Sunday, May 04, 2003

You know, everyone's gonna blog about the issues discussed in the debate so go read them. I will comment on how they looked, because I think most people not following politics will judge the Dem candidates largely on appearance: John Kerry - He's scary-looking: The eyebrows give him a hangdog look which accentuates his sunken eyes, and his face is too long. In certain lighting, I swear it looks like he has a skull superimposed on his face.  He should let the Dean feud go; he sounds whiney. He's the one you see in the news the most, and it seems to me he sells himself in an obvious way.  (the constant waving of his Vietnam medals, for example) John Edwards - He's awfully cute, and a good speaker, feels more downhome than the others, and at least mentions the people he intends to represent. Cute may work against him, but he is very photogenic. His youth will work against him as inexperience, though so far, the attacks against trial lawyers doesn't seem to have affected him. He mentions his record a lot, and I haven't found anything so far that's damaging. Al Sharpton - I love his hair and at the debate, had the best one liner about Koolaid to children. He looks like a preacher, but of a progressive and lively congregation. He's not seeming as whacko as last time around; I agree with the people who think he's a useful gadfly to keep social issues in view, but I don't think he's electable. Howard Dean - Cute and aggressive, can come across as combative, at least he says the things a lot of people are thinking.  The photos on his website could be better chosen, some are not flattering. He's embraced the internet, which makes him seem more accessible and open to a variety of opinions.  For bloggers and other folk disgusted with broadcast and cable news giving one-sided propoganda, he's the ticket to follow. While no one's openly endorsing him yet, Dean's campaign gets the majority of blog coverage, at least at the places I visit daily.  I still think the Kerry feud is stupid. Joe Lieberman - He always sounds like he's whining. I can't listen to him for long, even when I'm agreeing with him.  He's like Brokaw mumbling the news through a mouthful of marbles, it's an effort to try to understand what he's saying.  Joe looks like a charicature; not much of a challange for cartoonists. I did like how he scolded Steph during the debate. Kunich - I haven't seen much on him, but he has creepy eyes and again, trim the eyebrows. I think they give him an evil look. He got some coverage on his anti-war stance, but the media kinda dismissed him. Carol MB - She's out of her league and she looks it. She has too many skeletons, and besides, we know full well a woman has no chance for POTUS. Steph didn't bother to show a clip of her during his recreation, which shows her irrelevence. Gephart - He has no eyebrows, is he albino? He's a fiery speaker on taxes, but with his lack of color, his eyes look beady. Bob Graham - He just looks old and tired, with big bags under eyes. He's a halting speaker, I find it hard to understand what his point is. He is really fighting against the administration's secrecy on 9-11, which endears me to him, but I can't see listening to him for 4 years. So there's my analysis. Dean and Edwards give good interviews, but they're not really considered frontrunners.  The older guys have face and name recognition, but they seem so old-guard.  Remember, it's the rich, older white men what got us into this mess in the first place.  Laura 10:28:35 AM    comment [] Bush bonks head.  From Yahoo News. I don't know why I posted it. Just thought it was funny. Laura 7:28:31 AM    comment [] Iraqis Won't Admit to Banned Weapons See, here's one of those headlines that makes me wonder.  I followed a link that said: Iraqi Scientists Still Say Iraq Did Not Have Weapons of Mass Destruction on Yahoo and found that new headline above, with the abstract: (AP) - Before the war, the Bush administration pressured U.N. inspectors to question reluctant Iraqi scientists as part of the hunt for unconventional weapons. Once Saddam Hussein was removed, U.S. officials expected the scientists and others would feel free to reveal secrets about Iraq's suspected hidden arsenal. But few have come forward. And U.S. officials say those in custody are sticking to their stories — that Iraq hasn't had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs in years. Even more so than the passive voiced headlines, I find this practice to be manipulative.  If you're like most people, including myself, you don't have time to read every paper in the world, and count on the headlines to give you the gist of the news.  The first headline intimates that the Iraqi Scientists are holding back, they won't "admit to" what our administration wants them to "admit to."  The second headline above, the link that I followed is more neutral, less like propaganda. It seems the AP headline is the one doing the reporting, and the Yahoo headline is the one deciding. Remember in the '70's the subliminal advertising scandals?  My brothers and sisters and I would scour magazine ads looking for naked ladies and genitals and even skeletons in the ice cubes of liquor ads.  We'd go to movies and try to detect the one frame flashing "drink Coke" during the movie, although now they just pump in popcorn and nacho smells to propel you towards the concession stand.  It's all the same; the manipulation of our emotions through how the message is relayed rather than through the message itself.  Creepy. Laura 6:31:00 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Two Broads Blogging. Last update: 6/1/2003; 8:20:07 AM.