One of the chief criticisms of badly written novels and newspaper profiles is poor character development.

Undeveloped characters are one-dimensional and lie flat on the page. Well-developed characters are rendered in three dimensions and leap off the page fully formed.

But how do we create 3-D characters that really work?

There is a formula. As the name implies, the human animal is constituted of three components: physiological, sociological and psychological. So, while profiling an individual, we need to bring each of these dimensions into full relief.

Let’s consider them individually. When rendering a person’s physiological (or physical) characteristics we might include features such as:

• Height
• Weight
• Race
• Health
• Style of dress
• Overall appearance

Sociological characteristics might cover these areas:

• Social class
• Parents
• Neighborhood
• Schools attended
• Politics embraced
• Religious affiliation
• Values

When writing about the subject’s psychological makeup we might turn our attention toward issues such as:

• Management style
• Passions
• Phobias
• Complexes
• Behavior patterns
• Goals
• Friendships

Here’s a good example of three-dimension profiling by Boston Globe reporter Charles Stein, writing about Jack Meyer, who at the time was head of Harvard Management Co., the investment arm responsible for managing Harvard University’s whopping $12 billion endowment. Stein’s first two sentences alone give us immediate insight into Meyer.

Harvard University’s $12 billion man doesn’t wear a tie, takes the subway to work, and eats his lunch in the cafeteria on the fourth floor of the Federal Reserve Building. Jack Meyer is a person of few pretensions, but strong beliefs.

In the first paragraph Stein brings all three dimensions of his subject into play. We already have a sense of who Jack Meyer is and we’re just two sentences into this profile. Not bad.

Another good example is the first graph of this Fortune magazine profile of Nike founder Phil Knight, written by reporter Daniel Roth.

I had been warned that the interview would be a crapshoot. On some days Phil Knight opens up; on others he barely says a word. I got lucky. On this gray January morning the founder of Nike was willing to talk. Perhaps Knight felt nostalgic: He had just finished his last official day as CEO of the company he had built from scratch some 40 years earlier, and this was his first—and so far only—extensive interview. Or perhaps he just wanted to talk. No one ever really knows with Knight; they just take what they can get. Tinker Hatfield, a 24-year Nike veteran, told me that when he goes to Knight with a question, sometimes Knight doesn’t even answer. (Tinker says he simply treats that as a yes.) Whatever the reason, Knight happily ruminated on the highs and lows of his career; he reminisced about the joys of building his company, about the hunt for a successor, about the athletes he had signed—good and bad—and about the people he had managed—well and not so well. He talked, haltingly, about the death of his son last May. Knight, famous for wearing his sunglasses just about everywhere—even inside the buildings on Nike’s 176-acre campus in Beaverton, Ore.—kept the Nike shades off, though they were always within his reach on the table in the small conference room.

A long opening paragraph rich with three-dimensional material that promises many more interesting insights to come about this captain of the athletic apparel industry.

In both examples you see reporters who expertly rendered their subjects three-dimensionally by speaking to their subjects’ physical, sociological and psychological makeup.

It isn’t easy, but we can do the same.

(Next week we’ll discuss the difference between the general profile and the microcosm profile.)

Business people often talk about the value of bringing a commanding presence into the room or onto the stage.

Some people have been given special genetic advantages in this area, having been blessed with a dashing physique, or a voice as rich and deep as Hollywood actor Sam Elliott.

That doesn’t mean the rest of us are out of luck. There are things we have control over that can make us more commanding figures in the boardroom and on the dais. They include:

• Being well dressed, always with an eye toward what is appropriate for the venue, audience and topic.
• Making eye contact, and making it direct and persistent enough that it says to audience members, “I see you and I’m paying attention to you.”
• Enlarging and animating our physical selves with arm gestures above the waist and extending away from the body.
• Pausing after delivering key statements or phrases. Among other things, it demonstrates that we are poised and in command of the presentation’s tempo.
• Speaking at a volume that fills the room. That increases the energy level and keeps your audience more alert. If you have a soft voice, use a microphone and make sure your sound engineer knows you want the speaker system kept on the loud side.

For presentation coaches, the conversational dynamics of persuasion and salesmanship teach powerful lessons.

I was reminded of that recently by a close friend who works for one of nation’s fastest growing wealth-management firms. She compared the sales styles of the two partners who manage the office that employs her.

The approaches they use during client meetings couldn’t be starker. In essence, the more experienced of the two tells his clients what to do. The junior partner tries to persuade his clients to assent to his advice by rationally explaining to them why it’s the right course of action.

Guess which partner is more successful?

In the interest of anonymity, we’ll refer to them as Mr. Assertion and Mr. Explanation, respectively.

Mr. Assertion is a former Lutheran minister who expresses himself with ecumenical certitude.

Mr. Explanation has an economics degree and a conviction that fact and reason is the winning formula.

Mr. Assertion, when selling a financial instrument, tells the client it’s the “right thing to do,” presents the paperwork, assures him that everything is in order, hands over a pen and points to the signature line.

By contrast, Mr. Explanation, when selling the same product, discusses how the financial instrument operates, its expected returns, fees, and why the product is right for the client’s portfolio.

Mr. Assertion – as required by industry guidelines – also talks returns, fees, etc., but he glosses over them in a headlong sprint to close the deal and get his client on the right path, post haste.

Mr. Assertion wastes little time.

Mr. Explanation will burn an hour talking about the Greek debt crisis and its potential ramifications for the U.S. equity and bond markets.

It doesn’t hurt that the lean, angular Mr. Assertion stands about six-and-a-half-feet tall and is topped off with a head full of white hair. He is an expert in his field and wields that self-assurance during every client exchange.

My friend says clients don’t always understand what Mr. Assertion is talking about. They sometimes come to her to ask, “Do you understand what he meant by…” But clients don’t resist his counsel because their bottom line reaction is, I trust him.

Mr. Explanation is no slouch, by any means. He has a great command of the wealth management business, yet he is averse to operating with the assertive manner of his partner. It simply isn’t his style. He isn’t comfortable with it.

Mr. Assertion sells himself.

Mr. Explanation sells products and expectations.

To answer the question I posed earlier, yes, Mr. Assertion is the more successful of the two (as if that wasn’t obvious by now).

The more important question, of course, is why. That’s pretty obvious, too. People aren’t sold on products and services as much as they are sold on the purveyors of those products and services. Confidence is attractive. Assertiveness, when backed by credibility, can be an irresistible force.

The lesson for presenters is this: When we take the stage we can embody the expertise we have come to impart. Or, we can try to convince audience members that we possess expertise by inundating them with facts, figures, metrics, comparisons and all manner of empirical knowledge.

In the final analysis, Mr. Assertion owns the stage. 

Thoughtful writers understand that the sentence offers us two primary positions of power.

The start of a sentence is one of those power positions.

The other powerhouse locale of sentence geography is the end.

Many writing coaches preach that sentences should start with the subject or main point. In other words, they consider the start of the sentence the true position of power.

I say that’s great advice for the beginning writer. But for the many business and recreational writers who have advanced beyond the nascent stage of the craft, we need to broaden our horizons and add more options and versatility. Otherwise, a person’s writing could take on a sameness that diminishes his or her potential.

Let consider a comparison of sentences that start or finish with their main point.

Bankruptcy is in the offing unless the company significantly cuts expenses or increases sales.

Unless the company significantly cuts expenses or increases sales it is headed for bankruptcy.

Obviously a dramatic subject, one that would make any sentence an attention grabber. In the first example, bankruptcy grips us right away, though we don’t know what it’s referencing. In the second example, a foreboding mood is set in a way that makes bankruptcy, when it finally arrives, pound like a hammer.

Which do you like better? There is no right or wrong. They’re both powerful sentences, though the latter is more suspenseful. That might or might not be your objective or preference.

None of this is to say that a sentence can’t be powerful while positioning its scarlet letters in the center of the construction. To wit:

The company is headed for bankruptcy unless expenses are cut or sales increased.

Though still a strong sentence, in general we do not want to place our most muscular verbiage in the center, where its incandescence can be dimmed by the surrounding packaging.

More often than not, writers overlook the effect of ending their sentences with a bang. Here’s another example of a sentence that makes itself suspenseful by using its payload as its clincher.

“He drove the car carefully, his shaggy hair whipped by the wind, his eyes hidden behind wraparound mirror shades, his mouth set in a grim smile, a .38 Police Special on the seat beside him, the corpse stuffed in the trunk.”

Who wouldn’t be pining to read the next sentence?

During your next writing assignment take these positions of power into account so you can fully realize each sentence’s maximum power. 

Last week I wrote about the importance of using a simple presentation structure. I ended that article by pointing out that the remaining question was this: What are some of the simple structures or blueprints we can follow when drafting our presentation?

As promised, this week’s blog post tackles that question.

There are many simple presentation structures we can employ in putting together a presentation that will serve us and our audiences well. Here is a score of those structural options.

1. Rhetorical question
2. Chronology
3. Problem/solution
4. How it happened (or is happening)
5. Issues/actions
6. Features/benefits
7. Case study
8. Argument/fallacy
9. Compare/contrast
10. Numerical

Let’s explore each with a bit of detail.

Rhetorical question. If we use the rhetorical question as our presentation structure we might initiate our speech with a statement such as: Conventional wisdom says the size and power of the Chinese economy will eclipse the U.S. economy within 10 years, but is that really the case? Having posed a rhetorical question, we know exactly what the rest of our speech must accomplish, as does our audience. Simply answer the question. We might delve into that task by saying, I contend the answer to that question is no because China is on the cusp of social and economic unrest so pervasive it will make the Tiananmen Square protest look like a junior high school fire drill. Here’s why this situation is coming to a head and will inflict great damage on China’s economic growth.

Chronology. A few years ago I was spellbound as Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak stood before the San Ramon, Calif. chapter of the Rotary Club and gave a chronological account of how he became interested in electronics as a young boy, studied engineering in college, and partnered with Steve Jobs to create and develop Apple Computer. Chronologies are not a sophisticated way of telling a story, but they are about the easiest way to tell one, and audience members have no trouble tracking a chronology’s progress.

Problem/solution. A member of Congress using this presentation structure might tell his or her audience the problem is a tax code that is far too complex and riddled with loopholes for special interests, and the solution is to abolish the current code in favor of a flat tax with no deductions.

How it happened. Example: How human life expectancy continues to expand in the United States even as tens of millions of citizens are uninsured and receive inadequate health care. Here are the reasons why…

Issues/actions. When using this construct we first enumerate the issues or challenges being confronted (Our company is facing dwindling brand recognition, declining sales and shrinking profit margins), followed by the actions we’re taking to rectify them (We are battling these trends with a new corporate development strategy that includes bigger marketing expenditures, a more rigorously trained sales team, and streamlined supply-chain management).

Features/benefits. This structure is commonly used in sales presentations. Basically, the presenter explains his product’s various features, then the important benefits the buyer will derive from those features.

Case study. This is another presentation structure often used in sales presentations. The case study is an excellent storytelling opportunity, as well as a model that allows the salesperson to give a specific example of how, for instance, another company solved the very same problem by using the services being proffered.

Argument/fallacy. So often the conventional wisdom people accept is founded on misleading or false information or reasoning. The argument/fallacy approach to presentation explodes these misconceptions. Here’s an example containing genuine research: Social scientists have concluded that the longer people live the more health-care resources they’ll consume. However, new research on end-of-life care shows that if you live to age 100 the last five years of life costs just one-third the medical costs of people who live to age 80.

Compare/contrast. This is yet another popular sales presentation blueprint, and for good reason. People make decisions by comparing their options – whether a professional service, a job opportunity or a potential spouse. One of the selling situations where compare/contrast presentations is constantly used is during political campaigns. Political candidates are forever saying, in a variety of different ways, Compare my record with my opponent’s record. The contrast couldn’t be starker.  A variation on the compare/contrast model was used many years by Oracle Corp. founder and CEO Larry Ellison when he proclaimed in Fortune magazine, IBM was yesterday, Microsoft is today, Oracle is tomorrow. Obviously, Mr. Ellison hadn’t account for the resurgence of Apple or the birth of Google, Facebook, and other redoubtable players.

Numerical. This is a favorite among bloggers and other media members, and it is the presentation structure I’ve used for this article, 10 simple structures for your presentation. Other examples might be, Three foods that eliminate belly fat, or The five best overseas options for a comfortable retirement. There is no simpler presentation structure than the numerical method of presenting information. Tick off the points you want to make one by one. How does one get lost when drafting a presentation based on the numerical construct? We don’t. It’s also great for audience members because they know at all times the degree of progress you’ve made and approximate duration remaining.

Always remember that we can combine a couple of these structures into a single presentation. For instance, we can marry the rhetorical structure with the numerical structure in this way: Conventional wisdom says the size and power of the Chinese economy will eclipse the U.S. economy within 10 years, but is that really the case? I contend the answer to that question is no because China is on the cusp of social and economic unrest so pervasive it will make the Tiananmen Square protest look like a junior high school fire drill. Here’s are three reasons why this prediction will come to pass and great damage will be inflicted on China’s economic growth.

Though in the above example we would be dealing with two presentation structures, they can be made to work seamlessly. They’re still a simple blueprint for writing and presenting our text, and still optimal for audience absorption of our content.

These simple presentation structures will make the writing of our next presentation far less onerous and much easier to present. We will head to the tribune confident in our ability to effectively present our material because we have not overloaded ourselves with a sprawling outline that has turned into a data dump that will bore, confuse and punish our audience.

When we use a simple presentation structure and adhere to the less is more concept of presenting, we leave our audiences thirsting for more, rather than shifting in their seats, anxious for our concluding statement.

Step No. 1 in effective public speaking is to use the right presentation structure.

Keep it simple. Keep it narrowly focused. Remember that when presenting less is always more.

Economical and spare writing is a skill Ernest Hemingway made famous.

He taught us two valuable lessons when he wrote these six words: “For Sale: baby shoes, never worn.”

It’s one of the shortest and most poignant stories ever told – and contained within those six words are two important lessons for every writer.

Lesson one, contrary to what many people think, that storytelling takes too long to be practical in most instances, Hemingway demonstrated that a story can be contained in remarkably few words.

Lesson two is the substantial amount of highly-charged content that can be imparted in a mere six words.

Notice how Hemingway’s sentence tells a story, but it’s little more than a verbal gesture drawing of a story, leaving the reader to imagine what might have happened, and to easily expand on the bare bones of the tale they’ve been given.

Someone is selling baby shoes, unused. Who buys baby shoes unless a newborn is on the way? Something tragic obviously happened along the way.

A child is missing. There are would-be parents and family members feeling pain. An empty pair of baby shoes serves as a reminder of the new life that never arrived.

The dimensions of this story are endless, restricted only by our imagination. Such is the power of the carefully crafted language. Such was the power of the incomparable Ernest Hemingway.

To our adulation and trepidation, we’ve been invited to a prestigious event to make a presentation about our area of expertise.

Naturally, we accept the invitation and are immediately gripped by that most basic professional desire – to impress others with the breadth and depth of our knowledge. This is imperative. The person who invited us to speak is entrusting us with an entire hour on the tribune, after all, and now we are hell-bent on proving that trust was well placed. We want to prove we know what we’re talking about.

How best to accomplish this? Like many inexperienced or untrained public speakers, we determine we must shower our audience with a mother lode of data to illustrate how vast our reservoir of knowledge. So, in assembling our speaking notes and PowerPoint slides, we basically parade out everything we know on the subject of our presentation, thinking our audience will be exhilarated and awestruck by our mastery of the topic. The result is a data dump on an audience that finds itself drowning in information so voluminous that each component part seems only tenuously related.

What we haven’t accounted for is that people can only absorb relatively small amounts of information during a limited timeframe. Unfortunately, because we’re obsessed with our own definition of a tour de force performance, we neglect the needs and limitations of our audience.

The winning formula is a narrowly focused package of information that shows a tightly-knit relationship between the concepts and assertions we want to express. What’s needed is a simple presentation structure.

By creating a simple presentation structure, we can achieve two monumental things.

1. We substantially reduce our workload and stress level by settling on a much more manageable task.
2. Whether consciously or not, we have just made an affirmative vote in favor of our audience members, who will far more easily absorb and remember the points we convey.

Let’s examine these in a bit more detail.

Trying to write and illustrate a data-dump presentation is time consuming, confusing and stressful because we are juggling far too much information, not all of which can possibly be seamless, let alone point clearly to an overarching theme or key message. If we forge ahead on this dizzying path, we will be heading to the tribune mentally loaded down with a Samsonite suitcase full of information that is difficult to memorize and articulate. We will be pressed to fit all this data into the time we’ve been allotted. It’s a pot of stew that amplifies the anxiety that naturally accompanies any public speaking date.

Once we realize that less is more when making a speech or PowerPoint presentation, our task becomes immensely simpler and more focused.

Now we can ask ourselves a couple of operative questions: What point are we trying to make? What are the essential pieces of information that make that point? Never mind the minutia. Too many details mean too many bits and pieces of information we must juggle and organize. Stick with the big picture.

Having made those decisions, we’ve swept our desktop mostly clean and our world changes in our favor – and our audience’s favor.

Now we’re heading to the tribune with a presentation that is focused and lightweight (in volume, not substance). It’s easily memorized and articulated, and we won’t be pressed for time. In fact, we’ll delight our audience and the event’s master of ceremonies by, perhaps, completing our presentation early. Meanwhile, our audience understands our key message and easily absorbs the supporting evidence. They will actually remember much of what we’ve said.

The remaining question is this: What are some of the simple structures or blueprints we can follow when drafting our presentation?

We’ll review a host of those options next week in a blog post headlined, 10 simple structures for your presentation.

The most oppressive fact of life is that we must proceed with caution.

To conduct oneself recklessly is to put one’s career, relationships, even one’s life in peril.

Then there is the written word, the one place we can misbehave or be outright reckless with absolute impunity (provided it’s not our final draft). Most of us never do, of course. Instead, we proceed with caution, which is why writing so often lacks the excitement and creativity we aspire to.

It’s why Stephen King is quoted as saying, “A writer is someone who has trained his mind to misbehave.”

It’s also why Brenda Ueland, author of If You Want to Write, urges us to be reckless when we write. Be a pirate, she says. Be a lion.

I exhort my business writing clients to do exactly that when we’re working on free writing exercises. Anger, profanity, passion, sexual content, effusion, joy, sensuality are all inbounds and encouraged.

When talking about writing with reckless intent I often invoke the name and tactics of Carol Mueller, an abstract painter whose work I came to admire while living in Charlotte, N.C.

“Where do you get your ideas?” I asked her one day.

Mueller said she would sometimes approach the canvas with a pencil rather than a paintbrush, and would start writing whatever came to mind. This included a wide range of subject matter, from sports and art to religion and politics and beyond. Even profanity would sometimes come off the tip of her pencil.

By letting loose, by opening her mind to any and every possibility, Mueller also opened her mental window to the kinds of vivid images and color combinations she is known for.

As writers, when we allow ourselves to misbehave, to be reckless, the uncensored results are a lot of copy that we cannot use, as well as the kind of inspired and creative writing that we can use, the very kind of writing we aspire to but so often seems beyond the scope of our imagination.

It’s there. It’s accessible. It doesn’t reveal itself to the timid, the conservative, the fretful.

It’s there for the swashbuckling pirate or the fearless lion.

Donald Trump. First he turns into a birther, only to look foolish when we all learn that during Trump’s show-me-your-birth-certificate campaign, President Obama was homing in on the successful assassination attack against Osama bin Laden. Then the New York real estate developer treats the GOP presidential primary as though it’s his personal play toy for staying in the limelight. After only two GOP presidential candidates agree to show up at a Trump-moderated debate (which he’s forced to cancel for lack of participation and interest), The Donald resigns from the Republican Party, saying he’s disgusted by the candidates’ behavior. Trump has clearly poised himself for an independent run for the Presidency, a campaign he has no interest in completing let alone winning. Somebody take the “T” out of this guy’s name.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The president of Iran could use a shave and his mouth washed out with soap. Iran, one of the world’s youngest countries in terms of average age of its citizens, has a highly educated population with enormous potential. You would never know it by listening to Ahmadinejad, who is incessantly embarrassing the proud Persian people with ill-mannered proclamations that signal he is committed to rattling sabers and keeping Iran stuck in the Dark Ages.

Glenn Beck. This guy has deserved a place on the list for years running. The operative phrase here is “lack of credibility.” Do his listeners not care that his laundry list of dire predictions – including FEMA prison camps to incarcerate all who disagree with the Obama administration – has never come to pass?

harlie Sheen. Charlie doped, drank and talked his way out of the highest paying job on television, the starring role in Two And A Half Men. It’s always a bad policy to call the head of the network paying you millions of dollars a “liar.” If Charlie’s was “winning,” as he incessantly claimed, sign me up for the “losing” column.

 Anthony Weiner. Lying is a sin, or so they say. This New York congressman adopted dissembling as his policy when caught Tweeting semi-nude snapshots of himself to young women. The whole world knew Weiner was lying, yet he kept doing so until there was just no explaining his way out of the perverse revelation. Sometimes the truth is just too awful to admit.

James Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch’s son comes under the headline Spoiled Rich Kid. Here’s another young man having trouble with the truth, or believing the rule of law applies to him or the company whose mantel he’s inheriting, News Corporation. Murdoch the Younger sat before the British Parliament and tried to sell its members on the fatuous notion that he didn’t know phone hacking was a standard practice among his London-based newspaper reporters, even after getting emails from his own executives telling him exactly that.

Rick Perry. He runs for president with a Texas gubernatorial agenda, is badly thumped in GOP primary debates, and suffered an embarrassing brain freeze when trying to recall just three federal agencies he vows to abolish. C’mon, Rick.

Jerry Sandusky. Sometimes it’s what you don’t say. The Penn State assistant football coach’s long pause when an interviewer asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys struck like an asteroid. And sometimes it’s what you do say: Defense attorneys were floored that Sandusky’s legal counsel allowed him to talk with the media.

Greg Mortenson. The author of the huge bestseller Three Cups of Tea has the lid blow off egregious discrepancies in his reporting, as well as alleged misuse of funds contributed to the charity he founded. When confronted by 60 Minutes and other news organizations about the charges, Mortenson went into hiding. Fellow mountain climber and bestselling author Jon Krakauer was so offended by Mortenson’s duplicity he released his own 75-page exposé, Three Cups of Deceit: How Humanitarian Greg Mortenson Lost His Way.

James Harrison. This Pittsburgh Steeler has trouble following revised NFL rules that forbid delivering head blows when making tackles. He gets repeatedly fined by the league, repeatedly shoots his mouth off, and repeatedly has to apologize for his lack of verbal discretion. The quotes from his July interview in Men’s Journal alone are eye popping.

Having watched his historic run for the Presidency, I came to two conclusions about Barack Obama regarding public speaking.

One, Obama’s delivery – whether standing at the lectern reading teleprompters or roaming stages at town-hall-style events – was not as great as many people breathlessly asserted.

Two, Obama’s debate performances against rival John McCain were superior.

Let start with his public speaking.

I’ve never seen Mr. Obama speak live, and I’m sure he’s electric when his voice is booming through the room and he is surrounded by the magisterial trappings of the Presidency. The problem is this: Any president reaches only a fraction of Americans during public appearances no matter how many they schedule. The rest of us are viewing on television. That means he must come off the television screen in a way that gives citizens a galvanic response.

Three years into his presidency we are seeing the big disconnect. Namely, he isn’t connecting with enough voters on an emotional level. He’s cold, many say. Too professorial. Even arrogant according to some (mainly his detractors).

Obama isn’t lighting up the house. His so-called No Drama Obama persona could benefit from a warmer approach.

All this and yet most non-partisan political pundits are indicating that Obama is likely to be re-elected, despite presiding over the worst economic times since the Great Depression. It’s hard to supplant a sitting president under any conditions, but Obama will be difficult to unseat for an additional reason. Presidential elections are largely decided by the series of debates between the candidates, and Barack Obama will likely crush anybody the GOP pits against him.

The Republican Party learned this lesson the hard way. Early in the Obama presidency, in the heat of the health-care debate, they invited the President to a House of Representatives retreat to respond to their questions (and allegations). The President accepted. Republicans were gleeful, thinking the President was nuts to stand at the podium and face off against a couple of hundred members of the opposition party.

As it turned out, Obama’s command of the issues and articulate ripostes left House members wobbling on their heels. The drubbing was so bad that some anti-Fox-News observers accused the network of discontinuing its live coverage of the showdown because the President was proving himself to be far from the incompetent Fox News had portrayed him to be.

Obama is an outstanding debater for a few reasons. He has a deep command of the issues. He’s articulate, giving clear, well organized answers to questions. He’s disciplined, never losing his cool.

It is in this format that the No Drama Obama persona serves him well.

Good public speaking requires that a person connect with his or her audience (especially when you’re asking them to entrust you with the highest office in the country). Debates are a different forum altogether, more akin to a boxing or tennis match. No one expects a boxer or tennis player to connect with their audience in the heat of the competition. They are there to see the contest, to witness the mastery of one competitor over another; though likability of individual competitors is clearly a key factor in swaying audiences in subjective competitions, such as debates.

It is anticipation of the presidential debates that have many registered republicans lining up behind Newt Gingrich in recent weeks and catapulting him to the top of national polls. They are excited about the prospect of Gingrich squaring off against the President. The former House Speaker’s command of the issues and articulateness is equal to, if not superior to, Obama’s. An Obama-Gingrich series of debates would be a veritable clash of polemic titans.

In the end, Obama would prevail for four reasons.

1. Newt Gingrich is viewed negatively by too high a percentage of Americans.
2. His debate style is caustic, to say the least, with his long history as a verbal bully. Meanness doesn’t sit well with most voters.
3. His temper is always bubbling just below the surface and is easily brought to full boil by a confrontational question or challenge.
4. He is prone to capriciously sprout ideas many regard as outlandish, (most recently saying federal judges should be subject to arrest or being hauled before Congress if they make decisions lawmakers consider outside mainstream ideals).

President Obama has taught us a couple of good lessons. Be warm toward your audience when public speaking. Stay cool and focused while debating.