Nib #6: White House Whiffs on Pre-Writing Strategy

The first two steps any writer must take before beginning a piece of persuasive writing are:


1. Identify your audience: “Who am I talking to?”

2. Begin with the end in mind: “What am I trying to persuade them to do?"


President Joe Biden and his staff failed this test last week when preparing his prime-time response to Special Counsel Robert Hur’s final report.


The president’s performance has been widely panned, especially his struggles fielding reporters’ questions. But even Biden’s prepared remarks were a strategic muddle.


The gist of the five-minute speech was: "The report absolved me. The investigation was thorough. Donald Trump did the same thing as me, but in a bad way. The report’s characterization of my memory is inappropriate and wrong."


Question 1: Who was the audience for this speech? It wasn't the whole country. It seemed mostly to be targeting the ~60% of the country not already voting Republican this fall: partisan Democrats and gettable independents.


Question 2: What was the speech supposed to persuade that audience to do?


This is a little fuzzier, but it seems mostly meant to refute Hur’s characterization of the president as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”


Given those answers, the speech never should have been given.


Consider the obvious internal contradictions:


- If the investigation was thorough, why should we doubt its assessment of the president’s mental powers?


- And why mention in the speech — twice! — Biden’s five-hour interview with the Special Counsel, when that only strengthens the report’s credibility?


- Was there any reason to believe Biden’s delivery of the speech would be confident and commanding enough to match its claims of mental acuity?


- If the president was vindicated, why bother to mention Trump at all, let alone in a petty bit of hair-splitting? Who is supposed to have been persuaded by “See, I mis-placed the documents in my garage, but he mis-handled the documents in his basement! Boo-yah!”


- Finally, what was the 50-megaton political message in the speech that White House staffers thought was worth the likelihood that Biden would stumble at the podium? It’s just not there.


The whole exercise was high risk, low reward. Given its audience and mission, Biden’s remarks were doomed before his speechwriters began the first draft.


Pre-writing strategizing should have led Biden’s staff to ignore the memory stuff altogether, and turn the legalistic first half of the speech into an op-ed by the White House Counsel for the New York Times. That the president was reportedly livid about the report is all the more reason his staff should have protected rather than indulged him.


The lesson for young writers? Trust the process more than your principal.


Until next week… keep writing!

April 25, 2025
Five quick tips for polishing your prose.
April 18, 2025
A good poem for Good Friday.
April 11, 2025
James Michael Curley's list of must-haves for public speakers (and speechwriters).
April 4, 2025
Two essays point to a generational opportunity for young writers.
March 28, 2025
Honest Abe was a great writer -- especially the one time he wasn't.
March 21, 2025
Not today, Satan.
March 14, 2025
The official Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s big speech before Congress last week offered the country not only a contrast of political visions, but of rhetorical strategies. Trump’s address was defined by — and indeed, succeeded on — the strength of its concrete details: specific programs cut, specific heroes lauded, specific private-sector investments announced (See Nib #61 ). Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin’s nationally televised speech immediately following Trump was, too. But not obviously. Most of the specific details of the speech were biographical, in the first 100 words. After that, Slotkin glazed over issues with airbrushed generalities: “We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on…” “… change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe…” “Today’s world is deeply interconnected…” “We are a nation of strivers.” The climax of Slotkin’s speech was almost a parody of homogenized political banalities. The two things we need to overcome today’s challenges, according to Slotkin and her speechwriters: “Engaged citizens and principled leaders.” Woof. On the other hand, Democrats know this poll-tested pap won’t move the needle. So what’s really going on here? The most likely answer is what boxers call the “rope-a-dope.” That is, Slotkin’s — and by extension her party’s — plan here is to put up perfunctory, superficial resistance to bait Trump into overreaching or punching himself out. This is what Muhammed Ali famously did to George Foreman in 1974.
March 7, 2025
Tuesday night's address was a speechwriting masterclass in the power of specific detail.
February 28, 2025
How to use, and not use, intensifiers.
February 21, 2025
Why an old-school writing exercise may be more valuable than ever.
More Posts