Certainly with Willie Logan we re doing it. With Nader, I don t know. It s premature to speculate. Voters aren't really interested in what candidates have to say about the issues until they've come to grips with who the candidate is as a person. Because it doesn't matter what you say on Social Security or on education, or on health care or on anything else if people don't trust that you're going to follow through with it.
Most politicians go into races with pretty big credibility gaps.
In Ventura's case we had the unique opportunity to start with somebody who didn't have a credibility gap, as opposed to most politicians who had been politicians all their lives or had been in office before. Sometimes the first thing you have to do with those candidates is get them up to zero on the truth meter and sort of build up from there. Yeah, I think so. With Nader the legitimacy gap has nothing to do with Nader as a person, or whether voters will trust what he has to say. I think voters will find him to be extremely credible, but I think the type of campaign he ran in 1996 is the question mark there, from a legitimacy standpoint.