I suppose we’ve all heard the now-predictable knocks on Barack Obama’s campaign style — his speeches soar, but he usually goes light on the policy specifics. I’ve argued that this is as it should be; Obama’s principal strength is his ability to motivate and inspire. No one really wants to hear a presidential candidate read white papers anyway. Obama and his campaign offer voters all kinds of substance and details on practically every issue under the sun; there’s no real need to turn his speeches into powerpoint presentations.
Which is why last night’s speech in Houston was unusual. Generally, his post-victory speeches are some of his very strongest. Last night, however, before a crowd of 19,000 enthusiastic Texans, Obama’s remarks didn’t seem to go over nearly as well.
His previous election night remarks have largely been kept short, sweet and dominated by his usual messages about hope and change. Tuesday night was an entirely different story. His speech lasted what Fox News’ Brit Hume counted as 45 minutes; it was, Hume said, the longest election night speech of this presidential campaign thus far. And it was heavy on issue positions; Obama spoke — for example — about the war in Iraq, about foreign policy generally, about health care, about education, about lobbyists, about the economy, about trade, about taxes, about the minimum wage, about energy, about Darfur and about immigration.
But what the speech had in discussion of issues, it was noticeably lacking in the energy that has been a hallmark of Obama’s previous election night speeches. Several audience members (we counted at least four, and that was without effort at an accurate tally) sitting behind him, visible to television cameras, started speaking on cell phones. Many looked bored. Actually, at times, even Obama looked bored, unenthusiastic about what he was saying.
I should note that I didn’t actually see any of the speech — I was sound asleep — and I imagine that opinions will vary about the quality of Obama’s remarks (the campaign posted videos here).
That said, I hope the campaign doesn’t start overreacting to criticism that never made a lot of sense to begin with.
Jonathan Cohn, who often has high praise for Obama speeches, noted last night:
Tonight … I think he may be getting a little too wonky, even by my standards. For the first time I can remember, his victory speech has included lengthy policy explanations. He went into great detail about his health care plan — the kind of coverage it would provide, how much it would cost, the way it would improve medical care. He did the same for college tuition assistance, trade policy, and national security.
It wasn’t a terrible speech by any means; I don’t think Obama is actually capable of doing that. On his bad night, he still puts most other politicians to shame. And tonight’s certainly had its moments. I was particularly struck by the story he told about the 20-year-old soldier killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
But this felt a lot more like those old Bill Clinton State of the Union speeches. Packed with policy ideas, they seemed to go on forever — and lacked the thematics or sheer lyricism we’ve come to expect from Obama.
I wonder — and, for the record, this is sheer speculation — whether Obama and his advisors are trying to preempt the charge that he’s not sufficiently substantive.
I think that’s almost certainly what’s going on. It’s as if the campaign is telling McCain and Clinton, “No substance? We’ll show you; we’ll deliver a dry, 45-minute speech filled with so many details, everyone will be yawning.”
Except this isn’t a good idea at all. Doesn’t it make far more sense to keep going with what works, and disregard criticism that voters don’t seem to care about anyway?