Obama vs. Clinton

Posted by Dr. Mark Goulston on February 12, 2008 9:26 PM PST

Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats, election, Hillary Clinton, politics, presidential election, primaries

Recommend this? YES NO

There is a saying that you've got to get where people are coming from before they will allow you to take them where you'd like them to go.

Part of communicating that you get where someone is coming from is having them feel that you have heard, listened to and fully considered what they have said before you respond.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, feeling heard and understood is in the satisfaction (vs. frustration) of the beheld.
From my observations,

Obama gives the impression of listening and then considering what he hears for just a barely noticeable moment. On the other hand, Clinton gives the impression that she has listened, but that it really hasn't registered before she responds.

I would be interested in the perception of other members of the peoplejam community.

Add To:

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to our newsletter and we'll keep you updated with fresh new content.

1 Comments

I missed all the Presidential debates on t.v. and so I watched them on YouTube. I even watched some old debates between Obama and Alan Keyes, who striked me as a pompous jackass. He listens only to contradict and retort with lofty-sounding rhetoric. More importantly, he doesn't answer the question, which of course would make anyone not feel heard. For instance, the issue was on gay marriages, Keyes went on a tangent without answering the question, "would you love your child if they told you he/she was gay?" Obama's counter, on the other hand, began with, "to answer your question, I would love that child..." Hilary Clinton's communication skills are far superior to Mr. Keyes, but she also has an ego that dodges tough questions with calculated ease.