The Presidential Primaries are great cauldrons to see communications impact in action. We can learn a lot, as the public platform emphasizes positives and negatives that relate to our everyday speaking. And NOW the newscasters are talking about the importance of likability and authenticity. It’s ALWAYS about likability and authenticity, for only then can your message get through to your audience. After just the first two primaries, we have the winners and losers, largely because of communications:
First, New Hampshire, because that race happened to be tonight:
Hillary Clinton: big winner. In the race and in her victory speech. She was finally vulnerable, and what some people call her “breakdown” when she ‘cried’ was actually a breakthrough. She did not cry (like Ed Muskie did in 1972 in the Presidential race where he lost the campaign with a display of weakness) nor did she display weakness. She was human and displayed emotion, and just in time to reach enough people to upset Barack Obama in the race. In her victory speech she used notes well, and spoke to the people. Her usual “I” centered message was touched with a new humility.
Barrack Obama: Always a great speaker (he was the #1 Best Communicator in my 2006 Annual List,) once again he hit a long ball, but not out of the park, with his ‘victory’ speech. Actually, he came in second in the election, but you wouldn’t know it from his speech. It was high energy, high confidence and high in rhetoric. He uses the ‘rule of three’ well. “Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can.” (We’ll hear a lot more of that phrase in the days to come, and remember the rule of three.) And his speeches are very well written. And that’s actually why it wasn’t a home run, because if you were looking you could tell it was written, and read. He surprisingly uses a teleprompter, and does not use it well. That really surprises me, as it is pretty easy to learn how to use a teleprompter when you have to do so. Bill Clinton was a master at it. Look at Barrack’s eyes go to right, then left, then right, etc. Not natural, and it takes away from his power of voice and cadence by not going directly to ALL the audience with his eye contact.
John Edwards: A great speech. Edwards came in a distance third, and is unlikely as a candidate, but he gave a great speech, with wonderful stories and details of content. And by comparison, content was sorely missing in Obama’s speech, and pretty much in Clinton’s as well. Edwards also had a great line in saying that 99% of the country had not been heard from, and he was taking the message to the country.
Now read about the Republicans in New Hampshire and the Iowa winners and losers by clicking below:
John McCain: Big winner. His election revived his campaign, but he is the one candidate that is not winning because of his communications. In interviews and on the campaign trail he is authentic, real and winsome. But his formal speaking, as in his ‘victory’ speech, is just the opposite. Here McCain read his speech from a script, head down, and his ending was terrible. I’ll edit his video and put the post up of how NOT to end a speech, and how the written script imprisons a speaker.
Mitt Romney: Good speaker. The problem with Romney as a communicator and I think with his campaign is it is predictable. That’s OK as long as there is some variety, some pace, some ebb and flow – as in speech or seminar. But Mitt is the same whether winning or losing, and a good speaker. Yet he still comes across as slicked down, kind of like his hair. And his emphasizing the silver medal a second time does not smack of the sound of a winner.
Mike Huckabee: Authentic in victory or loss. Although Huckabee came in a distant third, his speech was much better than in his Iowa victory. Natural, and with no script, he energized the crowd with his own energy. And he looked to the future, and as always peppered his speech with interesting asides.
The Iowa Primary (highlights):
Obama: He won, and many say his Iowa Victory Speech was his greatest yet – not so. Great, but he’s no Martin Luther King. Obama is one of the best with energy and rhetoric, but misses on content and spontaneity. Again, as in New Hampshire, he used a teleprompter, and not with the skill one would expect.
Clinton: She came in second, and then gave a terrible speech, which was “I” centered and low energy. Maybe she was in shock. And having the old guard of Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton (looking very tight and unhappy) in the TV frame as she spoke did not help. It was interesting, and smart, that she changed that for New Hampshire with a backdrop of young people.
Huckabee: The surprising winner in Iowa, this election put him on the map, and he filled it out with his speech. (After all, he was the #1 Best communicator on my list for 2007.) Huckabee is the primary reason that all the media is talking about authenticity and likability now. He is also one of the few candidates who put issues in his message, whether in speeches or Question and Answer sessions. Behavior reigns, but content counts.
Romney: Second place, in the race and in communicating. As one commentator said, we don’t feel we know Romney. He communicates in a rote and mannered way, and his ‘concession’ speech showed it.