Speak softly, but carry a big stick (or vice versa)

ILLUSTRATED: Depending on the power of your office, you have to know your audience, and calibrate your words.

Yesterday, there was a Democratic Forum hosted by the AFL-CIO. A running theme was that the "volume" of your speech is inverse to the size of your stick. For example, most commentators say that John Edwards' thunder was stolen by Dennis Kucinich on his left flank. Kucinich can make strong, clear statements since he knows he will never be responsible for the fate of these policies, as he will not become president. He can speak loudly since his "stick" is small.

At the other end of the power spectrum, Hillary Clinton made a classic elitist argument that a president cannot always say everything you think since words have consequences. As President Theodore Roosevelt knew. In fact anyone who has risen up to a position of power and authority knows that you need to tell the truth to be trusted. But a leader is responsible for morale, and telling the whole truth can be quite demoralizing. [Mastering that skill is what separates the Churchills, Lincolns, and Iaccocas from the vast majority of people with the title CEO. It's why I write this blog.]

On another level of analysis, there is the issue of speaking to the right audience. Clinton and Barack Obama were debating how strident his words about attacking al-Queda in Pakistan ought to be. Commentators made the point that Obama was playing to the stadium crowd, and Clinton, who got booed in the stadium, was playing to the television audience, and the media, and the Pakistanis.

Time will tell who was right. But my point for candidates is that if you are speaking to a crowd, make sure you know who the key audience is and tailor your answer to them. Is there a reporter in the crowd? An influential community leader? A tv camera? If so how many people will see the clip? etc.

Gary Hart sums up the issue in this last paragraph here.