Historians looking back at the first televised presidential debate inevitably tell us that those who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won while those watching on television came away thinking Kennedy had won. And perhaps at least one of the talking heads recapitulating and analyzing last night's debate should have remembered that.
I had the unusual luck of having experienced the debate in both modes, as for the first 45 minutes I was on the road returning from Richmond, and thus could only listen, as I did on XM, which has a channel for the audio from CNN. And although there were few fireworks in that time, and the final exchange on English and Spanish seemed to favor Obama, overall I would have given the edge to Clinton.
But then I was home, looking at the tv. And despite the way the pundits raved about Clinton's close - which was effective (independent of the question of how much was borrowed) - I think she lost. And it was one reason: the smile.
I realize now that in first responding to various threads I was probably overly influenced by the closing statement. But then I began watching the clips being replayed, and something returned to my consciousness. It was the frozen smile that seemed perpetually on Clinton's face while Obama was talking. It was annoying, and had been bothering me throughout the debate, albeit only occasionally at the conscious level. But in almost every clip I saw rerun during the post-debate analysis, there it was again, whenever it was Obama talking. nd somehow it annoyed me, and made her seem somewhat contrived, artificial.
Perhaps one reason her final statement had the impact that it did is that it was in such contrast to her demeanor during much of the debate. Clearly her one attack line - "change you can Xerox" - more than fell flat, eliciting the only boos I heard during the course of the debate. And I note for comparison his demeanor in response, immediately remarking "Oh, but that -- that's not what happened there --" Let's look at the transcript of that part:
MS. BROWN: Senator Clinton, is it the silly season?SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition. (Applause.) And you know -- you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox. And I just don't think --
SEN. OBAMA: Oh, but that -- that's not what happened there --
SEN. CLINTON: No, but -- you know, but Barack, it is, because if -- you know, if you look -- (jeers from the audience) -- if you look -- if you look -- if you look at the YouTube of these videos, it does raise questions.
I think I heard more than jeers.
If you have the opportunity to see all or parts of the debate again, compare the difference in each candidate when the other is speaking. Yes, at times it seemed if the candidates were more interested in writing down what they wanted to use in response, and this was particularly true of Obama. But often Clinton would turn to look at him, remain almost immobile, with her face fixed, no expressing going across it, and then, perhaps indicating that she didn't need to listen any more, turning front, with the face still fixed and without any change of expression, smile frozen in place.
I wonder if that did not have an impact on viewers. I have to believe that at least at a level just behold the threshold of consciousness it did. People respond to many things. In my case, trained as a musician, I am more likely to respond to voices, and as one listens on radio the person with the deeper voice often has an advantage - I suspect that accounts in part for why people listening to the radio in 1960 thought Nixon came across better. I have readjusted my own listening during debates because I think that may be unfair on the basis of gender, although I note that Clinton could have used some coaching in how to use her voice so that she did not so often come across as unnecessarily strident during the campaign. In this ide by side seated setting, with little need to raise the voice to oratorical volume levels, it was less of a problem for her.
But we have become a very visual nation. What we process with eyes has more impact upon us than we sometimes realize. And it is interesting that almost all the pundits were older, at least in their 40's or above, older than Obama. And the younger you are it is likely the more profound the impact of the visual upon you. And we are increasingly used to a more rapid pace of visual change, all of us.
Thus I believe it will not only be young people but even fogies like me (and I will be 62 in 3 months and 1 day)who at some level will have been annoyed or bothered by the immobile quality of Clinton's expression during much of the debate.
And in thinking about it, it might have been absolutely the worst thing she could have done. It kept her from connecting on a more human level wth the audience watching on television.
If you think what made her closing remarks so effective, it was not just the words she spoke, it was also that she was animated, that her bodily posture and facial expressions were in synch with her words - in otherwords, she was genuine. And if there is a valid criticism of Clinton's campaign style is that too often her public speaking appearances seem somewhat contrived, controlled, not as genuine.
Please note, I am not saying that she is not a real person. THose I know who know her, including one of my students, insist on her warmth and genuineness. But it has not really come through on a consistent basis. Perhaps that is why when it does break through, as it did in the one incident in New Hampshire, it elicits such a strong response. Most Democrats want to like her, but perhaps have felt pushed back by the lack of warmth and spontaneity. The lack of warmth and spontaneity indicated by the unchanging expression - and that smile - seemed to me to reinforce that negative and off-putting impression that has been one of her problems. And even at this late date, when her emotions clearly play across her face, when her words, body language and facial expressions are all in play, the impact it has is powerful. I don't think the pundits recognize that the power of the final statement came as much from that as it did from the actual words she said. And whether or not she borrowed words from others, from John Edwards and from her husband in that final segment, does not even matter, because when she spoke those words they became her words, and she truly felt them. And it showed. And because it showed it had immense impact, particularly in contrast to much of her demeanor during the rest of the debate.
Perhaps others will disagree with this assessment. I did not intend to write about this, since there are things on education about which I would like to write, including a few that happened in the debate, especially Obama's ability to link a question about Spanish in America to how No Child Left Behind is exacerbating our abysmal record in having many Americans not escape from our monolingual isolation and the impact that may have on our future. But it seemed to me more important to offer an insight I was not seeing as part of the discussion last night, either by the pundits or in the several post-debate threads in which I participated online.
I will be interested in people's reactions after they read this diary. And because our schools are closed due to icy conditions that will continue at least until Noon, I will be around to participate in any discussion. And perhaps because I will, there will be none?
Peace.
It was very odd - just fixed on her face as you point out. It didn't feel real at all. She smiled and laughed when he made points against her. Not the "I can take a joke" laugh or even the "You're full of BS" laugh - it was just a creepy never ending smile. And when Obama did make a general joke (i.e. nothing directed at her) she really hammed up her response. Was she trying to look friendly and appealing by being so happy? Was she trying to distract from his points?
I think that some of the reactions to Clinton are less that she is a woman than she is a Clinton, a continuation of something. That said, there are parts of reactions that are sexist, such as commenting on her dress or her cleavage. The issue of immobile facial expressions is independent of gender, and I wrote what I did in light of my bifurcated experience of last night's debate, and how that reminded me of the Nixon-Kennedy debate of 1960 and reactions thereto.
Clinton has failed to connect with the American people the way Obama has, or even in the same neighborhood of how he connects. Had she found a better way, perhaps by not relying on consultants from her husband's campaigns who are trying to rerun the 1990s even though this is a very different time, she might well have put the nomination away very early, before Obama could find his sea legs, and get some traction (now that is an interesting combination of metaphors!).
Anyhow, consider this comment a prophylactic response to any possible charges of my approaching this through a lens of sexism. I do not think it is applicable, but of course feel free to disagree.
Peace.
There are a lot of racists, they have a vote too.
The president is president of everybody.
First, let's dispense with the sexism charge. I have become extremely sensitive to the nuances of sexism in some of the attacks on Hillary Clinton. There are none here. I've never seen sexism in any of your work.
I think you raise some important points about television as a visual medium, and also a right brain medium, as opposed to radio, which is left brain. Without the distraction of body language, you get to focus on the words and the logic of the argument more.
Also, as Marshall McLuhan pointed out, in his book, The Medium is The Message, in the sixties, TV favors a certain type of personality, while radio or live audiences favor a different personality type. Obama's personal style is particularly well suited to the medium of TV. He comes across very well on the small screen as well as in big crowds.
Clinton, on the other hand, often has a stridency in her voice that has made me wince too. I think TV only magnifies this problem.
Also, that smile did seem so fixed. It made me feel sorry for her. I also think there's something in her background that makes her so controlled. In a certain generation and among certain ethnic groups and in certain regions of the country, showing emotion was considered unseemly. That's changed over the years but Hillary is a product of that time.
Al Gore had a similar problem and was considered stiff. That characterization hounded him and was not really true. I've met him many times and in person he is witty and charming. But it didn't come across on TV.
Also, as I was reading what you wrote, Ken, it struck me that there was one debate between Gore and Bush in 2000 where many of us swore that Gore won it. I'd still go to my death believing Gore was the clear winner. But all the media focused on was Gore sighing and breathing hard. They painted that as rudeness or exasperation with Bush and declared Bush the winner.
Who knows?
Maybe that was as valid a perception. As you pointed out, the visual TV medium does influence how we view outcomes. And it's important to point this out to candidates.
No matter how good one's message, if there's a barrier to communicating it, the candidate will have problems with electability.
That's where Obama is the more talented candidate. Their messages are really not that different but he's the one who is able to connect more with the voters. That's why he's got the better chance of winning in November and actually getting to implement that vision.
Thank you for a very balanced comparison. There have been far too few of them.
Everyone I know who has met Senator Clinton says she is great in person but since most of us will never have the opportunity to meet her I am sort of weary of this defense. Her campaign was painfully aware from day one she has a likability problem and they have failed miserably to overcome it. Even if Barack Obama wasn't in this race, she would still turn people off. Obama is riding a wave not only because of his gifts, but because so many people are grateful for the alternative.
Everyone I know who has met Senator Clinton says she is great in person but since most of us will never have the opportunity to meet her I am sort of weary of this defense. Her campaign was painfully aware from day one she has a likability problem and they have failed miserably to overcome it.
I read this same comment made by many Nixon supporters that met him.
Too bad. I think that people would really like Hillary if she could let people see more of her natural charm as she displays with individuals.
In contrast Obama was entirely there. He was natural and in touch with himself. He was not fearful or ready to attack out of anger. The attacks he delivered were swift, humane, and on target, delivered with an economy of words.
On the subject of words, if anyone used too many words in this debate it was Clinton.
I was happy that Obama finally delivered an attack I would have delivered myself long ago. He pointed out that the problem with her leadership style can be illustrated by her approach to her health care plan during the Bill Clinton administration. She went into a back room with a few people and came up with "her" plan. Then she presented it to Congress and others fully formed. This is a kind of "my way or the highway" approach to leadership which rarely works except in dictatorships.
Good leaders involve ALL the stakeholders in the formulation of policy. I do that at work and it helps competing parties come together to hammer out a solution. By the time the solution is presented publicly anyone who might have disagreed has already endorsed the plan by being part of the planning process.
But this basic appproach to leadership is foreign to Clinton who seems to want everything handed to her without getting buy in from the affected parties. Her approach is the same now as it was in her husband's administration. For example, she has taken this appproach by declaring she would be the Democratic nominee even before there were primaries. In other words the fact that she needs buy in from the stakeholders has no meaning at all for her.
It doesn't matter how many ideas you have, if you can't execute with an effective leadership style you are dead meat. Hillary is not an effective leader.
I mean, she's not stupid. She knows she lost 11 in a row and she knows that Obama has overtaken her in national polls. She can see how incredible his momentum, grassroots support and staying power are. She knows that he has pulled even in Texas and is closing the gap in Ohio. Hillary Clinton is not a stupid woman. She has to realize that in 11 days she is going to get crushed in both Ohio and Texas and then this thing is over. There's no longer anything she can do to prevent that from happening.
So I propose that Hillary Clinton is now preparing to win as gracefully and credibly as possible. She doesn't want to become a joke or a pariah. Barack Obama is about to become the Big Dog. The new leader of the Democratic party, and probably the next President of the United States. Does she really want this guy to be pissed off at her for the next 4-8 years? Hell no. She's going to have to be on Obama's list of friends in order to advance her political career from here on out. And if nothing else, Hillary Clinton is pragmatical about the path to power. Obama will have it and she can't be his enemy.
I expect to see a somewhat different, more conciliatory Hillary Clinton in the news over the next 11 days. Still campaigning, still going through the motions. But preparing to make the best of her fate.
I agree, I think Hillary might seriously consider leaving the race if she doesn't do well on Mar. 4th.
In any case, I would like to see this resolved and for her to bow out graciously so that we can unify. McCain is going to be tough to beat and it would be foolish to underestimate him.
He admits to knowing nothing about economics. And he is reading The Wealth of Nations now, a little late on this one aren't we? His economic advisor is Phil Gramm, a man not known for his compassionate economic philosophy. I believe he comes from the Marie Antoinette School of Economics, though his head is still on his shoulders as far as I know. And both the Gramms were wrapped up in the Enron scandal. With friends like these McCain... I mean isn't McCain above the influence of corporations and against money in politics and against favors for special interests.
That and despite the tactical success of the surge, public opinion on Iraq has not changed perceptibly. And McCain would stay there for 100 years if that's what it took.
Not to mention that he still has yet to unify his base. And there are plenty of unflattering comments from his Senate colleagues that are grist for the mill from now until the election. There is the temper issue. He also appears to have a problem with working with people as none of his Senate colleagues endorsed him in his 2000 bid for the nomination. I mean how many of us shout "F* you!" across conference tables at work.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that he is tough to beat. But I have never gotten a sense as to what the rational behind that is. Because he appeals to the dark loner in us all?
The bit about the potential affair with Ms. Iseman was pretty weak given they don't have anything more than circumstantial evidence. Then again, McCain did meet his current wife through an extramarital affair. They should have just kept to the hypocrisy aspect.