Mr. Media Training

President Obama delivered a strong State of the Union (SOTU) address tonight in which he previewed the outlines of the 2012 presidential race.

Of course, State of the Union speeches are rarely remembered for long. Most Americans rightfully view presidential promises made during the annual address with skepticism. (Remember President George W. Bush’s 2004 pledge to have a manned mission to Mars? How’s that going?)

Although the speech itself may not be remembered much past next week, I noticed two major elements that may help determine the outcome of the 2012 election. 

President Obama delivers the State of the Union Address, January 24, 2012. Photo: NBC News

1. Optimism: Since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980, there have been eight presidential elections. The more optimistic candidate has won all eight.

President Obama seems to be aware of that dynamic, as the SOTU was full of the sunny, upbeat rhetoric that independent voters predictably prefer. For example, some of his lines included:

“We can do this. We’ve done it before!” 

“We’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum.”

“We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.”

2. Class Warfare: Whichever Republican eventually gets the nomination will bash President Obama for injecting “class warfare” into the campaign. Mr. Obama attempted to preempt that tonight by saying:

“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right.”

That’s a terrific talking point. Will it work in a general election against Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? That depends on the strength of their rebuttal – but it’s a strong message that seems well-aligned with the mood of the country.

Although Mr. Obama got those two big things right, his speech wasn’t perfect in several areas:

1. Where’s the Vision? Yes, Mr. Obama articulated some ideas about job creation, education reform, and infrastructure, among others. But where’s the central narrative that will give voters a vision for what a second Obama term would look like? Where is his “Morning in America” or “Bridge to the 21st Century,” the central idea that will stand as his raison d’etre for four more years?

2. He Didn’t Improve on Five Weaknesses From Last Year: In my review of last year’s SOTU, I cited five places where the President could improve his delivery. He committed all five mistakes again this year. Here are three examples:

• He Needs To Lose the Shtick: Last year, the President got some groans when he made a cheesy quip about salmon and another about pat downs. He did it again this year when he said, “We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill – because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.” It’s fine if he wants to incorporate some humor, but he should try working outside of the Shecky Green school of comedy.
• He Should Reduce The Hushed Tone: When President Obama seeks to emphasize a key point, he uses a hushed tone, something akin to a “spoken whisper.” It’s a perfectly valid technique when used sparingly, but he used it dozens of times during the speech (from the very first sentence), reducing its impact on every subsequent use.
• Choose Bigger Stories: Every President since Ronald Reagan has used the SOTU to tell stories about a few “real people” in the audience. Well-chosen anecdotes can help bring abstract topics to life, and it is a good idea for speakers to alternate between general themes and specific examples. But I’m starting to wonder if the idea is so hackneyed at this point that it needs to be retired for a few years. Alternatively, the President could incorporate stories in a more genuine, heartfelt manner, such as recounting a personal encounter that moved or inspired him.

CONCLUSION

No single speech can accomplish everything, and I suspect the President will offer his vision for the next four years when he shifts more fully into campaign mode.

My overall takeaway? Mr. Obama is a tough competitor. In terms of the political calendar, he’s now in the middle of the third quarter, and his team is up by a point or two. The question is whether his opponent for the rest of the game is the Harlem Globetrotters or the Washington Generals.

Either way, he demonstrated many of the communications and political skills tonight that made him such a formidable opponent in 2008 – and he made clear that his opponent better bring his “A game” this fall.

COMMENTS? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Did you miss the 10 worst media disasters of 2011? Click here to catch up!

President Obama will address a joint session of Congress tonight to unveil his new jobs proposal. But his track record as a bad negotiator will undermine even the most brilliant speech.

Dismayed progressives lament the President’s tendency to offer bold proposals and negotiate them away. Emboldened conservatives know that the President’s initial proposals are merely a starting point and that they’ll be able to move him much farther to the right before agreeing to any deal.

As examples, President Obama:

• Made the “public option” a centerpiece of his healthcare proposal before negotiating it away.
• Pledged to end tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans until violating his own pledge and extending them.
• Gave away so much in the debt ceiling fight that House Speaker John Boehner bragged: “We got 98 percent of what we wanted.”

I’m not making a value judgment here on the proposals themselves, but rather on the widely-held (and growing) perception that he will inevitably fold on them. 

As a result, the President’s words will have diminished impact tonight. When speakers offer terrific proposals but don’t reinforce their words with actions, it leads to audience fatigue. Many of the President’s supporters are skeptical of another bait and switch, and opponents suspect they’ll eventually get what they want anyway.

That’s not to say the President won’t succeed in passing something close to the economic plan he unveils tonight. But after having the rug pulled from under them numerous times, even his most ardent supporters are likely to take a cautious “wait and see” approach to see whether the President fights for his plan this time around or negotiates it away yet again.

What’s your opinion? Is my critique overly-harsh, or not harsh enough? Feel free to offer an opinion, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Related: Ten Years After 9/11, George W. Bush Is Still Wrong

Related: Politicians, Corn Dogs, and Bad Photo Ops

President Obama’s State of the Union Address (SOTU) represented a rare landslide victory for the White House. Two polls taken immediately afterwards found that a whopping 84 to 91 percent of viewers gave the speech positive marks, and that independent voters responded strongly in favor of his bipartisan message.

But as a full-time media and presentation trainer, I couldn’t help noticing the speech’s flaws. A few moments felt just a little off, others represented missed opportunities, and at least two were downright cringe-inducing.

Since many writers have already documented what the President did well in Tuesday’s speech, my focus here is on what the President can improve upon.

That’s not to suggest the President’s speech was bad; quite the contrary. His was a solid, if uninspiring, address. But even brilliant orators can improve – and in that spirit, here are five things the President should do differently for next year’s State of the Union.

1. Choose Bigger Stories: Every President since Ronald Reagan has used the SOTU to tell stories about a few “real people” in the audience. Well-chosen anecdotes can help bring abstract topics to life, and it is a good idea for speakers to alternate between general themes and specific examples.

But this year’s stories felt too small and incidental to land an emotional punch. The stories served more as transitions, failing to highlight successes in a substantive way and instead coming across as a hackneyed speechwriting technique. The longest anecdote – about a Pennsylvania company that helped rescue trapped Chilean miners – was also, not coincidentally, the most effective of the evening.

2. Mark Chapter Beginnings and Ends: This year’s SOTU had a terrific narrative structure (“Win the future”), containing four chapters in the middle: Encouraging American innovation, educating our kids, rebuilding our infrastructure, and reducing the debt.

But Mr. Obama didn’t sufficiently make clear when one chapter ended and another began. His transition from point one (innovation) to point two (education) didn’t clearly indicate the beginning of a new chapter. His transition from point two to three (infrastructure) did point out a new chapter, but was delivered in a cadence too similar to the material immediately preceding it.

The President should have more explicitly marked each new “chapter” from the last, helping to move his audience seamlessly from point to point.

3. Develop Better Comparisons: Comparisons – in the form of similes, metaphors, and analogies – can be a speechwriter’s most effective rhetorical device. But a poorly-chosen comparison risks obscuring the larger point and distracting the audience, as did this one:

“Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may make you feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you feel the impact. (Laughter.)”

The notation of “laughter” at the end of the quote is from the official White House transcript. It is a dishonest transcription, since you don’t hear laughter at the end of that line, but rather an audible groan.

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

4. Lose the Shtick: As my friends are painfully aware, my humor comes straight from the Borscht Belt. So I laughed out loud at Mr. Obama’s salmon quip: “The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in saltwater. I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked.”

But as funny as his delivery was, I found the joke wildly out of place for a SOTU. Imagine, for example, that you’re a relative of a loved one serving overseas. You’re waiting anxiously to hear the President’s remarks on the wars abroad. Do you really want to hear a silly fish joke before a single word on our nation’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq?

His quip about not needing a pat down prior to boarding trains was also ill-considered. As someone who rides Amtrak several times each month, I sure didn’t appreciate a joke pointing out train’s glaring security vulnerabilities.

5. Reduce The Hushed Tone: When President Obama sought to emphasize a key point, he used a hushed tone, something akin to a “spoken whisper.” It is a perfectly good technique, one that helps speakers align their words to their vocal delivery. But he used it dozens of times during the speech, reducing its impact on every subsequent use.

Instead of over-emphasizing the spoken whisper, he should employ a greater variety of the tools he has demonstrated so effectively in the past. For example, he might emphasize his words by adding volume more often, rushing certain passages while slowing down in others, and occasionally highlighting key phrases with a more pronounced staccato delivery.

This piece was originally published by Bulldog Reporter, an excellent public relations website. Thanks to editor Richard Carufel for commissioning the story.

Related: Should Barack Obama Lose The Teleprompter?

Related: Was President Obama’s Tucson Speech Too Long?

One of the questions I’ve been asked the most during radio interviews and speeches over the past two years is this: Should President Obama ditch the teleprompter? 

Since his days on the campaign trail, critics – mostly, but not exclusively from the political right – have mocked the President for using a teleprompter. Today, I’ll look at the two main arguments his critics make – one valid, one not. 

ARGUMENT ONE: THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE 

The first argument against using a teleprompter comes from partisan critics who seem to believe the President is a Manchurian candidate capable only of reading beautiful text prepared by others. 

A typical argument from that camp can be found in a 2009 editorial in the conservative Washington Times: 

“Is President Obama able to conduct a news conference without a teleprompter? Is he an automaton in answering questions?…[t]eleprompter screens at the events scrolled not only his opening remarks, but also statistics and information he could use to answer questions.” 

I find that argument unpersuasive at best and insidious at worst, as it seems to suggest President Obama would be unable to function as a communicator without the use of pre-scripted words loaded into a teleprompter. That he writes many of his own major speeches and regularly gives media interviews without a prompter goes without mention. 

President Obama and The Teleprompter

Presidents since Dwight D. Eisenhower have used a teleprompter, and few critics have attacked them for using one. That President Obama relies on data loaded on a teleprompter to answer questions is functionally no different than jotting statistics down on a note card, and doesn’t suggest in any way he is an “automaton.”

I can’t help thinking that this meme was born of a clever political strategy. In an effort to remove an opponent’s competitive edge, strategists often attack their rival’s greatest strength. Since President Obama receives high marks from the public when he delivers a powerful speech, his opponents have incentive to undercut the public’s perception of his effectiveness as a speaker.

Finally, his critics say that although his predecessors have used a teleprompter, none have relied on it so frequently. That’s a fair point, and one that segues nicely into the second argument.

ARGUMENT TWO: LOSING HIS CONNECTION 

The second argument is that President Obama loses his connection with the American people when he speaks with a teleprompter. That strikes me as a more valid criticism.

The job of public speakers is to elevate the text — if they don’t, they may as well just run off some copies of the transcript and let the audience read it for themselves. Too many times, President Obama has appeared to be reading – not delivering – a speech. And his critics are right that it’s hurting his connection with the American people.

After a September Oval Office address about Iraq, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews commented: 

“…if he doesn’t get rid of that damn teleprompter, it’s like an eye test. He’s just reading words now. It’s separating him from us.” 

And from a 2009 story in Politico: 

“It’s just something presidents haven’t done,” said Martha Joynt Kumar, a presidential historian. ”…in a way, it stands in the middle between the audience and the president because his eye is on the teleprompter.” 

  
CONCLUSION 

President Obama has delivered some amazing speeches with the use of a teleprompter (e.g. his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, his 2008 speech accepting the Democratic nomination). He has also given some lackluster speeches with the teleprompter (e.g. his 2009 speech on Iraq, countless everyday speeches). 

I’m not convinced that the teleprompter itself is the problem, but rather his use of it. When he’s on, he’s awesome. When he’s off, he’s soporific. 

If the President were my client, I’d want to experiment with other formats for his everyday speeches. He’s seemingly overly-reliant on the prompter, so I’d want to test him in other formats, such as reading from prepared printed text and preparing looser remarks on note cards that allow air for extemporaneous comments or anecdotes. If he insists on continuing to use the prompter, he might want to insert a couple of holes in his text to tell a personal story, helping to add a more personal touch to an otherwise aloof speech. 

Still, I can’t shake the sense that this is primarily a discussion fueled by partisan opponents. Just as it was unfair for critics to suggest President Bush was being fed comments by Karl Rove through an earpiece during a presidential debate, it’s unfair to spend so much time castigating President Obama for deploying a device used by almost every president since 1953.

After President Obama concluded his tone-perfect speech at the University of Arizona on Wednesday, several pundits questioned whether it went on too long.

Most of the criticism centered around their comparisons of President Obama’s speech (which clocked in at more than half an hour) to President Clinton’s after the Oklahoma City bombing (nine minutes) and President Reagan’s after the Challenger explosion (five minutes).

It’s true that President Clinton spoke for only nine minutes, but the speech would have been twice as long if it had been interrupted by numerous rounds of applause, as President Obama’s was tonight.

President Bill Clinton’s Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial Speech, 1995

And it’s true that President Reagan’s speech lasted less than five minutes – but a nationally-televised speech from the Oval Office is a totally different format, with totally different demands, than an in-person speech delivered to thousands of people in a basketball arena.

President Reagan’s Challenger Disaster Speech, 1986

Since State of the Union addresses regularly go longer than an hour, speaking for half an hour seems well within the accepted norm for important presidential speeches.

But there’s an easy rule of thumb for how long a speaker should talk: for just as long as necessary, and not a moment longer.

That’s an unsatisfying rule for our trainees who like such things quantified, but great speeches can last just two minutes (The Gettysburg Address) or close to 40 (President Bush’s post-9/11 speech to Congress). Conversely, I’ve seen politicians give dreadful speeches that last just five minutes – and have people running for the door after one.

The enthusiastic reaction from the 14,000 people at Tucson’s McKale Center suggests that President Obama kept their attention the entire time and didn’t cross the line into going too long. 

So how long is too long? In the clip from 1988 below, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton gave the nominating speech at the Democratic National Convention. His own party’s delegates booed him, but cheered wildly when he finally said, “And in conclusion.”

A few nights later, he appeared on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Carson’s first question? “So, Governor, how are you?” Without pausing, Carson reached under his desk, pulled out an hourglass, and turned it upside down. The audience roared.

Bill Clinton Booed at the Democratic National Convention, 1988

As seen in Ben Smith’s column in The Politico.

President Obama wrapped up his 10-day Martha’s Vineyard vacation over the weekend, during which he played five rounds of golf.

Many conservative commentators criticized the President for his frequent golf outings, suggesting he should focus more on creating jobs than hitting the links. Are they right? Yes and no – but mostly yes.

First, the case for playing golf. President Obama has one of the most stressful jobs in the world, and since many studies show that people make poor decisions when subjected to long-term stress, it’s important for Mr. Obama to recharge on occasion. It is unquestionably better for the nation to have a president who makes decisions with a clear head rather than a stress-addled mind.

But optics matter.

Just ask former BP CEO Tony Hayward, who lost his job shortly after taking a day off during a massive oil spill to watch the yacht he co-owns compete in a race.

Or President George W. Bush, who was widely criticized for continuing to read My Pet Goat to a group of children for seven minutes after being notified of a domestic terrorist attack.

Or Sarah Palin, who became a national punch line for giving an interview about the joys of Thanksgiving while turkeys were slaughtered behind her.

President Obama is entitled to a relaxing game of golf on occasion, but it’s not smart politics. The presidency is as much a symbolic position as a substantive one, and Mr. Obama’s frequent golf outings feel out-of-synch with the recessionary times. Worse for the White House, they fuel a narrative that the President is out-of-touch with the struggles of everyday Americans.

President Obama would be wise to continue finding ways to reduce his stress load, whether through a private basketball game at the White House, a jog on a treadmill, or a game of chess. But he should recharge away from the cameras, and he should leave the golf course behind for a while.

Do you know which seven traits all eight presidential winners have had since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980? Click here to see our political series.

“When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it. I didn’t inhale and never tried it again.” –Bill Clinton, 1992

The majority of Americans oppose the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. They cite the sensitivity many people still feel about the 9/11 attacks on New York City, and question the wisdom of building a Muslim religious center just two blocks from the World Trade Center.

Although most Americans oppose the building of the mosque, the same polls make clear that the majority of Americans recognize the “right” of the New York Muslim community to build a mosque on private property in compliance with local zoning ordinances.

Last Friday, President Obama weighed in on the mosque controversy. His language was unequivocal, using words such as: “Let me be clear…This is America. Our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable…The writ of the founders must endure.”

But after the political firestorm his original comments caused, President Obama on Saturday offered a classic Clintonesque parsing of his words. He claimed that although the Muslim community had the right to build the mosque at that location, he wasn’t commenting on the wisdom of doing so.

By so carefully parsing the meaning of his words, President Obama just had his “I didn’t inhale” moment.

The first statement, even if unpopular, might have won some supporters. It’s the second statement that did the damage. The reason? After President Obama’s original remarks, the American public could have been divided into three different camps:

1. Those who agreed with his defense of the building of the mosque
2. Those who didn’t agree, but appreciated his principled stand
3. Those who didn’t agree, and didn’t appreciate his principled stand

After the President’s follow-up remarks, he likely upset the people in group one, lost everyone in group two, and earned the (additional) scorn of everyone in group three.

Although there can be victory in taking a principled political stand on an unpopular issue, there’s no political win in mixed messages. The President’s two seemingly conflicting statements, offered just 24 hours apart, represent a massive messaging failure for the White House.