Mary Anna (28
Could Sink Obama in 2012..."
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd., Ste. 1114
Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA
When candidates square off in presidential elections, history
shows that the winners are those whose smiles convey a positive
message that inspires rather than irritates voters,
communications consultant Jon Kraushar maintains.
He cites research by UCLA Professor Albert Mehrabian indicating
that non-verbal communication ‹ including a speaker¹s smile
‹ can be even more important than what is actually said.
And that could bode ill for President Barack Obama¹s
re-election chances in 2012, according to Kraushar.
In an article for Fox News, Kraushar examined the ³smile
factor² in several recent elections:
In 2008, Obama¹s grin and his ³hope and change²
message trumped John McCain¹s grimacing warnings about the
In 2004 and 2000, George W. Bush¹s smirk and cocky smile
overshadowed the ³terminally serious and insufferably
pompous² John Kerry and Al Gore, Kraushar observed.
Bill Clinton¹s ³jaunty smile² and confidence
defeated the ³scowling² Bob Dole in 1996 and the
³strained² smile of George H.W. Bush four years
But Bush¹s ³frenetic grin² was positively
endearing in 1988 against the ³mechanical smile and robotic
messaging² of Michael Dukakis.
Ronald Reagan¹s smile and sparkling eyes were unbeatable in
1980 and 1984 against the ³dourness² of Jimmy Carter
and Walter Mondale.
³In a presidential contest, whoever appears more upbeat is
victorious over whoever seems more uptight,² according to
As for the 2012 election, he writes: ³Today, President
Obama looks and sounds uptight. An air of desperation has crept
into his face, eyes and body language.
³To beat Obama in the general election, Republicans must
select a candidate with both a verbal and non-verbal message
that by comparison with Obama¹s, packs the power of a smile
‹ and puts a smile on the faces of a majority of voters.²