在他的最后一本书《顾问：历史边缘的生活》（2008年）中，特德·索伦森提出了一个预测：

"I have little doubt that, when my time comes, my obituary in the New York Times ( misspelling my last name once again) will be captioned: 'Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy Speechwriter.'"

2010年11月1日，《泰晤士报》的拼写正确：“西奥多C。82岁的肯尼迪顾问索伦森去世了​一个顾问和约翰F。肯尼迪从1953年1月到1963年11月22日，“肯尼迪演讲稿撰写人”确实是他的决定性角色。

索伦森毕业于内布拉斯加大学法学院，他后来来到D.C.华盛顿，“难以置信的绿色”，正如他后来承认的。我没有立法经验，也没有政治经验。我从来没有写过演讲稿。我几乎没有离开内布拉斯加州。”

尽管如此，索伦森很快被要求帮助撰写肯尼迪参议员的普利策奖获奖书《勇气简介》（1955年）。他还参与撰写了上个世纪一些最令人难忘的总统演讲，包括肯尼迪的就职演说、“我的柏林人”演讲和美国大学关于和平的毕业典礼演讲。

尽管大多数历史学家都认为索伦森是这些雄辩而有影响力的演讲的主要作者，但索伦森本人认为肯尼迪是“真正的作者”。正如他对罗伯特·施莱辛格所说，“如果一个身居高位的人所说的话传达了他的原则、政策和思想，他愿意站在这些原则、政策和思想的背后，承担任何指责或因此而产生的荣誉，[演讲]就是他的”（白宫幽灵：总统及其演讲稿撰写人，2008年）。

在总统遇刺两年后出版的《肯尼迪》（Kennedy）一书中，索伦森阐述了“肯尼迪式演讲写作”的一些独特品质。你很难找到一份更合理的演讲技巧清单。

虽然我们自己的演讲可能没有总统的演讲那么重要，但肯尼迪的许多修辞策略都值得效仿，不管是在什么场合，也不管听众多大。因此，下次当你在教室前面对同事或同学讲话时，请记住这些原则。

肯尼迪的演讲写作风格

The Kennedy style of speech-writing--our style, I am not reluctant to say, for he never pretended that he had time to prepare first drafts for all his speeches--evolved gradually over the years. . . . We were not conscious of following the elaborate techniques later ascribed to these speeches by literary analysts. Neither of us had any special training in composition, linguistics or semantics. Our chief criterion was always audience comprehension and comfort, and this meant: (1) short speeches, short clauses and short words, wherever possible; (2) a series of points or propositions in numbered or logical sequence wherever appropriate; and (3) the construction of sentences, phrases and paragraphs in such a manner as to simplify, clarify and emphasize. The test of a text was not how it appeared to the eye, but how it sounded to the ear. His best paragraphs, when read aloud, often had a cadence not unlike blank verse--indeed at times key words would rhyme. He was fond of alliterative sentences, not solely for reasons of rhetoric but to reinforce the audience's recollection of his reasoning. Sentences began, however incorrect some may have regarded it, with "And" or "But" whenever that simplified and shortened the text. His frequent use of dashes was of doubtful grammatical standing--but it simplified the delivery and even the publication of a speech in a manner no comma, parenthesis or semicolon could match. Words were regarded as tools of precision, to be chosen and applied with a craftsman's care to whatever the situation required. He liked to be exact. But if the situation required a certain vagueness, he would deliberately choose a word of varying interpretations rather than bury his imprecision in ponderous prose. For he disliked verbosity and pomposity in his own remarks as much as he disliked them in others. He wanted both his message and his language to be plain and unpretentious, but never patronizing. He wanted his major policy statements to be positive, specific and definite, avoiding the use of "suggest," "perhaps" and "possible alternatives for consideration." At the same time, his emphasis on a course of reason--rejecting the extremes of either side--helped produce the parallel construction and use of contrasts with which he later became identified. He had a weakness for one unnecessary phrase: "The harsh facts of the matter are . . ."--but with few other exceptions his sentences were lean and crisp. . . . He used little or no slang, dialect, legalistic terms, contractions, clichés, elaborate metaphors or ornate figures of speech. He refused to be folksy or to include any phrase or image he considered corny, tasteless or trite. He rarely used words he considered hackneyed: "humble," "dynamic," "glorious." He used none of the customary word fillers (e.g., "And I say to you that is a legitimate question and here is my answer"). And he did not hesitate to depart from strict rules of English usage when he thought adherence to them (e.g., "Our agenda are long") would grate on the listener's ear. No speech was more than 20 to 30 minutes in duration. They were all too short and too crowded with facts to permit any excess of generalities and sentimentalities. His texts wasted no words and his delivery wasted no time. (Theodore C. Sorensen, Kennedy. Harper & Row, 1965. Reprinted in 2009 as Kennedy: The Classic Biography)

对于那些质疑修辞价值、将所有政治演讲视为“纯粹的语言”或“风格高于实质”的人，索伦森有一个答案。”肯尼迪在担任总统时的言辞是他成功的关键，”他在2008年接受采访时说。“他关于苏联在古巴的核导弹的‘只言片语’帮助解决了世界上有史以来最严重的危机，而美国不必开枪。”

类似地，在他去世前两个月出版的《纽约时报》专栏文章中，索伦森反驳了关于肯尼迪-尼克松辩论的几个“神话”，包括“风格胜于实质，肯尼迪在演讲和外表上获胜”的观点，“在我们日益商业化、健全化的文化中，政治辩论的内容和细微差别远比现在所说的要多，在这种文化中，极端主义言论要求总统对无耻的言论作出回应。”

要了解更多关于约翰·肯尼迪和特德·索伦森的修辞和演讲，请看瑟斯顿·克拉克的《不要问：约翰·肯尼迪的就职典礼》。《肯尼迪和改变美国的演讲》，由亨利·霍尔特于2004年出版，现已出版企鹅平装本。