Style is part of the battle in Bush, Kerry debate
As US President George W. Bush and his Democratic rival Senator John Kerry slugged it out on Friday night over issues from Iraq to stem cell research, they also sought to look good, sound good and nail the right image. With no glaring gaffes by either...
As US President George W. Bush and his Democratic rival Senator John Kerry slugged it out on Friday night over issues from Iraq to stem cell research, they also sought to look good, sound good and nail the right image.
With no glaring gaffes by either candidate in their second campaign debate, Mr Bush appeared to project more passion and Mr Kerry more cool in St Louis, but only polls over the next few days will show who struck a chord with voters, analysts said.
There were moments, especially at the start of the debate when the Iraq war was under discussion, when Mr Bush hit a heated tone, and he also interrupted moderator Charles Gibson of ABC television.
"What was interesting was the number of times he sounded angry, a number of times he sounded as though he was hectoring," said Jeremy Mayer, a political scientist at George Mason University who has studied presidential image. "I also noticed how rapidly he jumped out of his chair... he was raring to go."
On the other hand, "Kerry's image problem was a certain gangliness... He was jerking around a bit."
But Mr Mayer added that the Massachusetts senator, who detractors say has too lugubrious an expression, was learning how to smile, which helped him project an optimistic image. Style as well as substance was bound to figure in voter assessment of the debate, which both candidates were hoping would provide a crucial boost as polls show the country evenly split less than a month before the November 2 election.
Mr Bush, whose performance in the first debate in Miami last month was seen as falling short partly because of irritated scowls during Mr Kerry's comments, avoided such expressions this time.
"Bush was somewhat defensive, but not as defensive as in the first debate," said Richard O'Dor, a lecturer in public policy studies at Duke University who coaches debating at the school.
"Overall, I think Bush looked better than he did in the first debate," said Mr O'Dor, who argues that style cannot be divorced from substance in the debates.
And although Mr Bush, who at one point joked in a self-deprecating manner about his scowls in the first debate, had the grimaces under control, Mr O'Dor said that appeared to lead to some rapid eye-blinking on the part of the president that seemed to show him trying to keep irritation in check.
Mr Kerry was seen as retaining the poise he showed in the first debate for Friday night's encounter, a town-hall format with an audience who asked questions picked by Mr Gibson. The format allowed the two candidates to roam the stage rather than remaining rigid behind a podium as they did for the first debate.
"One of the things about these debates is they are about masculinity, about who is the Alpha male," Mr Mayer said.
"Kerry seemed much more comfortable, more cool than Bush with the format, it came across as a more manly posture."
There were a few attempts at humour by both candidates, but the one that drew the loudest laugh was from Mr Kerry, who singled out three people in the room who would lose if he rolled back Mr Bush tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year - naming the three as the president, himself and Mr Gibson.
The impact on an audience can be influenced by details as small as the shade of tie, and one image consultant said Mr Bush looked much better this time around than he did last month.
Anna Wildermuth, president of the Association of Image Consultants International, said he wore a more "vibrant" shade of blue for his tie, and his suit looked better. Ms Wildermuth said that Mr Bush had looked "worn out" in the first debate partly because he wore too pale a tie and suit.
But the weight of style and appearance is oppressive, argued J. Larry Hood, a historian at the University of Kentucky in an article in the Lexington Herald Leader this month that argued that such debates "are often a con, a TV entertainment package and a disservice."
"In a TV market society, today's debates are really about height, attractiveness, stance, stage positioning, gestures, voice and hair," he wrote. "Debates are the Miss America contest with the added verbal sparring competition."