Politicians very often use language which is supposed to manipulate people’s thought and influence their perception of reality. This kind of language is called doublespeak and euphemisms and jargon are its most common forms. However, in order to understand how doublespeak is used and what effects its use has on what people think about a particular issue, it is essential to pay attention also to more basic forms of it, i.e. “purr” and “snarl” words. These can be defined as words whose favourable (in case of “purr” words) or unfavourable (in case of “snarl” words) connotations become more important than the conceptual meaning of the particular word. The analysis focuses on the use of “purr” and “snarl” words in American presidential debates in the years 2000, 2004 and 2008. It discovers four most common groups of “purr” and “snarl” words. These are 1) words referring to social groupings (e.g. American), 2) political ideas or movements (e.g. democracy, communism), 3) emotionally coloured words (e.g. dad, friend), and 4) words with very vague conceptual meaning (e.g. reform, priority). The analysis also shows that “purr” and “snarl” words can either stand on their own or can be the main component of bigger doublespeak units, particularly euphemisms (e.g. peacekeepers or peacekeeping force). The paper deals with “purr” and “snarl” words used by all presidential candidates in the above mentioned elections – Al Gore, George W. Bush, John Kerry, John McCain, and Barack Obama. It shows how this form of doublespeak is used in order to promote the presidential candidates’ viewpoints on particular issues and mainly focuses on the differences in the use of “purr” and “snarl” words between Republican and Democratic candidates, taking into consideration the context of the elections as well as the topics discussed.