Politics and the Media

The V.P. Debates: It's Not What You Say, But How You Say It

by Marion Wolberg Weiss

If Abraham Lincoln was running for president today, he would probably lose. Why? Because his TV presence would do him in. He was too tall, too gawky and too unshaven to project an effective presidential image. Moreover, according to newspaper accounts of his debating style, his voice was too high.

And Lincoln never cared about his clothes.

Some things never change. We shouldn't forget that during the first TV debates in 1960 between Kennedy and Nixon, physical appearance still played a potent part by giving Kennedy the edge. For example, the color of Nixon's clothes didn't offer enough contrast, and he "faded" into the background.

At the vice presidential debate this past week, clothes continued to affect both candidates' image, with both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin wearing black. In the early days of TV, people were advised never to wear black and white which would cause a "glare." That aspect, at least, has changed. Black, of course, signifies formality (and death, in our culture), so it was somewhat surprising that Palin's suit wasn't a "perky" color, like red, to complement her upbeat demeanor.

Yet, there were other signs that Palin's feminine side was to be kept intact, namely her high-heels and long hair. And what about her signature glasses? This single aspect of her appearance made her fashionable while it also highlighted her eyes, a positive factor in her effective eye contact.

You know what they say about eyes being the window of one's soul. In Palin's case, her eyes also reinforced the open, straightforward, informal image she was hawking all evening. Susan Sontag put it another way. A woman's face, she said, "is a canvas upon which she paints a revised, corrected portrait of herself."

Conversely, Biden's eyes seemed a bit small, closed and "beady," through no fault of his own.

Palin's use of physical space also conveyed an openess and informality that her running mate John McCain was lacking: a willingness to look at Biden during the debates and even enter his literal bubble when they shook hands at the beginning. (Admitedly, that's not an unusual stance, but McCain looked awkward when standing close to Barack Obama.)

Palin's words to Biden as they shook hands, "May I call you Joe?," was the perfect greeting to also initiate informality. (And a question that this critic predicted she'd use days ahead of time.) Ironically enough, the name "Joe" rings of authenticity and intimacy (as in the notion, "He's a regular Joe") yet Biden only showed this demeanor when he teared up briefly as he described his family tragedy.

Vocal cues, paralanguage, were another non-verbal aspect of Palin's style, also communicating a personal and familiar attitude. Consider her dropping the last letter in words like "coming" and "going." The result ("comin'") conveys a down-to-earth attitude that's at odds with people who articulate their vowels. Her use of "ya," as in "ya all," had a similar effect.

Biden's non-articulation of the word, "characterize," did not signify a parallel attempt at being straightforward, however. Rather, it connoted a certain general nervousness.

Other vocal cues worked to benefit Biden, particularly his pace, which was not too fast this time and conveyed energy and passion. Palin's animation signified the same enthusiasm and resolve.

Did non-verbal communication have a potent effect on the VP debates? You betcha.

Back to Contents