Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Do you think the economic crisis was manufactured to collapse so that someone would benefit politically?

 

I'm not sure whether she meant that or not, but interestingly I was talking with a person just this morning who believes exactly that -- that the Democrats in control of the Congressional financial committees, Barney Frank et. al.,  manufactured this crisis to make Bush and, therefore, McCain (since Obama has worked so hard to try to persuade voters that they are the same person) look bad. 

 

I don't necessarily buy into that myself, but he had a point in that everything was going fine in the economy until the campaign started.  That doesn't prove that the two things are related, of course.  But it doesn't prove that they aren't, either.

 

Anyhow, I thought it was interesting that you would ask this question on the very day that I was told exactly that by a friend.  

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

I think that this crisis and who's responsible is so complex, that no one could control the timing of the collapse. This is been coming for awhile. Bush's approval rating has been so low, I don't think anyone needed to do anything to make him look bad. If someone was able to control this, it was risky as McCain could have used the opportunity to shine. And I'm not sure if voters historically think the Democrats ( tax and spend) are the best to handle economic problems.

Everyman wrote:

I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Do you think the economic crisis was manufactured to collapse so that someone would benefit politically?

 

I'm not sure whether she meant that or not, but interestingly I was talking with a person just this morning who believes exactly that -- that the Democrats in control of the Congressional financial committees, Barney Frank et. al.,  manufactured this crisis to make Bush and, therefore, McCain (since Obama has worked so hard to try to persuade voters that they are the same person) look bad. 

 

I don't necessarily buy into that myself, but he had a point in that everything was going fine in the economy until the campaign started.  That doesn't prove that the two things are related, of course.  But it doesn't prove that they aren't, either.

 

Anyhow, I thought it was interesting that you would ask this question on the very day that I was told exactly that by a friend.  


 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Scribe
vivico1
Posts: 3,456
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

You know, the problem with comparing "psychological" profiles on people, especially two people in a current political debate is that it is nearly impossible for them to be impartial. They aren't based on controlled testing of either person and often just based on given reactions of others having experienced similar childhoods, or in otherwords, generalities. Rarely can such a comparison be impartial because the author can not factor out his very own childhood experiences and "generalities" that shape his beliefs when he writes! Even with psychological testing, as any of you who may be or have been in the field know, psychological statistics are the easiest things to manipulate and skew to mean whatever you want them too. We learned in college psych stats JUST how easy that is done. It makes it very hard to then get a real "true and unbiased" report on two thus competing people in the news or on the internet. I think it is why there are so many undecided voters this year still wondering what to do with only two weeks to go! As for me, I can read their backgrounds, looking for the facts only, not interpretations of what they may then mean, read also what they have actually done or voted for and against while in their offices, listen to them personally (while remembering that even if they really want to deliver what they say, once they get in the White House, they will find how unrealistic a lot of that is going to be), knowing that they will both speak to what they think will move us emotionally, take all these things into account, say a prayer and hope I chose the best person I can.

 

About the Hitler thing. There is much more to compare with on him looking back than those we are staring at right now. The whole hindsight thing. Hitler's IQ for example since someone mentioned it. HIS doctor's reported that he had a very high IQ, in the genius range, but they were not free to say anything different were they? From scientists since, using his childhood, his actions, his own writings and his logical (or lack of) ways of interpreting information and processing it, his ego or need for validation, etc etc, many argue that Hitler was of a very average IQ or even under. Even people with lower IQs can be charismatic. Those who go through things that they perceive, rightly or wrongly, are wrongs heaped upon them by others, not things they are responsible for, can in the right time and place convince a suffering nation of the same thing and through finding a scapegoat then, they will convince even that nation, that they are the way out. Even if during the leadership of that person, the nation begins to know something is not right, if they feel safer or want to feel safer, they will look the other way, ignore atrocities. The phrase quoted from the German soldier, that Hitler is a bad bad man but the economy was bad and he came along and made everything better, was just party line spiel. Soldiers and their families were no better off. Some lost their families or parts of them. Kids were made into soldiers and taken from homes. Children were turned into spies on their own families and encouraged to turn in even their own parents. But many soldier had to believe that line just to stay half way sane in what they were doing. What they knew, came from what they were told to know. It really was like George Orwell's "1984".

I could never compare either men in our presidential race with Hitler or his childhood and I hope the future will not be able to look back and do so either. If there is any group in America that I see use the same tactics and can be compared to Hitler, it is the KKK and White Supremacists and Skin Heads. They sale the same line. They go after the less educated (tho some of their leaders are very educated or rich or become so) and those who may be jobless or feel downtrodden by someone, anyone other than their own actions. They blame racial groups, just like Hitler. They blame the present government, same. They try to make them feel they now have family and those who understand and are willing to kill for them, saying it is even their duty, when all around them reality and logic says these things are wrong. But they too, even camping on someone's property, as long as they are "in" will say the same as that soldier...it was bad but this is better now. It is all very sad but back to the articles, unbiased? The only unbiased articles you can find on candidates will say only that they grew up here, they accomplished this, they went through that, they are associates with this group or that one, this is their voting record and then STOP. That is where we have to analyze those facts for ourselves and judge them by our own values because anyone analyzing it past just giving you the facts, can not inherently be unbiased. You can find information on the internet to back anything and everything you want it to. In psychology, that is why tests had to be made standardized, because analyzing people or mental abilities or disorders even have to follow a set of given rules to be unbiased. But here lies the rub because once again, when graded against the given standards, results can be skewed to meet anything you want. Businesses do it all the time.

 

Study the facts as best you can in the next two weeks, and beware of pscho-mumbo jumbo. 

Vivian
~Those who do not read are no better off than those who can not.~ Chinese proverb
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

hi,

Earlier, I actually sent Jon a PM and asked him to either move my post or remove it because I was also concerned about how it would be perceived having a post about Hitler under a heading with the candidate's names. I thought it was inappropriate and that it might cause problems. He might not have received the message yet, or perhaps he couldn't do anything about it. Maybe he can remove it tomorrow.

I was not implying either candidate was like Hitler. I had wondered what was in Hitler's background that might have caused him to develop so differently since he channeled his energy into death and destruction while both candidates seemed to have overcome their childhood traumas much more positively.
Choisya had sent me some links and I was responding to that so perhaps I should have sent her a PM instead of posting it publicly.
After all this time, I am afraid I am still learning the etiquette of the boards. At least I am beginning to feel more comfortable with both candidates, neither of whom would have been my first choice, unfortunately. Now I just have to decide for whom to pull the lever!

twj

 

Scribe
vivico1
Posts: 3,456
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

twj,

I was not offended by your mentioning Hitler and if my post came off that way, well its the writing and not seeing someone as they write thing, ya know? :smileywink: I don't think you were comparing them necessarily and I brought up that I couldn't and hope we never have to either,yikes! But bringing him up and his childhood, with articles that talk about how the candidates and their childhoods shaped them, was a valid question as to can we use these as predictors rather than afterwards looking back. I just think that using any of these "profiles" are dangerous and the statement about the soldier's comment made me think of all these things. No foul here, honest.

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

hi,

Earlier, I actually sent Jon a PM and asked him to either move my post or remove it because I was also concerned about how it would be perceived having a post about Hitler under a heading with the candidate's names. I thought it was inappropriate and that it might cause problems. He might not have received the message yet, or perhaps he couldn't do anything about it. Maybe he can remove it tomorrow.

I was not implying either candidate was like Hitler. I had wondered what was in Hitler's background that might have caused him to develop so differently since he channeled his energy into death and destruction while both candidates seemed to have overcome their childhood traumas much more positively.
Choisya had sent me some links and I was responding to that so perhaps I should have sent her a PM instead of posting it publicly.
After all this time, I am afraid I am still learning the etiquette of the boards. At least I am beginning to feel more comfortable with both candidates, neither of whom would have been my first choice, unfortunately. Now I just have to decide for whom to pull the lever!

twj

 


 

 

Vivian
~Those who do not read are no better off than those who can not.~ Chinese proverb
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Conspiracy theories.

[ Edited ]

I'm not sure whether she meant that or not, but interestingly I was talking with a person just this morning who believes exactly that -- that the Democrats in control of the Congressional financial committees, Barney Frank et. al.,  manufactured this crisis to make Bush and, therefore, McCain (since Obama has worked so hard to try to persuade voters that they are the same person) look bad. 

 

This is a conspiracy theory and no doubt part of a smear campaign going the rounds, as so many do at election times. Next week there may be one about the Republicans. There is a financial crisis throughout the world and things started to go pear shaped in the same way in Europe months before the American crisis.  ALL of the world's major banks have been following the same credit ridden policies, all of them are in the same difficulties and most of the government's affected have taken very similar measures to those proposed by our PM and adopted in the US - part nationalisation of the banks concerned.  It would have been impossible for the Democrats or any other political party to have influenced world economics in this way.   No doubt smears will soon be promulgated saying what was said in Germany in the 30s, that it was Jewish bankers in league with the Democrats/Republicans, or maybe that it is the Bildenberg Group in league with them, or the Masons, or the Illuminati etc etc.  It is as well not to listen to such rumours lest we fall into the same sort of trap that the Germans fell into in the Great Depression of the 1930s:smileysad:.       

 

 

 

 

 


debbook wrote:
I think that this crisis and who's responsible is so complex, that no one could control the timing of the collapse. This is been coming for awhile. Bush's approval rating has been so low, I don't think anyone needed to do anything to make him look bad. If someone was able to control this, it was risky as McCain could have used the opportunity to shine. And I'm not sure if voters historically think the Democrats ( tax and spend) are the best to handle economic problems.

Everyman wrote:

I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Do you think the economic crisis was manufactured to collapse so that someone would benefit politically?

 

I'm not sure whether she meant that or not, but interestingly I was talking with a person just this morning who believes exactly that -- that the Democrats in control of the Congressional financial committees, Barney Frank et. al.,  manufactured this crisis to make Bush and, therefore, McCain (since Obama has worked so hard to try to persuade voters that they are the same person) look bad. 

 

I don't necessarily buy into that myself, but he had a point in that everything was going fine in the economy until the campaign started.  That doesn't prove that the two things are related, of course.  But it doesn't prove that they aren't, either.

 

Anyhow, I thought it was interesting that you would ask this question on the very day that I was told exactly that by a friend.  


 


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-22-2008 04:29 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

JonB wrote:

 your mentioning of "those who aren't eligible to be voters" strikes me as a suggested limitation on who ought to be posting such articles.   

 

On this subject, I would like add that everyone in the world has a 'stake' in an American election, any American election, because decisions made by any American government on, for instance, their economy or about foreign policy, affects millions of people outside of America. And that includes myself.   The old adage 'when America sneezes the world catches a cold' is apposite here. This is one of the disadvantages of living in the world's richest and most powerful country.  It used to be the British Empire's 'sneezes' which caused 'colds', now it is America's.   

 

 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-22-2008 04:40 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

TWJ:  If any post should be removed it should be mine.  I had no idea that it would cause such a political furore.  One of the reasons I put it under its own heading as 'character analysis' was to separate it from the political arguments on the Current Events threads.  I just thought it was an interesting analysis about how parents can influence our lives and it struck a chord with me because my father influenced my political life. 

 

Your suggestion about Hitler's character was relevant, as those links I gave showed, even though it was not necesssarily his father who influenced his politics. You have nothing to blame yourself for but I was foolish to post the link in the first place:smileysad:

 

 

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

hi,

Earlier, I actually sent Jon a PM and asked him to either move my post or remove it because I was also concerned about how it would be perceived having a post about Hitler under a heading with the candidate's names. I thought it was inappropriate and that it might cause problems. He might not have received the message yet, or perhaps he couldn't do anything about it. Maybe he can remove it tomorrow.

I was not implying either candidate was like Hitler. I had wondered what was in Hitler's background that might have caused him to develop so differently since he channeled his energy into death and destruction while both candidates seemed to have overcome their childhood traumas much more positively.
Choisya had sent me some links and I was responding to that so perhaps I should have sent her a PM instead of posting it publicly.
After all this time, I am afraid I am still learning the etiquette of the boards. At least I am beginning to feel more comfortable with both candidates, neither of whom would have been my first choice, unfortunately. Now I just have to decide for whom to pull the lever!

twj

 


 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

Thanks WJ.  I am very sorry that one of the links upset you.  I was just looking at the ''character analysis' side of the links, not whether they said good or bad things about Hitler.  I had in fact written about a number of the subjects you post about here on the History Club threads awhile back, particularly about the influence of the Hitler Youth movement.  I am certainly not one of those who sympathise with the Nazis, quite the contrary.   As I have already posted, it is not the politics which interest me at the moment vis a vis these character analyses, it is how our upbringing might affect what we later do in life.  I thought there might be folks interested in psychological profiling who could add more insights. I very much regret that my post caused such consternation but it is too late to withdraw it now.

 

On the subject of bias, I am of the opinion that nothing which is said or written is without bias.  We all bring our own personal background and thoughts into whatever we think, read or write and no matter how objective we try to be, subjectivity will creep in.  So although I did not see a great deal of bias in the psychologist's analyses, I acknowledge that there must have been some there.  For myself, I tried to rise above it and looked at the 'human' side of what was written, which is why I sympathised/empathised with both men.  I thought maybe others here could look at the human side too and relate it to their own lives but alas! I was wrong, because you are all too emotionally involved in looming election.  It was my mistake.          

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

Hi Choisya,

I read the posts you suggested. The comments after the post on the first link, were very unpleasant. I don't think it was a good choice for me. I have a feeling from the tone of some of the comments that many may have been Nazi sympathizers.
I queried Google about how Hitler was able to get so many followers and this is a partial quote of one of the answers: (not my words, this is from what I think must be an interactive wikipedia website. I actually made some  grammatical/spelling corrections.)
"I read some of Mein Kampf, and plan to read the rest of it, and I'm quite convinced that Hitler was just the kind of social genius (I'm sorry, that's what he was) it took to take that already powerful hatred and temper it into his plans. He was a freakishly amazing public speaker. I watched a movie of one of his speeches, and, to be honest, I felt the not so subtle pull of his words.. it was rather frightening.. so he used that amazing speech capability of his and the promise to get Germany out of the economic slum it had become and became fairly powerful. Then, Hindenburg, in a (rather vain) attempt to outmaneuver the Nazi party, gave Hitler just the power he needed to put his plan into action. He directed the building of the Autobahn and many other projects (such as the Volkswagen Beatle) and became an economic hero. people LOVED him. so, using that love of himself and the enthusiasm set in motion by his inspiring speeches, Hitler used the next 7-8 years to brainwash his people. The Hitler Jugend became the most effective school for discipline and unquestioning obedience to authority, supplying his armies with younger generation soldiers EAGER TO DO EVERYTHING THEY WERE TOLD WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT IT, good people or not. the older generation were simply caught up in the momentum and propaganda, and conformed."

"Hitler's tactics in attracting the youth- starred Review. Bartoletti (Kids on Strike!) offers a unique and riveting perspective on WWII by focusing on the young people who followed Hitler from 1933–1945. The narrative primarily focuses on members of the Hitler Youth, but also profiles some of the group's dissidents and its Jewish targets. Hitler began his quest for dominance with young people, recognizing them as "a powerful political force" and claiming, "With them I can make a new world." Bartoletti describes how the propaganda of the Hitler Youth attracted children: "The overnight camping trips, campfires, and parades sounded like a great deal of fun," said one 12-year-old..."

Is it realistic to think one can explain the behavior of a maniac? What creates such a maniac is an impossible question, I think. Could his rise to power have been so simple and unopposed? I don't think so. It took him years to attain the power he finally used to unleash the Holocaust. Perhaps it was just a perfect storm, the confluence of events like the Versailles Treaty and its ensuing loss of nationalism and pride,  coupled with a disastrous economy and his megalomania that gave him his opportunity to rise to power.
I am sure someone can give a more intellectual response but for me this is a subject that actually causes such negative physical sensations that I find it hard even to research it without experiencing the emotional pain of the horror of that awful period of history. The suffering of all its victims is hard to contemplate.

twj


Choisya wrote:smileysad:edited by twj)
There have been quite a few psychological analyses done on Hitler vis a vis his childhood.  Here is one from the web and a review of a book about his character which is well sourced.  However, I don't see that you can compare any untried leader to him - maybe 5 years down the line you might be able to, but I sincerely hope not!!  I don't find it helpful to make any such comparisons - Hitler was a horrid person and I hope to goodness there is no political figure in either your political system or mine that comes anywhere near to matching his profile:...
twj writes...and I say to that amen.

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-22-2008 05:42 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Character analysis : Oedipus.

[ Edited ]

Thanks Deb.  Has the psychologist concentrated on the fathers because fathers influence boys/men more than their mothers?   Are politicians more influenced by their fathers because men are the main 'movers and shakers' in the political world?  And where does this leave Freud's Oedipus Complex which posits that boys are more influenced by their mothers?  I do not know enough about psychology to answer these questions but perhaps someone here does.

 


debbook wrote:

I find it interesting that the article and in fact both of the candidates books focus on their relationship, or lack of, to their fathers. What about their mothers?

 

Choisya, Bill Clinton had issues with his father.


Choisya wrote:

LOL Deb - I think so too:smileyvery-happy:

 

I am not sure I believe in inherent tendencies to evil.  I like to think that all babies are born with great capacity for good but are shaped by their backgrounds.  I'm more nurture than nature:smileyhappy:

 

I actually didn't mean for my analysis post to cause political argument about the candidates.  I was much more interested in it from the pov of the psychology and how our backgrounds can affect us, a point that KathyS picked up on.  It would have been equally interesting if it had been about another two political candidates, or anyone else for that matter, you or me.  Both men had 'problems' with their fathers/father image and it might be interesting to look at other leaders who had such issues with their Dads but I don't know of any at present.  I certainly know that I was very influenced by my father and that my attitude towards politics was shaped by him.  And of course Freud would have something to say about a girl being influenced by her father or, like our candidates, boys by their fathers. 

 

I was also interested in the point the article makes about ambivalence in the candidates and in the electorate.  This struck a chord with me because I have just been looking at ambivalence in Macbeth.  Has anyone any view on this aspect of the article?   

 

Any psychologists out there?:smileysurprised:      

 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-22-2008 05:38 AM
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

TWJ, your post was fine and appropriate. It is not your fault if someone turns that into something that it isn't. Yours was not the post that seemed to suggest a correlation between one of the candidates and Hitler, which in my opinion was irresponsible and I responded to that post. You aren't responsible for her post. And stating that it upsets you to look at certain links is is not at all offensive.

 

Choisya, I think this article was relevant as both candidates have written books about their relationships with their fathers and for someone to write about how this may relate to personality traits, using the candidates own words was relevant. Even if some thought it was biased, it was interesting. No one made either of them write books.

Message Edited by debbook on 10-22-2008 07:54 AM
A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Personalities

[ Edited ]

Choisya, there was nothing wrong, that I saw,  in either your post about this analysis, or in TWJ's thoughts concerning Hitler's childhood comparison.  I think both of you expressed yourselves without menace.  You both showed concern.  I've certainly not been upset by your posts.  I do think all of these personalities are interesting, and you are also right:  No matter how we look at someone else, we are always going to interject our own bias.  We see what we want to see. 

 

I tend to look at technical writing one way, were I find I can step back and read and compare, and I look at emotional writing another way, where I don't compare as much as I feel something from that writing.

 

When I see these two presidential candidates, I look at them in as many ways as I can, given limited information, since I don't personally know either man.  When I hear analytical reporters, which I see that there are many in this particular campaign, I try to listen to them all, as soon as I can.  I compare, and digest what they say.  I see these candidates on as many TV shows as I can.  I watch them interact with whomever is talking to them.  I see their reactions.  I watch their faces.  I hear their voices.  All of this mixes with what I've heard them write about.  It all mixes with what people say when they compare these two personalities. 

 

Just recently, Joe Biden was on TV.  He was asked how he felt about John McCain, on a personal level.  He's known McCain for over thirty years, and very much respects him as a man.  But he, himself, has seen changes in his character.  Of course we all change over time, there is no doubt of it.  But he said he was seeing an agressive side to him that has escillated since this campaign, another dimension he'd not seen before.  It was an even more open aggressive side.  He, along with a lot of analysts have agreed on these points of interest.   Agressiveness can sometimes show a negative perspective to people.  The media has picked up on this, and it does seem that, as I had said before, he's agreed with, not just negative ads to his campaign, but the hurtful side to them. 

 

There is a marked difference between just talking about the politics and policies involved , and the deliberate character smears that have taken place in this campaign.  When you start to lose perspective on these differences, allowing this to happen,  that's when you have to step back and wonder why.  If you see this happening in yourself, and I'm not immune to this, it's always best to have people around you who can point this out to you.  I start to wonder who Mr. McCain has around him, to advise him.  This is my major concern.

 

I listen to their voices when they speak.  I hear these subtle changes of inflection, when challenged on a topic.  I hear their words that represent who they are.  You can't conceal spontaneous facial expressions, either.

 

Therefore, when I read that analysis, this is what I take in, from it all.  Both the analytical view points, from what seemed to be a researched evaluation, and my own evaluation of that person.  I put it all together, to fit in my own personal likes and dislikes, which equals my own subtly biased points of view.

Message Edited by KathyS on 10-22-2008 07:37 AM
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

Everyman wrote:

 

I wish the time between now and the election would pass as quickly as summer seems to.  Zip, gone.  


 
Well consider yourself lucky - the US election is in just a few weeks now.  But after that I'm afraid my neighborhood will continue to suffer from election fever, as most of my neighbors are quite passionately involved in the election in Bangladesh - which, it seems to me, is even more heated than our own (and has already been delayed for over a year due to various protests and threats) and which isn't until mid-December. 
Every storefront on my block is completely covered in propaganda for one candidate or another, there are various "campaign vans" driving around with the faces of politicians painted on them and now there are strings running from the subway stations to the lamposts that all have large campaign posters on them.  I'd normally be interested and try to educate myself, but I unfortunately only have the attention to deal with one heated election at a time.  And all the signs are in Bengali anyway.
Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-22-2008 07:49 AM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Inspired Contributor
Linda10
Posts: 81
Registered: ‎10-02-2007
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

Wow!  A lot happened since I went to bed last night!  I want to respond to Debbook the most because she seems to be the most upset about my post.  (For what it's worth, this is the second time I'm writing this post.  The first time around, I got a "failed" notice.  I'm not quoting Debbook's post in case that was why it failed.)

 

If you read the first 15 posts, yes, people were discussing these psychological profiles of both presidential candidates with respect to how they related to their respective fathers as they were growing up.  Then someone made a post about wondering what Hitler's relationship was like with his father.  Then, later, Vivico posts about how my story of the German soldier made her think of something and she began writing.  Well, that's what I was doing too.  These posts made me think of the story of the German soldier that my friend told me and I thought others here might find it interesting as well.  Then I made a comment about the economic crisis.  I was not implying that either candidate could be compared to Hitler.  If I was implying anything at all, it was that people will approve of/vote for whoever they think will benefit their own pocketbook, (i.e., look what Germans thought of Hitler!)   Perhaps what I should have done was make two different posts, or expand on the one post that I did write.

 

As Vivico also said, sometimes we do better in face-to-face discussions than the written word.  And Everyman made a good point, too, when he said that he wished the election were already over.  Perhaps we're all a little bit fraught over this campaigning.  All I can say is if you knew me, you would never have taken my post in a negative light.  I'm one of those people who proverbially wouldn't even kill a fly.  I hate to upset people, even if it's someone I don't know personally.  So if I've upset you (or anyone) by my post, please believe me that it was never my intent to do so.  If I could make a sad Smiley face on my computer right now, I would.

 

Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

[ Edited ]

Economic conspiracy theories aside - Hitler promised a lot more to the German people than simply fixing the economy.  In the interbellum, Germany was suffering not just from a bad economy, but from some rather severe territorial and spiritual losses inflicted by their defeat in WW1 and the subsequent treaty of Versailles. 

 

Hitler wasn't just promising to improve the economy - it was clear to many Germans that his nationalist platform involved the recovery of lands that - to many people at the time - were considered "rightfully German" and which had been stripped away by war and treaty. 

 

And in addition to this platform of regaining the lands and essentially recreating the German Empire he - and the Nazi's in general -  were additionally able to fuel their popularity by creating such a strong sense of nationalism that the intrinsic greatness of being a German was for many people something of a religion in and of itself.  This is a huge part of why so many Germans (both inside Germany and in German areas of other countries) became supporters of him and the party - and I think something that is not comparable in any way to the situation of any candidate in the current American election.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-22-2008 09:25 AM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Personalities : Benefit of the doubt.

[ Edited ]

Thanks Kathy for your thoughtful response.  I am not at all surprised to hear that McCain has become aggressive or anything else - the length of your campaigns and all the 'hype' is enough to try the temper of a saint!  I have been heavily involved in our 3 week campaigns and have seen many near-breakdowns of the most sanguine of people, so I well understand what can happen and I sympathise with any candidate of whatever party feeling the strain.

 

IMO we should ignore all the personal remarks about candidates (treat them as ad hominem posts!:smileyvery-happy:and concentrate on the policies they and their parties are putting forward.  It is the policies which will ultimately matter, not the man/woman.  If they are inexperienced in any way, and every candidate for high office is inexperienced for that office, there will be plenty of experienced advisors and civil servants to help them. One thing politicians are not short of is advice!!

 

I feel that everyone these days is far too hard on politicians.  In my experience (which is not inconsiderable), the great majority of them from both sides of the political divide are people who enter public service for altruistic reasons and who want to do something to help their country and fellow citizens.  A little more benefit of the doubt and a little less inclination believe the worst wouldn't come amiss in any election.  We all criticise politicians but how many of us would be willing to put ourselves forward for the onerous tasks they are willing to take on board?       

 

 


KathyS wrote:

Choisya, there was nothing wrong, that I saw,  in either your post about this analysis, or in TWJ's thoughts concerning Hitler's childhood comparison.  I think both of you expressed yourselves without menace.  You both showed concern.  I've certainly not been upset by your posts.  I do think all of these personalities are interesting, and you are also right:  No matter how we look at someone else, we are always going to interject our own bias.  We see what we want to see. 

 

I tend to look at technical writing one way, were I find I can step back and read and compare, and I look at emotional writing another way, where I don't compare as much as I feel something from that writing.

 

When I see these two presidential candidates, I look at them in as many ways as I can, given limited information, since I don't personally know either man.  When I hear analytical reporters, which I see that there are many in this particular campaign, I try to listen to them all, as soon as I can.  I compare, and digest what they say.  I see these candidates on as many TV shows as I can.  I watch them interact with whomever is talking to them.  I see their reactions.  I watch their faces.  I hear their voices.  All of this mixes with what I've heard them write about.  It all mixes with what people say when they compare these two personalities. 

 

Just recently, Joe Biden was on TV.  He was asked how he felt about John McCain, on a personal level.  He's known McCain for over thirty years, and very much respects him as a man.  But he, himself, has seen changes in his character.  Of course we all change over time, there is no doubt of it.  But he said he was seeing an agressive side to him that has escillated since this campaign, another dimension he'd not seen before.  It was an even more open aggressive side.  He, along with a lot of analysts have agreed on these points of interest.   Agressiveness can sometimes show a negative perspective to people.  The media has picked up on this, and it does seem that, as I had said before, he's agreed with, not just negative ads to his campaign, but the hurtful side to them. 

 

There is a marked difference between just talking about the politics and policies involved , and the deliberate character smears that have taken place in this campaign.  When you start to lose perspective on these differences, allowing this to happen,  that's when you have to step back and wonder why.  If you see this happening in yourself, and I'm not immune to this, it's always best to have people around you who can point this out to you.  I start to wonder who Mr. McCain has around him, to advise him.  This is my major concern.

 

I listen to their voices when they speak.  I hear these subtle changes of inflection, when challenged on a topic.  I hear their words that represent who they are.  You can't conceal spontaneous facial expressions, either.

 

Therefore, when I read that analysis, this is what I take in, from it all.  Both the analytical view points, from what seemed to be a researched evaluation, and my own evaluation of that person.  I put it all together, to fit in my own personal likes and dislikes, which equals my own subtly biased points of view.

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-22-2008 12:36 PM
Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

Linda, don't worry about it.  As far as I'm concerned, you're fine saying what you did.  I know how it sounded, the first time I read what you wrote.  It was short and to the point....but, then I read it again.  I did see, and I do see, that sometimes these memories of what we see, and what other people see in their lives, when we tell them in writing, without too much explanation on these boards, can sound a little off, or blunt.  It's just the nature of the beast, in writing, as I say time and again.

 

I saw what you were trying to say, as far as things in life that are seemingly coincidental.  I did not find it accusatory.  This always amazes me, when I see coincidences.  And I've always said, there is no such thing as a coincidence.  As these things do seem to happen for a reason.  The real dilemma with them, though, is putting them into perspective - What do they mean, in reality?

 

The amazing thing about history is, most of it always repeats itself, whether good or bad.   But the wise trick is, to learn from it!  And I think it honestly gave everyone, here, who wanted to comment on it, to do exactly that - putting it into perspective.  However you worded it, it was re-worded,  to make sense of it.  Deb raised some serious questions. 

 

We can't ignore these things of our history.  We never want to stop comparing them to the present, otherwise we have nothing to base our present time, here on earth, and change what we feel needs to be changed for that future.

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: McCain & Obama character analysis.

KathyS 

when we tell them in writing, without too much explanation on these boards, can sound a little off, or blunt.  It's just the nature of the beast, in writing, as I say time and again.

 

So true KathyS!  The written word without body language is very unforgiving and again, we should try to give the benefit of the doubt.  Also, we do not know the circumstances of the person writing the post.  They may be snatching a bit of time off work, or feeding the baby, or tired and ready for bed, or or or...  Give 'em a break!

 

 


KathyS wrote:

Linda, don't worry about it.  As far as I'm concerned, you're fine saying what you did.  I know how it sounded, the first time I read what you wrote.  It was short and to the point....but, then I read it again.  I did see, and I do see, that sometimes these memories of what we see, and what other people see in their lives, when we tell them in writing, without too much explanation on these boards, can sound a little off, or blunt.  It's just the nature of the beast, in writing, as I say time and again.

 

I saw what you were trying to say, as far as things in life that are seemingly coincidental.  I did not find it accusatory.  This always amazes me, when I see coincidences.  And I've always said, there is no such thing as a coincidence.  As these things do seem to happen for a reason.  The real dilemma with them, though, is putting them into perspective - What do they mean, in reality?

 

The amazing thing about history is, most of it always repeats itself, whether good or bad.   But the wise trick is, to learn from it!  And I think it honestly gave everyone, here, who wanted to comment on it, to do exactly that - putting it into perspective.  However you worded it, it was re-worded,  to make sense of it.  Deb raised some serious questions. 

 

We can't ignore these things of our history.  We never want to stop comparing them to the present, otherwise we have nothing to base our present time, here on earth, and change what we feel needs to be changed for that future.


 

Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Personalities : Benefit of the doubt.


Choisya wrote:

 

IMO we should ignore all the personal remarks about candidates (treat them as ad hominem!:smileyvery-happy:and concentrate on the policies they and their party are putting forward.  It is the policies which will ultimately matter, not the man/woman.

 

 

I don't think I can agree with this entirely.  Policies are extremely important of course, but without personality the effectiveness of getting one's policies in place is severely limited.  And history is full of examples of leaders who's personalities were so strong and unique that they had a profound impact on how their policies played out, on how their opponents worked, and in many cases on the culture of the nation in general.  And in the contemporary world there are current world leaders who's personality plays a very strong role in how their respective nation is dealt with both on a global level and in the general morale of the nations people themselves. 

 

Vladimir Putin, I think, is a prominent example of this.  While his politicies are of course extremely important in terms of their affect on Russia and how the world sees Russia, there's little question that he's managed to build up something of a cult of personality and that the strong pride many Russians feel in having him as a leader is leading to a more nationalistic and potentially aggressive Russia.   His use of images of himself in the state media as a physically active outdoorsman and martial arts expert is a stark contrast to Yeltsin's... well, there are not many polite ways to describe Yeltsin's public image :smileywink: .  And I think these personalities and the images based on these personalities have as profound an impact on the direction of Russia as their policies have. 

 

 

________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Personalities : Benefit of the doubt.

I agree with you, Jon.

 

Churchill's personal presence was every bit as important as his policies in his ability to lead his country at a time of crisis.

 

Similarly, Lincoln.  He faced far more opposition in the North than most people today understand, but his personality was his strength much more than his policies his party's positions on issues.

 

FDR was another such.  If you had listened to his platform at the time of his first election you would never have had any conception of the vast changes in our society that he was able, largely through force of personality, to sell to the nation. 

 

In all of these cases, a very different person with identical policies and party principles would in all likelihood been a muc, much less effective leader.  


Jon_B wrote:

Choisya wrote:

 

IMO we should ignore all the personal remarks about candidates (treat them as ad hominem!:smileyvery-happy:and concentrate on the policies they and their party are putting forward.  It is the policies which will ultimately matter, not the man/woman.

 

 

I don't think I can agree with this entirely.  Policies are extremely important of course, but without personality the effectiveness of getting one's policies in place is severely limited.  And history is full of examples of leaders who's personalities were so strong and unique that they had a profound impact on how their policies played out, on how their opponents worked, and in many cases on the culture of the nation in general.  And in the contemporary world there are current world leaders who's personality plays a very strong role in how their respective nation is dealt with both on a global level and in the general morale of the nations people themselves. 

 

Vladimir Putin, I think, is a prominent example of this.  While his politicies are of course extremely important in terms of their affect on Russia and how the world sees Russia, there's little question that he's managed to build up something of a cult of personality and that the strong pride many Russians feel in having him as a leader is leading to a more nationalistic and potentially aggressive Russia.   His use of images of himself in the state media as a physically active outdoorsman and martial arts expert is a stark contrast to Yeltsin's... well, there are not many polite ways to describe Yeltsin's public image :smileywink: .  And I think these personalities and the images based on these personalities have as profound an impact on the direction of Russia as their policies have. 

 

 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.