In Their Own Hands: Some Surprises from the Handwriting of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

Some years ago, I analyzed the exorbitantly ego-driven handwriting of the current President, Barack H. Obama. It did not reveal so much as it solidified what most of us already thought.  With Donald Trump and Hillary R Clinton, we have new material, new disclosures in the secret giveaway of their signatures.

If a shark could hold a pen and write, his signature might resemble that of Donald J Trump. (By comparison, Newt Gingrich, by his highly creative and artistic flourish, could be the field’s Dali.)

To begin with, his signature is thick, passionate, fat with slashing angles and sharp ups and downs. There are no soft curves or yielding trail-offs, often seen in important people who don’t take the time to actually finish the words they are writing, or the signatures that would seem to take up too much time to actually complete. Not Donald.

We learned to write cursive in school, and we also learned to start our names, first, middle and last, with capital letters.  Most writers, if you check around, use big initial capital letters, indicating quite reasonably that they want to reach success, strive to reach the top. In the Donald’s case, ALL his letters appear to be capitals.

Trump’s  letters are ultra high, ultra forceful: Drive and power evince themselves in his signature, without a doubt. In fact, when he impugned Jeb Bush as “low energy,” and has been campaigning by saying that Hillary Clinton “does not have the stamina” to make a successful go of the campaign or any eventual presidency, his writing declares what we see in his appearances and rallies and telephoned interviews: Here is a man with unquenchable energy and determination.

The  final “p” in Trump also bespeaks “me heap big hunk of a man.” Some might say his humpy “p” is phallic. He’s got money, power, a terrific family, a gorgeous wife, land and property -- what’s not to feel powerful and hypersuccessful? He, unlike Obama, does not make a secret of any of his achievement. Obama, recall, hides his exalted status inside his outsized “O,” which shouts arrogance and self-empowerment.

Alas, the hard-driving triangles and slashing angles of his name bespeak, to some, a lack of compassion, a man driven against all odds to  triumph and prevail. Okay: But I feel something else that some graphologists fail to note.

Trump starts out strong, and finishes the same way. It takes enormous control and physical well being in my view to write out his long name with the same force many start with, but end up omitting as they trail off into a line or flourish.

Conflating his angularity, speed, determination to finish what he starts, and the undoubted physicality of his writing, one sees a man of awesome resolve and effort backed by massive confidence. NB: To be honest, some analysts interpret the same strokes as being from a man who seeks confidence, needs  to be bolstered. 

The up and down razor-like cuts of his writing seem to show little tolerance for disobedience, and a proclivity to have his way above all other considerations. But in studying some of his scrawled notes to his assistants or aides, the same writ shows a decency and concern for others, reminders to send gifts to X or Y, flowers for something else, and a not ungracious  mindfulness of the needs of others.

Graphologists also know that the signature often varies from the day-to-day scriptwriting of people -- the signature is a showcase of internals unto itself, in other words. I would suggest that is the case here. Trump has shown himself to be generous to many, both advertised and unseen, over many years in public life.

His no-shilly-shallying script also shows that he’s knowledgeable and a past pro at economical utterance and function.  There’s no waste here, no room for maybe, uh, could be…Donald decides, and that appears to be it.

Trump, unlike Hillary Clinton, is not one for the couched intimidation, nor the suppositional rhetoric of the ever-smart brainiac, Newt. Trump’s high on the stem “T” also indicates his ambitious and aspiration, his tenacity, and fast thinking. Though some call him, on the basis of their analytics, an “introvert,” that hardly seems supported by both his penmanship or his many appearances and non-shy Rapido  pen on tweets.

While thin-skinned, he is hyperanalytical, and like a good chess player, he knows your next several moves. His heavy pressure and blocky letters show an unusual proclivity to connect what others may not. Trump shows a pugnacious, energetic demeanor in his writing, as he indeed does on the podium.  His signature is not that of a perfect person, but show me anyone who is. Not in the world of take-no-prisoners candidacy for the toughest job on the market. Unlike many, this is a guy who does not fade in the finish line.

His temperament, shown in person as well as on paper, is peppery. He is a famous counterpuncher. He is not a cringer and go-along-er.

And who is to say that driving need to prevail and establish his paradigm is not what is needed at this point in time?

    *     *     *

By contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hand spools out words that mix cursive and print, not so typical a  signature.

We’re all so very aware that she grips like death onto that middle-name Rodham, which, aside from being her father’s name, stands in this instance for a woman refusing to cede anything to her husband, as the Rodham is as assertive as her Hillary or Clinton is. She leaves zero doubt that she is her own woman, not hanger-on to Bill Clinton’s considerable coattails.

First, her name, like Donald’s, is fully written out. She won’t cede a letter of her greatness. By contrast, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker all peter off or strongly abbreviate whatever their signatures were when they learned how to write.

Hillary also has a nicely rounded, pleasingly accessible, arcaded signature.

Like Trump, Ms. Clinton takes the trouble to control her hand and finish the job, not leaving anything to chance: Would a reader assume Hillary were anyone else if she spiraled off her last name? Hardly.

That Hillary Rodham uses a mix of cursive and printing shows she is detached, aloof. She does however dot her  “I”’s immediately above where they occur, showing she does her homework, is cautious, is not far-sighted or trusting enough to let fly. Financially, therefore, her signature reveals she’s a careful city mouse, not one to risk or wonder much about potential future eventualities. Mrs. Clinton does not speculate easily, as indicated by her careful and contained script.

From the evidence, Clinton does not show strong executive potential, though she does manifest determination, control (her writing  ‘angle’ is perpendicular, showing unemotional head over heart control) and considerable ego. Trump is harder to discern: His angular writ might be more emotional than Hillary’s clear icy detachment.

She like Trump is a realist, not given to streaks of ungrounded optimism.

The size of her letters, her amiable amble through print and cursive, do not indicate brilliance, unlike Newt Gingrich, whose signature is a poster for genius and mental sparkle.

But this is about Hillary. The comparison between the two major candidates would seem to be “won” by the harder-driving, bullish Trump, over the nuanced, deceptive presentational window-display of the former Secretary of State.

Some years ago, I analyzed the exorbitantly ego-driven handwriting of the current President, Barack H. Obama. It did not reveal so much as it solidified what most of us already thought.  With Donald Trump and Hillary R Clinton, we have new material, new disclosures in the secret giveaway of their signatures.

If a shark could hold a pen and write, his signature might resemble that of Donald J Trump. (By comparison, Newt Gingrich, by his highly creative and artistic flourish, could be the field’s Dali.)

 

 

To begin with, his signature is thick, passionate, fat with slashing angles and sharp ups and downs. There are no soft curves or yielding trail-offs, often seen in important people who don’t take the time to actually finish the words they are writing, or the signatures that would seem to take up too much time to actually complete. Not Donald.

We learned to write cursive in school, and we also learned to start our names, first, middle and last, with capital letters.  Most writers, if you check around, use big initial capital letters, indicating quite reasonably that they want to reach success, strive to reach the top. In the Donald’s case, ALL his letters appear to be capitals.

Trump’s  letters are ultra high, ultra forceful: Drive and power evince themselves in his signature, without a doubt. In fact, when he impugned Jeb Bush as “low energy,” and has been campaigning by saying that Hillary Clinton “does not have the stamina” to make a successful go of the campaign or any eventual presidency, his writing declares what we see in his appearances and rallies and telephoned interviews: Here is a man with unquenchable energy and determination.

The  final “p” in Trump also bespeaks “me heap big hunk of a man.” Some might say his humpy “p” is phallic. He’s got money, power, a terrific family, a gorgeous wife, land and property -- what’s not to feel powerful and hypersuccessful? He, unlike Obama, does not make a secret of any of his achievement. Obama, recall, hides his exalted status inside his outsized “O,” which shouts arrogance and self-empowerment.

Alas, the hard-driving triangles and slashing angles of his name bespeak, to some, a lack of compassion, a man driven against all odds to  triumph and prevail. Okay: But I feel something else that some graphologists fail to note.

Trump starts out strong, and finishes the same way. It takes enormous control and physical well being in my view to write out his long name with the same force many start with, but end up omitting as they trail off into a line or flourish.

Conflating his angularity, speed, determination to finish what he starts, and the undoubted physicality of his writing, one sees a man of awesome resolve and effort backed by massive confidence. NB: To be honest, some analysts interpret the same strokes as being from a man who seeks confidence, needs  to be bolstered. 

The up and down razor-like cuts of his writing seem to show little tolerance for disobedience, and a proclivity to have his way above all other considerations. But in studying some of his scrawled notes to his assistants or aides, the same writ shows a decency and concern for others, reminders to send gifts to X or Y, flowers for something else, and a not ungracious  mindfulness of the needs of others.

Graphologists also know that the signature often varies from the day-to-day scriptwriting of people -- the signature is a showcase of internals unto itself, in other words. I would suggest that is the case here. Trump has shown himself to be generous to many, both advertised and unseen, over many years in public life.

His no-shilly-shallying script also shows that he’s knowledgeable and a past pro at economical utterance and function.  There’s no waste here, no room for maybe, uh, could be…Donald decides, and that appears to be it.

Trump, unlike Hillary Clinton, is not one for the couched intimidation, nor the suppositional rhetoric of the ever-smart brainiac, Newt. Trump’s high on the stem “T” also indicates his ambitious and aspiration, his tenacity, and fast thinking. Though some call him, on the basis of their analytics, an “introvert,” that hardly seems supported by both his penmanship or his many appearances and non-shy Rapido  pen on tweets.

While thin-skinned, he is hyperanalytical, and like a good chess player, he knows your next several moves. His heavy pressure and blocky letters show an unusual proclivity to connect what others may not. Trump shows a pugnacious, energetic demeanor in his writing, as he indeed does on the podium.  His signature is not that of a perfect person, but show me anyone who is. Not in the world of take-no-prisoners candidacy for the toughest job on the market. Unlike many, this is a guy who does not fade in the finish line.

His temperament, shown in person as well as on paper, is peppery. He is a famous counterpuncher. He is not a cringer and go-along-er.

And who is to say that driving need to prevail and establish his paradigm is not what is needed at this point in time?

    *     *     *

By contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hand spools out words that mix cursive and print, not so typical a  signature.

We’re all so very aware that she grips like death onto that middle-name Rodham, which, aside from being her father’s name, stands in this instance for a woman refusing to cede anything to her husband, as the Rodham is as assertive as her Hillary or Clinton is. She leaves zero doubt that she is her own woman, not hanger-on to Bill Clinton’s considerable coattails.

First, her name, like Donald’s, is fully written out. She won’t cede a letter of her greatness. By contrast, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker all peter off or strongly abbreviate whatever their signatures were when they learned how to write.

Hillary also has a nicely rounded, pleasingly accessible, arcaded signature.

Like Trump, Ms. Clinton takes the trouble to control her hand and finish the job, not leaving anything to chance: Would a reader assume Hillary were anyone else if she spiraled off her last name? Hardly.

That Hillary Rodham uses a mix of cursive and printing shows she is detached, aloof. She does however dot her  “I”’s immediately above where they occur, showing she does her homework, is cautious, is not far-sighted or trusting enough to let fly. Financially, therefore, her signature reveals she’s a careful city mouse, not one to risk or wonder much about potential future eventualities. Mrs. Clinton does not speculate easily, as indicated by her careful and contained script.

From the evidence, Clinton does not show strong executive potential, though she does manifest determination, control (her writing  ‘angle’ is perpendicular, showing unemotional head over heart control) and considerable ego. Trump is harder to discern: His angular writ might be more emotional than Hillary’s clear icy detachment.

She like Trump is a realist, not given to streaks of ungrounded optimism.

The size of her letters, her amiable amble through print and cursive, do not indicate brilliance, unlike Newt Gingrich, whose signature is a poster for genius and mental sparkle.

But this is about Hillary. The comparison between the two major candidates would seem to be “won” by the harder-driving, bullish Trump, over the nuanced, deceptive presentational window-display of the former Secretary of State.