 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Covering the Reporters | Main | Tennessee Surplus Will Be Spent » January 16, 2004OuchA well-educated southern urban liberal journalist explains why he's growing to hate Howard Dean. Todd Anderson at Popshot.net is right - this piece by the editor of Nashville's alt-weekly "really shreds the Dr in a way that no conservative paper could." Don't miss it. His ability to deliver a speech is the worst of any presidential candidate in my lifetime. There is no beginning, middle or end to a Howard Dean speech. There are simply words, uttered without passion or soul, which appear as if out of thin air. There is no rhythm, style or cadence to his phrasing. Most critically, there is no story. There is no anecdote. There is no human example, as if people are merely statistical elements and not living, breathing souls. When Dean is at the podium, he might as well be phoning in a prescription.Ouch. Read the whole thing. Posted in Campaign Season
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
Ok, so he doesn't like Dean on an emotional level. What about Dean's proposed policies? His foreign and domestic platforms? This article is rather similar to the one written several months ago where someone described how he despised everything about Bush, including the way he walks and talks (sorry, don't remember the author or paper it appeared in :( ). Its an emotional appeal--from the heart and 'gut.' But you can hate someone and still respect them for the ideas they have. The article does a great job of highlighting a possible anti-Dean backlash that is forming right now among Southern Democrats. However, it fails to engage Dean on serious issues and instead settles for a "something about the way this guy looks isn't right" message. Too shallow, when what we really need is a deep exploration of Dean's viability as a presidential candidate. Posted by: Bolo at January 17, 2004 12:13 AMWow. Just... wow. It's true -- no conservative could make that criticism and be taken seriously. Posted by: Russ at January 17, 2004 10:00 AMOn the matter of ability to speak extemporaneously, with passion, organization, and with coherency (not to mention subject-verb agreement), it has now been amply demonstrated that it is not a crucial job requirement. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 17, 2004 01:24 PMI think the bigger point is that Dean disturbs some people at a level that not only makes them distrust him but make it pretty much impossible to look at his stand on issues. Also, if you distrust someone in that way, you're unlikely to believe what they claim is their stand, anyway. Dean is very hard for some people (especially with Southern-type backgrounds) to stomach. Posted by: JorgXMcKie at January 17, 2004 03:15 PMTranslation: Howard Dean has the personality of rotten liver. Folks, a man's personality has a lot to do with how his policies are received. A slug will have a harder time getting legislation through than a good-ole boy. Posted by: Alan Kellogg at January 18, 2004 03:54 AMThis paper is part of the Village Voice family of ultra-left weeklies (ours in L.A. is another.) That makes the criticism especially damning. Imagine that--a liberal publication allowing that kind of criticism. And personal criticism at that. Oh well, these guys will allow just about anybody to speak his opinion. It will really get my attention when I see a similar piece on Mr. Bush published in the Weekly Standard and highlighted by Mr. Kristol on Fox. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 19, 2004 11:02 AMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
