Officer vs. Gentleman, "Maverick" vs. Leader

Having only seen internet snippets of the first debate between Senators Obama and McCain, I will rely on expert opinion to give a flavor of the atmospherics.  My experts: a former Green Beret officer, a psychoanalyst specializing in anger management, and an eight year old son of a political junkie.  First, Pat Lang, who knows first hand the high standards required of an officer and a gentleman:

Having watched it, I would say that Obama wins on points as a gentleman and McCain loses on coming across as a victim of coaching by brutes ... There will be those ... who will think that McCain's attitude shows him to be a leader.   I think it shows that he was not raised well.  His refusal to look at Obama throughout the debate, his dismissive tone of voice when continually speaking of Obama in the third person as though he were not there, his inability to say anything good about his opponent, all showed him to be a natural bully or someone who has been taught to be a bully.

Now, from Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, the post-debate comment of a reader in the know:

As a psychotherapist and someone who treats people with anger management problems, we typically try to educate people that anger is often an emotion that masks other emotions. I think it's significant that McCain didn't make much, if any, eye contact because it suggests one of two things to me; he doesn't want to make eye contact because he is prone to losing control of his emotions if he deals directly with the other person, or, his anger masks fear and the eye contact may increase or substantiate the fear.

I noticed him doing the same thing in the Republican primary debates. The perception observers are likely to have is that he is unwilling to acknowledge the opponent's legitimacy and/or is contemptuous of the opponent.

Finally, the precocious political junkie, through his TPM contributor father, John Nall:

Last night Andrew asked me what a debate was and I told him it was like a boxing match with words. He thought that sounded pretty cool so we watched the debate.

He enjoyed the "fight" and I must say out of the mouths of babes come some pretty good analysis. As you might expect much of his reactions were visceral which is a huge part of how many people will react:
    •     "Why is McCain so mad?"
    •     "Why is he so old like Grammy?
    •     "Daddy, when McCain smiles like that ( ie-the smirk) I think he is really mad at Obama".
    •     "I don't like it when he acts like that."
    •     "Why isn't he looking at Obama? Barack looks at him. I think he is trying to be mean."
    •     "Obama looks better"
    •     "When McCain talks it bores me and when Obama talks it excites me."

Like little Andrew Nall, "when Obama talks it excites me."  Might I add, when Obama talks, the world listens.  Perhaps people recognize leadership, and an uncanny ability to capture big thoughts in stirring speeches.  Just the medicine a jumpy world needs right now.

Capturing imaginations, along with Osama Bin Laden, always eluded Bush.  Except for the twisted among us who take delight in his malapropisms and a chance to see the smirk deployed at some inappropriate moment, few even listen to the man anymore.  Bush-Cheney, like McCain-Palin, prefer to appeal to people's fears as an "inspirational" method.

As for McCain, for some reason many foreigners continue to confuse him with Dick Cheney.  It's probably an age thing, though it may be the cranky, bellicose ideology.  I do remember reading something in the European press where people are hard pressed to provide his name.

But of course that's not a reason not to vote for the man.  Here are a few:

• Any politician who gyrates as much as markets did last week, when what was needed was a dose of Obamian Zen, should be gently, but firmly, retired to Phoenix to write his memoirs;
• A candidate who has a religious fundamentalist thrust onto his ticket and then has to explain her inadequacies away, every time she opens her mouth - what's so "maverick" about that?
• When you tout your experience in foreign affairs, but your one solution to world problems appears to be to send in the troops - give me a supposed "neophyte" please.

I could go on - and probably will, right up to November 4! - on why I want an Obama-Biden, Democratic landslide.  For the good of the country.  And for that of the world.  But I'll save that for later.