Tonight, I had a few beers with a friend. He grew up on Long Island, went to Boston College, graduated from American University Law School and immediately joined the Army JAG Corp. During his time in the army, he rose to the rank of major. He gained a reputation not only for his courtroom skills, but also because he chose to go to jump school at Ft. Bragg and become part of the 182nd Airborne. He routinely beat privates 10 years his junior on PT runs. Upon his discharge, he passed up multiple six-figure offers from prestigious Denver firms for a job at the Attorney General's office. The pay wasn't as high, but he was able to spend much more time with his 7-year-old son.
I was his intern at the AG's office, and during our conversation tonight, he reminded me of a lesson I learned there. It's a lesson Obama needs to heed, because it can save the election for him.
Our conversation anchored on the fact that Obama is and will remain a lawyer in both his speech and behavior. Law school is a funny thing. It changes how you think and process information and it changes the manner in which you relay that information to other people. The funny part is, when you graduate and begin working in the legal community, those lessons learned in law school become a hindrance.
Law school, for some reason, reverts to the eighth grade writing style - hypothesis, evidence, persuade, and connect. That's fine for a law school essay that has no real consequences. Legal writing, however, is rarely inconsequential. It can determine the admissibility of evidence, propose jury instructions, and determine the outcome of a proceeding in all sorts of fabulous ways. There is no room for a roundabout argument in legal writing. The clutch aspect, the lesson that I teach my students whenever we discuss legal writing, and the suggestion I have for Obama is this:
First and foremost, the people need to know where you stand. The beginning of every answer to every question has to be "we win because." Answer the question directly and forcefully. My position is the best because the real world evidence supports it.
I suggest this for two reasons.
First, America has a short attention span. In a world of thirty-second commercials with two-second scene changes, where letters have been replaced by two line emails and phone calls are now text messages, where we are inundated by a constant stream of information and simply do not have enough time in the day to process it all, we need to get the goods up front.
Second, Obama is already fighting against the "elitist" label. If Joe Smith - a blue collar worker from Ohio, or an auto worker in Michigan, or a coal miner in West Virginia - has to wade through two minutes of vocabulary to get to the meat of the message, he will resent every second of it. Mr. Smith needs to get the answer to that question up front. Then Obama can fill the rest of his allotted debate time with whatever he wants.
Let me discuss the practical aspects of "we win because" and then give you a few examples.
A truly persuasive paragraph has three segments: tell them what you're going to tell them, then tell them, then finish by telling them what you told them. "We win because" is the foundation of each paragraph in the body of a brief or motion to the court. It lets the judge know exactly where you stand (and hopefully, where they'll stand at the end of the paragraph). If the judge has to wade through three paragraphs of legal precedent to figure out your position on an issue, that judge will not be pleased. Obama is submitting a brief in support of his election and the American voter is the judge. You do not want to piss off the judge.
Here's how it works: We win because the evidence supports our position. Now, here's the evidence that supports our position and how it supports it. Finally, remember that I just told you why the evidence supports our position.
Now, I'll take an example an Obama answer and suggest how it should have sounded.
Olbermann asked him, "Have you thought of getting angrier?"
Well, I'll tell you what, with two months to go, I think everybody needs to feel a sense of urgency. You know, when I hear John McCain suggest that he is going to bring about change, I am reminded of the cartoon that Tom Toles did in "The Washington Post" where he has McCain say: "Watch out, George Bush, with the exception of the economy, tax policy, foreign policy, health care policy, education policy, and Karl Rove politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington."
You know, the fact of the matter is, is that not only has John McCain agreed with George Bush 90 percent of the time, this is the party that has been in charge for eight years. And they're now trying to run against themselves despite a few months ago having argued that — John McCain saying that, listen, I've been supportive of George Bush, boasting about it.
You know, I said, I think on Saturday in Indiana, the American people aren't stupid. They are going to get it. But we've got to make sure that we are being clear, not only that they will not bring about change, but the very specific kinds of changes we want to bring, in terms of green technology jobs in America, investing in our education system, making college more affordable, making health care accessible to every American, that contrast, if we go into November, with that contrast on the minds of the American people, I think we're going to do well.
Let me remind you, again, of the question Olbermann asked: "Have you thought of getting angrier?" It's a yes-or-no question. The first thing Obama should have said is:
"No, I have not thought about getting angrier, because I refuse to stoop to Rovian political tactics."
ADD America will miss the substance of Obama's response in the rhetoric and Joe Smith will think Obama's speaking down to him.
How about a more substantive example...
Jeanne Cummings, from Politico, asked Obama about his health care plan during the January 31st Democratic Debate. "Now, why is your plan superior to [Clinton's]?"
Well, understand who we're talking about here. Every expert who looks at it says anybody who wants health care will be able to get health care under my plan. There won't be anybody out there who wants health care who will not be able to get it. That's point number one.
So the estimate is -- this is where the 15 million figure comes in -- is that there are 15 million people who don't want health care. That's the argument.
Now, first of all, I dispute that there are 15 million people out there who don't want it. I believe that there are people who can't afford it, and if we provide them enough subsidies, they will purchase it. Number one.
Number two, I mandate coverage for all children.
Number three, I say that young people, who are the most likely to be healthy but think they are invulnerable -- and decide I don't need health care -- what I'm saying is that insurance companies and my plan as well will allow people up to 25 years old to be covered under their parents' plan.
So, as a consequence, I don't believe that there will be 15 million out there.
Now, under any mandate, you are going to have problems with people who don't end up having health coverage. Massachusetts right now embarked on an experiment where they mandated coverage.
And, by the way, I want to congratulate Governor Schwarzenegger and the speaker and others who have been trying to do this in California, but I know that those who have looked at it understand, you can mandate it, but there's still going to be people who can't afford it. And if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?
You know, those are questions that Senator Clinton has not answered with respect to her plan, but I think we can anticipate that there would also be people potentially who are not covered and are actually hurt if they have a mandate imposed on them.
Again, let me remind you of the question. "Why is your plan superior to [Clinton's]?"
Obama's response would have been much more effective had he responded like this:
"My health care plan is superior because I will provide enough subsidies for all Americans to purchase insurance, I will mandate coverage for children, and I will allow young people up to the age of 25 to remain covered under their parent's plan."
Then he can go into some details or spout a few more talking points.
Which of those two will sink in to the average American mind that thrives on sound bites and flashing neon signs?
If Joe Smith were to hear the two answers above - the one Obama actually said and my rewrite - which do you think would sink in? Will he like the one that begins with what experts say? Or, would he prefer to know what Obama's stance is up front?
Now, let's take a look at one situation in which Obama spoke concisely and followed the "we win because" method. During his interview with Bill O'Reilly, which I so eloquently diaried for you, Obama was perfectly direct with his answers.
O'REILLY: Who's the enemy?
OBAMA: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam, and so we have to go after them.
O'REILLY: Is Iran part of that component?
OBAMA: Iran is a major threat. Now, I don't think that there is a — the same — they are not part of the same network. You've got Shia, and you've got Sunni. We've got to have the ability to distinguish between these groups, because, for example, the war in Iraq is a good example, where I believe the administration lumped together Saddam Hussein, a terrible guy, with Al Qaeda, which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.
Look at that! Who's the enemy? Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America. Is Iran part of the component? Iran is a major threat. That is how you speak to America. That is what Joe Smith wants to hear.
Obama needs to rearrange his speech pattern if he plans on connecting to the average American voter.
We win because Obama uses "we win because."