the eyes have it

The photograph above shows the two candidates greeting each other at the beginning of last night's debate. Notice that Obama is looking at McCain, and McCain is looking at the audience. It is just a moment, but it was typical. Throughout the ninety minutes that followed, McCain refused to make eye contact with Obama, even as Obama sought eye contact with him.

This asymmetry in the two candidates' body language is turning into one of the mini-narrative threads that start to form in the days following a major debate. It's interesting on the surface - for the signals it sent to viewers about McCain's feelings about Obama - and also because of what it says about the two men's characters.

There are two theories emerging about why McCain couldn't look his opponent in the eye. One of them - the most intuitive one - is that he feels such utter contempt for Obama, this kid who has achieved nothing who dares to challenge his judgment on foreign policy, that he doesn't wish to show him the minimum respect that eye contact implies. This is of a piece with McCain's exasperated grimacing at Obama's answers and frequent uses of phrases like "what my opponent doesn't understand...".

The other, fascinatingly proposed here, is that McCain's refusal to look his opponent in the eye was a sign of fear, or at the very least, insecurity (I haven't studied the tapes but as I recall Obama found it hard to look Clinton in the eye during their debates, and I think he did find her a bit intimidating).

Whichever it is - perhaps it's a mixture of both - it is indicative of something about the two men's temperaments. Obama, a former professor, is by instinct and education a man who separates an argument from the person making it. He is comfortable with abstract argument, and perhaps a little uncomfortable when things get personal. McCain, however - as Eugene Robinson points out to Chris Matthews - tends to personalise arguments. Indeed, McCain's whole worldview is based on character; he doesn't really have much of a political philosophy. That's not all bad: it's why he's got a good record of bipartisanship as a legislator - if he likes the man, he will disregard the ideology. But it means he's not a great at discussing ideas - and if he doesn't like someone, he can't help but let it show.

Comments

[Lyle]

Hm. So, cerebral and level-headed versus emotional and impulsive. Which kind of temperament would one prefer to represent the U.S. at, say, the G8 or to have access to U.S. nuclear codes?

By the way, Obama and McCain worked on some legislation together. I forget which exactly, but the process included some griping between the Senators' offices that was eventually put aside to result in a fine piece of bi-partisan work. Wish I could remember when and what the bill was. Read about it Ryan Lizza's excellent profile of Obama that ran in a June or July 2007 New Yorker.

[TR]

Watching the video of the debate, I suspect it is closer to the former, though not necessarily contempt. Particularly on the debate on Afghanistan and Iraq, McCain clearly feels his experience is superior and more relevant than Obama's. Never-the-less, Obama can continually and calmly produce counter-points from his impressive depth of specific knowledge.
I think McCain finds this style of debating difficult to handle and frustrating in the extreme - he wants Obama to engage with his rhetoric, take him on at the personal level as you say.
Its difficult to look someone kindly in the eye as you shake their hand, when really what you want to do is throttle them..