John Wilson begins his volume with a description of what the study of pragmatics involves and then provides a few illustrative examples. He goes on from here to briefly explain how both philosophers and linguists have approached pragmatics in the last century and again provides examples that help make these perspectives clear. He finishes the chapter with a short discussion on how approaches to pragmatics are currently split between those advocating a cognitive/linguistic understanding and those who favor a more cultural/social understanding. Wilson states that his work follows a middle path that draws from both schools of thought.

Each of the following chapters are dedicated to a president and the pragmatic choices seen in their speeches. The six presidents are John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Regan, William Jefferson Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and Barack H. Obama. Several pages in each chapter are spent providing historical background on the presidents and their times. Wilson also introduces the historical events from which the speeches he analyzes have come.

Chapter 2 opens with a focus on Kennedy's emphasis on pragmatically separating the concepts Kennedy as Catholic and Kennedy as presidential candidate. Drawing on Frege and others, Smith analyzes segments of Kennedy's speeches and illustrates how this was done. This generally sets the pattern for the rest of the book.

Chapter 3, on Nixon, addresses the language he used to defend his actions surrounding the Watergate scandal of 1972 and its aftermath. The focus is on the nature of lying and the many ways to pragmatically introduce ambiguity in order to avoid direct answers and/or to later claim misunderstanding.

Chapter 4 covers Reagan and his use of narrative and pragmatic markers to weave ‘political myths’ that served to present appealing justifications for his presidential actions and agendas. Reagan used pragmatic markers to control the narrative in an informal manner allowing him to make otherwise harsh sounding arguments appear appealing.

Clinton is addressed in the chapter 5, with the emphasis on pragmatic interpretation and his ability to introduce ambiguity without appearing to do so. The speeches come from his testimony in court proceedings concerning his relationships with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Through these proceedings, Wilson explains how Clinton was able to take advantage of semantic underdetermination to avoid being pinned down to accusations he wished to avoid. In this regard, Wilson compares Clinton to Nixon.

In chapter 6 on Bush, Wilson examines several grammatical errors made by Bush during his initial campaign for president and as president. Referring to them as ‘Bushisms’, Wilson explains that these mistakes challenge philosophic definitions of language. They do this because they can generally be understood, despite breaking from ‘correct’ grammatical speech. Chapter 7 addresses Barack Obama and his careful use of language designed to manipulate attitudes through provoking mental connections and emotions. It also discusses his debating strategy from a pragmatic point of view, paying close attention to his debates with Romney.