As the 2008 presidential election approaches, political stories are dominating the news. This election stands apart from those in the past with a truly diverse group of candidates.

All the candidates are being studied and watched, but there is one candidate in particular who is receiving an immense amount of coverage.

Since the time of her husband's presence in the White House, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has been critically watched by the media. Everything from the style of her hair to the magnitude of her presence has been topic of conversation.

Recently, a study was done by Camelia Suleiman of Florida International University and Daniel C. O'Connell of Georgetown University examining the interview styles of Senator Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. The results were by no means astonishing and I wonder about their relevance.

The study consisted of the examination of several television and radio interviews with the Clintons in 2003 and 2004.

All the interviews were conducted by the same interviewers: Larry King of CNN, Katie Couric of NBC, David Letterman of CBS, Juan Williams and Terry Gross, both of NPR.

In the interviews, there were differences in the way the two Clintons were addressed, the language they used to respond to questions and how they spoke to the journalist.

The findings recognize that Senator Clinton used what is identified as the language of the "non-powerful." Her answers to questions often included a hedge or a phrase such as "you know," which can weaken a statement.

Also, she used the word "so" more often than her husband, and by intensifying her speech in this manner, the creators of the study said she is weakening her speech.

Senator Clinton also identified her interviewer by his or her first name and was often identified by her first name.

This practice is seen as informal, casual and even somewhat disrespectful on the part of the journalist.

The former president was never addressed by his first name.

The conductors of the study asked that their findings be taken with a grain of salt.

I looked over these findings with not just a grain of salt, but the entire shaker.

As a journalist and a past English major, I understand the importance of language. I understand the usage of certain words conveys different connotations.

I grew to learn that word choice is everything. In this case, the phrase "non-powerful" carries a strong connotation and depicts both Senator Clinton's language and persona to be weak.

Her conversation style was relaxed in her interviews and attempted to connect with the journalists. She was asked personal questions and replied in a personal manner.

The interviews that were studied were conducted four years ago and at that time, she was not a political contender. At that time, she was the First Lady and treated as such.

Those who conducted the research ascertain that Senator Clinton's language now would be the same as it was then because it is "just her style." This is a gross assumption.

When spoken to in a casual manner, a person usually replies with the same style. Sen. Clinton's language is being made to represent how "powerful" she is.

This makes me question our definition of power and how the presence of familiarity undermines that.

The dictionary defines powerful as "having control or influence over people and events."

Control and influence are not necessarily gained by using forceful or commanding language.

By using said, "powerless" language Senator Clinton is familiarizing herself with those she comes into contact with and possibly gaining their trust.

However, the strength of Senator Clinton should be measured by what she said and not by how she said it.

China Reevers is The State News opinion writer. Reach her at reevers1@msu.edu.