|
I think it was Walter Shapiro, who observed following the candidates in Iowa the difference between Kerry and Edwards. Of Edwards, he said, that he always got a huge engaging smile and exuded warmth while a camera was on him covering an event or in an interview. Then camera off, it faded and he essentially receded from the people. Kerry, he said actually was warmer, funnier and more engaged when the cameras were off - Edwards played to the cameras, Kerry was somewhat more guarded when they were on. Obama is really between them - less reserved than Kerry or Gore, but more reserved than Bill Clinton or John Edwards.
Candidates meet people in what is really a pretty artificial setting, usually having them trying to get across who you are in front of a large group of people - rather than in real life having people decide who you are as you go about doing what you are doing. The former favors extroverts over people who are more reserved; people willing to throw out simple solutions over those wanting to explain that things aren't that simple, but there are solutions; and it favors artificial over genuine.
As to charisma - if it is the way that someone entering any group immediately becomes a positive focus of attention - Kerry has it. Part of the problem might be that in 2003 the media narrative became that only Dean was anti-war and many who would have likely been Kerry's most natural supporters not only preferred Dean, but believed many negative things Dean said, especially in February, as his chances faded. I kind of wonder what it would have been like had he voted against the IWR giving nearly the same speech - but saying it was premature to essentially approve war and waited until 2008 - with most people seeing Dissent as his first major speech and maybe having "Going Upriver" put out a few years before running. (like McCain's POW movie) No way that either Obama or Edwards could even tried to be the anti-war candidate (I have no idea who the 2004 candidate would have been in that case - but Bush would have won. Obama was a star and could still have gotten the speech) Kerry would have been seen as charismatic, but a scared wounded party likely still would have gone to "the only people who can win, the Clintons. The network Kerry built in 2004 would not exist and he would not have been as strong pushing a victory in 2006 and it is unlikely the "2004" candidate would have done as Kerry did.
In 2004, as it really happened, even with this loss of people who should have liked and respected him, Kerry generated huge enthusiastic crowds - while the media called him boring and aloof. Remember Clinton benefited from a very sycophantic media - following the ever increasing crowds as if it were a wave. Kerry broke those records and people would never know that from the media. Given the actual response in those late October rallies, I really think that Kerry would have been seen as being as charismatic as Obama, who benefited from having been described as charismatic since before the convention speech. (Though without the substance that Obama has, it would not have gotten further than Edwards, who was clearly identified even in 2000 as the "new Bill Clinton" based mostly on glibness, hair and a smile.)
One bit of evidence that Kerry did connect on a deep level with many in 2004 is that there is a very weird way that he is now treated on the various boards - he is held to far higher standards - almost like people feel there is something that entitles them to demand that. Think of how many times an issue comes up and people asked - Why hasn't Kerry .... You still don't see that with Obama and HRC yet.
This has meandered far off topic - I do think that had Kerry become President and people would have seen far more of who he is and how he acts and thinks, his unusual eloquence - which rivals Obama's and outclasses Clinton and Edwards - people the media designated charismatic - would make him be seen as charismatic.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
