BROOKE GLADSTONE: Last Sunday, the New York Times Week in Review featured the headline: Mr. Likable vs. Mr. Electable, referring to Senators Edwards and Kerry. Edwards was the one dubbed "likable," so is there something unlikable about Kerry? Voters are still deciding. Reporters, however, have probably already made up their minds. And media critics say that when candidates are unliked by the media -- Al Gore, for example, it's bound to hurt their campaigns. Tom Oliphant is a Washington columnist for the Boston Globe. He's been reporting on Kerry for all his professional life, and he remembers Gore, too.

TOM OLIPHANT: When I would show up to, you know, spend a day or two with Gore, you could just sense the chill between the vice president and his press corps. It went in both directions. I mean Gore thought that he had somehow or another inherited the ultimate querulous gang, and many of the reporters thought Gore was aloof bordering on arrogant from time to time; a trimmer, where accuracy in the truth was concerned. And the result was quite a poisonous atmosphere.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So let's flash forward now to John Kerry's campaign.

TOM OLIPHANT: Uh-huh.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Now you've been covering John Kerry since you were both in your 20's.

TOM OLIPHANT: Early 20s. God.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So-- likable? Not likable?

TOM OLIPHANT: [LAUGHS] Well it's almost easier not to know somebody well, but likable, absolutely.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:Am I wrong to then come to this interview with the idea that there is a likability threat hanging over Kerry? Not with, necessarily with regard to the voter but with regard to the press corps?

TOM OLIPHANT: With regard to the press corps, I do think there's a problem that is always present. It is his habit of speech in talking in the public square. He tends, like a lot of people, to go around topics rather than straight at them. I mean he has positions, very clear ones, in fact. But often his rhetorical approach is almost elliptical, and the danger is that clarity is sacrificed, and reporters cannot stand having to wade through prose either at a press conference or an event or a speech or in a debate that isn't immediately clear. Kerry can come up with sentences that have a dozen subordinate clauses in them that you couldn't diagram on five blackboards. And you know, there was that famous incident in the debate in Wisconsin when John Edwards [LAUGHS] just-- skewered him after one particularly tortured answer on, on Iraq when he said that's the longest answer to a yes or no question I've ever heard. And I think that's the source of what tension there is with the reporters who cover Kerry.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: And what about Edwards?

TOM OLIPHANT:I would say what - the general idea is that this is a popular guy that everybody likes, right? The funny thing is the reporters who are condemned to follow him around every day might dissent a little bit from that view. Nothing frustrates a reporter more than [LAUGHS] having to, to deal with exactly the same thing every day.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: He never utters a new sentence?

TOM OLIPHANT: [LAUGHS] Well, it - that's not true, but it's sort of true. [LAUGHS]

BROOKE GLADSTONE: But did you know, though, that he's the son of a mill worker?

TOM OLIPHANT:I, I did! [LAUGHTER] And that there are two Americas. [LAUGHTER] And he can do it in 30 minutes; he has a 15 minute version; he has a 5 minute version --and nothing frustrates reporters more than a candidate that is so disciplined that it just keeps coming relentlessly [LAUGHS] over and over and over again.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:Wait a minute -- does nothing frustrate reporters more than long, elliptical, un-diagrammable sentences or does nothing annoy a reporter more than somebody who stays fully disciplined, on message, repeating the same line again and again and again?

TOM OLIPHANT: Now we're getting to the ultimate truth. Reporters want stories. And it's like Edwards and Kerry have exhibited two sides of what can really exasperate reporters. Kerry, as I say, can be really hard to follow sometimes. Edwards, on the other hand, is so disciplined that it is very hard sometimes for the poor reporter covering him to come up with a story for the next day's news broadcast or paper.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Well then let me ask you this -- how do those character quirks affect the way that reporters write?

TOM OLIPHANT:I love parsing the stories to see the signs of what is frustrating people. This week, for example, it's been interesting to watch the press coverage of the Democratic candidates on the subject of gay marriage. They are trying to avoid getting drawn into complicated discussions of a hot button issue that they would really prefer to avoid right now. Kerry has had to twist and turn his way through the obstacle course, often to the frustration, and you can see it in the coverage of the reporters who are covering him. Edwards has had a different tack. He has about two sentences, and that's all he'll say. I saw him in Claremont, California yesterday literally walk away from a press conference rather than continue to be questioned about it. It's such an interesting contrast and an instructive one. Because here you see somebody who's disciplined in ways you normally associate with Republican candidates. You know, stump speech and hardly anything else. But if you look at the coverage, what comes through is Edwards saying I oppose a federal constitutional amendment. I think it should be left up to the states, period. And I'm not saying any more. Now the funny thing is, is that I think Edwards probably benefits by stiff-arming us, because his position, even though I don't think it's as clear as it sounds, his position comes off as clear.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:So is what you're saying then Edwards speaks, says so much and you report that. Kerry's position is more nuanced and too complicated, so as a result he comes off as if he has no real position?

TOM OLIPHANT: Exactly. Actually I think the example is Kerry on Iraq. It's like you know what he's saying, [LAUGHS] but if you're stuck with your professional duty of quoting him, the result is not clarity. What frustrates me as a columnist is that I can say it better than he can. He supported bringing matters to a head with Iraq. His vote to authorize force last October was not a vote to authorize what Bush actually did. He opposes what Bush did. Period. It mystifies me that Kerry has so much trouble getting to the point.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Tom, thanks so much.

TOM OLIPHANT: You bet.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Tom Oliphant is a Washington columnist for the Boston Globe. [CLIP FROM PRIMARY CAMPAIGN DEBATE PLAYS]

DEBATE QUESTIONER:In the last few weeks, Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards has been saying your health care plan is too expensive, it's unaffordable, it's unrealistic. Does his plan cover enough people? Is it ambitious enough?

JOHN KERRY: No. [PAUSE]

DEBATE QUESTIONER: Go on. [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER] Don't let me stop you.

AL SHARPTON: But that was a yes or no, John, answer. [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]

JOHN EDWARDS: Yeah, but what time is it now? [LAUGHTER]

DEBATE QUESTIONER: We got a little while.

JOHN KERRY: Let me-- let me just say that I think John has an interesting approach.... [MUSIC]

copyright 2004 WNYC Radio