Most of what I know about trial lawyers I get from TV - so I don’t profess any expertise. Nonetheless, my sense of a lawyer talking to a jury is that while they may pause for effect and understanding, they aren’t looking for applause or ‘call and response’ from the jury (which I’m guessing would lead to a mistrial). John Edwards has a reputation for being a great trial lawyer, which means among other things he probably could speak well before juries. Unfortunately for John what’s good rhetoric for a jury isn’t necessarily good rhetoric for a (less inhibited) political rally.
I’ve mentioned John Edwards rhetorical problems before - last Saturday’s JJ Dinner was a much better speech. But John still lost his supporters. They rarely knew when it was “ok” to respond to John’s speech (early on he said “correct response” - throughout much of the speech John cuts the crowd’s positive reaction off, keeping to his pace, not theirs). He even reaches rhetorical crescendos that end in…John talking on, ignoring the crowd reaction. It was a monologue that should have been a dialogue. During a rare crowd-pleasing pause discussing health care (around 12:10) John doesn’t engage the crowd - he takes what looks like a break and then over-talks them to get on with the speech. With about six minutes to go (3/4 of the speech done), John finally let the crowd show its appreciation (15:45-16:05) - but by then he had lost too many. A good speech horribly executed. John needs to remember it isn’t about him or his speech. It isn’t a good speech if you get through the speech, but leave the audience behind. You’ve got to carry them with you.
Post a Comment