Jostling for the Edge

As the two candidates readied themselves for their first debate this week and their teams of seconds wrangled over the details, TIME National Political Correspondent Robert Ajemian followed the maneuverings of both sides. His report:

It was a matter of style. Gerald Ford's negotiators said it was necessary that the two debaters be standing. It was undignified and out of the question for the President to be seated during any debate. But Jimmy Carter's men wanted their candidate seated, both to minimize Ford's height advantage (6 ft. 1 in. v. 5 ft. 10 in.) and because Carter, like most people, tends to be less aggressive sitting down. It was fine for Jimmy to be aggressive with Ford, but not at the risk of ridiculing the presidency. Carter's team lost: it would be a stand-up debate.

The bargaining for cosmetic advantages went on. The Carter people struck back, insisting that the debaters not stand behind presidential-size lecterns. That way, they thought, Ford's chunky torso would be more clearly visible. More important, a big presidential lectern would mask one of slim Jimmy's resources: his agile physique. "Jimmy uses his hands and body beautifully," said one of the Carter team. "The President has zero body language." The Carter group won the lower, more revealing lecterns.

There was something almost silly about all this jostling for an edge, for the most trivial advantage that might make the debaters look or behave better. Except that the stakes were so large, the impact of the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates still so sharply felt in every politician's gizzard. This first debate would surely be the most critical event of the 1976 campaign, and both candidates knew it.

As the President's strategists view it, the debate offers Ford two large opportunities. First, as a man with 28 years in Government, he can show himself as a leader with a broad grasp of all the issues. Ford-can be impressive in his presentation of an argument. Last February, during the New Hampshire primary campaign, he delivered to state and local officials an explanation of the new federal budget that some observers thought--remarkable, considering the subject--was outstanding in its detail and clarity. As House minority leader in the '60s, standing in the well of the House and speaking from hastily scribbled notes, Ford became skilled at summing up debates. Remembers one colleague: "He was never abrasive, even though he was always partisan, and he never showed the tension."

Soft Attacker. The second opportunity is to make Carter seem hypocritical on the issues. "Carter is such a delicious target," says one Ford counselor. "He promises everybody." The question among the staff is whether Ford has the finesse to bring off such an exercise. "Ford is not a hard attacker," says Stu Spencer, the President's deputy campaign manager. "He went after Reagan in Texas on the Panama Canal and wound up shooting himself in the leg. He's a soft attacker." But ever since his scrappy acceptance speech in Kansas City, Ford seems to have a new enthusiasm about himself. He has pored over Carter's statements for the past several years and memorized the inconsistencies he has found there. If the questioners do not challenge Carter this week, Ford will. Says one top adviser: "He still hasn't gotten over that high feeling of Kansas City. I walked into his room that night and he was still dripping with perspiration. It was a beautiful adrenaline flow." His staff Relieves Ford can get away with being tougher than Carter in the debate because the President is seen by an overwhelming majority of the public as a nice guy.

Good Smiles. Ford has his drawbacks. He can be slow in repartee, and his hesitations show. To make this less noticeable, Ford's team coaxed the Carter group into allowing seven cameras in the theater to provide closeups, zoom shots and split-screen lens movement that may help animate Ford's wooden image. He is being coached on certain words that give him trouble. He tends, for example, to say "judg-uh-ment," stretching the word into three syllables. None of this worries his close friend Senator Robert Griffin very much: "People don't expect much from Ford and that will be a real advantage. Nixon was supposed to be a super debater, and look what happened to him."

One undebatable advantage Ford brings with him into the Philadelphia theater is the presidency and its aura. Carter may have been acting like a President since June--receiving important visitors in Plains while Ford desperately charged around the country hustling delegates--but this week Carter must reckon with the fact that he is just a challenger. "What bothers me," says Charles Kirbo, Carter's closest counselor, "is that the more heavily Jimmy scores, the more people might feel he's ridiculing the office. People don't like to see their President put down." Actually, that worried Carter less than it did his staff; at first he wanted to put questions to Ford directly. The debate rules now forbid that, but the relaxed format and the casual dispositions of the two candidates may still lead to direct exchanges.

Carter is confident of his ability to sound knowing on the issues; the press and public have been chewing on him for more than a year. He is a cool, collected performer. His speech at the Democratic Convention in July showed how much personal force lies behind the soft voice and gentle manners. The Carter strategy is to attack Ford's record --mainly on the issues of inflation, jobs and leadership--but very carefully to avoid any knocks at the presidency. This poses an additional bit of tactical trivia for Carter: how to refer to his opponent. Calling him "Mr. President" might seem too deferential. A simple "Mr. Ford," on the other hand, might be a trifle patronizing. As the debate got closer, the possibility of just saying "President Ford" was favored.

There was a further problem. A briefing book for Carter prepared by four Democratic campaign strategists pointed out that he sometimes tends to smile at inappropriate times--when people criticize him, for example. Says one Carter staffman: "Jimmy has his good smiles and his bad smiles." Carter's image chief, Jerry Rafshoon, has his own favorite, which he calls the humble smile: "It's when he smiles with his lower lip, the lips almost pressed together." The wide smile looks forced and sometimes comes across as a smirk, say other smile watchers, and some people have asked Carter to stop it.

But Carter has far more crucial considerations than his appearance. In the past few weeks, he has stretched himself terribly thin to hold together his disparate coalition of support. It reaches from the conservative South through the industrial North, and Carter's politics of reconciliation often leads him into telling various factions what he thinks will best keep them with him. One critic has labeled him Everyman--the candidate who needs everyone's vote. In the debates, all these factions will be listening together and Carter will have to address them as one constituency.

The black briefing book, prepared by Counselors Ted Van Dyk, John Stewart, Frank Mankiewicz and Ted Sorensen, includes 15 areas of issues, as well as 40 questions likely to be put to Carter, and suggested answers. Said one of the four who worked on it: "It is a sobering list for Carter." The book warns that the questioners will surely challenge Carter in two areas: issues that he has seemed to straddle (like suggesting a strong military posture with a reduced defense budget), and social issues (like amnesty, abortion and busing). The most feared prospect in the book: that a questioner will string together half a dozen positions on which Carter has been accused of ambivalence and leave him in the impossible position of having to clarify his stands in the brief time allowed.

No Notes. Actually, under the rules of the 90-minute debate, each candidate will have three minutes in which to answer questions. Candidates may make notes but not bring any background materials. If there is a follow-up question, the candidate will have another two minutes to reply further. The opponent will then be permitted his own comment of two minutes on the subject. There will be no opening statements, but at the end of the debate, Ford and Carter will be allowed three-minute summaries.

One evening a few weekends ago, Carter, in work clothes and boots, sat in the den of his Plains home. An old kinescope of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate had been set up for him, and he studied the two candidates closely. At the end he agreed that the images of the debate--the ways Nixon and Kennedy had looked and acted--had made more of an impression on him than the content of the questions and their answers.

In 1976, style again is almost certain to be more impressive than substance. If Carter comes across as a believable man, capable and fair, he will undoubtedly attract that controlling group of voters who are eager for a change. But if he shows poorly, is seen as calculating or waffling or brittle, his Everyman could turn into No Man, the candidate who reached for so many constituencies that he wound up with none.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.