The just-held debate between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles was a gem. The two remaining Democratic candidates obviously decided to part from contentiousness at a personal level, and stick to the issues.
When politicians debate the issues and stay away from personal invectives, especially in a presidential contest, they serve the American electorate at the highest level, enabling voters to comprehend where they stand on policy, how they contrast with their opponent’s positions, and allowing each voter to ultimately make a clearer decision in the voting booth.
But voters are of course also persuaded by personality, especially in consideration of how a candidate would relate to people, relate to his or her own staff, to Congress, to leaders of other countries (both allies and adversaries), and to crisis.
“Personality” is not just the outward persona showcasing a person’s style of behavior. It is a mirror of the deeper self - reflective of such words as character, intelligence, compassion, resilience, toughness, and realness.
In the many media interview training workshops I give throughout the country, “realness” is something I cannot teach. A person is either real, or he or she isn’t. However, what I do encourage my students to “get” is that to the degree they are less attached to worrying about what others may think of them, and more connected to their true values and beliefs, then they are consequently going to project more of their real self, and less of the phony, concocted self which most people see through quite quickly. After all, every human is intuitive - and every human has the capacity to perceive another person’s genuineness…or lack thereof.
Prior to Iowa, Hillary was not terribly in touch with her feeling self; or that was my perception. She wanted to convey strength and knowledgeability - but since she is already a strong and knowledgeable person - she didn’t have to “work” on projecting those attributes. Her fear, in my opinion, was in showing her softer, more vulnerable feminine side, seeing that as something voters, especially men, would disrespect as weakness. Ironically, without showing her vulnerability, she also suffered from a certain lack of likeability, and this is a huge problem in a presidential campaign.
After her loss in Iowa, however, an extraordinary moment came. She saw that she could lose - and what came up for her was her long history of fighting for those issues and causes she believed in, and that she might not attain the presidency and come into a position of truly achieving her Dreams in a way that capturing the White House could realize for her. In other words, the loss brought her into contact with what she was fighting for, what she valued and believed in, and that it could all come to an end. The loss brought her into greater touch with her real self, and what she described as “my voice.”
This brought up great emotion, great vulnerability and a great lesson: Senator Clinton had to balance her self-evident strength and knowledgeability with her humanness.
Back in 2000, when Al Gore debated George Bush, he lost points because he came across, to many people’s surprise, as arrogant. His vulnerability did not show up - though his intelligence and knowledgeability did. He suffered from a loss of likeability. He may well have suffered at the ballot box because of this faux pas as well, though other forces seemed to have colluded against him besides his own over-confidence.
I think to a large degree Senator Clinton’s Iowa defeat may have saved her from the same self-wounding - and that showed through in the California debate with Senator Obama. She was centered. She allowed her caring, vulnerable side to show itself, along with her knowledgeability, intelligence and toughness.
Senator Obama, who always comes across as extraordinarily articulate, high-minded and intelligent, evidenced those attributes. Ironically, I think he could have benefited from a touch more of toughness in his point-counterpoint with Senator Clinton.
For this reason, and from my perception, Senator Clinton edged out Senator Obama in the debate. We’ll have to wait for the outcome on Super Tuesday to discover if voters around the country give her the lead as the Democratic presidential nominee ultimately emerges. If she prevails, even slightly, it’s clear that at least in part it is because she did indeed find her real voice after Iowa, and connected, or reconnected, with her deeper self and the beliefs and values that have driven her all these many years.
If she prevails as the Democratic presidential nominee, Iowa will have served her well. If she does not, she is nonetheless a more compelling figure both in terms of her political stature and her human capacity to reach the people.
Recent Comments