TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.06.2008
Former Clinton Speechwriter on Obama's Speech

We asked David Kusnet, Bill Clinton's former chief speechwriter and author of Love the Work, Hate the Job: Why America's Best Workers Are Unhappier than Ever, to give his impression of Barack Obama's declaration of victory speech.

Last night, Barack Obama's opponent was John McCain, not Hillary Clinton. And Obama revealed an advantage that should serve him well: He can make graciousness sound rousing.

Something of a stranger all his life, everywhere he has lived, studied, and worked--in Hawaii, Indonesia, Los Angeles, Morningside Heights, and the South Side of Chicago--Obama must have tried to put people at ease. He must have learned how to find points of agreement with the people he was talking to before getting at the points he was trying to persuade them to accept.

So it was throughout this campaign, and so it was tonight. Obama began his victory speech by praising Hillary Clinton at greater length than she had praised him and with words that Bill Clinton himself might have used: "I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning--even in the face of tough odds--is ... an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be."

Minutes later, Obama spoke just as agreeably of his next adversary, John McCain. "John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically," Obama said. "I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine."

When Obama continued by saying "my differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign," the television audience must have expected the attacks to begin. But, once again, Obama acknowledged what McCain claims and many swing voters likely believe: "John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past." Only then, after he'd gotten his audience nodding in agreement, and he himself appeared the soul of sweet reason, did Obama criticize McCain for supporting Bush in recent years and espousing orthodox Republican positions in this campaign. In so doing, Obama presented McCain with two opponents in this election: himself, of course, but also the younger, less compromised John McCain--the maverick of 2000.

As for McCain, his speech earlier in the evening offered no grace notes about Obama, simply a full-throated attack on him as not representing "real change." That will be a difficult sell for McCain even if he makes it artfully--and this speech was anything but artful. It relied on assertion, not persuasion. And for all the red meat that he offered, McCain hardly roused himself, much less his audience. Obama, in contrast, spoke with subtlety, but was received like a rock star.

--David Kusnet

Posted: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:21 AM with 24 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

liberal reformer said:

That is what worries me , the rock star reception. I want Pearl Jam on stage, not in the White House.

June 4, 2008 1:40 AM

LDuncan said:

Oh liberal, you continue to vex me.  The whole point of David's post was not that Pearl Jam was on stage; it was that a far more sober, measured and thoughtful politician was on the stage in St. Paul than the supposedly more seasoned guy on stage in New Orleans.  And yet the audience was more receptive to the more subtle, measured and elegant speaker.  It's not as if Pearl Jam got a rock star reception; rather, it's as if Brahms got a rock star reception.

That should only be celebrated.  I honestly think the Hillary supporters like liberal are as full of cognitive dissonance as their candidate is.  What liberal does is begin all of this thinking from the premise that Obama is undeserving and then he reasons backwards from that conclusion to determine his premises.  So if Obama gives a great performance in declaring his nomination, liberal comes up with an argument to suggest that a great performance is a sign of a defect in a politician.  

I don't even know why I try to argue with you liberal; you are obviously smart, but you are caught up in polemics rather than allowing yourself to view each case on its own merits.

June 4, 2008 2:53 AM

ralphnelle said:

Why Obama will choose Hillary as his runningmate: he is at his best when he is talking about historical breakthroughs, transformational moments in American history, etc., It's the story at the heart of his "Yes, we can" mantra and 2004 convention speech. And it makes him a vehicle for a progressive vision of patriotism. If his campaign had a boiler room, this would be the fuel that ran it. Hillary, better than anyone else, gives him a partner in making history.

June 4, 2008 3:00 AM

gennitydo said:

Great stuff!  Bring on the first debate.

Ralph - I think you have the concept right, but the choice wrong.  This is why Obama will pick Bill Richardson.

There is no point in picking HRC.  She brings nothing to the table.  Her supporters have loudly declared that they will never vote for Obama even if she is on the ticket.  And the reasons given are personal (e.g., "lack of experience") rather than issue-based so they cannot be addressed through platform plank changes.

June 4, 2008 3:17 AM

Robert Powell said:

It's Obama's legitimate patriotism as expressed in his respectful treatments of opponents, and by extension their millions of supporters, that's "the fuel in the boiler room". He clearly understands that the cartoon version of US politics that been as much a product of left wing Democrats as of Karl Rove et al, is a drag on effective governance.  It's time to put an end to the permanent campaign as a White House paradigm, and for my money Obama's the guy that can do it.

June 4, 2008 5:14 AM

Robert Powell said:

Oh yeah, the VP. HRC brings no positives but lots of negatives in the GE. Richardson was a buffoon who torched his own campaign--big help. Let's forget about fill-in-the-blanks identity group "strategy". Modern campaigns are all about TV, so the first criteria should be about performance skills. Second, you need someone with actual political infrastructure in at least one important state they can deliver in November. I'm for Bayh.

June 4, 2008 5:20 AM

aeromonas said:

RP, you're an Obama man?  I thought you were a Repub for sure, a thoughtful Repub, but a Repub nonetheless.

Meanwhile your fellow conservative here at Talkback, ChanRobt--whom I agree with 20% of the time and can respect 90% of the time--is busily casting Obama as the Manchurian candidate, heading up a "cabal" that is fixing to "take away our freedoms."

June 4, 2008 6:46 AM

WaltB said:

I caught almost all of Obama's speech last night, but had to get the transcript to read what he said about Clinton.  What's true is: "It's not as if Pearl Jam got a rock star reception; rather, it's as if Brahms got a rock star reception."  and "It's Obama's legitimate patriotism as expressed in his respectful treatments of opponents, and by extension their millions of supporters, that's "the fuel in the boiler room""

I'm old enough to have heard JFK speak several times, and Obama really does bring back memories of how Kennedy could move people.  The larger and more important thing is that they both truly ignite hope in the souls of listeners.  Neither were men you'd expect to have a beer with, but they made people's hearts soar.  Just as Kennedy told us all to ask what we could do for our country, Obama asks everyone to be involved to make change happen - and poll after poll have shown that this is a serious issue with the American public at large.  Neither McCain or Clinton can capture and ignite this, but Kennedy could and now Obama can.

June 4, 2008 8:15 AM

Robert Powell said:

aero-

As an anarcho-syndicalist I have no party, and have voted for Libertarians, Independents, and the occasional Socialist Worker as well as candidates of both major parties depending on the circumstances. I think both Repubs and Dems are full of crap, just in different ways.

I appreciate being described as "thoughtful", but have gotten used to getting excoriated for being everything from a blood-thirsty Rovian war-monger and paid Republican propagandist to a knee-jerk Democrat and mentally deficient dupe of unspecified Evil Forces. It seems that trying to stick with the facts gets many people upset. I would be okay with a McCain presidency, or for that matter another Clinton one. But I've been supporting Obama this time around because in fact there would be little difference in actual policy terms, and he's by far the most entertaining.

June 4, 2008 8:35 AM

Rhubarbs said:

RP, Bayh is a bit too low-key for my tastes, but he's a solid choice on the merits.

But. Obama-Bayh? Really? Think of the bumper stickers, man. And say it out loud three times. Think of the cognitive effect on the public of saying "Obama, bye" for four months leading up to the election. Plus we've already got one candidate with a name nobody can spell. I'm only three-fourths kidding when I say that adding a "Bayh" to a "Barack" maybe is't the best marketing move here.

Mandatory plug: Obama-Henry -- Hopelahoma 2008!

June 4, 2008 8:46 AM

fougasseu said:

"It relied on assertion, not persuasion." Spot on. McCain, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al are all bullies. They shout even when they're speaking softly. They're not persuaders. McBush's roots are in the military, where you take orders or give orders. Obama's roots are in organizing, and he's a highly-skilled lawyer - he knows how to persuade people, to frame an argument, to consider both sides of an issue, to win people over.

The difference is more than one of style, it speaks to how they'll lead. And their ability to rally others to believe in their cause.

June 4, 2008 8:57 AM

aeromonas said:

Who do I read to figure out whether I too should be an anarcho-syndicalist?  Bakunin?

June 4, 2008 9:02 AM

icarusr said:

Ah ... where is Harold Bloom when we need him?  There is a touch of Shakespeare in the cadences and the rhetoric of Obama's speeches.  Rhetoric in the exulted sense of that word, of course.  The references to McCain, for example, are evocative of "Brutus is an Honourable Man": the essential point of persuasion (rather than scoring debating points) being appeal to emotion and logic in equal measure, the idea is to disarm your opponents before placing the stiletto in.  Deep and without a twist.  It's quite amazing, how well Mr. Obama does that.

And it is quite amazing - a propos of nothing - how poorly Mrs. Clinton and her supporters have done so.  "Persuasion" - in the Austenian sense - is lacking in Clinton.  She is all vim and vigour and vinegar - all emotion, no logic; all sentiment, no sense; appeal to prejudice through pride.  If Obama is Antony of Shakespeare, Clinton is Antony of history: powerful, imperious, ambitious and ultimately reckless, to both herself and her country.

RP and Duncan: nice posts.

LR: That horse is dead; find another one to beat.  

June 4, 2008 9:03 AM

icarusr said:

Rhubs: You're dead on and I was hoping you would be fully serious.  The power of messaging and marketing should not be forgotten in a Presidential campaign.

How about Hagel?  OK, he is toxic on domestic issues and it would send an awful signal ("no good democrats left"); moreover, I really think Obama should go with a governor and not another Senator.  But ... fuck man, Hagel is pure gold on national security and foreign affairs; Middle America, attractive, well-spoken, no given to temper-trantrums (at least in public) - plus he's already more or less endorsed Obama ...

June 4, 2008 9:07 AM

icarusr said:

Fougasseu: Precisely.  The art of persuasion is important not only in campaigning, but in leading - the country not being an army, and your colleagues not being cadets subject to a drill-master.  This was the singularly awesome quality of Lincoln and Roosevelt - hence their successes; it was the most important quality lacking in the likes of Wilson and W, hence the disasters their presidencies became.

McCain is more a McArthur than an Eisenhower; he is a Montgomery and not an Alexander: a man who barks orders, mercurially, and expects to be followed, rather than someone who painstakingly puts together coalitions and seeks to achieve the objective not through control but through suasion.

June 4, 2008 9:12 AM

icarusr said:

Aero: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

June 4, 2008 9:12 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

Snippets from all three candidates speeches last night.

June 4, 2008 9:23 AM

lindamwil said:

Back to vp: I would like to suggest Wasserman-Schulz, but jeez, bumper sticker would fit only SUV/Hummer.

June 4, 2008 10:03 AM

boxofrox said:

Robert Powell. It's good to see you back. You might have missed fascist neo-con on your resume.

I suppose the thing which has me most intrigued about the Obama candidacy is that within lies a remote possibility of sticking a wooden stake in the dark heart of identity politics as currently framed. It is such an atomizing and self defeating exercise of self absorption which breeds constant turmoil and dissatisfactions toward fruitless resolution priorities. All manner of well intended but bent solution persuasions are manifest only to offer an intellectually dishonest salve to stroke the obsessed. Politically speaking, "Content of character" is embraceable in the collective realm. The rest is forest for the trees best left for the individual and personal resolution. Thus individual relevance as can only be addressed as such. If the Obama candidacy can help ratify the more sincere expression of this singular truth it will have been a success. I find hope of possibility given Obama's unique qualifications. Furthermore I appreciate his approach toward resolving the practical mechanics of policy direction.

This has been an intriguing and important campaign season and looks to continue as such.

June 4, 2008 10:17 AM

fougasseu said:

icarusr: Montgomery is perfect.

There's little that's Shakespearean about the fall of the Clintons. It's more Faulknerian. Bill is that cunning and ruthless Flem Snopes...who never admits defeat, never quits.

After New Hampshire they say Sen. Clinton found her voice. And  then her voice kept changing, depending on the state she was in.

Now America has two very different voices to listen to, McBush and Obama. This will be fun.

June 4, 2008 10:55 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Hey RP, Boxo - how goes that neocon fascist commie pinko club you all  have going on?  Can I join?  I haven't been too bloodthirsty lately in terms of my war-mongering streak, but the commie pinko part seems to be in good working order.

Agree completely Box on the identity politics.  I've said for years that 15% of it is very valuable, important stuff.  Learning about our privledge and how to communicate across difference is now part of being a responsible citizen and parent.  

But 85% of it is a tool and a conduit of bullying impulses.  It's a perfect place to park personality problems and the desire to control, because you think you're protected by the righteousness of your tool. You cease being self-reflective, of owning your own behavior.

I have never felt so alienated from the whole concept of feminism, I think it is officially something I have shed as part of my identity.  It is a relief.  

This, of course, is not a denial of the existence of a patriarchy and of sexism.  It is a repudiation of those using a righteous cause to wound, manipulate, lie to oneself and others, bully.  

I am a humanist, an individualist.  I am human being eons before I am a woman, despite it ALL.

June 4, 2008 11:02 AM

roidubouloi said:

wandreycer said:

"I am a humanist, an individualist.  I am human being eons before I am a woman, despite it ALL."

Jill, you have achieved a state of enlightenment that I hope to reach some time before the end.  If enough of us do, we could really make something of this planet.  It's a pleasure to have made your acquaintance, even if only in cyber-space.

June 4, 2008 11:20 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

ditto brother Roi!

June 4, 2008 11:35 AM

Robert Powell said:

Nice to hear from you guys. Oh, aero--BESIDES Monty Python, I'd recommend just about anything by Peter Kropotkin--"Mutual Aid" is probably the best. Bakunin lost his way after the Second International.

June 4, 2008 1:10 PM