Barack Obama – Victory Speech in Iowa
Two weeks ago, Barack Obama gave a rousing victory speech after winning the Iowa Caucuses. Watch the video here:
There is an obvious comparison between the style employed by Obama and that used by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Discuss the style employed, and compare the two speakers. How effective is this style for contemporary audiences? Does it matter that it was given in a state with little ethnic diversity? Is this a style that is more appropriate for victory speeches, or could it be used on the stump, as well? Would it be possible for other candidates to employ this style?
I would definitely agree that Obama’s speaking style is reminiscent of Martin Luther King’s. Both men call for change frequently in their speeches (Obama as a politician, MLK as a civil rights activist). This call for change and their respective abilities to inspire those that they are speaking to remind me of church sermons. Such sermons often demand change and hope to motivate the masses.
The first thing that I noticed that the two speakers both employ is the use of repetition: In Obama’s Iowa victory speech, he says “They said…” followed by things that cynics said would never happen. In his “I Have A Dream” speech, MLK reiterated the title of the speech multiple times. This repetition serves to fire up the crowd, letting them know what’s coming next – it allows them to feel a sense of familiarity in the presence of the speaker.
Another similarity I noticed is that while both men applaud changes that have been made (Obama recognized his Iowa win, while MLK acknowledged the large turnout at the march), they remind us that much more still has to be done. MLK wants equal-rights for all Americans, not just African-Americans – he includes women and other races in his speech. Obama says that New Hampshire and several other states still need to vote for him before he can implement his campaign promises of change. These reminders are necessary as they keep the crowd interested in the causes that Obama and MLK are promoting – the battle has not yet been won, but if one continues to listen to these men they will be instructed as to how to go about achieving victory.
I feel like the sermon style is still extremely effective in contemporary society as it was in MLK’s day. Crowds are there to be motivated by rhetoric – isn’t a speech deemed a success by how inspirational/impactful it is? The audience at Obama’s speech seemed to be moved by his words as evident by their ongoing cheers. To me, the fact that the state that the speech was delivered in was not ethnically diverse does matter. Had the speech been delivered to a more diverse crowd, a positive response would not have been as telling – the audience would have been more receptive to change anyways. A positive reaction from a less diverse crowd, one more likely to be unwilling to change their state makeup, is more revealing. The fact that Obama is prompting the less-diverse Iowa to want to change is a good sign and an indication that his “Change” speeches are working.
I also think that any of the other candidates in the 2008 could use this speaking style to address crowds. One would simply have to pick an inspirational message and maybe something that made them different, yet identifiable (Obama’s mixed race, Clinton’s gender, etc). A combination of the two would likely appeal to voters today just as MLK’s dream did to civil rights activists in the 60s.
I agree with the points laid out in the previous post. Obama and MLK both used powerful rhetoric that incorporated a strong sense of unity through repetition and the use of “we.” The overall speech was very effective, but I don’t think the speaking style should be limited to just victory speeches. The way Obama included pauses seemed to emphasize and consolidate his main points. As he spoke, his message was scrolling through my head in an outline making it easy to remember. This is in contrast to monotonous speeches with long sentences and drawn out points where you walk away with nothing but a big question mark in your head. I also liked his enthusiasm and involvement with the crowd. Although, I believe that his positive reception had little to do with ethnicity, but is more about political ideology. Because of the low approval ratings for President Bush, many people are excited for a change and they want a candidate that reflects that enthusiasm. I think this speaking style is somewhat innate, and I don’t see other candidates being able to pull it off. Obama’s speech did not seem prepared; it was very natural as if he was coming up with everything on the spot. In other words, the sermon-style speech seems more emotionally driven. In the video we saw of Clinton’s talk, her words were very deliberate and well thought out. Both styles can be very effective, just in different ways.
There really are many similarities between both Obama and Martin Luther King. It is just so amazing how both men are able to pull you in and grab your attention with their style of rhetoric. The “sermon” style of preaching as mentioned in the previous post really makes the message feel more personal. Both speeches look very natural as if they are speaking from within themselves rather than off a script or teleprompter. I also like how the speakers how both speakers had brief pauses because it allowed time to reflect on what they were saying. Usually when someone is speaking so slowly I get bored and frustrated but I catch myself lingering on every word because the repetition of “we” makes me feel like I am part of the change as well. I think this method works very well for Obama whether the audience is ethnically diverse or not. He doesn’t just talk about problems affecting a certain group of people. He speaks of problems that affect everyone and the changes we can all make. This style definately works well for contemporary audiences. There are always going to be problems that need change amongst any group of people and this style helps inspire those changes. Not only does this speech help to celebrate Obama’s victory but it encourages hope for more victories later.
I think that one of the reasons that this speech act was fairly successful (but not in the way of garnering votes, unfortunate for Obama) was that this speech style is fairly different to establishment Washington rhetoric. While we’ve heard a sermonizing speech before in presidential campaigns, it was never either delivered well or/and by someone who was doing well in polls. Here’s Obama using this speech style, reminiscent of MLKs and he received great praise for it.
This campaign has seen its fair share of interestingly different speech styles. Current republican front runner, McCain, at least in the few places where I watched him speak, he wasn’t a great speaker. He just sort of went over the motions which he had written down. Though, campaigning is exhausting. Romney seems to sail on that “presidential” look he has. General talk about how he’s not a Washington insider. The most interesting Republican to watch speak is without a doubt Huckabee. Huckabee I disagree with in nearly every single way, but he is a remarkably engaging speaker. He sounds humble and friendly, and to me, more or less like Mister Rogers. He’s not afraid to laugh at himself, and has got a decent sense of humor. Which is why his campaign keeps putting him on late night talk shows, because his off the cuff humor tends to win over crowds used to empty suits (him on The Colbert Report was especially funny). We’ve already talked about Clinton and Obama, so remaining (relevant) is Edwards. I once saw Edwards live when he came to UMW to campaign for Webb. Edwards is a really powerful speaker as well, with an empowering sense of populism. The problem with his speech is that it seems that we’ve heard it. His “Born In A Mill Town” seems to be all he’s got going, and he always follows it with some tragic anecdote about the travails of the working class in America. Its a shame that you can reduce what might be an emotional speech to such a pithy sentence but there it is.
It seems reminiscent to me of Dr. King’s style of speech because it seemed similar to a sermon to me. It had that sort of feel to it. Things that the two speakers did similarly were their use of positive acknowledgment of steps forward, as well as call for a need for more change. In this way, they both appealed to the audiences emotions by evoking pride and then determination to accomplish more. Through this style and use of emotional appeal, both MLK and Obama successfully create an urge to further their causes. From a psychological stand point, it is always better to gain support for one’s position or fight if you appeal to a sense of accomplishment and positivity. In this way, a speaker can celebrate what has already been done while garnering support for what still needs to be done. I felt that Obama and Dr. King were able to encourage this attitude in their audiences through their speeches.
By using this form of presentation, I feel that it can be appropriate in both a victorious setting as well as an inspiring setting. It does the job of building the audience up to feel happy and proud and then hits them with a call to take more action. When an audience feels appreciated and good about itself, it is more likely to do what is asked of it. In this way, Obama is able to encourage others to continue their hard work the way that MLK did.
I think Obama’s speaking style is very effective and it’s rather obvious I’m not the only one who thinks that after listening to several pauses by his audiences applause. I like how Obama has a way of bringing his audience into speeches. It’s not about him, its not entirely about them, its about everyone as a whole. Even though this speech was due to victory, Obama displays a high level of confidence and appears genuine. If he can continue this and his support, I’d say he’s got a shot.
Obama’s victory speech was very moving and seemed to come from the heart. Obama, like MLK, used repetition to remind the audience that he sees himself as part of the “we” and is very excited for “change.” Considering the vast amount of media a contemporary audience is exposed too, I think repetition is a very effective rhetorical tool. It leaves the audience with a memorable impression and a potential sound byte that can be played time and time again. Obama also paused several times during this speech which gave his audience time to reflect and take in what he was saying. An earlier post suggested that if there was a more diverse crowd, the positive response that Obama received would not have been as telling. I agree with this statement; Obama got through to a relatively homogenous crowd, one that isn’t necessarily known for wanting and promoting change – and if he could elicit that kind of response from them, there is no telling what he can do.
On his quest for change, Barack Obama gives a victory speech with a rhetoric style very similar to Civil Rights Activist, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Both of their styles demand for change getting the audience pumped up and involved in their speeches.
In his speech, it is almost like Obama is having a conversation with the audience. He is very concerned and genuine about the people. He also gave his thanks to the audience, relating that he would not be there today without them. Obama’s love of his country is obvious and he gives the audience hope for continuing into a better future. The passion of Senator Barack Obama and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. radiates off of them during their speeches encouraging their audiences to feel inspired. Both men confidently stand in front of America asking for change and unity, and that confidence continues to work through the support of their audiences.
I feel that it would be possible for others to use this inspiring “sermon” like style in their speeches as long as they were genuine in their message. As both Obama and King mention in their victorious speeches, this is a “defining moment in history” for the United States. They both brought their audiences together with their strong rhetoric styles and “Change”.
One of the most striking similarities between Obama and MLK was, for me, the remarkable balance between recognition and prescription. Obama’s speech features many references to the significance of his victory, to the extent that he even comments on its historical importance (also a characteristic of the “Dream” speech MLK delivered). Although he openly acknowledges the win as a success, he doesn’t stop plugging for future support/victory. I was impressed by his ability to very naturally balance those two aspects of his campaign: expressing gratitiude for the win without abandoning the sense of urgency that his supporters remain involved.
Both Obama and MLK also demonstrate a profound awareness of their respective audiences. It is clear that Obama knows the composition of his audience when he addresses particular sub-groups (“organizers, volunteers,” etc.). This sensitivity is also a major component of MLK’s speaking style. I think it is a technique that any of the other candidates could effectively incorporate into their speech acts.
-Courtney
One thing that strikes me as a strength of Obama’s address is the way that he directly addresses the audience. He uses “you” as he conversationally addresses them, employing a comfortable tone, thanking them, Iowa, for their votes, and speaking about their beliefs. Possibly more effecgively, he joins himself to his audience, using “we” as he makes promises about his presidency and speaks about how “we,” both he and his audience are fighting together. This is a technique also employed by Martin Luther King, Jr. as he strove to present a unified portrait of his America. Obama also does this quite directly through his content, as he states he would like to unite the country, regardless of partisan beliefs.
Obviously, Obama used many other techniques previously utilized by MLK, such as repetition and inspirational listing and examples (“Hope is…”), and I believe it works very well for a contemporary audience. This technique is timeless because it works – in MLK’s case, it inspired the audience with a belief in the potential of America. In Obama’s case, it attaches the audience to emotions are particular individuals who are suffering from lack of health care and attaching Obama personally to these individuals, these “ordinary people” who can do “extraordinary things.”
This speech was so effective in part due to the audience response – they loved him! And I think it does matter than Iowa lacks a depth of ethnic diversity because they did love him so much. It really speaks to Obama’s popularity among a variety of races, not just his own, and that itself is a statement that may affect future caucuses that also lack ethnic diversity. If Iowa can love him so much, maybe others will.
Like many have said above me, Barack Obama delivered his speech in a very similar style to that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I don’t believe it matters that it was given in a state with little ethnic diversity. The supporters were cheering for Obama’s beliefs and not his skin tone. Which leads to my next point: I’m not entirely sure that it was his style of delivery that generated such loud cheering. I’ve seen other political candidates give victory speeches that weren’t nearly as good as Obama’s speech but still generate the same reaction from the crowd. The crowd is happy that their candidate won, Barack could say anything (well no Macaca moments) and generate an ovation from the crowd. I believe that this style is also appropriate to be used on the stump. It’s convincing and powerful. At times, however, he tends to milk the crowd, almost setting up the cheering with his steadily rising tone in speech when providing a powerful point. He would need to turn that down on the stump. I think it would be difficult for other candidates to employ this style. Either you have it or you don’t. Perhaps a few other candidates could pull this off but I don’t believe that most candidates have his swagger. He’s captivating.
I think his speech style was more than effective, and the similarities with Dr.King’s speech are very striking as it has been said in the previous comments. In my opinion the most effective part of the speech was the “This was a moment when” repetition, which clearly has an exiting effect on the audience. Now, I don’t know if this ceremonial rhetoric kind of speech could be employed by a woman, as it would be automatically criticized and seen as too grandiloquent. Now, regarding the civil rights movements, I think Mr Obama is in a delicate position, for the African American community does not consider him as a truly African American, and I think we can see that this is a thorny issue for when he moves through a series of important
historical moments, in his speech, to suggest that this moment now is important in History. At one point he mentions Selma and Montgomery and then he continues forward. He barely mentions it, and decides to utter it in the middle of an array of important events, I wonder if he would have alluded to it, if he were in the South for example…
The victory speech was almost identical in my opinion to the presence and delivery of MLK Jr.’s I Have a Dream speech. I dont know if it was just the way he delivered it or what but his voice in a way resembled MLK. The victory speech had a sermon-like quality to it which was interesting. Obama was very bold with his statements and the crowd was loving it! He told them what they have done, and what they can do in the future and that this is just a step. Sound familiar? and continues with “wanting to build a coalition for change which is similar to the civil rights movement. “Meeting the challenges we face has a nation” feels like it could have been pulled straight from one of MLK’s scripts. I was really surprised, but in a way kind of not, of how similar the two speakers were in their presence and style of speech.
sarah finney
There is striking resemblance between Barack Obama’s repetition of the phrase “they told us __________ would never happen,” and Martin Luther King’s repetition of the phrase “I have a dream that ___________.” Both speeches share a value of motivation, not only inspiring people but also calling others to action. This style is extremely beneficial for Barack. Without explicitly stating that our country has yet to realize racial tolerance, he implies that many would believe that a black man running for president would not be successful. In this sense he uses his minority status to illicit the same emotions that Dr. King utilized to inspire his audience even though he is speaking in a state with little ethnic diversity. The subtext of Obama’s speech goes beyond that of just a victory speech. Knowing that his speech would “go viral” Obama employed foresight, using his victory in Iowa to inspire those voting in upcoming primaries and eventually the presidential election to choose him and create revolutionary change just as those fighting for racial equality in Dr. King’s time.
I thought that the way he opened his speech was very effective. Although he had to repeat “They said” three times because of the cheering of the audience, the repetition became a statement and an attention getter. He also seemed to elongate the phrase which made it more sermon-like and also made the audience hang onto each word. He definitely could use this speech as a stump speech because he didn’t limit himself to Iowa; most of it looked forward to New Hampshire and the general election. He referenced his audience in the broader context of where he was going- rather than talking to Iowa for Iowa’s sake, he was talking to New Hampshire, saying look at what Iowa has done and what you can do too.
Like Martin Luther King Jr., the style of speech Barack Obama utilizes contains charisma and is based on his intellectual, moral, and ideological cogency. While listening to Obama we notice his attempt to appeal to the masses, he uses familiar terms and doesn’t concentrate on one issue alone. Sen. Obama’s style like that of Martin Luther King Jr is that of a preaching style. When they speak we see a major emphasis on hope in an ongoing struggle and/or crises. This style of speech has worked for century, and Obama’s use and success that comes from this same style is proof that it’s effective for contemporary audiences. The fact that he’s doesn’t present himself as a cultural “black” man, he is able to appeal to many audiences including those with little diversity. He focuses on his intellect and doesn’t allow the black stereotype to bring him down. This style of speech can be used at any time… because it resembles that of a Christian preaching style. We see this same style in Mike Huckabee’s style of speech… but instead Huckabee adds a Caucasian Pentecostal/Baptist/Southern feel to his way of speaking. Anyone can use this style of speaking; it just may be more effective for others.
(My terribly belated reaction!)
I think Senator Obama’s speaking style is extremely effective for contemporary audiences. When I listen to him, I feel as though he is trying to reach across the boundaries created by traditional political cynicism. He utilizes politics, optimism, and an eloquent speaking style to his greatest advantage.
I also think that the decision to frame it in the way that he did, utilizing “They said…” and the presenting the audience with an accomplishment no one thought he could achieve was especially successful within this speech context. This is after Iowa, and while many people know who he is by now, he still had a substantial amount of ground to cover. People across the country look to Iowa, and these were his few minutes in the spotlight without Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner and assumed nominee at the time. I think by using his firey idealistic political language he was able to reach across to much of his audience– with the except of us political cynics out there. I think it was also important for him to exhibit his beautiful speaking style, his confidence, and his ability to clearly express his ideas — while those characteristics are well known now, at the time I feel as though most people didn’t realize just how much of an asset his speaking capabilities were.
I really don’t think the lack of ethnic diversity had much to do with the success of this speech, only because the audience was truly across America. I know I watched this live from Chapel Hill, NC. I also don’t think this exact format is most useful within a stump speech only because I think most audiences of stump speeches are looking for a bit of policy explanation. One thing he does do, though, is get the crowd fired up and rallied behind him — which I think is effective in any type of speech to some degree.
The main reason I don’t think it’s feasible for other candidates to use this style is because it’s already here. It’s characterized as Senator Obama’s style, and I feel as though if other people jumped on this bandwagon they would be identified as unoriginal.