I was reading an entry by Bob Harris at
http://www.thismodernworld.com about the debates when a thought struck.
The idea has been circulated that when they shake, Kerry should stand close to W so his height advantage and the tilt of W's head make Kerry look more presidential, and W look less mature.
I then remembered something else I heard about gaining an advantage in a handshake.
I have no idea who it was. Just an interview on TV, of a guy who met Saddam.
He said that before meeting Saddam, he examined videos and noticed that anyone meeting him always seemed to bow his head a bit. The reason for this was that Saddam never held out his hand to shake as far as people are used to. So they'd go up to shake his hand, reach out, and have to look down to see where his hand was before they could shake. This gave the appearance of a small bow to a superior.
This man was determined to not give an appearance of servitude, and he maintained eye contact, and put his hand right in Saddam's without looking down.
So I present you with a question: Is the standing close to show a height advantage the same as this way to make your opponent/rival/whatever look subservient? If we advocate one, why not advocate the other? Just because it was Saddam's tactic first?
No, I'm not actually saying Kerry should do this, just wondering. To me, this IS the same as Saddam's trick. It made me think.
I don't know if I'm asking for rationalization to make me feel better, or for voices to agree with me. I just want to hear your thoughts on this.
I know we need to play hardball, and work our asses off. I know this is the most important election of my lifetime so far.
When I read the "Stand close" idea, I shrugged. "Good idea," I thought. When I remembered Saddam's trick, at first I thought "Oh, we gotta get Kerry to do this!"
But then I just felt a little sick.