Movement Analysis of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton 2nd Lt. Fubar of Freshchaos.com has kindly edited down these movement analyses of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The first analysis is by Certified Movement Analysts Cheryl Clark, Karen Studd, and Karen Bradley, who claim impartiality before seeing Sen. Obama, but hint at a preference after this appearance. Barack Obama entered the arena at the University of Maryland without fanfare. He slid into the space and reached up to the waiting hands, shaping his hands, arms, and torso around each set, with clear eye contact. The two-handed grasp encompassed every single person, and he took his time moving along both sides of the crowded aisles. At one point, a woman handed him a baby, who looked to be about three or four months old. He held the baby out at face level. The baby and Senator Obama looked each other in the eyes for a good three seconds, as if they were communing on some deeper level. Then he slowly and gently kissed the baby's cheek and handed her back to her mother. The sense that he had all the time in the world to connect with each person there continued throughout his entrance and into his stump speech. The combination of taking time and taking in the entire audience drew folks to him, evidenced by the large numbers leaning forward to get closer in. Rarely have we observed such intimacy in such a huge arena. Gravitas is usually associated with age and experience and a charismatic presence is not often so understated. But Senator Obama's entrance style was authoritative without being patrician. He was humorous and casual without appearing silly and immature, serious but flexible. As he went onstage, his manner was easy, free-flowing and relaxed. He strolled around, taking in the crowd, soaking us in, in no particular rush, but with that smile. People stood and screamed, but he brought the crowd down, not the other way around. "Go ahead and sit," he said. We sat. As he spun his speech, the shifts of weight, the yielding to the flow of words and ideas, began. He went easily from turning and twisting around, indulging in the 360° view, to condensing into the flow and rhythm of his words, with punctuations of sudden emphasis at the end. Yes, the man has impact. As he got going, he shifted from one idea to the next with a flow supported by those ever-cycling hands, held close to his upper torso. Gestures flew off to the sides or cycled around in front. His voice: Deep, resonant, lyrical, now strong, now light, holding a note for just a tad, cracking a quick joke, speaking to a group of women basketball players who rushed in late and adoring, he rattled off teasing statements that made them laugh and flush. Those crescendos and decrescendos of voice were punctuated by pauses; a syncopated style of delivery. He flowed through vowels, shaping each one. But he is also a master of the consonants, caressing the "p" in "people" and "hope." Cheryl turned to us and we all began to comment at the same time: overlapping phrases, ongoingness, flow, strong voice, rhythm, mobility, passion, spell, and then Cheryl said it: "resilient." The man is resilient. He bounced back, shifted sideways, went under the bar, leapt over, delighting the audience. And yet he is not quite the trickster/star; he was serious and heart-felt. He has street cred and he uses it. Obama checked himself. He paused and took a spin around his head, searching inside while the audience responded. He had the speech paced out, and he knew where he could take those check-in moments. (He is not always able to do this in a debate situation). The resilient rhythms were colored by the small gestures that sometimes ended in an arm sweep, as if he is scooping everyone up, lifting hopes, bringing folks together. The small gestures of the hands were intimate and connected one moment to the next and the audience to him. The large sweeping gestures ended in quick bursts, emphasizing and punctuating the message. "Lifting the country up", he said, and his open palm did just that, with a flourish. Obama is a much more complicated read than Clinton. His mastery of the light touch compares to Clinton's frequent use of simple clear and integrated strong gestures. While both candidates attended to timing and emphasis, Obama drew out the moment more frequently and more effectively than Clinton does. Senator Clinton uses more haste; she will jump onto an issue and make a strong point. We find this difference revealing and not unrelated to the much remarked-upon nature of the success of these two individuals - a male of color and a female making it to the top in such a challenging climate. Obama has more mobility and Clinton more stability in their movement patterns. The public recognizes the difference: Obama owns the "change" meme, whereas Clinton owns the "experienced and tough" meme. What the people will choose to invest in is going to be the story of the next few months. Through movement analysis, not only are the differences clear, but for each of us, the investment in one or the other or in one of the candidates from other parties will be critically important. Movement reveals so much information. And we need to know what these potential leaders are made of.
And now for a different "read." The following analysis is by Ellen Goldman: Overall, Hillary has many more Integrated Movements, where her body fully supports her statements, merging Posture to Gesture with a consistent quality or shape. Barack has few. His body attitude is held back, with a head tilt that could be read as condescending. This supports the removed attitude he often projects. His posture improved in the last debate, but there were still only a very few Integrated Movements. Hillary shows Perspective and Assertiveness in her movements as well as in her words. She looks at an issue from many angles. Her vertical plane, descending movements, show a clarity and sense of priority of issues. She can respond quickly, and knowledgeable about any issue, clarifying what is needed and what she can do. She admits to past errors, and gives trustworthy information about what can be done to improve the past. Her ability to relate, and encourage communication is supported by her physical gestures of enclosing and spreading, and she can answer personal questions without defensiveness. She is comfortable in the debating situation, and can be disarming, a positive quality for negotiations that will be necessary. Her power is accessible to her, in her total body movement, and she is very grounded in her weight. [Obama's] sense of taking time, and pacing was not evident in the debates. He seemed more hesitating, and less grounded. His pointing gestures were mechanical, only occasionally support by a few advancing and retreating movements. His "grounding" comes more from lofty ideals which do not yet seems to have fully come to fruition. Perhaps Barack needs to be alone with the crowd to be his best self ... However, Hillary has managed to create intimacy, and responsiveness around herself. She is not given to oratory, but to practicality. I find her presence, and her ability to support her words trustworthy, and inspiring. She wants the country to know her thinking and she wants to hear from us.
Comments are closed for this post.
