In the case of the 21st-century political speech-writer, the question remains as to the level of influence that they really exert through their works. It is also interesting to examine the relationship between modern speechwriter and their political benefactor. Many famous speechwriters such as Michael Waldman, who wrote for former US President Bill Clinton, acknowledge that a successful and effective speechwriter needs to know the actual user of their speech in great detail. Political speechwriters have been found to spend considerable times in getting to know the person, their tastes, likes and dislikes, and most importantly their individual styles of delivery and communication. Despite this intimate knowledge of their speech-maker, writers such as Michael Gerson (who wrote for President George W. Bush) have exclaimed that they were never able to develop a formal relationship let alone become close associates despite the long hours spent together on a constant basis (Moreno, 1997). Criticism of modern speechwriting is often centred on the argument that the speeches cannot reflect a speaker’s inherent and distinctive personality if it has been prepared and written by someone else. While this may sound true and justified from an initial perspective, there exists a different side to the range of efforts and the amount of groundwork that speechwriters have to undertake in order to prepare effective and personalized speeches. The process comprises extensive efforts on the part of the speechwriter in establishing a thorough overview of the speaker’s personality. However, this is not a relatively good technique as it distorts and dilutes the writer’s own character and flavour in preparing some good content (Friedenberg, 1997).