Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ekim68 Is your friend a facial interpreter? Or perhaps a psychiatrist? I've heard of lip-readers, but, facial-readers, not yet.... |
You mean, people are able to lie to you more easily than to others? No offense, but I think we all hold an ability to read a persons eyes in tandem with their voice, to one degree or another. I'm not THAT good at reading eyes; the HR department where I work at is proof that you can be lied to more often than not if the persons words "make sense", and they feign an emotion (act) to help convey a false identity. Good news can be delivered more gracefully with a smile...at least if you follow Bush last year when he talked about the war and killing at least, oh, whatdaya say, 20,000 Iraqi civilians (that was a long time ago).
Now, I'm not suggesting Obama would ever be such a piece of scum to talk about death with a smile, not at all. But I do think it's a fair jab to say he is doing a little extra work to find ways to make extra money for himself. And, really, that is not that big a deal (selling books? Oh C'mon!). We live in a capitalists society. Nobody seems to care that people like Cheney makes money from oil stocks and such. As mildly selfish you might be able to tease him selling a few books here and there into him being selfish, it's a fair play. Selling a book is so different an act than selling a war to the public to only have it revealed as a truly idiot idea and later attempting to dodge the blame.
Obama, it seems, knows how to do a little personal business to make more money, and it's a pretty accurate observation. But I wouldn't call it greed. I think we have many better examples of people in this country who better fit the definition of the word greed, and I don't think Obama could ever rub shoulders with the likes of them. Not yet to say the least, sure, but I don't see him as the type of person who has a desire to cross into such devious territory.
So IMHO, I still think he is likely the best individual candidate thus far. I don't care about opinion polls, linskyjack. You may easily be right on California being in greater favor of Clinton instead of Obama, but I'd like to see you post a link to such polls that indicate a trend that guarantees that; I think it's too early still to tell for certain. I mean, there has to be at least one poll that was take BEFORE Obama announced that he was running, and at least one poll that was taken AFTER, but hopefully someone has been watching these kinds of things in some sort of dark office building filled with people who make phone calls all day. I'm not a statistics major, but we can all take a crack at a prediction if we have a few simple statistics available on a time line. A simple line graph probably exists somewhere with an easy to read trend on it. But even if this trend were to not shift in response, or show an indication that it will flatten out before succeeding over any other opponents sometimes after his announcement, it wouldn't change my opinions about his capabilities. Same way my opinions haven't changed about Ralph Naders abilities. I simply don't like Clinton, Rudy, John Edwards or McCain, and I haven't heard anybodies else's name much lately, so simply put, Obama just seems to be the best option for me at the moment.