Presidential Debate - Boxing and Body Language

McCain and Obama in the presidential debate had telling body language
Much ado is being made by the pundits about the body language of John McCain during the presidential debate with Barack Obama. Actually, the body language of both presidential candidates fascinated me. You see, one of the ebooks for which I recently was ghostwriter was about hypnotherapy and hypnosis. I'm also often asked to write ebooks on dating, where again, the mind science of body language comes into play.

So as I watched the presidential debate, I couldn't help but notice how infrequently John McCain looked at Barack Obama. I mean, there were times when Obama seemed to really be tearing into McCain's voting record or policy stance. But John McCain would only stare straight ahead, into the audience...
  • In hypnosis terms, McCain not making eye contact signals he's not interested in establishing rapport with Obama. Thus, there'd be no way McCain could effectively influence Obama (e.g., intimidate or otherwise throw him off guard).
  • In dating terms, McCain making so little eye contact with Obama means McCain doesn't find Obama sexy. (Question: The last time you refused to look someone's way, why was it? Did you think they were hideous in some way? Or maybe they were "beneath" you?)
  • Oh, I guess it also could mean McCain is taking the aloof approach to flirting. But in the dating ebooks, we coach guys that they'll never get the girl by acting too distant. You've got to charm the target first, at least a little, before blowing her off.
Senator Obama's facial expression also looked tense. Actually, what I observed at times seemed more like the controlled outrage of a tough street fighter. Coupled with his highly educated "elitest" intelligence, I must confess I'd like this in a new president. But I digress...
  • In dating terms, Obama's ease with looking directly at McCain says he's The Man. He's large and in charge, as they say. Not intimidated. If McCain were a woman, she'd know this guy might want a piece of her. I mean, was worthy of her respect.
  • But unfortunately, McCain was having none of Obama's commanding eye contact. McCain seemed to avoid The Man's glances like The Plague. So in hypnoworld, Obama never had a chance of weakening McCain's resolve. He'd have gone home alone, McCain-less.
But for me, the real fighting words were those uttered by McCain, who accused that Obama didn't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic when it comes to resolving Iraq.

Whoa, I thought; my back straightened on the sofa. Now that's a mega insult. Telling anyone who's ever graced a board room they don't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic is a slap in the face.

I knew Obama wouldn't let that one slide. That's probably about the time I wondered if the debate could do the unimaginable: lapse to fisticuffs. But again, I digress...
  • A strategy defines your "big idea" approach to meeting your goal. For example, America has a goal of winning the war in Iraq. A "big idea" approach (strategy) for doing that might be to infuse a surge of more troops there.
  • Now falling underneath the surge strategy would be various tactics i.e., activities carried out by the increased number of troops. The tactical activities might include being able to protect new areas of Iraq, or being able to secure with more certainty areas where our troops have lost ground.

At least I think this is how the strats vs. tactics work with regard to Iraq. If not, I welcome Senator McCain to straighten me (and Obama) out, Dating 101-style.

For e-book creation, sales letters, viral reports, publicity and more, visit the cool spot for Internet marketing services: