Archive for the ‘Political Figures’ Category

Romney Sweats And Gains Control As Obama Swallows Hard And Shows Attentiveness
October 23, 2012

As they entered the stage ,both  candidates looked more friendly towards one another then they have before. They both had  more genuine smiles. They did the power handshake where they grab one another’s arm as they shake hands, just as they di in all three debates.

When we first see  Romney, he  appears nervous as there is sweat on his upper lip  and on his cheeks as he begins the debate. However, he is fluid and  passionate in his tone .

Obama  on the other hand displays his nervousness through his more stacatto  sounding speech pattern as he as he answers the first question. He also uses a thumb gesture   which makes no sense as he enumerates his points.

When Obama speaks for Romney,  Romney gets upset but smiles a tense smile and is fidgets  as he defends himself.  Then when Romeny speaks he shows a powerful presence as he says ” Attacking me is not an agenda. He speaks up for himself and doesn’t allow Obama to interrupt him or to misquote him.

For the first time Romney makes a frowning facial  gesture as Obama speaks which expresses how negatively he feels about what Obama has to say concerning Syria. When Obama responds he sounds defensive. He  still speaks for Romney instead of speaking for himself. Obama stammers  and is very stacatto and goes off on tangents in his response while Romney is more fluid and fluent in his response .  

Also Romney’s posture is more powerful looking with his more squared shoulders as opposed to Obama who’s neck is forward and shoulders more rounded. Obama’s posture  appears to be a more submissive body language posture.

Romney is very passionate and emotional in his tone and delivery. When he gets to the point and mentions  Israel and Poland and how the President was silent during the Iranian uprising

,Obama is very uncomfortable about this and swallows hard as you see his visible swallow. Obama doesn’t address these particular issues but circumvents as he speaks about other issues.

He shows anger by making a fist as he finishes his statement. Romney defends himself well as he enumerates and passionately discuses his five point program. Romney  passionately defends himself well when discussing education.

Obama tries to interrupt and Romney refused to allow him and told Obama that he had his facts wrong when Obama said the program happened before he was in office. Out of character, Obama seems to  follow in Biden’s shoes as he  smiles while Romney discusses the military.

Uncharacteristic the  Romney we have seen in the two previous debates, he now   makes a  second frowning gesture as Obama discusses the military. As Romney rattles off  statistics about the military Obama  swallows hard. He responds by putting Romney down by making a reference to bayonettes as he attempts to portray Romney as being out of date.

Body language wise, as Obama  says Israel is a true friend, but surprisingly slightly shakes his head no.

When Romney discusses  Obama’s “Apology Tour” Obama squirms and there is  obvious tension around his jaw. As he disusses how a President having to show strength Obama shows nervousness and swallows hard.  In his response Obama looks down and stammers. When Romney tells how Obama traveled to the Middle East and how  skipped Israel and how everyone noticed Obama didn’t respond directly. Instead, he circumvented and talked about how he went to the Holocaust museum when he was campaigning.

Romney refuses to answer a hypothetical question which shows his power and control.  Romney is   direct in discussing how Democratic senators wanted Obama to reduce tension with Israel. Obama ignores this and speaks about Bin Laden and uses an emotional story about a little girl who lost her father during 911.

When Romeny speaks Obama appears to be very attentive and genuinely interested in what Romeny has to say. In his final statement,

In his final statement, Obama Looks into camera which is good. The  Pitch of voice goes up lots of extraneous movement showing tension and nervousness. He is more fluid in his speech than he usually is and does not hesitate like he usually does. But he uses too many gestures which are distracting , many which are incongruent with what he is saying. He points at the end which is not good and also he frowns throughout his message.

In Romney’s final statement, he looks directly  into the camera. His expression is positive and encouraging. He doesn’t gesture that much and when he does his gestures maje sense in terms of being congruent with what he is saying. He has a more pleasant expression. He is more passionate in his tone and inflection as well as in his facial expression. His posture was strong and confident  with shoulders squared and head up.


This was by far the best performance by Obama and a continuation of  a great performance by Romney, I would say that both candidates held theit own. Unlike the last debate, it  was more comfortable  to see a non angry Obama who was more poised and in control. It was also good to see a passionate and inflected Romney. They should both be proud of their performances.

Weiner’s Body Language Says He’s In Denial Feels Shame As He Faces Hecklers During on Speech and May Have Promising Showbiz Career
June 17, 2011

As former Rep. Anthony Weiner let everyone know he was resigning, his  monotone voice and body language said that he  was insincere in his apology, He  often  pursed his lips as we see in this photo, which indicated that he really did not want to say that he was saying.

As she spoke he had  a case of  dry Cotton Mouth which indicated that he was very nervous and distressed about what he was  doing in being forced to do- resign. When the President of the United States said that if he was in Weiner’s shoes he would resign, Weiner had no other choice then to follow suit.

When he read his resignation speech,  he not only looked down, he bowed his head in shame. As she spoke, it as though he was delivering a campaign speech. There was no emotion and no indication of sincere contrition.

When his hecklers began shouting insults at him, he faced them directly and spoke over them in a loud voice in an attempt to drown out their hateful barbs.

Even though he took responsibility by saying that he could not continue his work because of what he created, it was said in harsh staccato angry tones. He was angry that he got caught. He was not sorry about what he did. He was angry that he got pressure from party leaders to resign. He would never have resigned if they had not urged him to do so.

Weiner still gets to keep his 50 K a month  retirement pension which isn’t that bad considering his wife makes over 100 K. So he will not be on the streets or applying for food stamps. He may end up being a lot better off  financially because of  this scandal.


He may even get his own TV show. Look at Spitzer who is on CNN . Weiner knows John Stewart  very well so he may be a correspondent for his show. He was just offered a role on Entourage. In Hollywood his behavior is not such a bad thing. In fact it  can make a career. Look at Kim Kardashian. She became famous becuase of a sex tape showcasing her booty.

Maybe he can be a spokesperson for erectile dysfunction products like Senator Bob Dole did. He can say how the products worked for him as they show the infamous photo of his privates. If all else fails, there is no doubt that Vivid Entertainment can  offer him a million dollars to bear it all in an X rated  film. They offered the same deal to  Octomom . Actually Larry Flint offered Weiner a serious non porn job at Hustler.

The sad thing in all of this is that his wife Huma is pregnant . She was not at his side like Spitzer’s wife. In fact it was reported that she went grocery shopping while he was giving his speech. If he forgives him he may come out of this a winner.  If she doesn’t  forgive him he will have lost it all.

For their new baby’s sake I hope they get counseling and she is able to forgive him. Now that he has a lot of free time on his hands he will be able to be a househusband and care for his baby while Huma travels the glove with Hillary Clinton.


Looking at the how Weiner comported himself in his communication in the past, he always seemed to be angry and have an edge. There was also a sense of entitlement and arrogance as well as hostility. There is no question that is most likely  suffering from depression and severe anxiety attacks. He lost everything he worked for all of his life-  his reputation and power. I wonder if  Weiner has been diagnosed the mixed state of   bipolar syndrome which would explain his behavior and his agitation.

I do hope that he gets professional help and if he is Biolar II Mixed State and he gets the medication and the therapy that can help him. I don’t believe that he is a sex addict. Instead I believe that he suffered from poor self esteem. He  needed the adulation of  these  women admirers to tell him how great and sexy he was because he was insecure and had no self worth. He needed others to reflect his importance and prowess because he was so empty.

If he is diagnosed with Bipolar II Mixed State and treated and becomes stable,  he needs to share this diagnosis with the public. Then he needs to become a spokesperson for Mental Health issues. Perhaps he can get a job as a lobbyist for Mental health issues. Perhaps he can be a fundraiser for a Mental Health organization.  This way he will have turned his very negative  situation into a positive one as he will continue to do good for people.

Rep. Weiner’s Body Language Shows Signals of Deception, Shame, and Anger in Discussing Tweet
June 6, 2011

When  Rep. Anthony Weiner gave a press conference about tweet where  he sent  a  young college girl a photo of his


his visible private parts in his underwear, he showed a great deal of shame and embarrassment.  He consistently looked down and never made eye contact with the audience and members of the press.

His expression of shame was consistent as he continued to look down when he spoke.  Then his shame turned to

sadness as you can see by the downturn of his lips. He also had extreme anger as you can see by the muscle tension in his lower jaw. He is so angry that the muscle literally  bulging out.


His anger continued as he refused to answer questions . He was asked point-blank if he sent the tweet to the college student and refused to answer. He was even pressed to just answer yes or no . He refused to do so and became angrier as you can see in the  photo above.


Her we see him pull on his nose , which is  a classic signal of deception. He did this just before he tried to spin a lame story. He said that if someone in an audience threw a pie at him, he wouldn’t address it and draw attention to it. He was trying to make the analogy to his particular embarrassing situation but it didn’t work.

The press told him that this was not the same situation and insisted on his giving a yes or no answer/  He refused to do so an became more defensive and more angry.

When people become defensive and angry  and refuse to answer direct questions,  it usually means they have something to hide.  Clearly, no one hacked his account and clearly he sent the embarrassing photo to the college student.

Obviously, he was trying to impress the girl and show her that she turned him on by showing her the budge in his undies.  What  slipped his mind was that as a public figure, everything he does is public including his tweets. But the most important thing that slipped his  mind

was that he was MARRIED!  What is a married 46-year-old doing tweeting a photo of his erect crotch to a possible  teenager or 20-year-old? While this is bad enough, his evasiveness and deception are  making things worse for him. It will not be tolerated by the public.

 Lying is what almost got Clinton impeached.  He lied about “having sex with that woman Ms. Lewinsky”.  Unlike Clinton, Weiner  needs to be truthful and admit his shameful error in judgement. If he doesn’t do it, the bad news is that he may get voted out of office. But if he does get voted out of office it  may open other doors for him, like his own television show.

 Look at Elliott Spitzer, former married Governor of NY who did something even worse. He  took up with prostitutes and look where it got him. It got him his own show on CNN.  Since Weiner has friends in the media who have powerful positions,  he could easily get his own segment on his buddy Jon Stewart’s Daily Show or even his own spin off.

Obama and Netanyahu’s Body Language Reveal They Can’t Stand One Another
May 21, 2011

After looking at the body language of  President  Obama and  Israeli Prime Minister  Benjamin Netanyahu,  it is safe to say that there is no love lost between them as they show signals of mutual disdain for one another.  We usually see world  leaders act more diplomatically and  hide their true inner feelings when they appear in public. But this is not the case with the American and Israeli leader.  

The expression” if looks could kill “certainly applies to the above photo.  Obama’s  veins are literally popping out of his forehead in anger as he gives Netanyahu a steely gaze with furrowed brow.  Obama also has his hand on his lower jaw. He  contorts his lip in a snarl, much like an animal does when they are angry and ready to attack.  This facial expression  is an expression of intesnse disdain towards another person. 

The visible  persperation and shiny skin  quality to  both the President and Prime Minister’s  forehead and midface  also  reveal the intense negative emotion they must both be experiencing.

In the above photo you can see the shiny persperation on Netanyahu’s forehead indicating the emotional toll this is taking as he hears President Obama speak. The fact that Netanyahu’s head is cocked to the side indicates that he is in doubt of what Obama is saying and doesn’t agree with him or believe him. The slight jutting forwrd to Netanyahu’s lower jaw indicates that he is angry.

Obama’s curved fingers as she expresses his thoughts signify anger. His lowered  eyelids continue to  reflect  his anger when he speaks as well.

When it is  Netanyahu’s turn to speak we see that his open handed gesture and wide eyed look  indicate that he is being open and communicative. Obama on the other hand is not receptive to what he has to say as he hold on to his lower jaw in anger . You can see the degree of  Obama’s anger as you observe the indentation in the skin made by Obama’s pointer finger.  He also  literally gives Netanyahu the “cold shoulder”  as the shoulder is sharply  pointed in Netanyahu’s direction.

Obama’s finger point is an extremely hostile gesture.  His cupped and shows  continued anger as does his steely eyed gaze. You can also see evidence of Obama;s outward anger as you can observe his vein and muscles s popping out on the side of his neck. Their heads are mirrored towards one another, indicating that they are literally going “head to head.”

Netamyahu returns the steely glance but tries his best to contain himself  by holding on to his hands. But his anger leaks out as he subconsciously points his pointer  finger towards Obama as if to mirror Obama’s admonition.

This photo reveals the most awkward handshake two leaders have ever given one another. It is an angry  handshake which indicates that neither side will budge. Ther is a stiffness of the hands and fingers and the upward thumbs indicates that they are both vying for power.

 Neither one wants the other’s  thumb on top, which is an indication of power. Netanyahu’s curved fingers and extended pointer finger on his other hand indicates how he really feels about having to shake Obama’s hand. He is angry and  cannot stand to do  it.

The same holds true for Obama who stares down at his hands in anger and hostility. Both have tight jaws and forced smiles with lots of tension in the jaw region which screams of anger towards one another.

This photo says a lot about posturing as they attempt to gain their composure. They both are seen grooming themselves, straightening up their pants and pulling up their belts and buttoning jackets, This  is often a signal of  discomfort.  They have so much animosity towards one another that they cannot even look at one another. When people look in opposite directions it usually means that they are not like minded. This is definately the case here. these two are clealy not like minded.

They can’t seem to get further away from one another as they are turned away from one another . Netanyahu even turns away his head in disgust and gives Obama the cold shoulder  as Obama tries to contain himself by clasping his hands together. However  Obama’s  rage leaks out through his extended   thumbs. Obama’s feelings are clealry mirrored in his his tight lipped sneer as he gazes downwards.

Body language wise these photos are extremly disturbing. They show the intense hostility each one of these world leaders  feels towards the other on a very personal level.  This will make any discussion  between them extremely painful  and  most likely  fruitless. It is difficult to communicate, let alone  negotitate with anyone whom you simply cannot stand.

Does Obama’s Body Language Bow to Chinese Leader Hu Jintao Weaken His Image Among Americans and Worldwide?
January 18, 2011




 The way a person bows in Asian countries reflects what a person is communicating non verbally  to another person. While a bow is often a sign of respect, a bow can reflect the way a person is feeling – humble, sincere, remorse, or even deference.

The degree of the bow also means something. The lower the bow, the more formal and the more it says. So does how long you hold the position when you bow. For instance if you are apologizing to someone the bow is longer and lower.

 Where bowing really gets disturbing is here. Someone who is in an inferior position will address the person in a superior position with a bow while the person in the superior position may will not bow at all.

That is why the photo above of Obama publicly bowing to Chinese leader Hu Jintao has been so disturbing to many.  While the economic power of China is certainly increasing, many believe that Obama’s bowing to him is a public acknowledgement that he is aware of this and accepting of this. If you look at President Obama he  is looking down  as a signal of defence as his body s leaning towards the Chinese leader.

The Chinese leader’s body language is in marked contrast to Obamas’ where  Hu is  leaning away from Obama and looking directly at him as a visible sign of personal power as Obama bows and gazes downward in a subservient gesture.

  While many believe that one needs to “do in Rome as the Roman’s do” and join the culture when a person is visiting another country, the problem here is that the Chinese leader was visiting  OUR country, the USA. It was not the reverse. That is what has concerned others who believe that by Obama bowing to the leader he was exhibiting a weaker position to the world and abroad.


 Even though there was controversy about Obama’s bowing when he was in Japan, it seemed a lot more appropriate than this recent bow to the Chinese leader. In the first place he was on foreign soil. In the second place he was with the Emperor of Japan Akihito. In the third place the Emperor was much older than Obama, perhaps old enough to be his grandfather.

Perhaps these factors was why his bow was so low. In any case, Obama’s bowing to Emperor Akihito  can certainly be justified, even though it was very controversial at the time.


 While we have seen bowing in Asia, we have certainly not seen it among Middle Easterners. So what most controversial was when Obama publicly bowed to the Saudi Arabian King Abdullah. The bow was extremely low ,  with Obama’s knees bent. When knees are  bent it is considered the ultimate  signal in subservience, with only kneeling on the ground to follow in terms of degree of subservience and deference .  It also signifies an apology as when anyone usually bows that low they are usually apologizing for something. 

 Thus, many felt  that  Obama’s low and subservient  the bow to the Saudi King  was extremely inappropriate for an American President under any circumstances.

Even though  Obama’s bow was not  as low as it was with  the Saudi Leader, the  subservient bow to yet another world leader is not a signal of self-confidence to Westerners or to non Westerners for that matter.

As you can see the  Chinese leader  who does not return the bow. In fact the leader looks very superior to Obama as he doesn’t bow back, unlike the Japanese Emperor Akihito who’s head is slightly bowed during Obama’s bow. The Chinese leader does not bow back in the least as his posture is ramrod straight and head and instead and appears in a completely upright body position.

 It clearly shows that the Chinese leader is the one in the power position.

 Obama also  bowed to the Queen of England, which may be protocol if you are a British subject. But if you are the  President of the USA you may not have to it. Nevertheless he gave her a little bow as you can see above.

He even gave a deferential bow to the Queen’s husband  Prince Philip which many felt was uncalled for. Many believed that a President of one of the most powerful nations in the world should not have been bowing to a powerless husband who was only of any significance because he married the Queen.

Obama also bowed in Feb 2010 to Ukrainian leader Viktor Yushchenko who has the identical superior ramrod straight head and body posture as Chinese leader Jintaoe Hu.  The Ukrainian leader gazes down upon Obama as did Chinese leader as like Hu he has a ramrod straight posture and does not exhibit  a mutual bow or anything deferential towards Obama.


The bow with Yushchenko took place in February of 2010. That month Obama was doing even more bowing as he bowed a low head down to  Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio, who looked at him a bit surprised.


 Obama even bowed to no-nonsense Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie with a very low and humble bow. While there  must have been a good joke as  shared during the circumstances, it is clear that  body language wise Gov. Christie , he is in the top dog position. He turns his head to the side and doesn’t even look at  The President who bows  too low for comfort.

Like it or not,  the botom line ,  perception wise,  is that when a  President of a powerful country bows to other heads of state or those in a lesser political position like the husband of a Queen, a governor of a state  or the Mayor of a city, it  makes him appear weak as a leader.

 If he must bow to n Asian leader, make sure it is on Asian soil and make sure there are no cameras present for the  photo opt.  In politics that now plays out on a  world wide stage in moments,  the  image which the  political leader is essential and important in terms of repect and   how they will be regarded.


Just ask Russian leader Vladamir Putin who carefully manicures and manages his public image. The only image of him you will ever see is  where he is swimming the deepest sea, skiing the highest mountains, or riding the fastest stallion as he shows off hs buff arms. He isn’t bowing to anyone. Perhaps President Obama may want to follow suit if he values how he is perceived especially in the next election.

While many around the world  may think that this animated  Taiwanese cartoon of the President kow-towing to Hu is funny, there is absolutely nothing funny about it to any American. There is nothing humorous about a President of one of the most powerful countries in the world being perceived  as weak, under any circumstances .

Sara Palin’s Disconnected Body Language During Video Message – Lack of Appology for Crosshairs , Inappropriate Use of Term “ Blood Libel” Inflames Public
January 13, 2011

Unlike  body language experts who have a political bias, I do not. Instead, I  always try to maintain my objectivity . Thus, I have no agenda when it comes to Sara Palin. I am merely reporting what I observed  on her latest video message that she posted on Facebook.  W hat I observed was very disturbing as there were too many moments where I believe she continued to exercise poor judgment.


Watching Sara Palin’s recent speech on  video was like watching a very bad actress perform. Her words and her body language were out of synch and completely disconnected in so many instances.

Her monotone and incongruent body language .where she shook her head  NO when she should have been shaking it YES and vice versa was also disturbing.  It seemed very insincere and contrived.

Absent was any apology for her use of violent imagery. Using inappropriate terms such as blood liable were as  disturbing as her imagery of our founding fathers whom she described as  using  dueling pistols to settle their differences.

In light of the circumstancesm this inappropriate  talk once again reflected  very poor judgment on Sara Palin’s part in my view.



When she said in her speech I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims, she disturbingly shook her head NO when she needed to shake it in the affirmative.

Body language wise she was saying I don’t agree with the beautiful Catholic mass. When people’s body language does not match their words they are usually thinking about their own agenda and what they want to say next, instead of being in the moment and being genuine about what they are saying.

She continues to shake her head NO as she says The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

It is clear through her body language that she does not believe what she is saying here . Her words about Catholic mass does not ring true to her based on her body actions.


As she says the following,  she appears overly dramatic  like a very bad or beginning actress. She clearly does not believe what she is saying about people exercising their rights to have differences  of  opinions. In the first place, that day was a meet and greet for Gifford’s constituents, not a form for debate. This clearly shows her ignorance and what is foremost on her mind- debating the issues ands getting her points across.  She says:

“Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government.”


Then she does the absurd as she shakes her head in the affirmative YES as she said It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

In nmy view, t is also  inexcusable and incomprehensible why a politician  would put cross hairs on a map- crosshairs to target someone for death  while using a gun.


As she says the following you don’t feel the sadness or compassion in her tones. It is read off the teleprompter and comes across as being very insincere.

She reads:

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

This passionate statement needed to be said with much more conviction t have sounded  believable.


Out of the blue, Palin  invokes the name  of President Regan. In doing so it  shows  obvious manipulation. It is no doubt used to  get Regan fans on her side in her quest to get people to subliminally associated her with Regan.  She reads:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

As you can see from this statement, here was absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring up Regan, as this crime had absolutely nothing to so with him or what he ever said in the past. And if society is guilty as he is quoted as saying, then they are guilty of not getting a deranged man the help he desperately needed.

If what Sara Palin  said was true and she was being sincere,   she needed to say that  even though she had nothing to do with the tragedy that occurred, she was still holding herself accountable, as a  member of society  for upsetting people by putting crosshairs on a map of the US. In my viwe she would have gained a lot more public  respect of she would have openly admitted her error in judgement at this point in her speech.



The following was perhaps the only truth she said. But she ruined it by politicizing it by  talking about  those who voted in the last election. It was clearly a dig in my view. She reads:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

She continues to be political in talking about the last election and reminding us that she was a part of it. She is lets us know  politically that Obama’s party won  two years ago,  but that last November the other party one.

She sounded petty by not mentioning the names of the parties- Democrat and Republican and even pettier for bringing this up in the first place in my viwe.

It was clear that her agenda leaked out here. She was letting everyone know that her party was victorious last November and that if she runs, she will be part of that Victory in the next election. In my viwe this was not the time or place for such rhetoric.


Here is the only passage of the speech where she did seem connected and sincere and passionate about what she was saying:

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions.  And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.



But then she blows it when she ignorantly uses the terms  blood libel. This once again shows her ignorance. The words blood libel are not for this instance.  The definition of  Blood libel according to Wikipedia refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

This was not the situation to invoke such words and Rabbi Marvin Heir of the Museum of Tolerance called her on it all over the airwaves. Her let her know that her words incited further angst and alienation as she said

But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”



Once again her poor judgment is revealed when she brings up something that is in very poor taste in light of the circumstances, that   political figures settled their differences with dueling pistols back in the day..

This was the last thing she needed to bring up as there was no need to bring this up at this point.  It once again showed her ignorance and complete lack of good judgment as she reads:

“There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.”

If we must condemn violence  as she said, then she did not have to bring up such acts of violence and tell us that there is no need for government  if men and women were angels.

Even if they were angels there would always be need for a set of rules that people needed to follow to make a society function. To me that is very negative thinking.   If  we are to condemn violence then she needs to condemn herself for putting up a map with crosshairs which indicates  the ultimate in mental violence.

Now she reminds us why she is really doing this. With  the American flag in the background , she reminds us of her campaign. Discussing this is  irrelevant and completely out of line under the circumstances. Once again it shows very poor judgment on her part as she says:

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.



Then she inappropriately   throws in 911 as she says  :

Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security.

911 is the last thing one needs to be throwing into the equation. This massacre was not done by religious extremist but by a home  grown deranged American. Mentioning the  two in the same breath is manipulative and a ploy to  pull at emotions and enrage, in my view.

In her next statement we see hypocrisy in her speech when she says

We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

It is not about stifling debate. Instead,  it is about debating without the mental  violence of showing crosshairs . Using crosshairs as a symbol of violence is what needs to be stifled inmy view.  She continues with :

We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner”

As soon as she said this she needed to  apologize a for the crosshairs instead of ignoring it as though it never happened , There was no peaceful engagement when showing crosshairs.

And finally her contrived God Bless America was shaky and  out of synch as her entire speech. It sounded insincere and passionless as though it was just tagged on as an afterthought in order  to sound patriotic.

Once again these observations are not flecting any political opinion on my part or any bias, I am just reporting what I see betrween the spoken words.

Al Gore’s Accuser’s Voice Pattern, Sarcastic Tones, Inappropriate Editorial Commentary Showed Signals of Deception, Making It No Surprise Oregon Authorities Closed the Case
July 31, 2010

When I heard  that former Vice President was cleared  of all assault charges in the case against him by the massage therapist Molly Hagerty I was not at all surprised.

 I retrieved my notes  from the first listened to Ms. Haggerty’s delivery and voice pattern  where I thought her story was very questionable and strongly doubted that she was telling the truth .

After listening to the lengthy  bland monotone diatribe where she made editorial comments after certain statements I knew something was terribly wrong.  I was hearing way too much extraneous information and not enough emotion.

Based on key words she spoke and the tone in which she spoke them it was clear to me that she had a “chip on her shoulder mentality” right from the beginning. By that I mean that she was clearly  looking for a way to equalize a powerful indiviudual and beinghim down.


The sarcastic and  monotone in which she spoke her editorial comments was also disturbing to me. The tone of sarcasm was peppered throughout what she read  and it was evident in her spontaneous comments.

When someone exhibits sarcasm on such a consistent basis, it often indicates passive aggressiveness and a lot of masked anger.


She did not sound like someone who was truly victimized and traumatized . The bland monotone, where there should have been emotion  also disturbed me. If this was so traumatic why did she sound so objective? Even of it happened years ago,  why didn’t some of those words she read trigger some type of emotion in her ?


The fact that there were no tears, not a catch in her voice or a glitch in her tones as she described an alleged traumatic event in her life very much  concerned me. Even if it happened  years earlier, if it was that traumatic, she surely would have had to re-live some of that emotion as she read the document.

. Throughout the years in listening to countless clients re-live some of their most traumatic events in their lives, they usually show some type of emotional state in their tone, unless they are in complete denial.

The emotional state may surface openly in the form of audible tears or a vocal flash in the form of a tonal glitch or a pitch break where the vocal muscles would have tightened and the voice would have cracked even ever so slightly.

The vocal pitch could also go up as well due to the tightening and tension of the muscle. But this did NOT happen in Ms, Hagerty’s case.  


There was nothing revealed by Ms. Hagery that indicated veracity to me with the exception of perhaps a person who wanted both her 15minutes of fame and a hefty amount of money.

Before I  even listened to the tape this thought also crossed my mind when it was reported that the woman was trying to shop the story for  million dollars to media or take what she could get from the highest bidder.

What also turned me off  a bit was the fact that she didn’t come forth years earlier. Instead she only came forth when Gore was in a crises and weak mode- when he and wife Tipper were quitting their marriage after four decades.

But I eliminated those thoughts out of  my mind. I strongly do not believe in the  blaming the  victim  mentality, so  I objectively  set forth with an open mind and listened to the tapes.


As soon as I heard her mention Gores VIP status and how the hotel wanted her to keep the guests happy said with a tone of sarcasm, I got the tone of  whole story. The woman resented having to serve a VIP client whom she perceived as being better than her.

Then she gave way too much information about Gore asking to have his abductor muscles massaged. Most people don’t usually  ask for the specific muscle groups to be worked on before hand . If you have been traveling a lot and are tense and aching, you usually let the masseuse do their job. If they aren’t reaching certain hurt muscles, then you tell them what you would like for them to do while you are situated on the massage table.


When she went on to explain the abductor muscles and how it was known to cause an “involuntary” erection,  I knew it was complete BS because if that was the case and she felt that he was just concerned about her giving him a sexual massage, she would have known it right then and there and said she couldn’t do that or leave which she didn’t.

When she describes his moaning and groaning and request for abdominal massage, she  says shewas uncomfortable. If so, she could have left at that time as well. When she said she was SHOCKED, she needed to leave at that too,  but didn’t .

When she says that he got angry, because she didn’t massage him where he wanted to be massaged and that she was shocked, she could of left right then as wellm but didn’t.

She claims to be such a professional and yet she is not acting professional. If she wasn’t thrilled with his actions, she needed to pack up her things and leave durig the beginning of his massage, but she didn’t .


Then she said Gore demanded sexual FAVORS but then quickly changed it to BEHAVIORS. The immediate change is a signal of deception. There is a big difference from demanding a sexual favor to having a sexual behavior. If what she said was true and it made her feel so uncomfortable she could have left right then, but didn’t .

She says he got so freaked and then she got mad. Well a person who is mad speaks up or leaves. She did neither.  So what she is saying is clearly not true.


She says he got angry with her for not doing  what she wanted him to do. Strangely she  then asks him to SHOW HER. That is ridiculous.

When on her next breath she says in a softer tone .“That was nuts.”she clears her throat, demonstrating a  clear sign of deception. The only thing that is nuts in my view is her story.

When she describes how he pulled her hand hard towards his public crest region she could have left then but she didn’t. She says “It all happened so fast as you can imagine.” In making that editorial comment,  she is pleading with the listener to agree and aknowledge  her false statement.

The truth is no one can imagine anyone not leaving the scene if someone was doing what she said Gore did to her.


When  she then tells how she slowly pulled her hand away and tells him it was a counterproductive massage technique, that would never happen.

If what she said was true,  Gore would have been so frustrated and told her to leave because  he wanted a masseuse who would do what he wanted done . He would not have lay there silently listening  to her nonsense about massage techniques if he was intent  on what he wanted done.


When she editorializes and tells him she was speaking to him diplomatically and like she was dancing on the edge of a razor, it is a clear lie. If he was ANGRY as she said, and DRUNK as she said, he wouldn’t be quietly lying there and listening to his explanations in trying to calm him down.

She said he BELLOWED at her. If that was the case she could have left, but didn’t. She then goes on to explain how she never had a client yell at her except for one who was brain injured and drunk  five feet tall and would cry. That was just WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION. She was doing too much going of on a tangent  self explanation which is a clear indication someone is not telling the truth.


When she said he YELLED that he wasn’t asking her to do anything improper, she  made a point of saying in a hyper-articulated  pattern of speech ” no impropriety was inferred SIR.”  She repeated herself as she relayed this comment, which was also a signal of deception.

But more interesting was that she called him SIR said in a sarcastic tone. That along with the  earlier VIP comment and sarcastic tones indicate that she obviously had a problem with his fame.

In essence, the sarcastic tone reveals “ a who do you think you are, you are no better than me chip on her shoulder mentality.”

For the second time she explains how none of her hotel clients never yelled at her or acted out with her .As she said this you could hear the glottal fry in her tone as she dies off at the end of the statement. It was a creaking sound that indicated the voice muscles tightened, It is a clear signal of deception.

She said that it was “then and there”  she was in a “perfect storm” and was in a room with someone who was “Teflon coated.” That editorial comment about Gore’s persona being “Teflon coated” indicates her issue with those more powerful that herself. It indicates  that she had another agenda which was  to bring him down.

To confirm what I am saying she even mentions his celebrity status once again.


She then gives ridiculous far fetched excuses for why she felt to helpless and didn’t remove herself from the situation. 

She tells how she couldn’t yell and scream down the hallway or she would be accosted by his security detail.  This comment shows how obviously Gore’s status intimidated her . She didn’t have to run and scream she could have calmly left but she didn’t, She  used his security detail as the reason why she didn’t leave.

When she goes on to say she could have been tazered  or shot by them as an immediate response it clearly shows how  her mindset is working. Also she says that she thought she could be arrested for attempted soliciting or for attempted assault. This added information speaks volumes about what she was thinking and how she built up a non existent scenario in her mind.

She also says that of Gore complained about her to the hotel staff he could have done irreparable damage to her livelihood and to her personal reputation . This is clealy nothing more than a fantasy in her mind.

She then asks ” Does this make sense to yall? Once again she is asking for the reassurance that her lies are being believed.


Then she said he suddenly changed his tactics and pleaded for sexual release of his chakra. But she doesn’t go on to explain if  did so or not. That would have been the most significant part of the ordeal,  yet she leaves it out, This   further indicates she was lying.


For the third time she mentions who Gore something about Gore’s persona. She says  she “thought he was a great guy that cared about peoplebut “wanted to prevent any of his weirdness from happening.”

In this statement she is in essence saying that he may be a great guy but he is not  any better than her. In fact, she sees him as worse than her- as weird, while even seeing  herself as the more superior one.


When she uses the terms “Inescapable embrace” “with a come hither look”  and allegedly says” You’re being a sex crazed poodle.” It is clearly a lie or wishful thinking on her part. It sounds like words you would read in a romance novel.

If someone called you a sex crazed poodle you would laugh. It is funny. You wouldn’t continue with come hither looks.

When she said her resistance was making him giggle and pursue her more  strongly it shows her off base her perception. The laughter of Gore she allegedly describes would have been  for the poode comment, not for  her being resistant.

The reality of the situation is that there are so many young and beautiful women who would be more than happy to not resist Gore’s sexual advances. If he was all about satisfying his sexual release, like she said he was, why would he have to work at it so hard with an unattractive middle aged resistant woman?

Why couldn’t he have called the concierge where he was getting discrete VIP service and ask for a discrete  escort service? It is clear that the story she told  is an illusion in Ms. Hagerty’s mind.


When she repeats herself and says “This, This resistance was  a tactic I had to use, if I wanted to avoid being raped.” The repetition of the word this is an indication she was lying. Gore had no intention of raping her and she knew it.

When a person is being forceful as she described Gore as being, they are suddenly not going to be romantic and stick a chocolate in a glass and give you a sip . It is absurd.


Ms. Hagerty probably did give him a massage but nothing as she described went on. Seeing him without his clothes and lying down on a massage was an equalizer in her mind, But nevertheless,  she was no doubt intimidated by his  status.

 But now she figured out a way to elevate her own status so she wouldn’t feel so dwarfed by his status. She planned to bring him down and even showed the press a  plastic bag with a pair of black semen stained trousers that she allegedly kept for years.

Perhaps she felt that no one would do a DNA test on the semen and that just having pants in a bag would cause so much embarrassment that she would get a hefty financial settlement.  But  the lab test done on the semen  proved it wasn’t Gore’s semen.

And if it was his semen who is to say, she didn’t find it in a condom in the bathroom and smear it on her pants? I wouldn;t put anything past this woman who waited years to come forth.

So now Gore  finally  by the Oregon Authorities. But even so the egregious actions of Ms. Hagerty  has not only  caused him a lot of grief and embarrassment, it has caused Tipper and his children horrible anguish.

While he certainly has his global warming critics, it  made people lose even more  confidence in him as they wondered if he did indeed try to rape this woman. It has tarnished his name and all that he has worked for all his life.

I hope that Ms.Hagerty is prosecuted to the full extent of the law for her false accusations in trying to ruin this man and his family.

Obama’s Body Language on The View Showed Humor, No Signals of Deception Saying He Never Heard of Snooki, And Anger When Questioned About Mel Gibson
July 30, 2010



Before President Obama went on the View there was a lot of controversy over whether or not he  should have appeared on the View. Hard core journalists said no way while White House advisors thought this was a great way of reaching women voters. 

As it turned out the hard core journalists were right. It was a very  bad idea.  The questions he was asked about Snooki did not put him in a good light . Besides making him look like he lied  (which he did not based on his body language analysis) it  may have uncovered another can of worms with regard to his speech making and teleprompter reading. The  President did not have to endure the discomfort level  which resulted in a  flash of anger after  he was inappropriately  asked about Mel Gibson.    


The inconsistency  of saying he never heard of Snooki when he mentioned Snooki’s name  in a White House Press Correspondents Dinner  three months earlier made him look like a liar. 

The Drudge Report  headline even read Obama lies about not knowing who Snooki is?   

No one likes a liar,especially in their President or world leader. It diminishes the public trust. 

to tell the world “I am not a crook” when that was exactly what he was.had the audacityLook at what happened to other President’s who lied. Richard Nixon was one of the most detested Presidents after he




President Clinton lost even more respect for looking directly into the television camera lens and lying that he did not have an affair with that woman- Ms. Lewinsky when in fact, he did. 

On the other hand, we all know what happened to our first President George Washington who said ”I cannot tell a lie.” His inspirational story of being honest and admitting he chopped down the cherry tree is a large part of our Americana. 

The moral of this story is that we love President who tell us the truth and don’t love those who lie. 



After careful analysis of Obama’s  body language, I do not believe that the President lied. 

Instead, he played along with the Q and A that Joy Behar was throwing at him. After she asked if  Snookie should run for mayor of Waisilla and Obama heard the audience roar of laughter, he realized that in order to be likeable and affable, it was a cue for  him to go along with the joke. He actually  didn’t even realize  what he was laughing at. He simply knew that the audience thought something as funny, so he went along with it as a way of showing his good nature. 

Body language wise, he  really got into it . He even went as   far as tossing his head back and giving  closed eyed  laugh. A closed eye laugh is significant as it not always a genuine laugh. 


Suddenly his facial expression changed from over the top open mouth laughter to a less  laughing mouth  as he leans over to Joy and even lens his shoulder into her and  says  “ I don’t know who Snooki is.” When some one leans into you they tend to be more serious and candid with you and are often telling you the truth, This is even more true if the shoulder is directed towards you as you see in the above photo.  

Obama’s comment  got an even bigger laugh as the audience construed that he was kidding. They probably expected him to add and “I’m just kidding.”   But he wasn’t kidding. His facial expression showed that he was a bit more serious. He really didn’t know who Snooki was based on his facial expression as well as the slight pitch break in his voice pattern. That showed that he was indeed telling the truth. 


When Obama gave his speech at the White House Press Correspondent’s dinner three month earlier in May 2010, he  didn’t know who Snooki was then either. 


Here you see the President looking down as he read from his notes   which  one of his speech writers obviously wrote for him. Without any facial animation, smiling, or vocalizations, which one would expect if they were in on the joke and really knew the characters about whom they were joking, Obama blandly reads   “The following individuals shall be excluded from the indoor tanning tax within this bill: Snooki, JWOWW, The Situation and House minority leader John Boehner.’” 

You can hear a slight chuckle in his voice when he says  the name John Boehner, whom he obviously knows. But when  he read the names  Snooki, JWOWW and the Situation, he is expressionless and  chuckleless. 


When he heard the audience laugh, he merely picked up his head and looked at the audience blankly, without a smile which further indicated that he had no clue  about those who’s names he just read from his notes. If he knew who they were you would have seen a slight smile or even a big smile, depending on what he thought about the Jersey Shore characters. 

So when we heard him on the View with his pitched raised saying  “I have to admit I don’t know who Snooki is
with a less hearty smile as he leans in towards Joy with and his head slightly tilted, this is a body language tell of  uncertainly. Obama is really uncertain  about who or what Snooki is. He is telling the truth. 


So now that we know he wasn’t lying. But there is   another problem that has surfaced. The inconsistency made him look  bad in another way. 

For some, it made him look puppet-like who was just mouthing words others wrote for him while he casually reads those words off of a teleprompter. 

 If he has no clue about who  Snooki is and yet can make a  joke about her in a speech written by a nameless  speechwriter, several question may  arise for many.  The questions are “What  other things has Obama said  in his speeches about which he has no clue ? Does he really know everything he reads off the teleprompter or are they just empty words?  

When he gave the speech about the oil crisis which  many felt was too little too late,  he seemed to just be reading the words off of a screen. They seemed empty and emotionless. In fact he got a lot of flak for his lack of emotion and flat affect. 

 His reaction was inappropriate considering the crisis situation. Even his staunchest supporters like Spike Lee spoke up and encouraged him to “go off”  and show people that he was upset as they were about the situation. 

After the revelation that Obama may not know what is contained in all of his speeches, it may make a lot of people question rif he is simply reading words. That certainly is not confidence building . One wants their leader to really know what is going on in every Situation ( no pun intended) , especially if they are relaying information to their citizens. 

Whether it is about Snooki or the Sitiuation, the oil spill, Iran, or Afghanistan, we need to know that the President thoroughly knows every topic and every player whenever he speaks to the public. 


The  Snooki embarrassment which made him look bad wasn’t the only negative thing that  came from his horrible decision to have the President  appear on the View. 

His advisors needed to make sure what questions would be asked ahead of time. They need to let the  producers of the View now that there were certain questions which were off limits like asking him about Mel Gibson. 


I believe that it was completely inappropriate to ask a sitting President. President Obama thought that it was inappropriate as well , At first you could see his level of discomfort  with his lip licking and tongue biting. That meant he didn’t want to talk about it. It wasn’t his place  and he know it. 

But Joy pursued it so he felt stuck between a rock and a hard place and he was getting angry. He turned his head to th direction of Barbara Walters for help. But surprisingly she did not intercede. 


As soon as he realized that he ws on his own, a flash on anger appeared on his face and rightfully so. 

Immediately fun time  and trying to be agreeable, likeable and affable was over for him and he was mad that he was injected into this horrible fiasco concerning Mel.  The level of discomfort clearly continued in the tension exhibited throughout  the President’s  body language. 

I give Obama a lot of points for his quick minded thinking as he attempted to untangle himself from the uncomfortable experience. With a serious face, he said how he had not seen a lot of Mel Gibson movies lately. He tried  graciously to defuse the situation by going off topic on to a tangent  by bringing up Mel’s movies and then with a tinge of humor adding “Ask me about Afghanistan.” It  clearly showed  his skills in diplomacy. 


Besides showing how graciously the President took control to thwart an ungracious topic like Mel Gibson, the good news about the President’s appearance on the show was that he did look more relaxed and less robotic than we usually see him. 

He looked like the warm likeable guy everyone feel in love with before the election. He seemed easy going and very genuine. 

But he should have never been put into a situation where he was asked inappropriate and embarrassing questions that he had no business answering like the Mel Gibson issue. I am sure that if he ever does the View again or anything like it, all questions will be screened ahead of time. After all, as a politician, why voluntarily put yourself in a position to go on television if you don’t come away looking and sounding good and having more people respect  you than they did before? www.drlillianglass. com

Obama’s Body Language, Gestures, and Voice Pattern Were So Disconnected During Oil Spill Speech That It Alienated Viewers And Affected Approval Ratings
June 17, 2010


I am not a political person and I have no agenda other than keeping it real and telling  it like it is. So when I was asked today by Inside Edition to analyze President Obama’s speech which he made from the Oval Office  about the  BP oil spill,  I obliged and did a television interview.

Apparently, many Americans were upset about the speech. In fact, after he gave the speech, the President’s approval ratings plummeted to an all time low. After carefully listening to and looking at  him giving his speech,  I could see why American’s felt as they did.


 First and foremost I believe that whomever wrote the speech for the President needed to be fired. It was basically a campaign commercial for how well he was doing and what he was going to do. People were clearly not interested in hearing about committees and task forces and names of people who were on those task forces  that were being set up.

People were not interested in what Obama was going to do, especially  when they  saw what he didn’t do. They  wanted that issue addressed.

Granted this is an is an overwhelming problem and it is not Obama’s doing. It was BP’s doing. We needed to hear his real take on the situation, not his spin on the situation, which was prevalent throughout the speech.

We did not want to hear about the specific devastated families he met. In doing so he  sounded like a  candidate on the campaign trail . We already know how devastating this is to families and those who make their living from fishing and shrimping and tourism.

 We needed to hear  and feel how devastated the President felt  is about the situation. We needed to hear and see  his anger. We needed to hear why he did not speak to us earlier.

 If he felt helpless which I am sure is the case, we needed to hear that too. We needed to hear about emergency measures that a leader would take, not about committees that were being set up that would take time. Time is of the essence and we needed to know that he was doing everything possible in that race against time where millions of gallons of oil are escaping each day.


 The President  spoke AT us , NOT  TO us and that is what turned people off. What needed to have been said at the beginning  of his speech was lost in the middle and at the end of his speech.

Add to that the President’s monotone and mono expression. He read the speech on the  teleprompter without emotion and without inflection.

 It was as though a fourth grader was reading a book report   in front of a class. While it may have worked for a grade school child, it did NOT work for a President of the United States.   


Body language wise it didn’t start out well either. Obama had his hands folded as though he was holding on to himself and containing himself. It also reflected his discomfort and nervousness.

 This speech needed to be given when  the oil spill first happened, not now. It was too little too late in many people’s minds. There was no doubt that he knew this as well.  No doubt, that added to his discomfort  level which we all observed.


The President used his hands way too much. It appeared to many that he was, in essence,  wringing his hands during the first part of the speech . This further gave the impression of his  nervousness.

 Along with that,  his gestures were completely disconnected as to what he was saying. They were not in synch with what he was talking about.

For instance  when spoke of the oil spill and said  “Becuase there’s never been a leak this size and depth…”  he used a gesture that indicated smallness as he pinched his thumb and pinter finger together. It is NOT a small spill it is a huge one and his gesture needed to indicate that point. His hand needed to be open not closed as it was.


He  then used aggressive gestures  such as the one you see above with his thumb and pointer finger together which is commonly reserved to stress and emphasize key points. Insted, he  used this gesture inappropriately and ineffectively throughout his speech, where he emphasized benign points.


President Obama is NOT an  unemotional person who keeps it all in. He is NOT always cool, calm and collected.  

When one of the oldest civil rights pioneers  died recently  and the President  attended her funeral,  he was very emotional

and wiped away several tears just like he did when Senator Ted  Kennedy died.

He was openly emotional when his beloved grandmother died while he was campaigning and he wasn’t ashamed to show it.

When Reverend Jeremiah  White spoke his trash during the campaign, President Obama got  very angry and let Reverend  White  and everyone else know it . You could see the anger in Obama’s face and hear it in his voice.

Obama showed  upset  in his tone and facial expression  when the Salahi’s crashed into his first state dinner for the Indian leader.

You can always  also see the love in Obama’s face when he looks at his wife Michelle and hear the love in his voice when he  speaks of her and  his daughters.

We have seen Obama get excited and  and enthusiastic . People LOVED Obama and gravitated towards him because  of his warmth and  genuine emotion during the campaign.

He was not monotone or monoface like he was during this most crucial speech about one of the most serious problems which will affect us for years to come.

 There is nothing wrong with being cool calm and collected when you are in a crises  situation and you actually do something to take care of the problem  and handle the crisis.

But if you are cool calm and collected and do nothing and say nothing,or you say it too late,   it often  gives a message to others you don’t care or that you are ignoring the situation.


  Obama’s strongest supporter Spike Lee even encouraged Obama to “go off”. What he was saying is for Obama to show  more emotion- more upset as it relates to this tragic situation. As the leader of a country one must not only  speak  for the people , one must  feel for the people  as well.

Along with firing the speech writer who did not do Obama any favors with this speech, fire the arrogant  person who had the audacity to become defensive and say that if Obama thought that emotion could help the situation he would shout it from highest rooftops. HOW DARE HE!!

Stop being arrogant and think you know it all, those who are the spokespeople for Obama. 

 Listen to the public’s voice. If they tell you they want you to get more emotional and more real- like they saw you during the campaign, then get real and listen. Otherwise, your approval ratings will continue to fall like they did today.   

Obama’s oil spill  speech was upsetting to many because it did not represent how so many  people felt. If the President didn’t know what  to do  in this crisis, he needed to  say it. He needed to show a genuine side of himself . He needed to show that he was a real and human with real human feelings.

 It is not his  fault that this happened  but it is his fault that he waited so long to address it and act on it. Americans needed to know why he  waited so long and what was in his  mind.  He did not need to spin it. Americans would have respected him more for it.  Americans are way too smart to buy spin and it showed in the approval ratings.


When I saw the President walking along the beach  on the gulf coast fiddling with the oil that washed ashore, I couldn’t believe that someone didn’t protect him and stop him  from doing that. That crude oil has chemicals which cause cancer like benzene and methane. What was Obama doing putting his hands in that mess?

Then he gave a message to the public to go to the beach and swim and eat  shrimp and fish . Is he for real? The gasses alone and the polluted air can have detrimental affects on a person’s health. The fish will be full of cancer causing elements. The public is not stupid and that is why they are staying away from the area in droves.

 Obama even ingested some shrimp while he was on the gulf coast to let the public know that he was fine with eating the fish and shrimp and they should be fine with it too.

 Personally, I think that is a  very irresponsible message to give to the public. I would never eat any fish or shrimp from the gulf region and neither would anyone else who was aware of the health hazards.    


In my view, Obama needs to lose the teleprompter. He relies on it way too much  to the point that he sounds like he is reading  from it in a very mechanical way.

If he has to read it, he needs hear and feel his message. If he continues to read his speeches  in his monotone that can never happen.

He also needs to work on his gesturing so it goes along with exactly what he is saying. His inappropriate gesturing is alienating. It gives the impression that he is not sincere in what he says. Gestures need to be used sparingly and for emphasis.

The best advice is  for Obama to speak from his heart and let out ALL of his emotions like he has done in the past. He needs to speak TO us  and not speak AT us.  If he  still needs help, he or his advisors are free to contact me at  where I will help him connect with the public in a more real way- speech, voice, and body language wise.

Sara Palin’s Body Language on Jay Leno in Her Comedic Debut Showed Excellent Comedic Timing- The Most Difficult Thing in Doing Comedy
March 3, 2010


Say what you will about Sara Palin her comedic delivery was excellent during the delivery of her monologue.  Her timing was impeccable. No matter if you agree with her politics or not, one has to admit she did a great job displaying some comedic talent.

Having worked with comedians in terms of helping them with their phrasing and timing- something that is very difficult to conquer  for any comedian. Palin nailed it every time.

In addition, her tone and pitch were in control and well- modulated during her comedic performance. Her body language and movements were fluid and showed a lot of self- confidence. She had complete  control over her audience during her performance.

The best thing a comedian can do to make sure they have the audience on their side is to put themselves down and she did a great job of doing that in her comedic monologue.

There was no doubt she was a bit nervous and guarded  in this new experience as she often made a fist- like gesture when she spoke as you can see in the photo above.

When she released her fist like position and relaxed her hands as she delved into her comedic monologue,  you can see  int he photo above that she became more relaxed and comfortable.


During her  initial sit down interview with Jay , when she first sat down she appeared to be a little more uncomfortable at first ,  as determined when her vocal pitch would get a little higher in tone. The pitch of her voice raising seems to be Palin’s vocal  pattern when she feels stressed and she may have initially shown signals of stress when first  sitting down with Jay.

But it quickly dissipated and she was then well modulated, articulated and well animated. During the interview, she took her journalistic training and turned the tables back on Jay as she brought up his recent controversies in the media.

Jay suddenly took the role of  being Sarah’s guest as he made several  faces reflecting his disdain at what happened to him. He then got the ball back in his court and began asking the questions.


Actually I really liked this dialogue Sara and Jay had  as a new form of interviewing people. Usually a guest only answers questions the host asks. The host keeps probing so there is no where else to go but to stay on topic and answer the hosts particular question.

But what if the guest was not only able to answer questions, but could now ask the host as well. It seems like a fairer way to do an interview.  I really loved the exchange between Jay and Sara. It became more of a dialogue that is more real.

In this day and age of keeping it real I think that this should be the way to go. I would love for Oprah or Barbara or any one of the women on the View to ask a question and then have the guest in turn ask  them  one back. I would love to see how they also think about topics they bring up and discuss. It would make for a real and lively discussion and interaction.

So Sara may have inadvertently  started a new trend here, with redirecting the questioning towards the host. As I said I liked it and would like to see more celebrities and politicians who are interviewed as questions of their interviewers in return.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 362 other followers