CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The only reason I hope Clark wins the nomination.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The only reason I hope Clark wins the nomination.

post #1 of 31
12/8/03 at 4:26pm
Thread Starter 
Clark is the one candidate who I really think could whip the shit out of Bush in a debate. He has the credibility of military service (even if a scandal breaks about why he was discharged, its better than whatever Bush did in the National Guard). He's a good speaker and he has relatively normal looks and manerisms. I'd love to see Bush square off with a man who speaks 4 languages and actually knows something about foreign policy.
Reply
post #2 of 31
12/8/03 at 4:27pm
What languages does he speak?

I don't think he's going to beat Dean, BTW.
Reply
post #3 of 31
12/8/03 at 4:48pm
I'm from Arkansas, and I really wanted Clark to do well and was excited when he announced his candidacy. However, the longer this goes on, the more it looks to me like he's just not ready. It frustrates me that he seems to be trying to play the game by the pre-established rules rather than doing the "outsider," forthright and honest, direct answers to direct questions sort of thing which is how he seemed to be starting out.

Maybe he'll straighten out and prove me wrong (I hope he does), but I agree he's a long shot to beat Dean. I could see him as a very viable vice-pres candidate, though.
Reply
post #4 of 31
12/8/03 at 4:49pm
I take it that there is no socialist candidate?
Reply
post #5 of 31
12/8/03 at 4:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentOrange: Stainless Steel Rat
I take it that there is no socialist candidate?
You mean besides Clark and Dean?
Reply
post #6 of 31
12/8/03 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by thomas.galvin
You mean besides Clark and Dean?
I'm not totally sure that either meets Karl Marx's criteria. <g>
Reply
post #7 of 31
12/8/03 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
What languages does he speak?

I don't think he's going to beat Dean, BTW.
Correct me if I'm wrong...

English, Russian, German, & Spanish.
Reply
post #8 of 31
12/8/03 at 5:47pm
Unfortunately, beating Bush in the debates is absolutely meaningless. It didn't make a difference when Gore outdueled him in 2000, and it won't make a difference in this election either.

The media will just focus on Bush's "presence" and ability to hold his own despite his intellectual mediocrity. They'll declare Bush to be the winner, without even discussing the content of the debate itself.
Reply
post #9 of 31
12/8/03 at 5:49pm
Bush benefited so much from low expectations in the Gore debates, he'd have had to actually piss himself on stage to lose. I mean, I remember people literally saying, 'Well, he wasn't NEARLY as bad as we THOUGHT he'd be!' as if that was some kind of victory.

But obviously it worked.

[edited to add]

"Fuzzy math!"
Reply
post #10 of 31
12/8/03 at 7:10pm
Thread Starter 
I don't think Clark will win the nomination.

I also don't think Gore did that great a job in the debates, he kept on going after Bush, and looked like a prick. Yeah, he was doing the right thing, but not the smart thing.

You imagine Clark and Bush are debating and they get thrown a military service question? Imagine Bush having to actually defend his record as a national guardsmen? He'd get walloped. It would be at least fun to watch.
Reply
post #11 of 31
12/8/03 at 7:12pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Ben (formally Ned Fats)

You imagine Clark and Bush are debating and they get thrown a military service question? Imagine Bush having to actually defend his record as a national guardsmen? He'd get walloped. It would be at least fun to watch.
It would do nothing, if it was an effective tactic, he would have already used it against Dean. Kerry has been doing that, to no avail, as he slips further into oblivion.
Reply
post #12 of 31
12/8/03 at 7:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Ben (formally Ned Fats)

I also don't think Gore did that great a job in the debates, he kept on going after Bush, and looked like a prick. Yeah, he was doing the right thing, but not the smart thing.

Yes, let's talk about how much of a jerk Gore was, constantly hammering away at Bush. Whatever we do, let's not discuss whatever it was he was saying. Everyone repeated that whole "Gore was a prick" mantra until the actual FACTS of the debate were forgotten.

Instead of the dumbass getting called on his "fuzzy math" comment, we heard scores of political commentators complaining about Gore looking at his watch impatiently.
Reply
post #13 of 31
12/8/03 at 7:33pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gio Angles
Yes, let's talk about how much of a jerk Gore was, constantly hammering away at Bush. Whatever we do, let's not discuss whatever it was he was saying. Everyone repeated that whole "Gore was a prick" mantra until the actual FACTS of the debate were forgotten.

Instead of the dumbass getting called on his "fuzzy math" comment, we heard scores of political commentators complaining about Gore looking at his watch impatiently.
Hey man, I agree with you but that does not mean shit. People dont care about the facts. They care about who comes out looking better. And in that debate, they came out about the same.
Reply
post #14 of 31
12/8/03 at 9:06pm
Everything about politics is spin and apparances, after all, an election is mostly a popularity contest.

When we reach Utopia, you'll get people to win on the merits. Until then, enjoy the show.
Reply
post #15 of 31
12/8/03 at 9:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Ben (formally Ned Fats)
Hey man, I agree with you but that does not mean shit. People dont care about the facts. They care about who comes out looking better. And in that debate, they came out about the same.
It's been that way since they started televising debates. It's back to the old Nixon-Kennedy debate, where those listening to it thought Nixon won (because they had to listen), while those who saw it thought Kennedy won (because he looked much better than Nixon). Ever since then message has mattered some (i.e. Ford and his Soviet Union comment in '76), but appearance has mattered more.
Reply
post #16 of 31
12/8/03 at 10:46pm
I'd reccomend watching Clark on Hardball tonight. It was the most painful interview I've ever seen. An absolute trainwreck about half-way through the program.
Reply
post #17 of 31
12/8/03 at 10:51pm
MJZ, care to provide any details. Clark doesn't do well in these talk show interviews. Wish is surprising, he did very well as a commentator for CNN, but now he just seems nervous and strange.
Reply
post #18 of 31
12/8/03 at 10:57pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sorro
It's back to the old Nixon-Kennedy debate, where those listening to it thought Nixon won (because they had to listen), while those who saw it thought Kennedy won (because he looked much better than Nixon).
Is there any sort of factual evidence other than anecdotes that confirms this? I've heard this story repeated ad nauseum, but it smacks of urban legend if you ask me. And I'm pretty sure there were televised debates before Nixon-Kennedy...
Reply
post #19 of 31
12/8/03 at 11:00pm
Matthews pressed him on why he got fired from NATO, to which Clark kept insisting that he wasn't fired, but was "asked to retire early." You really have to see it for yourself. It's so awkward, and aside from his supporters in the crowd, there were moments of dead silence. He kept telling these stories that didn't seem to go anywhere, it was just weird. Hell, they even played a clip of Schwarzkopf blasting him. One of the faculty asked him an economic issue, and the look on her face after his response was just priceless. Oh well.
Reply
post #20 of 31
12/8/03 at 11:00pm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/preside..._politics.html

Quote:
Before the debate began, public opinion polls showed a close race between the two men. But the television cameras changed that. An estimated 75 million viewers, at the time the largest television audience ever, saw a contrast between Nixon and Kennedy that had nothing to do with political positions. Nixon, who was recovering from a recent illness, appeared haggard and pale. He wore a five o'clock shadow and perspired profusely. His makeup ran under the hot studio lights. Kennedy looked fit, relaxed and handsome. He exuded confidence and poise.

The power of these televised images revealed itself in post-debate polls. Many radio listeners gave the edge to Nixon. Television viewers, however, overwhelmingly agreed that Kennedy had won. By their next debate, Nixon had solved his appearance problems, but the damage was done. Kennedy had strengthened his bond to a medium which would significantly influence the course of his presidency.
Reply
post #21 of 31
12/9/03 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Ben (formally Ned Fats)
Hey man, I agree with you but that does not mean shit. People dont care about the facts. They care about who comes out looking better. And in that debate, they came out about the same.

Does the media not report on the pertinent issues because the public doesn't care, or does the public not care about the facts because the media glosses over them?


My feelings lean towards the latter, but even if you think it's the former, that doesn't absolve the media from its responsibility, especially considering its claims to legitimate "fair & balanced" reporting of the facts. This isn't just against Fox News in particular, but the mass media in general.
Reply
post #22 of 31
12/9/03 at 2:33pm
It's not the media's fault if people watched a debate and licked one candidate over the other, for whatever reasons.
Reply
post #23 of 31
12/9/03 at 4:55pm
Heh heh...licked...

Oh, and Clinton didn't fire Clark, Cohen fired Clark for going around Cohen on many issues.
Reply
post #24 of 31
12/9/03 at 5:38pm
Did Gore go after Bush?

Whenever I watched it was "I believe in this, I agree, I agree too."

Both canadates always looked the same. The problem was whenever Gore went for a blow it was based it stats which many people don't trust anyway. Gore never seemed to go on Bush for obvious lies (the drunk driving record, Bush's own service record), but instead acted rather sure of himself that he could rest on his Vice President record.
Reply
post #25 of 31
12/9/03 at 5:55pm
Truthfully, and from the position of outsider looking in, I often struggle to identify one US conservat … sorry … politician apart from another.

In fact, I half suspect that the majority of them are fabricated (as considerably less than 'Alpha-Plus') inside a Huxleyesque mass-production hatchery, no doubt located in Texas.
Reply
post #26 of 31
12/9/03 at 5:57pm
John F'ing Kerry is a genetically engineenered politician, bred and trained in an underground factory for the express purpose of creating the perfect politician.

Besides him and Kucinich, the rest of them a semi normal humans. There might be an alien Lizard among them, you never know.
Reply
post #27 of 31
12/9/03 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
It's not the media's fault if people watched a debate and licked one candidate over the other, for whatever reasons.

If the various network TV political commentators spend an overwhelming amount of time talking about meaningless shit like "Gore repeatedly cleared his throat in a rude manner", while praising Bush for overacheiving by not saying something really asinine, then how do you expect the public to think?

The candidates debated, the news programs judged them by whatever arbitrary qualities they felt were important, and everyone woke up the next day and glanced at the news ticker to see who the consensus "winner" was.
Reply
post #28 of 31
12/9/03 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gio Angles
If the various network TV political commentators spend an overwhelming amount of time talking about meaningless shit like "Gore repeatedly cleared his throat in a rude manner", while praising Bush for overacheiving by not saying something really asinine, then how do you expect the public to think?
If they're smart enough to vote, they ought to be smart enough to do their own thinking and filter in and out the information they chose. They are not forced to listen to the commentary, nor do they have to, that's why we have C-SPAN.
Reply
post #29 of 31
12/9/03 at 6:12pm
I agree that you have to take responsibility for getting your facts straight and determining your own opinion independent of the talking heads, esp. given the sensationalist bent of the American media today and the obsession with being the first to declare a winner and the first to give incisive commentary (Where are you, Walter Cronkite? ). Since you can't rely on that, you have to research and separate fact from spin.

It is, however, very frustrating when you know that your well-informed, well-reasoned vote will be cancelled out by a vote from someone who liked the color of the other guy's tie better. But whatchagonnado? C'est la democracie.

It would be nice if the press did, in fact, try to focus on substance instead of form. I have the impression they used to, but I was too young to vote back then.

[edited to say]
This is why I enjoy watching the BBC news. It may not be spin free, but it seems closer, at least to my dazzled American eyes.
Reply
post #30 of 31
12/9/03 at 8:42pm
Hey, sensationalism isn't so bad, it helps spark the economy in different ways. I like BBC news too, but mainly just for the format. In fact, I have to say that I miss watching more Brit programming, but I still really like the US's stuff.

Its 2004 and I'm still waiting for a cable or sattelite provider who can get me multiple countries' programming. Aren't we supposed to have flying cars by now? (BBC America doesn't count.)
Reply
post #31 of 31
12/10/03 at 2:45am
Thread Starter 
I didnt realize Clark had such a hard time in interviews. I've seen him on CSPAN, CNN and a good interview on PBS a while ago and he always seemed very well composed. I guess he's been shaky lately. Everything I've seen with Dean makes him look really bad.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The only reason I hope Clark wins the nomination.