State of the Union 2011

Speech By: President Obama

Date: January 25, 2011

Location: House of Representatives

Occasion: State of the Union

Analysis:

It may be that he set the bar so high with his speech in Arizona, that any subsequent effort would be a mere shadow in its wake; or, maybe, it may be the nature of the speech itself, which is akin to a homeowners “to-do list” on a busy weekend – except this id for a nation of 300 million people, and for an entire year; and maybe, just maybe, it was the new seating arrangements, which not only blurred the partisan affiliation of the audience, but blunted their reaction to the speech, as well. Whatever the reason – the President’s State of the Union address was less than inspiring.

In fact, it would not be uncharitable to say it fell flat.

A State of the Union speech is assembled by a committee, the different agencies of government, the different interests among the public to whom the President wants to appeal, or to whom he owes a special thank you – and none of them are gathered in the same room to hear what the others have to say. It’s not a condition geared towards achieving excellence.

But last year’s speech was a solid effort.

This year’s speech was slightly shorter (about 300 words) than last year’s. But it seemed longer.

It may be that the new practice of having members of each party sit next to each other, diminished the enthusiasm, or the energy of the audience.

It may be, that sitting interspersed dilutes the effect of support for what the President is saying.

It occurs to me that the suggestion to mix up the seating came from one of the President’s own, now much reduced, party. Perhaps the idea was to distribute the President’s Democratic colleagues throughout the audience, and, in so doing, show more support throughout the House chamber than would otherwise have been exhibited. 

The problem seems to be that rather than distributing the President’s support more widely throughout the audience, it became diluted. If showing greater support was the intent, it was indeed a miscalculation.

As for the rhetoric of the speech itself, he appears to have abandoned the phrase “Let me be clear,” an expression which had become distressingly common in his earlier speeches. However, he still begins sentences with the word “And,” far too often. In this case, it was 49 times in 480 sentences. That’s more than 10 per cent of the time. The President, and his speech writers, can do better than that.

Finally, let’s talk about the catch-phrase of the speech “This is our Sputnik moment.” If you have doubts that this is the phrase the White House wanted to promote – go back and look at all the press coverage, just prior to, and just after the speech. Almost every outlet picked up on that phrase. 

Was that because it’s catchy, and has been on everyone’s lips in the days following the speech? No, it’s because the White House press office pushed it, thinking, or at least hoping, it would capture the public’s imagination.

Just one more miscalculation.

Length (words): 6945

Text Posted: The White House

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

In Confidence

I did not vote for President Obama. At the current rate of things, my disapproval will again be voiced at the ballot box in two years,  just as I suspect many Members of Congress will endure an expression of collective disapproval in the 2010 election.

That said - I am a loyal American. If the President called tonight and asked me to meet him at the White House at Noon tomorrow, I will be knocking on the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at 11:00 AM - latest. And if, while there, he asks me to draft a speech, he will get the best of which I am capable.

So, it is no surprise that Mort Zuckerman, a news media mogul who has no doubt had occasion to consult with several Presidents, and obviously had great hopes for the performance of this one, would lend his services to this President.

However, if so called upon, the President may also depend on my confidence. That is obviously not the case with Mr. Zuckerman.

Here is the transcript of this exchange with interviewer Neil Cavuto on Fox news this summer:
MZ: “Well, I voted for Obama, I helped write one of his speeches, we endorsed Obama ...”
NC: “Which speech?”
MZ: “Uh, uh, I’d rather not go into that for the moment.”
NC: “Did it get a lot of applause?”
MZ: “Not, not from the people I hoped it would.”

No one believes the President writes his own speeches. It was actually something of a minor scandal when it was first revealed the second President Roosevelt employed a speech writer, but we have come to accept the obvious. Simply put - a President’s time is far too valuable, to spend writing speeches.

The same can be said of most busy executives. Were I such an executive, even given my own facility with the speech writing process, someone else would be doing the writing and I would have a hand in the fine-tuning.

But there is a certain expectation of confidence that the President, or anyone else for whom the speechwriter is working, absolutely deserves. I think that expectation was not met in this case.

And as a personal note to Mort Zuckerman - from one speechwriter to another. It’s never a good idea to publicly embarrass the President of the United States.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom