He's a Great Speaker: He Must Not Be a Substantive Guy

by: Mike Lux

Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 14:51


So now that I've done a post on something other than the Presidential race, I just have to say one thing about the Presidential race- sorry.

Hillary Clinton's new attack line against Barack Obama is that he gives great speeches. Seriously, here's her quote:

Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill up your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night. My opponent gives speeches. I offer solutions.

So let me flow this argument out, as we used to say on the debate team: her argument seems to be that Obama gives good speeches, and I don't, so I will be a better President.

Apparently since Obama gives great speeches, so he must not be good at getting things done. It's a bullshit argument, but it can be very effective with working class folks who are cynical about politicians and the speeches they give. To push back, Obama has to keep his speeches rooted to the real issues people are facing, and tie those real issues to the hope message he is bringing. He's doing a pretty good job of that at the moment, so I am guessing that these new attacks by Clinton will fall flat.

To my old friends at the Clinton campaign: I love y'all, but you gotta come up with something better than this.

Mike Lux :: He's a Great Speaker: He Must Not Be a Substantive Guy

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

He's a Great Speaker: He Must Not Be a Substantive Guy | 67 comments
This Sounds Like a Version of (0.00 / 0)
John McCain's "Hope is just a platitude."  Do I need to start wondering about some secret McCain-Clinton axis?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
but what? (4.00 / 1)
To my old friends at the Clinton campaign: I love y'all, but you gotta come up with something better than this.

I agree, but what?  I certainly can't think of much beyond what they are trying.

Come to think of it, don't answer that question.  I want Obama to win.

oh, i'll say it (0.00 / 0)
Speaking as an Obama supporter, HRC's campaign has to assail Obama's character with negative campaigning.  I don't think that there is anything issue-based that has a chance of making a difference anymore.  Clinton has to make the case that Obama is not only unworthy of the adulation of his supporters, but that he can't be trusted with their support.  

The "cult" meme that's going around is one way.  It's a two-pronged attack designed to affect secular liberals who see anything that smacks of religion in the neighborhood of politics as bad and conservatives who may be persuaded that Obama sees himself as a replacement for Jesus.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
This is pretty rich... (4.00 / 2)
As Al Giordano notes, speeches do, in fact, put bread on the table in the Clinton household.  Pretty weak stuff.
That is Fabulous (0.00 / 0)
I wonder if Obama can add that in somehow.  Or would to many people not get it.
[ Parent ]
It is a very good idea to point out just how much (0.00 / 0)
bread the Clintons have acquired with their speeches. And then the next step is to put the HRC solutions under scrutiny and contrast them with the Obama platform for change. Finally, Obama should confront the condescension implicit in these dismissals of speeches that have almost without fail inspired a lot of people. What is HRC saying, that these people who are  so enthusiastic about Obama are somehow the types of rubes that she so famously despises? And that, in and of itself, would open a nice can of worms for HRC who has shown in the past who she thinks are the really contemptible ones, namely the American people.
The appeals of HRC to the working class are totally lame, given the union busting and neo-liberal globalization stance that the Clintons have taken in the past.
[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
that more substance should be added to his speeches.  However,  it should not take away from his ability to inspire.  These great speeches are what draws people to him and he still needs to do that.  More substance, yes but don't turn it into a lecture.  Then he becomes no different than his opponents.  From what I saw tuesday night, he's right on target.
I agree (4.00 / 1)
but I think his speeches have become increasingly substantive - without devolving into wonkery (which is the level that the Clinton campaign prefers to operate at.)  He's not just saying hope and change anymore - he's tying it to trade, Iraq, terrorism, etc. It's a good step in the right direction (and shows the continuing influence of the Edwards campaign.)  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
all the voters in tx and oh, will have heard about how there is no substance to him.  His speech should disprove that, while maintaining some inspiration.
[ Parent ]
straw man (4.00 / 1)
It's a straw man argument designed to deceive low information voters. Clinton is arguing against the position of not offering solutions. Who is this non-existent candidate who is not offering any solutions? Some low-information voters may fall prey to this bit of trickery. "Gosh, I do think that solutions are more important than speeches. I guess this Obama guy must only be offering speeches and not solutions." It's bullshit. It's the classic straw man bullshit. It's no different than when Bush emphatically asserts that he does think we should listen in on terrorists' phone calls. Whoever argued that we shouldn't? Nobody.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Yep. (0.00 / 0)
I think part of what Clinton is trying to do with this attack is to take Obama off his game, to get him to become more dry in his speaking. I think that would be a mistake for him. I think you are right that he's currently doing a really good job of combining the hope message with some substance on the issues.
[ Parent ]
Working class appeal? (0.00 / 0)
I doubt it. When you say something like this you put yourself in a position where you have to back it up. The reality is that she's not offering any more or different solutions than Obama's. To me it's the tin ear at work again. She sounds like a corporate TV ad, Obama sounds like he's talking about something he really believes to real people.

I'm for Obama, but am kind of saddened by what's happening to Clinton's campaign. She's better than this, but once again her lousy choice of advisors is doing her damage.

I Think It's A Very Good Line (4.00 / 2)
because, as a matter of fact, Obama's speeches are light on solutions.

And Obama has a ready response--put more substance into his speeches.

Which would be good for all of us.

He's already moving in this direction.  Let him do even more.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Paul your are not being..... (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Whoops! (0.00 / 0)

Previous comment was meant to be taken with a large helping of snark which did not come thru.....

Will try harder next time.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
But putting in more substance doesn't work (0.00 / 0)
HRC's campaign ran into problems in part because she took Mark Penn's advice to focus more on issues instead of Harold Ickes' that she should work on her image problems.  While I don't mind some addition, there's a limit to how much substance Obama can put into his speeches before he fundamentally changes the nature of his campaign and goes in a different direction from what has gotten him this far.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
To be successful in the GE... (0.00 / 0)

.........he's going to have to define himself.

If he doesn't McCain and his allies will be only to happy to do so. They will do that anyway but it's political suicide to let the opposition define you tol the voters. Gore and Kerry found that out the hard way.

And no I don't think Obama has reinvented politics in this country. Clinton and her hubby are both very overrated politicians. Bill got real lucky.

She...not so much it would seem.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Luck (0.00 / 0)
Is a huge factor in winning elections. Bill is far from the first person to be lucky enough to win the presidency and far from the luckiest. GWB anyone?

It's more important to define McCain, or redefine as it were, because if he stays as the "maverick" even while he openly and actively panders to the hard right, inspiration will matter diddly.

[ Parent ]
GWB = lucky also (0.00 / 0)
But for people lucky before Bill, what about His Accidency John Tyler? (Maybe unlucky) What of Reagan happening to have the Carter-Kennedy fight of the Dem. primary fall into his lap?
[ Parent ]
Not really (0.00 / 0)
He just has to do what Democrats have not done in recent elections and define his opponent first.  You start with "Bush-McCain" rhetoric.  You play up that McCain is old and a relic of past politics.  You talk of him as a hypocrite, which Obama has already started with his description of McCain as the straight talk express derailed by actions such as voting against the Bush tax cuts before he embraced them.

And Obama has already defined himself as an outsider against the same old Washington politics.  Anything that Clinton or McCain does, he can just laugh and dismiss as more of the same old Washington games that he wants to move beyond.  His post-partisan image is really a fairly good defense if utilized properly.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
That won't work (0.00 / 0)
unless you replace McCain's 'maverick' image with something.  McCain has already branded himself, too.  And it's a brand that's not immediately vulnerable to an attack on him as a washington insider.
[ Parent ]
It will be a cakewalk to debunk the maverick (0.00 / 0)
shtick, especially considering the way McCain has bent over time and again for Bush. He has stretched the term maverick into an unrecognizable state. I mean really, he opens himself up for outright ridicule when he does the maverick pose.
[ Parent ]
It's still work to be done (4.00 / 1)
and don't underestimate how the press reinforces this image.  It can be done, but it won't be 'a cakewalk'
[ Parent ]
It's well documented (0.00 / 0)
it's in the press, it's a matter of record, the right wing has already made the case for us, looks like a cakewalk to me. The press will have to accede to the facts, once they're in the forefront of public attention.
[ Parent ]
And the public totally is never going to fall for this George W. Bush guy (0.00 / 0)
He has no qualifications, no record, and the stuff he's saying makes no sense.  Gore is going to wipe the floor with him--all there is to do is hone his message.  

The press is lazy.  They will go with their existing narratives if they are allowed to.  It's what they do.

[ Parent ]
Fair enough, but this is a general issue (0.00 / 0)
that is always a problem. It doesn't speak to the facts. If McCain really was the lone individual fighting a crooked system as he portrays himself (instead of embedded within the system), the laziness of the press wouldn't be the limiting factor. The press could be motivated to report the truth and it still wouldn't serve to defeat McCain, it would bolster his credibility.
But this is a good point that you have raised, and clearly a formidable issue. How do we overcome the inertia of the press, and further, how do we overcome ideological bias of the press due to corporate assumptions? One idea is to shift the debate through changing the language of discourse, which is why words are so important.

Another thing, the reasons for the Bush 'victory' are much more than just a matter of the public being hoodwinked.  

[ Parent ]
I used to think this (0.00 / 0)
then I actually started listening to some of his speeches. Of course they vary in content from speech to speech, but in general I found 2 interesting things.

1) there is plenty of substance. But its often overshadowed by  listener's reactions to the speeches. The "Wow" reactions get more air time than the substance stuff.

2) his hope theme strikes me as a very savy and disarming (to facists) way of saying, we are going to fight rigorously for human equality, the fight that has been going on for a long time in this country, and we're not going to back down, in fact we are going to step it up.

This is much more transparent now with the "Yes We Can" theme. It is important to listen to the items he talks about fighting for. The Yes We Can is a rallying cry and it blows away most campaigns. It is not cultishness that when people go to see him they have this Paul falling off his horse experience. The speeches are absolutely incomparable to Hillary and everyone else's common campaign style. It is authentically what we call leadership, its beyond casting the right votes, its about emotionally setting the compass. It is not insignificant.

And I haven't even been to one in person - and I used to ridcule the Hope message. Call me Paul.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
I'm Thinking Most Telling Of Obama's Highest-Profile Speeches (0.00 / 0)
Compare his Iowa victory speech to last weekend's (which I didn't catch in full).  The Iowa victory speech really was devoid of any substantive points.  It was pure pep talk, pure rally-the-troops.  Last weekend, quite different.

Given that Hillary's greatest strength is with low-information voters, and that the GOP's only hope lies with the same, it is extremely important that Obama get this shift imprinted in his DNA, because it's these high-profile speeches that are going to define him--or else his opponents will.

p.s.  You obviously haven't heard Jesse Jackson speak.  Obama is remarkable only because you're accustomed to white politicians.  Even female black politicians--such as Barbara Jordan or Maxine Waters--draw from this tradition in ways that whites rarely do.

Of course, not all black politicians draw on the rhetorical traditions of the black church.  Some are wonky. Some are softspoken.  There are all kinds.  But among those that do draw on that tradition, Obama started off by being noticably thin on substance, which does not normally come as part of the package.  In fact, the rhetorical tradition is all about driving home certain key substantive points.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
speeches (0.00 / 0)
Lincoln gave good speech, and look how THAT turned out.....

silly attack by Clinton.

Agreed (0.00 / 0)
FDR wasn't too shabby either.  

What's interesting is that I actually think that Obama's ability to give great speeches is one of the most compelling reasons to vote for him.  In Obama, I see a candidate who will not only be able to bring in larger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, but his speaking ability will scare of shit out of the few Republican Senators whom we will need to convince not to filibuster on issues like health care, energy policy and the budget.  I think we will need 2-5 Republicans in the Senate.

Now, the following Republicans will be up for re-election in 2010 or 2012 in states Obama seems likely to carry:  Voinovich (OH '10), Specter (PA '10), Martinez (FL '10), Snowe (ME '12), Ensign (NV '12), etc.  These guys are going to have to think long and hard before they become obstructionists, because they will not want Obama aggressively campaigning against them in their states.  Hillary Clinton simply does not have that arrow in her quiver, which could be a decisive difference in determining how these bills come out of Congress.  

A vote against Health Care Reform is a vote for ten 9/11s every single year!

[ Parent ]
Just imagine (4.00 / 1)
Obama as president campaigning for Democratic Congressional candidates in 2010.  Now imagine Hillary Clinton doing that.  Who's going to raise more money?  Who's going to sway more voters?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
in purple and red districts (0.00 / 0)
I would not be surprised if dem candidates would view her as completely toxic.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Specter is almost certainly retiring (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Bill Clinton was a great speaker, too (0.00 / 0)
It's a great tool to have in your box.  But until we know toward what end the tool will be used, it's only that--a tool.
[ Parent ]
I don't recall Hillary Clinton ever (0.00 / 0)
putting food on my table, gas in my car, drugs in my medicine cabinet, or helping to pay my bills.

...or preventing the invasion of Iraq when she had a chance, come to think of it.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Hey that's not fair (4.00 / 1)
Now you're parsing votes and that's just not fair to Senator Clinton. [/slight sarcasm]
[ Parent ]
you dont live in nystate i guess. (0.00 / 0)
she and schumer are the earmark champions, bringing hundreds of millions to NYState. Quite literally Hillary has brought home the bacon. Now, earmarks are terrible, but I give credit to Hillary, she sure can work the system.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
No I don't live in NY (0.00 / 0)
but, that's beside the point, really.

Thing is - no matter who is the next President and no matter what policies they hope to enact - the details of those policies remain to be negotiated in the congress, the WH, and the streets.  

These putative  differences in substance are, to me, an illusion - just like her "inevitable nomination" was an illusion conjured by the media and her handlers.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
and even more to Obama's point (4.00 / 1)
the most important thing is how dedicated are the rank and file congress members to the President. and in that case to me rhetorical aptitude and persuasion are far more important.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
it's a tactic Rove likes (4.00 / 2)
attack your opponent's strengths. Obama is an excellent public speaker; disparage that.

It's a silly argument. Leadership is part of the president's job, and public speaking is part of leadership.

Watch Wisconsin (0.00 / 0)
As an Obama supporter, the only thing that worries me right now is Clinton's going after him in Wisconsin for not debating.  That might not resonate in most places, but has always been an effective attack in Wisconsin.  For his future success in getting proposals passed and for his immediate needs to be seen as a person with well thought out progressive ideas, Obama should start to work more policy into his speeches, but the main issue that he is hammering on isn't one of policy differences, but of governing differences.  To paraphrase Axelrod yesterday, "there are a lot of good ideas in both camps, but the question is who will be able to implement them?"  Obama's main and overiding point is that he can be more effective in implementing a progressive agenda because he isn't trapped in Clinton's mindset. If he incorporates policies on his web site into his speeches he will be seen as more substantive, but he must avoid the pitfall of trying to outwonk Hillary because she's the wonk of all wonks and can't be matched in that arena.  The Clintons feel they have an opening with Obama's health care proposals, and Krugman agrees.  Others don't see a great deal of practical difference between the competing proposals, but if the Clintons can make their case stick they might be able to get some traction and get back in the race.  This all seems familiar. The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Remember "where's the beef?"  Obama might say, "since I just got the endorsement of the meatpackers, they must think I know a little more about where it is than you."  Short hand... Clinton's sayin': "you talk the talk a lot better than I do, but only I can walk the walk."  Obama's sayin': "if you walk the walk so well, how come we're in Iraq and how come we have a failed health care system."

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners -- Albert Camus

The speeches are not Obama's problem (4.00 / 1)
His biggest political liability is that he can be portrayed as a lightweight.  (I believe he actually is a lightweight and would be a weak president.)  His record of accomplishment is thin to nonexistent.  He has positions, but he can't have issues.  People feel strongly about issues.  His campaign relies on people feeling strongly about HIM.  He thinks he can win a popularity contest with anybody, and he's probably right, but this isn't the Student Council.  Right now his image is that of a JFK-type charismatic leader, but he can't really back it up. The Republicans will try to use his  mastery of the political stage to turn him into Justin Timberlake.
Brings back memories (0.00 / 0)
In no way implying this is Clinton's intent, but the tactic is reminiscent of the sentiment in 2000 that Gore was too intelligent, and the big meanie was making poor stupid Georgie look bad in the debates, so we should all vote for Georgie.

It's a silly position to take.  God forbid we have an intelligent, well spoken President after the past 7 years.

Shameless Blog Plug: The SideTrack

[ Parent ]
Are you saying that Clinton is making the same complaint as Gore did? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Of course not (0.00 / 0)
it is obvious that Obama is far more inspiring than HRC. Ergo, HRC suffers in the comparison, just as Bush was obviously no match for Gore. Neither in intellect, nor character, nor depth of experience, nor....I could go on, but surely you get my drift. And it is perfectly natural that, out of pique and envy, HRC would be unable to resist the cheap shot. At this point there is little else available. Sure, it appeals to the resentments of the audience, and this is classic (albeit concealed, or at least subtle) demagoguery, appealing to the worst in people. A sign of desperation, n'est-ce pas? And it's all out in the open, this public display of the HRC character. Very much at home on the low road.
[ Parent ]
People feel strongly about issues (0.00 / 0)
like the war, the war that HRC supported, the war that is ruining lives far away from here. How well insulated HRC remains from all of the mess that has been enabled to support nothing more than ambition.
[ Parent ]
JFK gave great speeches (0.00 / 0)
but really didn't accomplish much.

LBJ wheeled and dealed with Congress to get Medicare, Medicaid and Voting Rights Act passed.

And paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen. . . (0.00 / 0)
Senator Obama is no Jack Kennedy. (But by no means am I comparing him to Dan Quayle!)
[ Parent ]
It's hard (0.00 / 0)
to get a lot accomplished when you win a razor-thin election and then someone shoots you.  
[ Parent ]
LBJ escalated the disaster (0.00 / 0)
that was the Vietnam war. Something the students were very concerned about while there was a draft. Wheeling and dealing isn't accurate either, it was more like arm twisting.

JFK did a lot more than give great speeches. Surely you know that, don't you?

[ Parent ]
You Need To Re-Examine The Historical Record (0.00 / 0)
Johnson's domestic legislative accomplishments were second only to FDRs.  Kennedy's accomplishments were nowhere close to being comparable.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Yes, we all know about the 'Great Society' (0.00 / 0)
Yawn. Moreover, no one as far as I can tell ever implied (I certainly didn't) that JFK implemented substantial social change. But if you wanted bombs and a dramatic escalation in the number of troops fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, LBJ was just the ticket. My, what a saint.
Whether and to what extent HRC would escalate the war in the middle east is an open question. I am reluctant to believe that the troops would be withdrawn completely (nor even soon) simply because this has been promised. HRC engages in happy talk, it just doesn't inspire because it is delivered in such a hamhanded manner.
[ Parent ]
Hillary Gets It Done. (0.00 / 0)
Sorry Mike, but your argument might be more effective if Obama could actually come up with some substantive things he had done. I'm mean beyond voting present quite a few times. Oh and that ethics bill that says ya have to stand up when being wined and dined by lobbyists. Oh and how about recycling some of Hillary's economic proposals

Seriously, so he keeps his speeches rooted to real issues, thats great. What actions can he actually point to where he has made an impact? And how does that stand up to Hillary's record.

Hillary may not always be the most dynammic speaker in the room, but she gets things done. And if she fails, she keeps trying. That's who I want fighting for me and that's why I'm voting for HER.

He's a Great Speaker: He Must Not Be a Substantive Guy | 67 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