Thursday, February 21, 2008

McCain, Clinton and Words

I am a bit perplexed about Mc Cain and Clinton choices of words lately.

McCain is accused of having had a relationship with a lobbyist – so apparently blatant that his own staff stepped in to halt it.

His reply was that he did not have a romantic relationship with the female telecommunications lobbyist in question and did not favor her clients.

"I'm very disappointed in the article's not true...I've served this nation honorably for more than half a no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust."


Romantic relationship? Funny choice of words – what if it were just a sexual relationship – no romance needed for that and then he is not actually lying.

Served honorably? Maybe McCain is forgetting his role in the Keating scandal and the fact that he ditched wife #1 – the one who waited for him when he was a POW. After the divorce he quickly married money and had his political career bought for him by his wife and father-in-law. And he has admitted to adultery.

But maybe that fits his definition of honorable?

And Clinton. As she sinks further in the polls she has been using language that I find odd. For example this: "One of us is ready to be commander in chief in a dangerous world,"

I have enough experience with questionnaires, marketing and psychology to look at that sentence and ask: Who? And then: Why? The answers are not apparent in her statement so listeners are left to supply their own responses. For example, the answer could be McCain as he was in the military and in Congress longer than she has been.

If Clinton wants the answer to be “Hillary” then she has to tell the listeners that it’s her and why it is her. Just being 1st lady for 8 years does not make one a “ready” commander-in-chief anymore than having been in the military or being an Illinois Senator.

But of course no one asks her or her pollsters/insiders these questions – they are just looking for repeatable lines. And the line is being repeated – by McCain – so maybe they should all be asked about qualifications.

No comments: