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.