New Hampshire Debate: Seeing Hillary More Like People Who Know Her Do

The problem with Hillary's beautifully freewheeling response last night to John Edwards -- in a minute defined much more by passion than anger anything else -- is the stark contrast it drew with her "expression of self" the rest of the time.

To me, the most interesting part of the video clip (see below) is what happened at the very end, when the adrenaline started wearing off.  At that point, you could see the "baseline" Hillary grab for the wheel again, with that characteristic control and self-consciousness.

In the shot above (at about the 1:09 mark), what I love is the almost perfect tension between Hillary measured and Hillary unplugged.  In her eyes, there is still a sense of "Take that, John!"  At the same time (with the suddenly tense stare, then the immediate dipping of the head and the awkward puckering of the lips an instant later), there comes the feeling of "What the hell was I doing?"

Hillary's Core Argument from the Final Debate (YouTube video)

----------
Postscript 11:30 am PST: On re-reading my comments, I think they were too psychological without enough explanation.  What I'm say is that this minute in the debate allowed us to see Hillary in a less guarded and more genuine way -- something that is, otherwise, all too rare.  In other words, I think her emotional reaction to Edwards caused her to be much more real.

Regarding the title, I'm always interested when her advocates, reacting to hits on her "likeability," say: "the public doesn't know the real Hillary."  (I happen to have a relative who went to school with her who says this too.)  Watching her closely after all these months, I completely believe that Hillary is a warmer, looser, friendlier person -- when her guard is down.  Unfortunately, I think her character is such that she can't be herself nearly enough -- and I say that on top of the allowance one would naturally make for the way all politicians have to wear a face.

Of course, I understand many people do not have the same sensitivity to Hillary as I do (or might not even agree with my read on her personality).  I do think the public tends to get confused by the psychological make-up of political figures, however, and helping reveal that character (especially in the way that specific speech acts or body language is consistently reflected in photos or video) is just part of my gig.

(screen grab: ABC News via You Tube)

Comments

[jonst]

Ok, let me get this straight? This was supposed to an angry response? Are you kidding? And I'm generally leaning to Barack......what is the big deal with her reaction?

[Johanna]

Someone may have known her in college, but people change over the years and are profoundly affected, for good or ill, by the person they marry. The imperious woman we now see who has given Obama the full bore Amish shunning treatment for now a year, who gave him icy glares, who has always said "When I am president,on my first day in office" etc., as though absolutely no public acquiescence were needed to all this, who reputedly set forth a rule that eye contact was not to be made with her by low level staffers in the whitehouse -- all this is different from the eager college girl from the midwest. Why should that be a surprise? She has absorbed her husband's egotism.

[arizonaTOM]

Haughty. Extremely self-possessed. Aloof. Imperious. Somewhat disdainful of most people. Cold. Calculating. Very very rarely does she allow her emotions to betray her. She's just exhibiting a typical "Scorpio-in-public" persona.

[Victor]

okay folks here's the skinny on Hillary's persona....she IS a scorpio sun, which does make her private and controlled, but she is also a mercury, venus scorpio which only means her scorpio energy is more intensified, BUT she is also a natal pisces moon person, so she is very private emotionally, sensitive and compassionate, but added to her scorpio [both water signs meaning emotionally aware]..then add the mars in leo and the way she "asserts" herself in the environment is very confident and bold...
i am not into politics per se, so i have no comments about her politics and i won't get into what that means to me, being non-political that is [because i AM involved] but all i want to say is that she is who she is because THAT IS who she is...private, bold, confident, strong, controlled, sensitive, compassionate, decisive, powerful, scrutinizing, and capable of transforming and taking anything ON..it's all rolled up into one big mandala so to speak and what she is here to teach [about energies]...i've been an astrologer for over 30 years and i know what i'm talking about....don't expect people with lots of water in their charts to SHOW you who they are in any fiery or quick-moving [air signs] way....if her rising sign is correct, which is often considered gemini, then the quickest you'll "experience" her is in her high intellect and need to learn and know and express....
give her a break, all your criticisms that attack her personal characteristics are minor and petty because people cannot stand strong powerful women unless of course they show some ____
...most of the criticisms come from our inability to accept women just as they are if they are powerful...we are much more apt to accept men just as they are....

[caraf]

This was a telling moment, but I would argue that's what's really going on here is more about gender and politics than Clinton's "true self" or her psychology. Clinton gets animated here because she's frustrated that "change" is a term she doesn't have access to because she is a woman. She simply does not have the privilege that male candidates do. She knows she is only viable if she runs on her years of experience in various forms of public service. Women candidates simply do not get to run for president if they have, as the media like to say, "come out of nowhere." If Edwards or Obama were a woman with the exact same qualifications, experience, ideologies, ideas, etc., they simply would not be viable presidential candidates. Hillary knows this, and she's frustrated because she cannot appeal using this same vocabulary of "change."

[Mara]

I think caraf hit the nail on the head. If Clinton were Obama and Obama were Clinton, as far as experience and rhetoric goes, Hillary would be polling where Richardson is. (And that would just be because of the women's vote.) Everyone would mock her for having served so few years in the senate, and then having the nerve to run for president. It would end out being a battle between Edwards and Obama, change vs. experience (in this fantasy world where one gives Obama Clinton's experience)... and Obama would totally mop the floor with Edwards.

I hate sexism. THAT'S what I'd like to change about my society - the thing I'd MOST like to change. And you know what? Somehow, I don't think that electing Obama is going to change that.

[GPrimm]

As a former freelance photojournalist for UPI and various national publications, I spent thousands of hours watching the targets, ah, assigned subjects - like a hawk, to be sure. It was my job, and I was very good at it.

In a nutshell, and to those not familiar with the "photographer's eye," it mainly consists of good hand / eye co-ordination, a modicum sense of composition, and the ability to "read" the subject.

That "reading" is what the good folks here at BagNews are trying to help you all with.

What Bag leaves unsaid (I speak only for myself here while knowing that other photogs out there will only talk about this to other photogs, and an editor, never) we have our likes and dislikes; some subjects we peg as fools or charlatans or pompous windbags - even evil Grinches - right off the mark and spend endless frames trying to catch them being the fools they are, or the saint, or just another regular guy/woman, whatever. It depends on the subject.

Sure, the editors frequently give us shot lists: at the grocery store, kissing the baby, pressing the flesh - the usual, so as an unsupervised individual photographer (who the heck knows where the writer went? Not me and I don't care) we get bored with the usual and make a game out of catching the subject at unguarded moments. It's dark humor, sure, in the sense of catching the apex of the arc as the subject slips on the inevitable banana peel. Also, sometimes we just plain hate the subject and go out of our way to make them look bad. Occasionally, we actually admire our subjects, and photograph them correspondingly (Bobby Kennedy springs to mind).

As for the photo editors: they have their own agendas, but hardly a one of them has ever spent a second standing and waiting for some lame politician in the pouring rain in Chicago, or in a -40 degree North Dakota winter, or been jammed in the back of the head by the video cam of the a*hole who thinks he has priority at every photo op, so what do they know?

Unless they're city editors, they usually haven't gotten the joke yet.

So, you do what you can to tell your version of the story. Sometimes the subject comes off like a fool; they're politicians, after all. Surprise, surprise.

On the other hand, sometimes what you see in the newspaper or the magazine or on the Internet is exactly what was there all along.

[Johanna]

I agree, it might be harder for a woman to "come out of nowhere" (as you characterize Obama). In that way they face a disadvantage. But the other side of the coin is that women have more of a history of inheriting the mantle, or riding the coattails, of a political spouse than do men. Mrs Carnahan, Mrs. Bono, Mrs. Clinton, the gal down in Argentina, and so so many others. For a husband to inherit his wife's political position would seem strange. Can you imagine Mr. Pelosi or Mr. Diane Feinstein succeeding those two? Hardly.