The Greek master Aristotle defines rhetoric, in his aptly named book "Rhetoric," as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Therefore, this analysis of the presidential campaigns’ rhetoric will examine how they have used the available means of persuasion.

Television, for better or for worse, is the medium through which most Americans experience the world and, since 1960, most campaigns have succeeded or failed based on their use of this medium. Television, however, has several components, each of which I will address individually: Commercials, news, conventions and the debates.

When it comes to the use of commercials, the Republicans and their allies have trounced the Democrats and John Kerry. The 30-second attack ad had — until the debates — effectively neutered John Kerry as a viable presidential candidate. The Bush campaign created the image of a flip-flopping Kerry as early as June. After the jingoistic Democratic convention, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth unleashed devastating ads that, while short on verifiable facts and long on personal grudges, eliminated Kerry’s polished image as a war hero — the image that won him the Democratic primary.

It may seem strange to cite the news as an available mean of persuasion for a campaign, but the ability of a campaign to capitalize on either good or bad news for itself can determine success or failure. This year, the Kerry campaign narrowly edges the Bush campaign — mostly due to bad news concerning Iraq, oil and jobs.

Kerry’s success came late; only in the last few weeks did the campaign begin to point to a disconnection between Bush’s words and the "reality" of the news. I put "reality" in quotations because news is, almost always, a 15- or 30-second video with voiceover by the pretty face reading words off a teleprompter and hardly offers a deep understanding of a situation. A regular newspaper reader always has more information than someone who watches CNN or FOX News for hours. It’s the nature of the medium.

The Republicans once again proved they know how to throw a party. This may seem strange since Republicans are conservative and frown on alcohol, loud music and sexy people, but the Republicans learned from their convention disaster in 1992 and have since run a tight show. The Democratic convention did more to promote Barack Obama’s candidacy for the Illinois Senate seat than it did to help Kerry. The Republican convention effectively demolished Kerry and at the same time presented Bush’s campaign platform and hailed him as a decisive leader in a dangerous time.

Television, when given a span longer than 30 seconds, does not like President George W. Bush, especially when he doesn’t have a script or a softball question from a supporter. Kerry won the debates because Bush appeared to have no attention span and facial spasms. Kerry won the debates on substance, too, but Bush’s appearance did more to give Kerry the victory than anything Kerry did. That’s not good for the Kerry campaign, but that is the least of its worries right now.

Some might argue that I have been indecisive for not granting a rhetorical victory to either Bush or Kerry. I will say that Bush’s superiority in his rhetorical strengths (commercials and convention) far outweighed Kerry’s in his (news and debates). Since the news and debates are more respected than commercials and conventions, however, neither campaign has a rhetorical advantage. That’s why the polls are tight and the election will be close. The winner will be decided Nov. 2, so if you disagree with me, prove me wrong — go vote.

Adam Sharp is a junior foreign language major.