Panel Rates Condit's Performance

Was Rep. Gary Condit open and honest in his interview with ABCNEWS' Connie Chung? Did he help or hurt his bid to strengthen his credibility and revive his political career? asked a panel to rate his performance.

Lillian Glass is a psychologist and communications expert. She's coached several newsmakers for public events. She helped Dustin Hoffman sound like a woman for his role in Tootsie and trained deaf actress Marlee Matlin to speak publicly for the first time at the Academy Awards. She's currently writing a book titled I Know What You're Thinking: How to Read a Person by Their Vocal And Visual Cues (Wiley).

Stephen Solomon is a practicing trial attorney in Southern California who specializes in civil litigation. He has represented many of the police unions in his home state. His clients include Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and former NBA star Dennis Rodman. He also hosts a legal affairs talk show in Los Angeles on KRLA.

Dr. Mark Goulston is a Los Angeles psychiatrist and an expert in behavior patterns who teaches at UCLA. He's a hostage negotiation trainer for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. He's also screened contestants for several reality TV shows, including MTV's Road Rules and The Real World.

Lillian Glass

Condit's Strong Points: None. I'd give Connie an A+ for pressing him on the issues.

Condit's Weak Points: He was very defensive and tense.

I saw an extreme amount of lip tension, lip licking and lip biting when he felt uncomfortable. His posture was rigid. He had no fluid movement. This was rehearsed. The voice was very shaky and hoarse, especially at tense points. His voice would crack. He used "um" a lot. These things are indicative of someone who is not telling the truth.

He would constantly diverge into rhetoric that had nothing to do with the point. He would say repeatedly, "I've been married for 34 years," when it had nothing to do with the question. He brought up [former President] Clinton at the wrong points.

The body was in conflict with what he was saying. I noticed that he was shaking his head "No" when he was insisting that he told police everything about Chandra.

He did everything a child would do if he got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

Did he strengthen or weaken his credibility?

If he gets elected again, it would be a miracle.

Overall Grade: F-. His body language said he's not being honest and honorable.

Stephen Solomon

Condit's Strong Points: He answered some of the questions. He said definitively that he had nothing to do with the crime and he said he cooperated with law enforcement. He admitted he made mistakes and wanted to move forward with his life.

Condit's Weak Points:

He tried to act like he was the victim. His attitude: How dare you ask me these questions? Any witness in this situation, especially a public official, would know going into this interview that he would have to answer the questions put to him.

He hid behind the privacy issue. He took the position that he was protecting the Levy family and his own family. That is absurd.

He was totally evasive about Chandra. He wouldn't even say how often she came to the apartment. When he admits to throwing away a watch a woman gave him as a gift, he refused to go any further to make people understand why. True, he says he made some mistakes, but he had to give more of an explanation.

Did he strengthen or weaken his credibility?

  • 1
  • |
  • 2
Join the Discussion
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like...