says it’s common to find that a speech may have different effects on different audiences and warns that keynote speeches easily fall into such a category.

“For example, I would say Cheney’s speech was one of the best judged as an appeal to Republican partisans, and one of the worst judged as an appeal to independents and undecideds,” Benoit says.

It’s where you say it. “Despite their strength as individual pieces of oratory, the speeches by Colin Powell and Jesse Jackson struck dissonant notes in their respective conventions’ as each man sounded themes that went against the grain of the respective nominees of each party,” Palmer says.

Powell is a powerful speaker, and this speech was outstanding, ElmesCrahall says. However, she added that, “unfortunately for the GOP, Powell could give this speech anywhere with the same result. Little partisan flavor, great ideas.”

It’s also your topic. Ted Kennedy#146;s speech on national health care was frayed at the edges, Elmes-Crahall says. “Not only the non-fluencies and repetitions, but the phrasing was so out of synch, I couldn’t help but wonder what the average 20-year-old first time voter was thinking.”

Palmer agrees. “Ted Kennedy’s speech was surprisingly and almost unbearably focused on health care reform,” she says. “It’s hard to imagine that the people whose interests he is supposedly championing would have watched his speech or been much interested in it if they had watched it.”

It’s about not making mistakes, stupid’ Palmer says Al Gore misspoke during his speech. “After explaining that he would fight for real change, and then explaining that the Republican tax plan would provide the average American with the equivalent of .62 cents per week. ‘That is change. But that’s not the kind of change I’m working for!’ he said.”’ Gore meant to say .62 cents per day.

It’s about the presidential campaign. Palmer says Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech was the worst at the Democratic convention because she virtually ignored her husbands and Gore’s achievements.

“Instead she mostly revamped a tired Democratic line, and focused as much as anything on her own views and her own background and achievements — such as working on behalf of children.”

Palmer adds that the speech reveals that the First Lady is developing some bad rhetorical habits.

“She is speaking too slowly—which makes her sound calculated and insincere—and she has developed a relatively neutral facial affect, which may have come from years of steeling herself against criticism, and trying not to let her reactions show,” she explains.

“The result is a bland look and a bland speech without any of the fiery excitement and commitment she showed in her earlier speeches.”

Benoit: 573-882-0545, or BenoitW@missouri.edu; Elmes-Crahall: 570-408-4162 or elmescra@wilkes.edu; Palmer: 800-410-4234