First Lady of the United

¶ … First Lady of the United States is not an elected official and does not receive a salary for her duties. However, the person who occupies this position does hold a considerable position of power and influence. The traditional duties of the First Lady are voluntary and are more of an expectation than an actual legal obligation. The influence of the First Ladies on their husband's success cannot be discounted and her positions and viewpoints can win or lose an election. First Ladies have the ability to endear the American public to them and to inspire them. However, they can also be objects of criticism, as the country holds them accountable for their actions. The following will analyze the speeches of Michele Obama and Cindy McCain at the National Conventions of their respective parties.

The unofficial office of the First Lady has evolved through those who have held it historically. She holds a highly visible position in the White House. She is hostess of the White House and must organize and attend official ceremonies and functions of state. She may appear either with or in place of the President (Anthony, 2008). The First Lady is a trendsetter and has a responsibility to set a good tone among the American citizens. Some first ladies have been quite accomplished, while others stood in the background. Every First Lady brings her own personality and style to the position. Dolly Madison play a central role in defining the role of the First Lady and the need to choose a worthy cause to support (Anthony, 2008).

Discourse Analysis

Understanding the duties and role of the First Lady is paramount to understanding their speeches at the National Conventions of their party. This past election was historic on many standpoints. First, it was the first time that a former First Lady as a viable candidate for a Presidential nomination. The second is that it was the first time that an African-American was nominated for President. Michele Obama would be the first African-American First Lady in the history of the nation.

The First Lady helps to establish the trust and credibility of her husband. They remain in the background, but they hold an important place in the hearts of the American citizens.

Purpose of the Speeches

The speeches of the would-be First Ladies at their National Conventions establishes their credibility, legitimacy, and provides a glimpse as to how they will hold the office of First Lady. The National Convention is meant to create of feeling of unity and support for whomever is chosen by the party to run for President and their platform. More recently, family members of potential candidates are expected to make speeches at the National Convention. The testimonials of the family members give an air of personal appeal and make the potential candidate appear to be more than a figurehead. The speeches of the potential candidate's wives play a key role in gaining support of their party and the nation, as this is the first chance that the nation gets to know them.

The purpose of political discourse is to help citizens understand the issue, to help citizens reach their best judgment as to the proper course of action, to increase citizen participation in the Democratic process, and to socialize the next generation as to the proper procedures and attitudes for citizenship (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). The speeches of the First Ladies must fulfill all of these conditions, as their words will have a significant impact on the course of voters in the next election and on the tone of the nation, should they become First Lady.

Establishing Rapport

Building rapport with the audience is the key purpose of the opening of the speech. The purpose is to level the ground between the speaker and the listener. Rapport sets the tone of a harmonious relationship that is based on trust and emotional ties (Love, 2010). Both First Ladies opened their speeches with an attempt to establish rapport by referring to their families, the importance of their roles as mothers and as supporters of their husband's causes. Michele Obama spends the one and a half pages telling personal stories about her childhood and how she and Mr. Obama met. Cindy McCain mentioned her family by name, but did not mention them at large. Mrs. McCain jumped right into business after only a short, two-paragraph introduction.

Michelle Obama uses simple, informal language to bring the message to the common people of America. Cindy McCain uses more sophisticated, formal speech. It is not known what the true motive of her choice of speech was, but it had the affect of making her seem to be above middle America, more authoritarian. Michelle Obama's use of speech made her message appear to be more heartfelt and sincere.

Content Analysis

While both First Lady potentials spoke about the accomplishments of their husbands, trying to convince their party and voting America that their man would be the better, the tone of Cindy McCain's speech was more downtrodden than that of Michele Obama. First, McCain mentions those who had to relocate due to a Hurricane, then she mentions the many challenges that the nation faces due to the economy. McCain tells her audience that they needed to renew their commitment to the country. She used name-dropping, such as referring to Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan for comparison.

Obama never mentions the problems that threaten the country. She paints pictures of hard working American men and women. She mentions Hillary Clinton and her ability to crack the glass ceiling. She addresses her husband's resume in Chicago, and presents a list of her husband's many accomplishments.

Michelle Obama continually refers to the connection that binds us together, placing herself on the same level as the American people. Obama talks about, "the thread that connects our hearts" (Obama, p. 2). She refers to the people that built American on hard work, "ordinary folks doing the best they could" (Obama, p. 2). She uses many phrases throughout the speech to reiterate the connections between herself, her husband, and the people of America. These phrases include, "so much like mine" (p. 2), "like my family: (p. 2), "like you and I believe," (p. 2), and "all of us driven," (p. 2). These phrases continued to build rapport throughout the speech.

Cindy McCain tended to focus on the accomplishments of the nation. She talks about, "our national DNA" (McCain, par. 9). She uses the term "always" over five times throughout her speech. McCain used the cancellative marker "but" frequently throughout her speech, which had the affect of negating the last remark (Bell, 2009). Obama only used a cancellative marker one or two times. McCain continued to attempt to build rapport through use of an assumption that all Americans possess a certain set of national values. For instance, She tells how her father brought her up with the values of the American West. Not everyone may agree that these values are good. McCain blatantly ignores the diversity in her audience by assuming that they hold her set of values and that they share a similar circumstance.

Stylistic Comparison

Stylistically, the speeches of Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are quite different. McCain speaks on a national and global level. Obama makes a personal appeal and tries to bring the message to the individual in the audience. McCain used examples of hope and courage from Rwanda and from Bangladesh. These examples may have had the effect of alienating her from her audience. They demonstrate that she was a knowledgeable world traveler, but they also highlighted the problems in other countries rather than in the backyard of the voters. It may have been difficult for the voters to relate to the problems in another country when they faced a failing economy and had sons and daughters going off to war. McCain spoke in third person and in generalizations when she talked about the problems in our own country, but spoke in first person when she spoke about the problems that she witnessed in other countries. This obvious appeal to show her compassionate side may have failed in the delivery, simply due to the inability to make the problems closer to home more personal.

Both Obama and McCain used concrete examples to support their argument that their husbands were the better person for the job. McCain drew on her husband's military accomplishments and her own foreign service. Obama focused on her husband's political accomplishments in Chicago. Both women highlighted the importance of their parents and upbringing as clues to their values and integrity.

Obama speaks in concrete terms, such as the mother worried about her child serving in Iraq, the man on the streets who is unemployed, or the sister who must work long hours to pay for a family member's healthcare (p. 2). McCain spoke in more general terms, referring to "families worried about losing their homes, towns deserted by industries & #8230;mothers with not choice but to send their children to unsafe and underperforming schools" (par. 5). One this level, Obama makes a more personal appeal to the audience. She brought the problems down to the individual who would eventually cast the vote. The use of generalizations did not have the same impact on the individual. McCain's focus on "our party" and "our nation" was meant to instill a sense of unity, but did not have the impact of Obama's more personal approach.