strudel protegee: Obama's Victory Speech

Draft is a series about the art and craft of writing.

Last night the President Obama who?d mocked Mitt Romney for not caring about the 47 percent was the same one who praised his opponent for caring so strongly about the country?s future. He thanked not just his own voters but every voter ?whether you held an Obama sign or a Romney sign.? He also talked about how eager he was to sit down with Mr. Romney to talk about how to move the country forward.

This was exactly right. A great victory speech celebrates the end of a successful campaign. But speechwriters know that it also sets the stage for the beginning of what?s next: in this case, the lame duck session and the next Congress. That means it has the outsize duty of trying to bring together an entire electorate, a large portion of whom just voted for the other candidate.

Last night?s speech didn?t live up to Obama?s stunning 2008 victory speech, with that long closing story about Ann Nixon Cooper, the 106-year-old woman whose life encapsulated the history of the 20th century (?a man touched down on the moon ? she touched her finger to a screen and cast her vote??). When I teach that speech, students stop texting and start crying. Part of the effect in ?08 was this historical moment, and in part, it was the originality of that closing story.

But the 2012 model showed all the strengths that Obama and his speechwriters consistently exhibit, producing the best drafts of any president. He used concrete details and repetition (?You?ll hear the determination in the voice of a young field organizer who?s working his way through college ? You?ll hear the pride in the voice of a volunteer who?s going door to door??); antithesis and echoes of John F. Kennedy (?America?s never been about what can be done for us; it?s about what can be done by us together?) and stories that have the ring of truth (?And I saw it just the other day in Mentor, Ohio, where a father told the story of his 8-year-old daughter??). You also see flashes of wit (?one dog?s probably enough?), and the skillful use of pause, emphasis and variety of tone that makes public speaking teachers like me use him as a model for students.

The speech also should help disprove the ridiculous criticism that Obama?s speeches fail to provide a narrative. Obama has had a consistent and obvious narrative since 2004. In fact, you can boil it down just like a screenwriter would pitch, say, the movie ?Splash? (?A man searching for true love finally finds it when a mermaid finds him!?).

In other words, ?A country rises from despair by abandoning what hasn?t worked for what does: finding common ground!?

Or, even better, as Obama put it for the umpteenth time last night:

? the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family, and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.

Naturally, whether President Obama can bring people together will be determined by more than a speech. Like tennis, it depends on players across the net. For the last four years, Republicans thought they could win with another game. Will Republicans, chastened by defeat, now change? It?s possible, and Obama?s call to find common ground may just offer moderate Republicans the key to winning the 2016 election.

In the last two years especially, many people have attacked Obama?s speeches, wondering why they didn?t have the same effect as the ones four years ago when he was campaigning. Was he too cerebral? Did he lose his magic?

There are simpler answers. People get tired of songs they loved after the first 50 times they hear them. And there?s a difference between running for president and being one; we hear only the candidates? biggest hits. With YouTube we can see every one of the president?s roughly 500 speeches a year, including the strikeouts.

It?s the actions ? the health care and immigration reform, Supreme Court appointments and the protection of rights ? that will determine whether Obama succeeds or fails. But his victory speech should reassure his fans. When Obama reaches back to throw the high hard ones, he?s got plenty left.

In my last piece, ?The Political Speechwriter?s Life,? several people posted comments similar to jr:

I just can?t buy into this idea that its ok to write speeches for someone else, so they can take credit for your writing.
To me, letting someone else take credit for your work is participating in a lie. It is facilitating and enabling a fraud on the public. It is inherently deceptive.

I have heard this complaint many times before. Kate, another commenter, offers some thoughts.

A good speechwriter is a partner, not a puppet master. The speechwriter listens, carefully and often, and then expands and shapes all the pieces that are, for the most part, already there. ? The speechwriter is influencing how the ideas are presented and perceived, but cannot be credited with their conception. Don?t underestimate the role of the speaker in crafting his own message, whether he puts the pen to paper or not.

I absolutely agree with Kate. There are plenty of ways writers explore their bosses? views beyond face-to-face meetings. Lots of speechwriters write drafts without ever talking to their bosses. That doesn?t mean we make things up. We talk to staffers who know the issues best. We have position papers and old speeches, and we remember past conferences. And we know our bosses, and are constantly scribbling notes when we are in meetings.

When I worked in the White House for Al Gore, there were plenty of times I would finish something at midnight, put it in his briefing book and see him looking at it for the first time as he got into the motorcade. However, no one was confused about whose policy was in the draft. It was his.

There was a time, however, when politicians didn?t acknowledge their speechwriters. In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt reviewed his first inaugural speech with Raymond Moley, who wrote the draft. When they were done, Roosevelt said that he would just copy the draft by hand so nobody would know Mr. Moley wrote it.

Moley threw his copy into the fireplace and said, ?This is your speech now.?

In fairness to Roosevelt, our source for this story is Mr. Moley, who years later saw the handwritten draft in the Roosevelt museum. The display contained a typed note from the president explaining that he had written the speech. Mr. Moley was so incensed he spilled the beans in his memoir.

Politicians today certainly acknowledge their speechwriters; Jon Favreau, Obama?s writer, gets a lot of publicity. And Obama values him because he is so good at conveying the president?s positions: Obama has even called Mr. Favreauhis mind reader.

Besides, Obama gives hundreds of speeches each year, and writing them is a full-time job. Do you really want politicians spending all day frantically trying to write?

I?d rather they had some time to think.

Robert Lehrman, who was the chief speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore, is the author of four novels and ?The Political Speechwriter?s Companion? and teaches speechwriting at American University.

Source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/victory-speeches/

gbc hedy lamarr jack white kowloon walled city ronda rousey vs miesha tate lindsay lohan snl lindsay lohan on snl