Skip

the debate is on
October 3, 2000 7:17 PM   Subscribe

the debate is on and I've learned two things
posted by rebeccablood (57 comments total)

 
1) it doesn't matter how pointed or smart the questions asked are: you can't make a man answer them. these guys just riff on their platform instead of answering anything that is asked of them.

I can only surmise that the candidates don't believe they can count on the voters to go read the platforms themselves: this is their only chance to get the message out.

2) the worst disservice ronald reagan did to this country was to introduce the anecdote into political discussion. every third question both of these guys will say, "let me tell you a little story" and then they will refer to "joe schmoe, who's here in the audience." I don't remember this being part of the political horizon before reagan; if anyone can think of a prior president who did this, please tell me and I'll quit slandering ronnie.

I guess I'm old fashioned: I'd like to see a *debate* where these guys talk about their differing philosophies and approaches instead of just bringing out--again--the brimides of the campaign trail.

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 7:22 PM on October 3, 2000


Watch with the sound turned off. If you cannot hear the words they seem like they are being tortured.
I sure do agree with Ms. Blood's comments.
posted by thirteen at 7:39 PM on October 3, 2000


Painful.

That whole bloody thing was painful to listen to (let's hear it for the little transistor radio in my cube). I wish I'd seen it, just to watch the facial contortions they were going through (I'm getting this off the post-game commentary on my local NPR affiliate).

I wasn't sure what was funnier: Al's continued interruption or Georgie's continued continuation. Broken records, the both of 'em.

As much as I think Buchanan is, well, an evil swine, I would have loved to have had him in this. He certainly would have been more entertaining. And Nader, I'm still convinced, would have ripped Al and George many new orifices, which would have been a different kind of entertainment.

Rah, rah, democracy. Time to go to Amsterdam.
posted by RakDaddy at 7:49 PM on October 3, 2000


The Nader supporters here may be interested to know he was turned away at the door
posted by owillis at 7:49 PM on October 3, 2000


I remember reading somewhere a European commenting that Americans don't really have politics. And I noticed tonight that if you sort of screw your eyes up, your can't tell which one is which. Seems about right.
posted by tranquileye at 7:54 PM on October 3, 2000


my fav part was when bush said that "at risk" basically mean's they can't learn and then clarified that by saying they're hispanic
posted by palegirl at 8:00 PM on October 3, 2000


What I found intriguing was that they both used the same argument on different points. Bush complained that the Democrats thought the government was better suited to know how to spend your money, while the Republicans wanted to give the power to the people to decide how to spend the money. Meanwhile, Gore complained that the Republicans thought the government was better suited to know how you should live your lives (this was specifically about abortion, but I think he was also saying that it applies in general), while the Democrats wanted to give the power to the people to decide how to live their lives.

To a certain extent, I think both Bush and Gore are correct in their criticisms of the opposing parties. Neither commented, however, on how they felt about the innate contradiction in both parties' platforms. Are you for more individual liberty or not? Democrats are for it except in the areas of guns and money. Republicans are for it except in the areas of morality and religion. Blah!
posted by daveadams at 8:08 PM on October 3, 2000


g0re ownz j00 2*U!

You guys might’ve been bored by that debate but, DAMN Gore knows how to do it. True, it got off to a swaggering start, and Leher had to ask the first question to Gore twice (he never did answer, really). Every state Gore mentioned was either Democratic or swing. When he mentioned Texas, it was a total zing to Bush. He made it seem like FEMA bailed him out of a few natural disasters. W’s failed attempts at humor (“[Gore] invented the calculator.” What?) made him look even more gauche than he comes off naturaly.

Leher asked several times what the difference between them are. That’s a sad commentary, don’t you think?

But, you know. Whatever. I’m voting Nader. That story above about him getting turned away at the door. Man. That’s terrible. Seriously, was Ralph gonna get up on stage and moon everybody?

posted by capt.crackpipe at 8:12 PM on October 3, 2000


The format was very stiff. They were both very constrained (although I think that structure probably helped Bush more than Gore) I think that doomed the thing.

But I must add that Bush was frightingly poor on Yugoslavia, the military and the financial emergency question. Especially the foreign policy stuff though, he was just completely out of his league.
posted by mikel at 8:26 PM on October 3, 2000


I noticed that Bush kept trying to use canned lines (ala Reagan's "There you go again...") at inappropriate times. And the audience wasn't helping him because they actually managed to keep quiet as requested.
posted by smackfu at 8:34 PM on October 3, 2000


I tuned in during the foreign policy section. I thought Bush was going to puke. He looked green. Gore looked presidential and he looked like he knew what he was talking about. Bush stammered, stuttered, and looked really upset that he was being asked these questions.

Score one for Gore.
posted by solistrato at 8:48 PM on October 3, 2000


Bush may have been out of his league, Gore may have 'owned him' and the audience didn't go posse during the debates to support Bush.

But MSNBC.com users sure like the guy from Texas.

Before you flame me, I just think it's intersting what kind of leap Bush has over Gore in this "people's poll."
posted by Brilliantcrank at 8:50 PM on October 3, 2000


Unlike the real world, the web is still skewed to the right (present site excluded) with Libertarians and Republicans having a stronger presence online.
posted by owillis at 8:54 PM on October 3, 2000


That spike may be a result of the email the Republican National Committee's chairman sent out to everyone telling the folks on the list to hit online polls and starting pumping up numbers.

Nothing like using the enemy's own propaganda machine for your benefit...
posted by RakDaddy at 9:17 PM on October 3, 2000


Bizarre. The Brit's perspective (and remember, I'm to the left of both candidates):

* I wish Gore would answer the bloody questions. The word "infomercial" keeps coming through; he's like a smart actor given stupid lines.

* Gore's remark towards Bush's comment on the role of Russia in Yugoslavia was cheap and uncalled for. Bush had been well briefed: the diplomacy from Moscow will be more influential than that from Washington. And the right answer was "the situation isn't one we can control; we just have to watch attentively." And both candidates said it.

* The format favoured Gore, because he knows how to dominate a debate. He intervenes politely, gets the last word, shapes the tone.

* Bush. Well, "at risk" meaning "they can't learn" and "Hispanic" got laughs from my audience (all Americans, I must note). "No, the Governor says you can't learn" was one comment. "Miss, I can't learn today -- I'm at risk." was another

* The turning point, for me, was 10 minutes from the end. Bush fluffed his lines on "character", when he had them there for the taking. And Gore jumped at it like a boxer seeing a weak defence. Those couple of minutes were the ones he'd been waiting for all night. And he took the chance to assert himself with aplomb.

But yeah, it's distressingly weak. In Sydney today, an opposition politician called the minister in charge of the Olympics a prime specimen of "the Australian bastard", because he'd persuaded the IOC to snub a colleague. And you just wish that kind of politics extended to the UK and the US.
posted by holgate at 9:23 PM on October 3, 2000


But it was noticeable that Gore made sure he pronounced both Serbian politicians' names properly on camera. And elucidated the status of the Yugoslav federation. Which was cheap and nasty, but a product of good briefing. At least he didn't name Maarti Ahtisaari outright...
posted by holgate at 9:28 PM on October 3, 2000


That's something I've not heard before - on what basis do you make that statement owillis? I don't mean to be contentious, I'm merely interested in where you heard of the web's right wing demographic.

I for one was playing soccer during the debates, and am proud of it. I did, however, make it home in time to catch Dark Angel - a horridly predictable program. Indeed, I expect it was not unlike the debate I so fortunately missed.

Of course, unlike the future debates, I expect I'll tune into Dark Angel again (albeit for entirely unwholesome reasons).
posted by aladfar at 9:28 PM on October 3, 2000


Oh, while it occurs to me: Gore reversed the usual TV thing of explaining things left to right from the viewer's perspective. Which meant that his "right hand = bad times = the Bush direction" worked pretty well.
posted by holgate at 9:33 PM on October 3, 2000


aladfar: I've heard it on numerous occasions and seen it borne out time and again. The earliest adopters of the web have been young, white, libertarian males. And while the numbers have been shifting towards the middle as more minorities and women get online - polls on online news sites, forums, etc. still show a slight right bent to them. But its changing, as this hotbed of leftist ideology right here on god ole Metafilter has shown you...
posted by owillis at 9:40 PM on October 3, 2000


About the MSNBC poll - I worked at MSNBC.com for over two years and was continually stunned at how right-wing the majority of users were (as evidenced by their votes in these opinion polls). These (very unscientific) opinion polls were consistently outside the norm - and yet hard to look away from, just like a train wreck of sorts.

I really wish Lehrer would mention nader/Buchanan inthe next debate - let Al & W defend the exclusion of other legitimate parties.
posted by kokogiak at 9:40 PM on October 3, 2000



How comes no one's mentioned the fact that they were dressed exactly the same? Am I the only one who found that a little strange? What are they, twins? At least Nader had a blue shirt on, and his red tie has some dots or specks or something. (I'm not sure why this seems significant to me even, but it does, I guess I'd hope there was some difference between the two candidates or something...)
posted by megnut at 9:47 PM on October 3, 2000


A good look at "early adopters" of the web would be slashdot which is slightly less left than metafilter. Web being right wing? Well, it depends what you click on.
posted by skallas at 9:48 PM on October 3, 2000


They were dressed and aligned in-camera so similarly, it reminded me of the Rage Against the machine video where they are depicted as two blob-like beings morphed into one very bland-looking "politician".

All I kept thinking was 'lowest common denominator' - they're trying to appeal to the great vast majority out there who still think "business suit=respectability".
posted by kokogiak at 9:52 PM on October 3, 2000



Holgate - it's funny - I thought the format most definitely favoured Bush. The order and heavy structure seemed to me to be a godsend for him - he could stick to a script much more closely and therefore stood less chance to screw up his lines.
posted by mikel at 9:59 PM on October 3, 2000


owillis knows whereof he speaks: Here's a bit of talk about the libertarian sentiments espoused by early net users. The Georgia Tech surveys have been useful, and might go toward establishing both the mainstreaming of the Web as captured by the shifting demographics over time.
posted by allaboutgeorge at 10:00 PM on October 3, 2000


I thought Gore did a fabulous job. He knew his stuff, and he knew how to point out when Bush didn't. He had figures that Bush had to try to dismiss as "fuzzy math" and provided real opinions (e.g. Supreme Court/Roe v Wade/abortion pill) when Bush only had confused platitudes.

I thought that Leher did a good job of finding exactly the differences between the candidates-- Gore is a social liberal with a Clintonesque moderate fiscal policy, and Bush is Bango the Monkey Boy! I like to climb on things! Can I have a banana? Ee-kake!
posted by shylock at 10:11 PM on October 3, 2000


Check out Yahoo's experiment where they actually make online votes into electoral votes and you see Bush winning in a landslide. Obviously not how the rest of America is voting.
posted by owillis at 10:40 PM on October 3, 2000


funny. a vote for monkeyboy is just a vote! and not much else.

meg, that is interesting. i noticed they both had red ties, but i didn't think about it. gore keeps saying he's his own man, but one mother dresses them both.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 11:01 PM on October 3, 2000


I was depressed and pessimistic before the debate, and I actually felt a little more hopeful after it — hopeful, in the sense, that I saw more of a difference between the two candidates.

In spite of the red ties.
posted by Zeldman at 11:20 PM on October 3, 2000


As someone who has been online since 1983, I can attest to the fact that the online community is more white, male, and affluent than the community at large. For this reason, it skews conservative. It used to be a huge disparity, but the increasing affordability of computers and the popularity of the Internet have narrowed the gap. You can't take online polls as any kind of serious indication of public sentiment, though it's fun to watch the Free Republic crowd get all worked up about their ability to rig a poll.

I was pleased with Gore's performance, though I heard a few more lines from his convention speech than I liked. I love wonky politicians who can't resist trotting out real numbers much more than feel-good politicians who run from them. I was surprised that Bush came off as likeable as he did on some questions, but some of his answers made him seem completely unprepared. Especially on RU-486 -- the president of the United States should defer to the head of the FDA on the subject of abortion pills?
posted by rcade at 11:54 PM on October 3, 2000


About the MSNBC poll - I worked at MSNBC.com for over two years and was continually stunned at how right-wing the majority of users were (as evidenced by their votes in these opinion polls).

Maybe Blogger should start advertising there... obviously, there's a vast right-wing market that has yet to be tapped for the weblog community.
posted by mikewas at 1:02 AM on October 4, 2000


aladfar and owillis: Yesterday's copy of USA Today has a column called eBriefing, by Janet Kornblum. Its second item reads as follows:
Republicans leading -- on the Net

Republicans outnumber Democrats online by an impressive 8.9 percentage points, according to a study by Media Metrix. Registered Republicans represent 36.8% of Web users; Democrats make up 27.9%. (The rest are with other parties or are unregistered.) Where do members of the two major parties go in cyberspace? No surprises: Six of the top 10 sites atracting GOP voters are finance-related, including TheStreet.com and Bigcharts.com. Seven of 10 sites for Democrats focus on providing free content and services, including AskMe.com and EZSweeps.com.
posted by allaboutgeorge at 1:12 AM on October 4, 2000


There are right-wingers in the weblogging community, MikeWas, as your own weblog attests. (I love the big wet kiss you wrote for Bush tonight, giving him a point for pronouncing the name of the Mexican president-elect correctly.)

Maybe there aren't as many blogging right-wingers as you'd like, but Metafilter started out as a community of web designers and graphic artist types. Know a lot of right-leaning art school grads?

If anyone wants to see a great example of how laughable online polls are, go to the Vote.Com poll on tonight's debate. The vote is 88 percent to 12 percent in favor of Bush, with 25,000 people responding.

posted by rcade at 1:15 AM on October 4, 2000


Tom Shales says Gore has a tendency to act like a cranky granny during campaign appearances. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Before this debate I was committed to voting for Gore, albeit halfheartedly (it was less of a vote for Gore than a vote against Dubya). This was a colossal bore, a waste of time, and a missed opportunity for the candidates to distinguish themselves. Pundits are saying that not many people's minds were changed after the debate. Mine was. I'm voting for Nader.
posted by likorish at 3:15 AM on October 4, 2000


Oh, and one other thing: boo-yah!
posted by allaboutgeorge at 3:49 AM on October 4, 2000


Am I the only one who found that a little strange? What are they, twins?

They were both dressed for television, in colours that don't fuzz or glare too much through the filter of NTSC: white shirts that don't accentuate any signs of perspiration, a red tie that creates a point of focus against the background screen.

Anyone up for repealing the two-term limit?
posted by holgate at 3:54 AM on October 4, 2000


Slashdot gets plenty right wing, I can't stand reading the comments.
posted by lagado at 4:47 AM on October 4, 2000


holgate, I think ex-PM Paul Keating might be available to do some consulting work to help lift the quality of debate in the US and UK.


posted by lagado at 5:01 AM on October 4, 2000


RE: Opinion polls, what, you've never deliberately picked the most outrageous possible answer? I sure do! Any news "pundits" who rely on online polls to do their heavy lifting gets what they deserve.

RE: Bush's silly "calculator" remark, jeez, that "Al Gore invented the internet" line is so over. Old, old old. After the "debate" ended last night, I envisioned what other old jokes Dubyah could have slipped in while he was at it:

GWB: The Vice President doesn't have the experience with dealing with (cocky bastard smirk) world leaders like I do. If the president of Russia calls on the "red phone", Al Gore will pick up the receiver and shout "WHAZZUP".

GWB: The United States has been called "The Big Island" by some. It's time to vote Al Gore off the island.

etc...I defer to the hucksters who want to riff on this.
posted by ethmar at 6:34 AM on October 4, 2000


The office of the Presidency is one of compromise. So, I had to laugh whenever Gore or Bush made it sound like they could really control and install their agendas if elected.

I will say that Gore looked and acted more presidential.

While I would say that the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans are minor, compared to party systems in other countries, what I find most critical is who each candidate will appoint to the Supreme Court. The Court's decisions are less ones of compromise than either the President's or the Congress'.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 6:37 AM on October 4, 2000


The other ridiculous notion repeatedly asserted by Dubyah was the idea that he was a "powerful leader" and a "Chief Executive". No George, you're a weak Governor of a big state that's teeming with blatant corruption, horrible pollution, substandard education...shall I continue? You basically sit there and WAIT to be told what to sign and what to veto.

Yes indeed, I'm in Texas, living the fantasy that is Bush's "vision".
posted by ethmar at 6:38 AM on October 4, 2000


I think people who had already made up their minds came to the conclusion that their canidate won.

I had not made up my mind and still haven't but Gore came off as over produced and overly made-up (less rouge next time Al). The know-it-all you love to hate. Bush didn't come off as stupid as people have come to believe.

Three more debates to go before I realize I'm gonna vote for Nader.
posted by Mick at 6:57 AM on October 4, 2000


Although the web is more libertarian than not, that doesn't make those who are libertarian republicans. I am a libertarian who hates republicans more than anyone. I also voted for Paul Wellstone. So go figure.

However, I've never felt more unrepresented than last night. How wretched was that? And now I'm going to vote for Nader because I just got the sickening feeling he's right.

posted by norm at 8:11 AM on October 4, 2000


Interesting phenomenon that may happen:

The debate may disgust so many undecided voters that Nader might actually make a good showing.

Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass?
posted by solistrato at 8:49 AM on October 4, 2000


Has it occured to anyone that the results of that mediametrix poll, *correctly* displayed, read like this:

Republicans 37%
Libertarian/Green/Other 35%
Democrats 28%

What does *that* tell you?

And as for the net leaning to the *right*; you call Libertarians *rightist*? Did I miss something?

I've been here since 83, too, rcade; I hadn't noticed us being overly conservative, at least until the September that never ended...
posted by baylink at 10:28 AM on October 4, 2000


"It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!"

posted by bluishorange at 10:30 AM on October 4, 2000


baylink: the libertarians have been placed on the right hand side of the traditional political axis as long as I can remember. Where would you put them?

Incidentally, I think this fact alone demonstrates that the traditional political axis is bullshit.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:01 AM on October 4, 2000


I couldn't stop thinking of the Rage against the Machine video either- dressed the same, and shot on a bluescreen for easy insertion into an alien movie.
posted by kidsplateusa at 12:53 PM on October 4, 2000


I've never met a conservative who didn't call himself/herself a "libertarian."

At the end of the day, it comes down to whether you think collective human decision-making should be dollar-weighted (market as government) or people-weighted (democracy).

Under a dollar weighted system (market), wealthy people and corporations will have a disproportionate impact on the structure of society, in virtue of possessing more dollars. So, for example, your access to fair representation by politicians will depend on the size of your campaign contributions. Your access to unbiased coverage in the mass media will depend on the size of your advertising budget. And so on.

Under a people-weighted system (democracy), everybody has a say in how things work, independently of financial status. For example, your access to politicians will depend on the number of people who share your point of view. Your access to coverage in the media will depend on the number of people who attach importance to what you are saying. And so on.

Theoretically, we could shift from a dollar- to a people-weighted society through a simple act of Congress (or two). The challenge is that the system we have now is -- as Gore Vidal puts it -- "locked up": that is, seemingly rigid, self-perpetuating and inexorable. But empires do fall, and perhaps locking Nader out of the debates will be the act of "imperial overreach" that marks the beginning of the end -- or as Nader himself puts it: "the ultimate kamikaze dive of a corrupt two-party system." In any case, historically, when people become activists en masse and get arrested by the thousands in street protests, it has never been good news for the status quo.
posted by johnb at 2:32 PM on October 4, 2000


There is a whole lot of space between your binary democratic choices. You are usually a bit more generous in figuring why the other guy believes as he does. I do not see where I fit in your example. Dollar weighted decisions leave me cold and out of the loop. I would do away with representitives if I could, and embrace a cold real democracy. Our real differences always seem to be what decisions are truely the business of the human collective. I don't think there are too many things we all need to consult with each other over. I know of a few things we both think require societies approval, does that make me like you, or you like me?
posted by thirteen at 2:47 PM on October 4, 2000


Thirteen, I didn't mean to say that all conservatives are the same, or to draw a black/white distinction between left and right. Rather, I intended to describe the spectrum along which I believe the argument between left and right is defined.

>>Our real differences always seem to be what decisions are truely the business of the human collective.

I'm using "human collective decision making" very broadly, so as to include any decision that involves multiple actors. For example, consider the question "What determines the style of shoes available in the United States?" The quick answer is "the market". That is, shoe style is determined by the collective preferences of all the potential shoe-buyers in the country, where each preference is weighted by purchasing power. In other words, if you tend to spend a lot of money on shoes, you will have more of a say in what shoe styles are available, than a thriftier shoe-buyer does.

I don't have a problem with that.

What I have a problem with is the extension of this dollar-weighted model into the public sphere -- the sphere where it is inappropriate to discriminate against people on the basis of financial status. An example would be police protection. Should wealthy people have better access to police protection simply because they are wealthier? Or take education. Should children of wealthy parents have better access to education simply because their parents are wealthy?

Likewise for political representation, and media control. To progressives, it is morally unclear why financial status should be a relevant consideration in such cases.
posted by johnb at 3:51 PM on October 4, 2000


My favorite part was after the debates, when my local news station brought out their Political Analyst, who said (something along the lines of) "I think what the American People want is, instead of these long arguments, a sentence or two describing what a Gore Presidency or a Bush Presidency would be like."

Yeah, lets decide our next president based on the quality of his slogan. That sounds reliable.
posted by Lirp at 3:52 PM on October 4, 2000


"As for Al Gore, if I had had any doubt about whether he deserves my vote, he managed to run right over it with his out-of-control, ham-laden 18-wheeler. What a loathsome, smug, preening, juvenile character! The supposedly great debater babbled out of turn; snickered, snorted and sneered; panted and sighed like a bellows; and rocked to and fro and ripped paper like a patient in a mental ward. And Gore looked positively repellent with his dark mat of dyed hair, garish orange makeup and flippantly twisting, strangely female features: I kept on thinking of the bewigged, transvestite Norman Bates as Mother in "Psycho"."
-- Camille Paglia (whom I don't normally agree with)

Gore is the ultimate corporate whore, so it shouldn't be surprising that he looks the part. As Nader notes (in his no-BS style), when corporate interests knock on the door, Gore -- instead of standing up to them -- "drops to his knees and gives 'em a free ride." In that respect, Gore's caked-on makeup was more revealing than concealing.

Boycott the duopoly: vote for a third party candidate.
posted by johnb at 10:59 PM on October 4, 2000


Re: Paglia and the rest of the commentators on Salon.com, from which the above is quoted.

Isn't it odd how many of these analyses harp on the way Bush and Gore were dressed? Paglia notes: "that Bush's hair (like early Clinton's) is too flyaway, and his collars and jackets are retrograde and ill-fitting." Arianna Huffington recommends Gore "take a fashion tip from the president and start wearing those jowl-concealing higher collars." Ben Stein hasn't seen "that much makeup on anyone besides a Las Vegas showgirl. I kept waiting for his false eyelashes to fall off."

The lesson, I guess, is we're supposed to vote for the snappiest dresser. Donna Karen for president!
posted by shylock at 1:18 AM on October 5, 2000


[damn, segfault killed my response. let's try again]

johnb: the shoe analogy's compelling, but I think it's a little inaccurate. Although I think the nature of its inaccuracy is even more interesting. If you look at shoe purchasing (And this extends elsewhere), you'll see something closer to this model:

"working-class": mass-market, functional, reliable. Hush Puppies, work boots, brogues, court shoes. Demand is dictated by the likelihood of people coming back and wanting the exact same type of shoe as a replacement. These are the shoes you'll buy for 30 years.

"upper-class": hand-lasted, hand-made. Ridiculously expensive, especially at the beginning when you need the last making. There's usually a personal relationship with the maker, which -- combined with the innate conservatism of bespoke trades -- means that it's genrally immune to the latest trend.

In between, you have the interesting sector, where the shoe manufacturers tend to make their money back on markups. Impulse buys, aspirational purchasing, the Imelda Marcos world of shoes for shoes' sake, peddled by a tiny sector of the media -- glossy magazines -- and absorbed into the markets.

[Another example: in Britain, at least, the very rich and the very poor tend to spend similar amounts on Christmas, while the middle-classes splurge, get themselves into debt, go overboard because it's the "done thing".]

Here's where the volatility lies: the middle-class world of implicitly political consumption, where buying "this year's model", "this season's trend" is a statement of engagement, a sign of cultural distinction. And this political model extends to the very beginning of "modern politics" -- the emergence of the merchantry and freeholders into political power in the late 1600s, in place of the hegemony of the aristocrats.

All rather staid and academic, and indebted to Bourdieu's Distinction, which is well worth reading, because it suggests that political choices are consumer choices. You're not electing a politician; you're being sold "this season's President".
posted by holgate at 2:53 AM on October 5, 2000


Meaning, I suppose, that the working-class make do with what they can afford, knowing that basic things are going to be there; that the upper-class has the power to get what it wants, but not particularly influence what happens elsewhere; and that the middle-class is adrift in a politic in which the special interests are like the style columnists in a Saturday supplement, telling us where to spend, spend, spend.
posted by holgate at 2:56 AM on October 5, 2000


I would never be able to push myself to vote for a third party. Especially when George "i 'W'ant my daddy's job" Bush is running. The risk of allowing him to enter office because I voted for a third party is simply to great.
posted by Ptrin at 2:46 PM on October 10, 2000


« Older Arrggg!!! LA NBC is showing baseball!   |   At least Nader tried to debate... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post