Kerry Style versus Substance. What do you think?

[JasonBerry]

Watching Senator Kerry today, who I like a lot, made me think about the loss of interest among some people strictly because of his speaking style. I hear it from a lot of people who aren't political junkies like most of us here at DU. Today, I really picked up on the complaint I hear that he talks "at" people rather than "to" people. It does seem he is always in speech-mode that makes a meant-to-be casual response from a questioner sound like a formal policy address from the podium at Georgetown.

Like I said, I like Kerry. I think he would be a great nominee of substance. But, I really do worry about the style of Kerry always making pronouncements when talking, or as someone put it, "He is always pontificating." When he's at the podium making a formal address it is awesome, but when answering questions at a "town hall" it sounds...well, I'm not sure how to explain it, but I sense a lot of people pick up on it.

I like Senator Edwards as well and notice that he gives a very good formal address when that's what is called for, but then can be extremely engaging in a casual way that seems much more down to earth. As much as I hate the guy, Bush's style, as convoluted as it is, comes closer to Edwards style.

As someone who is gung-ho on either one of these guys - how many worry about the Kerry speaking style? Ability to communicate one-on-one I think is crucial.

Worried, that's all. What do YOU think?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I'm the wrong person to ask

because I DON'T want a person just like me in the highest office in the land. I DON'T want a folksy fella in the White House.

That said, I think these points are valid coaching points which if he can take into account without turning into a total acting job are valuable.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Actually the CW seems to be just the opposite.

When Kerry went all out on the town halls in Iowa, staying late to talk to every voter, is when his campaign took off. Yesterday there was a thread from a new Kerry supporter saying he SHOULDN'T spend as much time behind the podium becaus he does better one on one - and has better body language when he is moving around with a mike in his hand.

FWIW, I am a long time supporter and I see it both ways. I've seen him great at the podium and charismatic one on one, lackluster on the dias and distracted in a small group. He certainly doesn't seem to be as consistently 'on' as Edwards, for instance, but the substance is always there...

[JasonBerry]

5. I have noticed

Watching cspan when the camera just rolls at an event, I have noticed what you called the "distraction" of Kerry in small groups. I see him looking over the shoulder of someone who he is talking to as if he is spotting the next person to talk to and just pretending to listen. WHICH, I am sure is what it is - these guys do it all day every day. The thing that gets me is how blatant it is and smacks, at times - not always, of an elitist type attitude. At other times, he doesn't seem to do this. Maybe it IS a matter of just not being "on" as often. Good points anyway. I understand it's the message that counts, I just worry because so many just judge on the likability factor and that style, I'm just guessing, wouldn't wear just real well over a long general election campaign.

[tobius]

7. good observations. I think you nailed it on the elitist attitude.

I watch cspan to see all the campaigning possible, like the good junkie that I am.
Usually it is to see how well the candidates come across ,connect with people , present image..etc.. whatever you want to call it. When you generally know where the candidates stand and/or can look it up quickly, The "x" factor is something that is critical to that other term; "electability".

Watching Kerry can be disconcerting, because you know he has a solid grip on the issues, but he presents himself normally one of two ways. Either he is "pontificating" ie; is so cautious that he is speaking in vague sounding language so that he will not trip or trap himself by contradictions past or future. Or he seems to be repeating a "Rah-rah" type speech that doesn't really say anything for the 100th time (even if it's the 1st). In both cases he appears to be somewhere else.

Anyway, elitist is what it looks like.

[oasis]

3. Edwards is the best speaker. Kerry and Bush both pontificate, so

Kerry wouldn't necessarily be bested by Chimpy in the inspiring speech department.

[MrSlayer]

4. I think he needs to work on his delivery.

Because even when he's intense or making a strong point he has a droning voice and little inflection. I think he needs to try to flow a little better and not be so stiff. This could be fixed pretty easily.

[Oreegone]

6. Stiffer than Gore

Stiffer than Gore and a worse speaker.....though his hair has improved.

[AnnitaR]

8. LOL!

Yep the hair AND the eyebrows are much improved!