Governor Mark Sanford may be back on US soil, but clearly he left his sanity behind in Argentina. The other conspicuous absence at today’s news conference was his wife.  Good call Mrs. Sanford.   In what was a truly bizarre and poorly executed news conference, Sanford choked back tears. Only he knows whether they were for his shattered family or his dashed White House hopes.

From the first few words, you knew it wasn’t going to be pretty.  Sanford verbally stumbled and bumbled his way out of the gate (note to self: prepared opening remarks serve a purpose), claiming that he was going to tackle this in “no particular order.”  In fact, a little structure might have minimized the appearance that he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.   The whole tawdry thing started rambling when he talked about “God’s Law,” and how “the biggest self of self is self,” whatever the heck that means.  In fact there was a good solid 90 seconds in which he was making no sense at all.

The governor is clearly not a wordsmith.  Disregarding the 200-or-so “um’s” and uh’s,” his word selection was terrible, calling his responsibilities back home to his family “fidcuiary.”   He characterized the escalation of his extramarital affair as “that whole sparking thing,”  and the conversation about his future with the other woman as going “into serious overdrive to figure out where we go from here.”  He favored characterizing everything as if it belonged in a zone: “the zone of privacy” he wanted the media to observe around his family.  There was a “zone of politics” and a “zone of protectiveness.”  The whole appearance belonged in “The Twilight Zone.”

The staging was awful, with the embattled Governor standing inside a tight scrum of reporters, one of whom was flashing the most inappropriate ear-to-ear grin behind his right shoulder throughout the entire event.  She was probably sharing a joke with a colleague, but it looked as though she was delighting in his demise.  Sanford handled the Q&A horribly, letting it get completely out of control.  There was no preset order to questions, so he was frantically looking from side to side as several reporters shouted at him at once.  He came completely unraveled under direct questioning, ultimately leaving abruptly before answering a question.

It’s hard to believe that a politician of his caliber would get up to the podium at such a crucial moment and wing it.  But that’s exactly what he did, and it showed.

One of Barack Obama’s best moments at the G20 summit, not surprisingly,  resulted from one of his biggest strengths: word selection.  With the French and the Chinese ready to come to blows over the issue of international tax havens, the President intervened and suggested that one word, “recognize” be changed to “note” in the final communique from the meeting. The compromise appeased both sides and eased the growing tensions.

This verbal selectivity of Mr. Obama’s is frequently on display when he speaks.  He has enormous respect for the impact a poorly chosen word can have.  As a result, when he is addressing a sensitive matter, and approaching the thrust of his point, you will often see him dramatically slow his speaking pace.  At times he will come even to a complete stop, utilizing a thoughtful pause.  This allows his mind time to shuffle through the various synonyms available, until he settles on the precise one he wants to use.

Too often we fear pausing when we speak, as if it’s going to make us look uncertain.  When we succumb to this fear, and opt for emitting a steady stream of sound, we dramatically increase the likelihood that we will say something we later regret.  It also allows those dreaded filler words (um, er, you know, sort of, kind of) to creep into our speech.

The President is always demonstrating the art of effective communication.  If he can remain comfortable and confident building in pauses in his speech, then why can’t we?

As I stood near Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day listening to Barack Obama toll the bell for a new era in American resolve and spirit, I couldn’t help (given my profession) but be consumed with one overriding thought: What a delight to have a true orator back in the White House.  

A leader’s spoken words are meant to reveal what thoughts occupy his mind and what principles inhabit his heart – not merely what words are scrolling on the teleprompter.

In eight years, George Bush’s speech-making skills improved about as much as his leadership qualities – not at all.  The 43rd and 44th presidents offer as stark a contrast from the podium as you can get.  Throughout his two terms, Bush was downright android-like in his delivery.  All the techniques needed fort effective speechmaking – variation of pace and pitch, ability to make the punch lines stand out, a mixture of voice modulation and the integration of audible emotion – were all sadly missing from his execution.  The monotony of his “see Spot run” simple sentence structure merely reinforced the notion of his intellectual limitations.   It’s no wonder the nation fell into a state of despair.  Our leader for the past eight years never managed to inspire or reassure us with his oratory.  This was painfully on display during his final farewell speech on January 15th, remarks he stumbled and bumbled his way through without a hint of emotion or reflection is his voice.

Words alone cannot remedy what ails us as a nation.  But if part of our challenge in reinventing our country rests in “visualizing success,” then we certainly have the right man leading from the lectern.

No…. there’s not too much pressure on the people penning Barack Obama’s Inaugural speech.  They have the modest marching orders of coming up with turns of phrase and lines so memorable that they will be quoted for generations to come and printed in history books.  Only the eyes and ears of the entire nation and beyond will be hanging on every painstakingly selected word.  Can they craft something as historic as,  ”Ask not what your country can do for you….”?    In many ways, that is the bar this speech needs to clear, and then some.  The difference being, back in 1960, the Inauguration speech by John Kennedy was delivered during much more prosperous times, with only the growing threat of the USSR shaking American confidence.  On January 20th, Barack Obama also will be officially signaling the beginning of a new era of young, change-inspired leadership. Only this time, the nation to which he speaks is in much greater need of hope and reassurance.  The words written for the 44th President have the power to be a salve on a troubled country.  At the same time, however, they need to manage realistic expectations of what the first year of an Obama Administration can accomplish.  The words cannot soar so high that they feed the “savior syndrome” that seems to have taken on a life of its own.  It’s a delicate balance indeed.  If you love unprecedented pressure, it doesn’t get any better than this.

In the second of three Presidential debates last night, John McCain evoked the name of Ronald Reagan, describing him as his hero.  After last night’s woeful performance from McCain, it would appear that hero worship is where the connection between the two men begins and ends.

Perhaps John McCain has “Town Hall Burnout” because The Gipper must have been rolling over in his grave. Whatever McCain handler recommended the feeble attempts at humor (talking about hair transplants he needs during an answer on health care) should be fired on sight.  This is a Town Hall!  The audience is instructed NOT to laugh, applaud or even react.  Even the lowest-rent Borscht Belt stand-up comic knows you don’t tell a joke when the chances of getting a laugh are slim.  If this is an example of his judgment, I’m not sure I want his “hand on the tiller.”  If Ronnie were still here I’m sure he’d give McCain a “there you go again.”

As far as stage presence, McCain looked fidgety.   When Obama was talking,  McCain, at times, looked like a vulture lurking in the background.  At one point he was even caught gesturing and mouthing something to someone in the audience.  When McCain was speaking, his movement around the stage had no purpose, and when you’re 72 years old the last thing you want to do is look like you’re wandering aimlessly.  These critiques are above and beyond the problems caused by his physical limitations, of which he has no control, but still contribute to a less-than-robust image.  In short, he seemed tired, old and cranky.  By contrast, Obama struck a calm, cool and unfazed pose on his stool.  None of that bogus note taking, no shaking his head while he’s being attacked… it was masterful.  He looked completely unflappable and eager to stare down his detractor.  And in these settings, unflappable equals Presidential.

Although McCain didn’t flash his legendary temper in its full fury last night, it was pretty clear that Obama has gotten inside his head and under his skin.  I didn’t think McCain could appear any more disrespectful and dismissive towards Obama than in the first debate when he did not look at him once and rarely referred to him by name.  But then came the now-famous “that one.”  In a patronizing tone McCain also called Obama “my friend,” very similar to the way Nelson Rockefeller used to call everyone “fella,” as if to say, “I’m really too important and superior to you to bother using your name.”

If McCain thinks he’s coming across any less mean and crotchety by smiling during his zingers and barbs he’s mistaken. If you’re going on the attack, go on the attack without trying to simultaneously seem like a great guy.   Smiling while you’re trying to take somebody apart just makes the viewer think you’re bitter, sarcastic and insincere.  When he does that he visually he reminds me of Lionel Barrymore’s character Mr. Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life,” when he’s pretending to be nice to Jimmy Stewart just to trick him into forking over the ol’ savings and loan.  Perhaps that’s why of all the viewer polls taken last night, McCain took the biggest bath on “likability.”

But perhaps the most vexing problem facing McCain (and the most difficult to overcome) is his painful lack of comfort looking at the camera.  From the moment he was introduced last night, McCain looked to be in a desperate hurry to break eye contact with the audience and the cameras - that’s why he started scribbling some notes the minute he got to his stool.  What on Earth could you need to write down before the debate even begins?  It goes back to what our mothers always told us when our credibility was being questioned, “Look me in the eye and say that.”  John McCain doesn’t feel comfortable looking the American people in the eye.  Given our desperate need to trust and believe in a leader who can get us out of this multi-pronged mess we’re in, that could prove to be a fatal flaw.

What a farewell it was to Yankee Stadium Sunday night.  I feel very fortunate to have been there.  Except for the fact that Joe Torre’s name was not among the dozens of ex-Yankees mentioned as key historical figures, it was a well-choreographed night.  But not surprisingly, the most memorable moment was seemingly more impromptu.  Spontaneity, or the appearance of it, is always connects with us on a deeper level.

After the end of the game, Derek Jeter showed why he’s the captain and heart and soul of this team.  He took the microphone and addressed the crowd.  

Jeter Addresses Fans

He didn’t read from prepared remarks.  He didn’t make it all about him.  He made it all about the fans.  He turned his eloquent, yet conversational remarks into a tribute to all of us in the stands whom he described as “the greatest fans in the world.”  He credited all of us with being the crucial component in transforming a mere building into a legendary cathedral of baseball.

Professionals from every industry can learn a lot from his speech.

• It was concise and to the point (leaving you wanting more)
• It was not self-serving or inwardly focused.  He made it about his audience
• It was well planned and well thought out but not scripted
• It was from the heart and made every fan there feel as if he was speaking directly to them
• It was frank and honest yet optimistic
• It contained an inspirational call to action (”hand these memories down to the next generation.”)

Midway through the Democratic National Convention, conventional wisdom maintained that there just wasn’t an awful lot of sizzle to the thing.    In fact after Monday night, it seemed downright vegetarian, with with hardly a speck of, what the politicos like to call “red meat,”  in sight.  

But in the Mile High City, the Democrats clearly opted for a gradual climb to cruising altitude, culminating with an acceptance speech Thursday night from Barrack Obama that virtually broke the political sound barrier.  It soared higher and flew faster than all that preceded it - a harmonious blend of expert craftsmanship in its drafting and a dynamic delivery.  Not since John Elway quaterbacked the Denver Broncos to championships on that very same field, had Americans witnessed such a clutch performance in that setting.   From a sheer speech making perspective, here’s why it was so good:

• Like an expert driver, Obama understands that you can’t be in overdrive the whole time.  This is an orator who utilizes all of his speaking gears, downshifting to a quieter, more thoughtful pace when empathizing with the struggles of average Americans, and then giving it the gas when going after John McCain.  It’s the variety of moods Obama shows you that helps keep the listeners watching the podium and not their watches.
• The worst thing a speechmaker can do is play it safe.  Great speeches always involve good calculated risks.  Taking it outdoors onto a grander stage before 80,000 people was certainly the first big roll of the dice.  But when Obama tackled three thorny social issues: Abortion, Gun Control and Gay Rights he also displayed an air of courage that sent a message that he’s playing this game to win, not playing it not to lose.
• This speech was groundbreaking in that it seemed to usher in a new era of conversational speechmaking.  True, most speechwriters are expert at writing for the ear and not the eye, but Obama’s acceptance speech brought that art to a new level.  At points you almost felt as though he was talking to you one-on-one walking down an empty corridor underneath the stadium. Brian Williams on MSNBC in fact made the observation that certain lines seemed as though they could have been written by Aaron Sorkin, creator of The American President and The West Wing.  But as conversational as it was, Obama’s speech was not dumbed down.  When was the last time you heard a word like “inextricably” in a major political speech?  In fact that word reminded me of an episode of The West Wing in which a high-priced political consultant warned President Jeb Bartlett that he shouldn’t use a word in a speech if the average American doesn’t know what it means.  Bartlett responded that giving people a reason to grab their dictionary and look it up was actually a good thing.

1)  Hillary Clinton - I’ve never been a huge fan of her oratory skills, or lack thereof, but I have to admit, she hit this one out of the park.  She delivered it flawlessly with a good sense of timing.  For instance, her line about the logic of Bush and McCain being together in the Twin Cities next week because they’re so hard to tell apart had a comedian’s flair for set-up and payoff.  ”The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pant Suits” was another good line, as was “No way, no how, no McCain.”  But where Hillary excelled was showing a softer, less-strident side in recalling all the people she met in her campaigning who made a lasting impression on her. She embraced the power of the anecdote and it made that section of her speech memorable.  Asking a question that makes your audience do some immediate soul searching can often be an effective tool and last night was no exception.  When she asked her supporters, “were you really in this because of me,”  she gracefully implied that support based of her personality or gender isn’t good enough.

2)  Michele Obama - No one had more pressure on them to demonstrate a “likability factor” than Michelle Obama.  The stakes were high and she delivered in impressive fashion.  She came across both intelligent and articulate and warm and maternal.  The only noticeable flaw was that far too many of her sentences began with “you see,” which after a while stood out as a predictable pattern.  But overall, for a potential First Lady, the speech was a home run, only outdone by the expert staging of the virtual family hug in which the adorable Obama children joined their mother on stage to chat with their father via remote.

3)  Bill Clinton -  Two noticeable absences: excessive discussion of his favorite topic - himself, and the trademark, aw-shucks lip biting.  Those were two additions by subtraction in what was otherwise a masterfully delivered “on-message” speech that had to have been greeted at its conclusion by a huge collective sigh by the Obama camp.  Getting both Clintons to behave just the way you want them to on this grand a stage is no small feat.

4)  Mark Warner - In the negative column, the former Governor of Virginia, now candidate for the U.S. Senate from that same state, sounded like just that - a candidate stumping for himself.  The content was thoroughly forgettable, the delivery was one long drone with no peaks and valleys and his annoying habit of quickly licking his lips at the end of each sentence gave him the appearance of an amphibian stalking its next meal.  In overall appearance, Warner bears a frightening resemblance to G.D. Spradlin, the actor who portrayed the sleazy, corrupt Nevada Senator in The Godfather - Part II.  

I can hardly wait to start this all over again on Monday with the GOP in Minnesota.