Election

Why is it that campaigning turns otherwise great orators, thoroughly likable people, and interesting issues into vanilla pudding? Last night was a perfect example. John McCain, a man who between elections is funny, dynamic, and interesting, became during the course of this election a thorough bore. It wasn't just his presentation in the media: I've watched several of his full speeches, and they all lack any sense of the man's personality and verve. They are performances, acted for the benefit of some predicted effect on the public. But when you're a candidate running very much on your sincerity and reputation for openness and honesty, why undermine that honesty with disingenuous slogans and uncharacteristic sarcasm? It's bad politics, and it's bad performance.

What is equally interesting to me is the suddenness with which these transformations can be reversed. I found McCain's concession speech to be more inspiring than anything he's said or done in weeks. Sincere or not, it SEEMED sincere, and carried none of the bitterness that had been expressed in so much of his recent rhetoric.



On the other hand, I thought Obama was underwhelming. That "Yes, we can" line had all the potential to build itself up into an immense chant as wildly inspiring as "I have a dream," if Obama had been willing to put a little more verve into the performance. By the end, he could have built up into a final chorus of "Yes we can". Instead, he kept the whole speech on an even keel. My partner even said that she thought he seemed somber.



Finally, consider these speeches, which got virtually no attention that I heard about, but which were charming and hilarious. They remind us that these men must have some presence and personality, or they would not have risen to the stations they currently occupy.


McCain:




Obama: