Nick Morgan - Public Speaking Advice and Commentary

What should a leader say in times of tragedy?

The recent tragedy at Fort Hood prompted President Obama to modify previously scheduled comments to a Native American group in order to comment on the horrific shootings (http://tinyurl.com/yjg4pyz).  The President’s comments demonstrate both the opportunities and the pitfalls of this sort of leadership speech, and bear comparison to President Reagan’s much-quoted speech on the Challenger disaster of January 28, 1986 (http://tinyurl.com/yzsv4dl), not to mention Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Pericles’ funeral oration on the death of Greek soldiers during the first year of the Peloponnesian War. 

We expect leaders to speak on tragic occasions like this one.  Their comments should comfort us and let us know that the deaths of the fallen have not gone unnoticed.  There are certain demands of the genre and the occasion; it is the job of the leader to say something about the larger significance of the cause upon which the fallen were engaged.  The leader should further address some specific audiences: the relatives of the dead, who have special reason to mourn, and perhaps other groups who are particularly affected. 

Primarily, we look to the leader to give us some sense of continuity, reassuring us that the cause, and life, will go on.  In the presence of death, then, we look to our leaders to help us find resilience and endurance – to re-orient us toward life. 

How did President Obama’s comments compare to the great examples of the genre provided by presidents Reagan and Lincoln, as well as the Ancient Greeks?

Not well, unfortunately.  Reagan canceled his State of the Union address to speak solely about the Challenger disaster.  Obama squeezed his comments in the end of a speech on other matters.  The choice of the latter to continue with his other business diminishes the sense of occasion. 

Reagan’s eulogy is a brief masterpiece; Lincoln’s an even briefer, even more magnificent piece of prose.  Both earlier presidents’ speeches acknowledge the role of the fallen in the larger cause.  Both speeches point the way forward, making the argument that the dead have not died in vain because the cause goes on.  And both speeches help their audiences rededicate themselves to the larger purpose involved, whether it is the exploration of space, or the creation of a more perfect union.  In this re-dedication, the two speeches echo Pericles’ oration, which argues passionately for his listeners’ continued allegiance to the city-state Athens and its role in the world as a beacon of freedom. 

Obama’s speech, on the other hand, is primarily tactical.  He talks about getting to the bottom of the mystery of the shooting, and the involvement of various governmental bodies in that pursuit.  He does note that the soldiers who died are heroes in service to their country, but the comment is brief and perfunctory and does nothing to specify either the particular mission of the soldiers in question or particular groups affected beyond the obvious, the families of the fallen.

His delivery is flat and distracted, as if his attention was split between the audience in front of him and the events at Fort Hood.  Reagan, on the other hand, is completely focused, evincing sympathy, compassion, and comfort in equal measure, his eyebrows drawn together, his head tipped slightly to one side, and his voice full of concern. 

Reagan’s speech mentions the fallen astronauts by name.  He addresses the families of the dead directly, and takes time further to speak to the schoolchildren who were watching the Challenger flight because a teacher was on board.  And he makes an eloquent case that space exploration will go on:

I’ve always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it.  We don’t hide our space program.  We don’t keep secrets and cover things up.  We do it all up front and in public.  That’s the way freedom is, and we wouldn’t change it for a minute.  We’ll continue our quest in space.  There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews, and yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space.  Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue. 

Similarly, Lincoln makes the case that Gettysburg’s fallen have not died in vain because the living will take up their cause and soldier on:

The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated (this ground), far above our poor power to add or detract.  The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.  It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.  It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 

In times of great mourning, we look to our leaders to find the meaning that allows us to go on.  President Obama should call upon all his eloquence and help the families of Fort Hood – and the nation – deal with this most recent tragedy with words and demeanor more suited to the occasion. 

 

 

 

 

President Obama's Health Care Speech: How did he do?

Last night, President Obama proved that he is still the master of rhetoric we saw during the campaign by delivering his first unambiguously excellent speech since those halcyon days on the stump. 

 

His weakest moment was at the beginning.  He began with a risky opening, risky because he nearly changed the subject before he’d properly started.  He brought up a topic as difficult and as contentious for Americans as health care – the economy:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. ….

But before the President and his audience wandered into another speech altogether, he provided an elegant transition to the real topic of the evening:

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future - and that is the issue of health care.

The line cleverly appealed to the American can-do spirit, and brought us to the point – health care in America is a difficult subject, and one that has been difficult for a long time:

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session. Our collective failure to meet this challenge - year after year, decade after decade - has led us to a breaking point.

A very nice appeal to the history of the Congress, and the bi-partisan nature of the long effort, this was the real beginning of the speech and a brilliant way to open the debate.  It put us on notice that the task is a difficult one.

Then the President delved deep into the problem:

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships (caused by lack of insurance) for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.

Health care has become a contentious subject, and what’s the best way to deal with contention?  By treating serious alternatives with respect. 

We know we must reform this system. The question is how.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches.

The President then went on to detail at some length his solution, contrasting it with a variety of the other proposals, saying, “Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan….”

And he closed with an emotional appeal to the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s memory and our own collective will as a country:

I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.

One good speech rarely ends discussion and there is still much legislative work to be done.  But the President accomplished as much as an address of this kind can, and his remarks deserve to be treated with the dignity and respect he showed all the other serious participants in the health care debate.  It was an excellent speech.  

 

How do you connect with your audience? -- Part II

Second of 3 blogs on connecting with your audience.

Everything significant in communication between people happens in personal or intimate space.  That’s the most important thing to remember about connection.  But there’s more.  There has been a historical change in this regard with the advent of television. What was once social or public between people now is personal.  In other words, seeing newscasters, celebrities, and politicians in our living rooms and bedrooms for all these years has created an expectation that we can have personal conversations with everyone who matters to us.

 

The head-and-shoulders framing of people on TV gives the appearance of that personal space closeness to us, and we’ve gotten used to it.  Your goal as a communicator is to make sure of a couple of things. First, you’re in the personal space of the person you’re communicating with when you’re saying the most important things, asking for what you really want, or closing the sale. Second, whenever you’re attempting to communicate with someone, you’re closing the distance between you rather than increasing it.

 

I see people move away from audiences all the time when they’re giving a speech for reasons of nerves, or self-protection, or something else. The result is that the second conversation says to the audience, “This is not important; you don’t need to pay attention,”  even while the poor speaker is trying to make some point he or she believes is  important.

 

In this instance, then, the two conversations are not supporting one another, and the audience believes the second every time.  So to connect nonverbally, you need to move toward people and use the four zones of space to make it personal.

 

When you want to cool the relationship down or punctuate your communication, say, by signaling that you’re changing the subject, you can move away at that point. That move will demonstrate more eloquently than anything you can say that a change has happened.

Palin and Sotomayor - Lessons in Presenting

I’m struck by the very different recent public appearances of Sarah Palin and Judge Sonia Sotomayor, because they illustrate – in two extreme ways – the importance of openness – and clarity of intent – in public speaking.  You can see samples of their respective video records here:  (Sotomayor) http://tinyurl.com/ksfrov and here:  (Palin) http://tinyurl.com/kjnxlb. 

Leaving aside political opinions for a minute, both women are effective public speakers who have drawn both praise and opprobrium from opposite sides of the political spectrum.  They are both able to communicate effectively with their supporters and people on their side of the divide. 

That’s in part because they meet the first test of a public speaker:  being open.  I say a good deal more about this in my book, Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma, but here I’ll just encourage you to watch their faces.  Both are great nodders, both smile readily, using their eyes and eyebrows to signal openness to their audiences.  Openness is largely established with non-verbal facial (and hand) gestures, and both women accomplish this task well. 

It’s in clarity of intent that the two differ.  Judge Sotomayor makes her intent perfectly clear – to both her supporters and opponents.  She intends to be confirmed.  She will answer every question as thoroughly as she can according to the bizarre rules established over the years for (successful) Supreme Court nominees – without actually giving anything away.  She will radiate judicial calm and restraint.  As a result, she reinforces her bond with her supporters and gives her opponents very little to attack her with.  She may even win some Republicans over to her side. 

Governor Palin, in her resignation speech at a hastily called press conference on the Friday of the Fourth of July weekend, was completely opaque about her intent.  As a result, she further alienated her opponents and lost a good many of her supporters.  If you’re going to quit a job to which you’ve been elected, like a governorship, you have to have a really good – and clear – reason.  Palin’s assortment of suggested causes for stepping down were unconvincing and contradictory.  Without clarity of intent, we don’t understand her motives, and when we don’t understand someone’s motives, we can’t sympathize with them. 

Openness and clarity of intent need to go together for effective speechmaking. 

Making a film? Appearing on camera? Check out these tips

For my blog today, I'm linking to an interview I did this week with Thomas Clifford, filmmaker and Fast Company expert blogger on how to use the principles I talk about in creating and appearing in film and video:  http://tinyurl.com/mehdhr

Enjoy!

What did President Obama's Cairo speech achieve?

The reactions to President Obama's Cairo University speech are falling along predictable fault lines in the Middle East: http://bit.ly/pETKy.  But for more dispassionate observers, how did the speech go?  You can check out the text and video here: http://tinyurl.com/oz48ly. 

Opening with a greeting of peace, assalaamu alaykum, President Obama told the assembled Cairo audience that he had come to seek a new beginning:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

The speech went on to follow the classic problem-solution format of a persuasive speech.  Obama stated the problem in honest and forthright terms:

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

His solution for this tension is the new beginning he calls for, as well as specific progress on 7 issues that contribute to the tension:  extremism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nuclear weapons, democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, and economic development. 

This is elegant rhetoric indeed, and to the extent that good speech-making can open a door, or start a new dialogue, or re-set expectations, President Obama’s talk today should accomplish all those worthy goals.  

A note on his body language.  President Obama still has not figured out a natural set of gestures to go with his sweeping, well-delivered words.  His posture radiates confidence and dignity.  Now he needs to figure out a gestural rhetoric that is equally effective. 

Obama closed with a broad call for peace, repeating his theme of a new beginning: 

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

Peace-loving people around the world can only agree.  Now the hard work of practical steps, real commitments, and compromise needs to begin. 

Jim Collins and his new book, How the Mighty Fall

It’s always dangerous to take on an icon, but here we go.  Jim Collins has written a new book, How the Mighty Fall, and he’s on camera talking about it: http://tinyurl.com/rymn9m

Collins is the Marcus Welby of the business world.  He looks and sounds the part of the sage business adviser.  And the first thing that has to be said about him is that he is a consummate, technically near-perfect speaker – at least on camera and on the small screen.  That doesn’t always translate to the large stage, of course – and vice-versa. 

On screen, then, he’s got wonderful pacing – talking quickly, but every now and then slowing down markedly on a key point to emphasize it.  His voice is authoritative, his gestures passionate.  This is one smart, articulate guy. 

It’s the message that’s the problem.  Good to Great  purported to identify the characteristics that made a company great, and the recommendations in it at least were actionable.  The issue was that the companies identified as such soon fell off the lofty perch Collins had put them on. 

That made How the Mighty Fall inevitable, I suppose.  But the problem is that the five stages here are not actionable points in the life of an organization.  Instead, they’re moral judgments.  From ‘hubris born of success’ to the ‘undisciplined pursuit of more’ to the ‘denial of risk and peril’ to ‘grasping for salvation’ and finally ‘capitulation to irrelevance or death’, these so-called stages are actually moral states lifted from the religious classic Pilgrim’s Progress.  The title gives away the plot, in this case. 

I won’t get any thanks for saying so, but Collins is a preacher talking sin, not a business thinker showing us how to revivify ailing companies or an ailing economy. 

The 3 most powerful ways to increase your personal charisma

In this information-saturated, attention-deprived age, your message has to be sharp and vital to stick in the minds of your listeners – and you have to be even sharper and more vital.  Following are 3 ways to increase your personal charisma to attract the attention you want.

1.  Increase your ability to be open.   At its heart, charisma is emotion.  Great actors and celebrities who have charisma reveal real emotion to us – that’s what captures our attention and draws us in.  The first step in that kind of revelation is openness.  Most of us close ourselves off to others without even realizing it.  It’s part of the automatic, unconscious danger signals our bodies send out to strangers and crowds and people in general when we meet them for the first time.  That’s a survival skill we’ve evolved from the cave, and it worked well then.  But now, we need to be open to audiences rather than braced for flight or fight. 

So, rehearse your presentations and speeches as if you were talking to a close friend, a spouse, or a family member with whom you’re completely comfortable.  Then practice transferring that openness to your actual presentations.  It will be difficult at first, but you will soon learn to have a relaxed, open conversation with your audience, and your charisma will take a giant leap forward. This technique works just as well with meetings, one-on-one conversations, and informal gatherings. 

2.  Get a clear emotional focus in mind.   Most of us, when we’re getting ready to present, or meet with someone important, are thinking about all the things that can go wrong, or we’re stressing out about the technology, or we’re wondering how long it’s going to be until we can get to the bar for a drink.  To increase your charisma, instead focus on the underlying emotional attitude you have toward your message.  Are you excited?  Passionate?  Eager to spread the word?  Focus on one of those sorts of positive emotions, and you’ll show up with much stronger charisma and clearer focus.

3.  Practice physical stillness.  Watch our most charismatic speakers, leaders, and celebrities.  You’ll notice that they avoid extraneous motion and fidgeting.  There’s a stillness at their ‘core’.  It’s at once physical and emotional.  They’re clear about what they’re projecting, and they’re physically focused on the task at hand.  Think in terms of keeping your torso still, upright, and regal, like a king or queen, and you’ll have a rough idea of how you should be holding yourself.

I talk much more about these ideas and techniques in my book, Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma, but these 3 should get you started. 

How are Presidents Obama and Bush alike?

Most people would say that President Obama and former President Bush are two very different personalities.  Approval for each is split largely on party lines, their policies are virtually opposites in many ways, and the one is famously gifted as a communicator, while the other is not. 

And yet there is one way in which the two leaders are very much alike.  Both are possessed with enormous self-confidence.  Indeed, many commentators wrote of former President Bush that his confidence was so absolute that it prevented him from seeing other sides to issues.  These commentators faulted him for a lack of self-reflection.  When he was asked at a press conference to discuss a mistake he had made, President Bush was famously unable to come up with any. 

Few of those same commentators would make similar comments about President Obama.  He has already admitted to mistakes during his short tenure in office.  And he is widely credited with being open to considering ideas from all parts of the political spectrum. 

But Obama oozes self-confidence even while he appears to be more open-minded than his predecessor.  And commentators today commend that self-confidence, arguing that we need a strong leader to take us through these difficult economic times. 

Why is self-confidence suddenly an asset for President Obama when it was widely considered to be a liability for President Bush?  Is there any difference between the two leaders’ self-confidence?  How can we understand the apparent about-face in the reaction of the general population to confidence in their leader?

The answer to these questions lies in both men’s non-verbal communication.  When President Bush presided at a press conference, for example, his self-confidence was undercut by his hunched shoulders, his halting answers, his querulous tone, and his defensive posture.  His self-confidence seemed to be at odds, therefore, with his non-verbal ‘conversation’ with the audience.   When we see this kind of internal tension, we tend to assume that there is something inauthentic going on. 

President Obama, on the other hand, has self-consistent body language.  His self-confidence is supported by his erect posture, his ready smile, and his confident tone.  The package appears to be authentic.  He appears to be a person who is comfortable in his own skin. 

Regardless of your political views, the two men are a case study in self-confidence and authenticity.  You can’t succeed with the former unless you have the latter.  I talk much more about this tension in my new book, Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma. 

What should President Obama say tonight?

The President’s State of the Union speech (SOTU) is one of the most anticipated and least watched speeches in the US public speaking calendar.  Why?  It’s indigestible.  Of course it’s too long – one of Bill Clinton’s was 81 minutes – but more than that, the current state of the SOTU art disrespects the audience.  It’s a huge waste of a rare opportunity to communicate with a large swath of Americans.  President Obama should repair the genre.  (Even though he's not calling his speech tonight an official SOTU, but rather a 'presidential address', that's what it is.) 

SOTUs of recent memory are long lists of nice-sounding legislation that will never be enacted and vast programs that will never be initiated.  The problem is, audiences can’t remember lists.  By the time we hear the fourth or fifth item, we’ve forgotten the first.  Lists never change minds; instead they irritate and bore audiences. 

A speech like that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the mind works.  A speech is an opportunity for us, the audience, to make up our minds about something.  And so it’s at the same time an opportunity for the speaker to change our minds, to persuade us of something. 

What President Obama should do is take us on a decision-making journey, one that will lead us through the valley of despair that is our current situation to the mountain of hope we all want to climb in Q2 or Q3.  That’s what great speeches do:  they respect the need of the audience to go through a decision-making process by structuring the speech in a specific way. 

Most recent SOTUs end with nods to pathetic or heroic figures sitting next to the First Lady in the balcony.  It’s better than discussing the merits of switch grass, but it’s a cheap sentimental trick that comes too late in the program to do much good.  Instead, President Obama should begin with a real story about an American that typifies the current state of things.  That story should take no more than 1 -2 minutes, but it should be telling.  That will frame the problem and get our attention. 

Then he needs to slog his way through the current winter of our discontent – the economy, health care, and, say, education.  He gets to pick the list, but it should contain no more than 3 items.  If you want your audience to stay with you, you have to focus.  We only remember 10 - 30 percent of what we hear.  Since our minds retain stories better than facts, Obama should introduce each topic with a brief story or two.  We need to create a health care system that works for all Americans.  Currently, our system promotes late intervention at the expense of ongoing care.  That means that Jane Doe couldn’t get help with her diabetes until it got so bad that she had to have her leg amputated.  Does that make sense?  That story is repeated all across America and with hundreds of illnesses. 

He should spend about 8 – 10 minutes on the problem section. 

Once the President has adequately explored the problems involved in the three issues he’s focusing on, he’s ready to propose his solutions.  More importantly, we the audience are ready to hear those solutions, because we’ve spent time in the problem.  Decision-making is an emotional process, and it takes time dwelling in the problem before we’re ready to move on.  Think how frustrated you have to be with your old car before you’re ready to contemplate buying a new one.  

This part of the speech should mirror the problem section.  If the President introduces 3 problems, he should cover 3 solutions.  The level of detail and length should parallel the problem section as well.  It’s rhetorically very weak to propose a hundred solutions for one problem, or to have one solution for a host of problems.   The timing of the solution, too, should equal the problem – another 8 – 10 minutes. 

The solutions the President proposes should contain concrete descriptions of the benefits that will accrue to us if we agree to them.  Audiences are not very good at imagining benefits, so it’s important for a speaker to lay them out clearly and specifically. 

To close, Obama needs to ask us to do something.  This action step can be rhetorical – during the campaign, Obama often got the audience chanting ‘Yes, we can!’ – but specific, concrete ones are better.  How can we help the country and the world get back on track?  How can we help our soldiers fighting around the world?  What can we do to solve the health care crisis?  What about education?  Audiences are full of active people being passive during the course of the speech, and they love to give back when they’ve been taken on the right journey. 

When President Kennedy famously asked us to do something for our country in his inaugural address, thousands of young men and women joined the Peace Corps and helped make the world a better place.  The SOTU is too important an opportunity to waste.  In roughly 22 minutes, the attention span of the average adult, President Obama has the chance to change the world.  He should take it.  He might even move the Congress to useful action. 

What was wrong with President Obama’s first prime-time press conference?

President Obama forgot something during his first prime-time press conference last night:  hope.  His remarks were a stark reminder of Mario Cuomo’s line that ‘you campaign in poetry (but) you govern in prose’: 

I took a trip to Elkhart, Indiana, today. Elkhart is a place that has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in America. In one year, the unemployment rate went from 4.7 percent to 15.3 percent. Companies that have sustained this community for years are shedding jobs at an alarming speed, and the people who've lost them have no idea what to do or who to turn to.

They can't pay their bills. They've stopped spending money. And because they've stopped spending money, more businesses have been forced to lay off more workers. In fact, local TV stations have started running public service announcements to tell people where to find food banks, even as the food banks don't have enough to meet the demand.

As we speak, similar scenes are playing out in cities and towns across America.

Gone is the uplifting rhetoric of the campaign.  President Obama is giving us a cold dose of reality.   Will we be able to accept it?  President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave Americans good cheer and large measures of hope during the Depression.  President John F. Kennedy gave us wit and style when we were scared to death about nuclear Armageddon in the early 60s.  And President Reagan gave us his sunny optimism during the stagflation of the early 80s. 

President Obama needs to remember that we elected him to be honest with us, yes, but also to take us in a new direction, to eschew the politics of fear that have dominated the last 8 years, and to bring us hope. 

We know the situation is dire.  We don’t need caveats like this one: 

. . .The plan's not perfect. No plan is. I can't tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hoped, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis, as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans.

That’s misplaced confidence.  We need a sense from our president as to how the crisis will end, not how it could get worse.  We like our reality in an admixture with a smile. 

What was extraordinary about President Obama’s first press conference was how easily he wore the mantle of president, a mantle that the previous holder of the office never put on comfortably in 8 years.  Obama is every inch a world leader.  Already! 

But he also needs to remember that the great presidents find hope even in the darkest times, and point the way forward for a nation that looks to them for leadership: 

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.

President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address was delivered at the lowest point in our nation's history.  And yet it showed the way forward with grace and wisdom.  That's what we look for in a leader when things are bleak.  

President Obama invites us to go on a difficult journey.

Like a lot of other folks, I’ve been anticipating President Obama’s inaugural address for months now.  It’s the beginning of a new era, and the 44th president could have recited a nursery rhyme and I would have been content.

Nonetheless, it’s worth studying the speech and its delivery for what it can teach us about rhetoric.  So here goes.  Overall, the speech was very good, not great.  When times are tough, you need to rally people to a cause.  Did Obama do that?  Yes, he did.  But the archetypal story that he told was “stranger in a strange land” rather than a quest, and the quest story is better for enlisting your listeners in a cause. 

The speech needed to be authentic more than any other quality, and Obama was certainly that.  He gets high marks for the honesty with which he described the problems we face as a country and as a world.  His delivery was charismatic, certainly; he crowded the podium to reach toward the people on the Mall, and his voice had its usual music.  It rose and fell with the authority of a preacher, or a new president who knows exactly where he wants to take the country.  (He's got to fix that thumb-and-forefinger gesture, though; it just doesn't add anything to the occasion and it looks calculated.  He looked better when he just gestured naturally.) 

At the heart of the speech was the following line:  “For the world has changed and we must change with it.”  That’s a “stranger in a strange land” message, and it doesn’t have the power of the quest.  But it was entirely appropriate for the day, and the times.  As President Obama said a moment later, we face “a new era of responsibility.” 

The speech was about all the problems we must fix, all the wrongs we must address, and all the hardships we must undergo.  Thus it was entirely appropriate to the occasion.  But the lines that got the biggest applause were addressed to the shadowy warriors of terrorism in Pakistan and elsewhere around the world:  “We will not apologize for our way of life. . . . We will defeat you. . . .  Our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. . . . “ 

Obama invited us to go on a journey with him, and it's not journey that will lead us home.  It is a journey to -- as he said -- "an uncertain destiny."  He asked us to work for the common good, so that our grandchildren will say of us, “we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safe to future generations.” 

That's a tough message for a new era of responsibility.  He's asking a lot of us.  How will we measure up?   

What Obama Should Say: The 44th President's Inaugural Address

For my blog today, I've teamed up with Harvard.  The post can be found here:  http://tinyurl.com/87kzul.  Let me know what you think!

President Bush's last news conference and self pity

Never defend yourself in public against things that you haven’t been accused of; you’ll simply raise more questions than you forestall.  President Bush gave a classic demonstration of this faux pas near the end of his last news conference.  (http://tinyurl.com/79uqck)

Here’s a transcript of the moment.  It came when a reporter asked the President about when President-elect Obama would feel the full weight of the office.  The President was calm talking about the Oval Office and Obama’s family.  But then the bitterness came out when he suddenly went on a rant about self-pity: 

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's a great question. He'll -- he will feel the effects the minute he walks in the Oval Office. At least, that's when I felt. I don't know when he's going -- he may feel it the minute he's -- gets sworn in. And the minute I got sworn in, I started thinking about the speech. (Laughter.) And so -- but he's a better speech-maker than me, so he'll be able to -- he'll be able to -- I don't know how he's going to feel. All I know is he's going to feel it. There will be a moment when he feels it.

I have never felt isolated and I don't think he will. One reason he won't feel isolated is because he's got a fabulous family and he cares a lot about his family. That's evident from my discussions with him. He'll be -- he's a 45-second commute away from a great wife and two little girls that love him dearly.

I believe this -- the phrase "burdens of the office" is overstated. You know, it's kind of like, why me? Oh, the burdens, you know. Why did the financial collapse have to happen on my watch? It's just -- it's pathetic, isn't it, self-pity. And I don't believe that President-Elect Obama will be full of self-pity. He will find -- you know, your -- the people that don't like you, the critics, they're pretty predictable. Sometimes the biggest disappointments will come from your so-called friends. And there will be disappointments, I promise you. He'll be disappointed. On the other hand, the job is so exciting and so profound that the disappointments will be clearly, you know, a minor irritant compared to the –

At this point a reporter mercifully broke in with another question, and the moment passed. 

The transcript doesn’t do justice to the oddness of the moment, because it’s all in the body language.  Watch the video.  Bush’s anger suddenly leaks through, as he bashes self-pity.  But no one had asked him about it, and so we wonder why he’s suddenly attacking that emotion.  Is it something he’s wrestling with himself?  We don’t know, but it’s the most memorable part of the news conference, and a great reminder not to defend yourself against attacks that haven’t yet come your way. 

Roland Burris' first steps as Senator-designate are not steady ones.

Why did Roland Burris accept a hopelessly tainted appointment as the junior senator from Illinois?  He didn’t need the work.  He’s had a long career as a lawyer and a public servant, first as Comptroller, then as Attorney General for the state of Illinois.  His career has been on the whole successful, aside from a controversy around the Rolando Cruz murder trial in the mid-80s.  (Cruz was exonerated by DNA evidence; Burris was criticized for being on the wrong side of that issue and going after Cruz even when the evidence was mounting that he might be innocent.)

Burris ran in the Democratic primary for the Senate in 1984 and lost; perhaps he just wants the job. 

In his first news conference as the Senator-designate; Burris made a bad job of it. (http://tinyurl.com/7mou58)  He was defensive and confrontational where he should have been honest.  He tried to change the subject, talking about world events, the economic meltdown and associating himself with Barack Obama rather than the man standing beside him, the embattled governor. 

What should he have said and done?  First of all, he should never have taken the appointment, even if he wanted to be Senator a great deal.  Of course it would be ‘tainted’; the appointment will always be associated in the public’s mind with Blagojevich and his foul-mouthed attempts to sell out his integrity and the dignity of the office of governor of Illinois. 

Perhaps, though, he was thinking about the end game.  In politics, a week is a long time, and he’ll have a couple of years to create a positive impression in the voters’ minds to counteract the negative one.  Perhaps he thought, take the appointment, do a great job as Senator, make the people love me, get re-elected.  But the problem with that scenario is that it depends largely on how long it takes Illinois to get rid of Blagojevich and what kind of taste it leaves in the mouths of the voters.  Over those future events Burris will have very little control.  

Burris’ micro-expressions reveal anger and disdain in the news conference.  But his words were bland.  Therein lies the real problem.  We would have respected him if he had been honest with us, saying something like, “I thought long and hard about this.  I was afraid my appointment would be hopelessly tainted because of the Governor’s difficulties.  But in the end, I decided that the people of Illinois needed a voice in Washington more than I needed to take it easy and enjoy my golden years with my grandchildren.  So I ask you to give me a chance to show that I can be your servant and advocate.  And I promise you I will work harder than anyone else on behalf of the people of Illinois.” 

Public folks (and their lawyers) almost always go with the urge to stonewall and pretend that nothing untoward is happening.  That’s a huge mistake, because it doesn’t pass the average person test – what would the average person do and say under these circumstances?  Whenever you get away from honest, direct emotions, you begin to lose the public, and ultimately you lose your mandate. 

Roland Burris’ first day as Senator-designate was not a propitious one. 

 

You know, Caroline Kennedy wants to be Senator. You know.

Caroline Kennedy has gone public with her desire to take Senator Clinton’s soon-to-be-vacant New York seat – and with her ‘you knows’.  On one two-minute YouTube clip a buzzer notified us of each one, and there were more than 30. 

What’s going on?  How serious a public speaking flaw is the verbal tic?  And what can Kennedy do about it?

Caroline Kennedy is not ready for prime time.  She needs a coach.  She should have done the work before the opportunity came up.  Apparently everyone up to now in her life has been too polite to mention her verbal tic, but our magnificent unfettered free press suffers from no such handicap and the damage has been done.

That said, how serious is the verbal tic?  It’s only serious if everyone notices it, and in this case they have.  Ums, ahs, you knows, and so on, are the verbal staples of teenagers, and they drive their parents crazy, but as long as they’re talking to other teenagers, it’s part of the tribal identification and it’s OK.  It’s not OK for Caroline Kennedy, because we expect more from a public figure than we do our teenagers. 

I’ve been asked many times by and about speakers whether or not ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’ – the grown-up equivalent of ‘y’know’ – are fatal for speaking.  Again, the answer is only if people notice.  President-elect Barack Obama has a fairly serious “ah” habit, but few people notice, and his general reputation for eloquence and charisma means that he doesn’t get called on it.  Not a problem for him.  And anyway, we want our President-elect to choose his words carefully now, right?

How can you work on a verbal tic?  The first step is to have someone point it out to you.  I was giving a speech on public speaking a number of years ago, when a charming Southern woman near the front raised her hand (about 2 minutes into my speech) and said, “You claim to be an expert on public speaking, but I’ve counted half a dozen ‘ahs’ in the first 30 seconds of your speech.  Why should we listen to you?”

I banished ‘ahs’ from my speeches after that incident.  But my immediate response at the time was to ask the audience if anyone else had noticed, and they hadn’t.  In fact, they took the woman to task for her rudeness and her disruption.  She later apologized.  But I was grateful for the learning opportunity.  Really.

The next step is to begin to monitor yourself, closely.  Every time you’re tempted to say ‘you know’ or ‘ah’, simply become silent until the next word is ready.  You’ll soon find that the annoying tic is gone from your speech patterns. 

And if you’re slow to succeed, get a friend to fine you a dollar every time you slip.  You’ll be amazed at how fast that works.

What do you say when you only have two minutes?

What do you say when you have to make your point in two minutes?  A community board in Maryland decreed everyone who appeared before it had to limit their remarks to two minutes.  That’s not much time for your particular burning issue.  And it’s not unusual.  In our time-starved age, everyone wants you to make your point as quickly as possible.  Interviews on CNN rarely go more than a minute or two.  Commercials get Tivo’ed and thus compressed further than their already brief format.  And the fashion in books is to write shorter and shorter.    

Two minutes is approximately 250 words at normal speaking rates, though, and you can say a surprising amount in 250 words.  Here’s a good way to think about it.

First of all, decide what your one-sentence headline is.  “Leaf blowers make too much noise and they should be forbidden in our community.”  It should take the form of a need or a problem you want to meet or solve.   

Then, deliver three supporting points.  Point one:  “First, I’ve tested them at over 120 decibels.  That’s as loud as a plane at the end of a runway.  Last I checked, we’re not living near a runway.  Should we be subjected to that much noise?’

Point two:  ‘Second, they don’t really clean up leaves.  They just move them around.  Often, that means the neighbor’s yard.  So they really just move the problem down the road.”

Point three:  “And finally, they’re hazardous.  Last year, an employee of a landscaping firm was injured when a leaf-blower blew some leaf matter into his eyes.  He couldn’t see, and he tripped over a rock, injuring his leg.”

And then repeat the headline:  “So that’s why I believe that leaf blowers should be forbidden in our community.” 

And close by asking for the appropriate action your headline and supporting points lead to:  “Please join me in banning leaf blowers from the fair town of Quietville.  Thank you.”

There you go.  Problem solved in two minutes.  Provided everyone goes along with you.

Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma is just out from Jossey-Bass.  Get your copy here:
http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Steps-Authenticity-Charisma/dp/0470404353/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229113611&sr=1-1   

Political Leaders of the Day -- 6 -- General Eric Shinseki

President-elect Obama has picked a retired general, Eric Shinseki, as his Secretary of Veterans Affairs.  This is an extraordinarily important and difficult job, and by all accounts Shinseki is well-suited to fill it.  He has a reputation for integrity – he was cashiered by the Bush Administration for speaking out on Iraq – and he is a decorated veteran of Vietnam himself. 

He was Army Chief of Staff from 1999-2003, and is the highest-ranking Asian-American in the armed services. 

What kind of public speaker is he?

A serious one, as you might expect.  His affect is minimal, but he has the gravitas for the job, and the authority.  His voice is nasal, giving it presence, but not monotone, and it also has some resonance, so that it is not unpleasant to listen to in short doses.  He could improve it by supporting better with good belly breathing.  During a long speech, we would begin to find the nasal voice grating, so he should work on balancing his vocal presence and resonance better if he wants to be a successful platform speaker. 

I suspect that, in a job as political and difficult as this one, public perception will be extremely important – nearly as important as actually getting things done.  Of course, the VA is in terrible shape, and urgently needs modernizing, streamlining, and updating.  Most of all, it needs to honor the service of our veterans by treating them with the respect and deference they are due for their sacrifice. 

But the politics of the job will also demand a vocal Secretary who knows how to mobilize public opinion and comment to get things done.  Otherwise the Congress will continue as it has always done, paying lip service and not much else, to our veterans.

That suggests that successful public speaking will be an important part of General Shinseki’s work, and he would be well-advised to increase his charisma quotient.  He can do this by increasing his affect – the tactful display of a range of emotions. 

Charisma comes from two sources, self-awareness, and awareness of the audience.  Shinseki has to show his self-awareness with the strategic use of emotion when it will serve the cause.  Strategic displays of anger, for example, could forward his agenda powerfully if used wisely.  Especially in the halls of Congress.

Awareness of the audience will come when the General settles into the job and shows that he understands the needs and causes of all of the many stakeholders he must deal with.  Can he connect with the ones that he must connect with?

It’s a tall order, the one that General Shinseki must fill.  And a much-abused and neglected segment of our society, our veterans, is depending on him.  

Political Leaders of the Day -- 2 -- Nancy Pelosi

Why don’t we warm to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?  Her story is one of those improbable only-in-America tales of achieving the 3rd most powerful position in the country as a grandmother after 15 years in the House working her way up through the ranks. 

And yet, unlike Senator Clinton, she hasn’t claimed the woman-as-victim mantle when it suited her.  She’s just done her job, strong always and partisan when needed.  What’s to complain about?

The issue with Representative Pelosi is the mis-match between the upper and lower parts of her face.  When she smiles, at least in public, it doesn’t extend to her eyes.  Her mouth smiles almost continually at times, and yet the eyes aren’t taking part.  She should give up the fakery, and pick some important moments to be genuine. 

Maybe it’s inevitable – the insincere smile – in Washington DC, where there’s an adder under every rock waiting to bite you.  But it doesn’t help Pelosi’s authenticity.  She’s always got her game face on, and it’s an unconvincing one.  She should take lessons from President-elect Obama, who’s 1000-megawatt smile is authentic, warming his whole face. 

Beyond the mask of the face, Pelosi is in the unenviable position of wielding considerable power without seeming to be able to do much with it.  She’s always in the position of going on television to denounce something the Bush administration is doing, or trying to do, so even among her supporters she begins to look like all she does is complain. 

She presided over the 2006 election-day rout of the Republicans, promising to end the war in Iraq, and then made no obvious progress on that promise.  Of course, we might well wonder how she was going to do it, given that President Bush was commander-in-chief, but then she shouldn’t have promised results if she knew none were going to be forthcoming. 

The Speaker needs to take a lesson from the Obamas, and start living with -- and demonstrating -- more  authenticity.  It should show up in her game face, and it should show up in the match between rhetoric and accomplishment. 

Political Leaders of the Day -- 1 -- Harry Reid

I’m starting a series of blogs on the public speaking quirks of political figures of the day with that conundrum, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

What is it about Harry Reid that rubs so many people the wrong way?  A study done once of voices found that what we object to most in vocal tone is the nasal voice.  Harry Reid has a nasal voice par excellence.  There are other things going on with Harry, but primarily it is his nasal voice that grates on us so much.

The irony is that he could fix this problem with a relatively simple exercise:  belly, or diaphragmatic, breathing.  To do this properly, you expand your stomach as you breathe in – rather than raising your shoulders, as most people do – and then tense the stomach muscles (as if you were about to be punched in the stomach) to let the air out slowly. 

With practice, you should be able to breathe deeply, and speak normally for up to 45 seconds on one belly full of air.  Try it.  You can probably do about 10 seconds now.  We live in a corrupted age.

Belly breathing increases the resonance of the voice, the opposite of the nasal quality that is so irritating in Mr. Reid.  Senator Reid would need to work on this daily for about 3 weeks, and then he would begin to see some permanent improvement in his vocal quality.  It certainly would make re-election easier.

Ironically, voices also need something called ‘presence’ which is harder to describe, but basically means introducing a little bit of the nasal tone in your voice.  What Harry has way too much of.  Actors call this quality using the ‘mask of the face’, meaning that they bring the voice forward and up into the nasal passages a little.  Why?  Because nasal voices can be heard.  It’s very important for speaking from a stage, for instance. 

But again, you only want a touch of the nasal.  Too much, and you’re back to Senator Reid, and the kind of voice that makes your skin crawl.

What else is up with Harry?  Add to the whiny voice a tendency to squelch emotions, and you’ve got a repressed, nasal voice.  Add to that, gestures that are a little out of synch with the words, and you’ve got an apparently insincere, repressed nasal speaker. 

It doesn’t get much better than that.

President-elect Obama on '60 Minutes'

What’s extraordinary about President-elect Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama’s interview on 60 minutes is how comfortable they look with their respective roles.  Aside from an annoying tendency to tip his head to one side like Mr. Rogers, Barack already has the gravitas and authority that his predecessor never had.  He sounds and looks presidential.  Michelle similarly manages to look dignified and yet relaxed at the same time. 

I would hazard a guess that she’s more keenly aware of what the two of them are about to give up than Barack is, but that’s just my hunch.  Virtually all semblance of a normal life goes away when you move inside the Presidential Bubble, by all accounts, but we can estimate the loss only because the two seem real to begin with.  So many other presidential couples exhibit a weird tension that comes, I’m guessing, from too little time spent on the things that really matter in a relationship. 

But the truly extraordinary achievement of the ’60 Minutes’ interview and the other glimpses we’ve seen of President-elect Obama is the way in which he’s leaped into the role as if he was born to play it.

No gaffes, no clumsiness, no mixed messages.  This is a guy who’s inner life is consistent with his outer achievement.  His body language betrays no leakage of doubt, qualm, or panic. 

In particular, he’s got two non-verbal signals going that radiate confidence and decisiveness – exactly what we need at this time of national financial ruin.  First, he nods as he makes his points.  Nodding builds agreement.  It works unconsciously for the most part on viewers; often they find themselves nodding back.  And then you’re hooked, because your mind thinks, I must agree with him because I’m nodding and I don’t do that for no reason.  

Second, Obama uses the authoritative arc in his voice.  I’ve written about this before, but basically it means that your voice comes down in pitch at the end of the phrase, sentence, or thought.  The alternative is the annoying habit many people today have of saying everything as if it were a question.   The result of using the authoritative arc?  You sound like you know what you’re talking about.  You sound certain.  You close off debate.  If you watch the interview carefully, you’ll see that the interviewer had precious few follow-up questions to pursue some of the statements that Barack made.  That’s because he left no room for doubt.

He hasn’t had a chance to do anything yet, really, but the atmospherics are good.  This is a guy who was born to be president.

President-elect Obama's first press conference

The President-elect’s first press conference was remarkable for its caution.  It was as if the mantle of leadership had already descended on Obama’s shoulders and was weighing him down.  He spoke with the air of someone who was determined not to make any mistakes. 

Indeed, he only made two light-hearted comments.  The first was about reaching out to Presidents, but only the living ones, unlike Nancy Reagan who was briefly famous for her séances with dead ones, a comment that prompted an apology call to Mrs. Reagan later in the day.  The second was about the all-important White House dog, who will want to be both hypo-allergenic and a dog from the pound – a “mutt like me” as Obama said.  That was endearing and human, but hardly brimming over with self-confidence.  

Otherwise there wasn’t much fun.  Obama’s body language was tightly controlled, he spoke slowly and at times haltingly as he thought carefully before he talked, and he looked desperately serious about the problems facing America and the world.  There was a set to his jaw that worried me.  He isn’t even President yet!

I found myself thinking about President Franklin Roosevelt, who was famous for maintaining almost jaunty good cheer and confidence in the face of much worse problems during the Great Depression.  President-elect Obama needs to remember that the President has a ‘bully’ pulpit, as the other President Roosevelt noted.  Successful presidents use it to full advantage. 

“Bully” in this case is now out-of-date slang that means “wonderful, cool, great.”  What Roosevelt meant was that he had a splendid pulpit from which to preach to the world.  Obama needs a little of that ebullience now.   Economic downturns have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies if everyone cancels, postpones, and stops buying because they don’t want to appear to be consuming, or they’re afraid of consuming too much, or they don’t want to get too far ahead of the rest of the pack.  Part of Obama’s job is to give everyone permission to go back to work and not create a deep recession by anticipating it too much.  

More importantly, he needs to embody the change that he has promised us and that a majority of the American people – and the world – want so much. 

The election-night speeches from Obama and McCain

Last night, in addition to electoral history being made, we witnessed rhetorical history:  two equally literate and gracious speeches from the candidates, Senators McCain and Obama. 

McCain’s concession speech was indeed gracious – more gracious than his supporters, who booed at a couple of embarrassing moments.  His nod to the special historical significance of the night was especially good:

This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight.

I've always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Senator Obama believes that, too.

But we both recognize that, though we have come a long way from the old injustices that once stained our nation's reputation and denied some Americans the full blessings of American citizenship, the memory of them still had the power to wound.

A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters.

America today is a world away from the cruel and frightful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African-American to the presidency of the United States.

Let there be no reason now ... Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.

Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country.

Those words show an awareness of the history in the moment, as well as a generosity of spirit at a tough moment for an individual. 

McCain’s concession speech, like Gore’s, was more appealing than many other speeches he’s given, because he relaxed, and the cranky grandpa persona was gone.  No more endless repetition of the word ‘fight’.  His best speech of the campaign.

Obama’s victory speech was equally sensitive and nuanced.  Like all of his rhetoric to date, the speech overall was cool and measured.  Not for Obama the soaring rhetoric of the pulpit-inspired masters like the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.  Instead, his prose is workmanlike and clean, with a touch of heart: 

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause.

It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy ... who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep.

It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth.

This is your victory.

As Obama moves from campaigning to governing, he may wish that he can call up more passion and heart for some of the difficult sacrifices he will inevitably ask the country to make.  We’ll see.  The best thing about Obama’s speeches so far is that they are not about him, but rather about the audience.  That is almost unheard-of for a politician, and rare for any speaker.  Therein lies his oratorical genius.  (McCain’s concession speech, by contrast, as gracious as it was, was about his feelings.)  It has worked well for him so far. 

Obama’s delivery is cool and measured, like his words.  He cranks it up just enough for the big audiences like last night, but we’re still not really seeing his heart.  That’s something that he keeps very carefully hidden away.  That’s going to make it hard for America and the world to learn to trust him. 

It always used to be said that politicians ran on poetry, but had to govern in prose.  Obama ran on prose.  I think he’s going to need a little poetry to govern this unruly, unhappy, frightened nation in this unruly, unhappy, frightened world. 

The final presidential debate

Once again, I’m going to dip my communications toe into dangerous waters and discuss the final presidential debate.  Just to get the inevitable out of the way from the start (and no doubt infuriate McCain supporters), I’m going to declare a winner along with most of the rest of the viewers:  Obama. 

Here’s why.   As a communications coach, I was looking for alignment between the content and non-verbal ‘conversations’, as I call them.  Senator Obama presented a calm, thoughtful approach to his various subjects.  There were lots of conversational markers indicating organization and precision – lots of ‘there are 3 reasons for that’ and ‘here’s why that won’t work’, and so on. 

He also answered questions in the way that I coach people to when faced with an impromptu speaking situation:  give the headline, give several supporting reasons, repeat the headline.  (Although he didn’t always get to the last step because of time.)  That approach to content makes audiences think you're in control and you're smart. 

His accompanying non-verbal conversation was polite, attentive, and deliberate.  Some said “defensive and dull,” but I would not agree, at least with the first adjective of that pair.  My hunch is that two things are going on.  First, Obama is a thoughtful, cool, low-key guy – a consensus-builder, not a firebrand.  Second, he was coached to stay calm, cool, and low-key, given that the world is in financial meltdown and most of us probably want a steady hand at the presidential tiller.

Obama looked at McCain when he was speaking.  He rarely interrupted him.  He kept his facial reactions limited to occasional wry smiles.  He was playing poker, and he had his game face on.  His was a controlled performance. 

By contrast, McCain was in constant motion.  When Obama was talking, McCain rarely looked at him.  He rolled his eyes, he smirked, he smiled false smiles, he scribbled notes, he sighed like Al Gore back in 2000 – in sum, he looked cranky and untrustworthy, and even rude at times. 

That’s because his content and his non-verbal conversations were not in alignment much of the 90 minutes.  He frequently attacked Obama, but, because he’s apparently anxious not to appear too angry, he swallowed his evident fury and gave us the false smiles.  The result was unnerving.  We deeply distrust people who smile to hide anger underneath.  It’s an unconscious response, for the most part, that we have to all mixed messages like that.  McCain would be much better served by just getting angry, and showing it.   

McCain’s content was disorganized, rambling, and repetitive.  He must have mentioned Joe the Plumber 15 times.  He frequently would start a thought, interrupt himself, and start another line of thought.  This speech pattern is typical of someone who is attempting to conceal a strong emotion. 

McCain was at his best when he turned to Obama and sent him a zinger, like the comment that if he wanted to run against George Bush he should have run in 2004.  There, the non-verbal anger and the anger in the content aligned, and he was effective.  I thought that was the best line of the debate, and I'm a Democrat. 

TV is a cool medium.  It craves emotion; emotion fascinates viewers.  When you dial it back, like Obama did, we watch you more closely to find out what you’re thinking.  When you’re conflicted, as McCain was, you’re also fascinating, but for the wrong reasons.  It’s like a train wreck.  You can’t take your eyes off it, but you know something is going wrong. 

In the end, alignment between your verbal and non-verbal messages is key, because that demonstrates authenticity.  On that level, regardless of politics, Obama succeeded and McCain fell short. 

What can we learn about communicating from the debates?

For the partisans on both sides, post-debate analysis is all about spin.  But nonetheless, I’m going to try to give a fairly evenhanded reaction to what I saw in terms of the alignment of the two conversations, the verbal (content) and the non-verbal (body language).  I’ve been waiting until the passions cooled a little on the Palin-Biden debate, just because people are so unreasonable on that subject.  So here goes.  SPOILER ALERT:  I’m going to say tough things about all four candidates.  DON’T READ THIS if you’re a hopeless partisan who sees criticism of your candidate as unpatriotic or worse.

Joe Biden – on the plus side, he had good command of the facts, he appeared to take the debate seriously, and he was respectful to his opponent.  On the negative side, he kept his hand in his pocket too much, and when he registered passion (or at least pique) his voice went high and nasal, and stayed that way too long.  When you keep a hand in a pocket, we wonder what you’re hiding, and when your voice goes nasal, we find it irritating.  He needs to support with good breathing when he takes his voice higher, and keep his hands where we can see them.  NO WHINING, JOE! 

Sarah Palin – on the plus side, she appeared relaxed, after quite a bit of initial nervousness.  She has impressive poise for someone who has just been thrust onto the national scene.  That poise served her very well during her speech at the Republican convention; less well with Katie Couric because you could tell when she was trying to bull her way through an answer.  It would have been better to admit that she didn’t know.  She’s allowed; she’s only been ‘at this for five weeks’. 

In terms of content, she stuck to her prepared answers on taxes and energy, regardless of the questions.  Sometimes that worked, but often her bridging was weak and it was blatantly obvious she wasn’t answering the question.  Audiences don’t like people who don’t respond to the question; bridging is an important art and skill and she needs more practice. 

Her folksiness either grated on you, or you loved it.  All the shout-outs, the you betchas, and the say-it-ain’t-so-Joes – that either made you believe she was just like you, or it made your skin crawl.  Her winking and condescension toward Biden would have been outrageous if their gender roles were reversed; I found it off-putting.  But her main problem was an inconsistency in the two conversations – she smiled when she was actually angry.  That makes us not trust her.  DON’T SMILE WHEN YOU’RE ANGRY, SARAH!

John McCain – on the plus side, McCain sounded best when he was talking about his service to his country.  Then, his voice has the right timbre and gravitas.  On the negative side, when he was criticizing Obama, his voice went high and nasal, like Biden’s, and sounded condescending.  As a result, he was irritating.  If you watched the audience reaction meters on CNN, you saw that happening in real time.  Whenever he went negative, the dials went down, as much because his voice was irritating as anything else. 

But McCain’s main problem was happy feet, when he was talking, and when he was listening.  Once again, audiences look for alignment of the two conversations.  When they are not aligned, we believe the non-verbal.  So, when McCain says that he’s got the experience, a steady hand, and can handle our scary economic problems, but his feet are wandering all over the stage, we believe the feet.  Unconsciously, we think he’s wandering, mentally, just like he is physically.  PLANT YOUR FEET, JOHN!

McCain's wandering around when Obama was answering just looked rude. 

Barack Obama -- the best debater of the four in terms of clarity, logic, and coherence of his answers.  He planted his feet when he addressed his audience, and so we believe that he has the mental solidity a president needs.  Obama’s problem is that when he tries to display passion, his voice goes up, but the rest of him stays cool.  He pinches his thumb and forefinger together when he’s making a point, regardless of how he feels about it, and the result is that he appears too passionless.  LOSE THE PRISSY GESTURE, BARACK!  Obama needs to let us see some real temper, or we’re going to think he’s aloof, and we won’t trust him.  We need to see that he’s got some skin in the game. 

Debate body language

What was the body language score of the first debate?  Both senators are strong, confident speakers and acquitted themselves well.  Both landed a couple of body blows to the other candidate.  There were no major gaffes or disastrous moments.  Overall, the nod goes to Senator Obama, for a few reasons. 

Senator Obama looked at his rival when he took him on.  And when he wasn’t looking at McCain, he was looking into the camera, talking to America.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, looked like the cranky half of a dysfunctional marriage, the cross one who won’t look you in the eye.  He looked neither at Obama nor at the camera.  And he had a sarcastic smile that kept showing up when he said (at least seven times), “What Senator Obama doesn’t understand is…..”  After a while, that backfired as a technique, because it seemed patronizing rather than persuasive. 

Obama looked like the more generous candidate, because he said, “John is absolutely right when he says…..”  about seven times.  That’s the hallmark of someone more likely to bring others into agreement.  Hasn’t the country been looking for someone who will bring the country together rather than continue the partisan divide?  McCain, on the other hand, gave Obama no credit for anything.  Even though the two broadly agreed on the bailout, for example.

Debates are about expectations first, and what’s actually demonstrated during the 90 minutes second.  Both sides played the expectations game well.  Obama was clear enough; he didn’t get lost in the nuances.  And McCain was roughly as ‘straight talking’ as we expected. 

Going forward, Obama will have the series lead, and that’s always dangerous.  He has to guard against getting too comfortable and diving into the weeds for a nuance festival, to mix a metaphor.    McCain can come from behind by being more generous and less like a cranky grandpa.  It would be disastrous for him to lose his temper, or to keep repeating the “He just doesn’t understand” line. 

So far, partisans on both sides can take what they want from the first debate.  According to the polls, the undecided voters gave Obama the victory by a modest plurality.  But it’s still anyone’s game. 

Misleading campaign ads

I’m continuing my suspension of my normal blogging campaign one more day to talk about campaign ads.  Senator McCain’s campaign recently sunk to a new low with ads that said Senator Obama had supported sex ed for 6 year olds, when in fact it was training to avoid sexual predators.  And there were others, equally misleading. 

Now, Senator Obama’s campaign has responded with ads that suggest that McCain is aligned with Rush Limbaugh in opposing immigration reform.  Not true.  And there have been others, equally misleading. 

It’s time to say that this is not OK.  Yes, smear tactics and misleading public statements have been around since politics began.  In ancient Rome, politicians hired thugs to walk through the streets spreading lies about their rivals.  One of the dirtiest political campaigns in U.S. history was the second one, when John Adams, a Federalist, won by 3 electoral votes over Jefferson, the Democrat-Republican.  Both sides slandered each other outrageously; the standards of journalistic verity were even lower than they are now. 

But that’s no reason to tolerate this low form of behavior now.  The Internet makes it possible for fact-checkers to work with formidable speed.  Of course, the Internet spreads lies as fast as the truth, but nonetheless the truth will out if enough people demand it.

Both campaigns have claimed that their politics would be different.  Indeed, Senator Obama’s campaign seemed to live that promise for much of its almost two-year history.  But now? 

Senator McCain’s claims of change and maverick-ism and a new approach in Washington are a little shakier given that he’s been around in Washington for 3 decades.  But nonetheless, that was his promise. 

So what’s going on?  Why can’t either campaign resist getting down into the mud?  It isn’t enough to point the finger at the other guy and say, ‘he did it first!’  That’s infantile behavior, and your mother taught you better.  It’s time for both parties to stand up and say, enough.  Politics as usual has given us weeks like this one, when the atmosphere is so poisoned that it seems almost impossible for politicians to create bi-partisan deals when they are necessary for the future of the country.  

Enough of the bad behavior.  There’s too much at stake. 

McCain's acceptance speech

Unlike Senator Obama, Senator McCain had created low expectations for his acceptance speech last night.  Like Senator Obama, for the most part, he didn’t disappoint.  Overall, the speech was mediocre.  It was too long, McCain was frequently out of synch with his audience, he’s a wooden presenter, and there was absolutely nothing new in it. 

But some moments rose above – and fell below – this mediocre standard.  When McCain was talking about his war experience, he was briefly riveting, because the story is a compelling one and his suffering and heroism are undeniable.  And in the middle two-thirds of the speech, when McCain was wandering through a dreary set of generalities about taxes and security, he sounded like he was channeling George Bush or any of a number of other Republicans die-hards from the past 8 years.  The only lively parts of that section were provided by the protestors who were dragged off, whatever they were shouting drowned out by the audience’s vigorously intoning “USA, USA, USA,” until McCain almost begged them to stop so that he could get on with his speech.  All in all, a public speaking low point of either convention. 

Highs and lows aside, the striking thing about the speech was how different it was from Obama’s.  Greater even than the doctrinal differences between Republican and Democrat was a huge spread in tone.  Obama’s speech was full of hope, change, ideas for the future, and calls for all of us to work together.  McCain’s speech was full of fight.  Almost literally; he repeated the word “fight’ obsessively and absurdly at the end in a weird attempt at creating a final frenzy of enthusiasm with the audience.  It didn’t work; the audience was already off on its own celebration that had little to do with the speaker. 

What we’re seeing, as clearly as anyone could want, is more of a generational difference than anything else.  McCain is the old warrior, talking about bi-partisanship but clearly not meaning it much, except in the way George Bush did:  bi-partisanship means you agree with me.  McCain’s political instincts were fired in the crucible of that POW camp.  His world consists of black and white, good guys and bad guys, noble causes and enemy combatants. 

Obama, on the other hand, is cooler, more thoughtful, dispassionate, and ready to solve problems.  He’s all about teamwork to get things done.  McCain is all about leading a charge to glory or death.  Whose is the attitude we want in the White House?  You couldn’t ask for a starker choice.

The (Admonishing) finger

There is a new disease in politics this fall.  Maybe it’s because the campaign has already gone on too long.  Maybe it’s because the two sides are polarized, and bitter – perhaps more than ever before.  (At any rate, since the last election.)  Maybe it’s because the gulf between our leaders in Washington, especially the Bush Administration, and the people, seems wider than ever. 

The disease is the admonishing finger and its use in public speaking.  It’s the first finger, and it’s the one your mother waggled at you when you were five and got caught stealing a cookie. 

“You shouldn’t do that,” Mom said, “you’ll spoil your dinner.”

All the candidates have fallen into this admonishing role.  Sarah Palin used it last night during her surprisingly bitter, surprisingly adept acceptance speech.  Obama used it during his rock-starry, stadium-filling acceptance speech.  So did Biden.  Both Clintons used it extensively last week during their speeches.  McCain uses it when he’s not just standing with his hands at his sides looking comatose.  (Someone should tell him a ‘stump speech’ means you stand on a stump and deliver a speech, not that you deliver one like a stump.)  Virtually all the Republican Former Candidates have used it during their consolation prize speeches. 

Here’s the problem.  We don’t like the gesture.  It reminds us of when we were five and naughty, not a place most of us want to go. 

It’s replaced the remote-control-mute-button gesture that Clinton made de rigueur during his campaigns, which itself replaced the slashing-finger-to-one-side gesture that Kennedy made famous during his campaigns.  Kennedy’s gesture became too phallic for the more self-aware 90s, and Clinton’s prophylactic gesture in replacement was too banal and bizarre, though many politicians used it for a long time.  

So it’s a tangled, awkward effort, the quest by politicians to find something to do with their hands while they’re bloviating.  They need to be able to emphasize forcefully, and they need to accomplish the gesture high enough up that it can be seen in the head-and-shoulders shot above the podium on TV.  What are they to do?

The first President Bush held his hands about a foot apart, chest high, and karate-chopped them downward in parallel.  It looked – and was – coached and fake.  So that’s not the answer.  But at least he had his palms open, a good idea in gesture language because it makes the audience feel that the speaker isn’t hiding something. 

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. got through the best speech of the 20th century without using his hands in any significant way until the end, when he raised one hand high over his hand to signal his passionate conclusion.  He, too, showed his open palm to the audience. 

Modern politicians should take a lesson from King and let strong, positive emotions dictate their hand gestures.  Gestures should evolve naturally from the passion underlying the message.  Mostly, the palms should be open, but that doesn’t prevent them from being forceful.  Just stop the scolding.  Don’t use the (admonishing) finger on  us.  We’re not voting for National Scold.  We’re looking for a leader. 

The Speech

Last night all political eyes were on a football stadium in Colorado to see what Barack Obama would have to say to the American people and the world.  Could he answer the Republican charges that he wasn’t experienced enough?  Could he be inspiring, yet specific?  Could he reconcile the Hilary voters, re-inspire his base, and woo independents – and even a few wavering Republicans?

The astonishing thing about Obama’s speech was that if a talk can do all those things, his did.  It was a tour de force performance.  It was specific, detailed, and concrete.  It answered Republican charges, innuendos, and smears point by point.  More importantly, it embodied strength and decisiveness, the qualities that people look for in a president who doesn’t have a resume as long as a filibuster. 

Jon Stewart (of The Daily Show) once had Obama read a set of instructions – like reading the phone book.  The joke was that Obama was such a good speaker that he made even that interesting.  I had somewhat the same reaction to his speech last night.  A lesser speaker would have made it dull, but Obama is a gifted orator, and he made it compelling. 

What’s his secret?  Two words:  passion, and authenticity.  New Yorkers have a phrase, It is what it is, that captures Obama’s authenticity.  He didn’t duck any of the opposition’s charges.  He said, “I get it,” and answered them one by one.  He demonstrated something rare in the political world last night:  the authenticity of a man comfortable in his skin.  He is what he is. 

He also showed us real rhetorical skill by varying the heat of his delivery.  Too many politicians make the mistake of shouting all their lines as if everything were equally important.  Obama has different pitches and passion for different issues and subjects.  The speech had highs and lows, and that’s what a good orator does to hold our interest.  Too many speakers today lack that kind of surefootedness.  The speech had emotional intelligence.  Behind the words, we felt the strength and passion. 

John McCain has a tough act to follow. 

The Pause

Your best moments in public speaking may be silent ones.  There are several places in a speech where a pause is extraordinarily eloquent.  You should add the pause to your arsenal of presentation tricks and use it freely.

The first place for a pause is at the beginning of a speech.  If you’ve been watching the Democratic convention, you will have witnessed a familiar quandary for popular speakers:  getting the audience to quiet down so that the speaker can begin. 

President Clinton was a prime example.  At first, he smiled and waved.  Then he started saying “thank you” repeatedly.  Finally he resorted to the “fire-putting-out” gesture (palms open, facing down, moving arms up and down) and saying things like, “let’s get started – shush”  in a vain effort to get the audience quiet.

He would have quieted the audience must faster had he just stood and looked at them – the first powerful use of the pause.  Yet it is probably impossible for someone like Clinton to stand still in front of 35,000 people applauding wildly for him.  The urge to respond, to say “thank you” is just too strong.  Nonetheless, the fastest way to get an audience quiet is simply to look at them, while standing very still.

Use that moment (make it a 3-second count) to take stock of your audience, take a deep breath, and think of your first line.  It’s a great antidote to nerves at the beginning of a speech.

The second place for a pause is after you’ve asked the audience a question, whether it’s a rhetorical one or not.  Let the question sink in.  It simply takes a while for the sound to reach the audience’s ears, be processed, and for the audience to think up a response.  In your adrenaline-enhanced sense of time, it will seem like forever.  But it won’t be.  Count to yourself, and I guarantee you someone will answer you (if you’re still) before you reach “6 one thousand.”

The third place for a pause is after you’ve said something funny.  A lot of speakers ruin the moment by laughing at their own jokes.  Don’t.  Wait for the audience to laugh.  Then you can. 

Finally, always pause when you ask the audience for feedback, or responses of any kind.  You’ve got to give them time to think and react.  Pausing to say, “Are there any questions?” will seem insincere unless it’s accompanied by a genuine pause from the speaker of at least 4 seconds, preferably 6. 

Many speakers talk too fast, and pausing is a great way to slow the express train down for a station or two.  Audiences will almost always be grateful for the opportunity to catch up, reflect, and file away what you’ve been saying, even if they aren’t asking questions. 

Don’t be afraid of the pause in public speaking.  It’s your best friend.  

John McCain's Hand

You take your eyes off the political scene and go on vacation and what happens?  John McCain's hand becomes news -- a gift to those who study non-verbal communications, and a lesson in the limits of body language 'reading'. 

What was the fuss about?  McCain was asked an embarrassing question about why many health insurance policies cover Viagra and not contraceptives.  He hesitated for 8 seconds before giving a fumbling answer.  While he was hesitating, his hand shot up to his mouth and covered it.

What did the hand signify?  Not, as the commentary has suggested, that he was trying to keep himself from lying.  Children do that, not adults, and especially not adults as comfortable with evasion as seasoned politicians.  And that's the wrong way to think about hand gestures.  They usually don't convey specific meanings like that; rather, they spring from emotion. 

What happened in that moment was that John McCain had a strong emotional reaction to the question.  We put our hands to our faces when we are thinking, and to cover our mouths when we're shocked or appalled.  John was shocked or appalled by the question, and then he started thinking.  The whole process took 8 seconds, which suggests he was quite flummoxed. 

Why was he appalled?  That's where it gets interesting, and body language along can't tell us.  We need to know something about the man.  Was he appalled because he's a prude?  Unlikely; he's a former Marine.  Was he shocked because he was afraid his use of Viagra was going to become news?  Possible, but that's sheer speculation.  Was he appalled because it was a 'gotcha' question and there was no good answer immediately in sight?  Most likely. 

All body language can tell us is that McCain had an emotional reaction strong enough to last 8 seconds.  That's significant, because 6 seconds is the average length of time people in conversation or discussion will let a silence lapse (try it yourself).  That means that his emotions were stronger than average.  Or perhaps that he was just tired and slow on the draw.  It's a great lesson in the insights and limitations of reading body language.