1

Introduction
Why Speechwriting Matters
T

hey spoke seven days apart: first the skinny black senator from Illinois,
winner over Democratic rivals who hadnt even heard of him five years earlier;
then the white-haired senator from Arizona who had been in the public eye
for almost four decades. And what Barack Obama proposed at an outdoor
stadium in Denver and John McCain at a convention hall in St. Paul differed
in tone, delivery, and ideas both about what was wrong with the country and
how to fix it.
But in other ways, their acceptance speeches to the 2008 Democratic and
Republican national conventions were quite similar. Both speakers used the
theme of change. Both addressed not just the people in front of them but all
Americans, speaking to them directly, often about the same problems.
These are tough times for many of you. Youre worried about
keeping your job or finding a new one. . . .
McCain
Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working
harder for less. More of you have lost your homes.
Obama
The two speakers used the same basic structurea modified version of
Monroes Motivated Sequence, the popular five-step problem-solution format
designed to make listeners act. Both used direct juxtaposition, immediately
contrasting their (good) ideas with their opponents (bad) ones.
My tax cuts will create jobs. His will eliminate them.
McCain
Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations
that ship jobs overseas.
Obama
Both used a technique politicians sometimes call litany. In formal rhetoric
its described another way: lists of examples using the same grammatical struc-
ture and often the same opening words for each sentence. Obama used litany
at least sixteen times and McCain, twelve.
Uncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages
may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
2 INTRODUCTION
We believe everyone has something to contribute. . . . We believe in
low taxes. . . . We believe in a strong defense.
McCain
We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays
the mortgage. . . . We measure progress in the twenty-three million
new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was president. . . . We
measure the strength of our economy . . . by whether somebody with
a good idea can take a risk. . . .
Obama
Both used rhetorical techniques like antithesis, a contrast based on parallel
structure that audiences find easy to remember.
All you ask is that government stand by your side and not in your
way.
McCain
Our government should work for us, not against us.
Obama
Before closing, both used stories to inspire: McCain about his experience
as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, honoring his imprisoned comrades who had
fought for me; Obama about Martin Luther Kings I Have a Dream speech,
echoing Kings pledge We cannot turn back. And both drew lessons from
their stories in a traditional way.
Im going to fight for my cause every day as your president!
McCain
America, we cannot turn back!
Obama
Finally, both launched a call to action litany from those lessons.
Fight for whats right! Fight for our childrens future!
McCain
We cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. We must pledge. . . .
Obama
In short, McCain and Obama demonstrated that even when politicians
find little common ground on issues, they share beliefs in one area: rhetoric.
Speechwriters produce much of that rhetoric. Im one. It is, in some ways,
a strange career, not least because until recently it was almost a rule of political
life for politicians to pretend that they write the words they speak. In 1988,
I wrote a Democratic National Convention tribute to Jimmy Carter for Ed
Muskie, the former Maine governor, senator, and Carters secretary of state.
Uncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages
may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
Why Speechwriting Matters 3
Muskie walked to the podium carrying the speech I had given him. But before
starting, he turned to Texas governor Ann Richards, who had introduced him.
Madame Chairperson, he said, as you know, I like to do things my own
way. So I will complete this assignment reading from my own handwritten
notes.
Handwritten notes? I had written almost every word! At that point I had
been a speechwriter long enough to know that reading other peoples words
can make politicians uncomfortable. But why would Muskie go out of his way
to conceal what I had done, unless he thought there was something shady
about it?
Some people do argue that speechwriting is by definition unethical, partly
because of the secrecy, and partly because skillful speechwriters can distort
audiences judgment about candidates by making them appear more articulate
than they are in real life. But politicians arent the only public figures who ask
others to write their own material. So do talk show hosts or Supreme Court
justices whose clerks write actual decisions. Nobody protests.
The fact is, people want their politicians to speak a lot. And if they had to
write those speeches, they would be doing nothing else. Over roughly the last
hundred years, that has made political speechwriters not just essential for poli-
tics but also to the public conversation about policy. Out of their printers emerge
arguments that support or oppose war, universal health care, the right to choose
an abortion, or a $700 billion economic stimulus. When I worked in the White
House for Vice President Al Gore, I wrote his speeches commemorating the fif-
tieth anniversary of D day and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the moon landing,
his remarks at Nelson Mandelas inauguration, and his eulogy for firefighters
had who died in action. On my fiftieth birthday, while my wife and kids waited,
I spent all day in the office writing a speech on the value of fatherhoodand
thought it was well worth putting off my party, because I believed the role Id
been given was a privilege. With all its occasional moral ambiguity, imperfect
solutions, and endless need for compromise, I still feel that way.
The secrecy is another matter. The last few years have seen some of the
secrecy surrounding speechwriting erode, at least at the presidential level. Its
about time. Few would argue that Barack Obama lost votes because reporters
wrote stories about his gifted chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau. Concealing the
identity of speechwriters only lends ammunition to those who see politics as
corrupt.
As it occasionally is. Americans often use the word as an insult, probably
because they believe politics is so pervasive. Even politicians do, running in
campaigns against career politicians and offering to rise above politics.
They shouldnt be so hard on themselves. In my experience, politicians are
complex, often surprisingly introspective, passionate about issues, and nuanced
in their beliefs. They chafe at the limits that political life imposes on their intel-
lectual and personal lives. Theres no evidence that they are any more corrupt
than the rest of us.
Uncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages
may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
4 INTRODUCTION
And while theyve chosen a heady occupation, many pay a price: a bifur-
cated routine in which their families live hundreds of miles away while they
rent tiny apartments in state capitals or Washington, D.C.; in which weekends
are chances to rush back to the district and race from pancake breakfasts to
ribbon cuttings to fund-raisers as part of the perpetual campaign of political
life. A small battalion of aides schedules their days, transports them to and fro,
writes their letters, signs their names, insists on meetings, and bombards them
with stacks of memos to a degree that frustrates people who might like to go
to their daughters lacrosse game or read a novel now and then.
In the White House, I used to be amazed by the briefing book that aides
handed Gore each night, dividing the next day into fifteen-minute segments
from the moment he stepped into his limo (7:30 A.M.: CIA briefing) to the
moment, often near midnight, when he returned to the mansion. Once I asked
him how he found the time to explore any of the issues he dealt with.
You spend the intellectual capital you come here with, Gore replied,
allowing me to hear just a hint of exasperation.
How to change political life is beyond the scope of this book. How to make
speeches better reflect that intellectual capital is not. But to learn what to put
in those speeches you should first figure out what politicians need from them.
Lets begin by looking at those needs, why they differ from those of other
speakers, and what they imply about the sometimes terrifying act of writing a
speech that satisfies them.
Uncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages
may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without
permission in writing from the publisher.