Larry D. Lauer

Years of experience taught me that the best way to evaluate major speeches is to ask key questions as guidelines. For example:

1. How important is the orchestration of the event surrounding an important speech?
2. What is the objective of a major speech?  Is it merely to reenergize the true believers; or complete the sale with those still uncertain insiders; or open the door to doubters on the other side and independents; or demonstrate the opponent’s incompetency?
3. How many of these targets can be effectively addressed in one speech? Which ones are the most important?
4. At what point does a laundry list of promises sound unrealistic and become a deterrent to crafting an inspiring conclusion?

With respect to the Clinton convention, was the event leading up to her speech brilliantly staged?  Which messages were capable of satisfying Bernie Sanders’ followers? Which messages could bring about commitments from the party’s undecided? Which arguments might convert the disillusioned from the other party? What in the speech will likely be attractive to  independents?  Can all of these be effectively addressed in one speech?  Which ones are the most important? Did her long list of party platform issues raise questions about how all this can get reasonably accomplished?  Will her relentless attacks of Trump make a difference in the end?

My “lessons learned” over the years suggest that events surrounding important addresses must be staged dramatically; that the speaker must not let lists of details get in the way of overall final impact; and that major speeches should only emphasize the most important outcome targets. Other targets should be saved for other circumstances, speeches, and media. Above all, major addresses must ultimately inspire with a vision so emotionally convincing that large numbers of people will accept the speaker as capable  of delivering a more fulfilling future.

Secretary Clinton’s entire event was clearly well staged by professionals. Her speech was an interesting and comprehensive review of the democratic party platform issues. She delivered it with high energy and strong emotional commitment. And she certainly made a convincing argument that her opponent is a self-centered and very dangerous man.

But I am still pondering these questions:

Did her long list of party platform issues get in the way of developing an inspiring enough conclusion?  Did she miss a golden opportunity to demonstrate a capacity to deal personally and honestly with past mistakes and trust issues? Could she then have painted a grander vision of American values so compelling that a majority of voters could now trust her with their families’ futures and fortunes?

And one more thought: Given the new dynamics of 24/7 electronic news coverage, will two campaigns based on daily back and forth attacks on each candidate’s character result in an anesthetized TV audience, and eventually be of no benefit to either one?