likearock 2 #1 October 5, 2004 All those split screen cutaway shots that the DNC is displaying prominently on its web site would not have been possible if a different network were controlling the camera pool. After the CBS scandal, I doubt that CNN or MSNBC would have had the balls to defy the "no cutaway" rule agreed to by both campaigns. Kerry supporters should acknowledge there is a value to Fox after all! Wayne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #2 October 5, 2004 Here's what I don't understand: If you're not fact checking his statements, Kerry has always been smooth as a porcelain john. Bush on the other hand, has never had a great presentation for live Q&A. If all the people out there are saying Kerry won solely because he had a bit better "stlye and grace," why the hell did they bother to watch? Those facts have long been in evidence with no contention. What the hell happened to what a candidate said being important to a race at least more so than how he said it?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f1shlips 2 #3 October 5, 2004 QuoteThose facts have long been in evidence with no contention. Umm, everytime I had seen him before the debate, he always came across (to me) as a snotty north-easterner who would bitch about the temperature of his brie. His debate performance was impressive to me. QuoteWhat the hell happened to what a candidate said being important to a race at least more so than how he said it? I already know what they are going to say. I've been following the elections, downloaded their "Agenda for America" and now I want to see how they handle themselves under pressure in the harsh glare of the spotlight. These aren't debates, they're just taking turns reading bullet points. As long as no one gaffes, nothing happens.-- drop zone (drop'zone) n. An incestuous sesspool of broken people. -- Attributed to a whuffo girlfriend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #4 October 5, 2004 >If all the people out there are saying Kerry won solely because he had >a bit better "stlye and grace," why the hell did they bother to watch? Keep in mind that not everyone is aware of Kerry's speaking style; a lot of people saw him for the first time at those debates. Not everyone is into politics. Also, I've seen several people here on this very board who are presumably clued in to how he speaks, yet do not think he is a good public speaker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #5 October 5, 2004 So we can thank Fox for being able to see our President act like an ass on national tv? Sorry, I think you're giving them way too much credit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #6 October 6, 2004 I was hoping to read about a main..... "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #7 October 6, 2004 QuoteKeep in mind that not everyone is aware of Kerry's speaking style; a lot of people saw him for the first time at those debates. I think he had a lot of anti-windbag training before the debates. Shorter breaths. Shorter sentences. Too bad the content didn't change much. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #8 October 6, 2004 >I think he had a lot of anti-windbag training before the debates. >Shorter breaths. Shorter sentences. Agreed. I think Bush has improved as a public speaker as well. Complete sentences. Longer words. Better pronunciation (usually.) He seemed better at articulating his thoughts than he has in the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #9 October 6, 2004 QuoteLonger words. Nucularization if Iran? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites