No, Caroline, we don't know

I have no opinion -- none at all -- about whether Caroline Kennedy would make a good senator. But for someone with a law degree and now political aspirations, she's astonishingly ill-spoken. 

It's not necessarily admirable in consumers of political rhetoric like me that we focus more readily on "um"s and "you know"s than on what the person is saying. But we do, and it's no surprise that we do -- English teachers and speech coaches have been making this point forever. 

I never whaled on Sarah Palin for the way she talks, because there isn't much reason to suppose she could do better. She doesn't have a fancy education, and she doesn't come from a place that's world-renowned for its intellectual life. But Kennedy is a different story. She has the best education money can buy and every possible reason to know what accomplished public speaking sounds like. And she still sounds like a dope, because of those "um"s and "you know"s. 

Comments

Amen! I often had the same complaint about Hillary and her 'you knows', but it's not only the female politicians. Far too many of our leaders talk like sixth-graders making a presentation.

Posted by OGWiseman | January 5, 2009 12:28 AM

"I never whaled on Sarah Palin for the way she talks, because there isn't much reason to suppose she could do better. She doesn't have a fancy education, and she doesn't come from a place that's world-renowned for its intellectual life."

I'm an ultra-liberal resident of Washington, DC who went to a high-ranking private university; in general, I'm a big fan of intellectual elitism. And this is still maybe the most breath-takingly arrogant thing I've read in the last year. You sound like what Sarah Palin thinks "East Coast elites" talk like.

Posted by meelar | January 5, 2009 1:41 PM

Quoting meelar:

"I never whaled on Sarah Palin for the way she talks, because there isn't much reason to suppose she could do better. She doesn't have a fancy education, and she doesn't come from a place that's world-renowned for its intellectual life."

I'm an ultra-liberal resident of Washington, DC who went to a high-ranking private university; in general, I'm a big fan of intellectual elitism. And this is still maybe the most breath-takingly arrogant thing I've read in the last year. You sound like what Sarah Palin thinks "East Coast elites" talk like.

I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but I have to agree completely with meelar's assessment of your post, Ms. Wallraff. Your arrogance is breathtaking. Why shouldn't Sarah "do better"? Many people who come from humble backgrounds are well-spoken and articulate. Anyone can work at improving things about themselves and an Ivy League education isn't required. Institutions like Toastmasters and the local library provide plenty of opportunities to improve both public speaking skills and intellect at a very low cost or for free.

Your disdainful assessment of Sarah Palin's hometown and background is exactly what people from the so-called "real" parts of America would expect from ivory tower liberal elites. I'm saddened to see such an attitude here.

Posted by Texas girl | January 5, 2009 2:37 PM

OK, may I rephrase?

Of course Sarah Palin could -- and should -- be more articulate. So should George W. Bush. But I find Bush's ineptness with words more damning than Palin's, because he had every advantage and she did not. Bush didn't need to join Toastmasters or go to the library to develop his verbal skills. Everything he'd need to do it was handed to him. And he doesn't seem to have made use of it. The same does not apply to Sarah Palin, but it does to Caroline Kennedy. That's all I meant.

Posted by BARBARA WALLRAFF | January 5, 2009 4:11 PM

You'd think the Atlantic would hire a blogger who expresses herself more clearly.

All that education and experience and she still writes like a dope.

Posted by Just Sayin' | January 5, 2009 7:37 PM

OK, may I rephrase?

Of course Sarah Palin could -- and should -- be more articulate. So should George W. Bush. But I find Bush's ineptness with words more damning than Palin's, because he had every advantage and she did not. Bush didn't need to join Toastmasters or go to the library to develop his verbal skills. Everything he'd need to do it was handed to him. And he doesn't seem to have made use of it. The same does not apply to Sarah Palin, but it does to Caroline Kennedy. That's all I meant.

I agree that, "to whom much is given, much is expected." And given the opportunities and advantages that were handed to both Caroline Kennedy and George Bush it is a disappointment that both of them seem to be so lacking in verbal skills.

Sarah Palin is a separate issue. I think one can expect someone who aspires to the second highest office in the land to have a reasonable mastery of the English language no matter her background. Opportunities for improvement in that regard are available to almost everyone who lives in a place with a library and internet access. Not being born into a wealthy family is no excuse.

I think they should all be held to the same standard of performance. That might mean that someone like Sarah Palin who wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth has further to go to achieve the same result as someone like Caroline Kennedy who has been given every advantage. But then it might not. Good educations can be found outside of the Ivy League schools and well-spoken people do not always have higher degrees or come from backgrounds of privilege.

I don't want to have lower expectations for someone like Sarah Palin just because she comes from a small town in Alaska. My expectations for her performance in that regard are the same as for anyone else running for the office. Her background is not an excuse. Neither should Caroline Kennedy or George Bush be held to a higher standard because they were born into privilege. The bar is the same.

Posted by Texas Girl | January 5, 2009 11:19 PM

Being Caroline's age (exactly) and growing up all liberal and that, I want so desperately to believe this makes sense. I did, however, hear an interview posted NYT, and the "y'know"'s made me want to say: "You know better! Stop being so lazy!" She hasn't the elocution of her father or uncles. If she possesses the intellectual firepower, frankly, who'd know? I'm going on faith here. I think she couldn't stand holding back any longer, knows she has much to contribute, and still is painfully shy. Her cache, as a Kennedy, once this dopey surface examination is over, will generate the same kind of anticipation that brought Barack Obama to the presidency - remembering that Caroline is inspired, herself, and far less reticent, because of Obama's victory.

Posted by g bar | January 6, 2009 12:26 PM

Have you listened to interviews or other unscripted speech by her father? Every other damn word is "uh." It grates, but she comes by it naturally.

Posted by Andy | January 6, 2009 12:59 PM

Dear g bar,
I think you mean cachet.

Posted by Louise Pajak | January 6, 2009 5:04 PM

One reason politicos stammer and stutter so much is that they are acutely aware that the world is listening and that anything ill advised or stupid will make headlines. They also endeavor to sound brilliant or incisive. So, their voice ricochets around in their heads, echoing over and over, until they are confused by the cacophony. Years ago a comedian caught this phenomenon perfectly, mimicking Hubert Humphery's endlessly boring droning on and on while in his head he keeps screaming "My God Hubert! Shut up!" but he can't stop.

Posted by Dennis St John | January 6, 2009 5:46 PM

The more disturbing thing about Palin speaking was that she had a tendency to stop making sense, and so it was obvious that she was incapable of expressing complex thoughts and usually wound up confusing herself whenever she tried.

Caroline Kennedy is just being lazy, and it seems to me that it's a little disrepectful, too, to speak that way for and to the people she's asking to represent as a U.S. Senator. Especially when she's giving a formal press conference or interview, one would expect her to conduct herself better.

Posted by James | January 6, 2009 7:15 PM

Heck, Palin gave better speeches that Caroline has given. How do you explain that since you have all complained about her education. In the end it matter more what you say they how you say it, of course that depends if there is anyone left on this planet that can read. All this complaining about the way our so called leaders speak shows where this country is heading. Go to your local mall or store or anywhere and the lack of verbal skills and for that matter intelligent speaking is lacking. Schools need to get back to the basics and teach some proper english.

Posted by kabookey | January 6, 2009 11:37 PM

If you had researched Sarah Palin, you would probably know that she did, indeed, go to university, and that she majored in communications-journalism. She then went on to become a sports reporter on television, and it is therefore unsurprising that her elocution is better, if more rustic, than Caroline Kennedy's.

You should all consider spending less time passing judgment and spouting tiresome drivel and more time doing basic research on the subjects you hope to pontificate on.

Posted by Alexander Hamilton | January 7, 2009 7:51 AM

We seem to have gotten off the main point of whether or not The Little Mermaid is qualified for the US Senate...especially the salient question of how well Brookline Barbie would understand let alone help resolve the chronic problems facing the state she lives in.
Governor Paterson needs to appoint someone like Stan Lundine, a former Lt. Gov. from Jamestown ,as a caretaker until the 2010 election. Let Mrs Schlossberg run on her own merits in open debate with Cuomo and Maloney and Rep Brian Higgins (D-Bflo)...if ,she, um, can ,y'know? Waaaay cool!

Methinks she will make Sarah Palin look like Margaret Thatcher, but lets see for ourselves.

Posted by boonies | January 7, 2009 9:33 AM

Many extremely smart, potentially powerful or very beautiful women adopt disarming or submissive (very soft-spoken) speech patterns so that people will like them or not think they're arrogant. You know's, ums, persistent don't you think's, and strange uses of "we" and "I may be wrong but" constructions--all too common in the speech of "ladies," graduate students of both sexes, and nonprofit executives. Sarah Palin's speech was another matter--almost the opposite in that it aspired to be power talk.

Posted by Anne Mollegen Smith | January 7, 2009 11:50 AM

The smartest man I know says "umm" every third or fourth word. He is truly brilliant, a chemist and research scientist at a major corporation, was raised in an intellectually stimulating environment and went to fine schools. His speech is not disrespectful, nor does it mean that his advanced degrees and cushy scientist job mask an underlying stupidity. Umms and stutters are just a feature of his speech pattern that at most indicate that he is shy. This shyness to be the case with Caroline Kennedy as well.

The reason people jumped on Sarah Palin's speech was because she only umm'ed and stuttered when she was asked difficult questions. She could deliver attacks and one-liners with the best of them, but when asked about policy details she tripped over her tongue. Her flubs indicated lack of depth, not shyness (SP is anything but shy).

Palin and Kennedy both misspeak, but for diffrent reasons. Is the cause of Kennedy's umms a source of worry? Maybe, but not as much as Palin;s.

Posted by Keepsake | January 7, 2009 10:32 PM

Thanks to Ms. Wallraff for re-thinking the unappealing arrogance of her first draft. (Please don't read my post to closely for errors grammatical or otherwise - I had a cheap education light on the book-learnin').

Sometimes poor speaking, I think, reflects poor thinking. We must grant that put in front of a TV camera and microphone one might get nervous and be less articulate than one might be, say, in one’s living room with friends. Still, on almost every occasion that Ms. Palin spoke (not read a text), she embarrassed herself and the country in which she could become a candidate. (See Russia? Read all newspapers? Bush doctrine? Africa?) Even after much debate preparation she had to choose to ignore questions and stick to her script.

Anyway, Ms. Kennedy's speaking or thinking skills are irrelevant: she’s a candidate because of her last name. What a poor reflection on what’s left of American democracy.

Posted by Kanaschwiiz | January 8, 2009 5:00 AM

Had Sarah Palin been "Sarah Kennedy," or Obama's running mate, she'd have been the most grand thing since sliced bread! Her folksy speech and mannerisms would have been lauded as "precious!"
Had she been a part of the elite "in crowd" she would have wow'd the liberal media to their trembling knees.
Class bias?
To quote a former Veep nominee...
"YOU BETCHA!"

Posted by AnnieBee | January 10, 2009 2:19 AM

I am actually surprised at the use of the word 'whaled'. I always thought the term was 'wailed' and I think webster agrees with me.
Maybe everyone here is used to the Wallraff wordplays but as a casual reader I was like "uh..?".
-JD

Posted by joed | January 21, 2009 2:14 PM