goddess of clarity: a blog about politics, culture, and serenity

Archive: September 20 - October 3, 2004

October 1, 2004 — 10:00 EDT

I ended up watching last night's presidential debate in a classroom at Finger Lakes Community College. Tom Tomorrow of This Modern World fame gave a talk earlier in the evening, and then they screened the debate right afterwards, so it was an interesting venue and atmosphere. I'd say about 90% of the audience was pro-Kerry, and 100% was definitely anti-Bush.

Tom Tomorrow was pretty cool, though the man looks like he hasn't slept in two weeks. He opened his talk by pointing out that he's always being approached by people who say, "Boy it must be really easy being a political cartoonist these days. You've got such great material to work with, eh?" But he countered this with the only slightly tongue-in-cheek observation that it can sometimes be harder than it looks "trying to be more ridiculous than reality." He backed this up with a series of video clips of our president trying really hard to think and failing miserably. My personal favorite: "Tribal sovereignty means that it's sovereign."

The presentation was a perfect prelude for the festivities later in the evening. I really do think that all but the most ardent Bush-a-phile has to concede that John Kerry gave a much better performance than the president. The hyper-restrictive format -- complete with color-coded lights and a "backup buzzer system" -- must have helped him get to his points quickly and concisely. I thought he gave some really great rebuttals as well. When he called Bush on his not-so-subtle attempt to connect Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks again, our audience broke into applause.

Bush, on the other hand, seemed determined to return to his two or three points over and over and over again. I know that's supposed to be his strategy, but I honestly don't see how people can be impressed by it. I mean, did you know that being president was "hard work?" Cuz if you didn't, you should now; the president only said it about 15 times. In fact, it would have been much easier for all concerned if in response to each question Bush just held up a cue card that read, "There are a lot of good people working hard on that. It's hard work and we're making progress. But the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. And you can't win the war on terror by sending mixed messages."

Some other favorite moments from the debate:

• The split screen, though in Bush's case it's more like a "smirk screen." God, does that man have any other facial expressions?
• In his rebuttal to the question about how the two candidates differ on homeland security, Bush brushes off concerns about how Kerry would pay for his programs by saying, "Anyway, that's for another debate." Oh, yeah. Why get into all that now. We're only live in front of a national audience. I'm sure it can wait.
• Bush interrupts himself saying, "Would you let me finish..." when no one was trying to interrupt him!
• Our new word for the day is: transshipment.
• Kerry gets applause from our audience when he denounces U.S. efforts to build a new class of nuclear "bunker buster" bombs while demanding that other nations give up their nuclear programs. On the next question, Bush draws boos from our crowd for his support of missile defense.

I'll have to check out the network news tonite and maybe even watch a bit of Fox (shudder) to see which tidbits are being highlighted for those who didn't actually watch the debate. Meanwhile, the vice presidential debate is coming up next week. That one should be a doozy! Smiles vs. scowls at 20 paces.

—lori.

September 29, 2004 — 16:50 EDT

Well, I didn't expect the Commission on Presidential Debates to adopt my suggested format, so in that spirit, may I offer...

The Top Ten Questions You Won't Hear at Tomorrow's Presidential Debate

1. Who are you wearing?
2. If heaven exists, what would you expect God to say when you arrive at the pearly gates?
3. Seriously, what's with the air conditioning? I'm f**kin' freezing in here!
4. What would you say to the 70% of Americans who are not watching tonite's debate? And you may want to speak up, cuz maybe some of them are in the next room or something.
5. If they had a battle, who do you think would win: Jim Lehrer or Charles Gibson?
6. Teresa Heinz Kerry or Lynne Cheney?
7. What's the fastest land mammal?
8. Just between you and me, Don Rumsfeld's totally lost it, hasn't he? Not like "funny crazy" but "scary crazy," right?
9. How many new terrorists would you say we're creating every day in Iraq and have those numbers met with, exceeded, or fallen short of your expectations?
10. If you knew then what you know now, would you still have gone with that tie?

—lori.

September 22, 2004 — 13:15 EDT

A bow of the head, or possibly the breast, to filmmaker Russ Meyer, who died today at the age of 82. I've only seen one of his films, the immortal Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, but in that film alone you can see how great a pioneer Meyer was. Leather-clad women kicking ass and taking names? In 1965?! Here's to you, Russ!

—lori.

September 20, 2004 — 22:55 EDT :: permalink

Photos are up from James' and Julie's wedding. If you have a hankering for sporran, and a tolerance of bagpipes, check 'em out.

—lori.

September 20, 2004 — 14:15 EDT

While sitting on my couch eating a string cheese snack, I had it. An idea, that is. An idea for how to run the perfect presidential debate. This one would work. And by "work" I mean that the candidates would actually have to tell the electorate meaningful things, and the electorate would in turn actually learn stuff. Not bad, I thought.

Now, I know that the people who decide these things aren't likely to consult me. And even if they did, they wouldn't follow my advice since my goals for the debates are usually the opposite of theirs: allow the candidates to spin their talking points for a couple hours while the general population learns absolutely nothing and goes back to watching "The Amazing Race." But I present my idea here anyway.

In my setup, there are four journalists and two candidates (sorry, Ralph). Journalist #1 asks Candidate #1 (let's call him "Bush") a question. Bush has five minutes to respond (an eternity in debate-time). Journalist #1 then asks Bush a follow-up question based on his answer. Bush has 90 seconds to respond. Then Candidate #2 (let's call him "Kerry") gets three minutes for rebuttal on this question. And finally, Journalist #1 asks Kerry a follow-up question based on his rebuttal, with Kerry having 90 seconds to respond. Then the whole thing starts again with Journalist #1 asking Kerry a question. We continue in this vein until each of the four journalists has asked each of the two candidates two questions.

By my math the debate would take about two hours, if you include time for opening and closing statements. And in case you haven't figured it out, the key to this format is that endangered species of journalism, the follow-up question. Instead of candidates rebutting each other with their talking points, they would have to respond to a reporter, who would ask a relevant, specific question about the answer the candidate has just given. I may be naive, but I think the tendency to spin would be reduced if a candidate knew he was going to get called out for it.

Anyway, that's my idea. Not that earth-shattering when I see it in print, but certainly way too radical for the Commission on Presidential Debates. Since they're still hung up on format, maybe they should just let each candidate submit a PowerPoint presentation and Jim Lehrer can just click through them for us.

—lori.