Newsmax.com
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 economy.
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 earlier.
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 Kraushar.
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
Editor's Note: