Many newscasters and analysts have commented on positive changes they've observed in President George W. Bush since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Do you see a change in his speaking style or the effectiveness of his communication? What's different now from six months ago?

I think that since the attacks of Sept. 11 the President has grasped a better sense of his audience and what he believes they need to hear. Personally, I don't think Bush will ever be a magnetic or even a particularly effective speaker. However, he speaks with more confidence as of late and I think much of that has to do with the escalation of his approval ratings. I don't think that his speaking style has changed tremendously, but rather the nation's perception has altered radically since Sept. 11.

Is there something inherent in a national tragedy that lends itself to such a transition? Is the president speaking to the nation's concerns?

Traditionally, in the wake of a national tragedy the majority of the country rallies behind the office. Is Bush speaking to the nation's concerns? His approval ratings suggest yes. People want to be assured that the current situation will be dealt with. Moreover, some hold the opinion that it is inappropriate to criticize the office during times of crisis. As we've seen during the past few weeks, those daring to question our government or criticize its actions in the Middle East have faced reprisals.

As you mentioned, the president's public approval ratings have dramatically increased in recent weeks. Is there something in the way he's communicating that's helping him win over people who voted against him only a year ago?

One of the key aspects of public communication is establishing common ground with your audience. The audience identifies strongly with speakers who share similar values and concerns. A few weeks ago Bush made a statement to the effect that he'had no idea so many people in the world hated the United States.' Is this a disingenuous statement? One might assume that as the president of the United States, he is privy to all the intricacies of our foreign policy and assuredly has an inkling as to why we might not enjoy great popularity abroad. Yet with this statement he voiced the concerns of many: Why are we hated? What have we done to deserve this?

He has also improved with his eye contact and is maintaining a steady gaze. One of the most effective ways of connecting with an audience is to maintain eye contact. As audience members we believe that speakers who do this are inherently more trustworthy and credible than those who don't. A perfect example is the infamous Clinton denial,"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Because of his steady eye contact and seeming connection with the audience, Clinton managed to convey honesty and frankness.

"Bush-isms" have regularly provided fodder for late night comedians and Internet jokes. Although the president still minces his words, the public in general doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Why not?

I've asked around quite a bit about Bush's use of malapropisms. Again it goes back to audience identification. It is my understanding that many people find Bush an accessible leader who addresses their concerns in simple, unvarnished language. Of course, his brand of rhetoric doesn't appeal to everyone. Some find his use of terms such as "evildoers" simplistic and his creative use of words such as "misunderestimate" alarming. However, what sounds like empty platitudes to some, resonates like honest truth to others. I suppose it's a question of style.