The "ear" is a funny thing. It sits on the head, and is bound by the brain, and is fed by the eyes.

[Ninga]

But here is an interesting fact, some who are challenged by being blind or deaf can have better "ears" than those who are fully functioning.

So it goes here.

My argument is simple and complicated. Just think of the person/minister/lecturer/dinner guest/politician who talks and talks and talks, and has no idea people have turned them off.
Listeners in the pews or classroom or lecture hall start squirming, looking at the time, and rolling their eyes. The person who is in the middle of this dynamic, has no "ear" or enough sense to wind it up and finish.

Why you say, does this happen?

Ego. When people are so full of themselves, they think the whole earth revolves around them, their opinions and their person hood, they talk instead of listen. The lack of an "ear" is not tied to intelligence. Some of the smartest people in the world lack wisdom, and the ability to tap into that special ability to hear. So much time has been invested in their ego, that they long ago, starved out wisdom.


It is my opinion that the manner in which campaigns are run, is reflective of the ability to hone hearing skills and thus develop the "ear". A safe cracker must have a deft and soft hand to open the safe, and waits for that right moment to "hear" the tumbler clicking.

Winners have one thing in common. The ability to shift gears, change their weight on the skis, adjust their swing, change their pitch, adjust to the defense, concentrate on their performance, and find the note that resonates.

It matters not, how well you can read the notes of the music, if the orchestra you are playing with makes an unplanned for change, and you don't hear it.


It is my opinion, that from the beginning, Hillary has not demonstrated that she is able to "hear" and sense the ebb and flow of the changing dynamic. She is static, autocratic and is like a thoroughbred running a race with blinders on.

She is so focused, and working so hard, that she is guesstimating, rather than estimating. It matters not how smart, or how much experience a candidate has, it is not enough to carry the day without an "ear".

She is listening to herself, rather than the people. It is too sad that someone so smart, doesn't "get it."

[crispini]

1. What you're talking about is a sense of the people and a sense of the campaign

which is guided by long experience.

Obama has a long history of listening to the people-- community organizing, state senate races, and his senate race.

Hillary does not have the same level of experience in this particular area. I am beginning to realize that you cannot acquire this sense by proxy.

[Texas Hill Country]

4. WTF are you talking about? Are you even serious????

[Ninga]

6. Yes, and yes. Do you have any other questions?

[Ninga]

I agree. And to take it one step further. A person has to "own" the fact that listening and

getting a feel for the dynamic, is a part of the process that is more important than knowing what needs to be done.


And after a second thought, remember Bill ran for office in Arkansas many times before he ran for President. Hillary has had the opportunity to observe and help to organize many, many different groups of people.

So I may differ slightly, and say that experience does not help a person to hone their "ear" if they do not let the experience in, and learn from it.

[Ninga]

dupe - sorry

[Ninga]

5. opps - dupe sorry

[frogcycle]

2. well said

I might disagree with the "from the beginning" phrase w/respect to HRC, but the phenomenon you describe is widespread; very few are actually able to listen and absorb, gwb would be an example of the most extreme, as would most rw talkradio shills.

My dad had a favorite sarcastic expression: "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up." Another was "We don't need a reason; it's just our policy." Those coming from a died-in-the-wool Republican career Marine, no less. It took me a long, long time to realize how smart he was.

Communication is not, can never be, a one-way affair. Nobody ever has all the answers; nobody is ever 100% right. Smart people; true leadership-quality people, are always open to being proven wrong, and are ready to adapt to the changing facts on the ground. That does not mean they compromise their fundamental life-ethic; it means they are looking for the best practical way forward for the collective good of all*.

That is the biggest reason I campaigned for Joe Biden. He had a wealth of experience; had good ideas; but always qualified them with "if I'm wrong, somebody show me a better idea and I'll go with it." I truly believed he'd assemble the brightest and best and we'd get a leadership coalition to get us out of the multiple messes we are in. So far nobody else has impressed me as much. That said, of the remaining candidates, BHO appears closest to a younger Joe Biden.


*Ironically, the dullest and stupidest amongst us are the ones who rail about "flipflop" over each and every word uttered, demanding a one-dimensional candidate who agrees with them personally on every question and never wavers. This is why the media circus and vast drooling hoards of the electorate have dumbed down the election process into a sham. I am coming to believe that membership in Mensa should be a prerequisite for voting - nay, for public speaking. Hell, for being allowed out of the damned cave!

[Ninga]

3. Yes, indeed. I always enjoy an expansion of ideas, and yours is well put. I thin

that exhaustion and repetition are the enemy of those who grind out on the campaign trail.

I have learned that grace under fire, is a timeless and transcending quality, and that listening skills come into play more than ever.