Debate rules and regulations - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

stan the man · 09-22-2004, 11:06 AM

Well, well I finally came back. I have to admit I missed this forum.

Might as well get right down to it

I am so steamed that Bush and Kerry wont ask each other questions during the up coming debates.

I makes me wonder what other pansy ass rules those two have agreed to.

So I ask of you kind folk to point me in the right direction regarding the rules and regulations. I’ve been looking all over the place and I cant find them any where. So if you have any idea it would be a great help.

And if its really easy to find this info I will accept a few teasing words regarding my poor searching skills.

thaks in advance

stan

kutulu · 09-22-2004, 12:00 PM

I saw the rules on CNN last night. I don't remember them all but one was funny:
They aren't allowed to use any prop to make them appear taller than they are.

SecretMethod70 · 09-22-2004, 12:41 PM

They also each get to bring their own makeup artist. How anyone can see these so-called "debates" as anything but a farce is beyond me.

It's time to fight for <a href="http://www.citizensdebate.org/">REAL debates</a>

irateplatypus · 09-22-2004, 12:53 PM

politicians are so antsy about debates... and rightfully so. the perception of strength and the upperhand on the issues is something that can be won or lost in a night. a strong debater with a more tenuous hold on the issues can win with strong rhetorical abilities over a candidate who may be more expert but weaker in that area. there is so much at stake... and every slip up will be analyzed over and over by the media that it's tough for these candidates to commit to anything less structured.

i'd like to see a more open debate also. additionally, i'd like to see the libertarian and green party candidates take part. but, while the stakes are so high and the margin of error so low... it's unlikely to see that happen anytime soon.

ARTelevision · 09-22-2004, 12:58 PM

The very worst part is the way a 10-second image-and-sound bite ends up encapsulating the entire experience. For example, Gore sighing, Bush 41 looking at his watch, Nixon's 5-o'clock shadow, etc. etc.

Paq · 09-22-2004, 01:00 PM

lemme think...i watched the CNN special and i know someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but some of hte rules that stuck out in my mind:
1. no risers, kerry is 6" taller than bush and the kerry camp did not want bush wearing risers so he appears as tall or taller...dumb rule, but they cited the JFK/nixon televised debates as harmful to nixon bc he had a 5 oclock shadow while people who heard the debate on the radio thought nixon won the debate..

2. No panning to others in the debate while a candidate is responding

3. candidate A is asked a question and has 120 seconds to respond, candidate B then has 90 seconds.

4. No banter between the two candidates (this one makes me sick)

5. NO, NO shots from behind the candidate, they were very clear on this one....(makes me wonder if they are scared of seeing rove or cheney's hand up bush...

) I jest bc i care...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...hts/index.html This highlights the rest that i couldn't remember....32 freaking pages....amazing, isn't it....

irateplatypus · 09-22-2004, 01:04 PM

EDIT: double post. sorry, i'm not quite sure how it happened. mods, please delete if think necessary.

ubertuber · 09-22-2004, 01:07 PM

There was an interesting article in the NY Times about this:

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 - The Commission on Presidential Debates told the Bush and Kerry campaigns Tuesday that it could not accede to their unusual request that it sign by Wednesday their 32-page agreement detailing parameters for the debates.

First of all, the commission said, it has to determine which candidates have enough support in the polls to qualify for the debates, which it does not plan to do until Friday. Regardless of the timing, the new requirement that the independent commission as well as the four journalists selected to moderate the debates sign onto the pact between the two candidates has made some people involved in the process uncomfortable.

The memorandum of understanding negotiated by the campaigns also includes an unusual level of prescriptions, particularly over the town-hall-style debate scheduled for Oct. 8, which some say undermines the idea of a voter-driven discussion. It states several times that audience participation, outside the forum questioners, is prohibited, and calls for visible timing lights, so viewers will know if someone is filibustering.

"The interesting thing here is the lengths they go to to restrict the questioning at the town hall," said Martin Plissner, a debate expert and former CBS News political director. "It makes the whole process look kind of ridiculous. It will have to be extremely mechanical."

The agreement includes four pages of provisions - up from one in 2000 - about the town-hall-style debate, including a requirement that the moderator, Charles Gibson, present to the campaigns by Oct. 1 a question-selection method. Mr. Gibson is to ensure that the audience members pose equal numbers of questions on foreign policy, domestic security and other domestic issues; alternate the candidates to whom their queries are directed; and not alter their pre-selected questions on the fly.

Instead of the "uncommitted" voters typically invited to such events, the auditorium is to be filled with those identified by the Gallup polling organization as leaning toward but not firmly committed to Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Gibson would have to call on the same number of people from each side.

"If any audience member poses a question or makes a statement that is in any material way different than the question that the audience member earlier submitted to the moderator for review, the moderator will cut off the questioner and advise the audience that such nonreviewed questions are not permitted," the agreement reads.

The men who negotiated the agreement, James A. Baker III for Mr. Bush and Vernon Jordan for Mr. Kerry, did not return telephone calls Tuesday. But several people involved in the debate discussions said most of these details were demanded by the Republicans.

"None of this really matters," said Christine Anderson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Kerry's debate-negotiation team. "What matters are the issues that are going to be discussed, the questions George Bush needs to answer, the plans we're going to lay for the future. The rest is all details."

One new detail that Democrats involved in the process say was the Bush team's idea is having the commission and the moderators sign the document. Before, just the two campaigns signed. "At this point in time, we're not sure we will sign the agreement," said Frank J. Fahrenkopf, who has been the Republican co-chairman of the commission since its inception in 1987. "We've never done it before. It really is an agreement between the two parties."

Several of the journalists scheduled to moderate the debate expressed uncertainty about signing, which the agreement says they must do seven days before their scheduled debate "in order to evidence his or her understanding and acceptance of, and agreement to, the provisions hereof," or else the campaigns will pick someone else.

"I don't think that news people like the idea of signing onto documents negotiated by politicians,'' said Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution with expertise in debates.

Mark Wallace, Mr. Bush's deputy campaign manager, said such signatures were necessary because of the more detailed guidelines set out for the forum and the other debates.

"If you're going to have those real rules, I think you have to have the buy in from the moderators," Mr. Wallace said. "If they're going to be moderators to a presidential debate, it makes sense that they uphold the rules."

On Friday, the commission will determine which candidates meet its threshold of 15 percent support in five polls to qualify for the debates. President Bush and Mr. Kerry would clearly qualify; left on the sidelines would be the independent candidate Ralph Nader, whose poll numbers have been under 5 percent. After that, the commission said in a news release, it "will be pleased to finalize with the invited candidates debate ground rules and other technical matters," but will be "guided by its goal of providing the American people with informative debates."

Among the topics likely to come up are the timing lights. In previous debates, only the candidates and the moderators could see the lights signaling they had run out of time, but the Bush campaign pushed to have the lights visible to the audience and accompanied with audible cues, perhaps because of Mr. Kerry's penchant for long answers.

"The candidates are going to end up looking like game show hosts," one debate expert said.

I also think that having everyone sign this 32-page document is absurd. How about you guys just have an old-fashioned debate? Does anyone know what the conditions placed on past debates were?

DelayedReaction · 09-22-2004, 06:23 PM

I don't know, but I don't like the direction this is heading. How long until they just have each candidate recieve a list of questions that they reply to in paper format?

In fact, that's practically what this is! If the candidates already know what the questions are ahead of time, how are we to expect anything in the way of an honest-to-god debate?

This isn't a debate, it's a theater production.

Mephisto2 · 09-22-2004, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Nixon's 5-o'clock shadow, etc. etc.

Wasn't it Nixon's cold-sweats that made him look so nervous and (some say) lost him the election?

I believe he had taken some 'flu medicine beforehand and this really messed him up?

Mr Mephisto

Paq · 09-22-2004, 07:28 PM

it may have been, but Cnn was citing the shadow as it brought out his 'darker' side. They were saying htat people who heard the debate on radio thought nixon performed better and those who saw on tv put JFK ahead...
image is about 90% for this type thing...as scary as that sounds...I think it's actually becoming more important since we aren't even getting "real" questions or an honest debate....

Fuck politics right now

ObieX · 09-24-2004, 01:58 AM

Nixon was also wearing a grey suit which blended him into the background more when on black and white television. JFK was in a dark suit and stood out against the background.

I'm waiting for them to institute a swimsuit competition.

ARTelevision · 09-24-2004, 02:31 AM

Yes, Nixon exhibited all of the qualities attributed to him here. It came down to who was the most "telegenic" candidate.

That's the sort of thing I'll be watching for this year. And it will be fascinating to see what particular sound-and-image bites are chosen as the significant moments of these debates.

Stompy · 09-24-2004, 07:10 AM

What the hell... why would anyone give a rat's ass if someone has a 5 O'Clock shadow, sighs, or looks at their watch?

What the hell is wrong with people?

SecretMethod70 · 09-24-2004, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

What the hell... why would anyone give a rat's ass if someone has a 5 O'Clock shadow, sighs, or looks at their watch?

What the hell is wrong with people?

Welcome to the Media Culture

ARTelevision · 09-26-2004, 11:19 AM

Here's a long story on the upcoming debates from time.com. I think it's a good preparation for Thursday night's "show."

.....

Inside The Debate Strategies
In a close race, Bush and Kerry know the little things can matter most. A guide for those scoring at home

Sunday, Sep. 26, 2004

When a race for President gets this close, no detail is too small to leave to chance. Which is how it happened that a man who once oversaw Middle East peacemaking found himself haggling last week with one of Washington's most storied power players over the matter of ... colored lights. The proposal: to allow the millions of Americans watching this Thursday's first presidential debate to see the warning signal whenever George Bush or John Kerry has exceeded his allotted time to answer a question. It was a transparent gambit by the President's representative, former Secretary of State James Baker, to raise the famously windy challenger's chances for embarrassment. "Undignified," sniffed a Kerry strategist. "It's like a game show."

But Kerry's negotiator, lawyer Vernon Jordan, gave in—just as he had to Baker's earlier demand that the lecterns be an unimposing 50 in. tall and that they be placed fully 10 ft. apart, making it less likely that the 5-ft. 11-in. Bush will look miniaturized in comparison with the 6-ft. 4-in. Kerry. After Jordan and Baker finally came to an agreement at New York City's Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, putting their heads together over a laptop to approve the official announcement, they headed for the bar.

That both men were in a celebratory mood might reflect the fact that each camp came away convinced it had snookered the other. Their 32-page "memorandum of understanding," which may still be revisited because of objections by the commission that sponsors the debates, stipulated everything from equivalent-size dressing rooms to a preapproval process for the pens or pencils Bush and Kerry will use to take notes. The Bush camp, knowing television viewership falls off after the first debate, made sure this week's matchup would focus on foreign policy, which they feel is the President's strong suit. Team Bush has studied old videotapes of Kerry's 1996 Massachusetts Senate re-election campaign debates to the point where advisers like Karl Rove can recite portions from memory. As a result, Bush's negotiators insisted on banning nearly all the stagecraft Kerry had used to devastating effect against his G.O.P. opponent, Governor William Weld, such as roaming from the lectern and asking direct questions. What Kerry's camp got were three debates rather than the two that Bush's campaign initially said it wanted. Getting three contests "was much more important to us than any detail of the format," says Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill. A challenger always wants as many chances to stand on the same stage as the sitting President and take some shots, and Kerry thinks the debates are a place where he can shine.

For months, the candidates have fired off stump-speech gibes, ridiculed each other through surrogates and watched independent political groups hijack the race with attacks the campaigns themselves wouldn't make. But all that was shadowboxing compared with what will happen over 90 min. Thursday night at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla., when the two men will come within handshaking distance for the first time in the race. According to the plan, a second debate next week, in St. Louis, Mo., will feature questions from an audience of voters with loose allegiances to the candidates. The third contest, on Oct. 13 in Tempe, Ariz., will focus on domestic issues.

The stakes could hardly be higher, with the debates starting at a moment when the race has once again tightened. A TIME poll conducted last week shows President Bush's advantage shrinking to 6 points from the 11-point lead he enjoyed a week after the Republican Convention. What's more, with better than 1 in 3 voters saying they plan to watch all the debates and an additional 49% saying they will watch at least some, the matches may be the test of whether Bush and Kerry will overcome, or confirm, the doubts each has tried to sow about the other in the minds of voters. According to the poll, of the 19% of voters who claim they are undecided or could still change their minds, 69% say the debates may be what clinches it for them.

There are some obvious traps for each candidate. Even as Bush's team was congratulating itself for rearranging the debate order to put foreign policy first, there were forces at work that might undercut that advantage. Kerry finally seems to be finding his voice on the Iraq war, just as the news from that country is being dominated anew by beheadings and car bombings. In TIME's poll, taken a week after Kerry launched his broadside that Bush was "living in a fantasy world of spin" about the real outlook in Iraq, only 37% of voters say Bush has been truthful in describing the situation there, whereas 55% say the situation is worse than the President says. And 51% echo Kerry's contention that the U.S. action in Iraq has made the world more dangerous, up from 46% in early September.

For Kerry, the contests are a badly needed opportunity to reintroduce himself to the electorate. About 1 in 5 voters, according to the TIME poll, still don't know enough about him to have an opinion. That segment of the population has actually grown in recent weeks. One perception that has taken root is that Kerry is a flip-flopper. Only 37% of voters say they believe he sticks to his positions; 84% say that about Bush. So it could be all but fatal for Kerry to do or say anything in the debates that might reinforce that image.

With so much on the line, Bush started prepping this summer and has had occasional full-length dress rehearsals, but the pace picked up last weekend at his Crawford, Texas, ranch. New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, who played Al Gore in the 2000 drill, stood in for Kerry, and admaker Mark McKinnon assumed the role of the first debate moderator. It all took place in a one-story building known as the Conference Center, where Bush practiced behind a lectern and aides flashed cue cards that told him how much time he had left, just as officials will at the debate. Sessions were scheduled for 9 p.m. E.T. so that the early-to-bed Bush could set his body clock to the precise time of the real thing.

Aides have given Bush audiocassettes of Kerry's favorite attack lines, which the President listens to as he flies between campaign events on Air Force One and sometimes as he works out. The political team started preparing for this phase of the campaign more than six months ago, during the Democratic primaries. Gathering in the Montana West conference room at the Bush-Cheney headquarters in Arlington, Va., Bush aides and members of the Republican National Committee huddled around the television to watch the Democratic candidates debate, waiting to respond to any attack the major candidates made on the President. Some of the talking points, e-mails and press releases they generated were issued then, but a lot of the other material disappeared into a computer network accessible only to officials of the campaign. The network was set up to test the rapid-response reflexes of the Bush team and perfect a system of information sharing that the President's spinners will use this week to highlight Kerry's misses and Bush's hits on the debate stage.

All those Democratic-primary debates also kept Kerry in practice, his advisers say. And windsurfing wasn't the only thing he was doing in Nantucket, Mass., during the Republican Convention. His campaign has guarded his debate preparation as closely as they did his selection of a running mate, making sure that only a handful of advisers are in the room when he drills. Among them: campaign manager Cahill; admaker and speechwriter Bob Shrum, who helped get Kerry in fighting shape back in 1996; and former top Gore aide Ron Klain. Kerry's longtime adviser Jonathan Winer is charged with making sure the candidate is prepared on every issue. Bush is being played by Greg Craig, who was White House special counsel during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. Wife Teresa is often on hand for the prep sessions, but one source said she has little to say, at least in front of the others.

Considering that Kerry has vacation homes in Nantucket and Sun Valley, Idaho, and his wife owns an estate near Pittsburgh, Pa., his choice of debate boot camp is downright modest. He has encamped in Wisconsin, 40 miles outside Madison, at the House on the Rock Resort, where a two-room suite goes for $199 a night. The facility provides ample biking and hiking trails for a candidate who aides say doesn't like to do more than about two hours of debate practice in a row without taking a break. It doesn't hurt that House on the Rock is smack in the middle of a crucial swing state where recent polls have shown Kerry struggling.

Past performances suggest that both sides have plenty to fear in their three engagements. "You will never see a more personable John Kerry than in these debates," predicts Weld, who in June met at Bush headquarters with imagemaker Karen Hughes and White House communications director Dan Bartlett and since then has been offering tips to campaign manager Ken Mehlman. His warning to them, Weld told TIME, is this: "Watch out for this guy. He is incredibly quick and well versed on substance. Don't expect him to make a mistake or to come across as aloof. This is his turf." Kerry, after all, founded a debating society at his prep school. Bush's chief strategist, Matthew Dowd, says he knows Kerry's record and is not spinning when he describes the challenger as "the best debater ever to run for President" and even "better than Cicero." But Weld's advice apparently has yet to seep in. Bush's top advisers believe it is unlikely that Kerry will be able to make the personal connection with voters that can be so important in presidential debates. "The biggest test for Kerry," says a senior Bush adviser, "is whether anyone wants him in their living room."

Weld learned otherwise—the hard way. The well-liked Massachusetts Governor knew he was in trouble from the first of his eight debates with Kerry, when he pointed to the mother of a slain police officer in the audience and challenged the Senator to explain his opposition to the death penalty. Kerry began by calling cop killers "scum," then said, "I know something about killing," understanding that nearly every voter watching would make the connection that Weld, who had a bad back, had got out of going to Vietnam. "He then went on about his experiences in Vietnam," Weld recalls. "Everybody forgot what the question had been."

But if Kerry is at his rhetorical best when he's feeling the heat, it's not the only thing the Bush camp has noticed about him. Even as Kerry was turning the tables on Weld over the death penalty, he kept wiping a dribble of perspiration that was creeping from his right temple to his eye. "He's a sweater," chortles a G.O.P. official, "and women don't like sweaters." That's why Bush's team was happy to have the Kerry campaign climb down from its demand that the debate hall be chilled to below 70 degrees. The Jordan-Baker agreement stipulates that the debate commission use "best efforts to maintain an appropriate temperature according to industry standards." Whatever those are.

If Kerry's strongest debating weapon is agility, Bush's is the discipline to stick to his talking points. "No matter what the question, he delivers the message he wants delivered, and he's very, very good at it," recalls Ann Richards, whom Bush unseated in 1994 to become Texas Governor. In their debate, while Richards tried to make the case that Bush had been a serial failure in business—suggesting he would be out of his depth as Governor—he coolly accused her of trying to distract voters from the issues facing Texas, reciting over and over his mantra of welfare reform, juvenile justice and education. "He kicked her butt across Texas," says a senior Kerry adviser.

It was a style that would also put Gore at a disadvantage six years later, and Kerry's challenge, Richards predicts, will be to do what neither she nor Gore could: "Insist on some explanations and some details and not allow him to gloss over issues." But Cahill concedes that Kerry's chances—and those of the debate moderators—will be limited by the Bush campaign's insistence that follow-up questions and rebuttals be sharply restricted.

The biggest mistake any candidate can make is to think of these as debates at all. Reality TV is more like it. "People watch these things more like they are watching Friends than the way they watch the Harvard and Yale debate societies," says Chris Lehane, who was Gore's press secretary. "They're not watching to see who scores the points. They're watching to see who they connect with and feel comfortable with."

Every now and then, magic can happen. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan demolished Jimmy Carter's repeated critique of his position on Medicare with "There you go again" that many Americans began to get comfortable with the idea of Reagan in the Oval Office. But more often, what voters take away from the debates is confirmation of their misgivings about a candidate: Richard Nixon's inner darkness, Gerald Ford's cluelessness, George H.W. Bush's aloofness, Gore's changeability.

And the debate isn't over when the candidates have finished their closing statements. Just as important to their campaigns will be winning the post-debate effort to spin what actually happened. It wasn't until a day or two after the first debate in 2000 that the analysis turned to Gore's exaggerated claims and his patronizing sighs. But it so neatly fit with the existing narrative about Gore that it became more important than anything else that happened that night—particularly among the vast majority of Americans who had not watched the debate with their own eyes. A study by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center found nonviewers' opinions of Gore eroding as the coverage of his manner grew more negative. So for all the energy the campaigns put into preparing for every eventuality before the debates, the greatest debate may be the one that comes after they're over.

.................................................

I expect the debates to be pivotal cultural milestones that will be remembered for decades. Like it or not, TV is where we live.

irateplatypus · 09-26-2004, 12:00 PM

art,

i read that same article a couple hours earlier. i too thought it was interesting, particularly the last paragraph. so true. the debate over the debate has so much influence on how our country perceives the candidates.

and it is sad how a 5 o'clock shadow, wrong color tie or suit, mispronounced word, or a snappy comeback that may not even add to the discussion can tilt an election one way or the other.

mattevil · 09-26-2004, 12:22 PM

I really wish the questions were not known before in one of these debates. I know Bush for example isn't very good at non scripted response (Example available here)

ARTelevision · 09-26-2004, 12:39 PM

Here's a NYT version of the debate story. It's from the Fasion and Style section...imagine that!
.....................................................

Live From Miami, a Style Showdown

In boxing terms, you could say a matchup between John Kerry and George W. Bush is a classic case of a dancer vs. a puncher: Mr. Kerry flicks around the periphery of issues; Mr. Bush pounds right through them.

The matchup on Thursday at the University of Miami, site of the highly anticipated first presidential debate, can be expected to pit the two men against each other, trading punches over Iraq and job creation. But if previous debates are any guide, the candidate who voters perceive as the winner will probably be chosen not on the substance of what he says, but on the cut of his jib.

The subtle style cues of gesture, posture, syntax and tone of voice account for as much as 75 percent of a viewer's judgment about the electability of a candidate, said Bill Carrick, a political consultant who ran Richard A. Gephardt's presidential campaign this year. In a word, he said, the mano a mano is about style — those nonverbal messages that speak to hearts, not heads.

"I think they're both aware that this is more about your `Q factor' than about scoring a debate," Mr. Carrick said. "It's much more like being a host of a television show."

Experts in body language, linguistics and personal grooming who have watched the candidates in recent weeks offered a cheat sheet to home viewers about how each is likely to come across: his strengths, weaknesses and the color of his neckties.

Countenance Counts It is the candidates' faces that voters see and judge first. When it comes to Kerry vs. Bush, it's "The Jaw of Thunder" meets "Lips of Destruction."

"We don't recognize that facial structures speak volumes," said Caroline F. Keating, a professor of psychology at Colgate University who has studied status cues transmitted by facial features.

Mr. Kerry's face, she said, is the greater study in contrasts. His anvil-like chin conveys power, but his droopy brows and hooded eyes send an unwelcome signal of age and lethargy. To counteract this, Professor Keating says, he must show more animation and smile more, as he has been doing lately. "Smiling brings people in close," she said.

Luckily, she said, he has a buoyantly vertical hairstyle. "He has exciting hair, which is actually quite useful," she said. "This wild, untamed hair is something we associate with youthfulness." (Republicans don't necessarily agree; they mock the Capitol Hill blow-dry look as vain.)

Professor Keating said that with Mr. Bush, conversely, the roundness of his face — accentuated by close-cropped hair — signals warmth and approachability but also, at times, an unfortunate boyishness.

The power in the president's visage comes from his narrow eyes and lips, which are signs of dominance, she said. But when he blinks his eyes and licks his lips, apparently when agitated, she said, "these things make him look less in command."

Dress Codes Unfortunately for image doctors, no flight suits or bomber jackets will be worn onstage. Ever since Richard M. Nixon was thought by some to have blown the first 1960 debate in part by wearing a gray suit against a gray background, the clothing choices for presidential debaters have narrowed to nearly zero.

The navy blue wool suit is a de facto uniform. "The lapels should be not more than four inches," said Georges de Paris, a Washington tailor who has made several suits for President Bush. Invariably the suit has "a very slim fit in the chest, one vent in the back," he said. Shirts are usually white, worn with red power ties.

It is with accessories that the candidates differentiate themselves. Mr. Bush has recently been wearing French cuffs with gold cufflinks, which can reinforce an impression of executive acumen. Mr. Kerry wears a yellow wristband from the Lance Armstrong Foundation, an advocacy group for cancer survivors, which may lend a dash of youthful athleticism.

Body Politics Another message viewers pick up is the authority implied by body language. Does a candidate carry himself like the hunter, or the hunted?

It is imperative, image experts say, that the two stay loose, but not slack. Each must telegraph that he is comfortable in his own skin, because in some sense it comes down to which man you would want in your living room for the next four years.

"John Kerry has the military posture — straight-up back, a very strong presence," said Kevin Hogan, a corporate public speaking consultant in Eagan, Minn., who has analyzed body language. "George Bush has a little hunch in his shoulders, sort of an S-curve in his spine, which should work against him."

But when the more compact president (5 feet 11 inches, to Mr. Kerry's 6 feet 4 inches) avoids fidgeting, he can use his rather explosive physique effectively, as when he leans toward the camera and squints out threats to terrorists, or pounds a podium softly but methodically.

The candidates use hand gestures to different effect, Mr. Hogan said. The president gestures freely when he is most at ease, and it seems to underscore his sincerity.

He uses a "windshield wiper" motion — sweeping his right hand from his chest to his side — to underscore his heartfelt points. "It's the most powerful thing he does," Mr. Hogan said.

Mr. Kerry tends to use extravagant gestures when he's least sure of himself, critics say. The Democratic challenger has even been mocked in online blogs for this tendency to wave his arms out of sync with his words when flustered. He also tends to chop the air when hammering home a point.

One effective motion by Mr. Kerry appears to echo the only Democrat to win the White House for two terms since the age of polyester, said Ms. Keating's colleague at Colgate, Spencer Kelly, who has studied hand gestures.

The Clintonian gesture, Mr. Kelly said, starts with a fist. Mr. Kerry then tucks the right thumb over the forefinger and cocks the wrist so he's punching softly at the air, as if holding a small gift. He explained: "It means, `I'm holding something out to you. You're in good hands.' "

Henry Fonda vs. Steve McQueen "The audience that will be watching are avid television watchers," said Philip B. Dusenberry, a retired chairman of BBDO North America and founding partner of the Tuesday Team, a group of advertising executives that created television ads for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

"They know what to look for," he said. "If one candidate seems nervous, or starts groping for answers, he's got a problem."

And in a close match, even one deftly delivered witticism, as long as it seems spontaneous (like Reagan's "There you go again" in 1980) could be the deciding factor.

"Both candidates will be very well prepped," Mr. Dusenberry said. "They will know all answers before questions are even finished being asked, but how they answer them, with humor and wit, will really go a long way."

Each candidate must channel his gifts as an onstage communicator — that is, a thespian — said Susan Batson, a longtime acting coach.

What Mr. Kerry should do, she explained, is open himself up. If he tries to be like the resolute Mr. Bush, he'll fall into his old trap: woodenness.

His greatest opportunity, she said, is to laugh more, to radiate a vulnerability with his eyes, a sense of compassion and wisdom, as opposed to single-mindedness and aggression. He can be "sort of a combination of Henry Fonda and James Stewart," she said.

While a critic of the president, Ms. Batson allowed that he has a native power, and could effectively channel his energies in the eyes of his audience by rerouting his toughness and condescending overtones into a more recognizable loner-rogue archetype. "There is a potential for Steve McQueen," she allowed with a sigh.

Another Hollywood acting coach, Larry Moss, said that even the tone of voice is crucial.

The president's voice, he said, has a vaguely metallic quality that he must not allow to grow shrill. It should be incisive, not cutting.

Mr. Kerry's challenge is perhaps greater, said Mr. Moss, who has coached Hilary Swank and Helen Hunt. He needs to redirect from his head down to his gut.

"You need a certain amount of viscera to get people to feel you," Mr. Moss said. Mr. Kerry needs to expand the dynamic range of his voice, and avoid a monotone. The sound should come from deep in the diaphragm, not high in the throat.

Syntax Soup Both candidates have syntactical minefields, now very familiar to voters, that they must avoid. Mr. Bush sometimes mangles the language, while Mr. Kerry has a tendency to ramble, when an audience wants punchiness. He also uses what George P. Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, calls "hedges," words and grammatical constructions that imply uncertainty or qualification.

"There are certain forms of grammar that don't commit you, phrases like `I believe' or `I think,' " Mr. Lakoff said. "Kerry has to learn not to do that."

"It is possible to be decisive and not sound decisive," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "People who speak in sentences that contain parenthetical phrases, people who begin a sentence and then deflect to add a series of illustrative examples before they end the sentences" do not seem authoritative, she said. "The language of decisiveness is subject, verb, object, end sentence."

Equally important to Mr. Kerry, she said, is to refrain from using words like "gilded" and "panoply" at the lectern, as he has on the stump.

"Words found on the SAT verbal exam," she added, "should not appear in candidate's speeches."

..............................................

I like these analyses. They have the ring of truth.
I'm not embarrased by what it is to be human.
To think that we are ruled by reason and that we make important personal judgements based on "facts" which are actually myths - no matter what their source - and to imagine that people can be judged by anything but subjective decisions based on our interpretations of character, is to engage in wishful thinking. In the end, we will elect the person we are more comfortable with having in our TV rooms.

OpieCunningham · 09-26-2004, 02:13 PM

It's unfortunate that society feels this obligation to televise the debates. There's no reason radio is not more than sufficient.

Also, can anyone tell me why we do not have congressionally mandated debate formats and guidelines? Why is there even a negotiation with all this nonsense? It's ridiculous!

pan6467 · 09-26-2004, 02:37 PM

Quoted from above: "Words found on the SAT verbal exam," she added, "should not appear in candidate's speeches."

I know I said and personally do not want to get involved in the politics thread (lurking is much more fun and less stressful), but I have to ask....

Is that rule/quote supposed to be for the audience (In which case they must feel we are all dolts) or is it for the candidates because they don't want one of the candidates confusing the other?

SecretMethod70 · 09-26-2004, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Also, can anyone tell me why we do not have congressionally mandated debate formats and guidelines? Why is there even a negotiation with all this nonsense? It's ridiculous!

Because even if they wanted to, the congressional politicians couldn't get off their partisan arses long enough to try and pass something that is fair to EVERYONE who might be involved.

smooth · 09-26-2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Quoted from above: "Words found on the SAT verbal exam," she added, "should not appear in candidate's speeches."

I know I said and personally do not want to get involved in the politics thread (lurking is much more fun and less stressful), but I have to ask....

Is that rule/quote supposed to be for the audience (In which case they must feel we are all dolts) or is it for the candidates because they don't want one of the candidates confusing the other?

I don't know if this is the reason, but the recognized guidelines when conducting social science surveys and interviewing is to not use words or sentences higher than 6th grade reading level.

09-22-2004, 11:06 AM	#1 (permalink)
stan the man Insane	Debate rules and regulations Well, well I finally came back. I have to admit I missed this forum. Might as well get right down to it I am so steamed that Bush and Kerry wont ask each other questions during the up coming debates. I makes me wonder what other pansy ass rules those two have agreed to. So I ask of you kind folk to point me in the right direction regarding the rules and regulations. I’ve been looking all over the place and I cant find them any where. So if you have any idea it would be a great help. And if its really easy to find this info I will accept a few teasing words regarding my poor searching skills. thaks in advance stan __________________ long live the hud

09-22-2004, 12:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	They also each get to bring their own makeup artist. How anyone can see these so-called "debates" as anything but a farce is beyond me. It's time to fight for <a href="http://www.citizensdebate.org/">REAL debates</a> __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

09-22-2004, 12:53 PM	#4 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	politicians are so antsy about debates... and rightfully so. the perception of strength and the upperhand on the issues is something that can be won or lost in a night. a strong debater with a more tenuous hold on the issues can win with strong rhetorical abilities over a candidate who may be more expert but weaker in that area. there is so much at stake... and every slip up will be analyzed over and over by the media that it's tough for these candidates to commit to anything less structured. i'd like to see a more open debate also. additionally, i'd like to see the libertarian and green party candidates take part. but, while the stakes are so high and the margin of error so low... it's unlikely to see that happen anytime soon. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-22-2004, 12:58 PM	#5 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	The very worst part is the way a 10-second image-and-sound bite ends up encapsulating the entire experience. For example, Gore sighing, Bush 41 looking at his watch, Nixon's 5-o'clock shadow, etc. etc. __________________ create evolution

09-22-2004, 01:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	lemme think...i watched the CNN special and i know someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but some of hte rules that stuck out in my mind: 1. no risers, kerry is 6" taller than bush and the kerry camp did not want bush wearing risers so he appears as tall or taller...dumb rule, but they cited the JFK/nixon televised debates as harmful to nixon bc he had a 5 oclock shadow while people who heard the debate on the radio thought nixon won the debate.. 2. No panning to others in the debate while a candidate is responding 3. candidate A is asked a question and has 120 seconds to respond, candidate B then has 90 seconds. 4. No banter between the two candidates (this one makes me sick) 5. NO, NO shots from behind the candidate, they were very clear on this one....(makes me wonder if they are scared of seeing rove or cheney's hand up bush... ) I jest bc i care... http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...hts/index.html This highlights the rest that i couldn't remember....32 freaking pages....amazing, isn't it.... __________________ Live. Chris

09-22-2004, 12:00 PM	#2 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I saw the rules on CNN last night. I don't remember them all but one was funny: They aren't allowed to use any prop to make them appear taller than they are.

09-22-2004, 01:04 PM	#7 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	EDIT: double post. sorry, i'm not quite sure how it happened. mods, please delete if think necessary. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 09-22-2004 at 04:08 PM..

09-22-2004, 06:23 PM	#9 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	I don't know, but I don't like the direction this is heading. How long until they just have each candidate recieve a list of questions that they reply to in paper format? In fact, that's practically what this is! If the candidates already know what the questions are ahead of time, how are we to expect anything in the way of an honest-to-god debate? This isn't a debate, it's a theater production. __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

09-22-2004, 07:28 PM	#11 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	it may have been, but Cnn was citing the shadow as it brought out his 'darker' side. They were saying htat people who heard the debate on radio thought nixon performed better and those who saw on tv put JFK ahead... image is about 90% for this type thing...as scary as that sounds...I think it's actually becoming more important since we aren't even getting "real" questions or an honest debate.... Fuck politics right now __________________ Live. Chris

09-24-2004, 01:58 AM	#12 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Nixon was also wearing a grey suit which blended him into the background more when on black and white television. JFK was in a dark suit and stood out against the background. I'm waiting for them to institute a swimsuit competition. __________________ We Must Dissent.

09-24-2004, 02:31 AM	#13 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes, Nixon exhibited all of the qualities attributed to him here. It came down to who was the most "telegenic" candidate. That's the sort of thing I'll be watching for this year. And it will be fascinating to see what particular sound-and-image bites are chosen as the significant moments of these debates. __________________ create evolution

09-24-2004, 07:10 AM	#14 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	What the hell... why would anyone give a rat's ass if someone has a 5 O'Clock shadow, sighs, or looks at their watch? What the hell is wrong with people? __________________ I love lamp.

09-26-2004, 11:19 AM	#16 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Here's a long story on the upcoming debates from time.com. I think it's a good preparation for Thursday night's "show." ..... Inside The Debate Strategies In a close race, Bush and Kerry know the little things can matter most. A guide for those scoring at home Sunday, Sep. 26, 2004 When a race for President gets this close, no detail is too small to leave to chance. Which is how it happened that a man who once oversaw Middle East peacemaking found himself haggling last week with one of Washington's most storied power players over the matter of ... colored lights. The proposal: to allow the millions of Americans watching this Thursday's first presidential debate to see the warning signal whenever George Bush or John Kerry has exceeded his allotted time to answer a question. It was a transparent gambit by the President's representative, former Secretary of State James Baker, to raise the famously windy challenger's chances for embarrassment. "Undignified," sniffed a Kerry strategist. "It's like a game show." But Kerry's negotiator, lawyer Vernon Jordan, gave in—just as he had to Baker's earlier demand that the lecterns be an unimposing 50 in. tall and that they be placed fully 10 ft. apart, making it less likely that the 5-ft. 11-in. Bush will look miniaturized in comparison with the 6-ft. 4-in. Kerry. After Jordan and Baker finally came to an agreement at New York City's Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, putting their heads together over a laptop to approve the official announcement, they headed for the bar. That both men were in a celebratory mood might reflect the fact that each camp came away convinced it had snookered the other. Their 32-page "memorandum of understanding," which may still be revisited because of objections by the commission that sponsors the debates, stipulated everything from equivalent-size dressing rooms to a preapproval process for the pens or pencils Bush and Kerry will use to take notes. The Bush camp, knowing television viewership falls off after the first debate, made sure this week's matchup would focus on foreign policy, which they feel is the President's strong suit. Team Bush has studied old videotapes of Kerry's 1996 Massachusetts Senate re-election campaign debates to the point where advisers like Karl Rove can recite portions from memory. As a result, Bush's negotiators insisted on banning nearly all the stagecraft Kerry had used to devastating effect against his G.O.P. opponent, Governor William Weld, such as roaming from the lectern and asking direct questions. What Kerry's camp got were three debates rather than the two that Bush's campaign initially said it wanted. Getting three contests "was much more important to us than any detail of the format," says Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill. A challenger always wants as many chances to stand on the same stage as the sitting President and take some shots, and Kerry thinks the debates are a place where he can shine. For months, the candidates have fired off stump-speech gibes, ridiculed each other through surrogates and watched independent political groups hijack the race with attacks the campaigns themselves wouldn't make. But all that was shadowboxing compared with what will happen over 90 min. Thursday night at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla., when the two men will come within handshaking distance for the first time in the race. According to the plan, a second debate next week, in St. Louis, Mo., will feature questions from an audience of voters with loose allegiances to the candidates. The third contest, on Oct. 13 in Tempe, Ariz., will focus on domestic issues. The stakes could hardly be higher, with the debates starting at a moment when the race has once again tightened. A TIME poll conducted last week shows President Bush's advantage shrinking to 6 points from the 11-point lead he enjoyed a week after the Republican Convention. What's more, with better than 1 in 3 voters saying they plan to watch all the debates and an additional 49% saying they will watch at least some, the matches may be the test of whether Bush and Kerry will overcome, or confirm, the doubts each has tried to sow about the other in the minds of voters. According to the poll, of the 19% of voters who claim they are undecided or could still change their minds, 69% say the debates may be what clinches it for them. There are some obvious traps for each candidate. Even as Bush's team was congratulating itself for rearranging the debate order to put foreign policy first, there were forces at work that might undercut that advantage. Kerry finally seems to be finding his voice on the Iraq war, just as the news from that country is being dominated anew by beheadings and car bombings. In TIME's poll, taken a week after Kerry launched his broadside that Bush was "living in a fantasy world of spin" about the real outlook in Iraq, only 37% of voters say Bush has been truthful in describing the situation there, whereas 55% say the situation is worse than the President says. And 51% echo Kerry's contention that the U.S. action in Iraq has made the world more dangerous, up from 46% in early September. For Kerry, the contests are a badly needed opportunity to reintroduce himself to the electorate. About 1 in 5 voters, according to the TIME poll, still don't know enough about him to have an opinion. That segment of the population has actually grown in recent weeks. One perception that has taken root is that Kerry is a flip-flopper. Only 37% of voters say they believe he sticks to his positions; 84% say that about Bush. So it could be all but fatal for Kerry to do or say anything in the debates that might reinforce that image. With so much on the line, Bush started prepping this summer and has had occasional full-length dress rehearsals, but the pace picked up last weekend at his Crawford, Texas, ranch. New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, who played Al Gore in the 2000 drill, stood in for Kerry, and admaker Mark McKinnon assumed the role of the first debate moderator. It all took place in a one-story building known as the Conference Center, where Bush practiced behind a lectern and aides flashed cue cards that told him how much time he had left, just as officials will at the debate. Sessions were scheduled for 9 p.m. E.T. so that the early-to-bed Bush could set his body clock to the precise time of the real thing. Aides have given Bush audiocassettes of Kerry's favorite attack lines, which the President listens to as he flies between campaign events on Air Force One and sometimes as he works out. The political team started preparing for this phase of the campaign more than six months ago, during the Democratic primaries. Gathering in the Montana West conference room at the Bush-Cheney headquarters in Arlington, Va., Bush aides and members of the Republican National Committee huddled around the television to watch the Democratic candidates debate, waiting to respond to any attack the major candidates made on the President. Some of the talking points, e-mails and press releases they generated were issued then, but a lot of the other material disappeared into a computer network accessible only to officials of the campaign. The network was set up to test the rapid-response reflexes of the Bush team and perfect a system of information sharing that the President's spinners will use this week to highlight Kerry's misses and Bush's hits on the debate stage. All those Democratic-primary debates also kept Kerry in practice, his advisers say. And windsurfing wasn't the only thing he was doing in Nantucket, Mass., during the Republican Convention. His campaign has guarded his debate preparation as closely as they did his selection of a running mate, making sure that only a handful of advisers are in the room when he drills. Among them: campaign manager Cahill; admaker and speechwriter Bob Shrum, who helped get Kerry in fighting shape back in 1996; and former top Gore aide Ron Klain. Kerry's longtime adviser Jonathan Winer is charged with making sure the candidate is prepared on every issue. Bush is being played by Greg Craig, who was White House special counsel during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. Wife Teresa is often on hand for the prep sessions, but one source said she has little to say, at least in front of the others. Considering that Kerry has vacation homes in Nantucket and Sun Valley, Idaho, and his wife owns an estate near Pittsburgh, Pa., his choice of debate boot camp is downright modest. He has encamped in Wisconsin, 40 miles outside Madison, at the House on the Rock Resort, where a two-room suite goes for $199 a night. The facility provides ample biking and hiking trails for a candidate who aides say doesn't like to do more than about two hours of debate practice in a row without taking a break. It doesn't hurt that House on the Rock is smack in the middle of a crucial swing state where recent polls have shown Kerry struggling. Past performances suggest that both sides have plenty to fear in their three engagements. "You will never see a more personable John Kerry than in these debates," predicts Weld, who in June met at Bush headquarters with imagemaker Karen Hughes and White House communications director Dan Bartlett and since then has been offering tips to campaign manager Ken Mehlman. His warning to them, Weld told TIME, is this: "Watch out for this guy. He is incredibly quick and well versed on substance. Don't expect him to make a mistake or to come across as aloof. This is his turf." Kerry, after all, founded a debating society at his prep school. Bush's chief strategist, Matthew Dowd, says he knows Kerry's record and is not spinning when he describes the challenger as "the best debater ever to run for President" and even "better than Cicero." But Weld's advice apparently has yet to seep in. Bush's top advisers believe it is unlikely that Kerry will be able to make the personal connection with voters that can be so important in presidential debates. "The biggest test for Kerry," says a senior Bush adviser, "is whether anyone wants him in their living room." Weld learned otherwise—the hard way. The well-liked Massachusetts Governor knew he was in trouble from the first of his eight debates with Kerry, when he pointed to the mother of a slain police officer in the audience and challenged the Senator to explain his opposition to the death penalty. Kerry began by calling cop killers "scum," then said, "I know something about killing," understanding that nearly every voter watching would make the connection that Weld, who had a bad back, had got out of going to Vietnam. "He then went on about his experiences in Vietnam," Weld recalls. "Everybody forgot what the question had been." But if Kerry is at his rhetorical best when he's feeling the heat, it's not the only thing the Bush camp has noticed about him. Even as Kerry was turning the tables on Weld over the death penalty, he kept wiping a dribble of perspiration that was creeping from his right temple to his eye. "He's a sweater," chortles a G.O.P. official, "and women don't like sweaters." That's why Bush's team was happy to have the Kerry campaign climb down from its demand that the debate hall be chilled to below 70 degrees. The Jordan-Baker agreement stipulates that the debate commission use "best efforts to maintain an appropriate temperature according to industry standards." Whatever those are. If Kerry's strongest debating weapon is agility, Bush's is the discipline to stick to his talking points. "No matter what the question, he delivers the message he wants delivered, and he's very, very good at it," recalls Ann Richards, whom Bush unseated in 1994 to become Texas Governor. In their debate, while Richards tried to make the case that Bush had been a serial failure in business—suggesting he would be out of his depth as Governor—he coolly accused her of trying to distract voters from the issues facing Texas, reciting over and over his mantra of welfare reform, juvenile justice and education. "He kicked her butt across Texas," says a senior Kerry adviser. It was a style that would also put Gore at a disadvantage six years later, and Kerry's challenge, Richards predicts, will be to do what neither she nor Gore could: "Insist on some explanations and some details and not allow him to gloss over issues." But Cahill concedes that Kerry's chances—and those of the debate moderators—will be limited by the Bush campaign's insistence that follow-up questions and rebuttals be sharply restricted. The biggest mistake any candidate can make is to think of these as debates at all. Reality TV is more like it. "People watch these things more like they are watching Friends than the way they watch the Harvard and Yale debate societies," says Chris Lehane, who was Gore's press secretary. "They're not watching to see who scores the points. They're watching to see who they connect with and feel comfortable with." Every now and then, magic can happen. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan demolished Jimmy Carter's repeated critique of his position on Medicare with "There you go again" that many Americans began to get comfortable with the idea of Reagan in the Oval Office. But more often, what voters take away from the debates is confirmation of their misgivings about a candidate: Richard Nixon's inner darkness, Gerald Ford's cluelessness, George H.W. Bush's aloofness, Gore's changeability. And the debate isn't over when the candidates have finished their closing statements. Just as important to their campaigns will be winning the post-debate effort to spin what actually happened. It wasn't until a day or two after the first debate in 2000 that the analysis turned to Gore's exaggerated claims and his patronizing sighs. But it so neatly fit with the existing narrative about Gore that it became more important than anything else that happened that night—particularly among the vast majority of Americans who had not watched the debate with their own eyes. A study by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center found nonviewers' opinions of Gore eroding as the coverage of his manner grew more negative. So for all the energy the campaigns put into preparing for every eventuality before the debates, the greatest debate may be the one that comes after they're over. ................................................. I expect the debates to be pivotal cultural milestones that will be remembered for decades. Like it or not, TV is where we live. __________________ create evolution

09-26-2004, 12:00 PM	#17 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	art, i read that same article a couple hours earlier. i too thought it was interesting, particularly the last paragraph. so true. the debate over the debate has so much influence on how our country perceives the candidates. and it is sad how a 5 o'clock shadow, wrong color tie or suit, mispronounced word, or a snappy comeback that may not even add to the discussion can tilt an election one way or the other. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-26-2004, 12:22 PM	#18 (permalink)
mattevil Addict Location: Virginia	I really wish the questions were not known before in one of these debates. I know Bush for example isn't very good at non scripted response (Example available here) Last edited by mattevil; 09-26-2004 at 12:24 PM..

09-26-2004, 12:39 PM	#19 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Here's a NYT version of the debate story. It's from the Fasion and Style section...imagine that! ..................................................... Live From Miami, a Style Showdown In boxing terms, you could say a matchup between John Kerry and George W. Bush is a classic case of a dancer vs. a puncher: Mr. Kerry flicks around the periphery of issues; Mr. Bush pounds right through them. The matchup on Thursday at the University of Miami, site of the highly anticipated first presidential debate, can be expected to pit the two men against each other, trading punches over Iraq and job creation. But if previous debates are any guide, the candidate who voters perceive as the winner will probably be chosen not on the substance of what he says, but on the cut of his jib. The subtle style cues of gesture, posture, syntax and tone of voice account for as much as 75 percent of a viewer's judgment about the electability of a candidate, said Bill Carrick, a political consultant who ran Richard A. Gephardt's presidential campaign this year. In a word, he said, the mano a mano is about style — those nonverbal messages that speak to hearts, not heads. "I think they're both aware that this is more about your `Q factor' than about scoring a debate," Mr. Carrick said. "It's much more like being a host of a television show." Experts in body language, linguistics and personal grooming who have watched the candidates in recent weeks offered a cheat sheet to home viewers about how each is likely to come across: his strengths, weaknesses and the color of his neckties. Countenance Counts It is the candidates' faces that voters see and judge first. When it comes to Kerry vs. Bush, it's "The Jaw of Thunder" meets "Lips of Destruction." "We don't recognize that facial structures speak volumes," said Caroline F. Keating, a professor of psychology at Colgate University who has studied status cues transmitted by facial features. Mr. Kerry's face, she said, is the greater study in contrasts. His anvil-like chin conveys power, but his droopy brows and hooded eyes send an unwelcome signal of age and lethargy. To counteract this, Professor Keating says, he must show more animation and smile more, as he has been doing lately. "Smiling brings people in close," she said. Luckily, she said, he has a buoyantly vertical hairstyle. "He has exciting hair, which is actually quite useful," she said. "This wild, untamed hair is something we associate with youthfulness." (Republicans don't necessarily agree; they mock the Capitol Hill blow-dry look as vain.) Professor Keating said that with Mr. Bush, conversely, the roundness of his face — accentuated by close-cropped hair — signals warmth and approachability but also, at times, an unfortunate boyishness. The power in the president's visage comes from his narrow eyes and lips, which are signs of dominance, she said. But when he blinks his eyes and licks his lips, apparently when agitated, she said, "these things make him look less in command." Dress Codes Unfortunately for image doctors, no flight suits or bomber jackets will be worn onstage. Ever since Richard M. Nixon was thought by some to have blown the first 1960 debate in part by wearing a gray suit against a gray background, the clothing choices for presidential debaters have narrowed to nearly zero. The navy blue wool suit is a de facto uniform. "The lapels should be not more than four inches," said Georges de Paris, a Washington tailor who has made several suits for President Bush. Invariably the suit has "a very slim fit in the chest, one vent in the back," he said. Shirts are usually white, worn with red power ties. It is with accessories that the candidates differentiate themselves. Mr. Bush has recently been wearing French cuffs with gold cufflinks, which can reinforce an impression of executive acumen. Mr. Kerry wears a yellow wristband from the Lance Armstrong Foundation, an advocacy group for cancer survivors, which may lend a dash of youthful athleticism. Body Politics Another message viewers pick up is the authority implied by body language. Does a candidate carry himself like the hunter, or the hunted? It is imperative, image experts say, that the two stay loose, but not slack. Each must telegraph that he is comfortable in his own skin, because in some sense it comes down to which man you would want in your living room for the next four years. "John Kerry has the military posture — straight-up back, a very strong presence," said Kevin Hogan, a corporate public speaking consultant in Eagan, Minn., who has analyzed body language. "George Bush has a little hunch in his shoulders, sort of an S-curve in his spine, which should work against him." But when the more compact president (5 feet 11 inches, to Mr. Kerry's 6 feet 4 inches) avoids fidgeting, he can use his rather explosive physique effectively, as when he leans toward the camera and squints out threats to terrorists, or pounds a podium softly but methodically. The candidates use hand gestures to different effect, Mr. Hogan said. The president gestures freely when he is most at ease, and it seems to underscore his sincerity. He uses a "windshield wiper" motion — sweeping his right hand from his chest to his side — to underscore his heartfelt points. "It's the most powerful thing he does," Mr. Hogan said. Mr. Kerry tends to use extravagant gestures when he's least sure of himself, critics say. The Democratic challenger has even been mocked in online blogs for this tendency to wave his arms out of sync with his words when flustered. He also tends to chop the air when hammering home a point. One effective motion by Mr. Kerry appears to echo the only Democrat to win the White House for two terms since the age of polyester, said Ms. Keating's colleague at Colgate, Spencer Kelly, who has studied hand gestures. The Clintonian gesture, Mr. Kelly said, starts with a fist. Mr. Kerry then tucks the right thumb over the forefinger and cocks the wrist so he's punching softly at the air, as if holding a small gift. He explained: "It means, `I'm holding something out to you. You're in good hands.' " Henry Fonda vs. Steve McQueen "The audience that will be watching are avid television watchers," said Philip B. Dusenberry, a retired chairman of BBDO North America and founding partner of the Tuesday Team, a group of advertising executives that created television ads for Ronald Reagan in 1984. "They know what to look for," he said. "If one candidate seems nervous, or starts groping for answers, he's got a problem." And in a close match, even one deftly delivered witticism, as long as it seems spontaneous (like Reagan's "There you go again" in 1980) could be the deciding factor. "Both candidates will be very well prepped," Mr. Dusenberry said. "They will know all answers before questions are even finished being asked, but how they answer them, with humor and wit, will really go a long way." Each candidate must channel his gifts as an onstage communicator — that is, a thespian — said Susan Batson, a longtime acting coach. What Mr. Kerry should do, she explained, is open himself up. If he tries to be like the resolute Mr. Bush, he'll fall into his old trap: woodenness. His greatest opportunity, she said, is to laugh more, to radiate a vulnerability with his eyes, a sense of compassion and wisdom, as opposed to single-mindedness and aggression. He can be "sort of a combination of Henry Fonda and James Stewart," she said. While a critic of the president, Ms. Batson allowed that he has a native power, and could effectively channel his energies in the eyes of his audience by rerouting his toughness and condescending overtones into a more recognizable loner-rogue archetype. "There is a potential for Steve McQueen," she allowed with a sigh. Another Hollywood acting coach, Larry Moss, said that even the tone of voice is crucial. The president's voice, he said, has a vaguely metallic quality that he must not allow to grow shrill. It should be incisive, not cutting. Mr. Kerry's challenge is perhaps greater, said Mr. Moss, who has coached Hilary Swank and Helen Hunt. He needs to redirect from his head down to his gut. "You need a certain amount of viscera to get people to feel you," Mr. Moss said. Mr. Kerry needs to expand the dynamic range of his voice, and avoid a monotone. The sound should come from deep in the diaphragm, not high in the throat. Syntax Soup Both candidates have syntactical minefields, now very familiar to voters, that they must avoid. Mr. Bush sometimes mangles the language, while Mr. Kerry has a tendency to ramble, when an audience wants punchiness. He also uses what George P. Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, calls "hedges," words and grammatical constructions that imply uncertainty or qualification. "There are certain forms of grammar that don't commit you, phrases like `I believe' or `I think,' " Mr. Lakoff said. "Kerry has to learn not to do that." "It is possible to be decisive and not sound decisive," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "People who speak in sentences that contain parenthetical phrases, people who begin a sentence and then deflect to add a series of illustrative examples before they end the sentences" do not seem authoritative, she said. "The language of decisiveness is subject, verb, object, end sentence." Equally important to Mr. Kerry, she said, is to refrain from using words like "gilded" and "panoply" at the lectern, as he has on the stump. "Words found on the SAT verbal exam," she added, "should not appear in candidate's speeches." .............................................. I like these analyses. They have the ring of truth. I'm not embarrased by what it is to be human. To think that we are ruled by reason and that we make important personal judgements based on "facts" which are actually myths - no matter what their source - and to imagine that people can be judged by anything but subjective decisions based on our interpretations of character, is to engage in wishful thinking. In the end, we will elect the person we are more comfortable with having in our TV rooms. __________________ create evolution Last edited by ARTelevision; 09-26-2004 at 12:41 PM..

09-26-2004, 02:13 PM	#20 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	It's unfortunate that society feels this obligation to televise the debates. There's no reason radio is not more than sufficient. Also, can anyone tell me why we do not have congressionally mandated debate formats and guidelines? Why is there even a negotiation with all this nonsense? It's ridiculous!

09-26-2004, 02:37 PM	#21 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Quoted from above: "Words found on the SAT verbal exam," she added, "should not appear in candidate's speeches." I know I said and personally do not want to get involved in the politics thread (lurking is much more fun and less stressful), but I have to ask.... Is that rule/quote supposed to be for the audience (In which case they must feel we are all dolts) or is it for the candidates because they don't want one of the candidates confusing the other? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"