Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Obama, the winner on words
By Tirdad Derakhshani / Inquirer Staff Writer
If there's a lesson to learn from the struggle between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, it's that when it comes to presidential elections, rhetoric - specifically, values talk - will trump policy talk anytime.
It's a lesson that Republicans learned two decades ago from Ronald Reagan's strategy guru Richard Wirthlin, who discovered that people who did not agree with Reagan's specific policies still voted for him, because they prized his values - honesty, integrity, steadfastness.
Language experts say it's a strange, counterintuitive point that continued to elude Clinton Tuesday during the 20th and last scheduled Democratic presidential debate in Cleveland, when she continued to criticize Obama for offering voters inspirational speech instead of actual policy.
On the eve of Tuesday's primaries in Ohio and Texas, which are considered must-wins for Clinton, it bears asking: Why has Obama so baffled the presumptive heir to the White House?
"Obama has hijacked the language of values from the Republicans," said linguist William Lutz, who taught at Rutgers University in Camden before retiring. "What people care about isn't how you can micromanage health care," Lutz said, referring to a 16-minute exchange Tuesday during which Clinton assiduously tried to prove the superiority of her proposed health care agenda.
"What people do care about is for you to acknowledge you're for universal health care because you believe in fairness," Lutz said. "And Obama kept hitting that point."
Steven Poole, the author of Unspeak, a study of political language, said Clinton lost the forest for the trees when she "tried to emphasize small differences" in the two health care programs. Obama, by contrast, "managed to step outside or rise above the adversarial context to point out that their plans have a lot in common," said Poole, a British critic.
Lutz and some other critics say Obama has dominated the primary race because he is able to communicate a cohesive vision, while Clinton seems intent on proving that because she is a brilliant, experienced policy wonk, she is eminently capable of doing the job, from "Day One."
Poole said ironically, it was Obama who came off as more presidential - because he said so. "During the whole debate, Obama referred to himself as the future president 11 times. Clinton did it only four times," he said. "Someone who can repeatedly and with confidence refer to himself as president is likely to give an impression of more authority."
By doing so, Poole said, Obama went "over Clinton's head. Instead of speaking to her, he [aimed] directly at the viewer."
Obama's ability to remain unflappable in the face of criticism and to rise above the fray was nowhere more evident than when moderator Tim Russert asked him if he accepted Louis Farrakhan's endorsement. When Obama said he had repeatedly denounced Farrakhan because of his "anti-Semitic comments," Clinton accused him of being too soft because he did not reject the Nation of Islam leader but merely denounced him.
"Then I'm happy to concede the point," Obama said, "and I would reject and denounce." The comeback was both conciliatory and sharp - it made Clinton look petty, noted David Perlmutter, a dean at the University of Kansas' School of Journalism and Mass Communications.
For theologian Cleophus J. LaRue of Princeton Theological Seminary, Obama proved that he embodies what it means to be the president.
"His tone, his language, his demeanor - they all reflect what he has been arguing all along are the qualities of the president," said LaRue, author of the 1999 book The Heart of Black Preaching. "He was conciliatory in tone, showing that he would bring the country together" across political, racial and class divides.
LaRue said Obama's true significance lies in the fact that he has become part of a social-political movement that is much larger than himself.
"For years people have said they wanted a different kind of politics. . . . and Obama has tapped into that. And yet, it's gone beyond him," LaRue said. "In a sense he got in front of a parade that's already down the street."
So what of Clinton's charge that Obama offers nothing but empty rhetoric?
Lutz cited the work of Berkeley linguist George Lakoff, who has written that rhetoric - the metaphors and stories we use to define ourselves - expresses our fundamental moral worldview. And all of our decisions, including policy decisions, will follow from this moral framework, Lakoff says.
University of Pennsylvania political scientist Anne Norton said there was nothing frivolous or irrational about voting for a candidate according to his or her values-talk.
"People do pay attention to the issues and they really care about them," she said. "But they recognize the presidency" is not just a job, but "also plays a symbolic value."
Obama made this point when he told Clinton that inspirational speech was a vital part of the job, since in order to bring about real, meaningful political change, "we're going to have to mobilize and inspire the American people so that they're paying attention to what their government is doing."
Norton said Clinton's complicated history muddied her potential to symbolize the empowerment of women.
"When Clinton talks about her experience, she includes her time as the first lady," Norton said. "But that weakens her position, because she was in the White House as a wife. . . . and later as a victim" in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "This diminishes her independence."
Norton said that by contrast, Obama, who is less tainted by his history as a public figure, represented a powerful historical promise.
"Americans grew up hearing, 'We shall overcome, someday.' When Americans see Obama they think that day could be someday soon.
"But," Norton said, "this also imposes a burden. Americans are asking him to represent their redemption."
He's realy charmfull as he speaks -and this is the first time I see him developing a full speech