I had this thought last night, after watching the Erskine Bowles v. Richard Burr debate, though I did not work it into my reaction column.
Having talked to several reporters and political nuts today, I find I am not alone. Like several of them, I heard the debate first on the radio and then watched it later on tape. The effect was strikingly similar, for me and others, to the famous 1960 presidential debate between Richard Nixon and Jack Kennedy. It is said that folks listening to that debate thought Nixon sounded more confident and informed, that he won on points, but that those watching the debate on TV thought Kennedy looked more comfortable and presidential (and better-shaven, to be superficial about it) and won more votes.
Some say that story is misleading, but I think something similar happened last night. Bowles sounded better than he looked, and Burr looked better than he sounded. I’m not being superficial here; it isn’t a beauty contest. Burr looked more confident, more self-assured, and more comfortable. He smiled, he looked directly into the camera to talk to voters. Bowles looked uncomfortable, arms flailing, talking to a studio audience (who cares?) without exuding warmth. Both seemed nervous on the videotape, but Burr recovered and Bowles never fully did.
Like it or not, body language and visual cues play a role in how human beings communicate. Burr is better at it, though that doesn?t necessarily speak to an ability to govern.
