Sometimes I wish I was a political sketch writer for Saturday Night Live. Last Saturday, watching the inauguration in the Binford 2nd-floor lounge, I experienced one of these moments.As Bush arrived at the podium and took the oath of office, he did so radiating a passion and forcefulness rarely exhibited by our country’s new leader in his public addresses.
I knew he would never match Clinton’s charm. Yet, Bush’s unexpected burst of personality drove me to hope that his comments might establish the constructive working relationship with Congress he proclaims to desire. When Bush opened with warm remarks towards President Clinton for eight years of service, my hope teetered cautiously in the direction of anticipation.

Then the actual speech began.
The speech was not necessarily bad; I simply could not discern what had been said once it was over. I was pretty sure he mentioned education, and there were a few references that sounded like they had to do with the military.
It seemed at least initially, as Cokie Roberts pointed out on ABC, like Bush had given a sermon rather than an inaugural address. Only it made no sense in that context either.

Later, after replaying the speech over and over on the Internet, and performing a close textural analysis, I determined the words themselves were not the problem. As Inaugural speeches go, it showed promise including moments of colorful language that added an almost poetic quality.

The problem lay primarily in the delivery.
Now, I know Bush is not the best public speaker, and judging him against Clinton is hardly a fair comparison. That aside, does his staff realize their chief has rhetoric issues?
The speech Bush gave would have worked fine if Clinton had delivered it. It had that trademark political style of making many historical references while using fancy language to sound sophisticated without having to reveal any specific points.

Delivered by Bush, however, the speech resembled a clich-infested mock-up scribbled down the night before by a junior staffer experiencing a drunken stupor.

If given the opportunity to provide Bush with feedback, I would recommend the following solution: use simpler language.

Mr. Bush, I know you are the President of the United States and thus you desire to appear informed and in control. However, the fact remains, sir, that your reputation has been established as a simple mind.

President Bush, I know you may find this label somewhat unfair.

After all, you did manage to defeat a candidate from an incumbent administration that enjoyed economic prosperity and strong public support. No small feat, regardless of your political connections.

And while public uncertainty will probably
always cloud your election, you at the very least forced a close race where your opponent should have enjoyed crucial political advantages from being tied to a popular administration.

Still, you cannot claim this reputation to be entirely undeserved. While you may be politically savvy, you lack crucial depth of knowledge in areas like foreign policy.
You claim that you will get around this by appointing people who know what they are doing. I take no comfort from that statement. Ask anyone who has ever worked under an incompetent manager, and they will tell you that the working atmosphere suffers.
Mr. President, you seem to think that by overlooking your lack of knowledge, everyone else will too. This is what makes you look so ridiculous and why comedy writers across America are making down payments on a new car.
Americans don’t appear to be looking for political sophistication in their president these days. If they were, they would have elected Al Franken.

Mr. President, remain straightforward about who you are and I think most Americans will accept you as such. If, on the other hand, you attempt to appear as something you clearly are not, I doubt, sir, you will remain in Washington very long.