Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
SPEECHES. Random thought from the Edwards' speech the other day: It's no secret that these things are theater, but isn't it time we did away with speeches? Not the televised sort, of course, as they bring the pol's ideas to a broad audience. But when you appear at the Council on Foreign Relations and distribute a text, there's really no value added by mouthing the words for the next 40 minutes. Better by far would be to give out the pages, let everyone read for a spell, then sit down for a Q&A on the policy. This would seem particularly true for politicians like Hillary Clinton, who aren't terribly good at giving canned speeches, but are ferociously knowledgeable and capable in give-and-take situations. Barack Obama may want to press his advantage with oratory, but HRC would probably be better served -- particularly given the preexisting narratives about her -- by going off-the-cuff and drilling in her fluidity with the material.
--Ezra Klein
COMMENTS (5)
Reporters almost never read any policy papers. What makes you think anyone'd read a substantive speech they were handed in order to generate meaningful questions.
As idealistically sensible as your proposal is, in fact all that would result is a candidate taking questions on haircuts and madrassas.
The purpose these speeches have is that it lasts long enough and with a sufficiently captive audience that it allows the candidate to set his or her own agenda for the interaction. It's inefficient but effective.
Posted by: AP | May 25, 2007 12:41 PM
Or we could strike the public appearance alltogether, and the candidates could lay out their policies in an RSS feed. I'd never have to wear pants or leave my basement!
Posted by: Thomas Allen | May 25, 2007 1:55 PM
One thing I find interesting is that politicians, for the most part, have not embraced power point. Al Gore is the notably exception -- Inconvenient Truth is really just a film of a ppt presentation. They are still standing reading speeches in a way that would seem familiar to someone listening to William Henry Harrison in the 1840 campaign. No wonder that people find them irrelevant.
Posted by: Think twice | May 25, 2007 5:34 PM
Dunno, I'd rather watch a well-delivered speech than any sort of Q&A session.
Posted by: Korha | May 25, 2007 6:48 PM
And yet, even in academic fields such as philosophy, in which presenting papers as "talks" makes even less sense, it's still a widespread practice.
Posted by: Greg | May 25, 2007 8:12 PM