Speaking of pols and oratory...the Democrats certainly have a great history of speechmakers, including the current president. Who's next? Put it this way: who would you like to see in the footsteps of Barbara Jordan, Mario Cuomo, and Barack Obama, giving the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention two years from now?
Can't say I'm particularly impressed with any of the youngsters. Granted, out here in CA all I get to see is politicians who've been around for decades in Brown and Boxer. That said, I don't think my media consumption exposes me to many potential potentials: I only heard about everyone on this list after they were officially on the list.
ReplyDeleteBrian Schweitzer gives a great speech, so does Al Franken, and Tim Ryan is always a popular speaker. I don't know of any unknown unknowns, though, like Clinton and Obama were, for me at least. I don't see a second Hubert Humphrey in the wings, at any rate. We are poorer for that unfortunate circumstance.
ReplyDeleteThere's a fella on the LA City Council named Eric Garcetti. He's a rising star in California Dem politics (word is he's going to run for LA mayor when Villaraigosa's term is up). I've seen him speak a few times and he's pretty damn good. .
ReplyDeleteAl Franken
ReplyDeleteZeb - is he related to Gil Garcetti, the former LA DA?
ReplyDeleteCory Booker! He conveys sincerity like a New Jerseyite has no business doing, and has a highly emotive manner and a great feel for narrative. Outside of speechmaking: smart, religious, hands-on, progressive inclinations but known for anti-corruption and law and order issues, and already has a cult following (over a million followers on twitter -- maybe you can figure out how he does it, JB!).
ReplyDeleteAnother good speaker, not an up-and-comer but an underrated workhorse lifer: Rep. Mike Capuano, who manages to be endearing and funny while putting out some populist rage and progressive idealism. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJYQec094oU; also some of his hilarious Financial Services Committee speeches, e.g.: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/02/michael_capuano.html. If Barney Frank didn't chair that committee, Capuano would be a folk hero.) *sigh* Still bitter because I'm certain he would have won that Senate seat, since unlike Coakley he, you know, campaigns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteClay Davis:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAQv6KTfQow
Cory Booker is brilliant, but it would be seen as a bit redundant to have another brilliant black orator give the keynote. I like Franken, but let's not forget that the keynote is a way to introduce a prominent (or not so prominent) liberal as a potential president in the future. As much as I like Franken, I don't see him as a president. Brian Schweitzer would be an awesome choice, given his fantastic turn in 2008. I also like Tim Kaine.
ReplyDelete@ Robert:
ReplyDeleteYes, Eric Garcetti is Gil Garcetti's son.
@Eric P
ReplyDelete>Cory Booker is brilliant, but it would be seen as a bit redundant to have another brilliant black orator give the keynote.
I agree. And since we've already had Clinton, I guess any more brilliant white orators would be redundant too. Time to stock up on them Asians.
Actually, given how many boring Keynotes the Dems usually have (Warner, Ford, Bayh, and actually, Clinton's was pretty bad) maybe we don't need to worry about who would be really good up there.
ReplyDeleteColby,
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's just a way to frame the question. Still, I guess about one in three or four is memorable (in a good way), which doesn't seem too bad: 1976, 1984, 2004.
Kylopad,
Nice.
MPR,
To my great shame, I'm only now about to watch -- I have season one, disc one out from Netflix right now. Unfortunately, I'm squandering my TV time watching Newsradio on REELZ, but once the baseball season is over...
JB's question makes me a little nervous given the importance so many swept-up idealists on the left attached to the outstanding 2004 keynoter by the young Obama (along with his prior antiwar comments in a speech from 2002). Given his relative lack of experience at the time he was elected, and how disappointing he's been to date as president, I might want to consider dialing down how too many tend to quickly elevate a pol based on oratorical ability.
ReplyDeleteNot that speechmaking ability doesn't matter, in the electing and governing. Clinton might have been saved by his ability to go directly to the people with a good solid speech. LBJ couldn't save himself because, in part, he couldn't connect with the public in his formal addresses (that and all the lying about a needless war he started). And for all his highly touted speechmaking ability as a candidate, it's ironic that Obama as president has come in for criticism for not being able to calibrate his distant, professorial tone to speak to the personal difficulties too many face today.
Give me a smart, articulate, principled pol with a decently-long track record to look at who at least isn't going to put the people to sleep or turn them off like McGovern or Carter. They don't have to reach the heights of an FDR or JFK as orator.
given how many boring Keynotes the Dems usually have (Warner, Ford, Bayh, and actually, Clinton's was pretty bad)
A mistake I've seen a lot -- Clinton did not deliver the keynote in 1988. It was actually the nominating speech for Dukakis. And Bill was given a tough task -- he was picked by the nominee, given his unique political profile, to be the only person (contra tradition) to nominate, and so had to fill a much longer period of time with speech. He wanted to trim and even hack it down to something more manageable, but Duke's people said it was fine as is, and so he was stuck going on and on and on.
While I think I disagree with Brodie about Obama's performance as president, I agree with his general point -- oratorical skill is most definitely not the most important thing to look for in a pol. I should have put something about that in the original question...this is certainly not about who are the best overall pols, just about who gives good speeches. Indeed, I'd go farther than Brodie -- I don't think Clinton saved himself at all by going to the people with great speeches, and I don't really think LBJ was hurt by not being able to do it. See, for example, Ezra Klein's Sunday post column.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's my view that Clinton pre-MonicaMadness had established a solid rapport with the public in part because of his speaking ability -- stump, town hall settings and one or two State of the Union addresses, but not one specific great speech -- and populist talent in connecting emotionally with the people. He was largely perceived as a credible (except on marital matters) and likable pol. Obviously though a very sound economy by 1998 helped keep him above water, plus the Repubs overreaching hysterically and hypocritically about what most folks probably considered was an all-too-human personal failing that simply didn't warrant the political death penalty.
ReplyDeleteAs for LBJ, by 1968 the increasingly war-weary public saw him as neither credible nor likable. In fact, many people probably were puzzled as to who the real person was they'd overwhelmingly voted for just a few yrs earlier in major part on a peace abroad platform. The only way out of his electoral predicament in '68 was to come clean on the war and fess up that, however well-intended 3 yrs earlier, it had been an unwise misuse of US military manpower and treasure, and that starting now he would be not only stopping the bombing but also withdrawing the troops. Never a chance of that happening though -- LBJ was incapable of admitting he was wrong and incapable of telling the truth.
I have a question for you Jon. Do you think overall conservative or liberal writers are more eloquent. Note that I'm not asking if the thoughts or ideas are better, rather which side is better with the actual keyboard/pen/typewriter/quill pen (for the elites among us)/finger and bootshine (for the real Americans among us)
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteGood question, and I don't really have an answer...I guess I don't think that there's an obvious, immediate noticeable difference, at least as far as I've noticed. OTOH, I'd say that quite a bit of what we're talking about in this thread is about the pols themselves, not about Peggy Noonan vs. Ted Sorenson or whoever.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteRight it was just a related question. I'm a true blue liberal but I remember picking up National Review this summer and being impressed with the quality of writing --not the ideas behind the words but the writing there. I don't think this was a fluke. There are great writers on the right and there are great writers on the left. There are also terrible writers on the right and equally terrible writers on the left. Still, I think my question is worth thinking about in detail because the vessel is really part of the message.