actually, the use of names can be interpreted either way. if we assume they know each other already (which they do) and are used to referring to each other by first names, then it seems overly formal and condescending to use the title "Senator". if they never knew each other, then use of first names would be overly casual and especially demeaning if they were not the same stature (both Senators). i think it just showed their generational differences.
i also think Obama appeared genuinely informal and relaxed but McCain seemed artifically formal and uncomfortable.
not a fact. just MHO - shared by the body-language wonks. Bea
I agree and I caught this point, too. I kept waiting for McCain to drive it home, though, and he never did. I think that this was a missed opportunity. He never came right out and said, "Look, we screwed up with Afghanistan because we pulled out too early and now look what's happened. Do we want the same result in a few years in Iraq?" He didn't bring it back as strongly to Iraq as he could have.
I thought it started out like a question and answer session. However, became a debate. At first the way McCain continued to talk over Obama frustrated me. But, soon I got a kick out of it, because the longer he spoke, the less sense he was making, just wanted to keep Obama from speaking. I did not appreciate the self-satisfied grins and smirking from McCain. That is exactly what caused Gore to lose. It is still spoken about to this day.
tell me what a win and a loss looks like to you. from my POV -
win: we set up a democracy and leave a few troops behind to mop up the bad guys, and the factions who have warred for centuries give up because they are converted by the right to vote. the region is stabilized. few Americans die in Iraq.
lose: we set up a democracy but have to keep massive troops behind because the factions who have warred for centuries didn't give up since they don't believe the right to vote will change their lives. the region is policed. a few Americans die in Iraq.
lose: we keep massive troops in place when we can't set up a democracy because the factions who have warred for centuries won't give up because they don't believe the right to vote will change their lives. the region is in civil war with our engagement. many Americans die in Iraq.
lose: we remove troops without setting up a democracy and assist the leaders to set up a form of government that works for them. the region is unstable. no Americans die in Iraq.
yes it's overly simplistic, but i see more opportunity for losses than wins. our chance of stabilizing the region after all this time is decreasing, the instability is spreading - and American troops are dying at the rate of about 1 per day. not to mention the absolute cost.
and you may wish to argue about the increase in terrorism outside of Iraq but i wonder compared to the certainty of continued military casualties and regional hostility towards our presence.
I think there was clearly a distinction between the two: President Obama and Senator McCain. McCain has many years of senatorial service, but its a whole new ballgame to become the leader of the USA. Saying it isnt enough, you have to BE it. President Obama has earned my respect as a leader and Vice-President Biden is certainly one that is convincing to listen to. This isnt a joke, Senator McCain and Hockeymom Palin...we need you both as part of the collective, not leading the USA off a cliff.
This debate allowed me to see their PERSONALITY, their ability to FOCUS on what matters to me, and WHO we're really voting for. I didn't have ill feelings toward McCain before, but I sure do now!
Pages
actually, the use of names can be interpreted either way. if we assume they know each other already (which they do) and are used to referring to each other by first names, then it seems overly formal and condescending to use the title "Senator". if they never knew each other, then use of first names would be overly casual and especially demeaning if they were not the same stature (both Senators). i think it just showed their generational differences.
i also think Obama appeared genuinely informal and relaxed but McCain seemed artifically formal and uncomfortable.
not a fact. just MHO - shared by the body-language wonks.
Bea
~Ashley~
~Ashley~
<>
Count me in as one of the clueless.
<>
Thanks for this post...now I don't have to raise my blood pressure writing a similar one!
tell me what a win and a loss looks like to you. from my POV -
win: we set up a democracy and leave a few troops behind to mop up the bad guys, and the factions who have warred for centuries give up because they are converted by the right to vote. the region is stabilized. few Americans die in Iraq.
lose: we set up a democracy but have to keep massive troops behind because the factions who have warred for centuries didn't give up since they don't believe the right to vote will change their lives. the region is policed. a few Americans die in Iraq.
lose: we keep massive troops in place when we can't set up a democracy because the factions who have warred for centuries won't give up because they don't believe the right to vote will change their lives. the region is in civil war with our engagement. many Americans die in Iraq.
lose: we remove troops without setting up a democracy and assist the leaders to set up a form of government that works for them. the region is unstable. no Americans die in Iraq.
yes it's overly simplistic, but i see more opportunity for losses than wins. our chance of stabilizing the region after all this time is decreasing, the instability is spreading - and American troops are dying at the rate of about 1 per day. not to mention the absolute cost.
and you may wish to argue about the increase in terrorism outside of Iraq but i wonder compared to the certainty of continued military casualties and regional hostility towards our presence.
Bea
Pages