photo millineryman

The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama’s dramatic surge in the New Hampshire polls is attributable to the "bounce" one might expect from his convincing victory in Iowa. But an interesting theory by Jesse Wendel at The Group News Blog suggests it might also result from the way in which Obama, Edwards and Clinton speak even more than the substantive content of what each is saying.

What triggered my interest in Wendel’s theory was watching CNN show Obama at a New Hampshire rally Sunday, in which he delivered essentially the same speech that the media swooned over Thursday night. On Thursday night, the effect was electric; he was inspiring, uplifting; he raised hopes. By contrast, Sunday morning, virtually the same words and phrases seemed lifeless.

To be sure, they’re all probably exhausted. But for whatever reason, the same words that had been so moving Thursday night seemed dead Sunday. Worse, there was little substance to those words — he wasn’t really saying much about programs, proposals, promises, his experience or competence versus theirs — the points we normally expect to hear from a candidate. And yet Obama is surging, so is there something about the way Obama speaks at key moments, that is driving his dramatic rise in the polls?

Wendel’s analysis sees Obama using language that is "declaratory," and he equates that to human perceptions of how leaders speak. They declare a reality and by saying it help bring it about. When Obama talks about not wanting Blue versus Red America, but instead wanting to lead a United States of America, that very simple rhetoric helps create the unity he’s describing. It’s that leadership quality to which people are responding, even though his rivals can challenge his substantive claims to leadership in the Senate — as when Clinton asks, "what has [he] actually done to change things?"

Obama is breaking out now because he speaks the language of a leader.

Obama’s vision is true right now. . . .

He’s not making promises, even when the words coming out of his mouth are a promise. ALL of everything he’s saying is a declaration, a future which is true now because he speaks it.

When Obama speaks, he creates a future of an America in which all of us together will take on the troubles we know in our heart are coming and repair the damages which have occurred. Every time Obama opens his mouth, that future is more and more real. It happens AS he speaks. Obama’s speaking makes it so. By declaration.

Senators Edwards and Clinton also have very distinctive speaking patterns. Wendel suggests Edwards is making conditional promises — "I can reform American but only if you support me as your leader." (More videos via C&L). But, Wendel suggests, just saying it now doesn’t make it so now; we’re left with a disconnect, even if we strongly support Edwards and his objectives. Clinton, on the other hand, emphasizes her experience and competence (see videos), and those who support her immediately agree that if she were President, she would indeed know what to do and would work hard to achieve it — but it doesn’t inspire the way Obama’s manner of speaking apparently does.

Clinton uses the language of a worker, the language of deep experience and competence. She knows what she’s doing. She tells us you can trust her judgment, knowledge and understanding, her years and years of being on the job, wisdom and training. She is no doubt genuinely baffled that anyone would choose someone who doesn’t have the competency and vetting she has. That is someone immersed in a world in which what matters most is competence in a domain, competence ruling over everything, the world in which the workers love their queen.

None of this analysis suggests any candidate is preferable to others. Instead, all three can be excellent in their own paradigms. But it may explain why Obama is pulling ahead, while both Clinton and Edwards are falling back or stagnating, even though, IMO, both have clearly improved how they present their own strengths.

I don’t know whether any of this is correct, but it may give us a clue about why, even if the Clinton campaign "retools" or she and Edwards do a better job of presenting themselves, it may not matter . . . unless there’s a shock to Obama’s [the leader's] credibility.

Related posts:

  1. Whitehouse and the Corpus Delicti Leading to Cheney
  2. Two States
  3. Deeds Leading in VA Governor Primary: Heavy Rain Suppresses Turnout
  4. DFA Won’t Pull Their Health Care Ads Attacking Mary Landrieu
  5. Village Logic