Did Hillary Mean It?
In her speech to the Democratic convention Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton urged fellow Democrats to vote for Barack Obama, and she did it in no uncertain terms -- verbally.
But did her body language match her words?
Body language expert and former FBI agent Joe Navarro says he doesn't think so.
Navarro, who wrote the book "What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People," explained to Early Show co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez Wednesday, "We need non-verbal (cues) to tell us what is important, what is significant, and what should we be looking for."
And Clinton's non-verbals, he says, were revealing.
"What we wanted to see was a Churchillian speech, something that would move her candidate to cross that magic fence. And she delivered a speech, but the gestures -- the non-verbals that give us the emotion -- really weren't there."
Navarro later added, "I think her message was supposed to be, 'Hey, go with me and let's vote for Barack.' There should have been a lot more emotive displays, and we just simply did not see that."
For instance, "One of the things that you see is she has very limited hand gestures. And we look for hand gestures to tell us what's important. So, when we see them out, when we see them up, this is significant. And we saw them just a few times last night, but not enough. This was not an impassioned speech."
On the other hand, Rodriguez observed, "When she was talking about things that were important to her, I did notice (non-verbals), like healthcare."
"Health care -- there was a lot of self-touching," Navarro agreed. "When she was talking about McCain, there was a lot of emphasis, when she talked about her husband. We saw more non-verbals from the audience in regards to these issues than we saw from her."
Perhaps, Rodriguez suggested, Clinton just isn't one who uses her hands much while speaking. For example, "I noticed that she does something with her shoulders. Maybe that's how she emphasizes."
"One of the ways that we emphasize is by defying gravity," Navarro pointed out, "and our shoulders come up, or we stand on our toes. She does that a little bit. But that's so weak that we tend to miss it.
"Now, toward the end of her speech, we saw her hands come up and high and so forth. This is where emotion was truly there."
Rodriguez said she noticed Michelle Obama in the audience "pursing her lips a little bit" at times. Did that mean Michelle was as a little bit uncomfortable during Clinton's speech?
"It depends," Navarro replied, "on when you see her. I think a couple of times there when they were picturing her, perhaps she was thinking, 'This should be a little better' and so forth. (But) I think Michelle was very receptive. Her non-verbals actually were great at the beginning as she was, you know, you saw a lot of head tilt, which is indicative of 'I'm receptive,' and so forth."
Navarro was a big fan of Michelle's speech Monday night,
"I think it was a home run," Navarro observed. "She's a beautiful woman. You know, her hugs are genuine. She has those beautiful high cheek bones that we see in models. The broad shoulders. (She had a wide stance). Her gestures are huge. They are very encompassing. These things draw us in. These are the things we look for. Otherwise, just hand out a memo."
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. But did her body language match her words?
Body language expert and former FBI agent Joe Navarro says he doesn't think so.
Navarro, who wrote the book "What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People," explained to Early Show co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez Wednesday, "We need non-verbal (cues) to tell us what is important, what is significant, and what should we be looking for."
And Clinton's non-verbals, he says, were revealing.
"What we wanted to see was a Churchillian speech, something that would move her candidate to cross that magic fence. And she delivered a speech, but the gestures -- the non-verbals that give us the emotion -- really weren't there."
Navarro later added, "I think her message was supposed to be, 'Hey, go with me and let's vote for Barack.' There should have been a lot more emotive displays, and we just simply did not see that."
For instance, "One of the things that you see is she has very limited hand gestures. And we look for hand gestures to tell us what's important. So, when we see them out, when we see them up, this is significant. And we saw them just a few times last night, but not enough. This was not an impassioned speech."
On the other hand, Rodriguez observed, "When she was talking about things that were important to her, I did notice (non-verbals), like healthcare."
"Health care -- there was a lot of self-touching," Navarro agreed. "When she was talking about McCain, there was a lot of emphasis, when she talked about her husband. We saw more non-verbals from the audience in regards to these issues than we saw from her."
Perhaps, Rodriguez suggested, Clinton just isn't one who uses her hands much while speaking. For example, "I noticed that she does something with her shoulders. Maybe that's how she emphasizes."
"One of the ways that we emphasize is by defying gravity," Navarro pointed out, "and our shoulders come up, or we stand on our toes. She does that a little bit. But that's so weak that we tend to miss it.
"Now, toward the end of her speech, we saw her hands come up and high and so forth. This is where emotion was truly there."
Rodriguez said she noticed Michelle Obama in the audience "pursing her lips a little bit" at times. Did that mean Michelle was as a little bit uncomfortable during Clinton's speech?
"It depends," Navarro replied, "on when you see her. I think a couple of times there when they were picturing her, perhaps she was thinking, 'This should be a little better' and so forth. (But) I think Michelle was very receptive. Her non-verbals actually were great at the beginning as she was, you know, you saw a lot of head tilt, which is indicative of 'I'm receptive,' and so forth."
Navarro was a big fan of Michelle's speech Monday night,
"I think it was a home run," Navarro observed. "She's a beautiful woman. You know, her hugs are genuine. She has those beautiful high cheek bones that we see in models. The broad shoulders. (She had a wide stance). Her gestures are huge. They are very encompassing. These things draw us in. These are the things we look for. Otherwise, just hand out a memo."
- Dad Punishes Daughter with Free Babysitter Ad Play Video
- Sara Moulton's Easy Dinner for Four, on a Budget
- How to stop junk mail - forever
- Best Low-Tech Cell Phones Suitable for Seniors
- "CBS This Morning" debuts Monday Play Video
- PickleBall Play Video
- Legit Work-from-Home Websites - and the Scams
- Teen's Facebook Sex Scam Play Video













Yoyo economics = You''re on your own
JMHO
Yoyo economics = You''re on your own
JMHO
Posted by vranger at 10:12 PM : Aug 27, 2008
...and here is the psychic, right on cue.
Future predicting wastes America''s time.
Future predicting muddies the water with speculation while real issues get ignored.
Future predictions of Obama doom and gloom is just the Right working furiously to keep America in fear.
Just Say No to Fear!
:)
National news is wasting America''s time!
Serious issues taking a back seat to this kind of reporting is wasting America''s time!
Keeping America enflamed about Hillary is wasting America''s time.
Yes. She could have pulled a Joe Lieberman, and run as an independent, if she didn"t.
Body language ? I"ll just stick to tea leaves.
Posted by AmJoe at 10:06 PM : Aug 27, 2008
I gotta say it again?! Of course she meant it. For $30,000,000 I''d sport on OBAMA t-shirt!!
Hillary 2012
Posted by vranger at 10:12 PM : Aug 27, 2008
A lot of pressure as compared to what??? The mortgage crisis? The credit crisis? The recession bordering on depression brought on by Bush and his "I couldn''t care less" ilk???
How much worse can Obama, or any other person be?
I swear, I we were to pick up an illegal alien and make him the President of the United States of America I''m more than sure that he, or she, would make a much better president than Bush, or any of his psycho followers.
Yes, we''d have all the same benefits as the last President to talk like him, Jimmy Carter. He left a wonderful legacy after a turn at his naive ''ideals'' ... emboldened terrorists ... double digit inflation ... almost double digit unemployment ... 17% prime rates ... and he didn''t even try to shoehorn socialized medicine in at the same time.
I hope you are financially secure and retired, because if you have a job and a budget, in two years you''re going to be under a LOT of pressure if Obama is elected ... if you still even have that job.