Oh Say, Can You Hear?
Since the Nixon Kennedy debate, which Nixon won by radio, it's clear that the sight of someone is a vital ingredient in their appeal, together with their philosophy, of course; but what about what we hear? What about their voice? Do we really envision a four-year or eight-year stretch of listening to Sarah Palin, with her love of media appearances, shrieking her inanities in our ears with that cat-scratch delivery? Everything said in those tones sounds stupid. In fact, had she resorted to a voice coach, she might have been taken more seriously.
Do we really mean to deny that Obama's sonorous, soothing tones rolling laugh and baritone roar, when he's 'preachin' , as opposed to McCain's whiny-tiny approach, is not only preferable, but totally appealing, whatever he's talking about? If you measure the points in the Florida straw poll, you may find that surprisingly, Herman Cain, the guy with the deepest voice, won, not the richest, handsomest, best known, sexiest, or the most experienced candidate.
Who cares who wins, in fact? They never listen to us anyway! The point in electing a president is choosing who's better at delivering bad news. Who is more palatable? The news isn't going to change, no matter who's pretending to be in charge. The forces at work in major social changes are as beyond a single man to cure as the sailor's power to stop the waves that swell beneath his boat.
Their job is to coat the crusty gravel of change with the sweet jelly of their charm. They must make us like what we must endure. They should be adorable and amuse us, no matter what else they do. And their voices should be lovely.
