(CNN) -- What did Hillary Clinton's body language give away at the Democratic National Convention?

Dan Hill, a body language expert and author of "Face Time," told CNN that even while the words Clinton delivered offered an unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama, her body language was much less affirmative.

"When she spoke about Obama, she really did not emote very much," Hill said. "The only thing she showed was a very weak smile, the cheeks didn't tend to lift very much, it was really almost what I would call a 'crocodile smile' where even the slight corners of the lips sometimes raise into a little bit of a smirk."

"I don't think that helped move the 30 percent of her supporters who say they won't vote for Obama," Hill added. "What she did do was appeal to voters at large, that she did more emotionally."

"Less affirmative"? So she believes what she's saying but is slightly less forceful in her remarks? Even if it was true, is this even news?

So far today, I've seen Rudy on Fox saying Hillary called Obama unqualified by not calling him qualified, a report on MSNBC about how an anonymous Obama delegate was told by an anonymous Obama donor that Hillary didn't do enough (which, from the reporter's caveats, sounded like the one person in Denver who was unhappy) and now CNN is looking at her body language. Let's see: does Hillary support Barack?

But remember, before we can keep going, we have to get going by electing Barack Obama president.

We don't have a moment to lose or a vote to spare.

Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hang in the balance.

Yeah, that sounds pretty wishy-washy.

Shall I grab the original written copy so we can do handwriting analysis? Shall we bring out the sodium pentathol and have her give the speech again? Are there any phrenologists in the house?

Or can we admit that maybe, just maybe, she meant what she said and give credit where credit is due?