Post by SpringSummers on Oct 4, 2008 8:20:25 GMT -5
I don't think this is presented fairly in this article.
As to the point about others also saying that McCain's time in the POW camp has caused temperment issues, I find it objectionable to make this kind of very public claim about anyone without both the proper expertise and a complete and current examination of the subject.
From what you say, it sounds like most people making this claim have accumulated neither the expertise nor the examination, and that one (or two?) have the expertise only.
I can see private speculation, but public speculation in a widely read mag . . . to me, it's wrong, and it's all about spin.
I agree that the article had a very negative spin to it. Doesn't mean that the facts presented are necessarily wrong or that the opinions presented should be discounted. (That would require some fact checking and an assessment of the people offering their opinions about McCain's character. Some of the incidents described I've definitely heard before, so I don't think the article is entirely off base.)
The reason that that quote stuck out for me was because it jived with my impressions of McCain's attitudes, particularly about foreign policy. It struck me that his experience as a POW may have had a role in shaping those attitudes. So, to me, Wilkerson's comment suggests a cause for certain already made observations, rather than speculation about what kind of person McCain may be or what he may do.
A man is influenced by the sum of his life experiences. Which is not to say that said life experiences should disqualify from any endeavor he wishes to pursue; I would be against such discriminatory action. But I do believe that it's important to carefully consider both the positive and negative influence these life experiences have on the person in question and to be cautious if warranted. Which is what I think Wilkerson was trying to say about McCain having been a POW.
Liz - I'm glad for all the sharing of info that goes on here, so believe me, I am not criticizing you for posting this, not in the least.
My problem with it is not about how negative it is. It's perfectly OK, to me, for an article to be negative about a candidate.
But imagine that someone had said this about Joe Biden (who is also known to have a temper):
"In some respects, I'm not sure that's the kind of character I want sitting in the Oval Office. I'm not sure that losing a wife and daughter so suddenly and traumatically doesn't do something to you. Doesn't do something to you psychologically, doesn't do something to you that might make you a little more volatile, a little less apt to listen to reason, a little more inclined to be volcanic in your temperament."
It's just outrageous to me, to suggest this in this way.
Point out the facts. Point out the things you KNOW - the behavior you can document and find objectionable - and leave it at that.