Just lost another post because it took me too long to write it and by the time I posted my login had expired and I lost it. So, now I'm going to try composing in a text file and then copy to post.
The point I wanted to make was that it seems to me that the ?scream? made such an impression was because it was HEARD. Now that may seem obvious, but when you consider that while we tend to pay more attention to the information we get through our eyes, it's actually our ears that are providing input to our brains on a continuous basis (day and night, asleep or awake, attentive or daydreaming), you'll begin to realize that our sense of hearing is much more effective at monitoring our environment and letting us know when there's a significant change (often a sign of danger).
So, if Dean is to be juxtapposed with Kerry, it's probably just as important to contrast delivery as it is to compare the words. People know that Dean means what he says because of HOW he says it, even if they don't understand the words.
(Bush, by the way, regardless of how non-sensical his words are, has a delivery that is convincing and, even if totally annoying, increasingly not to be mistaken. People know who's speaking without having to look).
I agree with those who have complained about the Dean ads, especially the bio with the voiceover. I have heard it and can't remember a word. The only reason I know it's a Dean ad is because the 'mushy' sound caused me to look (like dead air gets your attention on the radio) and I saw Dean in that ridiculous car coat (?).
What the campaign has to be careful of now is that the candidate doesn't become too muted in response to the criticism about being shrill. Although TV is defined as a visual medium, the fact is that the most successful personalities are people with disctinctive voices that are recognized immediately--Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite, Marilyn Monroe, John Wayne, John Madden, Katherine Hepburn, and, of course, Ronald Reagan.
It may be that some of the media animus towards Dean is a visceral response to the perception of a competitor in their own arena. It may be that they recognize that Dean has no need of their service. He does not need to be translated by the experts of the airwaves. When people hear him speak, as he does on the September DVD, for example, they remember. If the media people feel dissed, it isn't so much because he doesn't pander, but because they realize they are not needed. Reagan didn't need them either, but he got a pass because he was perceived as one of them, having been an actor.
Perhaps Dean could benefit from some voice lessons. While it is hard to see ourselves as others see us; it's impossible to hear ourselves as others hear us, unless we are specifically trained. In any event, it probably wouldn't hurt to have some training in how to use and protect his vocal chords. You don't want him becoming speechless at inopportune moments. At this point, Dean's delivery is a talent and talents have to be nurtured if they are to mature into art. Making people see and hear things they would otherwise not notice is an art.
Kerry has a well-honed delivery that tends to put people to sleep. His people need to shorten his sentences and have succeeded. So, the trick will be in any kind of debate to get him to run on and on--at least long enough for the vapidity of his message to be matched by the delivery.
Edwards thinks that his drawl will be a distinctive advantage. It obviously helped in the court room, but a campaign is a different venue. And, as Sharpton has demonstrated, a good voice by itself isn't enough either.