Anyone going to watch the presidential debate?

I will, if I can stay awake. Although its not going to be much of a debate, since the entire proceeding is canned.

I want to see Kerry sporting his new orange glow tan in a bottle. Maybe it'll melt off under the heat of the lights. Should be good for a laugh or two.

 

Unfortunatly I think I am going to make myself watch it.

I just know something funny is going to happen!

 

It may be interesting, the rules they have put in place makes it more of an interview than a debate. It would be better if they could address each other directly.

 

I'd rather see James Carvel and whoever's handling GWB go at it. It would be a lot more savvy and funny (mostly black humor) than the stiff and slow posturing we're going to see with the candidates onstage.

 

Depends on how long I have to work tonight. Got quite a few things to get thru at the shop. I guess I can put it on TiVo but that would be waisting valuable recording space

 

I'll watch it. Not for fun, but because it's part of an important process. Will be interesting to see which John Kerry shows up to debate... there's been so many of him.

 

Saw something on our news: Bush's 'team' or whatever are wanting to make the studio really warm, because apparently Kerry sweats a lot, and exaggerating this will turn off women voters.

I don't know what that has to do with politics, or issues, or how capable he is of running the country.

It's so petty, we're talking about someone who is going to have power over the most influential country in the world, and some people are going to choose who they vote for based on something like that. We have the same sort of thing happen in the country, of course we do (where America goes....etc ) If you're short, bald, over weight, wonky teeth, funny voice, you won't get far in politics, not enough people will see beyond that.
It scares me a little too, all that power, and it's all a popularity contest, oopth, look, there I go again stating the obvious.

Bah, people.

 

It would also be better if Nader was involved with it.

 

Actually Kerry's camp wanted to set the thermostat below 73deg because he's a sweater and Bush objected.

 

Aaah, is that how it happened? All I saw was a short, thirty scond piece on it on last nights news. Looks like the 'story' got twisted somewhere along the way. Cheers.

I still stand by my point that it's all based on looks, and public appeal
...but then that's not politics, I suppose that's life.

 

You're quite correct. The first campaign debate between Nixon and Kennedy, IIRC, was the first televised debate over here. Those that saw the debate on TV thought that Kennedy won. Those that heard it on the radio, hearing ONLY the words, all thought that Nixon won. The difference? Kennedy was better looking, had a better smile, looked confident. Nixon was homely, didn't project a confident demeanor in his stance and movements, and he sweat a lot. Kennedy wore a suit that stood out against the background in the room, and Nixon wore a suit that didn't. He tended to fade into the background a bit. Form over stubstance: Nixon won the substance (ideas), Kennedy won the cosmetics. In a very close election, Kennedy won. Likely that one debate was enough to tip the scales in his favor.

Sad, but true. Even more true today than then.

 

Heh, great example.

I suppose then it's natural..well, to an extent, I believe we can overcome some of our natural instincts. We claim to be higher than the animals anyway, how true that is..
But is the appeal of the alpha male intinctive, or something that's been drilled into us.
GT, this is aimed at you! (well, anyone) Any thoughts? cuz you is, like, clever an' stuff.

 

(shrug) Scientists claim that the only instinct a human is born with is the instinct to suck/eat, so it shouldn't be instinctive. But our tendency to pick alpha males as leaders goes back to the caveman days, when the "leader" physically protected... and controlled... the group, by physical strength. But we're so prone to pick an alpha male as leader, especially in time of war/threat/crisis, even when a short/fat/ugly man may be intellectually superior, that it almost looks to be instinctive.

Even in industry, tall men are more likely to be promoted and given leader/management rolls than short men. In the office, where size & strength don't mean anything. How stupid is that?

 

That's a personal bug of mine. If someone is going to make as important choice as this, they better do their research or not vote at all. Yes I said not vote. Too make people voting based on irrelevant factors, or because their friend is voting that way, or just voting the party line without knowing who the person is, what he stands for or (yes) if he is still alive.

 

Roosevelt woudn't be present if there were televised debates then...

or television...

 

Possibly not. He had an imposing presence, and a STRONG speaking voice, great for radio (and he made great use of radio), but polio, leg braces, and wheelchairs are not good for the macho image.

The press back then tacitly agreed to hide his infirmities. He was NEVER photograhed for public distribution in his wheel chair, or struggling to get to his feet. Or waddling along with his braces and canes.

He WAS photographed smoking, and I find it bizarre that some advocates today try to photo-edit cigarettes and cigars out of historical photos.

 

I'll give the same answer here I gave at another site:

I wanted to watch them...but then I saw the list of rules for both the candidates and the media, and I've come to the conclusion that there's no point. This isn't a debate, it's a public forum for both candidates to state their positions without being allowed to ask each other questions, or really in any way react with one another. And if they DO react to something the other candidate says, the media isn't allowed to show it, they're only allowed to show the candidate which is currently speaking.

It's like a dog and pony show, except not quite that interesting.

 

Ah, seems to explain it, why I pointed it at you.

*sigh* Very Heh, I'm hardly an alpha female, but then I don't want power, oh no Hopefully some, or enough people can see beyond that in life, I half hoped I was being slightly pessimistic and underestimating people.

 

Preview of tonight's media extravaganza.

 

I don't know what time or station the debates will be on. If necessary, I'll catch it online...Maybe a written out transcription so that I can have a less biased medium to view it on.

I'm curious what process you mean. If it's the election process you speak of, I don't see what you'd gain from viewing it because it appears as if you've already decided that Kerry is an unfit candidate.

 

8:00 Central, 9:00 Eastern. I haven't looked, but it's normally on all the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS).

I may not gain much personally from this one, as I HAVE already made up my mind. But I'm always interested in what they say and how they come across. All the talking heads will tell us what they said, and how well they said it, but I'd rather see for myself.

 

Word.

 

Just a quick plug:

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

 

Okay...I'm watching the debate, and trying to be as unbiased as possible, but Bush is getting stomped.

I expected more from him. He trips over his words WAY too much. He definitely not a good debater by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Place your vote for who think did best tonight:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123733/

 

No, he's not. Supposedly he's much better and more persuasive in simple one-on-one talk, and interacting with groups personally, but he's NOT a skilled debater. No surprise there, he wasn't in the last election either.

Shocking! ABC, commenting after, just brought up a glaring error on Kerry's part. He'd talked about having spent over $200 billion in Iraq already, and griped that it could have gone for health care etc. here at home. ABC pointed out that we've spent "only" ~ 112 billion. ABC usually isn't that picky, expecially about a Democratic argument.

 

I only had the stomach to watch for an hour before becoming sick. Good thing the debate is not the only means to evaluate who is more qualified.

Bush was a stammering, blabbering idiot who did not even see the opportunities take it to Kerry (even though I was screaming at him to attack now.) Kerry is a good speaker, but in accuarate in his statements.

Good thing being president doesn't require quick snap decisions.