Are you watching the debates?
I don't know about you, but after I found out that the debates are going to have canned questions and canned responses, no rebuttals, none of the features that you'd expect from, you know, an actual debate...I'm not interested. The candidates aren't going to be debating each other. They're going to be giving statements.
We know what their statements are going to be. What's the point?
We know what their statements are going to be. What's the point?
posted by Robert at
3:53 PM
3 Comments:
Well, as you might have expected, it did turn into more of a real debate -- primarily with shrub anxiously needing to rebut Kerry's points.
And yeah, boy, did some of Kerry's points land :-)
By
David Adam Edelstein, at 8:36 AM
Isn't that always the way? Sigh. I'll have to read up on it this morning. I did see this morning on the television a series of clips of Bush's reactions to what Kerry was saying.
You know that if I watch the next one, nothing will happen.
By
Robert, at 9:15 AM
(Dan): The words were predictable, but the way they were said (by Kerry) and the way they were received (by Bush) was where the debate was "won" and "lost."
Interestingly, the agreed upon "rules" of the debate were supposed to prohibit the TV cameras from showing reactions of the non-speaking candidate. But Fox, who had control over the pool cameras, ignored that and offered a split screen that always showed a confident Kerry smiling confidently and an increasingly desperate Bush grimacing and looking ready to explode but never having the words to do so when his turn came to speak.
A side note: the first couple split screens put the two men at the same eye-level and showed how much taller Kerry is. Bush's podium was too big for him. But they adjusted his camera partway through and put their heads at the same level - with more of Bush's podium showing. Leave it to Fox to try to be so "balanced" (and untruthful).
By
Anonymous, at 11:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home