Despite her great political experience, despite her intelligence and despite her great knowledge of facts, she still had an impact on the screen:
too cold, too strict, too artificial
Although she communicated much more composedly than in previous appearances, I found Clinton to be aloof (this could also be a prejudice on my part because I have seen numerous old performances of hers).
She still lacks empathy.
Her exalted behavior only shone through again when she spoke and countered (tone, gestures, look).
It is understandable that many people do not trust Hillary Clinton, given her aloof behavior.
While Trump believes he is already president, Clinton seems more like a dogged, desperate effort to gain power. Despite this ambitious pursuit, Clinton lacks authenticity above all else.
Unfortunately, their behavior seems rehearsed and therefore too artificial.
What struck me rhetorically:
Trump uses very short sentences. («That's all nonsense. I have... I have...»)
He knows how to simplify.
On average, Clinton formulates her sentences one and a half times as long as Trump.
When attacked, Trump defends himself with israel rcs data counter questions. Clinton succeeds in entangling Trump in contradictions.
But both opponents have one thing in common:
They polarize at every performance.
The Americans can only choose between plague and cholera.
Many will vote for Clinton just to prevent Trump from being elected, and Trump will receive many votes just to prevent Clinton from being elected.
It is astonishing: Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are known to be stingy with the truth. often portrayed as a liar, while Trump's effective lies are surprisingly not perceived as serious by a large section of the population.
There are kinesics specialists (body language analysts) who judge a person's personality based on individual observations. For example, Trump often uses his index finger as a red pen or his hand with the index finger as a "gun". I also know analysts who can draw conclusions about a person's personality from a gesture: "This politician is a know-it-all or he is very aggressive." This could be partially true. But such a statement is and remains only a partial insight, just as one should not conclude from Clinton's unsteady gaze that this woman is generally under pressure.
We must always judge people holistically. I am sure that many viewers during the debate intuitively noticed where something was "fishy". Consumers have a better perception than is assumed.