I find Hillary's voice grating. Does it matter?

[cali]

I also have a hard time listening to Wes Clark for the same reason, and, to a lesser degree, find John Kerry's voice unattractive. I love listening to Obama. John Edward's drawl is pleasing.

Is it important? I think it is. I recognize that not everyone finds the same thing unpleasant to the ear, but I do think that speaking ability and the actual sound of the voice of the speaker and his or her speech patterns and cadences, can't be easily separated.

So what do you think? Does a candidate with pleasing speaking voice have and advantage? Conversely, can a speaking voice that's perceived as unpleasant be handicapped by it?

[Captain Hilts]

1. It's classic Ilinois. Carter, Bush I, Bush II couldn't speak worth a damn...

so, perhaps it doesn't matter.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. In the mass-media age, sadly it DOES matter...

One's voice and visage are (unfairly, I might add) factors in the judgements made by the voters nowadays. The funny thing is that two great Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S Truman, had AWFUL voices.

[Oleladylib]

3. Nope

[hiaasenrocks]

4. Hillary does tend to shriek quite a bit. That's one reason I don't

listen to her that much.

[Broadslidin]

5. w's Cultivated Southern Drawl Sure Worked In Seducing The Arrogant &..

Stupid.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. There are at least two Hillaries:

1. Conversationally ( 1 on 1) she's not bad.
2. Public speaking ( esp. from prepared text) she is *lethally* bad. Too many eee-low-q-shun lessons; end result: 'death warmed over'.

Her handlers will minimize the latter effect by plopping her in venues (Today Show, Charlie Rose, Larry King, etc.) where she won't sound so stiff.


>>>So what do you think? Does a candidate with pleasing speaking voice have and advantage? Conversely, can a speaking voice that's perceived as unpleasant be handicapped by it?>>>>

It would appear so. Reagan and Clinton are the two most politically successful modern presidents. Each had a huge auditory advantage. Reagan had professional training and Clinton was a natural.

[cali]

13. Thanks for the thoughtful

response. Your observations about Hillary are really quite interesting.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

7. Yes, it matters!

Not everyone is going to vote based on qualifications. I also find Hillary's voice grating. She has a shrill tone IMO and seems to "speak down" to the audience, even though I think she is trying hard not to do that. The way she holds her head with chin up makes her appear unapproachable, too.

Barrack Obama has an extremely attractive speaking style and tone. He manages to sound intelligent and approachable at the same time. I saw him in person at a rally here and he had the audience mesmerized.

I also agree with you on John Edward's voice and manner of speaking.

[rock]

8. no

[Hailtothechimp]

9. KO said it best

He said that her voice makes him feel like he got caught chewing gum in class.

Imagine what the people who are hard-core against her must feel....

[jgraz]

10. I find Hillary's politics grating.

I think that's why I have a hard time listening to her.

[hlthe2b]

11. I have NEVER been able to listen to Bush*

but then again, I would NEVER have voted for him. The tone and tenor of voice will fade into the background as we become relieved that a competent person is in the WH and speaking SENSE--whoever that might be.

[alteredstate]

12. Yes

It matters. Sad, but true.

[Ignacio Upton]

14. Hillary is not Bill

She doesn't have charisma, I'm afraid.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Well, Just Look At Ronnie Reagan

Reagan was a dimwit living in a fantasy world - but, through looking and sounding the part, and the extreme stupidity of the electorate, he was able to become a two-term President. To this day, there are legions of Righties that believe an entire tableaux of revisionist history - that Reagan was fiscally responsible, that he stopped hordes of "welfare queens", that he single-handedly ended the Cold War, and so forth. All because he he looked and sounded the part.

Sadly, Americans are no smarter today than they were in the 1980's, and look and sound still prevail over accomplishment.

I think that Mrs. Clinton will get her ass kicked in the early debates - her e-lo-cu-shun voice added to her Illinois/Arkansas/NewYork accent will, as people have written, make her sound like a stern nun. However, she's as smart as she is evil, and she'll improve after a few outings - her voice will shift to its conversational mode, and she'll do a fine job of defending the Iraq War and her other glorious contributions to society. (I only hope that there's someone in the debates that can shred her the way her husband shredded Paul Tsongas - of course, unlike in the case of Tsongas, sticking to the truth about Mrs. Clinton will be quite sufficient.)

[OregonBlue]

16. I think it does matter. I cringe when she speaks even though I often

like what she is saying. On the other hand, I love listening to Edwards, even though he has that southern drawl. Bill Clinton said of Edwards, that he was the guy who could talk an owl out of a tree and I think that matters.

Remember after the impeachment when Clinton came back with his powerful State of the Union Address? He was so charming, so reassuring, so calming that you just thought it was going to be OK after all. Didn't matter so much what he said, it was how he said it.

In the media driven world, it matters.

[wtmusic]

17. "Lincoln's voice was...shrill, squeaking, piping, unpleasant

his general look, his form, his pose, the color of his flesh, wrinkled and dry, his sensitiveness, and his momentary diffidence, everything seemed to be against him, but he soon recovered."

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/speaker.htm

Must we attach more message to the messenger than the message? I hope not. (IMO, it's Hillary's message which sounds shrill).

[cali]

19. Lincoln

lived in a different age. Sorry, we can't turn back the clock.

[wtmusic]

20. Imagine Hillary speaking the words of Lincoln

and they are her own--you don't think Americans would see beyond?

Beyond the aspects of volume and resonance of Hillary's voice, there is a persistent admission of wanting to be liked. That, more than anything else IMO, has no place in public service.

[TwilightZone]

18. It does matter because politics is a popularity contest. The real question is:

should it matter?

Should we base political decisions on voice tone? Appearance? How about qualifications?

[dbt]

21. It don't matter a damn.

Listen to bu$hler for 30 seconds. If you can stand it.

:freak:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[cali]

22. You meant to say

it doesn't matter to you. It clearly effects the perception of a candidate.

[dbt]

23. Yeah. It really held bu$h back.

[cali]

24. I hate to break this to you

but bush didn't win in 2000. He was installed. And frankly, in 2004 we had two candidates with annoying voices, and bushco was the incumbent. In addition, I'm not claiming it's determinative, but one of many factors.

[valerief]

25. You're right and HAVA installed Bush in 2004. nt

[Nite Owl]

26. I think it does make a difference

it's all about communication. No matter how good your ideas are if people won't/can't listen to you it will make no difference what you say. I find her the same way and Kerry too. I just turn off in the middle of a speech unless I really concentrate on listening. I like Kerry too. Obama just draws you in, he makes you smile. Not an indictment of the thoughts or character of any of the others just the way it is to me.