How you speak is influenced greatly by who it is that you are speaking to, and what it is that you want to say.
In politics nothing is accidental. Candidate’s words and style of presentation are constantly being shaped by what it is that will contact with voters and give them what they want to hear – so that you will get the most votes.
So for example, Barack Obama is a candidate founded on ‘hope’; his entire campaign is based on ‘aspiration’ and ‘change’. As a result, his style of presentation isn’t aggressive, isn’t bloated by numbers or statistics and isn’t based on how bad things are.
It instead is filled with personalised and touching stories, with promises of how America can change (with his audience shout out line “Yes We Can!”) and how the time for that change must be now. His style of presentation reflects this too. He is almost shockingly laid back, he pauses for long stretches in between points – never speaking quickly, he smiles throughout, rarely appears to get angry or even agitated. When he emphasises a point, he often annunciates his words a lot, much like Martin Luther King, with the drawing out of syllables. This may not be an accidental.
In total though, he has a uniquely brilliant oratory style; he is passionate without being stretched and aggressive and he is incredibly confident, without
coming across as arrogant. Best of all he cracks the silver bullet, the holy grail, of political speech secrets: he doesn’t look like a politician.
In comparison Hillary Clinton is a different type of speaker, however not necessarily a poorer one. Her style is unusual in that it is both more aggressive and political than Obama’s, but often tends to be more heartfelt and humble. As Obama has captured the mantle of ‘change’, Hillary has instead been forced to push ‘experience’ as her main point of argument. This is reflected in her rhetoric, with far more policy and detail. Also, she has been the more aggressive towards other candidates, freely criticising them and often joking at their expense. Her overall style is far more erratic and unpredictable – based far more in the circumstances of the moment. If she is doing well then her tempo slows, her body becomes more planted and her words more presidential. When she is forced into a corner, she is very able to fight her way through a speech and engage real passion to show her undeniable power. Also though, when she is in intimate urroundings she can become very personal, heartfelt and even emotional.
What this more unpredictable style means is that she actually comes across as a real person. Where Obama comes across as a preacher, Hillary is more like a passionate mother.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
We started this blog with the words: “How you speak is influenced greatly by who it is that you are speaking to, and what it is that you want to say.” So imagine our surpirse (and bemusement) last night when Associated Press chairman Dean Singleton made a slip of the tongue while passing on a question to Barack Osama, or should that be Barak Obama, at AP’s annual Washington lunch.
How did he assess the threat posed by Obama bin Laden? To nervous laughter, Obama replied: “That’s Osama bin Laden,” adding: “This is part of what I have been going through for the past months, which is why it is impressive that I am still standing here.”
It’s only one letter difference, but what a difference it makes – especially if you get them the wrong way around.