In the second article I included a list of the kinds of stories candidates should identify in their lives:
" What are your greatest accomplishments in your life?
Now, try to remember some scenes in your life: high point (peak experience) low point turning points earliest memories Significant childhood scene significant adolescent scene significant adult scene Life Challenges Positive and negative people in your life
...You can tell life stories in so many different ways. -- people, achievements, challenges, lessons, jobs... It's interesting to see which aspect a client chooses. There are no correct choices.
The interview fleshes out the stories, gets into greater depth on what were the most important aspects of the story-- what were the parallel tracks, the back story, the climax of the story. What were the hero's journey, archetypal, heroic elements of the story? I will look for stories that fit the pattern of the archetpal "American Story...
The archetypal American story is all about facing challenges at some stage in life, then recovering and overcoming them. A candidate who doesn't have a story about challenges faced and overcome is running a campaign on three wheels. If Hillary had spent an hour or two, at the least, doing a story analysis of her life, she would have had the story of the greatest test she'd faced analyzed, reviewed, rehearsed... she'd have told it hundreds of times and it would have been easy to reply directly and truthfully, but more important, persuasively and movingly, to that question.
Harold Wolfson, Terry McAuliffe, and the rest of her gazillion dollar campaign failed to tap the most important power, the most valuable resources Hillary had. Hillary's response to the debate question reflects that failure perfectly.
But it's worse. If you have experience, then you have stories to tell, stories which are moving, that touch the heart, that bring tears to the eye. Hillary hasn't told these. In response to the debate question McAuliffe hilighted, she told a story about her being honored at a ceremony.
A candidate needs to understand the power of story. It's clear Hillary did not.
I'm not sure Obama is any better at this. With some coaching, he'd be brilliant at it, applying his oratory skills. But we're talking about Hillary, for now. If she wants to win, her only chance is to develop an inventory of stories with real people, that touch the heart-- stories that describe, in precise detail, how she got her experience, how she applied her experience to get things done. These stories can have warts. They can show mistakes and they can show how those mistakes were overcome. But if she keeps going on, just telling about her experience, if she keeps attacking Obama, evoking cold prickly feelings in her audiences, she will insure her failure. To win, she needs three or four powerful stories from her life-- stories that show how she faced challenges and succeeded, stories that touch people's hearts, stories that people can relate to, stories that people can be proud of.
In the focus groups, Hillary supporters describe how Hillary has gone through the ringer, been in the trenches. If Hillary could just describe some real stories that show this, she'd be in a far better position.
If Hillary can identify those stories-- and I'm sure she has them-- then she might be able to pull out from the plummeting fall she's been experiencing. There's no doubt in my mind about one thing. If earlier in her campaign she'd understood and used the power of story, if she'd done the simple chore of spending a few hours identifying the most powerful stories in her life, she would have been in a very different situation. The truth is that her failure to find and use the stories in her life that truly showed who she is-- that failure has been fatal for her campaign.
Hillary has a few weeks to find the magic, not a parachute, but some mystical intervention that will lift her campaign like no negative attack, no sales pitch ever can. There is no human creation older nor more powerful to change the world than story. If she doesn't find hers in the next few days, she might as well start writing up the epitaph on her campaign's tombstone.
Meanwhile, there will be thousands of campaigns just getting going in the months to come. I wonder how many of them will expend, combined hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign managers and experts without tapping the most powerful message transmitter humans have ever known-- stories.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Hillary is listening to her handlers too much. She'd do much better by following her own instincts and speaking her own words. She hasn't defined herself at all so far, which is too bad because she's brillant, a good speaker and her heart is in the right place. Message to Hillary: stop listening to Bill and the others.
by
uluro (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 64 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 6:34:23 AM
I'm guessing out of her endless deference to her "husband" Hillary's most challanging stories from her life won't get told, at least by her in her own words.
It's sad, most of us suspect that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate or could have been, but she lacks the most important ingrediant, genuine self confidence coming from a deep self knowledge.
Does Barack Obama have the substance to back up his confidence and sense of history surrounding his campaign? We'll see, John McCain will put his tap dance through the rhythm machine. A liberal Republican against a liberal talking Democrat with a scant record, this should be entertaining.
Unless Hillary can "change" things around, and soon too.
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 339 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 10:12:30 AM
assuming you are correct about hilary listening to her handlers, then that tells you a lot about who she is and will be as a president. she uses her intelligence for her personal survival interests which direct her towards her corporate buddies. she cant reach out to people in a natural manner, because it is not her skill. she comes from a upper crust right wing republican background and has as much relationship to the masses as does bush! so glad to hear that she flubbed and revealed her true self.
by
tanya (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 10:15:53 AM
It would have taken her down Jennifer Flowers Lane to the intersection where Monica Circle and Paula Jones Court came together and, ooouw, I dunno if Hill'd be well advised to raise the spector of having that same Bill prowling the rooms of the WH while she sat at the desk in the Oval Office...
I just learned that William Pepper, an attorney for the King family who proved that James Earl Ray was framed for the murder of ML King took the info to Bill Clint WHILE he was prez and nothing happened. I hold BOTH the Clints responsible for continuing the cover-up of the real killers of King. They are not friends of blacks, not friends of truth. I don't want any more of that clan. "Stories" are not wholesome where they are concerned.
by
Carl Weis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 2:47:09 AM
Thanks for posting this article. IT IS A KEEPER THAT SHOULD BE POSTED EVERYWHERE. ITS NOT REALLY ABOUT MCAULIFFE BUT ABOUT WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS BECOME-- AT TOOTHLESS GUMMY BUSH ENABLER THAT WOULD RATHER LOSE ELECTIONS THAN WIN WITH A MANDATE FOR REAL CHANGE. POST EVERYWHERE OR WHY BOTHER READING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
by
Nathaniel Heidenheimer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 3:05:49 PM
After all this carping about Obama's 'plagiarism,' I find it mind-boggling that hardly anyone noticed that in her last remarks last night, Clinton not only used phrases 'borrowed' from her husband's 1992 Dem convention speech, but also from John Edwards' recent concession. One of the previous posters here is correct: Hillary has no story to tell. She actually has precious little to offer, other than tired rhetoric, an undercurrent of anger, and a palpable sense of entitlement. That is not the kind of leader this ever-shrinking world deserves.
by
needles (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM
I love to write the "reply that should have been" (my best was what Dukakis SHOULD have said in response to the digusting Kitty rape question) and here's what Hillary should have said.
It would have done a number of things that will NEED to be done, if she ends up being the nominee...
1. It would have, one-and-for-all, put to bed the "Bill Baggage" issue.
2. It would have DEFINED her as the "New Era Feminist" that she needs to be to appeal to middle American women.
3. It would have told a good story.
Her opening was fine, about "everyone knows I've been tested," but I would have continued thus...
"Back during the time my husband was the President of the United States, he made a bad personal decision. I think many women have had husbands who have failed to live up to their marriage commitment. It's never an easy thing to deal with. His was a difficult personal failure and it put a great strain on our marriage. You know, though, it had nothing to do with the American People, or how my husband was performing his job. It was between him and myself, and the fact that the Republican Party and a number of right-wing media blowhards decided to take Bill's PERSONAL and PRIVATE actions and make them into a matter of state... that put a great deal of pressure on our family.
"That was a difficult time, as private and personal failures became political ammunition for hypocrites in the Republican Party who had done the very same thing themselves. Bill and I worked through our personal issues, and I chose to stand by Bill, and to stay with Bill, and to move forward with our lives together, and now my own political life as well. I am glad that I made that decision. That was a personal decision that I had to make, and every woman who has had a spouse lie to her has to make that decision personally, and it won't always be the one I made.
"But, you know, even though Bill made a bad mistake, there are women out there who have had spouses do much worse. Really, I was lucky. Even though those were hard and challenging times, I had the resources and support to keep going, and I was able to work to keep my family together. And we was able to stand up and fight the political enemies who would do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to try to destroy a great man who was doing everything he could to help the American People. The American People should never forget the hypocritical Republicans who attacked and tried to destroy my husband by using the personal mistakes he made to hurt him politically. The Republicans pretend to be the party of morality and decency and family values, but they really are not more moral or decent than any other person, and they show this day after day, as Republicans who supposedly stand for morality are discovered to be child molesters, predators, or cheaters. When Republicans pretend to defend decency, they become merely hypocrites and panderers."
THAT would have been a reply that might have jumped Hillary about 10 points in Texas and Ohio. The answer she gave sounded like a re-working of the "tearing up" speech -- like she thinks we don't have YouTube and can't go check. ENOUGH with the canned answers that are shoe-horned to match a question. If you can't speak spontaneously, you shouldn't be allowed to be POTUS.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 11:55:10 AM
She is who she is and maybe the public needs to look closer!
I have no problem with her answer, and the advice you give is also right on, however I also know Bush was created as an image that can strut with the right body language and act the cowboy president that captured some people's imagination but an empty image in the end that hid the real policy behind it.
So while we are straining to see what candidate feels like they could be our King or Queen or dictator for 4 yrs perhaps we should wonder if what we really need is a policy wonk who would go on vacation to a retreat where everyone spends there time discussing public policy problems and ways to solve them. That kind of person is a real person and not an empty image generated to entice the public. And she is not a dull person, she cares more than the voters do about their own problems, and they might do themselves a favor to see it.
by
shylove (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 11:59:58 AM
It's not quite correct to say that Hillary didn't tell a story in response to the question about "your biggest trial in life". She did tell a story -- it was a story about her encounter with wounded veterans.
And her handlers are right: it was her best moment in the debate. One of the few times she did manage to tell a story.
Rob is however correct in pointing out that the story she told wasn't her own story. It wasn't about how she confonted some difficult issue.
Rob and I and others have pointed out many times that if she wants to win the nomination or the election, she absolutely has to be able to tell that story. See, for instance, An Inconvenient Truth For Democrats and The Nature of Plagiarism.
But it seems like she and her handlers don't want to listen. She said she was "in it to win it", but in the end, she hasn't been able or willing to do what is necessary to win it: to find and tell her story.
by
SteveDenning (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM
Yes, Steve, she told a story, but it was a story of a few weeks ago and one in which she emphasized that she and McCain were the only two invited. That was a big mistake, first to emphasize that she was in a select group to be invited and second to say the other person was McCain. That is a story that alienates Democratic voters, it doesn't inspire.
The trick of the story she was asked to tell was a story about her personnally and how it changed her life or in some way made her who she is today. Telling a recent story was nonresponsive to both the pivotal points. She needed to tell the story of why a child in a very comfortable Republican household who became a Goldwater Girl changed her life and became a liberal Democrat and proud of it. But she has yet to tell that story to the public. She is even ashamed to call herself a liberal Democrat and dodged that question in a previous debate. She missed the point of the question entirely.
by
Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 1:10:25 PM
Hilary's problem with her experience mantra is that she has very little achievement to her credit. To be "experienced" isn't enough - it leaves people questioning "and . . ." - the and is what did you achieve? Most of her time has been as a politician's wife (and using that, while in Arkansas, to make a lot of money in a way no one legit could have). The rest of it as Senator, and she has been a most undistinguished Senator. Had she gotten into the Senate (of course, she wouldn't have) on her own, without a famous politician as husband, most people wouldn't even have known her name because there's no great legislative achievements or causes she has championed as a Senator.
Maybe Obama has little experience, but isn't it better to have few achievements with little experience than few achievements with a lot of experience?
And either one will be running against a Senator whose name has been associated with important legislative achievements and causes.
by
Bill Samuel (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 228 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM
The "experience" story was bad from the beginning.
Rob, I agree with your observations on story. She totally missed the point of the question. Peo[ple didn't want to hear how empathetic SHE is to OTHERS' experience, the story she needed to tell was her experience. Unfortunately she doesn't have the life experience to tell that makes a compelling story for her. Hillary's initial response was a vague comment about, "well people know the hard times I've had" which could only be a reference to Bill's philanering or to the "right wing conspiracy" against her. People did laugh but these events took place in the public spotlight and so wern't responsive to the question really. And if that was all she had to go on, then she needed to speak directly about them and state explicitly how they shaped her character and helped her in the experience department.
Barack referring to his father leaving at age 2 did answer the question in that specific story content manner.
You wrote,
People are not responding to her logical, rational arguments, valid as they may be.
Actually, I have never found her "experience" story she has been telling to be a valid logical or rational argument. That is the failure of her story. Experience in not logical or rational. Experience is how we internalize and integrate our live events. Internalizing and integrating is not a rational or logical process. She has wanted to sell "experience" as if it were logical and rational and I see that as the biggest failure of her story.
Bill Clinton was up against Bob Dole who also tried to use the experience story. What amazes me most is that Hillary Clinton's advisors couldn;t remember that "experience" didn't work for Dole. Also, "experience" didn't work for Gore against George Bush. The Hillary Clinton campaign message of "experience" was the completely wrong campaign theme from the beginning. A candidate can NEVER sell experience by saying they have experience. A candidate can ONLY sell experience by showing it in how they tell their story. I rarely say "never" or "only', but in this case I think it is the case, like a force of political gravity that just has to be taken as given.
The core problem with Hillary Clinton's claim to experience is that she was, at all times until in the Senate, working for Bill Clinton and her work was basically "under the table" in the sense that it was not under any specific job description. She may want to claim she has diplomatic experience, but being First Lady is not a diplomatic post. It is a "good-will ambassador" post. So if she wanted to sell that as "experience" to be president she needed to tell people how a good-will ambassador IS a diplomate. She needed to talk about the secret diplomacy that she was doing and tell the story of what role she had in any specific diplomatic results. But she never did that as far as I know. She simply expected the public to accept her claim that she is the most experienced without telling what any of that experience was. In the end that meant her complaint about Obama not telling the details of what he means by "change" failed in comparison to her not telling the details of what she means by "experience."
If her handlers really think this video tells her story of experience then she deserves to lose for listening to them. She thinks she is telling a very moving story by saying "the hits I've taken are nothing compared to the wounderd soldiers." She says she was blessed as a child and made a vow based on her faith to do good for others. She says this election is about the American people not her. But she didn't say what her experience was as a child that called out that vow.
The story of Buddha was that he was a pampered prince who was kept in a palace. When he finally convinced his father the king to let him out of the palace he saw four things that changed the course of his life. He saw an old person, a sick person and a dead person. These shook him up because he had been so secluded form life that he had never seen any of those three evernts. Then he saw a wandering renunciate seeker after truth as the fourth sight which informed him that people do seek the truth. So these four experiences changed his life and he shortly thereafter left his princely life and wandered as a begger for over 6 years seeking the truth of life.
Since Hllary Clinton was also raised in the lap of comfort she needs to tell a story about how or what she experienced that changed her life.
In a funny way, George Bush's cocaine using and alcoholic young adulthood worked in his favor in exactly this way. His opponants could never make use of it because his story was one of a fall from the grace of a rich and powerful family and then of redeemption to recover his life iwth the help of a wonderful wife. That was a story people could relate to. So you are very correct to point to the power of story for any political candidate, and he failure of Hillary Clinton to present her story to the public she is asking to elect her.
by
Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM
It's true the experience argument doesn't work when made in abstract terms.
But it could work if Hilllary could distill from her experience what she learned and then communicate that in a series of powerful stories. What for instance did she learn from the health care debacle of 1993? What light does that shed on how health care reform should be approached now? All she talks about is the content of her plan. But equally important is how to get it implemented. If she could communicate the lessons of her experience in that area in a set of powerful narratives, that could be very effective in making the experience argument.
It's not clear whether her seeming inability to do this reflects a failure to learn all that much from her experience or from an inability to communicate through narrative.
by
SteveDenning (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 1:21:33 PM
Of course, your column is absolutely correct on topic, but Hillary is incapable of revealing herself as a human being. She absolutely does not want to discuss the only crisis and challenge in her life: catering to a foibles of a wayward husband.
Her "experiences" are all process, not content. She was one handmaiden to a President and served as a junior Senator. That's it. Her only challenges were "how to deal with" impediments to her own ambitions. The world is all about her as a potential governess, who knows what's best for every other person in the world and just needs the power to impose it.
Hillary's "stories" are all about running her "village", not about engaging, as an individual, with real people. She tells that "story" every day, which is why her campaign is failing. Voters want genuine people with heartfelt beliefs and sentiments, not ambitious autocrats with process stories.
by
William Westmiller (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 1:10:36 PM
I appreciate your perspective regarding story. However, I'm hoping and praying Obama wins the nomination, and wins it in two weeks. Why? Obama is simply more electable. And since it is essential the Democrats WIN this time, and it is essential that the Republicans don't STEAL the election again, and since it is essential that we don't nominate someone whom the Republicans have already been eviscerating (mindlessly, for sure) for sixteen years, all efforts should be focused on making the sensible and idealistic Obama the victor.
I'm less interested in fascinating theories about how Hillary could possibly win, than I am interested in how we can wrest America from the souless hands of fascists, corporatists, and war mongers such as flying monkeys Bush and McCain.
Michael
by
Lover of Truth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 1:54:39 PM
be running for office this year, and thousands of local candidates. I'm hoping some of them will get my message to Hillary and get it, even though she didn't.
by
Rob Kall (759 articles, 3845 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1639 comments)
on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 2:01:09 PM
I'm just hoping we can replace all of the ones who belong to one of the power elite groups such as the Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateralist, Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Freemasons (and etc.) with a real American instead of just another corporate puppet or the same corporate puppet. While also replacing the enept, the do nothings and the blatant idiots. The voters really need to clean house but of course that also means that all classifications of election fraud which runs rampant ends, and throwing out all corporations, their workers and their machines from our voting precincts and every other place they have hidden them as well as counting each and every vote.
An honest election..what a concept!
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 219 comments)
on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 5:30:30 PM
