What Voters Saw Tuesday Night

Since the rise of television as a major force in American politics, and particularly since Joe McGinnis's extraordinary behind-the-scenes portrait of how the 1968 Nixon campaign, led by a team of advertising men, manipulated the public image of Richard Nixon in The Selling of the President, many have expressed concerns about the extent to which voters can really get a sense of the candidates through the lens of the television camera. Their reasons are well founded. Media campaigns turned George W. Bush into an "everyday guy" despite his wealth, connections, and Andover/Yale/Harvard MBA pedigree; into a "compassionate conservative" despite his record of executing a fellow born-again Christian as Texas governor; and as a steady hand in times of national danger who could lead the country to safety. And the data are clear from 40 years of electoral history and the data from tens of thousands of surveys over the same time frame that people vote primarily with their emotions: they choose the party whose principles resonate with them emotionally and the candidate they feel in their gut they can trust and understands people like them.

But Tuesday night, when Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination, voters saw the three last candidates standing all speak in rapid succession, all of whom revealed important aspects of who they are.

John McCain's appearance an hour before Obama's victory speech itself spoke volumes. For a man who spoke with the word "Honor" on hand-held placards all around him, it was a dishonorable thing to do. Presumptive nominees do not typically deliver primetime speeches just before their rival becomes their general-election opponent to try to inoculate against both his message and his moment. Democratic leaders did not deliver a primetime speech excoriating McCain an hour before he clinched the Republican nomination. As I recall, Barack Obama congratulated him. That's how gentlemen have typically responded to their rivals' ascension to the nomination.

But the content of McCain's speech revealed far more than the fact of it. What voters watched--and processed unconsciously and emotionally, even if they could not put their finger on it--was a man who seems utterly rudderless in his principles, punctuating rhetorical lines that belie virtually everything he has said at some point since running for Republican nomination--with manufactured smiles where his handlers obviously advised him on his supersized teleprompter, "insert smile here." Our brains are equipped to tell the difference between real and genuine smiles, and McCain has such a poor poker face that he would be well advised just to tell the truth from here on out in his campaign, if there is a truth anymore to tell about whether he cared about the people of New Orleans when they were crying for help from their roofs while he was eating his birthday cake with President Bush, or whether he is for or against the kind of torture he endured as a prisoner or war.

Hillary Clinton's decision to rattle off of her victories in swing states, her claim to have won more votes than anyone in the history of the presidential nominating process (including her victorious rival), and her refusal even to acknowledge her opponent's victory (congratulating him on having "run," not won, a fine campaign, after being introduced by her campaign chairman as "the next President of the United States," as if she were magnanimously congratulating the loser), spoke to precisely the three aspects of her character that voters worried they saw over this long primary campaign: her difficulty showing warmth and graciousness, her seeming willingness to put her own interests and ambitions over the interests of both the party her husband led and the country both of them love, and her defensiveness when confronted with a mistake or a defeat.

The same aspects of her character led her virtually never to congratulate Obama when he won primaries or caucuses and her campaign generally to devalue them. They led her campaign to use tactics against a fellow Democrat they should never have used, most notably reinforcing conservative branding applied with deadly efficacy against her own party for years (e.g., painting Obama as a member of the liberal "elite," using fear tactics in her "3am" ad and images of bin Laden in another) and the kind of racially divisive politics inconceivable for a woman who, with her husband, has shown such extraordinary devotion to civil rights (e.g., her comments equating white Americans and hard-working Americans, presumably reflecting a slip of the tongue rather than conscious intent, but nevertheless clearly activating stereotypes about black welfare recipients). And those aspects of her character led her, in probably the most self-destructive decision of her campaign, to refuse to acknowledge, as John Edwards had bravely and forcefully done in 2005 when it was not yet popular (in his op-ed piece titled simply, "I Was Wrong"), that she had made a mistake in voting to give this president the authority to attack Iraq with barely a debate on the floor of the Senate and without appropriate Congressional oversight.

As someone who has deeply admired Senator Clinton, and expects that she will likely serve the kind of role in the Senate as Ted Kennedy has, enriching the lives of millions of people in ways they will never even know, and who put issues like health care reform on the table long before it was politically expedient to do so, I wish she had shown that side of her character Tuesday night and allowed Barack Obama to step onto the national and world stage in Minnesota with her support and with the clear message to her supporters: Revel in this man's words, because he will be our party's standard-bearer, and he will be a great one. Few can truly know how heartbreaking it must feel like to lose a race like this one, where she was clearly not only convinced that she was the best candidate to lead the country (and would have been an extraordinarily competent president) but also watched what seemed to so many like an inevitable victory slip through her fingers over many months. But that did not excuse her failure to endorse Obama Tuesday night, and it does not excuse her refusal to leave the stage until this coming Saturday, which has effectively focused the spotlight of media attention for the entire week--Barack Obama's triumphant week--on her, instead of on the traditional biographical pieces on the victorious candidate, who deserved the full attention of the public as he reintroduced himself to the American people after a long, bruising, and divisive primary process.

It's easy to paint Manichean portraits of political figures. One of the great flaws of the contemporary media environment is that it tends to reduce complicated people to caricatures that focus on one flaw, foible, or foolish comment. That is not my intention. Hillary Clinton will continue to be an extraordinary Senator, and with a second shot at health insurance for all Americans with a charismatic leader in the White House, she will hopefully see her dream fulfilled. But I hope and trust, as time passes, that she will display more of the sides of her character that we saw in the Democratic debates and less of the ones we saw Tuesday night.

Finally, Barack Obama showed two aspects of his character, one that has been apparent since the primary process began, and the other that has been less clear but that I suspect many Democrats were relieved to see. The first was his extraordinary capacity to respond calmly, graciously, and judiciously under stress. It is difficult to imagine that any human being could not have been seething with anger after watching both McCain's unprecedented effort to subvert his soon-to-be rival on election night and Hillary Clinton's unwillingness to make the appropriate endorsement that would have given Obama a 10-point lead in the national polls against McCain within days. (He will probably have to wait two weeks now to see that.) And I suspect the relative infrequency of his wide, trademark smile, except at the very beginning of the speech and afterwards while walking through the crowds, reflected that anger. But he didn't show it, and instead treated his ungracious rival with an exemplary grace that signaled not only to Americans but to our allies around the world the kind of man who would be their partner and leader were he to replace George W. Bush next January.

The second was his willingness to strike back at McCain and to show his teeth when attacked. In this election year, with the Republican nominee championing a deeply unpopular war, and with the economy in tatters and the average American growing numb to rhetoric about the wonders of the free market that they know has failed to protect their jobs, their pensions, their health insurance, and their wallets against the skyrocketing prices of gas and groceries, McCain's only path to victory will likely be a relentlessly negative campaign designed to impugn Obama's character and to play on his "differentness" (read: blackness) through questions about his faith, his patriotism, his ability to appeal to white voters, his masculinity, and on and on. Whether McCain does the dirty work himself if the race starts to seem unwinnable for him by September, which I hope he shows the integrity not to do, or whether the task is left to Karl Rove and the independent expenditure organization word-on-the street suggests he will be heading against Obama, Americans need to know that their potential commander-in-chief knows how to put up his dukes. Tuesday night Obama put up his dukes. He made clear that he will not resort to the low road, but he also will not take punches on the chin or below the belt. That was one of the most important messages he could send on the first day of the general election.

Related:
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers on Barack Obama clinching the Democratic nomination for president

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and founder of Westen Strategies, LLC. He is the author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, recently released in paperback with a postscript on the 2008 primaries.

Comments

[NicoleW]

Excellent article Mr. Westen.

I agree with everything you have said. However, there is also another aspect I find very disturbing. Her surrogates tell this story that she deserves the time to digest all that happened and they offer all sorts of excuses for her deplorable behavior. Had it not been for her own peers coming out and saying its over, you lost, and forcing her to endorse Obama for unity of the party, I feel Mrs. Clinton would have kept this going to enable her to bring this to the convention. As of right now, she is not saying she is conceding, she says she is suspending her campaign. It's obvious she is doing this because she is forced to do so, or she will be mud within her party. Furthermore, she mishandled her campaign, she is in debt, she was disingenuous to a degree I personally find offensive. She used race and gender to get votes, not caring about the country or the people who once supported her as she insulted the black community, Can someone tell me how this woman would of made a good president ? Now there are people who want her as vice president? Additionally, how is her support to Obama going to believable ?

[XME]

This is a great article, and I agree with you on every point, with one exception. After Hillary's constant "moving of the goal posts", divisive attacks that will now be used against the person she says she'd rather have win than McCain, and primarily what seems to be a disconnect from reality that screams of narcissism most prominently displayed on Tuesday night, the thought of a President Hillary Clinton terrifies me. Those traits remind me all to much of GWB. As for her lies of "dodging sniper fire", I honestly believe it's the American people who have dodged a bullet by her losing the nomination. That said, I am, however, proud that for the first time a woman running for president was taken VERY seriously. I think she's shown that when the right woman runs, she'll be unstoppable.

[cam]

You're very dismissive of those who believe Hillary would make an abysmal president. If you want to practise something more meaningful than agitprop then you need to stop being so opinionated.

This is not an anti-Hillary statement.

[RedBlue7]

4 Reasons Obama must pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate...
www.e-paperview.com/4reasons.html

[SeriousBlack]

The numerous reasons (listed originally by someone else), besides the narcissistic personality disorder, that make her ineligible for Obama"s VP:

1. If the first major decision Obama makes is seen as being forced upon him " as taking Hillary Clinton on as his VP pick would be " he"d immediately start from a weakened position.
2. Change: Senator Clinton DOES NOT represent change. She represents the status quo. She represents the exact opposite. We all know it. Republicans won"t forget that. Neither will Obama"s supporters.
3. 2 Senators on a ticket would be a disaster.
4. 2016: Hillary offers nothing for a 16 year run " these types of things must be considered if we are going to really turn back the clock on 40 years of destructive conservative rule.
5. New York State will be won no matter who Obama choose as VP.
6. Hillary"s numerous lies: Not just the recent ones like Sniper Fire, NAFTA, etc.
7. Hillary's ethics problems from the early 1970s while in Washington as a lawyer.
8. Hillary"s Rose Law Firm work: attacked the credibility of an alleged 12 year old rape victim
9. Hillary"s Union-busting WalMart work.
10. Hillary"s religious cult: Doug Coe.

[provgrays]

His job as a featured poster is to give his opinion. He defended his thesis very well.

[hip dibler]

Obama 08.


tha's righ!!!

[findingthetruth]

Poker face? Stroll over to McCain's website. You'd be amazed at the number of people who (2008) sincerely believe that Obama is inferior to McCain. CANNOT expect anything different. McCain has been OPEN on the FLOOR in Washington about how he feels about ANY race other than white. His voting RECORDS state the facts.

Summation ---- ANY supporter of McCain carries his sentiments. Look around America ----- you don't need to worry about a poker face. Just ask WHO your associates are voting for. This will tell you a tremendous amount of info about how they feel about YOU.

[frantaylor]

McCain is AWOL from Congress. Check out his voting record:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/

He hasn't cast a single vote in 2 months. He's cast one vote since March 14.

[lucky54]

What do you get if you put McCain and Liberman together??

Answer: One half alive person.

[sclucie]

I think the focus on McCain's age draws attention away from his policies - which are the most conservative policies we have seen in maybe a century - far to the right of George Bush (1 and II), Reagan, Nixon, or Eisenhower.

The MSM and right wing press worship at his feet and ask no questions - the left wing press makes Jon-Stewart style jokes (I'm not talking about this article in particular). We can't afford this. We've got to start listening to what McCain is proposing - and demand that the press do it's job this time - and really cover McCain's horrific positions - particularly on health care and foreign policy or we are going to wake up in a new America we don't even recognize.

[lucky54]

Ups .... it should be " he thinks, he is debeting Lincoln" of course not "she" ... on the second tought God only knows his gender .... his petty laugh sound like "she" :))

[Skeptiqone]

Mc Cain made Bob Dole look like George Clooney

[edgarallenpoe]

McCain's smile was as calming and reassuring as Wednesday Addams' smile.

[oncethere]

The "calm and reassuring" (great description) smile that hides an explosive temper.

[DanoS]

Everyone one knew for months and most certainly after Texas, that Clintons chances were daunting at best. So, was it a surprise for Clinton on Tuesday night?

One's character and grace can not be underestimated. It can not be ignored that this was a big factor to why Clinton lost the primary. Many people analyze the technical reasons why Obama won and Clinton lost.

One reason is Obama simply has better character.

[Sundialsvc4]

"What voters saw last Tuesday" was the same thing they have seen for the last two years, and the fact remains that most voters out there ignored it. The actual percentage of voters who are politically active right now is lower than it ever has been, and with good reason.

You can see the marionette-strings attached to all three of these pathetics: hell, they're thick steel cables. Where their mouths and brains should be, there's a loudspeaker attached to some off-stage source. It's not an election ... it's a macabre show, pretending to be one. And it's determined to lead a country of 300 million people straight to rack-and-ruin.

"A country," like it or not, is "someplace that you live in," and it affects your entire life more than anything else around you does. Furthermore, "a country" is exactly what you are willing to make it... it's equal to the worst that you will put-up with.

I believe that the fatal-flaw that all three of these would-be-campaigners (and their "Producers") are making is that they truly run this show: that no other candidate exists, no other voice can be heard. Literally billions of dollars are being spent on media, and "The Producers" are happily raking it in, but if an actual leader emerges, who can connect with "the other 80%" of the voting population, these guys are quite-deservedly finished.

I *know* the United States of America can do better than ... this.

[Chazzam]

I will be truly worried, not encouraged when such a "leader" emerges who can rally 80% support. Such homogeneity of thought and concentration of authority (via the mandate such support results in)is the antithesis of the American experiment, and the template for tryanny (see Hugo Chavez for a contemporary example).
Also, painting all three candidates with such a broad brush, as equivalently beholden to special interests is, in my opinion intellectually lazy and requires an unwillingness to discern dramatic salient differences between them and thier "true" constituencies. A simple "follow the money" rubric makes these differences clear.
Your contention that a country is equal to the "worst that you will put-up with"is a position that I take strong exception to. Such a principle is frequently found in the most exclusionary, divisive political theater and is not a message (in my experience) that elicits social progress/evolution in its adherents.

[ethancorso]

Brilliant retort!!

[Chazzam]

A quick addendum: I have read through your recent post history and find myself in great agreement with your positions for the most part, esp. re: the institutional challenges that face the country and the horrific, near monolithic influence of the military-industrial-media complex.
I think we just look at our current position, with regards to the available candidates, differently, arriving at half-empty/half-full outlooks respectively.

[gopindrag]

"an actual leader emerges, who can connect with "the other 80%" of the voting population." We've seen that. W had a 91% approval rating going into Iraq. Do you really want to do that again?

[JennyJay]

If it was a dirty trick for McSame to do - - - can't we really blame the medai? They chose to cover McSame and they didn't have to do it. The media has not got a sense of right and wrong!

[ThePoliticalBrain]

I agree with you. The media should not have covered the speech in its entirety (or near entirety, only cutting it off when Obama clinched the nomination). They should have covered it the way they cover any other speech of no special signifcance, by reporting on its highlights (or in this case, largely lowlights). Of course, as it turned out, the speech was so awful in substance, staging, and delivery that I think it actually made Obama's speech look even better by comparison.

[MSiddique]

What I have observed through this primary process is Sen. Obama's growth as a candidate. Clearly a cerebral man, he has been learning to be (not yet fully in some people's eyes) the so called common man during this process - I hear under some serious coaching by his wife (who I think is brilliant). I do hope that America gets over its hostility to the intellectuals and elect a man who seems to care about thinking before he open his mouth. The Presidency is not a regular job and is not for a regular person. If we can not overcome the anti-intellectualism of the culture, we might as well shut down our educational institutions, and let the kid loose on to the pasture!

[bobdob]

Tuesday night, Hillary showed us that she's not so much a fighter as she is the guest who doesn't know when it's time to say goodnight. Tuesday was an awkward night, but Obama handled it well. HIllary? Not so much. Tomorrow, if reports can be believed, she will finally concede. Her speech tomorrow is her last best chance to restore her own dignity and repair her reputation. If she talks about herself, she will be diminished. If she talks about Obama, about the Party, and about our nation, all will likely be forgiven.

[tubette]

Couldn't have been said better.

[billydog]

America is a racist nation that brags about freedom with a wink. Nasty jokes about blacks are becoming the new fad signaling the message of don't vote for a black because they are laughable
idiots who will ruin America. It's over for Obama when the jokesters focus on blacks.

[Chazzam]

I would agree with your statement, if it were still 1980, and I can understand that there are areas of the country where what you are saying still applies. That said MUCH of America has quite simply grown up enough that such packaging of racism, even in such an effective framework as humor (see The Daily Show/Colbert Report as an example of humor's power to deliver/defuse a message) will simply not gain widespread traction.
My grandfather would NEVER have voted for Obama, and would have yucked up a storm at any race-based mockery leveled at him, thinking it God's honest truth. Of course, my grandfather (and the paranoia/cynicism he had internalized) died years ago. In his place in the electorate, is my nephew (now 19) who sees in Obama someone who can bring humanity and principle back to the country's leadership. When he encounters someone trying to work a racist angle into thier rhetoric, the speaker loses credibility as "old-headed", "played-out" and "tired".
Also, who exactly are the jokesters who will turn thier "focus on blacks"? The right-wing has not exactly proven itself to be skilled purveyors of humor in the last 20 years. More often they serve as ample fodder for those with contemporary comedic sensibilities. I just don't see racist humor having any influence outside of existing racist enclaves.