<p>Thanks for the comments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re really muddling this discussion.</p>
<p>Here is what you originally said, “Those were/are 800 of the best & brightest students in the world at one of the most (if not the most) competetive & demanding schools in America.”</p>
<p>First, “best and brightest students in the world” simply is not an accurate way of describing the USNA student body. That said, the students are by no means “dumb.” It’s just that, on average, students at the USNA do not compare academically to students at HYPS, etc.</p>
<p>Also, your use of “best and brightest students in the world” suggests that when you say that it is “one of the most (if not the most) competetive & demanding schools in America” that you are talking about academically. Nothing in that suggests that you are merely talking about the admission rate of the school.</p>
<p>Lastly, you did not respond to the other things I said in my post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NJ - WHO’S muddling the discussion? This thread was about Obama, I thought. However, the conversation evolved into a discussion of McCain’s low ranking at USNA. My assertion that the midshipmen at USNA are the “best & brightest”, as well as USNA being a competetive school, were disputed. In post #294 I posted data which showed the acceptance rate at USNA compared to other top schools in attempt to establish USNA as a “competetive school”. I also linked to the ratings showing USNA at the top of Engineering Schools - obviously only the “best & brightest” can get in and succeed in that environment. It is worth noting also, that USNA requires EVERYONE to graduate in four years.</p>
<p>What else do you need to know in order to agree that USNA is one of the most competetive schools and its students are some of the “best & brightest”, and graduating at the low end of USNA is still a phenomenal accomplishment? (And I think something like 20% drop out). Also, being a “legacy” doesn’t necessarily account for much - I’ve known of legacies that did NOT get appointments to USNA.</p>
<p>So NOW can we give up on the notion that McCain is somehow discredited b/c of his class rank?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe after he wins the presidency, he can run for RULER of the WORLD!!!</p>
<p>Maybe, after he wins the presidency, the world will actually LIKE us again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that be something! 
Until they find the 666 under his hair. JUST KIDDING - REALLY!!!</p>
<p>Although I have found while travelling that it’s not US they hate, it’s Bush. And, I hear plenty of it since I’m from Texas. I have to explain that I didn’t vote for him, and all Texans do not necessarily think the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cute try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one was saying that he is disqualified because of that. I only brought it up because I thought that it illustrated the fact that he is not much of an intellectual.</p>
<p>Here’s what I said:</p>
<p>“I think that today’s issues are much too complex and require someone who is an intellectual and appreciates nuances, details, etc. to address and solve them. John McCain–who graduated 795th out of 800 students and who voted against a bill he authored–doesn’t exactly strike me as an intellectual.”</p>
<p>“…he can run for RULER of the WORLD!!!”</p>
<p>UN secretary general?</p>
<p>I’m quite sure the presidency of the USA is just a stepping stone to RULER of the WORLD for Senator Barack Obama.</p>
<p>“I think that today’s issues are much too complex and require someone who is an intellectual and appreciates nuances, details, etc. to address and solve them. John McCain–who graduated 795th out of 800 students and who voted against a bill he authored–doesn’t exactly strike me as an intellectual.”</p>
<p>The problem with intellectuals is the tendency towards arrogance.</p>
<p>We’ve had some very smart people running our banking system. Alan Greenspan is brilliant. So is Bernanke. And Paulson. And I’m sure that upper managers at places like Goldman Sachs, Citi, Morgan Stanley, the late Bear Stearns are intellectuals. Even Broadhead at Duke is an intellectual. How did so many smart people screw up so badly?</p>
<p>Regarding voting against your own bill: I was with a group of people working on legislation and the horse-trading that goes on can be unbelievable. Bills do get changed. And sometimes you have to vote for a bill even if you don’t like it, to prevent another bill from passing.</p>
<p>Not sure Obama would do any better than McCain in “charming” the rest of the world. Obama hardly smiled during his speech in Berlin today (yes, I watched it AND listened very carefully & I didn’t even block his face w/ my foot!). He didn’t seem very “friendly”.</p>
<p>By contrast, McCain used the word “love” at least 4 or 5 times in his interview w/ Hannity last nite.</p>
<p>For all McCain’s reputation for being an “angry” guy, it appears he’s really very sentimental, and quite affable in person. If you ever get the chance to hear HIM in person, you’ll “love” him as much as I do! </p>
<p>Obama sure seemed “mean” today - maybe that’s where Michelle got the idea that “America is a downright mean country”. haha! </p>
<p>There was quite a crowd in Berlin - wonder how it all was received…</p>
<p>bz:</p>
<p>Don’t confuse looking serious and sober with looking angry. McCain, in his ill-conceived green curtain speech grinned after every criticism he uttered. One might say that he did not mean to be taken seriously, or one might say he enjoyed twisting the knife.
In person, Hillary Clinton is supposed to be warm and likable; but she did not come across that way in many settings. Obama, by all accounts, does not inspire the kind of warmth that McCain and Clinton do. But he commands the respect of people who hold very different views from his:
[Con</a> Law](<a href=“http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=86dd0277-c6ee-4e3c-83e9-0bb468c5c40d&p=2]Con”>http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=86dd0277-c6ee-4e3c-83e9-0bb468c5c40d&p=2)
This from a conservative law prof at the famously conservative Chicago Law School.
I don’t want to “love” my president. I want to be assured that he will make the right choices, that he will be able to persuade others to work together with him to implement these choices. Incidentally, this ability to listen is one reason I do not think of Obama as narcissistic.</p>
<p>Anyway, I watched the speech, I heard the applause, I’ve read the comments. The speech was well-received.</p>
<p>Senators are supposed to be quite charming personally. I guess you have to be to get to the position. President Bush is quite charming in person. As is Al Gore. And Bill Bradley.</p>
<p>The last time I saw McCain on TV was earlier this year in a debate. I only watched ten or fifteen minutes of it and Romney was bouncing out of his seat trying to make points. McCain seemed pretty relaxed and at ease in his answers.</p>
<p>Was Obama using a teleprompter in Berlin? I’ve never used a teleprompter before in public speaking but I’d assume that it makes it harder to give extemporaneous comments. The type that the audience feels is genuine and not manufactured. The personal experience is a powerful public speaking tool but reading it can get in the way of the presentation. It should be so well-known to you that you can talk about it without notes. It may not look polished but you get the from-the-heart reaction.</p>
<p>“I want to be assured that he will make the right choices, that he will be able to persuade others to work together with him to implement these choices.”</p>
<p>Does he have a lengthy track record in this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama is clearly more liked around the world and especially in Europe. McCain could never get 200,000 people to come see him speak and support him. (Perhaps he could get 200,000 people to come protest him though.) Only 10% of Germans support McCain, while 62% support Obama.</p>
<p>Can you please quit acting like you are out of touch with reality?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And why do we care about this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama is a “curiosity”, nothing more. (I hear the Germans turn out pretty well in the beer tents for Oktoberfest too!).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p><a href=“Perhaps%20he%20could%20get%20200,000%20people%20to%20come%20protest%20him%20though.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now who’s “out of touch with reality”?</p>
<p>I have been sort of amused by the name-calling of various candidates – and the fact that people would be so concerned about BO vs. McSame, etc. I think people who write this stuff expect it to be seen for what it is (when intended that way) which is an insult from a non-supporter.</p>
<p>Anyway, here’s an obvious one that I hadn’t seen before, remarkably, until today:</p>
<p>McCaincient. </p>
<p>or </p>
<p>McCancient</p>
<p>I laughed. It is silly, but I laughed.</p>
<p>BCeagle:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree. And that’s why I have not minded, as others seem to have done, that Obama pauses in mid-sentence, stammers a bit, but gives thoughtful, to the point answers. Whereas Clinton, for example, was always incredibly well prepared. She was remarkable in debates. But then, I listened to them both at the Compassion forum. And what struck me is that, for all of Obama’s less polished delivery, he was more on point than Clinton, who seemed to use questions as a hook for an already prepared mini-speech and seemed as well, not to want to relinquish the microphone (it was a one-on-one format) lest she might be asked a question for which she had no ready answer. </p>
<p>I think that Obama has handled the interviews he’s had on this trip very well. the one thing I would (and did) fault him for was his unwillingness to give more credit to the surge for the current decline in violence. But he is right that it is not the only factor, and that a political solution is needed, and its chances are still quite precarious.</p>
<p>As for making the right choices: I agree with more of Obama’s policies and past decisions than I do with McCain’s.</p>
<p>“McCain could never get 200,000 people”</p>
<p>only 200,000? The spin masters were predicting 1,000,000</p>