It has become fashionable, even axiomatic in some circles today, to suppose that politics is all about form, not content—it's not what they say but the way that they say it. It ought to follow that the most powerful politicians should be the best speakers, so this paper takes as its starting point the 2004 US presidential debates. These televised confrontations, where each candidate has to react to new questions as well as to counter his opponent, are notoriously high-risk, and present considerable opportunities for various speech “dysfunctions”. These are analysed in relation to media reaction and public perception of the outcome.