Report Card
Writing:
C+
Clarity: C-
Efficiency: B
Elegance: C+
Delivery:
A-
Pacing: C+
Intonation: B
Body Language: A-
Passion: A
The praise for Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s delivery of her speech has been nothing short of amazing – even MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann admitted that Palin “clearly gives a great speech.” Even the content drew praise from Democrats to the extent that they saw how it galvanized the GOP audience in St. Paul. The praise is due in part to the fact that Palin had no experience speaking on the national scene and to such a large audience, so people were caught off guard.
Still, looking at it objectively, there’s no doubt that Palin’s delivery was almost equal to that of Barack Obama, who has long been recognized for his oratorical skills when delivering prepared speeches.
The Delivery
Palin was poised, confident, had a good clear voice, made pretty effective use of her body language, and she connected very well with the audience. That’s why I’ve given her an A- on her overall delivery in my report card.
Her only real difficulty with delivery was that she was far too measured – in her pitch, her pacing, and her emphasis. Now the pitch range problem is due partly to the venue – people tend to forget to let the microphone do the work for them in a large (in this case very large) room. And there’s also the nature of the occasion – when you’re trying to rally people, it seems like every word has to be dramatic and powerful.
Problem is, you lose all contrast – everything gets spoken in the same way: loud and in a relatively high monotone. If Palin (and virtually all other politicians) can let herself relax, and go soft and low at the appropriate places, then the dramatic, powerful moments will feel that much more dramatic and powerful.
Pacing is another side of the same coin. Palin was far too measured in her pacing and the big danger there is that the meaning of passages is not as clear. Here’s an example:
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.
And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things.
All of these lines were delivered at exactly the same pace. But changes in pace help us to see differences, and that’s what you want to do in this contrast between two idealisms. So, you move faster through “in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things” and then you draw out the phrase “who actually do great things.” The difference in pace helps draw attention to what you think is important.
Staying with this example and continuing the problem of delivery being too measured, there was also no emphasis from Palin; each word received the same force. Yet, what we need here is punctuating of words like “and THEN there is the idealism” and “who actually DO great things.” It’s not that we the audience won’t get the contrast, it’s that you want to be certain we get it, that we know you the speaker gets it, and changes in emphasis makes the getting of it more interesting and keeps our attention.
The Writing
Let me emphasize that these report cards are never about the content of the presentation; they’re about the technical aspects of delivery and writing. So whatever you thought of Palin’s content – accuracy of facts, choice of approach, etc. – that’s not my concern here.
I want to ask whether the writing made points clearly, efficiently, and elegantly. My overall answer to that would be no. Where I do think the writing was quite good was at the level of clear and efficient wording. It got to the point quickly and in plain language, while still coming up with some memorable, elegant lines, like:
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
BTW, I think part of the reason this line didn’t get more coverage was because of the weak delivery I spoke of earlier regarding pacing and emphasis.
Where I think the writing fell short was in its overall structure – a confusion about the structure which made clear statements come across in an unclear way. Put another way, the language itself was quite clear, but the order in which things got presented diminished that clarity. Here are just a couple of examples (the items in square brackets are what was actually said compared to the prepared text):
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message [for you]: For years, you[‘ve] sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.
I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.
or this:
We need American [sources of resources. We need American energy] energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I’ve noticed a pattern with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.
Notice how those two highlighted sentences are completely separate thoughts – in fact, they’re the introductory thoughts to the next section of the speech and yet they come at the end of a paragraph. Some might say this is just a matter of how the text was laid out on the page (BTW, I checked my copy against four other postings of her speech and they all had the same lay out), and how it appeared on the teleprompter may have been different.
While that may be true, Palin delivered her speech in a way that matched this layout – she ran two separate ideas together and didn’t give them the kind of verbal separation needed. This has serious consequences both for the flow of the speech and for the clarity of meaning.
Great speechwriting anticipates places for audience reaction (clapping and so forth), and these should be at the end of sections/major points. If you’re running two ideas together, as these examples do, then you end up with a strange cadence to your speech and people aren’t sure about when to applaud. We saw this a number of times in Palin’s speech, as in this example:
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. [Big clap] [Well,] I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment.
That highlighted line – which begins a new point – got trampled in the applause which you had to know would follow the end of the last thought “John McCain is the same man.” The rhythm got broken because the ideas in the speech were not clearly broken up (either on paper or in Palin’s mind).
One of the most talked about lines in her speech was the off-the-cuff joke she made about hockey moms and the only difference between them and pitbulls being – lipstick. From a delivery standpoint, by the way, it was interesting to see her slip into personal mode from speech mode to deliver the joke; if speakers can keep the personal mode for the entire speech…
Anyway, my hat goes off to her for making the joke when she realized how potent her line about being a hockey mom was; she had started into her next line when she noticed the audience reacting to the line, so she stopped and made use of it.
My only comment would be: she and the speechwriters should have known at the last moment that there would be a reaction to that line (the posters in the crowd were plain enough) and there should have been a planned pause there. On the other hand, pulling off a planned joke or comment as if extemporaneous is not easy.
Conclusion
Let me re-emphasize that I was extremely impressed with Sarah Palin’s delivery, particularly in light of her relative inexperience. The things I talk about in these report cards are about details, about the high polish, which I hope are helpful to others in developing their own delivery and writing styles.
