MSNBC Live featured "facial decoding expert" identifying "almost a crocodile smile" on Clinton
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, author Dan Hill claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is "often showing what I would call almost a 'crocodile smile.' " NBC News' Peter Alexander replied: " 'Crocodile smile,' we will add that to our lexicon. Dan Hill, a facial decoding expert." Hill also claimed that during the February 21 Democratic presidential debate Clinton "had a true smile, which for Hillary Clinton is about as rare as a lunar eclipse, I have to tell you."
On the February 22 edition of MSBNC Live, Dan Hill, author of Emotionomics: Winning Hearts and Minds (Adams Business & Professional Publishing, 2007), claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is "often showing what I would call almost a 'crocodile smile.' It's a bit of a smirk. It's also a very tight expression." NBC News correspondent Peter Alexander replied: " 'Crocodile smile,' we will add that to our lexicon. Dan Hill, a facial decoding expert." Hill also claimed that during the February 21 Democratic presidential debate Clinton "had a true smile, which for Hillary Clinton, is about as rare as a lunar eclipse, I have to tell you."
Hill's reference to a "crocodile smile" is not the first example of media commentators suggesting that Clinton was faking emotion. During a January campaign event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in which Clinton's voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency, several media figures baselessly claimed that Clinton's actions were not "genuine" or were "pretend[]." On the September 24, 2007, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News body language expert Tonya Reiman asserted that Clinton exhibited "contrived" laughter during an interview on Fox News Sunday, adding: "You can kind of tell a lot from the length of time that someone branches out with a smile. Real, genuine smiles are quick. They flash. She went into a full body laughter, which is bizarre for this kind of an interview." Also,during the August 7, 2007, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, after NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said that Clinton "has to show some personality and some likability, because she really has to show that she's approachable and a little bit softer than she's been in the past," host Chris Matthews replied: "I know. She has to smile when she puts the knife in."
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the February 22 edition of MSNBC Live:
ALEXANDER: And then Clinton has been criticized for looking insincere at times, even "stiff" I think some people have described her, but there was a pretty compelling moment when she showed what seemed like a very genuine smile, almost as if she was impressed by one of [Sen. Barack] Obama's [D-IL] comments. We're going to put those moments up and have you compare them. So explain those to us.
HILL: Sure.
ALEXANDER: We're going to put them up on the screen, so explain those moments. You know those moments. You know the ones that I'm referring to specifically.
HILL: Yeah. What happened is she -- she tried to say, you know, it's time for the American voters to "get real." The suggestion was that Obama's not for real. He turned it back on her. He said, you know, are you suggesting the American voters are fools, that they have been deluded as to the strength of my candidacy? His answer was so good that Hillary Clinton, who has had a problem at getting to a genuine smile, couldn't help herself. She admired his answer and she had a true smile, which for Hillary Clinton is about as rare as a lunar eclipse, I have to tell you.
ALEXANDER: I mean, Dan -- Dan, the real bottom-line question here is what do people make of this? I know we talk to you, and you've written a book about it, but do you think people at home really even notice these -- these little expressions? Why are they significant? What difference do they make in a giant campaign with real issues at stake?
HILL: I think they make a difference, because we're looking for do we trust the messenger? Yes, there are messages, but you saw this in the last race, where Bush used a flip-flopper charge against [Sen. John] Kerry. You go back to '84, you know, the "where's the beef" line that [Walter] Mondale used against [Gary] Hart. If you sense that the body language of the person is genuine, relaxed, enjoying themselves. And, you know, Obama managed to laugh at himself last night. Hillary Clinton has always had a problem with this. It's her ambition that everyone believes in, but whether she is warm and likable, that's been the issue. And she's often showing what I would call almost a "crocodile smile." It's a bit of a smirk. It's also a very tight expression, and the more she loses, the more she has had difficulty warming up to the audience.
ALEXANDER: Crocodile smile, we will add that to our lexicon. Dan Hill, a facial decoding expert.
HILL: Sure.
ALEXANDER: Dan Hill, thank you.
The guy is on there to give his opinion with regard to his book. Take it or leave it, so it's not gushing flattery towards Mrs. Clinton, which of course then it's blatant misinformation here, bam. Where is my WITH wheel?
Spin this under "ridiculous".
I dont see why this is news, everyone has had to smile when they would rather not sometimes, you couldn't be in politics if you couldn't hide displeasure behind a smile. The media over anylizes everything any of the canidates do, Clinton especially.
It's really time that MMFA take on this MSNBC harassment campaign against Hillary.
It has become truly pathological.
Lo Col, Before you get involved with that. There is a request on the Savage thread for some photoshop work.
I did make it to CD's site, saw a post from Capt Foster there. As others have said it looks good enough. The content might be a half step above the average for our lovely "Liberal" media. Not a lot of posting. Still if he would allow an actual discussion it might be the thing to break the wingnuts out of recursive logic.....nah.
So, MMFA puts stuff like this up here because it's just a waste of airtime and just silly fluff and filler when these cable channels should be spending time on real news stories?
Well, that explains alot, and why the Olbermann awards are highlighted here so frequently.
TOMMY ASKS; "So, MMFA puts stuff like this up here because it's just a waste of airtime and just silly fluff and filler when these cable channels should be spending time on real news stories?"
NO SIR. MMFA "puts stuff like this up here" because it's yet another (in thousands) example which satisfies MMFA's mission statement.
It is (1) in the national media, (2) is MISINFORMATION (no factual basis), and (3) has as its primary goal to denigrate, insult, or smear the Democrat/progressive/liberal.
In short, it is part of the Rightwing Media Echo Chamber contributing to the prevailing NARRATIVE of tearing down the Democratic candidates, while giving no such attention to the "opposition" on the Republican side.
It is here, because it is a clear and blatant example ... ANOTHER example ... of MEDIA BIAS to the Right.
And we know Why Is Tommy Here, too. He's here to try to blunt, distract from, and belittle this excellent service of pointing out how widespread Media Bias has become. It's the "little" examples that show how thoroughly this bias has permeated the Media, to every small aspect, natural as breathing. Tommy wishes them overlooked, unnoted. Sorry, Tommy.
Right after Cavuto has Hooters girls on.
Oh, wait a minute....
They have GOT to be kidding. I have a facial decoding expert right here next to me, she just happens to be my wife, and she says Hills forced attempt at a serious academic look is proof he is a moron.
I wonder;
If Hillary loses Texas and Ohio, will Media Matters cease to exist? After all, the mission will cease to exist, why would Soros continue to fund it?
why would Soros continue to fund it?
Oops you got your talking points wrong. Soros started MMFA by giving money to a front org but it is we "librul" donors and contributors that keep it running. Please check your script again.
Middleleft;
I really don't care where MMFA gets its money to continue; but I really do wonder - if Hilary loses, won't the fire be gone? For months it seemed that nearly every MMFA rant was protecting poor Hillary from the wicked right wing press. Even now, it seems there is no real fire evidenced by MMFA for protecting Obama.
As someone opined recently, Hilary lost this herself. Her attempt to re-invent herself as a moderate opened an 'Obama' shaped hole on her left. With her demise as the inevitable candidate, what need is there for MMFA's damage control?
The whole concept of 'correcting' a conservative press is so skewered that it can't be maintained by anyone rational. Fidel Castro gets favorable press in our media, for crying out loud.
Without the 'Cause,' what's the use?
So if the site continues in its merry way after Texas and Ohio, you'll stop this line of insinuation and insinuate something else? I'm all aquiver to see what weirdness you'll come up with.
):P> And yes I stole the Col Sander's goatee. BWahahaha!
I know it's off subject, but it's a real question. The reason for MMFA's existence was to protect Hilary's flank from the press - with whom she has had an even worse relationship than her hubby. If she loses Ohio or Texas, she's probably done as a viable candidate; the momentum seems to be all running in favor of Obama. It really doesn't matter if the press is left-leaning ideologically or not (as it demonstrably is), if she's not the candidate, the original mission is defunct.
So, sans the original mission, will MMFA continue?
On a different subject.
One of the perspectives that I detect in the comments on this site is that anything not as far left as the writer is 'right-wing.' The problem with that perspective is that it's so skewed as to be irrational. No one in the non-alternative universe would call Lieberman a conservative. At best he is a liberal. He doesn't even qualify as a moderate on a rational political scale. Yet the folks on this site excoriate him as a conservative-devil.
I have a friend that says, "A liberal is tolerant of any idea---- to the left of his." The typical poster to this site would seem to confirm that.
Good gosh Einstein, you are putting us good folk to sleep with your nonsensical talking points blather.