Did We Nominate Gore And Kerry Again?

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 16:00


Although he uses an old-timey analogy, I think Ed Rendell is generally correct in his assessment of Obama's wordy, intellectual speaking style:

"He is a little like Adlai Stevenson," Rendell mused. "You ask him a question, and he gives you a six-minute answer. And the six-minute answer is smart as all get out. It's intellectual. It's well framed. It takes care of all the contingencies. But it's a lousy soundbite."

"We've got to start smacking back in short understandable bites," he said, noting "Everybody is nervous as all get out. Everybody says we ought to be ahead by 10, 15 points. What the heck is going on?"

Even though one of the attractions to Obama in the nomination campaign was that he seemed to be a charismatic speaker in the style of Jack Kennedy or Bill Clinton, there have been numerous times during this campaign where I have wondered if we just nominated Gore or Kerry again. Obama does not do a good job of fitting his speeches or answers into sound bites. Many of his ads have reminded me of the five-paragraph essay you were probably taught in freshman composition. There are times when he seems to over intellectualize his framing of policy on the stump in a manner that is reminiscent of Gore or Kerry.

However, I have to disagree with Rendell on the utility of such a speaking style. While it doesn't seem to be helping Obama in this campaign, I am just as tired of having to dumb things down in order to win elections as I am having to appeal to socially conservative whites. Further, the intellectual lucidity of Bill Clinton is often overlooked because he won, but he often gave lengthy, intellectual answers to questions, too. It isn't necessarily a problem.

We nominate smart candidates with strong grasps of policy, and we should be proud of that, not afraid. We shouldn't think that we have to dump nuance and gravitas just to appeal to voters. America is not such a an incredibly provincial nation of xenophobic anti-intellectuals that those qualities will always be negatives. After all, Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, won twice. Also, the nation voted for Al Gore, and John Kerry only narrowly missed. Intelligence is not necessarily an electoral loser.

The problem comes in when our candidates talk this way, but give our opponents a pass for not talking this way. Bush was framed as an idiot, and he looked dumb compared to both Gore and Kerry. That hurt him in the polls, and it can hurt McCain in the polls, too. Obama can keep talking like Stevenson, or Gore, or Kerry, or whoever, but he needs to make McCain pay for his frequent gaffes about his knowledge of policy and international relations. Obama's speaking style will help him as long as McCain is regularly mocked for not grasping important details. People don't want another idiot in the White House. This is a line of attack we should pursue, not wring our hands about looking like the smartest kid in the class.  

Chris Bowers :: Did We Nominate Gore And Kerry Again?

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Did We Nominate Gore And Kerry Again? | 39 comments
McSame gives us everything we need for this line of attack - should we pursue it (4.00 / 1)
895 out 899 in his class

the gaffe a day candidate  (and seemingly proud of it)

his admitted reckless 'youth'

Just another way to tie him to Bush...

Call it 'FratBoy 2.0'

This country deserves better than that


the smartest kid in the class (4.00 / 2)
"People don't want another idiot in the White House. This is a line of attack we should pursue, not wring our hands about looking like the smartest kid in the class."

The smartest kid in the class understands that she needs to speak in a way that people not as smart as her can understand.  To mock other people for not doing so is a fundamental failure in communication, and is part of what gives rise to the "elitism" charges.  Sure, Obama should be able to grasp and understand detailed policy, but he shouldn't be given a free pass on not communicating it effectively.  The challenge is to take complicated ideas and be able to express them simply enough so that they can be understood by people who are not.

e.g. we need to do x y z q r d s e aw to deal with the amount of debt that people have today.

Some simple responses: "For too long, banks have had too much control over the lives of ordinary people...we need to put the power back in the hands of working Americans, not the corporations that support John McCain."

"It's the economists, the oil companies, the war profiteers, and the banks that created this nightmare for the American people, and it's not the taxpayers who should have to clean up their mess, like John McCain wants."

"Why should Joe American have to pay to clean up the mess that George Bush, Dick Cheney  and John McCain created?  Let's have a fair solution for the economy and for the American worker."

Leadership (0.00 / 0)
It's been that leaders of any specific group tend to be smarter than members of that group, but not too much smarter.  After some point, they just don't identify with each other.
[ Parent ]
define "smart" (0.00 / 0)
i'd rather think of this as different skills.
[ Parent ]
Eloquence =/= smart n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
People rise to the expectation you have and set for them.... (0.00 / 0)
If you expect the population to be dumb and stupid, then they will be dumb and stupid.  Unfortunately, the society and the education system is setup that way.  
[ Parent ]
right but you can't overreach (0.00 / 0)
asking some people who have their own lives and concerns and aren't particularly interested in politics beyond how it affects them to listen to a policy speech that will be the equivalent of torture isn't going to help anyone :)  just different modes of communication with the same underlying message/worldview.  there are plenty of other ways to expand people's minds than by demanding that they learn to love policy speeches.
[ Parent ]
Good point, but the examples... (0.00 / 0)
are bound to backfire. Afaics Obama can't refuse to use taxpayer money to prevent at least the worst desasters, like a bankruptcy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The consequences would spread throughout the economy. And, speaking ideologically, your examples don't fit in the prigressive world view. What you advocate is effectively a "laissez faire" economic policy, and that's a neoliberal and republican hobby horse. Dems have always advocated the opposite, the goverment actively regulating the markets and preventing dangerously slanted positions. So, sry, good point in general, but pls think about other examples.

For instance, why shouldn't Obama argue instead: "We will prevent the economy from falling into a great depression, by preventing bankruptcies, if necessary. But at the same time, we will regulate the markets to correct the desastrous results of republican economic policy. We won't allow financial corporations to engage in irresponsible speculation again, that brought desaster to countless American families."
Imho this would be in sync with Obama's economic views, so no problem for him to convincingly make this point.

[ Parent ]
obviously my examples weren't very good (0.00 / 0)
and may even disprove my point :)  I don't believe a laissez-faire economy ever exists, much less am I interested in promoting the ideology that says that it would help do anything other than promote those who already have power.

The examples I had were (I thought) populist and anti-finance capitalism and attempted to tie McCain to the latter. But anyway, point being - I'm not a sloganeer by trade and I think that someone who is could probably help Obama boil  down some of the complexities into ideas.  Like "A revolution without dancing is not worth having." (which was not Emma Goldman, but made up by an ordinary person trying to come up with a shirt slogan and used in V for Vendetta.)

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 4)
Did We Nominate Gore And Kerry Again?

No.  But we've seemed to begun the process of demonizing any Democrat who loses.  (Just in case, I guess.)

Any Democrat who loses in 2008 (0.00 / 0)
deserves to be demonized.
[ Parent ]
Obama can't fix decades of Rep branding (0.00 / 0)
Agree he deserves blame.  But your expectation of an easy blowout is fantasy.  The GOP has the press, and they have years of messaging to draw on.

Already, he's running a better race than Kerry or Gore.  

[ Parent ]
Here's your answer (4.00 / 2)
From First Read:
On his march through battleground states before arriving in Denver, Obama continued to polish his anti-McCain argument here, boiling it down to one simple idea.

"I don't think he realizes what ordinary American families are going through," he said at a town hall at a town hall of about 250 airplane maintenance workers and party activists. "I don't think the Bush Administration understands what ordinary Americans are going through, but I do and that's why I'm running for president of the United States of America."



John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
Here's more: (4.00 / 1)
"Who is gonna be listening to you? Who has been for the last 20 years standing side by side with you? Making sure that unions can organize, making sure that people who don't have health insurance are getting health insurance, making sure that kids can go to college who couldn't go before?," Obama asked. "Who has a track record of fighting for you? 'Cause that's what you need -- you need somebody who every single day gets it."



John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
The quote you gave in this instance is another example of an opportunity lost (4.00 / 1)
"Who is gonna be listening to you? Who has been for the last 20 years standing side by side with you? Making sure that unions can organize, making sure that people who don't have health insurance are getting health insurance, making sure that kids can go to college who couldn't go before?," Obama asked. "Who has a track record of fighting for you? 'Cause that's what you need -- you need somebody who every single day gets it."

All of that sounded like a PERFECT opportunity to bash the GOP but is the term GOP present?

No

Is the term Democratic Party found in that paragraph?  After all, it is our Party's platform and beliefs he is describing...I don't see it...is it there?

No

Does he or doesn't he need to shore up more Democratic support? The type of Democrats that he needs to 'win over', like a fighter and they are proud of their asscoiations that they belong to whether it's Labor, the VFW, their church, or their political Party, he isn't doing so well with - I'm describing older voters. A little language could make a lot of difference.

These are just small adjustments that could make a huge difference.

[ Parent ]
It's just an excerpt (4.00 / 1)
Here's the rest of First Read:
He used the latest census data out today -- 816,000 people who fell into poverty in 2007 (including 500,000 more children) and the 7 million additional people without health insurance -- to show that the average American family has suffered during the eight years of the Bush Administration.

Obama closed by asking people to pay attention during both the Democratic and the Republican conventions, so that they can make a good decision. But warned that voting for McCain would mean more of the same.

"Over the last eight years, you've been falling behind. Over the last eight years, your lives are less secure," he said. "That's the track record, those are the facts. And John McCain is not promising to do anything different than George Bush did."


Which in itself is just an excerpt of the speech.  Why do you assume Obama is too stupid to mention Bush and McCain?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
It's the way he mentions McSame and Bush (0.00 / 0)
almost apologetically:

"I don't think that John McCain understands what American families are going through"

And in the example you gave, this part:"And John McCain is not promising to do anything different than George Bush did."

I'm asking you.... is that the clearist way to get the point across?

If I am not mistaken, that's a double negative:And John McCain is not promising to do anything different

It is better, stronger, clearer to make declarative statements such as :

  • John McCain does not understand what American families are going through
  • John McCain will give exactly the same policies, the same administration, that George Bush has given us.

    I am advocating, strongly that he modify his speech patterns to get rid of weak language.

    I see it in the passages you have given and I hear it when  he speaks.

    He and his surrogates have to tag McCain negatively so that NO-ONE is left in any doubt that eecting McCain would be horrendous

    • [ Parent ]
    Just that one example you gave sums up why some people have doubts about Obama (4.00 / 1)
    according to the polls:
    "I don't think he realizes what ordinary American families are going through," he said at a town hall at a town hall of about 250 airplane maintenance workers and party activists. "I don't think the Bush Administration understands what ordinary Americans are going through, but I do and that's why I'm running for president of the United States of America."

    A stronger, more declarative phrasing than "I don't think"
    should be: "John McCain does not understand what American families are going through"....it should be "The Bush Administration does not understand what American families are going through"....

    It's stronger, shows that he, Obama himself is convinced of the fact when the phrase he really used is somewhat vague:
    "I don't think" could also translate into "I may be wrong, but, John McCan does not understand....

    I want  (a much stronger word rather than wish for instance), someone in the Obama campaign to tighten up his language to eliminate these subliminal messages he is sending.

    It is in this sense that Obama is similar to Gore and Kerry.

    It's all in their speaking patterns; stop the qualifiers.


    [ Parent ]
    See above (0.00 / 0)
    I think they have some idea how to do this.

    John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
    [ Parent ]
    mostly wrong (0.00 / 0)
    your points on language I agree with.  Could be better when it's firmer.

    the import, the weight of these points as factors, you are totally exaggerating.

    Voters don't parse diction.  You're just looking for a hammer with which to hit Obama.  

    Meanwhile, didn't you have doubts about a candidate who uttered one of the biggest whoppers in recent Pres campaign history? Tuzla?  As if THAT wasn't a tremendous error on the scale of McCain's houses?  

    [ Parent ]
    It's not the diction ...it's the message that diction conveys (0.00 / 0)
    that sinks in with voters;

    And the general tone that results, just from the examples that were given, was/is weak.

    And when it is consistently weak because that is his speech pattern (and without linking to anything in this reply to you I'm confident that Kerry's language and Gore's language was equally "weak" using the vernicular)it fits into the narrative the Mcsame campaign is working to affix to Obama.

    This has all been noticed by Lakoff and Drew Westen as well.

    All he needs to do is make slight adjustments.

    Have his sentences be more declarative and get rid of qualifiers in the sentences.

     

    [ Parent ]
    Look, I've already voted for Obama after my first choice dropped out (0.00 / 0)
    I want him to win and I am offering constructive criticism because I don't see that he or his campaign is offering such a flawless campaign that it can't be improved in some way and my suggestion is EASY to implement.

    I don't have to worry about HC's comments or how she presents herself because she is not the standard bearer whose name will be on the ballot in November

    [ Parent ]
    Obama isn't nearly as long winded as Kerry (0.00 / 0)
    Obama make take a bit longer to get to his point than some, but for Kerry in 2004, some of his answers were so drawn out that he was boring at times. Boring.

    There is an effective way to market points and policies that are NOT "incredibly provincial," "xenophobic." or even "anti-intellectual." The Obama camp could improve on this.

    This is a fast paced campaign where most voters/consumers have lives beyond politics and simply wont take the time to delve into the issues. It doesn't mean they are xenophobic or even anti-intellectual. They are simply busy trying to keep up with their day to day lives.

    You don't have to dumb down (4.00 / 3)
    answers to policy questions, but every answer to a policy question must also tell a story about the candidate, his values, and why the opponent's ideas and values suck.  
    And here I thought the problem was (0.00 / 0)
    that Obama is too vague, and not substantive enough. One must conclude that seeing criticism was only a matter of time.

    /me rolls eyes.

    McCain is clueless, you are right, as long as Obama roasts him every day for this, then he'll be fine. Speaking of which, good observation on the lack of McCain bashing at the Convention. I fell asleep in my dream about watching the convention that I had after falling asleep while watching the convention. Its been horrible so far, people who think this is cool are zombies.

    on a semi tangent:
    Celebrate Count Down to PUMAtardfest '08!
    5:12:48... 5:11:47...

    Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

    corx: seeing THIS criticism (0.00 / 0)
    .

    Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
    [ Parent ]
    But... (0.00 / 0)
    Further, the intellectual lucidity of Bill Clinton is often overlooked because he won, but he often gave lengthy, intellectual answers to questions, too. It isn't necessarily a problem.

    But he had a thick Southern accent.  Never cease to underestimate the Bubba factor in politics.

    You owe it to yourself to listen to This American Life's fantastic and common-sense explanation of the economic crisis.

    What gets me... (4.00 / 2)
    is that while here is an arguement that Obama is too smart and says too much.  As Stevenson did, elaborates too much on his policies...raging around us is a completely contradictory argument that "he has no plans", he "doesn't say anything, sure he's talking about hope and a better world, but how do we get there?", blahblahblah.

    This narrative was hit several times by callers into CSPAN, many citing they were Clinton supporters, some saying they now support Obama, some saying McCain, some saying the rhetorical equivalent of "wtfomgz"

    One of those things we are susceptible to as a party is accepting these accusations as true, both in the past and current setting, and repeated thing ad nausea.

    Gore was an intellectual and his answers were often thorough and boring, not because he wasn't right or because he's too smart...but because he ran a terrible campaign he wasn't passionate about.  The issues he focused on weren't the issues or presentations he wanted to make and so he had no emotional punch behind him.  He was advised to avoid anything Clinton touched or could be linked to, and that left out his favorite issues and achievements.  Gore's speeches would have popped if he talked about putting computers in classrooms or the environmental achievements.  He talked about stuff that was boring to him, so of course it was boring to the listeners.

    Kerry's campaign was similar but for different reasons, he got saddled with an accusation that stuck, and he never stood up to challenge it, everything thereafter was just an exercise in avoidance and thus was boring/tame/misdirected.

    Obama really did lack articulated policies...in 2007.  Unfortunately the sound bite still persists because psuedo-dems repeat them on traditional media and allow traditional media personalities to repeat them back at them.  Obama isn't up 10 or 15 points because Ed Rendell, among others, have undermined the campaign rather than support it, and he needs to get his ass in line pronto.  The Primary is over, if you think McCain is really a better choice, switch parties and be gone.  If not, speak out in support of the candidate that will work for better conditions for workers and the employee free choice act, the candidate who will fix NCLB, ending the system that leaves EVERY CHILD behind, support the candidate who supports the rights of women - from choice to pay equity, the candidate that will apply his intelligence to foreign policy and not brute force at the expense of young American men and women bravely serving in our military, get your ass 100% behind our nominee.

    Our President should be intelligent, he should sound intelligent and should inspire children to want to be intelligent.  He should be able to speak on issues without consulting an aide, but know when "I don't know" is the right answer.  Intelligence is not a weakness and we should not allow it to be one.  It is and should be a strength.  We are choosing the person who will be the Representative of our nation, keeping us safe from harm - foreign and domestic, violent, economic, disease, and natural disaster.  How is this the place and time for mediocrity?

    We can do better, we must do better.  Will you work for it?

    Not Kerry. (0.00 / 0)
    Kerry's weak spot was looking evasive when answering questions. He wasn't overintellectualizing, he was just being long-winded. He didn't have the Obama ability to wow a crowd.

    Obama's problem for a while was just sloppiness with language. I think he's back now, so this is hopefully a non issue from hereon out. Obama needs more specific substance, not less, but he needs to relate that substance to how it affects ordinary people. I hope he doesn't take advice to further water down his policy and analysis. All he has to do is communicate well with his audience, which he's proven he knows how to do.

    I know lots of folks never liked this, but... (0.00 / 0)
    Where to begin? (4.00 / 1)
    I am sick of hand wringer's like Rendell:

    "We've got to start smacking back in short understandable bites," he said, noting "Everybody is nervous as all get out. Everybody says we ought to be ahead by 10, 15 points. What the heck is going on?"

    Instead of telling everyone what you think "we" need to do, why doesn't Ed just go out and do it. Instead, of "smacking back"  everytime he opens his big fat mouth he undermines the campaign.  She lost, Ed, let it go. Hey  Ed "some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate" Rendell, get off your ass and grab an oar.



    John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


    Exactly... (0.00 / 0)
    ...it's like, "Y'know, Governor, couldn't you be using your soundbite opportunity to smack John McCain instead of dressing down the guy you're actually pledged to, um, support?"

    "This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
    [ Parent ]
    We nominated a Democrat. (0.00 / 0)
       I think we should probably just accept that this is the way it is.

    John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
    Sure? I thought he is "post-partisan"? (4.00 / 1)
    And imho that's the reason for the problems.
    :-/
    [ Parent ]
    The problem isn't being smart (4.00 / 1)

     The problem is being passive.

     FDR and JFK were both extremely intelligent men -- certainly smarter than their opponents -- and they both won presidential elections. The difference is that they both had passion, and spoke and acted like they believed in what they were doing.

     Gore and Kerry had the smarts, but neither had the passion. Both ran milquetoast campaigns, simply assuming that laundry lists of issues were the best way to reach voters. Neither bothered to define his opponent, much less attack him.

     The across-the-board wimpiness displayed last night at the convention would have embarrassed Celine Dion. If this is the campaign Barack's going to run, he'll join Gore and Kerry in the annals of Great Respected Statesmen. He'll also join them as an election loser.

     Hillary really holds the key tonight. I want John McCain's balls run through the woodchipper. If Hillary does that, we'll win in November. If she gives a kumbaya McCain-is-awesome-but-Obama's-even-awesomer speech, you might want to get your passport updated, because this is the last election we'll ever have.  

    "We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

    I don't think so (0.00 / 0)
    But that isn't intelligence.  It simply is a matter of not speaking to your audience.  An inability to do something isn't a sign of intelligence.  Gore and Kerry's inability to connect showed a lack of intelligence and Bill Clinton who did connect was looked upon as very intelligent.

    Obama has a clear message of unity and change you can believe in.  A little generic, but certainly simple.

    He hasn't yet coined anything like "its the economy stupid", but he has time to turn one of McCain's gaffes into a catchphrase.


    The liberal wiki
    Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

    Great minds think alike (0.00 / 0)
    I just read Rendell's identical quote over at Greg Sargent's Election Central, and my reaction was pretty much the same as Chris's.  It's very simple really.  Obama has to start calling McCain an idiot, plain and simple.  And over and over and over.  None of this respecting his service bullshit.  The public will eat it up.  Haven't they the last few elections??  Humiliate, degrade, embarrass, dominate.  McCain is an idiot.  There are plenty of instances to prove it.  And he can do the same at the debates.  I don't care what they say about Al Gore's so-called sighs (go read Somerby-Gore won that debate until the narrative changed two days later), Obama isn't Gore and attacking this old fossil will work.  Whatever he's doing now sure isn't unless all these polling outfits are in the tank for the Republicans.  What do you guys think???
    this is a stylistic difference between "progressive" and "not progressive" (0.00 / 0)
    Humiliate, degrade, embarrass, dominate.

    That's not how a lot of people want to win.  It may be how they end up having to win, but it's not how people want to win.  I think it runs counter to almost everything Obama has cultivated as his public image, which is why other people in  the Democratic party need to do this.

    But then, they haven't stood up to the Republicans for years, so why expect them to now? ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton vs Barack Obama (0.00 / 0)
    Bill Clinton introduced Immigration "Reform", Welfare "Reform", declared that the era of big government was over, and did significant damage to left and minority issues, but did so with enough style and wit that he could earn the title of "America's First Black President" and the adoration of villagers in India. While Obama is probably his intellectual equal, he (Obama), notwithstanding all the recent praise, is not Clinton's equivalent in oratory, pertinence or quick wit. Obama hems and haws in response to questions, speaks in a lecturing monotone (interspersed with sudden attempts at soaring bromides), etc. In some ways, his rhetorical skills are similar to George Bush (while his intellect is in the opposite camp of Gore, Clinton) -- strong, sure and flowing when he is in his element and subject matter (for Bush that is the death penalty, and such things), but a bit doubtful and meandering otherwise.
    Did We Nominate Gore And Kerry Again? | 39 comments
    		USER MENU

    Open Left Campaigns

    SEARCH

       

    Advanced Search

    QUICK HITS
    STATE BLOGS

    Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

      © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

    Powered by: SoapBlox