3 ms·

They don't detract at all because they're true. McCain has some serious anger/temper problems and that's not really a secret. He's had numerous outbursts on TV

by nickb 18y ago

They don't detract at all because they're true. McCain has some serious anger/temper problems and that's not really a secret. He's had numerous outbursts on TV and on Senate floor. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/ http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_... So I don't really why stating that simple fact would take away anything from its credibility.

Alex3917 18y ago
The word angrier implies there is an objective way to measure anger. There isn't. Ask Howard Dean.
- rms 18y ago
  >is an objective way to measure anger Number of incidents where John McCain has been on camera/near reporters and been angry: many. Number of incidents where Barack Obama has been on camera/near reporters and been angry: none. It's objective enough for these purposes.
- helveticaman 18y ago
  The measurement doesn't need to be objective. If you agree with the journalist, then this statement supports his general argument. If you disagree, it doesn't. That's all. Now, there are ways to measure anger objectively: Cortisol in bloodstream; volume of voice; Blood pressure; etc. In fact, the amount of cortisol in the bloodstream is a rather all-encompassing measurement that works as a pretty good proxy for how angry you are, even though it is technically your level of stress.