I Like Big Bird Too

I tried a little experiment for these debates. I admit, it wasn't intended. On Wednesday night I tried watching the debates online while my 20-month old ran around the living room trying to get me to read books to him. Eventually I gave in. I was totally distracted, but not so much to agree with most people that Romney, despite the weird eye blinky thing and the constant constipated grin, "won" the debate decisively. The next night I listened to NPR's audio of the debates and got a totally different perspective. It actually seemed like a debate. I was able to concentrate more on the substance of what the two candidates were saying. Oh, and I didn't have Sawyer in my face this time. He was in bed by the time I got to this last night. If I had enough time I would have liked to read the transcript from the debate and see if/how that might change my perspective even more. In fact, it would probably make a great experiment in rhetoric to see how people in general would respond to the various means of delivery - tv, audio and print. The one enthymeme I can't get past is that Romney's flag pin was bigger than Obama's. Obviously he is more patriotic. So since it seems the visual is so important in determining the outcome of the debate, let's look at that. In fact, let's look just a facial expressions. I tried to pay close attention to both candidates when they were talking and when they were listening. Here's what I saw: Obama talking: Obama seemed to have a hard time knowing where to look. He made brief "eye" contact with the camera, but most of the time he seemed to be looking at Lehrer, the moderator. Beyond that it appeared like there was just black emptiness. He rarely looked at Romney and addressed him directly. He seemed more comfortable looking down at his podium. He seemed unsure of his words at times. He definitely looked professorial, which seems to imply to some that he has a superiority complex. Saying things like "it's instructive" probably helped. Romney talking: When Romney was speaking he seemed sure of himself, as if he really believed all the BS (sorry, can't help myself) he was shoveling onto the stage. But in the made for tv environment of the debate, it didn't really matter that his plans had no specifics. In fact, after the debate I heard one commentator say "I think Obama was thrown off by all the specifics that Mitt Romney had to present." Anyway, Romney seemed excited. Maybe even a little coked up. Who knows. His demeanor couldn't have been better. He seemed cured of that whole talking out of the side of his mouth thing. He was definitely on the attack and had refutations for almost everything that Obama said. He was prepared to spin away anything that Obama had to sling at him and he did it confidently. The guy is like a pro lier (sorry again). He does it deadpan. People believed him. Shit, I almost believed the guy! My wife, who is a staunch democrat, but who doesn't follow politics very closely, said "he seems like a nice guy." But what I think Romney did most effectively was that he seemed to be looking at Obama almost the entire time (while Obama looked at his shoes). He was addressing Obama (not the audience it should be noted) and I think that shaped his overall demeanor during the debates. Obama when Romney was talking: The thing that bugged me the most about Obama was that, when his head wasn't tilted to the side and looking down, he seemed to be nodding in agreement with Romney! "Yes," he seemed to be saying, "I agree with you Mitt." Was this just a nervous twitch? I would think that if when they practiced and Obama was doing this his coaches would have told him to stop doing this. It's one thing to be cordial. It's another to act like you agree with everything your opponent is saying! The rest of the time he just looked pissed that he wasn't drinking wine and eating a steak dinner with his wife. Romney when Obama was talking: He seriously looked like he was pooping...painfully. What was that grin on his face? But at least he looked like he was paying attention and he was quick to jump into the conversation or demand more time from Lehrer to rebut what Obama was saying. Stylistically, I think these social cues were perhaps the most influential part of the debate. Obama looked awkward and on sedatives. Romney looked at ease and excited. Romney spoke plainly and in generalizations while Obama tried to dazzle the audience with numbers, which easily became a blur. The fact-checking folks had a field day with both candidates and concluded neither were very accurate. But I think Romney's "victory" came largely with his ability to appeal to the common man, something he has had a hard time doing up until this point. Contrasted with Obama's performance, Romney seemed like someone you'd rather have a beer with, even though, like our last president, he doesn't drink.