US:NOW THAT the presidential contest is looking ever-more like a two-man race, the country can't help but marvel: John McCain, once a long shot, wouldn't lie down. Barack Obama, the new kid, charmed voters.
Hillary Clinton, an early favourite, has yet to surrender.
But Arlyn Imberman, a court-certified graphologist based in New York, would say clues to the nomination fight were obvious each time a candidate wrote a thank you note, inscribed a memoir or autographed a pair of boxing gloves. "Obama is very much his writing - fluid, graceful. McCain's is angular and intense, he's a pitbull. And look at the perfectionism in Hillary's - straight up, precise. She is persistent and is not going to give up until she absolutely has to," she said.
Presidential signatures are trademarks that grace everything from historic documents to souvenir boxes given out on Air Force One. And history suggests penmanship can reflect personality.
Abraham Lincoln set three million slaves free with a signature that was as modest and unadorned as he was. Ronald Reagan - the "great communicator" - penned rounded letters that radiated warmth. Jimmy Carter etched an autograph that was aloof and cerebral. And Richard Nixon, who entered the White House with a big, bold "R" and "N", left in deflated disgrace, his signature collapsing as well.
Indeed, the 1984 campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart suffered when it was revealed he had changed his signature several times over the years. "Who is Gary Hart?" his rivals demanded.
"Our handwriting is uniquely ours; an imprint as singular as a fingerprint," Imberman asserted in her book Signature for Success.
Three court-certified graphologists looked at writing samples from Obama, Clinton and McCain.
Despite charges of elitism, none of the presidential candidates turned out to be a snob. All of them appear intelligent and driven.
The graphologists analysed signatures and writing samples from the three candidates - thank you notes from Clinton and Obama and book pages inscribed by McCain.
Two of them, the experts said, strive to remain opaque amid the public glare. Two are reluctant to embrace family legacies. One lacks warmth; another can talk to almost anyone. One is flexible, another controlled.
McCain and Obama have something in common signature-wise - illegibility, which suggests a need for privacy or aversion to transparency.
Clinton's signature is readable, but lacks emotion and warmth - the two "l"s in Hillary are sticks rather than loops.
The simplicity shows intellect and forcefulness.
The body of one's writing can be revealing because, unlike the practised brand of a signature, it is spontaneous and unconscious. Together they form a psychological snapshot, graphologists say. - (Los Angeles Times service)