I haven’t been following the US presidential election very closely but clearly Barack Obama’s eloquence has lifted the political debate above its usual harping/whining and excited a lot of people. Sadly though, last night’s “Worst. Debate. Ever” was more reflective of the Rovian bad old days, a petty, shrill tabloid tone rather than a serious discussion of the policy challenges facing the US. But this morning, ABC must have a nasty hangover as their comment pages have filled up with over 11667 (and counting…) largely negative comments, reflecting public frustration with the level of maturity in the questioning.
I think it’s interesting to view this particular incident in parallel with the styles of the two main candidates. Hillary Clinton’s speeches reflect the older style: insipid, patronising, dwelling on ridiculously trivial political points or bland platitudes (although neither candidate seems to have really radical policy proposals – it’s just that they sound so much worse coming from her). On the other side, Obama at least seems to be trying to talk to Americans like they are adults and rise above the fray.
Of course this is just a general impression and so, being a numbers guy, I was pleased as punch to see that the New York Times offers a transcript analysis tool, allowing you to search for specific phrases. The most interesting search I could think of was to compare the two candidates’ verbal ticks: Clinton’s “You know,” (alternatively, I’m your friend or I’m lying through my teeth) and Obama’s “Look,” (…can we please grow up and talk like big boys and girls).
The results:
- Clinton said “You know,” 43 times to Obama’s 16. 10 of Clinton’s came when she was squirming under a question about the Bosnia sniper thing.
- Obama said “Look,” 6 times, 0 for Clinton. These usually came after one of the moderator’s questions, a particularly exasperated one after the infamous flag pin question.
Anyway it’s an interesting little tool and I’d be curious to see what others make of it.
