I watched the debate last night and came away from it feeling somewhat disturbed by how the intent of both participants were expressed. One did not allow his intent to shine as brightly as it could have and the other tried desperately to hide his intent. A mixed bag of realizations for me. In the instance of the one who was less inclined to combat the attacks against his intent, I felt like an opportunity was let slip away. In all fairness, if the other chooses to attack the one that does not necessarily prescribe a return attack by the one. Being more statesman-like is a virtue and should be considered a measured response to any attack of a nefarious nature. It is what the one chose to exemplify and I applaud the reserved response. Personally I would have been more combative but regardless, I am not the one who is making the choices here. One the other side of the debate was the other who was in a desperate situation and he needed to make a mark of some sort. He employed two strategies of obvious recognition. First, he chose to confront in a manner that crossed the line of civility, and second, he chose to be dishonest about his own, and the one's, policies. Desperation will do that and maybe the correct response by the one was to let the other expose his nature and behavior for all to see without corrupting it with vengeful responses. It is still all about intent and that we saw for the first time a side by side account of what their intents portrayed we have a better understanding of the character of each of these men who would be our next President here in America. When confusion and obfuscation are the end result of the other in order to unseat the one, a simple smile comes to my face as now the decision as to who has the right intent has been established.
No comments:
Post a Comment