I've read a few books on body language and related things. I'm hardly an expert. I'm just interested in the topic. ( A quick plug for the book " Blink " again. It floored me ). But McCain is showing some flashes of things that would make me uncomforatble if I was even considering him for President. I know it's a well documented opinion that McCain has a temper. But he's already talking like he's had it and he's got a year to go before he can even sit down. Doesn't exactly make me gung-ho for the guy, you know?

Also, in watching him smile while being verbally attacked by Romney during that last debate, I noticed that he was outright lying when expressing his opinions about Romney. It was obvious that he had been given a page or two of things to say about Romney. He was given nothing to say TO Romney though. That exposed his disdain for this part of the whole process of debating and exhibiting patience. I don't really care WHY he feels this way or what causes it. That's not the part I am interested in. I'm interested in the part that makes him and others try so hard to hide it. Disdain and fury or rage or shame or being/feeling exposed are tough things to hide.

I saw Romney flash a certain something that gave me some insight to him ( actually twice ) during an impromptu hand shaking session with the public. The first one was when he was cornered by a guy who wanted to legalize pot. The other time was when a guy was approached by Romney, in public, and the guy surprised Romney with a question about his staff and Romney dodged both issues issues verbally. But BOY did he address them differently with his eyes. I can't express in words what I saw or how I felt when I saw it. But I guess I'm bringing it all up again to see if anyone else has had some feelings about a candidate that almost come across as subliminal. Not on purpose - yet comepletely involuntary little things that make you feel like you have some better understanding about a person.

Bush, of course, exhibits a LOT of things. A condescending tone, a truly lost look in his eyes. When he was leaving that stage after giving a speech only to encounter locked doors - in front of a press pool. Does anyone remember what he did? I found that to be profoundly telling of what kind of person he is.

I have opinions and specific examples of the other candidates - but I'm curious if anyone else feels like they have had a moment of clarity with a candidate that would be hard to talk you out of now. It just seems so truthful and pure that you feel like you know what they are about now.

Any opinions?

Body Language, Self Presentation, Facial Expressions, Posture, and the Eyes (the window to the soul). You can't judge a book by the cover but when the pages are blank that's all you have. I have gone against gut feelings in the past and have always regretted doing so. My Gut, and it's a sizeable one so take note, tells me that Hillary cannot be trusted to do what the majority want's and will cram her own agenda down everyone's throat's if elected. I, Me, Myself, just have a bad feeling about her and cannot and will not vote for her. Bad way to vote I know but oh well. If it comes down to her and whoever else, it's anything but the evil witch for me. I'll probably go inde if there is one on the ticket.

First of all, a president should not do what the people want, but whats best for the country. The president is suppossed to be a leader, not a follower.

I think Hillary, will do whats best for her, not the country or her followers.

I give this kind of thing considerable weight.

My wife and I were discussing the possibility that Obama might get the nod to go forward.

Her very first words on the subject were, "I've gotta see him." This, from a top-notch tournament poker player.

I totally agree about Romney. He's not presenting in a real way at all. How he chooses to lead is highly likely to not be well represented in his statements. That's not calling him a liar though.

It's more like he's got some self-denial to deal with. Wants to do what he thinks is the right thing, but down deep, he's got issues.

That's the eye thing you mentioned. IMHO, that's valid and needs to be considered.

Both my wife and I have seen Clinton up close. She does not do the eye thing much.

Really want to see Obama speak and take some questions.

I'm an Edwards supporter for similar reasons. Of course all the good stuff he put out there is great. Great enough to see the others take some of it and go with it.

In 2004, he looked at the camera and said, "We are gonna count the votes." Had that spark, like the one you see from somebody with a real interest in seeing the right things happen, and who is willing to fight to get there.

To me, that spark mattered. I've seen it in him many times, and from his wife too. They really were gonna suck it up and try hard to make a difference that ordinary people, like those people next door, could appreciate.

(IMHO, we missed big on that one.)

Bush is so full of issues, I don't even know where to start. McCain seems somewhat genuine actually. I've not seen the severe disconnect, like what you describe with Romney.

He is often surprised though! Funny, I think McCain is actually somewhat naive at times. Not the worst attribute --and perhaps maybe why some really don't like him much. He does want to be the guy that does the right thing, meaning they've gotta sell some of it to him.

Romney, by contrast, does not need the selling and has no regrets period. Big differentiators for me.

Anyway, that stuff is very important to me. I read people quickly and it's always served me well. No reason to discount it.

(and it makes for some great card games!)

I read this week in Newsweek that when McCain was a toddler he would get angry and hold his breath until he passed out. His parents solved that problem by dumping him into a bath tub full of ice water.

That strength served him well as a prisoner of war, especially when he refused to allow himself to be released ahead of other who he felt deserved to go home before he did.

I don't care if he has an anger problem. I want a angry president, not someone like the current wimp who lets other decide for him.

I have never voted for a Republican president, but I am really leaning toward McCain.

Obama has more than 20 years left to grow up and get his own chance.

In 20 years there won't be enough of us Vietnam vets to stop him then.

"I have never voted for a Republican president, but I am really leaning toward McCain."

And everytime I hear stuff like this, i just gotta post this:

http://www.negative273.com/Images/bush-mccain.jpg

Well I certainly don't want an "angry" president. Anger leads to bad, irrational decisions, and when you are president of the United States, such poor decisions can have grave consequences.

I don't think "angry" and "wimpy" are opposites. I'd prefer to see someone tough but not angry.

Andrew

"I'd prefer to see someone tough but not angry."

Hillary.

First of all, a president should not do what the people want, but whats best for the country.

That being said DUHbya did a HORRIBLE job as Prez then!

It's all open to quite a bit of interpretation based on your own experience. I mean, come on - how could you not color things based on your own life and stuff?

I think I am just projecting my own desire to " pay attention to that stuff. It can work for you very often."

I hate it when I sound smarter or more in tune than others. The truth is, I'm not. But typing it out just helps me remember that those quick flashes do tell me SOMEthing. So I will pay attention to them as often as I can and with as much as an open mind as I can muster.

If you like the idea of a Bush third term, vote for McCain, he'll deliver.

John McCain: More of the same failed GOP policies that didn't work under Bush.

I hear that CJ!

It's all part of the information we get to process. Must be balanced with all the other stuff.

Agreed on the sharing part. It's interesting to see what others notice and what they think it means. Some of us notice a lot, others almost nothing. For some it's words, tone, inflection. Others it's motions, face, eyes, overall posture.

If one pays attention to these impressions, it helps to fill out the scope of possible inputs about somebody. IMHO, that's only good if one balances it all and stays rational.

re: Angry and Leader.

Being angry, is our job. Why? Because the current administration has failed to lead in a way that makes sense and that benefits us. They do work for us, you all know.

A good leader will do what's good for the country, and looking hard at the how and why behind our anger is a great place to start.

From there, we need a fighter, sturdy, tough, willing to step up to the plate and go to bat for us --we are the nation, after all.

If that President shares our anger, they better damn well be able to manage it, or it's the blind leading the blind.

This may be a bit off topic so I apologize.

My wife has deep empathy when she walks into a room with people. She can actually feel their vibes positive and negative. What takes me hours or never she can sense within a few seconds.

We were at a small group meeting at church a couple of years ago. It was to help those who wanted to start their own businesses and for those already doing it. One man spoke and asked a question and gave a comment. My wife wrote down on some paper "A fearful man."

We discussed this afterwards and she just nailed it. Sometimes I get, other times I have no clue.

I believe many on the ultra-conservative religious right, from which my wife was raised but no longer holds too, are fearful people. Their position in life comes from being force fed fearful information. "God will punish you if (fill in the blank).”

I admire folks who have the gift of empathy.

As do I.

One thing that gets in the way is our social norms. For men, it's particularly troublesome. Lots of norms surround suppressing this ability to relate.

Really, it's just listening on all channels, not just the audio one, or the video one.

Every single interaction we have is a conversation. Talking to people, shaking hands, maybe just sharing an activity, or appreciating a creative work. All of it is a conversation, and the more of it one can process, the better the overall shared understanding is.

Animals do this. They lack speech, and compensate with lots of body language. This is part of why I enjoy time with mine. It's a lower level, emotional conversation that's often just great. It's real, open and honest.

Don't always get that with people, but one always gets it from their furry friends.

" First of all, a president should not do what the people want, but whats best for the country. The president is suppossed to be a leader, not a follower. "

True. You know what else makes a good leader? The ability to convey ideas in a manner that helps me understand that although I may disagree, I can at least see why that leader thinks it's a good idea.

A bad leader does whatever HE wants and never really takes the time to explore why others may have valid points that should be not only taken into consideration, but are actually better for the country. It's a tight-rope, I know. At least it should be.

A President, by virtue of his holding office, does not make him right on any single thing you can name. And Nwokie, if you are suggesting that all Presidents should be able to do what they want, no matter how stubborn their position is, then, well, actually, that would make sense and explain a lot about you. I disagree. But hey, you be sure and clam up when the next President is seated. Because, you know, they are the President. They shouldn't be challenged on anything. Again, I disagree. But it's good to know that you'll swallow anything given with a smile.

See why some of us are kinda pissed, Nwokie?

This thread is great Chickenjuggler -- and everybody else!

I took some time to really think about this because I also believe that what the person is doing is as important as what they are saying.

Talking tough about terrorism with a twinkle in your eye, chuckling, and teeing off at the country club -- all in the same minute -- is the current standard.

Editing makes us believe in the leader. Or does it? Perhaps the best way to know for sure is to see someone live.

Like most folks, I watched on Tuesday night and saw the two Democratic front runners address their home crowds. I took careful note of what was going on with them as well as what they were saying. Here are a few of my impressions:

Hillary was rushed, segued horribly from tornado victims to her volunteers, and for brief moments her posture looked about as enthusiastic to be there as a tired executive addressing a dull conference. Then, when something worked, she caught herself, dug the vibe, smiled too much, and drank the applause like liquor. You get the feeling that she is actually shy somewhere in there, but she has painstakingly learned to be extroverted.

There was one great moment when she spoke of her Mother being born before women could vote and living to see her daughter run for President. That was real. That was touching too. Beyond that all too brief allusion, she looked happy, but never really seemed to fully engage. She is obviously a strong leader, just not blessed with vavoom. The audience was reflexive, drunk and excited in that reflexive, drunk and excited way. Here is the transcript.

Obama by contrast was serious from the word go. He very thoughtfully and genuinely began his speech by remembering the tornado victims. He gave the disasters more than a cursory mention, and got nervous laughter from the room when he said that he hoped the government would be rushing assistance. He leveled his gaze at everyone, digging deep into that earnest part of a person.

He spoke of change, he spoke of the future, he spoke of specific ideas and broad ideals. He never once cracked a smile. This was not a time for jokes and candor. This was not a time for self-congratulations. He never drank in anything, but reflected that energy right back into the crowd. It was electric. I knew he was serious -- like gotcha by the lapels serious -- and I felt proud to be an American. Here is the transcript.

I also tested myself a few times on familiar footage. I would love to see what you folks think. Is JFK serious and engaged when he says...

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

...and launches the last great peacetime public works project in American history?

Even without context, from the moment I first saw that speech, I would have believed most sincerely that we could do it. He is confident in his nation and their ability to conquer space. He simply oozes that vibe. History kept his promise. I was born during Apollo, so this has extra geeky meaning to me.

We can contrast that historic beginning with an historic ending. Do you believe Nixon when he says...

"There is one cause above all to which I have been devoted and to which I shall always be devoted for as long as I live.

When I first took the oath of office as President five and a half years ago, I made this sacred commitment, to "consecrate my office, my energies, and all the wisdom I can summon to the cause of peace among nations."

I have done my very best in all the days since to be true to that pledge. As a result of these efforts, I am confident that the world is a safer place today, not only for the people of America but for the people of all nations, and that all of our children have a better chance than before of living in peace rather than dying in war.

This, more than anything, is what I hoped to achieve when I sought the Presidency. This, more than anything, is what I hope will be my legacy to you, to our country, as I leave the Presidency."

...and closes the book on his days in office?

He is still holding on to his dignity, firm lipped and prideful to the end. His eyes are alternating from very hurt to defiant, and there is something hollow about the words. Nixon did many things as an elder statesman, but he was hardly a crusader for an everlasting world peace. It was simply the last hopeful half-truth of his time in office.

People are curious critters. Give them power, and you see a whole new animal.

Lord Rotten Hillary.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/e/c/hillary_vader2.jpg

Hillarys first task, remake the statue of liberty in her likeness:
http://www.eugenewei.com/images/misc2007/vader-liberty.jpg

This on is to good not to post:
Darth Cheney
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/darth_chen ey.jpg

Here is an interview that makes an interesting study. I believe one can read a few things between the lines.