Handicapping Obama vs. Hillary
by Patrick Ruffini :: January 21st, 2007 6:31 pmIt’s rare that I find something on HuffPo worth linking to, but Steve Rosenbaum’s take on Obama vs. Hillary’s video e-announcements is totally on point. Rosenbaum is the director of the long tail documentary on Kerry’s campaign “Inside the Bubble” that I would totally buy if he released it on DVD already.
Simply put - Obama’s words feel like his own. Both convincing and colloquial. Direct and spoken without any sense that he’s being asked to read ‘copy’. His delivery is authentic. In stark contrast, Hillary is struggling with words that are not her own. You can practically see the tele-prompter reflected in her eyes. Every word has been word smithed, every phrase looked at by a team of consultants. Even the subject line of the email - “I’m in. And I’m in to win”- seems to respond to some unspoken marketing concern about her candidacy. Clinton’s video is directed to look ‘casual’ , with the camera panning gently back and forth (like those old Maxwell House commercials). In contrast - Obama’s spot doesn’t attempt any false causal film effects… counting instead on his ability to deliver his message direct to camera. Don’t get me wrong, there a moments were Clinton is clearly speaking her mind, when she says with a bit of exasperation - “after Six Years of George Bush…it is time to renew the promise of America.” But when she then says - “Let’s talk, lets chat…” you can just see the speech writers trying to find a way to soften her with the word ‘chat’. Please. Hillary Clinton doesn’t ‘chat’ - and it’s not credible coming out of her mouth. “Because the conversation in Washington has been a little one sided - don’t ‘ca think.” I do, but I don’t by Hillary talking in slang. Obama instead is almost flat - straight - not overselling or over-promising. Just laying out his plans, with a frankness that’s refreshing.
Don’t put me down as a big Obama fan, but with candidates spending more time speaking direct to camera in 2008, authenticity will count for more and more and the ability to speak in pre-packaged soundbites will matter less and less.
Via The Wire.
UPDATE: And the prize for least compelling video announcement goes to… Bill Richardson.
Tagged: 2008 
barack obama bill richardson hillary clinton
Comments (2) 
Trackbacks (0) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Hillary has been the most scripted senator. Her entire campaigns for NY senator were heavily controlled. No interviews unless they had pre-approved questions given to the host or were done by a host heavily sympathetic to her. Either way, no hard questions (just like the softballs tossed to her during the interviews on ABC, CBS and NBC on Monday). Back when she was co-president she used the secret service to keep the press away from her and I can recall only one press interview she granted during that time. Even having her announcement being on the web keeps questions being asked of her. She’s known as a cold, hardened socialist in Washington circles and supposedly unnamed democrat staffers have admitted off the record that hardly anyone in congress on either side of the aisle likes her. Since she’s finally announced she’s running, it is expected she’ll have an image consultant team devoted to reshaping her persona to appear to be more caring. I’m just not going to buy it. However I know there will be plenty of gullible liberals who’ll accept it; hook, line and sinker. In that case, P.T. Barnum was wrong…it’s more like ever 15 seconds.
Obama gives good speech. Just about any actor could be taught to deliver lines as sincerely. The question is what’s the guy actually done apart from voting to the left of Kennedy?