tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post7035253664061677503..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: A more perfect speech draft: Obama edits "our" national storyAndrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-75105111454903186042010-03-29T19:08:21.982-04:002010-03-29T19:08:21.982-04:00To anyone who's worked in government or politi...To anyone who's worked in government or politics this is standard stuff. Speechwriters (unless they know the speaker will routinely announce their stuff verbatim) provide a sort of template that the boss 'salts' with engaging personal stories and emphasis as they see fit.<br /><br />Obama's additions and tweaks are exactly what the speechwriter would expect from a politician like Obama (i am not talking about content, merely process, and I am assuming that Obama did not write the initial drafts which surely he did not). in fact getting to see the final mark-up is a bit of a rarety even for speechwriters but Obama's changes seem exactly as you'd expect. For less exalted speakers you're lucky to see a transcript.<br /><br />Some speakers undertake this process instinctively; you get the impression Reagan would have taken any speech he was given and marked or unmarked, as he spoke turn it into a sort of rosy, 'morning in america' ramble. Even if he did have to look stern about the Soviets, or whoever, at some point.<br /><br />I was going to say something about GWB but it doesn't seem worth pursuing.<br /><br />in any case, the almost kremlinological analysis of Obama's edits is as interesting as the edits themselves. Obama's soaring but - once you've heard a couple of his speeches - off-the-shelf rhetoric does seem a little too remote and formulaic, I think. <br /><br />Commentary dwells on his edits switching to the active but a speechwriter may or may not leave that sort of emphasis to the speaker. I think Obama could be more direct and less rhetorical more often. Kremlinology shouldn't be necessary in a democracy.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-31565984519973693582010-03-29T15:55:41.587-04:002010-03-29T15:55:41.587-04:00I think you're going a bit too far with the &q...I think you're going a bit too far with the "Obama edits activist government into the speech" interpretation. In fact, activism is in the speech from the start: The importance of (modest) government activism is the assumption behind doing health care reform in the first place. I read most of these edits as rhetorical, not substantive--that's to say, just editing the speech to make it a better speech.<br /><br />The bit you highlight--Obama's changing "rewarded by some measure of security and fair play that only government can ensure" with "an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in and deliver on that promise"--to me shows a writer and speaker striving to make his point more concrete and tangible for listeners--in a phrase, to punch it up. The added agency, the switch to strong, active verbs that you note is just good writing--and I think would be recognized as such by most professional writers and certainly public speakers. <br /><br />So it is for most other changes--"those" to "those of us," "him" to "Teddy," and so on: the personal replacing grammatical placeholders, vivid, personalized experience ("In 1935, when over half our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings swept away") highlighting dry historical reference. <br /><br />This is the work of Obama the smart public speaker (and writer), not Obama the ideologue of bigger government. As I say, the latter was baked in from the start.JCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09734994398205177420noreply@blogger.com