Amazing Runs: American Female Athletes Light up Wimbledon & the World Cup

070919-01 Coco Gauff

This was Cori “Coco” Gauff’s reaction on defeating an idol of hers, Venus Williams, in the first round of Wimbledon on July 1st. This was the moment in time when Gauff became the youngest woman to win at Wimbledon since 1991, and the youngest ever to qualify for that storied tennis tournament. And yet, and yet . . . what’s her emotional response to victory? Utter sadness: her inner eyebrows are raised; her eyes dim and the skin around them baggy; and the corners of mouth drawn down. A sense of rejection, hopelessness, pain, disappointment, isolation? None of the usual triggers for sadness make any sense. Welcome to “tears of joy,” minus for the moment any sign of joy. The crowd was roaring its approval, and would be all the way until the end –which came yesterday, when Gauff’s Cinderella run finally ended in the tournament’s 4th round with a loss to former world #1 player Simona Halep. Meanwhile, in France the American women’s soccer team was busy proving yet again its dynastic excellence. During play, there were plenty of riveting moments. But it was the celebrations of goal-scoring that drew attention, too. Here is striker Alex Morgan after scoring the winning goal against England in the semi-finals. Her “tea-sipping” moment went viral. At first, Morgan said: “My celebration was actually more about ‘that’s the tea,’ which is telling a story, you know, spreading news.” But after criticism that the tea-sipping was a mocking gesture, Morgan responded by citing a double standard in soccer given that men celebrate by “grabbing their sacks.” So . . . what was Morgan’s expression telling us? Was she showing contempt? Are charges of mockery fair? Well, there’s no smirk evident in this photo—but plenty of anger. The eyes are narrowed and the lips firmly pressed together (no tea is going to pass those lips!). And where might the anger come from? Try out the pending arbitration seeking equal pay for a U.S. women’s soccer team that shouldn’t be paid as much as the men’s far less successful squad. No, indeed—because if a “performance bonus” would be considered fair play, then these women should earn many multiples of greater compensation than their male counterparts in this case!

070919-02 Alex Morgan

1st Debates, 2nd Night: Sanders Roars, Harris Implores, Biden Falters

Smashmouth politics is Bernie Sanders’ rhetorical specialty. Nobody is going to out-anger him among the Democratic contenders in the 2020 race. But as pundits assign “lanes” to the candidates based on who can or might “own” the middle or the left wing of the party, and the African-American or Hispanic or women’s vote, they leave out another set of criteria: emotions. Last night, Kamala Harris took a “lane” rarely used on presidential debate stages—namely, sadness—and used it to devastating effect. It’s unlikely Joe Biden’s bid to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in his own right can survive.

062819-01 Biden Sanders Harris Combo

With a frequent wince in her cheeks and her upper lip pulled simultaneously upward and slightly sideways, Harris demonstrated for all to see the pain of racial strife. In remembering in personal terms how slowly the integration of school districts came following the Brown v. Topeka Supreme Court ruling, Harris led with just enough sadness combined with indignation (anger) to leave Biden like a boxer stunned into submission. With eyebrows knitted together and a mouth hanging slightly ajar, Biden couldn’t plausibly take the “lane” he preferred: happiness. To smile and, in effect, wave off such a transcendent matter as racial justice in favor of the “comfort” of local rule is no longer even a remotely viable position for a Democratic presidential candidate to take.

062819-02 Biden Harris Combo

American Apartheid is how the authors Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton titled their book about de facto segregation north and south in America. Harris took that subject matter and put it into the context of her own life as a young girl weathering scorn. On a night when Pete Buttigieg mostly performed well on stage but was chastised by two rivals for failing to better integrate South Bend’s police force, W. E. B. Du Bois won again. “The problem of the 20th Century is the problem of the color line,” he intoned long ago and Donald Trump has ensured that Du Bois’s prophetic statement rings loudly well into the 21st century, too.

Sanders could and did scowl. Marianne Williamson could and did urge overcoming Trump’s rage and hatred with embracing love. Kirsten Gillibrand could smile and smirk (often simultaneously). Eric Swalwell could remind Biden that the former vice president had long ago suggested the need to “pass the torch” to a new generation of leaders.  None of it mattered in comparison to Harris using sadness like none other than Jimmy Carter did in 1976 against Gerald Ford. Demonstrating empathy and compassion, Carter was discussing, at varying times, both racial inequality and the void felt by families of soldiers missing in action in Viet Nam when he winced on stage decades ago. A sense of loss carried Carter forward. It’s a long ways from last night’s debate stage to The White House. But now Harris is decidedly, plausibly, on that path, and the odds are Biden no longer is.

1st Debates, First Night: 2020 Democratic Contenders

Usually, going forward I’m going to favor short, quick-to-read blog posts. But, hey, we’re talking about who could be the next leader of the so-called Free World. So I’m going to go in-depth here. Still, for those of you with no time in your day, the skinny is that Cory Booker won (non-verbally, emotionally) last night and Julian Castro did second best, while Elizabeth Warren more than held her own. Pretty good performances came from Bill de Blasio and Tulsi Gabbard. In contrast, Beto O’Rourke stumbled badly, Amy Klobuchar did really only so-so, and as for the rest: well, if you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all (or so my mother says).

062719-01 Booker Klobuchar Combo

The policy positions I’m leaving to the supposed “fake news” journalists and the usual campaign pundits to pontificate about. Here I’m more interested in what the candidates revealed on their faces, in their body language, and in their voices–over and above what they said on stage in last night’s first televised debate in the 2020 race for The White House. After all, personalities and personas stay with us as viewers often far more than complicated talking points meant to be on-message. Being on-emotion matters as much or more, quite frankly, when it comes to winning elections. (As a side note, I also can’t resist making a few comparisons in my critique, at times, with what the cattle-call of pundits on CNN said last night after the debate.)

So . . . here we go:

  • Before a single word was said, there was the first-impression visual for TV viewers to take in. The candidates’ relative heights were immediately striking. At 6’5”, NYC’s mayor Bill de Blasio looked to be the tallest candidate on stage and either Julian Castro or Amy Klobuchar the shortest. A trivial detail? Malcolm Gladwell didn’t think so in noting in Blink how much taller than average CEO’s tend to be. In my newly released book, Two Cheers for Democracy: How Emotions Drive Leadership Style, I devote the entire middle section of that book to an analysis of all 14 televised debate cycles from 1960 through 2016. In two-thirds of those cases, the taller candidate won. So in that respect, Elizabeth Warren was unlucky. She stood on stage last night, all 5’8” of her, sandwiched between 6’4” Cory Booker and 6’2” Beto O’Rourke.


  • The white guys were almost entirely relegated to the margins of the stage! Holy cow, the four candidates with the worst positions on stage given their polling numbers were de Blasio, John Delaney, Tim Ryan, and Jay Inslee. Only O’Rourke had a prime-time spot. Did the pundits on CNN say anything about this fact? NO, and how incredible given the demographics that suggest the Democratic party is increasingly NOT the party of (aging) white males. To skip over this fact was really an incredible oversight. For me, it called to mind how during a late 1980’s NBA finals series between the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers there was the sight, for a few minutes in one of the games, of an all-white Celtics team facing an all-black Lakers team on the court. That’s a visual I predict will never, ever happen again in a NBA finals, and yet the NBA announcers that night didn’t dare acknowledge that tell-tale racial detail any more than the CNN pundits did, either.


  • Now as to the debate itself, last night was almost the equivalent of the 2nd tier, “kiddy” debate between the weaker-polling Republicans during their first multi-candidate debates in 2016. In other words, Warren was the only currently “major” contender on stage by chance. Nipping at her heels for the evening was three lower, 1st tier Democratic contenders: O’Rourke, Booker, and Klobuchar. How did Warren do? Did she maintain her recent momentum from the campaign trail and in the national polls? Yes and no is the answer. Every reply she gave was strong, and no candidate did more to command the stage in terms of body language than Warren. She leaned into her podium on occasion, and her hands and fingers frequently jabbed the air in a sign of urgency and defiance. The senator from Massachusetts vowed to fight the powers that be, and she showed enough consistent anger to make that vow hugely credible. At the same time, however, Warren missed two opportunities. First, as only one CNN pundit picked up on, Warren was invisible for stretches of this debate. Rather than interrupt any of her colleagues, Warren didn’t force her way into the conversation; and given that air time can signal importance, her at times relative invisibility at the center of the stage felt weird. Second, Warren was all earnest anger. A little humor might have gone a long way to differentiate her from the super-angry, entirely socialist Bernie Sanders we’ll be seeing on stage tonight.

062719-02 Booker Eyes Wide

  • Booker had a superb evening. Going into this debate, the news media was suggesting that the New Jersey senator was too nice, too soft. Last night, Booker was instead super-charged. His eyes were as usual bulging wide with alarm. But this time, Booker’s usual accompanying smile was typically replaced by knitted eyebrows, upward chin thrusts and pursed lips. In other words, anger, disgust and, at times, eyes closed in sadness signaled Booker’s indignation and regret regarding the state of affairs in America. He was in short all-in, utterly committed. Whether the reason might have been favoritism from the NBC moderators or because they went with the hot hand, Booker ended up absorbing a lot of the air time that might have gone to Warren instead.


  • Castro was the evening’s other winner, but non-verbally to a lesser extent than the panel of CNN pundits would have us believe. Yes, Castro resurrected a campaign otherwise probably on life-support. In particular, he manhandled O’Rourke on the issue of immigration. Normally, the happiest of the Democratic candidates—Joe Biden aside—Castro came on the scene last night full of piss and vinegar. His eyebrows arched with doubtful surprise at what O’Rourke was saying, and sarcastic smiles and thin-lipped smiles replaced his usual buoyant, huge, all-is-pure- sunshine expressions. This version of Castro showed up to fight, not glad-hand his way forward. In a battle between the two youthful candidates from Texas—the state with the country’s second largest total of electoral college delegates—Castro prevailed in seizing the mantle of being the Democrats version of Mr. Texas. Where Castro wasn’t as effective, however, was when he wasn’t talking. Listening to the moderators’ questions, he looked too calm, too detached, too cerebral. And in listening to nearly all of his colleagues, Castro looked vaguely disdainful and haughty. A smirk often played around the corners of his mouth, creating the impression of a condescending sour puss.


  • Did the evening have a clear loser? It certainly did. It’s early in the race, but for my money I’d say O’Rourke is probably finished as a major contender. It wasn’t just Castro who interrupted him and made O’Rourke look weak. De Blasio did likewise. That fate didn’t befall any other candidate twice last night; the closest next instance was Tim Ryan getting taken apart by Tulsi Gabbard. A friend of mine came home from fighting in Viet Nam, knowing two things: he was now against the war, and Eugene McCarthy wasn’t his candidate in 1968 because McCarthy wasn’t tough enough to take on the carnage and the powers that be. That friend ended up running Robert Kennedy’s campaign in northern California, leading to the primary victory there that preceded Kennedy’s tragic murder that same night. A youthful, jaunty, good-looking O’Rourke has been credited with being the potential second-coming of RFK. But to echo Lloyd Bentsen’s put-down of Dan Quayle, O’Rourke’s no Bobby Kennedy. Plenty earnest and kindly in nature, O’Rourke also came across as timid and perhaps even a little lost on stage at times as he faltered in articulating his candidacy.


  • Klobuchar was perhaps the evening’s biggest enigma. She’s barely hanging on in the bottom part of the top-tier candidates and yet has plenty of potential upside. As a female Midwestern moderate, she has everything to gain if Biden falters. And if Biden should hold onto his lead and Klobuchar acquits herself well during the primary voting, she could at least end up in the Vice Presidential slot on the Democratic ticket come the general election. Now don’t get me wrong. Klobuchar had her moments on stage last night. She fought through her natural tendency to be somewhat dour and antiseptic by managing some big, welcoming warm smiles. She got off one of the evening’s better lines, equating Donald Trump’s follow-through on the issues with a drink that’s “all foam, no beer.” But she also looked nervous, flashing micro-expressions of fear (her mouth pulling slightly wide at times). In other moments, her voice sounded like a mixture of being both nervous (about the fate of her own candidacy) and plaintively concerned (about the fate of her fellow citizens). In short, the senator from my home state didn’t come across as quite ready for prime time. That’s despite a strong closing statement in which she made her case for being the most electable candidate in the Democratic field.


  • How about the other candidates crowding the stage last night? Gabbard had her moments, too, and looked more assured than Klobuchar (except in defending her flip-flop on LGBT rights). When Ryan mistakenly referred to the Taliban being responsible for 9/11, Gabbard was able to leverage her military experience by pointing out that of course it was Al-Qaeda, not the Taliban, that was responsible for flying the planes into the Twin Towers. A slightly smiling, poised, alert Gabbard came through the evening well. Asserting himself from the far left side of the stage—both literally and metaphorically speaking—de Blasio was more of a presence last night than his anemic polling numbers would support. Eager to have the Democrats go on the offense against Trump, de Blasio snarled his way through many an answer. The problem is, he snarled. Another tall white male New Yorker, namely, Trump, does likewise and a mouth contorted by an upper lip raised in disgust isn’t exactly the cheeriest of expressions. In a New-York type moment, albeit repeated again and again, de Blasio joined former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani in suggesting that disgust and ruling the (rotten) Big Apple go hand-in-hand.


  • As to the other white men on the fringe of the stage, heaven help Ryan, Delaney, and Inslee. With their grim smiles and eyes bulging like Popeye’s biceps after eating a can of spinach, Ryan and Delaney could have been mistaken for being a pair of emotional Frankensteins. Inslee’s problems were of a different nature. More so than any other candidate on stage last night except O’Rourke, the governor of Washington state suffered from meekness. For starters, his voice sounded terribly weak, like a mouse in a gorilla suit. That quality was, in turn, reinforced by the governor’s tendency to have his inner eyebrows rise together in a sign of surprise, fear, and sadness. To put it mildly, Inslee projected an image of being a sad sack more so than a guy who could use his signature issue of global warming to become the savior of the planet.


The CNN pundits took the first half hour after the debate to basically call the evening a win for Castro, Booker, and Warren, a slight victory for de Blasio; and a less than stellar evening for the likes of O’Rourke, Klobuchar, and Ryan. Put Booker first and add Gabbard to those who did well, and I could largely agree with that collective assessment. Along with never acknowledging, however, that the white guys were almost all relegated to the margins of the stage, what the CNN pundits also left unsaid was this: yes, there were five white guys on stage last night, three white female candidates, a Hispanic candidate, and an African-American candidate. Diversity was alive and well in the Democratic party based on who was present on stage. Nevertheless, who exactly lost the debate? In four of five instances (de Blasio aside), the answer consists of the white guys—O’Rourke in particular. Only Klobuchar came close to O’Rourke in likewise failing to adequately seize the opportunity of being before a national television audience for the first time.

Put another way, given last night’s debate results Biden has just been handed a chance to present himself as the one mainstream white guy able to hold his own on stage, and carry the election. Will Biden be up to the challenge or fold? Given his previous runs for The White House, I’d give him a 75% chance of having his wings clipped (a little or a lot), and a 50/50, coin toss probability of collapsing as badly as Jeb Bush did in 2016. The word on the ground in Iowa is that Biden’s support is broad and yet also lukewarm, vulnerable to reversal. I for one can’t wait to watch tonight’s debate! How hard will Sanders (the lion) roar, and for how long can Biden just keep grinning some more?


Now’s the Time to Showcase the Uppermost 1%

062419-01 Tubman & Zuckerberg Dollars

Not only are you what you eat and where you eat, you’re also defined by your heroes. And now with Facebook’s recent announcement that it will launch its own global currency, the effort by Barack Obama to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on a new $20 bill looks ever so quaint. Just imagine it! Wanting to honor a former slave and abolitionist, whereas Donald Trump favors Jackson: America’s first populist president, and the guy who forced the Cherokee Indians Trail of Tears removal to Oklahoma.  Too bad Trump fears Silicon Valley’s power. With the Libra cryptocurrency, isn’t it time to retire all the presidents? From the $1 bill through the $100 bill, check out the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin. Hardly a smile among them. Who needs that kind of downer, when it’s already enough to have to surrender cash to buy something? With Mark Zuckerberg’s example leading the way, it’s time to replace the whole lot with the RICHEST living Americans on U.S. bills instead. Should there be any exceptions? Only one: former Treasury secretary Salmon P. Chase graces the $10,000 bill. Why not depose him for current Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin, who testified to Congress that a delay of six years in releasing the Tubman bill was for technical reasons. Gotta love a liar, even if Mnuchin isn’t quite as wealthy as Zuckerberg.

Something Sure Stinks (Could It Be Us?)

061219-01 Sanders & Trump

It’s a truism that pets and their owners look alike. So with Alec Baldwin now denouncing Sanders as a “mouthpiece for fascism,” I thought: why not see if there’s an emotional similarity between Sanders and The Donald? The answer: often yes, but with at least one big difference. Yep, they both frown with the best of them. Yep, their lips often contort with disgust (raised or jutting downwards). Yep, they share in common upper chin thrusts that signal disgust, anger and sadness (their signature emotions). Sanders hasn’t held a press conference since March 11th, however, which does point to one difference between her and her insatiably-eager-for-attention boss. Sanders’ eyes will go wide, her eyebrows lift. She’s not always comfortable upholding such a complicated relationship with the truth. The Washington Post’s fact-checker believes Trump has now topped 10,000 lies; Sanders is learning from the best, but to date can’t quite keep up that pace.

Heaven and Hell Have Merged

061119-01 China Facial Recognition

Can technology be wonderful? The left-hand photo shows how facial recognition technology, the scanning of your face, allows this screen inside an airport in China to give you a flight status update, automatically. That’s a low-grade version of heaven. The photo alongside it shows Uighurs being watched in Muslim, northwest China using that same technology. Welcome to outright hell. Lots of people used to doubt me when I said face recognition (identity) and the next step, facial coding automation (emotion recognition), will for better or worse radically transform our world. Not anymore. The Economist magazine, for one, now speaks in terms of the emerging “facial-industrial complex.” Watch out—because they’re watching you. On Monday of this week, the Department of Homeland Security admitted to a large data breach consisting of photos of U.S. travelers taken at scanning post inside our country’s airports. Who did it, and what kind of information do they hope to unlock?

There’s an old business joke about Carly Fiorina going to the afterlife following her merger of HP and Compaq. On witnessing lots of suffering around her, Fiorina goes up to a guard and quizzingly complains: “I was supposed to go to heaven. This looks a lot like hell.” The guard’s nonchalant reply: “Didn’t you hear the news? We merged.”

Biden Semi-Apologizes for Invading Women’s Personal Space

This past Wednesday, former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted out a video. It’s in response to, by now, four women expressing various degrees of discomfort regarding his proclivity for touching, nuzzling and otherwise invading women’s personal space—typically, at or near the podium during public events. It’s a brief, 2-and-a-half-minute video in which Biden tries to informally lay to rest concerns that in the era of the #MeToo movement he’s a dinosaur, out-of-touch about his being inappropriately too much in touch with various female members of the Democratic party in particular.

How well did Biden do non-verbally in delivering his message?

First, there’s no doubt he’s uneasy and no longer trying to glide by the matter as he essentially did in suggesting the handling of Anita Hill’s testimony in 1991 was somehow a matter beyond his control as chair of the U.S. Senate’s judiciary committee. On camera, Bid’s eyebrows rise and the eyebrows knit together: all reliable signs of fear. This look ironically occurs as he admits to having made these four women (and probably others) “uncomfortable.” Now, he’s the one who’s uncomfortable.

040519-05 Joe Biden sadness

That brings us to point #2. What exactly is Biden most uncomfortable about? Is it for what he’s done in the past? Or is it about his political future instead? The video leaves little doubt that Biden plans to run for the presidency. “I will be more mindful” going forward, he says, adding a smile to what was previously pretty much pure fear.

040519-04 Joe Biden multi-emo smirk

In this video, Biden lives up to his reputation for being a retail politician who truly believes that “life is about connecting.” That’s point #3. There are two primary approach emotions: happiness (to hug) and anger (to hit). In delivering his semi-apology, Biden exhibits both frequently. This trait also goes beyond his facial expressions to body language in general. He incongruously says “I hug people” while showing a fist. Later, his hands are outstretched in a more kindly manner.

          040519-03 Joe Biden body language

Any rival of Biden’s for the Democratic party nomination in 2020 will want to take special note of one moment especially. When Biden says “the idea that I can’t adjust” is “unthinkable,” I think he’s signaling first and foremost to the party faithful that he won’t be elbowed aside over this matter. Knitted eyebrows (fear), tightened lips (anger), and a smile (happiness) are all evident at that moment. But so is a smirk (contempt): Biden is signaling—point #4—that he disrespects anybody disrespecting him after all his years of public service.

040519-02 Joe Biden social smile

Point #5 must be, of course, the question of whether Biden comes across as credible in this video. If the video is successful (and it has already received over 160,000 likes online), then it will be for adding in the third approach emotion: sadness (a longing to hug or be hugged). That emotion is about feeling forlorn, disappointed, abandoned, unsure of yourself. Biden claims that’s why he’s invaded these women’s personal space: on behalf of delivering the message that “you can do this,” run for office, be empowered.

In simplest terms in regards to others, sadness expressed denotes often a capacity for empathy for others. From the death of his first wife and a daughter in a traffic accident to the death from brain cancer of his son Beau, Biden has had his share of tragedy. So when he says “knowing what I’ve been through” in this video, that his eyes momentarily shut conveys a sadness that’s been earned the hard way.

040519-01 Joe Biden fear

The interesting part for Biden now is that for him the prospect of running and perhaps losing, for a third time, the Democratic party nomination becomes one more possible brush with disaster. He’s way beyond being old enough to retire. He doesn’t have to throw his hat into the ring. Donald Trump shows sadness, too, but it’s mostly related to wanting more acclaim and rarely about America or others in his life. Some candidates smile. Lots of candidates do anger. If Biden is going to prevail, it’s because he might be unique in public life right now for his ability to incorporate both happiness and sadness, without making it seem like he’s merely vacillating, pointlessly, between those two emotions.

It’s All Coming Apart at the Seams

What a split-screen day this past Wednesday was for TV viewers! Over in Hanoi, Vietnam, you had our Man of Perpetual Sorrow, Donald Trump, meeting the often strangely radiant Kim Jung-on of North Korea. “We fell in love,” Trump said of their first meeting in Singapore. I guess this once special bromance wasn’t meant to last. What immediately caught my eye in this photograph was the frightened look of the woman sitting to Jung-on’s right. Her eyebrows are slightly raised in a sign of fear and surprise, her eyes a little wide, and her mouth pulled a bit wide, too.

Come to think of it—by which I mean, come to look at it—that same expression populates the face of the man to her right, and the Great Supremely Merciless One seated to the woman’s left. Things aren’t going well.

030419-01 Trump Kim Vietnam Meeting

Now as we all wait to see what may happen next after the Failed Summit, what are the odds Jung-On isn’t wondering what the Great Impulsive Scowler, our Man of Perpetual Sorrow might do next? While Trump stares straight ahead, Jung-On is the wiser one: looking to his right, eyes wide, looking to see what he might learn just by keeping his eyes open and his wits about him.

030419-02 Trump Kim Flag Background.jpg

Closer to home, what was simultaneously on the other half of people’s split-image TV screens? None other than Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, former henchmen, former trusted confidante was in tell-all mode about his former Mafia boss known as the President. Forget for the moment, everything Cohen was saying . . . Our president is a racist, a con man and a cheat . . . telling us almost nothing we didn’t already know, at least in that respect.

Emotionally, how was Cohen holding up? Was he scared? Was he lying? Was he choking at his leash, eager to sink his teeth into some juicy revenge?

Actually, in truth Cohen was remarkably at ease for a guy spilling his guts before Trump can do it for him. Notice all the big, horizontal wrinkles across the former Enforcer’s forehead (how could you not!). Well, as often as not those weren’t a sign of fear and surprise so much as they were what’s known in the facial coding trade as “speech emphasis” grace notes, instances where you lift your eyebrows in emphasizing in dramatic fashion a point you’re making. And Cohen was making lots of them, meaning lots of wrinkles and lots of time that those wrinkles held in place far too long to be a matter of surprise. That’s because real surprise happens in about 1/10th of a second, or less.

030419-03 Michael Cohen Testimony.jpg

Frankly my dear, Cohen is way, way beyond being surprised about anything Trump concocts.

Is there a bigger story, emotionally, to tell than speech emphasis grace notes when it comes to Cohen’s testimony? Not especially. Yes, he had to wipe away a tear when recounting the stress all of this mess has put on his family. And, yes, there was a little curl of the upper lip when Cohen referenced the district attorney’s office in Manhattan investigating other bad smells emanating from the Trump Tower. (A curled upper lip is a sign of disgust, i.e. something smells really foul).

But really those touches aside, it was a pretty straightforward drama being enacted. Trump has provided all the curves, and now Cohen was trying—at long last in life—to throw the ball right straight down the middle of the plate so Congress and the American public could, ideally, swing hard at the truth about Trump instead of at his former Chief Enabler.

Credibility Gaps – and One Key Exception

It’s been a rough week in some quarters. Take Facebook, for example. The latest news is that the Federal Trade Commission is in negotiations with Facebook regarding a possible multi-billion—that’s BILLION—dollar fine regarding the company’s privacy practices. Should you have any doubts that this has been a long standing problem for Facebook, go to this link of Mark Zuckerberg trying to answer questions on this very topic at a Wall Street Journal D8 conference in 2010. The face of Facebook’s founder says it all.

The video shows a sweaty, ill at ease Zuckerberg doing a great impersonation of Richard Nixon’s disastrous first debate with John F. Kennedy in 1960. Here’s the blow-by-blow account, in facial coding terms. Look for resentment about the topic of privacy being raised at second 9 (tightened lips); followed by an (avoidance) glance downward at second 20; furrowed eyebrows at second 47; Zuckerberg starting to dissolve into sweat by or before the 1:47 mark; then outright fear (mouth pulling wide) just before the 2-minute mark; and finally Zuckerberg being helped to strip down to his T-shirt because he’s having such a sweaty “Nixon moment” by the 3-minute mark.

How about Mike Pence? Did he have a good time at this past week’s Munich Security Conference? I’d say not based on the deafening silence that followed his telling the audience: “I bring greetings from . . . Donald Trump.” After about five seconds of waiting for applause that never came—not from a single attendee—Pence resumed his remarks. (Later, the White House added a fake-news applause annotation to that part of the official U.S. transcript of the event.)

Besides Zuckerberg’s faux commitment to consumer privacy and the Trump administration’s faux commitment to diplomatic cordiality (except when Kim Jong-un is involved), another credibility gap emerged this past week in Chicago. Yes, the saga of Jussie Smollett being allegedly attacked by two men late at night continues to mystify. When Smollett was being interviewed by ABC’s Robin Roberts, the “Empire” actor repeatedly pinched his eyebrows together in a show of being indignant about having his account of events be doubted. Well, that expression signals fear as much as it does anger, fear . . . as in possibly fear I’ll be found out. The latest word is that odds are Smollett staged the attack. His motive: gain more attention because a racist letter sent to the show’s studio hadn’t gotten a very big, supportive reaction from executives on-site. As the saying goes, stay tuned for more.

Finally, where did credibility endure? On 60 Minutes, Andrew McCabe didn’t come across as “deranged” (despite Trump’s tweet to the contrary). Only in recounting Trump calling his wife a “loser” did McCabe show a strong response: an upper lip flaring in disgust and anger. Otherwise, McCabe was emotionally buttoned-down and all business. No leisurely, “executive time” for this guy! Now that the cabinet is reduced entirely to lackeys, even the 25th amendment can’t shortcut the constitutional crisis likely to unfold in the months ahead.


The Intricacies of Smiling

When it comes to political and emotional opposites, you can’t do much better than the Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi sideshow as they sat behind Donald Trump during the recent State of the Union speech. Pence has long ago mastered a look of supposed discernment as he takes in the wonders of Trump’s rhetoric. There are head-nods, yes, and smiles. But most of all there’s how a vertical crease forms between the Vice President’s eyebrows as he lowers and pinches them together as if trying to scoop up every pearl of wisdom. In contrast, the Speaker of the House looked like she was sucking on a lemon anytime she wasn’t instead rifling through the pages of the speech. Here, she’s giving the President a mock burst of applause.

021219-01 Pelosi Clapback

Did Pelosi do her level best to distract TV viewers from Trump’s words by handling the speech’s text as she did? Maybe she was just bored (the speech and Trump’s Mussolini-like thrusts of his defiant chin went on seemingly forever).  Trump’s almost never happy. At least he made some of the female Democrats in attendance pleased by mentioning the new jobs he’s created, namely, like theirs!

021219-02 White Coats State of the Union

As you can tell from the President’s displeased smiles, he wasn’t so happy to be upstaged. Happiness no longer seems to be what it once was. You can’t seemingly count on anything anymore.

Or maybe things were always like that. The two newly unearthed instances of Virginia politicians having gone the route of blackface should remind us that happiness isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be. Here is Al Jolson in the move Mammy (1930), inhabiting a fabled land where black folks are supposedly too dumb to be anything but happy all the time.

021219-03 Blackface.jpg

While Jeff Bezos was busy pushing back against an apparent blackmail attempt by The National Inquirer, what else went on this past week? Well, for one thing we had Amy Klobuchar managing to do a great job imitating somebody happy to be declaring her candidacy for president amid a snow storm.

021219-04 Bezos & Klobuchar

Meanwhile, off in Europe her fellow Minnesotan, Lindsey Vonn, was managing to win the bronze medal in the world championship downhill in her final race ever. How remarkable was her success after a fabled career? Five days earlier she had fallen in another race, ending up with a bruised rib and a black eye. And three months earlier she had torn a ligament in her left knee, the one operated on something like a gazillion times.

021219-05 Lindsey Vonn.jpg

At least every now and again, a smile is still really a smile: the embracing of life!