Week 9: The 1996 Debate

This week, my advisor and I went over the significance of clothing in relation to body language. We reasoned it would be a disservice not to mention wardrobe in regards to body language as it contributes to the candidate’s image and affects people's perception of him/her.

We also continued our hunt for the body language headline for 1996. In my research, I stumbled upon an article called “The Visual Byte: Clinton and His Town Hall Meeting Style.” The article elaborated on how nonverbal style determines the quality of a candidate's’ performance. It also explained how candidates often hire consultants to teach them to maximize their visual impression by avoiding unconventional hair/clothing and and training them to address the camera/audience. The article focused specifically on Bill Clinton as he took advantage of the freedom of the town hall debate well and was able to manipulate the visual presentation to reinforce his own position. In 1992, Bush’s team simply practiced verbal arguments and rebuttals whereas Clinton’s staff laid out a “mock debate” filled with cameras and a fake audience in order to train him how to utilize his space effectively. During both the 1992 and 1996 debates, Clinton’s notable physical responses included his smirks, his attentive listening, his challenging of body language, and being unaware of being on camera. These responses enhanced and were visual representations of his own words as he indicated with a smirk/ shake of a head that he was opposed to his opponent's position etc. Specifically in 1996, Clinton exhibited attentive listening for the most part as, perhaps, a sign of respect because he had been leading the polls by a large margin. When he spoke, he stepped away from the podium, indicating that he was “a man of the people.” Bob Dole, on the other hand, would frequently twist his body in unusual ways and made for a weak television performance. Ultimately, Clinton won the “image war” as he was able to manipulate his image by interacting and framing himself with the audience. The article concludes by posing the question, “Does it really matter what a candidate’s argument is as long his his/her delivery persuades the audience?”

My headline for 1996 will be regarding Clinton’s ability to strengthen his performance by interacting with the audience (very similar to 1992). In the coming days, I will continue to finalize the 1996 headline and analyze the other snippets.