Advertising In Person: The candidate IS the message

Let me stretch the definition of campaign advertising for a few minutes and consider that the personal appearances of a candidate consitute a potentially very powerful form of political advertising.

In New Hampshire (as well as Iowa, although perhaps in few other places) voters become accustomed to, indeed expect, to meet candidates face to face. I think it is a way for voters to test the character of the candidate against the impression made on the news, in debates, from the ads. In person, voters can measure how much of the ad image is genuine, how much manufactured.

In a general sense, it would be wonderful for our democracy if every voter in the country had the same opportunity, and if every voter took the choice as seriously as those citizens who attend the town meetings, house parties, issue forums, and campaign rallies. I'm sure it is the same in Iowa, but I have to say that I'm proud to be in New Hampshire where it is evident that so many voters DO take the process to heart, and take the time (even in brutally frigid weather) to travel out to see the candidates, listen intently, ask questions, read material, and talk to other voters.

And all the candidates, too, deserve congratulations. A campaign is exhausting work, and none of the campaign volunteers from NH or Iowa will tell you that campaigning is glamorous. But, enough encomium. What about the candidates? Here are my brief and admittedly subjective assessments of the six candidates I've seen in person, in the order in which I saw them.

Wes Clark:He appears accessible, intelligent, articulate, and humble. His stump speech is clear and engaging. Much of his presentation (as I have noted here before) is narrative. He tells stories that aim to reveal who he is and what his motives are. In this sense, the candidate in person is a lot like the candidate in the ads. Clark, I think, is less comfortable answering specific issue-related questions, especially if it is a question he has not prepared for. In general, Clark has employed a good strategy. With so much similarity between the candidates on the issues, the difference will be made when voters judge the character of the candidate. Voters want to vote for someone they like, and cannot like a person they do not know. Clark gives them that chance.

John Kerry: He is an impressive figure in person. I've seen him described as "Lincolnesque," and the comparison is not inappropriate. Kerry lacks Lincoln's eloquence, however. Nor does he quite have the charisma of the earlier "JFK" with whom, I think, many of his supporters would like to compare him. His stump speech dealt with a range of specific issues, and was heavy on criticism of George Bush, but was not knit together in a coherent package. He was good at taking and answering questions, and especially good with the children in the crowd, but perhaps less successful in conveying who he was and why he wanted to lead us as president. The night I saw him I thought he looked and sounded tired (but who wouldn't be after the schedule these guys keep). I've noticed that lately the Kerry TV ads stress more of his own story--especially the Vietnam experience, where before they were, like his appearances, more issue oriented.

Dick Gephardt: He is a polished and experienced politician, and one gets the impression that there is a lot more to the candidate than meets the eye. At the same time, the message is not especially sharp, nor inspiring. I would describe Gephardt as a man of experienced caution. Although clearly able to discuss policy in a sophisticated (or a simple) way (depending on what was needed), he was short on passion, and gave me the impression that he was mainly going through the motions. Or, it could be that despite his public persona, he is a genuinely shy person, perhaps a bit uncomfortable opening up to strangers or talking much about himself. I think we are unlikely to see any of the "gaffes" from him that other candidates occasionally make, but that is partly because, to me, his stump speech seemed the most slogan-oriented of the bunch. He deflected some of the questions he took, and seemed anxious to get on to the next campaign stop.

Howard Dean: He had the crowd and the media, but frankly is not a very good public speaker. Dean speaks too fast, often overruns his own words, corrects himself, and so sometimes gives the impression that he is merely sprinting through a well-worn presentation that may not interest him anymore. It is as if he considers it more important to say lots of stuff, and less important to say it well. More than any of the candidates, he hammered George Bush, to the point of conveying contempt (although Bush is ever-present in all the campaign messages). Dean is obviously very bright, and he gives the impression of having an active mind (one that outruns his tongue?). He gave thoughtful and direct answers to questions, some of which, I'm reasonably sure, he had not fielded before. His closing tag line "you have the power" still strikes me as a bit contrived.

Joe Lieberman. Awful speech. I attended what was billed by the campaign as a "major speech" at the Dover Elks Hall on the Clinton Legacy. It amounted to Joe's stump speech dressed up with a few references to Clinton. He really tried hard to convince us that he deserved the Clinton mantle, several times referring to Clinton's "last dog dies" speech at the same venue. But from my view never succeeded, and came off as straining and desperate. Shockingly, this late into the campaign, the candidate was still relying mainly on notes to address his audience. The response, even from his dedicated supporters, was lukewarm in comparison to that for other candidates. Lieberman took no questions, and made but a perfunctory effort to meet and greet voters. Maybe I saw him on a bad day, but if this was typical, he would be better sticking to ads, which give an impression of a more lively, thoughtful candidate than the one I saw in person.

John Edwards. What a contrast with the Lieberman speech. Edwards was very sharp, full of enthusiasm and optimism, and gave perhaps the best stump speech of all the candidates. Edwards really seemed to have hit his stride and was right on the mark, whether talking about his background, or addressing issues of concern. He was engaging, listened sympathetically to questions, gave thoughtful answers, greeted voters warmly, and overall had a clear and coherent theme to his presentation that made the speech memorable--that is easy to remember and talk about later with other voters. Many of the Edwards ads employ themes that also appear in his presentation. But in general, this is the candidate who benefits most from personal contact with voters, and perhaps is at a disadvantage in trying to offer his views and character in short debate response or 30-second ad. In the case of John Edwards, the man is much bigger than the ads.