DebateScoop.org: Obama's Rhetorical Challenge

Obama's Rhetorical Challenge

By Coverstone 04/30/2007 03:18:49 PM EST

The following appeared in the Chicago Sun Times:

"Constrained by a 60-second limit for replies that worked against Obama's speaking style -- a very long windup to the pitch -- his tendency to generalize meant he did not directly answer some questions" (Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun Times, April 29, 2007, http://www.suntimes.com/new s/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-swee t29.article).

Can/should Obama be prepared to move away from this style? After all, his attack on the demands of the sound bite-style of politics (the very style demanded by debate formats like the one in South Carolina), forms the center of Obama's campaign.

Join me below the fold to consider Obama's rhetorical challenge further...

Tags: Obama, 2008 presidential election, 2008 Democratic primaries, Sotuh Carolina, debates, rhetoric

The "long, windup to the pitch," is the technique that shows he is a thinking and reflective person. Unfortunately, for Obama, when compressed into 60-second answers, the thoughtful, reflective, and even rambling windups come across as disorganized equivocations or incomplete answers.

In that sense, Obama seems to be following the rhetorical pattern of other thoughtful or wonkish moderates, and he should expect the same kind of responses. Bill Clinton's "on the one hand; on the other hand" style got him labeled a waffler. He, however, learned how to compress his answers so that they appeared both thoughtful and concise. Too bad for Obama that Bill is not available to coach him.

Hillary has learned the lesson. She has shown tremendous rhetorical discipline so far, and in the South Carolina debate, she showed a touch that I was not sure she had. The danger for a disciplined, on-message speaker is that he/she will appear overly programmed and cold (ex. Dukakis on capital punishment in 1998 debate, see transcript from the Commission on Presidential Debates, October 13, 1988, http://www.debates.org/page s/trans88b.html) Hillary did not seem cold or calculating even though she was able to address all the most important issues. She exudes competence without sacrificing thoughtfulness.

The thesis of The Audacity of Hope, creates serious rhetorical constraints for Obama that may become more serious as the campaign wears on. His campaign is about listening and understanding everyone's point of view. He champions a politics of empathy that contextualizes policy questions at the intersection of deeply held and sincere beliefs. It will be hard for Obama to continue to contextualize tough policy questions without seeming to equivocate. However, to the degree that he speaks decisively, he will appear to be acting inconsistently toward the politics of listening and understanding.

Oh, by the way, Obama seems to understand this problem, and he is trying to buy time. After the South Carolina debate he said:

"'Last night I was a little nervous,' Obama said at a rally in Charleston on Friday, where he filled the gym at Burke High School" (Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun Times, April 29, 2007, http://www.suntimes.com/new s/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-swee t29.article).

"Nervous" will cover him for a little while, but before long he will need to work out this dilemma and start to develop clear and concise answers that demonstrate empathy with all sides of hot-button political disputes. That's a tall order. If he can pull it off, there is no limit to his political potential. If he cannot, he will likely be reduced to the latest in a long line of candidates who tried and failed.

< If Terrorists Attacked Tonight . . . | GOP Debate Debut in the Shadow of Reagan >

Obama's Rhetorical Challenge | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden)

Some tactics and tips? (none / 0)

We debate coaches should be able to help, no? I wonder who is coaching Obama and whether they have the kind of experience necessary to really be up to the job. Debate (yes, I know, these are not "debatres" according to purists), has unique demands.

In my post on the "If we were attacked . . . " question, I suggested that Obama aim his answers more directly to the question of how he would decide what to do in such an instance. He more or less let people hear him think aloud, but, as you say, that takes more than the allotted time.

One good tactic is to question the premise (discussed in our radio show briefly and in need of further elaboration. Obama could successflylly question the premise of many of the questions as steeped in a olitics as usual mentality.

Another tactic is to frontload: while hearing the question, jot or remember a phrase or words that will be the answer. Pitch first, wind up second.

Some practice sessions and Obama may be able to retain the essence of his style and substance while seeming less hesitant.

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 04/30/2007 11:38:42 PM EST

Other rhetorical constraints on Obama (none / 0)

The narrative of his candidacy:

Great speaker, inspiring, charismatic.
Inexperienced
"All sizzle no steak?" (Sharpton on Hardball).

Problems:
Item one does not translate well into his studied approach to answering questions, whether in interviews I have seen or in the quickie time limit debates.

Items two and three are those the opponents and skeptics/pundits are using to "test" him, and they review his debate performances through that lens.

First, one can hardly prove much about policy wonkery in one minute answers.

Second, Obama's attempts to show his policy chops come at the expense of the high rhetoric that the everyday viewer is tuning in to hear.

But, then, who knows? The only scientific poll of viewers of the debate said Obama was best (and by a good margin).

Be the debater you want to see.

by Ross Smith on 05/01/2007 12:35:39 AM EST

: Selective Perception (none / 0)

The poll results you reference are very interesting, but those questions/results may reveal more about what the survey audience wants to hear than what is really said. Remember Dean? When he was the last great hope of grassroots organizers in the run up to the first primaries, his loose-cannon approach caused people to see him as a maverick who spoke his mind. Poll respondents seemed to ascribe positive characteristics like independence and leadership to his enthusiastic and occasionally odd public performances.
What changed with "the scream?" Dean himself changed little, but the audience's perception of him changed as people began to look for more than a renegade. In the week before the Iowa caucuses, polls, media pundits, and voters seemed to focus more on national electability. Through that lens risk-taking seemed, frankly, more risky.
Here, the polls may suggest that 31% WANT Obama to win, so they see him win when they watch the debate. As has been detailed frequently on this site, expectations play a role. That's partly why Obama is successful in tamping down expectations with his admission that he was "nervous." But this strategy sets up rising expectations as well. People can say, "He was great in South Carolina given how nervous he was. Just wait until he relaxes." He will have to show some marked improvement at some point to justify that expectation. For now, selective perception allows people who want Obama to win to see him winning. Absent a big gaffe (and you never know when a "Dean scream" moment is coming for a candidate), debates seem to reinforce perceptions that already exist. The big gaffe can contribute to changing perceptions, but so can a host of other factors.
Obama definitely needs to heed the coaching tips in your posts if he is to begin to control impression formation rather than simply benefiting from favorable impressions cultivated by the ideas in his books and his charismatic public performances.
Alan Coverstone, Debate Coach, Government Teacher, and Academic Dean Montgomery Bell Academy Nashville, TN
by Coverstone on 05/01/2007 08:27:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]