I've been saying it for months, and now the Washington Post agrees with me! My contention has been that, politics aside, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan are practically the same guy when it comes to their ability to communicate effectively with the American public.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022802559.html?referrer=emailarticlepg
Question to ponder:
Do you agree with the premise of the article that a President's ability to persuade the American public through his or her speeches and other communications can make or break that person as President? Why or why not?
13 comments:
I strongly agree with the point that a presidents able to persuade people through speech is extremely important. It will put the people behind the president, and possibly give the people of the United States that since of American Pride again. I also think that Barack Obama is more of a JFK or FDR than a Ronald Reagan...I am just saying!
I agree that the President needs to be able to communicate with the public. I think the reason that alot of people think that Bush failed is tha he didn't really communicate well with the people of the US.
I agree. The president should have the ablity to persuade the American public through speech. People are not going to vote for a president unless they are persuaded and who better can do so than the canidate himself(or in this case herself). If the majority public wants abortions to be illegal, that canidate should be able to persuade the people to think that he will make abortions illegal or try to.
OK, we all agree that the President should be a persuasive speaker. But do you guys think that ability should be balanced with substance? Is Hillary Clinton correct that Barack Obama is all talk and no substance? If you think he's substantive, on what issues?
Yes the way that the President should be a persuasive speaker, but Hitler was one to or else how would he be able to get so many people to follow him for so long? But I think persuasive or not if they had a good background and they qualify for the presidency then ok. But I for one would like a president who has good, decent morals.
Bonjour, Mrs. Stotler! I think that being a persuadive speaker and showing passion for what you are doing really helps a candite in the presindency. If someone just stands aside and not speak out for what they believe, not try to get the public's eye in any way, then it shows that they do not care enough about their people. A candiate has to be remembered somehow in the eyes of the public, or else they will be forgotten about.
~H. Baker
Yikes, Hitler is a GREAT example of an extremely charismatic and persuasive speaker, Brittany. So maybe he is a warning to us to demand substance from our politicians instead of just empty rhetoric. How can Americans make sure we're choosing a president who is both substantive and an inspiring leader?
From Anthony Bellissimo
First of all, isn’t it interesting that Hillary is pushing results over rhetoric? The resume’ of George Bush #1 was the most impressive a president or presidential candidate has ever had. In the 1992 election when Bush #1 ran against her husband Bill Clinton, Bush even had 4 years experience in the job he was applying for (president). I would say it was the rhetoric and charisma of Bill Clinton that beat the more experienced Bush #1. Experience didn’t matter then Hillary, why does it matter now? (OK there may have been some policy differences in that election but let’s keep it to experience vs. rhetoric for now)
The best recent example would be Ronald Reagan, the “Great Communicator”. I think that along with skills in communication you must be able to lead. Clinton looked at the polls and if they didn’t agree with him he changed his policies. Reagan looked at the polls and if people didn’t agree with him, he tried to educate them and make the people believe what he believed. The article says: “Most of the presidents who have changed the nation's course have been charismatic figures who persuaded Americans to share their larger vision.” I agree. The persuasion has to be based on a logical presentation of facts like Reagan did. Change based on mindless robots following without questioning is an Obamanation.
I think that if the president wasn't able to persuade people no one would listen to him or her, causing the president's importance to go out the door. So, there really wouldn't be a need public speaking.
By: Derek Perry
Pd. 5
I really don't think it's a make or break element. A president can talk and talk about all the stuff they're going to do, but until that stuff is done and the country is prospering again, their words mean nothing. Don't get me wrong though, a president's ability to speak eloquently is definitely a plus, there just needs to be substance behind it. And yes, Hillary is completely right ... no bias at all :)
Dear Denny,
Hillary is completely left.
-Anthony
In my opinion, a President's ability to persuade the American public through his or her speeches and other communications is one of the most important aspects of being a President. The President's ability to share his or her stand on issues is a must. The President's role as chief communicator displays leadership and motivates the American people.
-Katie Close
I agree, if the President can't clearly tell us what they really think, how will we know their position on certain issues until they actually carry out some action that is based on thier beliefs? And will that action make us regret putting that person in office without getting a clear overview of their thoughts?
- Katarina
Post a Comment