Commenter Anonymous points out:
The issue with power posing or any kind of body language tricks is that it provokes a response from other people. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. How one responds to other people’s responses to one’s body language is just as important.
There was that famous bit from the Gore Bush debate in 2000 where Gore tried a kind of power pose approach to intimidate Bush. Bush responded with a dismissive nod that evoked a laugh from the audience at Gore’s stiff and wooden attempt at an intimidating power pose. Gore gets clearly flustered by this and responds with a nervous smile and by asking Bush, “What about the Dingle-Norwood bill?”, which completely deflates the confident, intimidating power look he was going for.
I presumed that the commenter couldn’t remember the precise name of the bill, so he just made up “the Dingle-Norwood Bill.” But no, that’s what poor Al said.
#147 of the Rules of Power Posing is don’t try to pull it off against a cocky son-of-a-gun like George W. Bush if the next thing out of your mouth is going to be “What about the Dingle-Norwood Bill?”
I presume Al Gore was referring to Congressman John Ding ell, but it sure sounded like Dingle. And Norwood is a pretty comic name, too, reminiscent of O.J. Simpson’s character Nordberg in The Naked Gun and Nerdlinger. Here’s a Norwood of the Nineties:
The great thing about the 2000 election is that it was so close that any assertion I want to make about what cost Gore the election can’t be wholly disproven. (I noticed that when I got a press release from a Sikh-American political action committee arguing that Gore endorsing motorcycle helmets laws — Sikhs love motorcycles and hate helmet laws because of their sacred turbans — had cost Gore victory, and their math wasn’t totally implausible.)
2016 wasn’t quite as close, but it was close enough that the New York Times likes to go around repeating the assertion that $4,500 in Russian Google ads stole the election, and its subscribers nod in agreement.