Re: "Obama and Huckabee and Edwards are easily the best public speakers in this race. They won last night in part because of their ability to connect with people in large settings."
Yes, I agree that's a good point... but I feel it goes beyond mere rhetorical skill.
(For example, although each's rhetorical abilities may be displayed better in one setting over another - such as displayed better in small groups, or long-form discussions, or sound-bite style, etc. - I believe something else is going on.)
Hilary was generally perceived to have 'done well' in certain of the debates (her speaking style coming off relatively well in some of the debate encounters, detailed answers, posed...), and sometimes (more especially early on) Obama was criticized as 'having a long-form, discussion oriented speaking style' that did not display as well in the 15 second and under 'debate' formats that were put on... yet he (& Huckabee, another example, with equally noted shortcomings or speaking gaffs) fairly steadily gained ground.
Dodd and Biden also generally comported themselves well in the debates (as so too did Romney) yet did not ramp-up in support.
IMO, the public was looking for something different then mere rhetorical flashes... I believe they were looking for things like a sense of a personal core... self-effacement and humor... intelligence... a style that seemed less about regurgitating opinion group-tested 'answers', and more about actually listening and trying to reply to voter's questions in a more thoughtful style.
In short: Something THERE there. A personal CORE, not a 'slick suit' pandering on both sides of all issues. |
