A project - please give a one word adjective

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

A one word adjective for descibing the voice of each candidate.

Biden -
Clinton -
Dodd -
Edwards -
Gravel -
Kucinich -
Obama -
Richardson -

Can't do it? Why not?

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

1. Okay, if you can't do it for all the candidates, how about just one?

Besides Clinton.

[slackmaster]

2. No problem

Biden - Elite
Clinton - Firm
Dodd - Avuncular
Edwards - Folksy
Gravel - Gruff
Kucinich - Erudite
Obama - Melifluous (I really think he as a beautiful voice, and would like to hear him sing)
Richardson - Halting

[Happyhippychick]

3. I'm sure I'll piss off a few people but I'll try

These are what came to mind. Some are political, some are personal.

Biden - experienced
Clinton - political
Dodd - dunno much (not him, I don't know much about him!)
Edwards - adorable and angry
Gravel - who?
Kucinich - angry and not adorable
Obama - classy
Richardson - non-charismatic

[nashville_brook]

8. blahaha! love your JE and DK comparison!

[SpiralHawk]

4. Non-distinctive

[TwilightZone]

5. What's the over/under on how many posts before...

"shrill" shows up?

[sandrakae]

6. I'll give it a shot.

Biden - Statesman
Clinton - Leader
Dodd - Strong
Edwards - whiner
Gravel -
Kucinich - Fedup (it was hard to decribe in one word. He is no nonsense and fedup with he way things are being run now.)
Obama -Crybaby
Richardson -

[nashville_brook]

7. here you go

Biden - confident
Clinton - professionally tailored
Dodd - husky
Edwards - reassuring
Gravel - loud
Kucinich - weary
Obama - smooth
Richardson - desperate

[Snotcicles]

9. Here goes.

Biden- salesman
Clinton- conformist
Dodd- safe
Edwards- righteous
Gravel- self-destructive
Kucinich- rigid
Obama- suave
Richardson- tag-along

Hey, you asked.

[RainDog]

10. here ya go

Biden - moderate
Clinton - corporate
Dodd - uncertain
Edwards - idealist
Gravel - fuuny
Kucinich - crusading
Obama - hopeful
Richardson - level-headed

[TwilightZone]

11. To counter the snark...

Biden - intelligent
Clinton - strong
Dodd - experienced
Edwards - persistent
Gravel - interesting
Kucinich - progressive
Obama - inspiring
Richardson - unconventional

TwilightZone - undecided

[RainDog]

14. If someone asks for your pov

and you answer honestly, how is that snark? I always thought snark was sarcasm, unless it was a nonsense poem about hunting it. something isn't snark just because you don't like it.

[maddiejoan]

12. Here's my list

Biden - jocular
Clinton - commanding
Dodd - flustering
Edwards - polished
Gravel - angry
Kucinich - truthful
Obama - condescending
Richardson - thoughtful

[uppityperson]

13. Here's my list...

sorry, haven't heard them. I don't watch tv or listen to much radio, instead read news, read voting records, etc. Couldn't pick out voices, or most pictures, if I had to.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

15. OK -- you first. If not, then why? n/t

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

16. Here's why

Because we don't or least should not talk about the sound of the speaking voice of a candidate. It should not matter. It is the words that are coming out of their mouths that are important to listen to, not the sound of their voice.

It's ridiculous. Using "shrill" to describe a candidate's voice, and "cackle" to describe their laugh is just as awful as using Dean's scream as an excuse for not voting for someone. It's absurd, it's malicious, and it has ZERO to do with whether or not the candidate would make a good president.

One poster said that "shrill" is the only way he and his friends can think of to describe Hillary's voice. Why does he feel the need to describe her voice? How does he describe the voice of the other candidates.

I'm particularly shocked that this attitude is coming out of DU.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

17. Thank you for

being honest in explaining this methodology to illustrate your point. Not sure that I agree with a tactic that has a "gotcha" theme behind it, but I will admit that the sexist overtones towards Hillary have no place here.