During discursive interactions, political actors employ various methods of modes of sign production as a way of constructing meaning (Jewitt 2009). Any discourse, including political discourse, is “inherently multimodal, not monomodal”(LeVine and Scollon 2004: 3). Alongside Gunther Kress (2010), Rick Iedema (2003) emphasises the “multimodality” of human communication and states that “every human achievement, every form of generating meaning is essentially multimodal”(39). In addition, the multimodal approach to discursive interaction opens up new perspectives for understanding the semiotic behaviour of political actors involved in such acts of communication. According to Michael Lempert܈ i Michael Silverstein (2012) the political message may be assessed as a “multimodal discursive interaction”(27). Based on the opinion of the two authors, in TV debates the messages are intentionally theatrical, in the sense of constructing a certain moral profile of the candidate. Therefore, the political message becomes a personal brand, granting political actors a certain “biographical aura”(Lempert and Silverstein 2012: 100). The effort of creating a political persona implies the mobilisation of an entire semiotic system. Basically, we are talking about a process of sign production (communication semiotics)–in terms of Umberto Eco (2008)–that build the political persona. During this significant practice understood as the “meaning production process”(Kristeva 1980: 251), any social actor “builds/takes a position (identity) in relation to their interlocutors”(Beciu 2009: 35). Therefore, any discourse signals a position towards the content of communication (what it enunciates), as well as a (relative) position towards the participants to the discursive act. We will develop this idea in the second section of the article. Moreover, every multimodal text provides a certain “semiotic potential”(Jewitt 2004: 194). Various communicational modes imply various meaning