2001 poll. When did you think there would be a black president?

[AGDee]

I remember long discussions about Reagan being elected SOLELY because he was such a good speaker, so our experiences in that regard are quite different.

KSig: You're right, it is an opinion. I don't quite know how to express what I was trying to say. I guess, simply "In my opinion, he is a great orator and race has no bearing on that opinion". You see, I am not a great orator!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I remember long discussions about Reagan being elected SOLELY because he was such a good speaker, so our experiences in that regard are quite different.

See, the 'issue' (or rather, disconnect) is that, when we say "he's a great speaker/orator/lover/decider/whatever" we're not simply judging based upon some singular set of metrics.

Reagan was a very good speaker, and had great speechwriters - he was also photogenic and relatively attractive, and had a very 'attractive' (sexy?) background. He looked and sounded like a President. All of these things are contextual to the listener - you can't separate them from the speech, and they all come into play when determining whether he is a great orator. The parable of Nixon's first appearance on television, after repeated radio speeches, is a great example of how context operates. I guess the point is that anyone who claims Reagan was 'solely' elected on his speaking style is really saying something more complex than 'he's a great orator' because it is nigh-impossible for anyone to judge something that relies on charisma without their own biases becoming evident.

Along the same lines, you can't separate Obama's race from his speaking style - people are going to filter their opinions through the lens of his race (and his attractiveness, and his timbre, and his family, and...).

One example: watching Obama's speech on election night was moving for me personally, but that was mostly because of the context of it being historically important. Reading the speech on paper the next day, it didn't hold nearly the same power, and seeing sound bites later, they seemed stilted and unnecessarily 'preaching' in tone, although otherwise fine.

I'm kind of rambling, I realize, but I feel like it's important to be complete, and I think it explains something about the disconnect. It's important to realize that things like attractiveness, gender, race, etc. all matter when judging credibility, charisma and speaking quality. More specifically, expectations matter. If you expect Bush to say something sloppy or dumb, you'll look for that and won't excuse missteps.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

See, the 'issue' (or rather, disconnect) is that, when we say "he's a great speaker/orator/lover/decider/whatever" we're not simply judging based upon some singular set of metrics.

Reagan was a very good speaker, and had great speechwriters - he was also photogenic and relatively attractive, and had a very 'attractive' (sexy?) background. He looked and sounded like a President. All of these things are contextual to the listener - you can't separate them from the speech, and they all come into play when determining whether he is a great orator. The parable of Nixon's first appearance on television, after repeated radio speeches, is a great example of how context operates. I guess the point is that anyone who claims Reagan was 'solely' elected on his speaking style is really saying something more complex than 'he's a great orator' because it is nigh-impossible for anyone to judge something that relies on charisma without their own biases becoming evident.

Along the same lines, you can't separate Obama's race from his speaking style - people are going to filter their opinions through the lens of his race (and his attractiveness, and his timbre, and his family, and...).

One example: watching Obama's speech on election night was moving for me personally, but that was mostly because of the context of it being historically important. Reading the speech on paper the next day, it didn't hold nearly the same power, and seeing sound bites later, they seemed stilted and unnecessarily 'preaching' in tone, although otherwise fine.

I'm kind of rambling, I realize, but I feel like it's important to be complete, and I think it explains something about the disconnect. It's important to realize that things like attractiveness, gender, race, etc. all matter when judging credibility, charisma and speaking quality. More specifically, expectations matter. If you expect Bush to say something sloppy or dumb, you'll look for that and won't excuse missteps.

You aren't rambling.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

See, the 'issue' (or rather, disconnect) is that, when we say "he's a great speaker/orator/lover/decider/whatever" we're not simply judging based upon some singular set of metrics.

Reagan was a very good speaker, and had great speechwriters - he was also photogenic and relatively attractive, and had a very 'attractive' (sexy?) background. He looked and sounded like a President. All of these things are contextual to the listener - you can't separate them from the speech, and they all come into play when determining whether he is a great orator. The parable of Nixon's first appearance on television, after repeated radio speeches, is a great example of how context operates. I guess the point is that anyone who claims Reagan was 'solely' elected on his speaking style is really saying something more complex than 'he's a great orator' because it is nigh-impossible for anyone to judge something that relies on charisma without their own biases becoming evident.

Having lived through Reagan's speeches as a teenager, he was elected because he can "PLAY" the "presidential role" well... His acting skills worked well for him. He practiced modulations with his voice, his speechwriters were no different from before. With proper voice inflections, he relayed a quality message, from a poor speech, until he was toughly questioned on it. Which, that did not happen often. He would not be able to survive the current voirdire today's media puts on people...

President Reagan was a great communicator to the world...

His landslide victory over President Carter was due his great ability to rouse the crowds based on his ability to communicate the "meaningful messages".

ETA: President Obama's oratory skills will improve overtime, with practice. Especially with one of his words lingering on the minds of world powers. Regardless of his ethnicity, his oratory skills in my opinion, will relay that pensiveness that he attempts to use, rather than blurting out what first comes to mind...

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I remember long discussions about Reagan being elected SOLELY because he was such a good speaker, so our experiences in that regard are quite different.

Those discussions weren't held on a larger scale. His Conservative Republican agenda was the catch, the great orator stuff was icing on the cake.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I guess, simply "In my opinion, he is a great orator and race has no bearing on that opinion".

Maybe. Maybe not. It could be subconcious so that's neither here no there for the point being made.