[sailaway21]

CP,
I would strongly agree with your statement about the "believability" factor. I'm not concerned that the skill was learned through acting experience or wherever, it is desirable and most canidates do not have it. Other canidates, when asked the tough question, can be visibly seen to be parsing their words in a way so as to not offend anyone, and answer nothing. One starts to wonder on their reliability.

It's a little like listening to Bill Clinton, or a car salesman. You have to listen extremely carefully to their every sentence or they'll convey an impression without actually saying truthfull words you can take to the bank. When Fred says something, it's in plain English, and the statement conveys much more than just the words, much like Reagan. On the short list of things I really admire about Bush is that he says what he means and means what he says. Reagan had that, and while I may not have completely agreed with the ideas, I was left in doubt as to what they were.

I think that pols underestimate the public's ability to absorb bad news and try to use weasel words to get around the issues. You present the bad news right up front, along with the good news of how, with work, we're going to fix things. The last thing you want to do is present the solution as an easy decision to make. People are smarter than that, they know if it were easy it'd have already been done. Thompson has an innate ability to communicate where he thinks we should go and how we're going to get there. You half expect the audience to yell out, "let's start loading the wagon". Once American's understand an issue, knowing what's required, their natural inclination is to get busy, loading the wagon, as it were.