does barack obama write his own speeches

How Obama Writes His Speeches

U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama works on his election night speech in his room at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago, IL.

Barack Obama is usually the candidate who begs his staff to let him take one more question at every event, but this week he hasn't been a man to linger. Even though his public schedule was relatively light, behind the scenes he was racing his own internal clock to finish what is the most important speech of his career.

Four years ago Obama spent months writing the convention speech that would catapult him onto the national stage. Even though he was busy with his day job in the Illinois State Senate and was running for the U.S. Senate, Obama would find time to scribble thoughts, often sneaking off the State Senate floor to the men's room to jot down ideas, or writing in the car as he campaigned across southern Illinois. It took him months to gather all those fleeting ideas and craft his acclaimed keynote speech.

This time around, Obama has been a tad busier and hasn't had the luxury of time. "The difference here is, you know, he's got a few other things going," Obama's top strategist David Axelrod told reporters Wednesday on Obama's flight into Denver. "It's hard to find the quality time to do this." The first draft wasn't finished until last week, and as of Wednesday his staff couldn't say how long the speech was running or when it might be finished. The looming deadline has led to a lot of late nights and bleary-eyed mornings for Obama, who instead of practicing delivery has been focused on the writing, even during his walk-through of Invesco Field Wednesday night.

The toughest aspect of writing a speech isn't so much the rhetoric, it's the ideas—which take time to incubate and develop, says Andrei Cherny, editor of the journal Democracy and a former White House speechwriter under Clinton. "The hardest part about writing a speech like this is not the mechanics of it but what you want to say and how you're going to say it, the strategy of it," Cherny says. For a speech of this magnitude it's not uncommon for politicians and their staffs to work on language for months, going into double-digit drafts, according to Cherny.

Obama takes an unusually hands-on approach to his speech writing, more so than most politicians. His best writing time comes late at night when he's all alone, scribbling on yellow legal pads. He then logs these thoughts into his laptop, editing as he goes along. This is how he wrote both of his two best selling books— Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope —staying up after Michelle and his two young daughters had long gone to bed, reveling in the late night quiet. For this speech Obama removed himself from the distractions at home and spent many nights in a room in the Park Hyatt Hotel in Chicago. These late-night sessions produced long, meandering texts that were then circulated to a close group of advisers, including Axelrod and Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau—a 27-year-old wunderkind wordsmith. "When you're working with Senator Obama the main player on a speech is Senator Obama," Axelrod said. "He is the best speechwriter in the group and he knows what he wants to say and he generally says it better than anybody else would."

The time constraint may have led Obama to sacrifice his famed rhetorical flourishes for cold, hard facts. He told reporters in Illinois earlier this week that he isn't aiming for the polished, soaring language that is his hallmark, but rather a more nuts and bolts dissection of the choice voters face. "This is going to be a more workmanlike speech. I'm not aiming for a lot of high rhetoric, I'm much more concerned with communicating how I intend to help middle-class families live their lives," Obama said. He also did his best to dampen expectations for a memorable address, telling reporters in Wisconsin, "I may not be as good as the other headliners the other three nights, but hopefully it'll make clear the choices the American people are going to face in November."

Obama knows well the power of a great speech. When his campaign came under fire before the Pennsylvania primary for controversial statements by Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama delivered a historic speech on race that changed the conversation and stemmed the attacks. This time around Obama needs to turn the conversation away from him—where it has lingered the last month, producing worrying poll numbers for the Democrats—and on to the issues. "This speech and this election is really not about Barack Obama it's about the American people," Axelrod said. "It's about the country, it about the direction that we have to go to get us out of the ditch we're in. He's going to spend the bulk of his time talking about that."

Does President Obama write his own speeches?

Mostly, yes, according to Time Magazine, but he passes them around for comments, especially from Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau.

"When you're working with Senator Obama the main player on a speech is Senator Obama," Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, said. "He is the best speechwriter in the group and he knows what he wants to say and he generally says it better than anybody else would."

When campaigning for the Presidency, and as a Senator, this was true. Now, as President, Obama has very little time to devote to speechwriting, and the large quantity of speeches he is required to make demand a speechwriting staff handle the vast majority of work around speeches. This is no different than any other modern President - speechwriting is staffed out, with the President usually giving final editorial input, but the "message" and the language are almost always that of someone else.

Frankly, only a very important occasion would be cause for Obama to write even a portion of a speech, as there simply is far better use of his time now as President.

Yes and no. Some of his best speeches during his political career as a senator were his creations; but he does not write them all exclusively any more. In fact, during his first term as president, Mr. Obama's chief speech writer was a young man named Jon Favreau. When he left in early 2013, the president found a new speechwriter, Cody Keenan. But throughout his political career, the president has taken a very hands-on approach to his speeches, collaborating with his speechwriter and offering his own revisions as well as making changes where necessary.

One of Mr. Obama's most Famous Speeches that garnered his early recognition as a great orator and politician on his way up, was given as the Keynote at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He wrote at least 80% of that speech himself, according to Dan Shomon, political director of more than one of the previous Obama political campaigns. The following is from a 2005 profile article in the Columbia College Today newspaper about their alumnus, Barack Obama (see link below for the full article).

"More good fortune came in the form of the Kerry campaign inviting Obama to deliver the convention's keynote address. 'They wanted somebody to represent the diversity of the party, and people knew he was a good speaker,' Shomon said.

Obama is a natural and polished orator. What he has had to work on, those who know him say, are his one-on-one connections. During his eight years in the state senate, Obama spent more time with his constituents and learned to be an attentive listener, they say. Those skills were essential in connecting with statewide voters during the Senate campaign. Obama successfully appealed to inner-city blacks and suburban professionals as well as downstate farmers and factory workers. When he reached out to the state's rural areas, he was able to relate to the farmers there because 'those folks were very much like the grandparents from Kansas who raised him,' [David] Axelrod says.

Obama drafted the convention speech on paper during two nights in a hotel room during the campaign. He writes all of his speeches, bills and other important documents, according to Shomon. When Obama finished the draft of the speech, he faxed a copy to Axelrod, who says, 'I was reading it and handing each page to my wife, and my mouth was agape, because it was beautiful and profound. How many people in public life can write like this?' Axelrod says the consultants and the Kerry camp recommended few changes, and 80 percent of the final speech was the same as the original draft.

It was a hit..."

As the vast majority of speeches a President gives are "ordinary" - things like a "stump" speech while campaigning, or speeches to various groups while traveling - they tend to be both duplicated, and rather dull. The huge quantity of speeches that modern Presidents have to give (as many as a hundred or more a year), means that virtually all of them have traditionally been written by a speech writing staff. Major speeches, like the State of the Union, will be crafted by the chief speechwriter, but as mentioned before, Mr. Obama provides considerable input.

Abraham Lincoln Wrote his own speeches.

Add your answer:

Top Categories

The story of speechwriting for President Obama

Article highlights.

Want some tips on effective communication? Then look no further than former Obama speechwriter and bestselling author @DavidLitt

How did a junior campaign volunteer become a speechwriter for @BarackObama in the White House? @DavidLitt tells us his story

A mix of the speaker, the audience and the moment is what makes a speech great, says former @BarackObama speechwriter @DavidLitt

Partnering for Learning

We put our vision for government into practice through learning partner projects that align with our values and help reimagine government so that it works for everyone.

Who's “holding the pen”?

The answer, increasingly so during President Obama's time in the White House, was David Litt, a former campaign volunteer who started working in the White House with only minimal experience as a speechwriter. A few years later and he was meeting with the president and tasked with drafting many of his most high-profile statements and addresses.

It's quite a story, and one that Litt expertly captures in his bestselling memoir , which combines laugh out loud humour with deep insight about the art of wordsmithing for a nation's chief executive. Fiercely modest and self-deprecating - both in person and in his book - Litt freely admits that he was somewhat thrown in at the deep end. “My experience in the White House was pretty different to other speechwriting jobs because of the sheer amount of time pressure,” he explains.

“I came in with some experience of writing speeches - not a tonne - in fact, I hadn't had a lot of experience doing anything. I certainly hadn't experienced writing speeches to incredibly tight deadlines under the level of scrutiny that an American president operates by. This was probably the biggest challenge and the area where I had to do the most learning on the job - and I had to do a lot of learning very quickly.”

Why speeches still matter

Leaders around the world have all manner of communications options to choose from. From tweets to YouTube videos, television clips to Snapchat, the landscape in front of them brims with opportunities to promote their message. With this in mind, it seems pertinent to ask whether speeches still matter. Are they as important as in previous generations? Litt is in no doubt.

“I think speeches still matter, and I think they'll continue to matter,” he says firmly. “The difference is that lots of other communication methods matter as well. So whether you're a politician or a CEO or anyone else, you're no longer just picking the message you want to send but also the medium by which you send it. This choice matters a lot more than it used to, especially as there are now so many options to choose from.”

He goes on to say that it is now incumbent on leaders - and their communications team - to know what works best and where. “Something might be ideal as an online video, for example, whereas others would make more sense as a speech or a tweet,” he says. “Knowing how to use different platforms to get your message across is something I think communications teams have to consider in a way that they didn't ten years ago.”

So, in his opinion, what makes for a great speech? Is it down to the oratory - such as President Obama's 2015 speech in Selma - or President Reagan's famous “Boys of Pointe du Hoc” speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of D-Day? Or maybe it is down to capturing the moment, such as Bobby Kennedy's iconic speech in response to the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King? Litt says it is down to a mix of different factors.

“Usually it's about the combination of the speaker, the audience and the moment,” he says. “There are definitely rules that can make a speech more effective and there are lots of potential mistakes that can make a speech less effective, but the speaker is only one element of the overall picture.”

Fortunately for Litt and his colleagues in the speechwriting shop, their boss was not only an accomplished writer himself - check out his edits to a Jon Favreau -penned healthcare speech early in his tenure - but also a storyteller par excellence. “Part of our job as speechwriters was to think about how to tell stories,” he recalls. “The stories in the book are obviously very different to what President Obama would have used in his speeches - for the most part - but that skill of storytelling and that experience of storytelling is something I think I have tried to use and take from one arena to another.”

Life inside the real West Wing

Any visitor to Washington, DC - first time or otherwise - normally makes a beeline for the White House at some stage. But you don't get very far. The perimeter, extended since a succession of fence-jumpers in recent years, not to mention the patrolling Secret Service agents, keeps tourists and passers-by from getting too close.

So what is it really like to work there? To be able to flash your security pass and stroll through security checks? To work a matter of feet away from the President of the United States? Litt admits that his time there was the experience of a lifetime, one that has left him with a rich abundance of memories great and small.

“One thing I remember over and over is watching President Obama walk into a room filled not with White House staff but with Americans, whether they were people visiting Washington or if he was on the road,” he says. “To be part of that moment when you know that everyone in the room is never going to forget that experience as long as they live, and to play a tiny part in making that happen, was pretty special.”

He also has some advice gleaned from his time there, useful for any new joiner to an organisation, not just the White House. “Don't try and reinvent the wheel,” he says. “When you're coming into an organisation which already has systems in place and is doing well, the tendency is to try and demonstrate how special you are. But first you need to demonstrate that you can keep pace, and only then do you get the opportunity to add something - that took me a little while to learn.”

He goes on to say that it is vital to know what your job really is, not just what your job title says. “Essentially, you need to know how you can make the lives of the people around you easier, and make sure you keep executing on that. And also, for anyone about to start work in the White House, there is a 30% discount in the cafeteria buffet from 2pm - so make sure you eat a big breakfast.”

“Anything is possible”

Today, Litt can be found working at the online comedy company Funny or Die , particularly appropriate given his skill for humour (among his roles at the White House was “holding the pen” for several of President Obama's speeches to the White House Correspondents' Dinner ).

It is clear, though, that he remains fully engaged in politics and gives the impression of itching to step back into the arena. “Like millions of Americans, the one thing that has been hammered home over the last year is that you never get to take a complete break from being a citizen trying to improve your country,” he points out. “If you don't do it, it's not like someone else can be counted on to step in.”

And while he is clear that he wouldn't want to go back to full-time speechwriting, he has a deep reservoir of knowledge ready to be to be tapped into. So, what tips would he share with anyone looking to follow in his footsteps? “In a purely practical sense, if you can transcribe a conversation and use someone's language verbatim as much as possible, then use that as a building block,” he says.

“In the private sector, this is something I was able to do and it is very useful. I would also say - be absolutely sure what the one big idea is that you want the audience to take away. A lot of speeches seem scattered, and that's because they are scattered. Even impressive, important people don't have a clear idea all the time of the one thing they want the audience to remember.”

And did he, like esteemed American biographer Robert Caro, “know his last line” and write towards it? “Speeches are a little different,” he concludes. “You should know what the headline is for someone writing about the speech - even if that person isn't actually a newspaper reporter. You should always have this in mind.”

FURTHER READING

• From Washington to The West Wing. Eli Attie tells us about life as Vice President Gore's chief speechwriter, his subsequent role on The West Wing and the secrets of effective political communication
• Life in the foxhole: the new rules of the communications game.  Few know how to navigate the terrain of government communications better than Obama White House veteran  Eric Schultz . Speaking to the Gov Actually podcast, he tells us about getting the message out - DC style…
• Googling better government.  After helping rescue healthcare.gov,  Mikey Dickerson  is now focusing on the US federal government's wider deployment of digital technology. He takes time out to tell Danny Werfel why it's no more business as usual
• To the Max.   Helping US policymakers to be more effective is the task facing  Max Stier  and his colleagues at the Partnership for Public Service. He tells us about transforming federal government inspiring a new generation
• Winds of change.   Few understand the mechanics of US elections better than  Matthew Dowd . A veteran of both sides of the campaign trail, he tells us about his experiences and why change is coming to America…
• Beltway and beyond.   A former senior advisor to two US presidents,  Elliott Abrams'  view on public impact has been shaped by decades of public service. He shares his perspective on how governments can achieve more
• DC despatch.  Kate Josephs  reflects on her experiences driving performance improvement in the British and US governments

Written by:

You may also be interested in...

Real stories from Indian officials on citizen engagement

Climate leaders overcome funding challenges by “hacking” bureaucracy and building resilient coalitions

How do you understand impact in complex systems?

PRESS RELEASE: Centre for Public Impact announces Natalie Creary as Regional Director for Europe

Embracing the paradox: the urgency of climate action and the power of learning from failure

Introducing the Stewardship Matrix: Uncover your approach to systems stewardship

How can we help.

• Ethics & Leadership
• Fact-Checking
• Media Literacy
• The Craig Newmark Center
• Reporting & Editing
• Ethics & Trust
• Tech & Tools
• Business & Work
• Educators & Students
• Training Catalog
• Custom Teaching
• For ACES Members
• All Categories
• Broadcast & Visual Journalism
• Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
• In-newsroom
• Memphis, Tenn.
• Minneapolis, Minn.
• St. Petersburg, Fla.
• Washington, D.C.
• Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
• Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
• Ethics Training
• Ethics Articles
• Get Ethics Advice
• Fact-Checking Articles
• IFCN Grants
• International Fact-Checking Day
• Teen Fact-Checking Network
• International
• Media Literacy Training
• MediaWise Resources
• Ambassadors
• MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

Why it worked: A rhetorical analysis of Obama’s speech on race

The National Conference of Teachers of English (NCTE) has declared today a National Day on Writing.  I celebrate such a day.  The introduction of my book "Writing Tools" imagines what America might look like and sound like if we declared ourselves a “nation of writers.” After all, what good is freedom of expression if we lack the means to express ourselves?

To mark this day – and to honor language arts teachers everywhere – Poynter is republishing an essay I wrote almost a decade ago.  Remember? It was the spring of 2008 and Barack Obama was running for president. Many of us wondered if America was ready to elect an African-American president (a man with the middle name Hussein).

To dispel the fears of some white Americans and to advance his chances for election, Obama delivered a major address on race in America, a speech that was praised even by some of his adversaries. Obama had/has a gift for language. He is a skilled orator. To neutralize that advantage, his opponents – including Hillary Clinton at one point – would characterize Obama’s words as empty “rhetoric” – an elaborate trick of language.

The Spring of 2008 seems like such a long time ago.  A time just before the Great Recession.  A time just before the ascendancy of social networks and the trolls who try to poison them.  A time before black lives were said to matter in a more assertive way. A time before fake news was anything more dangerous that a piece of satire in the Onion. A time before Colin Kaepernick took a knee — except when he was tired.  A time before torch-bearing white supremacists marched through the night in Charlottesville, Virginia.   

It feels like the perfect time for a restart on a conversation about race. To prepare us, let’s take another look at the words of Barack Obama before he was president. Let’s review what he said, and, more important, how and why he said it. My X-ray analysis of that speech is meant not as a final word on that historical moment, but as an invitation, a doorway to a room where we can all reflect on American history and the American language.

Have a great National Day on Writing.  

More than a century ago, scholar and journalist W.E.B. DuBois wrote a single paragraph about how race is experienced in America. I have learned more from those 112 words than from most book-length studies of the subject:

After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world, a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness, — an American, a Negro;  two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder."

Much has been said about the power and brilliance of Barack Obama's March 18 speech on race, even by some of his detractors. The focus has been on the orator's willingness to say things in public about race that are rarely spoken at all, even in private, and his expressed desire to move the country to a new and better place. There has also been attention to the immediate purpose of the speech, which was to reassure white voters that they had nothing to fear from the congregant of a fiery African-American pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. 

Amid all the commentary, I have yet to see an X-Ray reading of the text that would make visible the rhetorical strategies that the orator and authors used so effectively. When received in the ear, these effects breeze through us like a harmonious song. When inspected with the eye, these moves become more apparent, like reading a piece of sheet music for a difficult song and finally recognizing the chord changes.

Such analysis, while interesting in itself, might be little more than a scholarly curiosity if we were not so concerned with the language issues of political discourse. The popular opinion is that our current president, though plain spoken, is clumsy with language. Fair or not, this perception has produced a hope that our next president will be a more powerful communicator, a Kennedy or Reagan, perhaps, who can use language less as a way to signal ideology and more as a means to bring the disparate parts of the nation together. Journalists need to pay closer attention to political language than ever before.

Like most memorable pieces of oratory, Obama's speech sounds better than it reads. We have no way of knowing if that was true of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but it is certainly true of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech. If you doubt this assertion, test it out. Read the speech and then experience it in its original setting recited by his soulful voice.

The effectiveness of Obama's speech rests upon four related rhetorical strategies:

1.  The power of allusion and its patriotic associations. 2.  The oratorical resonance of parallel constructions. 3.  The "two-ness" of the texture, to use DuBois's useful term. 4.  His ability to include himself as a character in a narrative about race.

Allusion Part of what made Dr. King's speech resonate, not just for black people, but for some whites, was its framing of racial equality in familiar patriotic terms: "This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning, 'My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty of thee I sing.  Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.'"  What follows, of course, is King's great litany of iconic topography that carries listeners across the American landscape: "Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!…"

In this tradition, Obama begins with "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union," a quote from the Constitution that becomes a recurring refrain linking the parts of the speech. What comes next is "Two hundred and twenty one years ago," an opening that places him in the tradition of Lincoln at Gettysburg and Dr. King at the Lincoln Memorial: "Five score years ago."

On the first page, Obama mentions the words democracy, Declaration of Independence, Philadelphia convention, 1787, the colonies, the founders, the Constitution, liberty, justice, citizenship under the law, parchment, equal, free, prosperous, and the presidency. It is not as well known as it should be that many black leaders, including Dr. King, use two different modes of discourse when addressing white vs. black audiences, an ignorance that has led to some of the hysteria over some of Rev. Wright's comments.

Obama's patriotic lexicon is meant to comfort white ears and soothe white fears. What keeps the speech from falling into a pandering sea of slogans is language that reveals, not the ideals, but the failures of the American experiment: "It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations." And "what would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part … to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time."

Lest a dark vision of America disillusion potential voters, Obama returns to familiar evocations of national history, ideals, and language:

— "Out of many, we are truly one." — "survived a Depression." — "a man who served his country" — "on a path of a more perfect union" — "a full measure of justice" — "the immigrant trying to feed his family" — "where our union grows stronger" — "a band of patriots signed that document."

Parallelism At the risk of calling to mind the worst memories of grammar class, I invoke the wisdom that parallel constructions help authors and orators make meaning memorable. To remember how parallelism works, think of equal terms to express equal ideas. So Dr. King dreamed that one day his four children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." ( By the content of their character is parallel to by the color of their skin .)

Back to Obama: "This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign — to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America." If you are counting, that's five parallel phrases among 43 words. 

And there are many more:

Two-ness I could argue that Obama's speech is a meditation upon DuBois' theory of a dual experience of race in America. There is no mention of DuBois or two-ness, but it is all there in the texture. In fact, once you begin the search, it is remarkable how many examples of two-ness shine through:

— "through protests and struggles" — "on the streets and in the courts" — "through civil war and civil disobedience" — "I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas." — "white and black" — "black and brown" — "best schools … poorest nations" — "too black or not black enough" — "the doctor and the welfare mom" — "the model student and the former gang-banger …" — "raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor" — "political correctness or reverse racism" — "your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams"

Such language manages to create both tension and balance and, without being excessively messianic, permits Obama to present himself as the bridge builder, the reconciler of America's racial divide.

Autobiography There is an obnoxious tendency among political candidates to frame their life story as a struggle against poverty or hard circumstances. As satirist Stephen Colbert once noted of presidential candidates, it is not enough to be an average millionaire. To appeal to populist instincts it becomes de rigueur to be descended from "goat turd farmers" in France.

Without dwelling on it, Obama reminds us that his father was black and his mother white, that he came from Kenya, but she came from Kansas: "I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slave and slave owners — an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible."

The word "story" is revealing one, for it is always the candidate's job (as both responsibility and ploy) to describe himself or herself as a character in a story of his or her own making. In speeches, as in homilies, stories almost always carry the weight of parable, with moral lessons to be drawn.

Most memorable, of course, is the story at the end of the speech — which is why it appears at the end. It is the story of Ashley Baia, a young, white, Obama volunteer from South Carolina, whose family was so poor she convinced her mother that her favorite meal was a mustard and relish sandwich. 

"Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue.  And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. … He simply says to everyone in the room, 'I am here because of Ashley.'"

During most of the 20th century, demagogues, especially in the South, gained political traction by pitting working class whites and blacks against each other. How fitting, then, that Obama's story points in the opposite direction through an old black man who feels a young white woman's pain.  

CORRECTION : An earlier version of this post incorrectly attributed the phrase, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union" to the Declaration of Independence.

A ‘media organizer’ built an abolitionist newsroom in Kansas City. Is he a journalist? He’s not yet sure.

At The Kansas City Defender, Ryan Sorrell is following Ida B. Wells and Claudia Jones in honoring the legacy of the radical Black press

Opinion | Looking back at Kamala Harris’ first interview since becoming the Democratic presidential nominee

CNN's Dana Bash asked tough, fair questions of the candidate and her running mate, and both did an admirable job answering them.

Poynter/CPB’s Digital Transformation Program provides the roadmap public media journalists need

Stations will get help developing and optimizing audience-first, multi-platform approaches

What these writers learned from Power of Diverse Voices, in their own words

Here’s a sampling of past participants’ experiences and excerpts from pieces the workshop helped produce.

Florida state parks proposal for golf courses, hotels was further along than DeSantis let on

The initiative was not an undeveloped idea; it had plans, documents and planned public meetings.

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

How to Write a Great Speech, According to the Obamas’ Speechwriter

It was the summer of 1998, the end of her junior year of college, when Sarah Hurwitz fell in love with the art form of writing the perfect speech, having scored an internship at the White House in Vice President Al Gore’s speechwriting office. “Every day, his staff used words to move, inspire, comfort, and empower people,” she recalls. “I still can’t imagine a better way to spend a career.”

And what an extraordinary career Hurwitz’s has been. After graduating from Harvard Law School, she became the chief speechwriter for Hillary Rodham Clinton on her 2008 presidential campaign. Eventually, she returned to the White House, serving as the head speechwriter for first lady Michelle Obama and as a senior speechwriter for President Barack Obama between 2009 and 2017.

Here, Hurwitz shares 11 nuggets of speechwriting wisdom that she’s garnered along the way so that you can shine at your next public address, whether that be a televised political debate, a work presentation, or a toast at your best friend’s wedding.

1. Channel the person who is speaking

The true art of speechwriting isn’t scripting someone—it’s channeling their voice. My first step when writing a speech for Mrs. Obama would be to sit down with her and ask, “What would you like to say?” She knows who she is, and she always knows what she wants to say. She’s also a naturally gifted speaker and writer, so I’d transcribe as she talked, forming the basis of the first draft.

2. Research and understand your audience

Who are you talking to? What are they concerned about? Why are you speaking to them? How well do they know you? What’s the venue? If Mrs. Obama was speaking at a university, for example, it was important to understand the history and student body of that university. If you’re giving a toast at your best friend’s wedding, you need to know if you can tell a story that’s a bit edgy or if their family will get offended.

3. Know that structure is destiny

If you have a bad structure, you can’t have a good speech. Every paragraph should flow logically from one to the next. When I’m trying to figure out the structure of a speech, I’ll often print it out and cut it up with scissors so I can move parts around. It’s only then that I realize the order is wrong or I see that I’m repeating myself or I notice that certain passages could be combined.

4. Seek multiple opinions  

It’s really important to ask other people to look at your speech—as many as possible, especially if you’re speaking to a community that you don’t know well. You need to find someone from that audience who understands its cultural sensitivities and norms so you speak in a way that inspires people rather than causing offense.

5. Throw the rulebook out of the window

Writing to be read and writing to be heard are two very different skills. Spoken language doesn’t need to conform to grammar and punctuation norms. I often use ellipses instead of commas to indicate pauses because they’re easier to see. It’s fine to space things weirdly on the page or add notations if it helps you—all that matters is how the words sound coming out of your mouth.

With that in mind, you should edit out loud. Don’t just sit looking at your computer screen—print the speech out, practice delivering it, and edit as you go.

6. Listening is the key to great speaking

There were hundreds of occasions when Mrs. Obama gave me feedback that ultimately influenced how I write. My drafts would be covered in her handwritten edits: “Are the transitions seamless? Is the structure logical? Is this language the most vivid and moving that it can be?” And I would learn from those edits.

As I write, I hear her voice in my head saying things like, “This part is getting bogged down in the weeds,“ “we’re missing the beating heart,” “we’re missing the real human side of this issue.” Hone your ability to identify the weakest parts that aren’t working.

7. Speak like you usually do

It’s fine to ask yourself, “What will make me sound smart or powerful or funny?’”or “What does the audience want to hear?” But your first question should really be, “What is the deepest, most important truth that I can tell at this particular moment?” All too often people focus on how they’re going to say something rather than on what they’re actually going to say.

Then, when they give a speech, they often take on an overly formal and stiff giving-a-speech voice or they slip into their professional jargon and use words that no one understands. If something feels unnatural or awkward when you say it, go back and rewrite it until it sounds like you.

8. Show, don’t tell

This may sound like a basic writing tip, but it’s rare that people execute this well. If you’re bored during a speech, it’s probably because the person is telling not showing. Mrs. Obama didn’t start her 2016 Democratic National Convention speech by saying: “On my daughter’s first day of school at the White House, I was nervous, afraid, and anxious.” She said: “I will never forget that winter morning as I watched our girls, just 7 and 10 years old, pile into those black SUVs with all those big men with guns. And I saw their little faces pressed up against the window, and the only thing I could think was, What have we done?” It’s such a searing image. Anytime you find yourself using a lot of adjectives, stop, step back, and think about painting a picture for people instead.

9. Don’t let technology get in the way

We’re living in the age of Zoom, and many people are delivering speeches virtually, which creates a whole new set of challenges. The audience often has their cameras turned off, or even if they’re on, there’s a disconnect. For this reason, I’d advise against a lecture-style format on Zoom. Instead, opt for interview style—give your host a set of questions to ask you so you can convey your message. This back-and-forth is more engaging via video calls.

10. Watch the clock

People are distracted today and have limited bandwidth to listen to what you are saying, so it’s really important to focus your message. Do you want them to feel reassured, courageous, fired up? Whatever the emotion, really think about that as you’re writing your speech. As for the length, it depends on your venue. If you’re doing a toast at your best friend’s wedding, keep it to five minutes (it’s not your wedding!), and for a keynote speech, no longer than 20 minutes.

11. Consider the format

Unless you have an incredible memory, don’t put yourself under added pressure by trying to learn your speech by heart. That said, what you read from matters. Some speakers are most comfortable with their speech when it’s written out verbatim. For others, reading a speech word for word feels awkward. Try experimenting with different formats, such as bullet points or cue cards. If you’re printing your remarks out on paper, keep the text on the top two-thirds of the page—otherwise, as you get to the bottom of the page, you’ll have to bend your neck to look down, and you’ll end up swallowing your words and breaking eye contact with your audience. 

*Sarah Hurwitz ’s debut book, Here All Along (Penguin Random House), is out now.

Vogue Daily

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions ), our Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement and to receive marketing and account-related emails from Vogue. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

Enhanced Page Navigation

• Barack H. Obama - Nobel Lecture: A Just and Lasting Peace

Barack H. Obama

Nobel lecture.

Barack H. Obama delivered his Nobel Lecture on 10 December 2009 at the Oslo City Hall, Norway. He was introduced by Thorbjørn Jagland, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

English Norwegian

A just and lasting peace.

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize – Schweitzer and King ; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease – the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations – total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations – an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize – America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations , mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states – all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak – nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another – that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.” A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America – in fact, no nation – can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That’s why NATO continues to be indispensable. That’s why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That’s why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali – we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers – but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant – the founder of the Red Cross , and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor – we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I’m working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma – there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy – but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point – the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists – a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests – nor the world’s – are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi ; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements – these movements of hope and history – they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach – condemnation without discussion – can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable – and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Wałęsa . Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people – or nations educate their children and care for the sick – is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement – all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action – it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that’s the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we’re moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint – no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose of faith – for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their fundamental faith in human progress – that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith – if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace – then we lose what’s best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

Let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school – because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that – for that is the story of human progress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much.

Nobel Prizes and laureates

Nobel prizes 2023.

Explore prizes and laureates

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview

Constitution Daily Blog

• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, seven years ago today: obama’s “a more perfect union” speech.

March 18, 2015 | by NCC Staff

On March 18, 2008, Senator Barack Obama made his campaign-defining “A More Perfect Union” speech at the National Constitution Center. Here’s a look back at the moment and why it was historically important.

Video surfaced earlier in the month of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor in Chicago, making racially inflammatory remarks.

Candidate Obama repudiated the remarks publicly. He wrote a blog post for The H uffington Post that voiced his opinions about the incident.

“I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue,” he wrote.

His appearance at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia became a turning point of the campaign, and one of the most detailed statements about race made by a presidential candidate.

The speech itself was written by Obama, with help from speech writer Jon Favreau and input from from a key aide, David Axelrod.

Author Robert Draper said Obama dictated the main part of the speech to Favreau over the phone, Favreau wrote a draft, and then Obama rewrote the speech in the hours before the event.

The speech lasted for about 40 minutes and was broadcast live nationally.

The speech itself took on the issues of Wright, race, religion, and politics head-on.

“It has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn,” Obama said.

“Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America--to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.”

After reviewing the history of race relations in America, and the anger and frustration of people of all colors, Obama made his core argument.

“I have asserted a firm conviction--a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people--that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.”

Later in the speech, Obama returned to the constitutional theme of a more perfect union.

“This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation--the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.”

For the most part, the immediate reaction after the speech was that it successfully diffused the Wright situation politically and raised Obama’s profile as a national figure.

“Barack Obama made that remarkable speech about race and his own journey, and his relationship with Wright in Philadelphia. That held his campaign together; a very key moment,” said ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos.

“Senator Barack Obama, speaking across the street from where the Constitution was written, traced the country’s race problem back to not simply the country’s ‘original sin of slavery’ but the protections for it embedded in the Constitution,” said Janny Scott from The New York Times .

The speech also became an immediate sensation on YouTube and with younger voters.

In retrospect, the “More Perfect Union” speech has been dissected by academics for its structure and importance. In 2009, it was named by NBC News as the best political speech of the decade.

A month after the speech, Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary by a large margin to Hillary Clinton. However, Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination in June and defeated John McCain to become the 44th president.

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Watch Obama’s Full Speech at the Democratic National Convention

The very future of our democracy is at stake, former President Barack Obama said Wednesday night, imploring voters to oust President Trump.

By Stephanie Saul

Former President Barack Obama delivered an impassioned speech on Wednesday to the Democratic National Convention in support of his party’s presidential nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr. , praising him as a man of experience, character, empathy and resilience, and urging the nation to come together to oust President Trump, saying democracy’s very existence is in jeopardy.

Calling the consequences of Mr. Trump’s failures severe — “170,000 Americans dead, millions of jobs gone, our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished and our democratic institutions threatened like never before” — Mr. Obama issued a call to action, imploring Americans to get behind Mr. Biden and his vice-presidential running mate, Senator Kamala Harris of California.

“What we do these next 76 days will echo through generations to come,” Mr. Obama said, urging all Americans to vote.

“Tonight, I am asking you to believe in Joe and Kamala’s ability to lead this country out of dark times and build it back better,” he said on the convention’s third night, also calling upon Americans to “embrace your own responsibility as citizens — to make sure that the basic tenets of our democracy endure Because that’s what’s at stake right now. Our democracy.”

Mr. Obama, adopting a tone of urgency and speaking directly to his fellow Americans, delivered his speech from the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia in what the party said was an effort to illustrate the high stakes voters face in this election.

Repeating a theme from a speech delivered by his wife, Michelle Obama, the former first lady, on Monday night, Mr. Obama said that Mr. Trump was simply incapable of being president, issuing a stunning rebuke of his successor.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

We need your support today

Independent journalism is more important than ever. Vox is here to explain this unprecedented election cycle and help you understand the larger stakes. We will break down where the candidates stand on major issues, from economic policy to immigration, foreign policy, criminal justice, and abortion. We’ll answer your biggest questions, and we’ll explain what matters — and why. This timely and essential task, however, is expensive to produce.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

What Barack Obama’s DNC speech was actually about

Beneath the campaign rhetoric, Obama offered a strikingly philosophical defense of American liberalism.

by Zack Beauchamp

During his 2024 Democratic National Convention address on Tuesday night, former President Barack Obama made no secret of his disdain for Donald Trump. But his speech was more than just a partisan broadside: It was a philosophical brief in defense of liberalism, a kind of first-principles moral argument that no other major convention speaker offered.

Liberal, in this context, does not refer to the term’s use in partisan American politics. It refers instead to the centuries-old philosophical tradition that sees politics as fundamentally oriented around the values of freedom and equality. Government, for liberals, exists to enable people to live according to their own vision for their lives; it has no business telling people what god to worship or giving certain groups of people more rights than others.

Obama was a thoroughly liberal president , and Trump a thoroughly illiberal one . This clearly troubled Obama — troubled him so much, in fact, that he dedicated this most high-profile speech to explaining why Trump must be defeated not just politically but also philosophically.

The stakes of 2024, according to Barack Obama

Obama is hardly the first person to declare Trump a mortal enemy of liberalism. Ever since 2016, there’s been a library’s worth of books published on liberalism’s Trump-induced crisis and how it ought to be resolved.

Some of Obama’s remarks followed this literature rather closely. Like many, Obama sees Trump’s divisive political style as opposed to liberalism’s core principle of equality: that all citizens deserve to be treated equally, each free to pursue a good life in the way they see fit (as long as they don’t hurt others in doing so).

Trump, Obama says, draws an elemental distinction “between the real Americans, who of course support [Trump], and the outsiders who don’t.” And that Trump and his allies believe “one group’s gain is another group’s loss,” and that “freedom means the powerful can do pretty much whatever they please.”

This, Obama says, is wrong. It’s wrong not just for Democrats and progressives, but for Americans — citizens of a country whose very existence grew out of liberal thought . The Harris campaign, in his telling, is tapping into a fundamental liberal impulse that permeates the American body politic.

“The vast majority of us do not want to live in a country that’s bitter and divided,” Obama said. “We want something that’s better. We want to be better. And the joy and excitement surrounding this campaign tells us that we’re not alone.”

Living this liberal vision, for Obama, means accepting the diversity inherent to a large society made up of people with all sorts of beliefs and worldviews: recognizing that “our fellow citizens deserve the same grace we hope they’ll extend to us.” It means understanding “true freedom” as something that gives all of us the right “to make decisions about our own life [and] requires us to recognize that other people have the right to make decisions that are different than ours.” And it means seeing democracy as more than “just a bunch of abstract principles and a bunch of dusty laws in a book somewhere,” but rather “the values we live by.”

This, to be clear, is not a case that Trump is un-American and thus will definitely lose: Obama took great pains to emphasize that the race was still close and could go either way. Rather, Obama is saying that what Trump stands for contradicts many of the values that Americans claim to hold dear — our core sense of what our country is about and what it stands for. That America’s truest identity is liberal, and that this identity can transcend those things that divide us.

I want to agree with that. But as I argue in my recent book , there is a deeply illiberal strain in American politics — an ideology born out of the essential contradiction between America’s stated liberal ideals and the reality of chattel slavery at its founding.

This tradition, like Trump, rejects core liberal-democratic ideals about equality. It is no more and no less American than our loftier stated ideals; both represent authentic aspects of America’s identity, and both have triumphed at different times throughout our country’s history.

The question, then, is not whether American liberalism can reassert its naturally dominant place. It is whether the America that Obama believes in will triumph in this round of a centuries-old struggle against an authoritarian twin.

More in this stream

Most Popular

• Georgia’s MAGA elections board is laying the groundwork for an actual stolen election
• Your guide to the Brittany Mahomes-Donald Trump drama, such as it is
• Zelenskyy’s new plan to end the war, explained
• What the heck is “corn sweat” and is it making the Midwest more dangerous?
• Kamala Harris’s big housing plan has a big problem

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in Politics

The plan is short on detail but aims to push Russia to negotiate.

Telegram’s lax content moderation policy is catching up with its CEO.

A new lawsuit hopes to stop them.

By invading Russia, Ukraine was also sending a message to America.

The nominee is pivoting hard to the right on immigration, so why do progressives say they can live with it?

Will the biggest program to legalize undocumented immigrants in a decade survive a court challenge?

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

2024 Election

With humor and hope, obamas warn against trump, urge democrats to 'do something'.

Former US President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks on the second day of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, on August 20, 2024. Charly Triballeu/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

The NPR Network will be reporting live from Chicago throughout the week bringing you  the latest on the Democratic National Convention .

Barack and Michelle Obama, Chicago’s favorite power couple, declared “hope is making a comeback” with Vice President Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, at the top of the Democratic presidential ticket

The former president and first lady headlined the second night of the Democratic National Convention, delivering a message of exhilaration at the possibility of electing the first woman in history to the White House – and the critical importance, they added, of preventing former President Donald Trump from securing a second term.

“We want something better. We want to be better,” Obama said. “And the joy and excitement we’re seeing around this campaign tells us we’re not alone.”

They also warned, from firsthand experience, of the battle ahead to elect Harris – a path marred by what the former president called the “bluster, bumbling and chaos” of Trump on the campaign trail.

“For years, Donald Trump did everything in his power to try to make people fear us,” Michelle Obama said of Trump’s campaign in 2016. “His limited and narrow view of the world made him feel threatened by the existence of two hardworking, highly educated, successful people who also happened to be Black.

“Who’s going to tell him that the job he’s currently seeking might just be one of those ‘Black jobs’?” the former first lady quipped to raucous applause.

‘Her story is your story’

Former first lady Michelle Obama speaks during the Democratic National Convention Tuesday in Chicago. Brynn Anderson/AP hide caption

As the opening act to her husband’s keynote address, Michelle Obama was welcomed by a raucous crowd that cheered her loudly throughout her remarks.

The former first lady said hope has, until recently, been in short supply.

Her own feelings of dread about the future were compounded, she said, by her own personal grief – the loss of her mother, who passed in May.

The last time Michelle was in her hometown Chicago, she said, was to memorialize Marian Robinson.

“I still feel her loss so profoundly,” Michelle Obama said. “I wasn’t even sure I’d be steady enough to stand before you tonight. But my heart compelled me to be here because of the sense of duty I feel to honor her memory, and to remind us all not to squander the sacrifices our elders made to give us a better future.”

The sense of “hard work, humility and decency” instilled by Robinson in her, she said, was also instilled in Harris by her own mother, who immigrated from India at the age of 19.

“She’d often tell her daughter, ‘Don’t sit around and complain about things. Do something!’” Michelle Obama said.

Harris set about to do just that, she said, as a district attorney, as attorney general of California, and as vice president of the United States.

“She is one of the most qualified people ever to seek the office of the presidency, and she is one of the most dignified – a tribute to her mother, to my mother, and probably to your mother too, the embodiment of the stories we tell ourselves about this country,” Michelle Obama said.

“Her story is your story. It’s my story. It’s the story of the vast majority of Americans trying to build a better life,” she added.

That story stands in sharp contrast, the former first lady said, to the story of former President Trump – a tale she described as “failing forward.”

She took jabs at Trump’s inheritance of generational wealth and his business failures – a marked departure from someone who during the 2016 Democratic convention said, “When they go low, we go high.”

“If things don’t go our way, we don’t have the luxury of whining or cheating others to get further ahead,” Michelle Obama said. “We don’t get to change the rules so we always win.”

That also means that Americans have to “put our heads down” and power through the “ugly, misogynistic, racist lies” she said Trump will spread on the campaign trail.

“As we embrace this renewed sense of hope, let us not forget the despair we have felt,” Michelle Obama said. “Let us not forget what we are up against.

“So consider this to be your official ask,” she said. “Michelle Obama is asking, no, telling you, to do something!”

‘We don’t need four more years of bluster and chaos’’

Former President Barack Obama hugs his wife Former first lady Michelle Obama during the Democratic National Convention Tuesday in Chicago. Morry Gash/AP hide caption

Former President Obama, too, warned of what to expect from Trump on the campaign trail.

“The childish nicknames and crazy conspiracy theories and weird obsession with crowd size,” he said while making measuring gestures with his hands. “It just goes on and on.”

“The other day, I heard someone compare Trump to the neighbor who keeps running his leaf blower outside your window every minute of every day,” Obama said. “From a neighbor, that’s exhausting. From a president, it’s just dangerous.”

Watch his full remarks:

But Obama described Americans as a people growing wise to Trump’s antics.

Trump’s bag of old political tricks – spreading an “us and them” mentality – “has gotten pretty stale,” he said.

“We don’t need four more years of bluster and chaos,” Obama added. We’ve seen that movie. And we all know that the sequel’s usually worse.”

America is ready for a new chapter, Obama said, led by “President Kamala Harris.”

Obama declared Harris is ready for the job. He said she spent her career as a prosecutor fighting for victims of sexual abuse and, fighting big banks and for-profit colleges, and as vice president, helping to cap the price of insulin and lower health care costs.

“She’s not the neighbor running the leaf blower,” he said. “She’s the neighbor rushing over to help when you need a hand.”

And in Walz – “I love this guy,” Obama said – Harris has found the perfect running mate, he added.

“A Harris-Walz administration can help us move past some of the tired old debates that keep stifling progress, because at their core, Kamala and Tim understand that when everybody gets a fair shot, we’re all better off,” he said.

The former president also paid homage to his vice president, President Biden, who he said “history will remember … as a president who defended democracy at a moment of great danger.”

In closing, the former president quoted former President Abraham Lincoln, who on the eve of the Civil War, called for a restoration of “‘our bonds of affection.”

“An American that taps into what (Lincoln) called ‘the better angels of our nature,’” Obama said. “That’s what this election is about.”

• From Live Coverage
• election 2024

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Obama made his DNC debut 20 years ago. He’s returning to make the case for Kamala Harris

FILE - President Barack Obama stands on stage after addressing the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., Sept. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Former President Barack Obama, with President Joe Biden and Bill Clinton, participates in a fundraising event with Stephen Colbert at Radio City Music Hall, Thursday, March 28, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

FILE - President Barack Obama addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., Sept. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

FILE - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., waves with his family and his running mate’s family after his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention at Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver, Aug. 28, 2008.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

FILE - Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., hugs his wife, Michelle Obama, after giving his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention at Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver, Aug. 28, 2008.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

FILE - President Barack Obama addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., Sept. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/David Goldman, File)

FILE - Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., gives his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention at Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver, Aug. 28, 2008. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

FILE - Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., left, and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., wave after Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Aug. 28, 2008, in Denver. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds, File)

• Copy Link copied

Barack Obama was days shy of his 43rd birthday and months from being elected to the U.S. Senate when he stepped onto a Boston stage at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

A state lawmaker from Illinois, he had an unusual profile to be a headline speaker at a presidential convention. But the self-declared “skinny kid with a funny name” captivated Democrats that night, going beyond a requisite pitch for nominee John Kerry instead to introduce the nation to his “politics of hope” and vision of “one United States of America” not defined or defeated by its differences.

Kerry lost that November to Republican President George W. Bush. But Obama etched himself into the national consciousness, beginning a remarkable rise that put him in the Oval Office barely four years later. And now, eight years removed from the presidency, Obama returns Tuesday night to the Democratic convention as the elder statesman with a different task.

Speaking in his political hometown of Chicago, the nation’s first Black president will honor President Joe Biden’s legacy after his exit from the campaign while making the case for another historic figure, Vice President Kamala Harris . It’s poised to be a significant moment as she takes on former President Donald Trump in a matchup that features the same cultural and ideological fissures Obama warned against two decades ago.

“President Obama is still a north star in the party,” said Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, who credits the 44th president with helping her become her state’s first Black woman lieutenant governor.

Besides Harris herself on Thursday, Stratton said, no voice this week is more integral to stirring Democrats, reaching independents and cajoling moderate Republicans than the former president.

“He knows how to get across the finish line,” she said.

Former first lady Michelle Obama, who is popular enough in her own right that some Democrats floated her as an alternative to Biden, will be speaking Tuesday night as well.

Laying the groundwork

Barack Obama’s two decades in public life have been defined by seminal speeches. His body of work features a range of tone and purpose — an array of choices as he seeks to strike the right balance for Harris as she tries to become the first woman, second Black person and first person of South Asian descent to reach the presidency.

In 2004, Obama used his invitation from Kerry and then-Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe to mix lofty themes with storytelling, humor and his biography as the son of a Black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas.

“Let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely,” Obama told delegates and a national television audience.

McAuliffe, however, remembered Obama as an obvious rising star. “I’d known him ... done events for him” as he ran for U.S. Senate, McAuliffe said in an interview. Still, no one could have foreseen Obama’s performance and the reaction — because he’d never been on such a stage.

“It was an electrifying moment,” McAuliffe recalled. “It obviously laid the groundwork for him to be successful, the nominee and candidate in 2008.”

In 16 minutes — shorter than a typical nomination acceptance, inaugural address or State of the Union — Obama told his origin story, framed the 2004 election and talked up Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards. Obama was short on policy, but his sweeping indictment of divisive politics struck a chord.

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Today’s news: Follow live updates from the campaign trail from the AP.
• We want to hear from you: Are you a nonwhite evangelical planning to vote for Harris? Tell us why you’re supporting her and if you’re campaigning for her.
• Ground Game: Sign up for AP’s weekly politics newsletter to get it in your inbox every Monday.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.

“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America; there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America,” he said in perhaps the most well-remembered passage. “Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?”

Two-and-a-half-years later, Obama reprised that theme when he launched his presidential campaign before thousands of supporters gathered outside the Illinois capital of Springfield. His campaign motto: Hope and Change.

Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Austin Davis, the first Black person to occupy his office in the commonwealth, recalled watching that winter scene as a high school student. “That was the moment that clicked with me,” Davis said and, later on, “helped me to believe that I could achieve these things that I’ve achieved.”

A different tone

If idealistic, even nebulous themes brought Obama to the White House door, it was bare-knuckled politics and ice-water realism that got him through it.

In March 2008, then-candidate Obama was being pilloried for his friendship with his Black pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who had a record of critiquing the nation’s history of white supremacy. At issue, in part, was a video clip of Wright declaring “God, Damn America” from the pulpit of Obama’s home church.

This time, soaring rhetoric wouldn’t do. Obama hand wrote a nearly 38-minute address explaining his relationship with Wright, with the context of U.S. history and race relations in the early 21st century.

“I can no more disown him than I can disown the Black community,” Obama said, while rejecting Wright’s “view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America.”

The speech, titled “A More Perfect Union,” was rife with nuance — a risk in presidential politics. But it worked.

Obama’s convention address that August certainly featured his characteristic promises of hope and change. The venue and crowd — 84,000 people in the Denver Broncos’ football stadium — affirmed his celebrity status. Another takeaway, though, was Obama’s blitz on Republican nominee John McCain. Having spent weeks resisting calls from Democrats to go after the Vietnam war hero, Obama hammered the Arizona senator as a rubber-stamp for the outgoing Bush administration, out-of-step with most Americans and weak on the world stage.

“You know, John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow (9/11 mastermind Osama) bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives,” Obama said at one point.

It would preview Obama’s most unsparing speech, his 2020 appearance at Democrats’ virtual convention. Speaking on behalf of Biden, his onetime vice president, Obama framed Trump as fundamentally unfit for office. It was the most scathing indictment of a sitting president by one of his predecessors in modern U.S. history.

“This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that’s what it takes to win,” Obama said, almost five months before Trump’s supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in an effort to prevent Biden’s certification as the 2020 election winner.

Weight of history

McAuliffe said Obama’s role Tuesday, in part, is to reinforce the message of multiple presidents: Biden spoke Monday and President Bill Clinton speaks Wednesday.

“They’re going to talk about what happens when you get a Democratic president,” McAuliffe said, especially on the economy. It’s Obama’s turn, McAuliffe said, to join Clinton as “explainer in chief” — a nod to Clinton’s 2012 convention speech when Obama was seeking reelection. The idea, McAuliffe said, is to set up Harris as the natural Democratic successor.

For her part, Stratton said she expects to see the man she has seen connect with voters individually and en masse. A volunteer on Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, she remembers the then-president visiting his campaign’s Hyde Park office in Chicago on Election Day.

“He was funny and down to earth” as he shook hands with volunteers and then began calling voters himself, she recalled.

Four years earlier, Stratton and her four daughters were among the throngs in Chicago’s Grant Park for Obama’s first presidential victory speech. “Strangers were hugging and crying,” she said. “We saw this Black family come out, knowing they were headed to the White House. It was a remarkable moment.”

On Tuesday, she said, there is space for Obama to bring heat on Trump, talk directly to American voters and honor the magnitude of Harris’ moment.

“He was a historic candidate and president. He knows what this is like,” Stratton said. “There will be this sweet moment of the first Black president passing the baton.”