Booher BanterYour Resource for the best ideas to improve communications skills.

I’ve been watching too many of those office-supply commercials—the one where the woman tells her colleague just to hit the “easy” button.  I caught myself watching the debates, wishing for a fact-checker button every time the candidates disputed each other about their past statements, positions, or  promises. 

(At one point as I flipped through the channels after the debates, CNN had their “fact checkers” reporting to help me out.  Henry Kissinger, watching the debates, had just set the record straight that McCain, not Obama, had quoted his position correctly that U.S. presidents should not meet with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions.  And the second fact-checker CNN played during my 5-minute channel-surfing was a YouTube video of a primary debate response of Obama’s saying what he argued in tonight’s debate that he’d never said.)   

Although moderator Jim Lehrer seemed to have difficulty getting the two men to “mix it up” at the beginning and several times advised one or the other of them to “respond directly to him,” both candidates quickly got into the spirit of the thing.  Precisely, in a word, the debate quickly grew ”spirited.”

I’d say neither candidate would invite the other to be best man at his next wedding.

 Communication Style:  So How Did McCain Do?

Body Language and Style:  McCain has often been criticized for his temper; his effort to keep it under control was evident.  The smile he kept on his face throughout appeared to be only pasted there in front of clenched teeth as Obama leveled charges that he obviously did not agree with and stated positions that McCain claimed Obama’s earlier voting record did not support.  (At one point during some sharp back-and-forth on the energy bill, McCain directed this comment to the audience, “You gotta look at the record. Look it up.  Look it up!”)

McCain’s challenge was to walk a fine line between reinforcing his theme of experience, yet not sound condescending to his less-experienced opponent.   His word choices revealed the struggle:  Seven times he used the phrase, “What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand…,” and the word “naive” crept in occasionally to describe this or that approach or idea. 

 McCain came across as authentic, natural, conversational.   He looked comfortable and at ease, even injecting off-the-cuff humor to comments from Lehrer or Obama several times.  After listening to him, I walked away feeling that I learned exactly what he thinks and believes strongly to his core on all the issues raised.  Clear, unvarnished from his gut.  

Structure:  In a political debate, ”from the gut” can be both good and bad.   Audiences see experience, judgment, character, passion, and priorities.  But debators also miss key opportunities to structure their points, to attack, and to build and support a theme.  That’s not to say McCain didn’t make some very strong points.  He did.  And he had specific facts, reasons, and experiences to support his beliefs and plans for the presidency.  But he also rambled during the first segment when he got on the issue of “cut spending; don’t raise taxes.”

And he also missed some good opportunities 1) to reinforce his track record, 2) to  repeat key themes of his campaign when appropriate questions were asked, and 3) to pick up on spots where Obama dropped the ball. 

Communication Style:  So How Did Obama Do?

Body Language and Style:  As always, Obama was articulate, polished, prepared.  He seemed less comfortable than on past occasions, however.   His body language and word choices came across as far more arrogant than on previous occasions.  The most noticeable was his continual references to “John” (McCain referred to him as Senator Obama all evening), adopting a very familiar tone. (Of course, first names typically fit our culture and mindset just fine—unless the words coming out of the mouth are adversarial.)  Other aggressive word choices and body language:  “That’s not true.” “Untrue.”  “John knows that’s misrepresenting my position.”  Smirking.  Head shaking.  Laughing at McCain’s responses.  Sometimes all three negatives at once.

Structure:  In past speeches, Obama has been criticized for vague platitudes.  Tonight when the questions were asked, he quickly ticked off enumerated points on his various plans in a well-structured format.  He had good command of facts and statistics.   He missed opportunities, however, to weave a theme throughout his answers.  In fact, one of the most frequent “themes” that came through was “I agree with John”  (said 8 times),  when his opportunity in the debate was to differentiate himself.

So Who Won?

I’ll just push the “easy” button tonight and call it a draw.  

Posted at 1:20am in Uncategorized | Permalink | Add Comment » |

With less than a nine percent approval rating, Congress might attract your ire for doing or not doing just about anything regarding the current economic mess:  There’s enough blame to go around to the various federal agencies established, those appointed to run the agencies, those who profited from little or no regulation of those agencies, and laws passed (or not passed) with the safety of the American taxpayers’ money in mind.  

But I’ll let people much smarter than I debate what blame goes where and how to get us out of the mess.

All my little mind wants to tackle at the moment is the grammar of the headline here.  You may be asking how I can be focusing on a point of grammar when people are losing their retirement savings, college funds, or even their jobs.  My response:  Some people work crossword puzzles, do Sudoku, or watch football for stress relief.   Me? Grammar glitches get my attention.  (Yes, I’m easily amused.)

Plural Compound Nouns:

Rule of Thumb:  Add the –s to the principal noun rather than the entire word.
Examples:  editors-in-chief, maids-of-honor

Exception:  When the principal noun is a contained (such as a bucket, a hand, a scoop, a spoon), add the “s” to the entire word to form the plural.
Examples:   handfuls, scoopfuls, spoonfuls

I hope you found this little grammar reminder a helpful and welcome respite from the stress of today’s economic headlines.  If you want more such tidbits, you’ll find them monthly in Corporate Writer Resource.

Posted at 9:46am in Grammar | Permalink | Add Comment » |

If the 2000 Gore-Bush campaign was all about the “fuzzy math,” the 2008 campaign is shaping up to be about the grammar gremlins.  So far, they show no party loyalty.  The problem dangler has appeared in several major speeches since the conventions opened on August 25 and they continue just about every time the candidates open their mouths. 

Let’s start with a quick refresher on this pesky error. Structure and word placement determine the meaning of the sentence. Consider these two examples.

Worn out and dilapidated, the house was remodeled by Mrs. Jones.

Worn out and dilapidated, Mrs. Jones remodeled the house.

(Poor Mrs. Jones.  If she were that worn out and dilapidated, it’s a wonder she could remodel the house.)

With that out of the way, let’s look at a few examples from the political stage, starting with a gaffe from new kid on the block, Governor Sarah Palin. During her impressive first speech to the nation at the RNC, Palin, talking about McCain and his military record, stated,

“As the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as Commander in Chief.”

What Palin meant was, “As the mother of one of those troops, I want that kind of man as Commander in Chief.” She, after all, is the mother of one of those troops. Instead, her statement literally states that “that kind of man” is the mother of one of those troops. Regardless of how amazing you think John McCain is, he is NOT the kind of man who could be the mother of one of those troops.

I’m an equal opportunity grammarian, so let’s consider some of the DNC keynote speakers, starting with former Virginia Governor Mark Warner who warmed up the crowd for Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night. Near the end of his speech, Warner exclaimed,

“As Governor of Virginia, it was humbling to occupy a position that was once held by Thomas Jefferson.”

As stated, the nebulous pronoun “it” was the governor of Virginia. Warner should have said, “As Governor of Virginia, I was humbled to occupy a position once held by Thomas Jefferson.”

On the heels of Warner’s flub, Hillary Clinton poked fun at the Republican candidate and committed a similar error.

“Now, with an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they’re awfully hard to tell apart.”

What Clinton meant was, “Now, with an agenda like that, McCain made a logical decision to meet together with George Bush in the Twin Cities.” It’s McCain who has the agenda, right?

Another dangler came in the last speech of the convention frenzy, in the final minutes of Senator John McCain’s charge to the nation:

“I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your president. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank him, that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on Earth. And with hard work—with hard work, strong faith, and a little courage—great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me.”

Did you hear it? Did you see it? He tells us the great things have hard work, strong faith, and courage when what he meant was, “with hard work, strong faith, and a little courage, America will achieve the great things that are within our reach.”

Here’s an idea:  If you get tired of hearing the same political promises and platitudes day after day, you can always just make a game of listening for the grammar gaffes.

Posted at 3:10pm in Communication—Oral | Permalink | 1 Comment |

Another flip-flop.  No, not McCain’s or Obama’s.  Mine.  Because I was going to be vacationing during the Republican convention, I had decided not to blog about either the Democratic or Republican convention.  It’s not that I didn’t plan to be watching all the major speeches of both parties, but it’s that I didn’t plan to spend my vacation blogging.  So to give equal treatment to all candidates, I had just decided to remain slight on the convention speeches and begin my analyses again with the debates.
 
But I’m flip-flopping on this historic occasion with a newcomer onto the presidential landscape—the first woman on the ticket of the Republican Party and only the second in the history of the nation.
 
So here I sit in Belize, beach calling, while I blog about Governor Sarah Palin’s communication style:

Palin’s Structure
First, the structure of her address:  She told her personal story (marriage, kids, growing-up years, adult life pre-politics).  Then she traced her political accomplishments as governor—specifically highlighting those relevant to the job that she feels needs to be done in Washington (cut corruption, control spending, identify/reduce waste, cut ties to special-interest groups).  Finally, she turned to why she was a Republican and considered John McCain the only qualified, tested leader with character and a long record of accomplishments rather than rhetoric. 
 
The structure covered all the bases:  Speechmaking 101 begins with analyzing your audience and identifying their primary interests.  In Palin’s case, they were asking, “Who are you?  What’s your story?  Do you share my values?  Will you represent me well in Washington?  What have you done?  Are you qualified to be president if something happens to McCain?”

Structure aside, let’s talk about her style for a moment:

Palin’s Delivery
With the exception of the occasional pointing finger and downcast eyes, her delivery was powerful—but not in the typical sense used to describe great orators or motivational speakers.  That is, her voice didn’t crescendo to a fervored pitch and grow louder and louder as an excited cheerleader working a crowd into hysteria.  In a word, her delivery was authentic.  Not lazy authentic.  Not boring authentic.  Not laid-back authentic.  Not detached authentic.  But high-energy authentic.  Clearly, crisply, intelligently, determinedly authentic.

Power in the Pausing:  Her pausing was highly effective.  The pauses created mystery, suspense.  They engaged. They drew the audience in for the meaty message that followed.

Power in the Punchlines:  As with most speakers who deliver it well, humor works wonders to make people receptive to a more serious message. When talking about corruption in her home-state government, she talked of ridding taxpayers of the expense of a personal chef and the governor’s luxury jet.  Her line “put it on eBay” brought down the house.  When talking about being a hockey mom and serving as PTA president and mayor, she guessed that was something like being a “community organizer—except with actual responsibilities.”  She joked that the difference between being a hockey mom and a pit bull was…lipstick.

Power in the Clever Play on Words:   Her delivery, however, was strongest when she looked directly into the camera, jaw square, face resolute, voice strong and confident and she delivered straightforward comparisons between the two candidates.  For example, one of her closing lines referred to how one candidate had used “change” to launch a career while the other candidate had use a career to launch change.


After her opening foray onto the presidential platform, it’s clear that Sarah Palin communicates as a contender to be reckoned with.

Posted at 2:21pm in Communication—Oral, General Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |

I am writing to tell you about Mark Sanborn’s, new book, The Encore Effect, How to Achieve Remarkable Performance in Anything You Do. This book is a must read. It is quick, easy, and will convince you that everyone can achieve an ENCORE performance in their personal and professional lives.

Get your copy today! It will teach you how to make the important performances in your life remarkable.

Posted at 11:32am in Books, Recommended Reading | Permalink | Add Comment » |