Choices

You can do and you can be whatever you want. You have the power, and the right, to make the changes.

There are many choices to be made as daily life goes by. There are changes in our world and choices in our lives. There are those who come and those who go. There are those who enrich, and those who drain. There are thoughts which improve our daily grind, and there are thoughts that depress us and bring us down.

Every chance meeting, every friendship, every love, every choice we make, changes us inside and out in ways we neither see nor notice until sometime later.

All of a sudden we encounter an old circumstance, but we handle it in a new way a better way. The choices and the changes we made have caused us to grow, to improve, and we can move on unafraid.

You have one life to live, don't let it count for naught. You have too much to give, Choose to give it!

Copyright 2004 Fran Watson

Growing

Growing hurts sometimes;

saying goodbye to friends,

to things you've known and done

to things you wanted to do.

Growing heals sometimes

the shattered dreams and hopes

of a life you once knew

leading you to a new knowledge of yourself.

Growing is fun sometimes

meeting new friends

learning new things

making changes that feel good and moving on.

Growing is necessary always.

Without change there is stagnation

death instead of life.

To choose to live is to choose to grow.

Copyright 2002

1st Presidential Debate: Obama Lacked-The-Luster of a Commander and Chief

The first Presidential debate I asked... what will win over the American voter, substance, style or possibly both?

And the answer is BOTH - at least for Romney.

First, let me state that I observed the presidential debate from a non-partisan point of view. As a speaker coach, I was listening for clarity of thought as well as how each man expressed himself.

So, what exactly did Romney do that projected a presence that said, "confident, credible and congenial"? What happened to the dynamic and engaging persona that has contributed to Obama's popularity?

As the two men greeted each other, Obama's impeccable posture, determined stride, pleasant expression all said, "I am here to win". Romney, on the other hand, had a slight hesitancy in his walk and his face had a flash of nervous tension, as if he was questioning what was about to happen and recalibrating his strategy.

But all that as quickly changed and here's how...

One: Pace

The pace at which the two men spoke influenced each candidate's credibility. First up, Obama maintained a vocal pattern of saying 7 or 8 words followed by a pause. He was missing his typical vocal inflections that conveys passion and adding insult to injury, he filled each pause with an "ah". Bottom line, he didn't have his usual rhythm that engages an audience and the "fillers" made him sound uncertain, struggling for words. Not good for credibility.

On the other hand, Romney was articulate, clear and concise he was able to connect with his message and his audience. Romney spoke at a good clip and appeared to be in the moment, thinking about what he was saying as he said it. His ability to "think-the-thought" kept me engaged and wanting to listen, to understand his position.

Two: Facial Expression

After the initial hand shake, Romney kept a pleasant expression on his face. One commentator referred to it as a "half-smile". I am not sure what exactly he was doing but it worked - it made him look friendly, "familiar", someone I'd have as an associate or friend. This personable style made his stories about the people he met along the campaign trail (job hunters, people worried about health insurance, etc.) believable.

Another facial expression that Romney mastered was eye contact. He looked at Obama when talking with him, at Jim Lehrer when talking to him and he looked directly at the American public when talking to us. Did you notice that how he stayed engaged with his opponent when Obama was speaking? Smart.

Obama's strategy was quite different. When Romney was speaking, he typically looked down, rarely acknowledging his opponent. When it was his turn to speak, he directed his comments to Lehrer only looking at Romney when challenging him. But what was most surprising was he did not show that million dollar smile which can instantly put people at ease and provide an emotional connection with his audience. Instead he looked irritated and impatient. When he did smile it appeared to be forced rather than sincere.

Three: Physical Expression

The best presenters get everything working together - their words, body language and voice, are in-synch... aligned and supporting their message. Here again, Obama was off his game, even his gestures positioned him as the weaker candidate. Almost dismissive in his behavior, Obama kept is head down, gestures were small, tight to his torso - waist high and he would lean on one leg, causing his shoulder to slouch losing that winning posture.

Romney owned the room, he kept his strong stance and his gestures tended to be "larger", more expressive with the movement coming from his shoulder. Controlled and purposeful, these behaviors along with his direct eye contact proclaimed, "I am in it to win it".

Four: Structure

Right from the get-go, Romney was clear, direct and concise when he spoke. His responses provided structure to the debate. For example, he described his 5-step plan, his rebuttals included a preview of what he was going to say and then he addressed each topic, saying first... second... etc. Whether or not you agree with his politics, you certainly knew where he was headed and what he was talking about. Obama, on the other hand, appeared to wonder. I kept waiting for him to take back control but it didn't happen.

Round One Results

Last night Romney wasn't asking to be our next president, he was letting us experience what it would be like for him to be the president. While Obama felt like the default candidate.The results: Romney 1 Vs. Obama: 0

Presidential Debate Number 3: Five Lessons to Step-Up Your Next Presentation   

1st Presidential Debate: Obama Lacked-The-Luster of a Commander and Chief

The first Presidential debate I asked... what will win over the American voter, substance, style or possibly both?

And the answer is BOTH - at least for Romney.

First, let me state that I observed the presidential debate from a non-partisan point of view. As a speaker coach, I was listening for clarity of thought as well as how each man expressed himself.

So, what exactly did Romney do that projected a presence that said, "confident, credible and congenial"? What happened to the dynamic and engaging persona that has contributed to Obama's popularity?

As the two men greeted each other, Obama's impeccable posture, determined stride, pleasant expression all said, "I am here to win". Romney, on the other hand, had a slight hesitancy in his walk and his face had a flash of nervous tension, as if he was questioning what was about to happen and recalibrating his strategy.

But all that as quickly changed and here's how...

One: Pace

The pace at which the two men spoke influenced each candidate's credibility. First up, Obama maintained a vocal pattern of saying 7 or 8 words followed by a pause. He was missing his typical vocal inflections that conveys passion and adding insult to injury, he filled each pause with an "ah". Bottom line, he didn't have his usual rhythm that engages an audience and the "fillers" made him sound uncertain, struggling for words. Not good for credibility.

On the other hand, Romney was articulate, clear and concise he was able to connect with his message and his audience. Romney spoke at a good clip and appeared to be in the moment, thinking about what he was saying as he said it. His ability to "think-the-thought" kept me engaged and wanting to listen, to understand his position.

Two: Facial Expression

After the initial hand shake, Romney kept a pleasant expression on his face. One commentator referred to it as a "half-smile". I am not sure what exactly he was doing but it worked - it made him look friendly, "familiar", someone I'd have as an associate or friend. This personable style made his stories about the people he met along the campaign trail (job hunters, people worried about health insurance, etc.) believable.

Another facial expression that Romney mastered was eye contact. He looked at Obama when talking with him, at Jim Lehrer when talking to him and he looked directly at the American public when talking to us. Did you notice that how he stayed engaged with his opponent when Obama was speaking? Smart.

Obama's strategy was quite different. When Romney was speaking, he typically looked down, rarely acknowledging his opponent. When it was his turn to speak, he directed his comments to Lehrer only looking at Romney when challenging him. But what was most surprising was he did not show that million dollar smile which can instantly put people at ease and provide an emotional connection with his audience. Instead he looked irritated and impatient. When he did smile it appeared to be forced rather than sincere.

Three: Physical Expression

The best presenters get everything working together - their words, body language and voice, are in-synch... aligned and supporting their message. Here again, Obama was off his game, even his gestures positioned him as the weaker candidate. Almost dismissive in his behavior, Obama kept is head down, gestures were small, tight to his torso - waist high and he would lean on one leg, causing his shoulder to slouch losing that winning posture.

Romney owned the room, he kept his strong stance and his gestures tended to be "larger", more expressive with the movement coming from his shoulder. Controlled and purposeful, these behaviors along with his direct eye contact proclaimed, "I am in it to win it".

Four: Structure

Right from the get-go, Romney was clear, direct and concise when he spoke. His responses provided structure to the debate. For example, he described his 5-step plan, his rebuttals included a preview of what he was going to say and then he addressed each topic, saying first... second... etc. Whether or not you agree with his politics, you certainly knew where he was headed and what he was talking about. Obama, on the other hand, appeared to wonder. I kept waiting for him to take back control but it didn't happen.

Round One Results

Last night Romney wasn't asking to be our next president, he was letting us experience what it would be like for him to be the president. While Obama felt like the default candidate.The results: Romney 1 Vs. Obama: 0

Presidential Debate Number 3: Five Lessons to Step-Up Your Next Presentation   

Presidential Debate Number 2: Who Won?

The tension was palatable as the 2012 Presidential Town Hall meeting concluded. Following the debate, both men greeted their families and then continued campaigning - signing autographs and having their picture taken. Neither candidate turned to greet the other, neither acknowledged the others family. To me, this was a natural reaction to the animosity that was expressed during the debate. And in fact, if they had greeted each other I would have questioned the authenticity of the gesture. At the same time, last night's debate made it crystal clear that Obama and Romney are very different when it comes to both their vision, policies and how they see their role as Commander and Chief.

The Score

So who won this debate? It depends on who you ask. Interpreting the behaviors of the candidates - ignoring each other and continuing to woo the American voter - suggests that each man believed he emerged as the winner.

Then again, some might say that since Obama raised his game in comparison to his first debate performance, he is the winner.

As a speaker coach, I was listening for clarity of thought as well as how each man expressed himself. I relied on my Presidential Debate ScoreCard, (I hope you did as well) to guide the assessment of each candidate, focusing on his confidence and credibility in his communications. For me, while it was close, Romney won.

Body Language: Appearance and Stance

Both men looked sharp with strong erect posture, even when sitting on the stool. When they stood, they stood tall and proud, looking comfortable in their surroundings.

However, Obama didn't come across as optimistic as he did four years ago. He looked tired, perhaps even a little "beaten up", clearly not as refreshed and vital looking at Romney.

The assessment: Romney 1

Movement

Both men stood immediately when it was their turn to answer a question. In fact, Romney would stand when Obama's time was up; alerting the moderator that it was "his turn". I had to laugh at one point when the moderator, Candy Crowley of CNN, asked both men a follow-up question on wages and job growth and they moved almost in unison - standing, taking six steps forward, stopping and assuming the same stance. It couldn't have been any better if they rehearsed it.

Approaching people asking questions - moving around freely and comfortably and void of any distracting mannerisms both men "owned the room".

The assessment: Draw

Eye Contact

Eye contact is all about inclusion and the rule of thumb is a minimum of 90% direct, roving, continuous eye contact. And while both men had direct eye contact, Obama made more of an effort to look at and include the entire audience when he spoke.

The assessment: Obama 1

Gestures

Both aligned what they were saying with how they expressed themselves - their words, and gestures in-synch. In addition, their gestures were plentiful, varied and spontaneous. Obama's gestures were small, tight to his torso - waist high. Romney's gestures tended to be "larger", more expressive with the movement coming from his shoulder. One wasn't necessarily any more effective than the other, just different.

The assessment: Draw

Vocal Delivery

If you recall, during the first debate, Obama said "ah" whenever he paused. This made him sound uncertain, struggling for words. There were no fillers this time allowing the pauses to be less defined or used to punctuate what he was saying.

What got in the way this time was Obama's tone of voice - in an effort to sound passionate and more assertive, he could come across as dogmatic.

While both men had a conversational tone most of the time, Romney did tend to have more fluidity to his talk (avoiding a repetitive vocal pattern) and varied his pace with more vocal inflection.

The assessment: Romney 2

Messaging

Romney's messaging offered assurance to the American voter saying, "I know how to make it happen". However, something happened that threw Romney off his game responding to the question about the terrorist attack in Libya. Following Obama's response Romney looked as if he had been ambushed and wasn't sure how to recover. For the first time in the debates, his response included "ah's" - clearly a nervous reaction.

Obama's messaging was more aggressive than in the first debate and he nailed the final question by "closing the sale" when he asked for another four years.

The assessment: Draw

Round Two Results

Last night both men were in it to win it! While it was close, my assessment was Romney won by a slim margin. What was yours?

Presidential Debate Number 3: Five Lessons to Step-Up Your Next Presentation   

1st Presidential Debate: Obama Lacked-The-Luster of a Commander and Chief

The first Presidential debate I asked... what will win over the American voter, substance, style or possibly both?

And the answer is BOTH - at least for Romney.

First, let me state that I observed the presidential debate from a non-partisan point of view. As a speaker coach, I was listening for clarity of thought as well as how each man expressed himself.

So, what exactly did Romney do that projected a presence that said, "confident, credible and congenial"? What happened to the dynamic and engaging persona that has contributed to Obama's popularity?

As the two men greeted each other, Obama's impeccable posture, determined stride, pleasant expression all said, "I am here to win". Romney, on the other hand, had a slight hesitancy in his walk and his face had a flash of nervous tension, as if he was questioning what was about to happen and recalibrating his strategy.

But all that as quickly changed and here's how...

One: Pace

The pace at which the two men spoke influenced each candidate's credibility. First up, Obama maintained a vocal pattern of saying 7 or 8 words followed by a pause. He was missing his typical vocal inflections that conveys passion and adding insult to injury, he filled each pause with an "ah". Bottom line, he didn't have his usual rhythm that engages an audience and the "fillers" made him sound uncertain, struggling for words. Not good for credibility.

On the other hand, Romney was articulate, clear and concise he was able to connect with his message and his audience. Romney spoke at a good clip and appeared to be in the moment, thinking about what he was saying as he said it. His ability to "think-the-thought" kept me engaged and wanting to listen, to understand his position.

Two: Facial Expression

After the initial hand shake, Romney kept a pleasant expression on his face. One commentator referred to it as a "half-smile". I am not sure what exactly he was doing but it worked - it made him look friendly, "familiar", someone I'd have as an associate or friend. This personable style made his stories about the people he met along the campaign trail (job hunters, people worried about health insurance, etc.) believable.

Another facial expression that Romney mastered was eye contact. He looked at Obama when talking with him, at Jim Lehrer when talking to him and he looked directly at the American public when talking to us. Did you notice that how he stayed engaged with his opponent when Obama was speaking? Smart.

Obama's strategy was quite different. When Romney was speaking, he typically looked down, rarely acknowledging his opponent. When it was his turn to speak, he directed his comments to Lehrer only looking at Romney when challenging him. But what was most surprising was he did not show that million dollar smile which can instantly put people at ease and provide an emotional connection with his audience. Instead he looked irritated and impatient. When he did smile it appeared to be forced rather than sincere.

Three: Physical Expression

The best presenters get everything working together - their words, body language and voice, are in-synch... aligned and supporting their message. Here again, Obama was off his game, even his gestures positioned him as the weaker candidate. Almost dismissive in his behavior, Obama kept is head down, gestures were small, tight to his torso - waist high and he would lean on one leg, causing his shoulder to slouch losing that winning posture.

Romney owned the room, he kept his strong stance and his gestures tended to be "larger", more expressive with the movement coming from his shoulder. Controlled and purposeful, these behaviors along with his direct eye contact proclaimed, "I am in it to win it".

Four: Structure

Right from the get-go, Romney was clear, direct and concise when he spoke. His responses provided structure to the debate. For example, he described his 5-step plan, his rebuttals included a preview of what he was going to say and then he addressed each topic, saying first... second... etc. Whether or not you agree with his politics, you certainly knew where he was headed and what he was talking about. Obama, on the other hand, appeared to wonder. I kept waiting for him to take back control but it didn't happen.

Round One Results

Last night Romney wasn't asking to be our next president, he was letting us experience what it would be like for him to be the president. While Obama felt like the default candidate.The results: Romney 1 Vs. Obama: 0

Presidential Debate Number 3: Five Lessons to Step-Up Your Next Presentation