From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:48:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu's message of 16 Oct 92 13:42:02 GMT

anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
|isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
|>Bush:
|>	very presidential
|>	relaxed.  Shouldn't have looked at his watch so much.
|>	He fucked up--and I use those words quite on purpose--on one
|>		question:  "how has this bad economy affected you?"
|>		While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I think he left the
|>		impression that he couldn't quite connect with the
|>		personal pain (he also faced a hostile questioner on
|>		this I think).  He did the worst on this.... even
|>		Billionare Perot gave the impression that he
|>		understood the concept of pain even if he couldn't
|>		honestly say he had felt any the last four years.

|I don't think Bush fucked up at all.  That's the way its been played,  
|but think of the actual questions.  The question didn't make sense:
|"How has the debt (or deficit?) affected you?".  It hasn't affected
|*anyone* yet.  Bush, somewhat astutely, pointed that out by saying that
|it will affect his grandchildren.  (So did Perot.)  Clinton modified the
|question to be "How has the recession affected you?".  Of course, it
|didn't affect him either.  But he managed to concoct some homey story 
|about some couple he met on his travels around the country.

The question, literally, may have been "how has the debt affected you"
but the the real question that it implied--and how I think most folx
heard it--was "can you convince me that you understnad that I am in
pain and that you care?"

Bush when he answered it didn't understand the implications of the
question and flubbed it because of that, reinforcing the idea that he
doesn't really care or think that things are all that bad.  Whether
he's right or not is irrelevant.

If you read the question literally you miss the point.  If you read it
for what its asking--almost pleading--you understand that its your
chance to connect.  Perot did that, Clinton did it even better and
Bush just missed a great opportunity.

And, of course, the deficit has affected Bush:  it's lowered his
chances of getting re-elected.

|>Clinton:
|>	very presidential
|>	relaxed.
|>	On every single question, he said "Let me give you five (or 2
|>		or 3 or 4) quick answers/solutions/points."  I can't
|>		wait to see if this is seen as Wooden and
|>		Rehearsed(tm) or as Specific(tm).
|>		I think he managed to actually pull it off as
|>		Specific(tm) this time.
|>	Oh, and he managed to go last almost all the time.  Tactically
|>		brillant.
|>
|>


|Well, he was obviously very well rehearsed.  But to his credit, he didn't
|come of as slick or smarmy like he and Gore did in earlier debates.

|Don't get me wrong, the thing with enumerating your points to make them 
|seem like !Real Solutions! is pretty slick.  However, I don't think
|many people will see it this way

I think you're wrong on your guess.

|>I admit it.  I was happy with the debate format.  I can't even think
|>of any real soundbites....

|You must not've listened to Perot!

They weren't very soundbiteish.

|Actually, I heard the exact same answers from all three candidates 
|today as  I heard in the first debate.  It seemed to me that it was
|merely a second chance at presentation.  Perot lost 'cause he sounded
|the same.  Bush won mildly because he was solid.  Clinton won more 
|because he knew the moves to make wrt/ the audience and the stage.

Well, they've been saying the same thing for the last year.  So what?
That isn't the real point of the debates (whether it should be is
something else altogether).  If they've come up with ideas and have
had them for a year why should they "come up with something new"?
What am I missing?

(Every time someone complains that Perot isn't giving solutions, I
think:  of course he has, read his book--disagree with it, but don't
complain that he hasn't proposed anything).



--
Peace.
"The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife,-- this
 longing to attain a self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into
 a better and truer self...He would not Africanize America, for 
 America has too much to teach the world and Africa.  He would not bleach
 his Negro soul in a flood of white Americanism, for he knows that Negro
 blood has a message for the world."
                          - W. E. B. DuBois 
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot