Should the nominee talk like a politician?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

I read a lot on DU criticizing the candidates for not calling Bush a liar, for not highlighting PNAC, for not saying Bush was AWOL, for not saying all sorts of things that may be true, but also won't play in Peoria.

So, my question, should the nominee talk like a politician, be careful with his words, and not say anything that might alienate swing voters,

or should he just speak his mind, say what he believes, and not worry about the political consequences?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. So far, the people voting in the poll don't seem to care about winning.

[janx]

2. Winning? I consider winning to be when democracy works.

People need to know the truth, and if you think that people in Peoria or anywhere else can't handle the truth, then you must not have very much respect for your fellow Americans.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

3. Independents like the truth...

Believe it or not, independents have more respect for politicians who speak the truth as they see it, than they do for people who are quite obviously just saying things to get elected.

The old adage about Ronald Reagan comes to mind - "I don't always agree with him, but at least you know where he stands."

Democrats this year seem determined to try and fake out the electorate, choosing a candidate who repeats comfortable fictions about the budget.
I understand this attitude, but am extremely concerned about it Voters aren't always up on the real facts and figures, but they can spot a phony a mile away. Especially if it is broadcast on the partisan mass media 24/7.

- C.D.

[rucky]

7. Think about all the people who don't vote & why

[sangh0]

4. I don't understand the question

I thought all people spoke the same way; With their mouths

[rucky]

9. which side of their mouth?

that's the question

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. a nominee should speak like a leader

Not like some guy who is just pissed off.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Well put.

I was trying to word it in a more neutral manner, but yes, to be a leader, you have to speak the truth, but you have to do so in a way that wins people to your side, and doesn't alienate them.

Still, so far, I am surprised at the results here, but I guess I shouldn't have been after everything I've read at DU. Most folks here are more concerned with the candidates saying what they want to hear than saying what is needed to beat Bush.



Just because Bush is a liar, doesn't mean it is smart for our nominee to say so. Instead, the campaign should make that fact obvious for everyone in the country so the nominee doesn't have to say it.

[sangh0]

10. Hey Magic Rat

What you got against cabbies? :-)

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. absolutely nothing

Cabbies provide a great service to our large and medium-sized cities. I urge all cabbies to support John Kerry. :)

[jsw_81]

8. You can do both

Say what you believe, but don't say anything really stupid or foolish. Dean chose to be "cool" and "spoke out" to the fringe of our party, and his campaign subsequently went down the tubes.

Remember, this election is for the presidency of the United States, not Berkeley City Council. If we only appeal to the fringe (our version of the freeper), we'll alienate the broad middle and lose in a landslide.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. I think

you agree with me, but I guess the poll question could be worded better.

I'm not saying the nominee shouldn't say what he believes. For example, look at the debate last night. Dean was challenged to call Bush a liar, to state that he intentionally misled. But Dean answered the question the right way -- like a politician. He was extremely precise. He did not say anything that could not be completely, 100% verified. He may believe Bush lied, and his answer did not contradict that viewpoint, but he did not just 'speak out' with that viewpoint.

[NV1962]

11. Speak out

People don't buy the status quo, they're looking for change. The candidate needs to walk that walk, but also be able to talk the talk, loud and clear.

Too much of the same gets you, well, the guy who's already there in the WH.

[mikehiggins]

12. He shouldn't speak rashly BUT mamby-pamby insider

beltway double talk and gobbledegook will kill the campaign.

The first time you hear Edwards stump speech its moving and inspiring. The third or fourth time you hear it, it's a little disturbing. It's the same speech, with the same gestures and the same pauses and the same pace. The only difference is in the setting it is given in.

Dean keeps to his message but you never know what's coming next. He speaks clearly and sometimes he may misspeak, but he is always fresh and interesting.

Clark talks like a leader, rather than a politician. He even makes jokes about kissing babies (but he does kiss them) and stuff like that but Thursday night there was no doubt who he was or what he was about. Pretty good for a newcomer to the media's "prime time"

Kerry sounds good at times but to some, including me, there are little signs of his Senate-speech trying to break out, fighting the stern command of Ms. Cahill to NOT bore the voters. Once he has the nomination I'm certain we'll see the old Kerry; not the firebrand of VVAW days but the staid, sedate, aristocratic, Senator from Massachusetts who weighs every word he says, and does his best to ever avoid making a statement he can't back away from in a hurry if he has to.

He is who he is, and he will be a very hard candidate to sell to the American public, not least of all because he is so very, very certain that his way is the right way. And it shows.

Wait until he wins the nomination (if he does) and you'll see what I mean in a hurry. By then, of course, it will be far too late.