Pet Peeves

As Obama prepares for his overseas travels, one of my main pet peeves is awakened - in this day and age of ubiquitous electronic communications - comprising voice, video, and data - why do folks persist in seeing things through a 19th or early 20th century model? Why is so much emphasis placed on physical visits to the dirt of Iraq, on face-to-face, in-person discussions with General Prateaus, and other world leaders? Certainly it's important to get the sense of a person important to deal with, a sense that can perhaps only come across in-person. But for all the analytical points and details? McCain says - Obama had to go to Iraq to "see that the surge is working" - why? On one of McCain's recent visits to Baghdad, he walked around a market surrounded by military security, wearing a flak-jacket. How does such a microscopic view of a huge, complicated tapestry assist McCain in knowing how the surge is working? A briefing and/or reports from the military would tell him more - and he would not need to be in Bagdad itself to comprehend this information.

This peeve is related to another - why do folks need an in-person visit from a candidate in order to make up their minds to vote for him or her? A candidate for president can't go door to door in the entire country. Perhaps he can't even drop into every state, but so what? Can't people watch TV, surf the web, read newspapers and magazines and find out everything they need to know? It's nice to be in the physical presence of the candidate, I'm sure, but to have your vote depend upon that???

Best case scenario for Obama's travels - he is a hit wherever he goes, and no one in his campaign says anything untoward - the Repubs will be scrutinizing everything like hawks for any sign of gaffes or flip-flops (ANOTHER pet peeve - the views and policies of a candidate SHOULD evolve, become refined, shade, etc. etc. - as knowledge increases, as circumstances change. Do people want another "W" who would stubbornly "stay the course" no matter what?)