: Course correction…
The New York Times reports that senior aids to the Dean campaign “took several steps on Wednesday to overhaul his candidacy, including softening the tone of his speeches and eliminating high-voltage campaign rallies in favor of dignified appearances where he would present himself as a mature ex-governor with a command of health care and the economy.”
But the question is: Will Howard Dean take the same steps?
It appears to me that Dean is a man who prefers his own advice.
John Nowicki, of The Cultural Elite, left a comment in my “I watch TV…” post saying he attended the Dean concession speech:
Well, having been in the audience for Dean’s speech, I have to say that live it played very, very well. It really worked. People next to me literally made the decision to volunteer in NH as a result.
Almost everyone who was there were literally stunned to see how it played on TV. It was that different in context. Live it was amazingly powerful…on TV it played hard. Interesting how that worked.
I understand his frustration. And I have no doubt the performance played well to the crowd. The problem is, however, that most Americans experience politics though television. To be successful in a political campaign requires understanding this fact and adjusting to the rhetorical situation.
I’m remember reading Dr. Judy Dean say that her husband as a doctor would diagnosis a patient quickly and be right, whereas she was a more methodical physician. So that same dynamic may be operating in the political arena now.
The media coverage of “the speech” seems extremely overblown but there may lie some truth to those that compare it to the “Muskie moment”. While the text of the speech was fine, it seems that it is the emotion displayed that some watching on television found unsettling and is considered taboo. I disagree with the doesn’t “look presidential” criticisms, but perhaps that might be because the current W.H. occupant doesn’t “look presidential” to me either. A story in the Des Moines Register today, http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c5917686/23324305.html gives Dean’s speech an “F” and also offers an unflattering view of Edwards departure from Iowa.
I’m wondering what rhetoric Dean should use at the debate tonight to turn this around? Would confronting the issue with humor do it, or is the risk of a joke falling flat too great?
Richard…thanks for the question. I used it in class today. Here’s the consensus according to my students:
1- Go easy on the humor.
2- Turn the emotion around. e.g. “I’m passionate about this campaign. And why shouldn’t I be. I care about what’s happening in this country. And I’m excited to be a part of our democratic process.”
3- Don’t change too much tonight. Let some of that passion show, but go easy on it.
I think they did a pretty good job. I’d have to agree.
But I’d add this: It’s exceedingly difficult to wiggle out of these interpretation traps because the press simply views this as part of the Dean master narrative (i.e. the “truth” that he’s angry and emotional).