John,
Perhaps you’re right that Lieberman was more compelling in the hall than on TV.
Watching the speeches from the side of the podium, in the press risers, is a somewhat skewed way to hear a speech. (You could see, for example, that Hadassah Lieberman was reading off a teleprompter when she began her speech, “Wow!”)
In my experience, few speakers are good in the hall and on TV at the same time. Ted Kennedy’s 1984 speech in San Francisco was rousing in person, as he bellowed red-faced at the crowd. But on the small screen it looked frightening. Reagan, the one time I saw him in person at an American Bar Association meeting in 1985, was a little jarring. From his broad body language, you would think he was addressing a great and enthusiastic crowd, but his voice was a quiet, radio-announcer purr. On TV it was a perfect meshing of heroic picture and pleasing soundtrack. The only speaker I have seen who stunned equally on TV and in person was Mario Cuomo. His 1984 Democratic convention speech was magnificent in the hall, eloquent, powerfully argued, and perfectly pitched for TV too. At one point, he was gesturing for emphasis as he critiqued policies that divided rich from poor. Only looking at it on video later did I realize he had neatly bisected the screen with the sign of the cross.
Again, I liked Lieberman’s speech–it was a good vice-presidential speech. (That compliment is not nearly as backhanded as it sounds.) He was supposed to draw contrasts with the GOP, rally the faithful to Gore, and introduce himself to voters. I cannot think of too many vice-presidential speeches that have done more than that.
You raise a good question: Is the era of high rhetoric is over? As we speechwriters say, Let me be clear: I love formal eloquence, too. It inspires and ennobles and can help the country understand itself. It is certainly more fun to write. Clinton is fully capable of delivering eloquence when appropriate. His eulogy for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, for example, was as elegant and idea-driven as one of Reagan’s better speeches.
But a practicing politician has to talk in a way that will be truly heard by his audience. Irony-drenched voters, or more accurately viewers, recoil from stagey eloquence. Even Reagan would have a hard time pulling it off today. One reason Clinton’s speeches focus so heavily on policy is that that he loves this stuff. One of the critiques of him that I least understand from conservatives is that he is somehow fundamentally frivolous. It sounds like nothing more than the liberal complaint, circa 1979, that Reagan is “just a B-movie actor.” I know Clinton pretty well; when it comes to policy and governance, he takes this stuff very seriously. One of the reasons his speeches are so fact-laden is that he is trying to subtly build confidence in government’s ability to do things. It’s striking that this year is the first presidential election since 1976 where neither candidate is running as a foe of “big guvmint.”
Gore has two tough, somewhat inconsistent jobs tonight. Talk about himself, and talk about policy and the country’s direction. Bush did it in 1988, and Clinton did it in 1992, but unless it is done well, it can lead to a bisected speech. As I used to tell the speechwriters at the White House, transitions between paragraphs are overrated.
I’m off to a field trip: Some friends and I are going to the Nixon Library–back in time for Gore’s speech. As Hadassah Lieberman might say, “Wow!”
