Nice idea. But Gore was suppose to destroy Bush in their debates and Edwards beat Chaney. Neither happened.

Also Kerry did beat up Bush but what good did it do?

but John Wayne was short short short!

"Republicans are not just looking for the usual John Wayne-type signifiers as they go about selecting a candidate, but thinking about who can best loom over Hillary Clinton and make her look like a shrill, small, silly little woman."

Yes, having a large, tall man looming menacingly over the sole female candidate is really going to win over those women voters. Good thinking there, Republicans!

What a statement on the intellectual vacuum of the current GOP.

Frighteningly enough, it just may work for a ton of voters looking for a Daddy/President.

Carol,

While no big fan of John Wayne, the fact is the man stood 6'4" tall. Hardly short, short, short.

What is up with the facination with Old Man Thompson? I just don't get it. We need some new, young blood in DC, before we are destroyed by our current politics.

Fred Dalton Thompson, son, don't take a dump without a plan.

Hillary's 5'6"; taller than average for a woman.

A victory by Hillary Clinton would put the liberal hawks in charge of foreign policy. At least domestic policy would vastly improve, so I'd have to hold my nose and vote for her, but we can do better.

If height and celebrity are the yardsticks for presidential greatness it's hard to understand how Bill Bradley never got elected.

"Gore will destroy Bush in the debates" - conventional wisdom, 2000

"Kerry DID destroy Bush in the debates" - conventional wisdom, 2004

Could the Republican candidates just whip out their dicks for a measuring contest and be done with already? I'm sure Chris Matthews would be excited.

Er. What BigRed said in the first post.

I am not surpirsed that a Republican would be unfamiliar with the charismatic, political and emotional power of Madame Defarge's vengeance. Although I do not want a reign of terror to eliminate my political adversaries, I would prefer it be done at the ballot box peacefully, it would be difficult not to cheer their beheading.

If I really thought Sen. Clinton would lead a purge, through legal investigation, of the W. Bush/Republican criminal gang with the energy Madame DeFarge spent on her revenge, I would support her candidacy more vigorously.

I'm trying to imagine the two nominees holding an actual debate, and not those oddly orchestrated...things we've been subjected to the last several election cycles.

Nah, dream over.

I don't think that strategy would work. I think the "Celebration of Stupidity" message the GOP has been selling for the last dozen years is getting a little shopworn. Thompson just LOOKS stupid and UGLY. Americans don't want that.

christ, these pathetic dickless wonders who dominate the gop and the commentariat -- talking to you tweety/rogersimon/tucker.

Clinton would eviscerate Fred Thompson in a debate...

—Kevin Drum

Don't be so sure. He IS a big, dumb, ignorant slob but winning (and losing) is in the eyes of the beholder.

Fred Dalton Thompson, son, don't take a dump

Looking at his face, I'd say that much is true.

It's appalling to think that someone might become President just because he looks the part and he's a celebrity actor. The Fred Thompson candidacy is a joke.

Even if this wasn't a silly reason to support Thompson, it wouldn't work the way they think. Kerry is quite a bit taller than Bush, yet television convention prescribed that when shown side-by-side in split screen that the two men be re-sized to approximately the same height. This made Kerry look skinny rather than Bush look short.

trial lawyer/hollywood actor/lobbyist
repub material?

Just when you think the rabbit hole can't get any deeper...

Anyway. OT: Every time I read "Fred Dalton Thompson" I suspect his middle name has Confederate origins. Atticus says naming people after Civil War battles makes slow, steady drinkers.

Fred Thompson...fred thompson...

Isn't he the one with lymphoma?

Now there's a man-size cancer.

Fred Thompson:
"Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on The Side"
http://www.zmag.org/songs/Dumb%20All%20Over.htm

Seriously, isn't Thompson too bald to be President?

I don't have any regard for Fred Thompson, and have no opinion on what the outcome of a debate between Thompson and Senator Clinton would be, but anyone who thinks that intellectual content is what carries the day in a televised debate, as far as winning votes, and from that presumption makes the statement that Senator Clinton would eviscerate Thompson in a debate, grasps very little in regard to politics.

Perhaps Kevin means that Senator Clinton is far better on television than Thompson in a debate setting, but there seems to be little evidence to suppose this is true. Like I said,I have no regard for Thompson, but it seems a little silly to simply assume that Thompson is so devoid of camera skills that he would be eviscerated.

From a historical perspective, having the two major parties' candidates face off in debate, nearly 35 years after both were young lawyers on The Hill playing roles in the Watergate fiasco, would be a novelty.

It's appalling to think that someone might become President just because he looks the part and he's a celebrity actor. The Fred Thompson candidacy is a joke

Next time you're tempted to think ex-liberal is not just a bored New Jersey insurance guy having us on, remember this post.

Fred will excel in the Fartin', Spittin', and Scratchin' part of the competition, but beyond that I can't see much potential, myself.

If Senator Clinton is the nominee, the RNC will launch a saturation campaign of "Hillary is a man-hating, power-mad Pig in a Pantssuit dyke." And, for the sake of substance, a socialist, anti-semetic one-worlder.

Rove and Chinless Ed Gillespie have been perfecting it since January 2004.

From a historical perspective, having the two major parties' candidates face off in debate, nearly 35 years after both were young lawyers on The Hill playing roles in the Watergate fiasco, would be a novelty.

It certainly would--especially since we now know from some of the Nixon tapes that the White House was coaching Thompson on his "questioning" throughout the process. That would be a heartwarming anecdote for Clinton to bring up at some point.

If I really thought Sen. Clinton would lead a purge, through legal investigation, of the W. Bush/Republican criminal gang with the energy Madame DeFarge spent on her revenge, I would support her candidacy more vigorously.

Posted by: Brojo on August 16, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

What, not supporting Ralph Nader again!? But if you actually participate in the political process, how will you spend the next four years scolding others here in your sanctimonious, over-dramatic and highly-strained prose?

Watching Hillary take down Thompson in a debate would be like watching a hog get dismembered by a laser scalpel.

Thompson wouldn't even notice the big pieces of himself falling off.

Thompson might just be the Sacrificial Hog...

It's true. Every time I hear the Repubs talking about Hillary, it triggers this urge in me to support her. I am still rooting for Edwards, But if Hillary is our candidate, I will take pleasure in the shrill unholy madness on the other side. I think I will even put up a yard sign in the event.

This confidence regarding Clinton eviscerating Thompson in debate reminds me of how entire lengthy articles were written of how supposed master debater Gore would do the same to Bush. Then Gore went out and looked like the guy running for high school class president who is despised by most, and Bush, despite being extremely lacking in many ways, is far from being left in an eviscerated state, in terms of the only thing that matters, winning votes.

Nobody knows what would happen, and people who pretend that they do are merely lending support to their preference.

First of all if they can imagine fat, saggy, jowly Fred as John Wayne they need their eyes checked.

Plus the it is well known the guy is in the closet - hence the trophy beard.

Emma Anne, I don't think you're alone. I read a column of Peggy Noonan's the other day where Peggy was taking Hillary's part in the whole "she showed CLEAVAGE!!!" dustup. Think about that...Peggy Noonan!!!

More than half the voters in the US are women. The whole dyke-in-a-pantsuit thing will backfire bigtime.

Actually, I expect the GOP to try to drive a wedge betweeen her and married women voters, via her relationship with Bill. They will try to portray it as loveless, driven by her ambition, which is the purported reason she didn't dump him after Monica. I don't think this will come as a surprise to her, though.

Maybe in the brains, smarts, etc. Hillary is figuratively "head and shoulders above" Fred Thompson, but before Mr. Thompson was a celebrity and a Hollywood actor, he was a lawyer -- remember the role he played in Sissy Spacek's "Marie"?

Then again, remember 1960: champion, ace debater Richard Nixon against "pretty boy/rich man's kid" JFK? According to the experts, Nixon outpointed JFK and won the debate. Viewers and later voters thought otherwise.

Wasn't Ronald Reagan elected because he was just so gosh darn better look'in than Jimmy Boy?

"Madame Defarge" must be the DC cocktail-circuit insult for Hillary. I hear it on The McLaughlin Group all the time. I gurantee the cretin quoted in KD's post doesn't even know where the name comes from.

This goes hand in hand with Republican's homophobia. Their candidates have to appear and sound "manly" to both male and female constituents within the party. Even their women notables have to be manly. Karen Hughes and Condi Rice probably have more testosterone in their blood and hair on their backs than many SoCal football players. Republicans actively fear anything with a whiff of femininity or culture for it might represent symptoms of homosexuality and/or personal weakness. Entire books have been written about such a pathology. Most of them allude to entire laundry lists of insecurities, fears, hatreds and self-loathing. Geez, what a group of fucked up people.

Instead of a jacket and tie, Thompson should show up in one of those white, cotton tank-tops. Little tufts of grey chest-hair showing at the neckline. . . Maybe some big Anchor tatoos on his forearms.

He's not a leader but he played one on TV. I think the Foghorn Leghorn meme ought to get wider play.

If Fred Thompson is Johne Wayne, then Lil George Bush is Yosemite Sam!

Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney is Darth Vador.

Hillary, Mother Goose.

Rudy Guliani, Snidely Whiplash

Mitt Romney, Dudley Do-right

My Favorite, Bill Richardson being Bullwinkle the Moose.

But, to tell you the truth, if Rocky the Squirrel was anwhere in sight, he'd have my vote!

What's with serial cat owner (1:28 p.m.) & osama_been_forgotten (2:19 p.m.)? It's getting so a person can't visit the comments section after lunch these days. Oy.

Repukeliscum are the Party of Total Morons today. It doesn't matter what you say or think. It matters how you look.

Fucking morons.

A victory by Hillary Clinton would put the liberal hawks in charge of foreign policy. At least domestic policy would vastly improve, so I'd have to hold my nose and vote for her, but we can do better.
Posted by: Joe Buck on August 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Liberal Hawks == War Profiteers.

If we cannot free ourselves from the costs imposed by the Military Industrial Complex (and I say this, as a person who makes his living in this industry; a strong defense is necessary - but that's not what we have bought) - then there will be no Domestic Policy. Period. Domestic Policy will ALWAYS play second-fiddle. It will be funded by what is left over after the Duke Cunninghams and Jack Abramoffs have looted the treasury and socked it all away in numbered accounts in Switzerland or the Caymans.

Our bridges will collapse, our streets will be overrun with crime and gangs, our schools will crumble, our children will die from tainted food, and we'll all cough and wheeze together from the crap in the air. As long as Halliburton gets their no-bid contract, and their unnecessary war every 10 years.

It does not matter if it's Reagan's Cold War, Bush I's Gulf War I, Clinton's Kosovo War, Bush II's Gulf War II, or whatever the hell mess She-Clinton gets us into: Domestic Policy will not be addressed in this country - until we resolve the national security issue.

Eisenhower warned us.

Charles Barkley, the ex-NBAer, formerly known as the Round Mound of Rebound, who has expressed some interest in becoming Alabama's governor (as a Republican), is even taller than Thompson.

Maybe he should get into the race.

The prospect of President Fred Thompson is what I can't face after lunch.

As with so much in our blogosphere, the allusion was not meant to be taken literally. I mean, really, laser scalpels are like a tenth of an inch long, if that. Don't let your imagination get the better of you.

Jesus, OBF, you put Kosovo in the same sentence with the current situation?? And not as a contrast? I don't think war contractors made a lot of money in that one ...

Not trying to nitpick, maybe I misunderstood your point.

Doctor Jay: More than half the voters in the US are women. The whole dyke-in-a-pantsuit thing will backfire bigtime.

Sure--but not among all women. There is still a not-insubstantial group of very traditional, conservative women who mock Clinton for her "militant feminism" and her "shrill" opinions. Eager to prove their own "femininity" and the superiority of their own life choices, they bend over backward to distance themselves from her. They are real women. She is not.

Thankgodfully, there aren't nearly as many of these jackasses around as there were in 1992. But they still exist.

It's been heartening to me to note that overall, there's a lot less of this nonsense this election cycle than I expected. Certain sections of the right keep trying to make an issue of her gender, but it's not getting nearly the traction it would have even a few years ago--at least not publicly and in openly stated terms rather than the usual semi-veiled snipes about her sexuality and gender identity.

But, to tell you the truth, if Rocky the Squirrel was anwhere in sight, he'd have my vote!

Uh...Dennis Kucinich?

Clinton would eviscerate Fred Thompson in a debate

Kerry did that to Bush, but did it change any wingnut mind? I don't think so.

I hate to keep sounding the same alarm, but whether Hillary can defeat Thompson (or any other GOP rightard) in a debate is irrelevant. She has too many negatives to win the presidency, and the sooner Democrats get their heads out of their collective rear ends and nominate someone else, the better off we'll all be.

Jesus, OBF, you put Kosovo in the same sentence with the current situation?? And not as a contrast? I don't think war contractors made a lot of money in that one ...
Posted by: Matt on August 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Bomb mfrs made a lot.

But no - not in the same league as Iraq.

Hillary signed the Iraq authorization. I don't buy her weak excuse, and I will not forgive her, (nor will I trust her) without an apology. We've already got our dick in Iraq. Who's to say we won't get it stuck in Iran, Syria, etc.

But, to tell you the truth, if Rocky the Squirrel was anwhere in sight, he'd have my vote!

Well, there's at least one vote for Dennis Kucinich...

The revisionism above about the Gore/Bush debates is bizarre. Gore wiped up the floor with Bush, and even Tweety could see. Of course the traditional media was already influencing the weak minds above: "Bush and Gore had just finished their first debate; when the CBS overnight poll came in, a substantial majority of TV viewers thought Gore had won the debate. (In the CBS poll, 56 percent favored Gore; 42 percent picked Bush.) But despite all their troubling liberal bias, that wasn't how CBS pundits viewed it."

I agree with Kevin - I would love love love to see Hillary debate Thompson. Do you think she has had some experience arguing with big southern guys? At least one of whom is 1000 times smarter than Fred Thompson? She would pick Thompson apart like shelling a walnut - appropriate analogy considering his face. (Hey if they are going to make fun of her legs, I'm going to fight back)

I am truly hoping Fred is the nominee even more than Republicans are bluffing hope that Hillary is the nominee.

Doug-E-Fresh: "What a statement on the intellectual vacuum of the current GOP."

But if Republicans have proven anything over the last quarter-century, it's that whatever their argument might lack in depth, it's more than compensated for in decibels.

ex-liberal: “It's appalling to think that someone might become President just because he looks the part and he's a celebrity actor. The Fred Thompson candidacy is a joke.”

So was the Ronald Reagan candidacy, and his presidency also — except it wasn't a joke for those who suffered under it.

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
October 3
Who Did the Best Job In the Debate?

Gore 48%

Bush 41

Sampling error: +/-4% pts

See ABC's poll results from 2000, along with some comments regarding how post debate polls are conducted generally, with some specific references to the CBS poll:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/09/as_i_mentioned_.html

It really takes a stretch to claim that Gore wiped the floor with Bush.

serial cat owner: "The prospect of President Fred Thompson is what I can't face after lunch."

I'd offer you your own sensible words -- don't let your imagination get the better of you.

…Then Gore went out and looked like the guy running for high school class president … Will Allen at 2:00 PM

In addition, Gore is not a truly great political debater. Parliamentary style, sure. But Gore is far too intelligent for actual American presidential debates. His skill is not to pander to the lowest common denominator or to find the best possible phrasing for what is, however expressed, a very good idea. Hillary is actually much better than Gore at American political debate because she has captured these abilities as well. Its almost as if Hillary has used her intelligence to become the best possible politician she can while Gore was not interested/able to commit his full faculties to being just a politician.

Mike, I can't stand it anymore. Why is there never a linebreak at the end of your comments?

"Clinton would eviscerate Fred Thompson in a debate" eheheheheheheheheheheh, good one Drum. Worked like a charm for Al Gore. That W, so stupid, and yet he crushed Bore in 3 of 3.

"It really takes a stretch to claim that Gore wiped the floor with Bush."

No, it simply takes having seen it happen. Of course partisan Republicans wouldn't have been able to tell.

osama_been_forgotten: "Hillary signed the Iraq authorization. I don't buy her weak excuse, and I will not forgive her, (nor will I trust her) without an apology. We've already got our dick in Iraq. Who's to say we won't get it stuck in Iran, Syria, etc."

Your previous arguments on similar subjects usually show far more depth than this particular one. It reads as though you desire to not just to have your own correct position on the war further validated, but to see Sen. Clinton prostrate herself before the left in seeking our forgiveness.

The latter just ain't gonna happen.

Sen. Clinton's October 2002 vote to authorize a use of force in Iraq reflected the not-necessarily-unreasonable sentiments and conclusions of a majority of Americans at the time. And while you and I can take some satisfaction in having publicly disagreed with that particular vote and then having our then-minority stance proven right by subsequent events in that benighted country, she has since readily and publicly acknowledged that her authorization vote was a mistake. That's good enough for me.

We should no more expect an apology from Hillary Clinton for that vote, than we would expect to get similar public apologies from the majority of Americans who initially supported the invasion of Iraq, and who have since voiced similar personal regret for that support.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize and welcome with open arms all those who now desire to join us in seeking resolution to this fiasco in Iraq, and not allow ourselves to become entangled in our own ideological weeds by constantly questioning the motives and principles of our fellow liberals / progressives / Democrats. That's what the Republican Party and their Cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs far-right wingnuts are for, and they most certainly don't need our assistance.

Historians will eventually come to dissect, analyze and judge Mrs. Clinton's motives and judgment in rather great detail, and I'm perfectly content to let that future and pending verdict suffice for now.

>>"Thompson's booming voice will make her "sound like Madame Defarge."

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yeah, Mike, an incumbent VP who was running in a time of unprecedented prosperity and no serious identified foreign conflicts won the popular vote by .5%. A stunning achievement. I'll also point out, due to your typical level of reading comprehension, that I never stated that Bush prevailed in the debates, but merely that Gore managed, merely through his manner of addressing the audience, to fail to eviscerate Bush, as was predicted, despite Bush's many weaknesses, which, if you would read what I wrote, I plainly acknowledged above.

Madame Defarge: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Stick to your knitting.

rilkefan, it seems to have escaped you, but your or my opinion of those debates didn't matter. The only thing that mattered was voter perception. Despite your revisionism in only looking at one poll that supported your position, and ignoring the ones that didn't, no, in the only way that matters, Gore did not wipe the floor with Bush. Why is a factual account of historical events so bothersome to you?

Tyro, Sorry about that. It looks ok on preview, but it's screwed up when posted. Firefox isn't retaining personal info either. Everything works fine from the laptop.

It is true liberals / progressives / Democrats and Leftists will have to vote for Cheneylite in presidential elections if they do not want the entire neo-conservative platform stuffed down their throats, but I think they should understand they are voting for Cheneylite and use that knowledge to energize their political base for non-presidential election years to elect real liberals and progressives and leftists to replace the Democratic incumbents that supported the real Cheney's policies. If Sen. Clinton does not win the presidential nomination in 2008, she should have to battle a real liberal/progressive/Democrat in 2012 to be the NY Democratic Party's senatorial nominee.

Shoot! 2012 is a presidential election year. Looks like Sen. Clinton lucked out with the calendar. But other Democratic incumbents who supported Cheney's policies should be challenged in 2010 and 2014 by real liberals.

Ignoring the larger conversation, I will now fixate on the phrase "Gore did not wipe the floor with Bush," repeating it 100,000 times while also obsessive-compulsively "washing" my hands to distract my fevered brain from the realization that I'm going to have to vote for one of the GOP candidates and pretend no one knows for sure that I did.

… Gore managed…to fail to eviscerate Bush,… Will Allen on August 16, 2007 at 4:08 PM

"…Gore went out and looked like the guy running for high school class president who is despised by most…"

There were five overnight polls of viewers after the first Bush-Gore debate. Gore won all five polls, by an average margin of 10 points.

Remember when facts were stubborn things? To tell you the truth, I don't.

Will Allen, my apologies for assuming you were a good reader, able to realize that the numbers he himself naively posted were a mopping given the partisan environment I noted. Someone able to read the first sentence in the MP link he gave and not write something as stupid as, "Then Gore went out and looked like the guy running for high school class president who is despised by most".

If you want to argue that Clinton would admittedly kill Thompson on the merits but the press would push his reaction numbers to only -7, we will stop laughing at you.

I figured Somerby would jump in on this one. Right on.

"But Bob, did those polls specifically ask the question, 'Do you feel Vice President Gore stuck a handle up Governor Bush's arse, turning him into a human Swiffer, and proceeded to scour the linoleum?' If not, I hardly think you can support your argument!"

Gore's problem in the debates of 2000 was that it was so much easier to make fun of his performance than Bush's. The Saturday Night Live sendups of each debate made this point abundantly clear to all but the humor challenged.

Will Clinton eviscerate the Republican candidate? I doubt that, but the Republican debate prep staff will sincerely like to plant that meme as firmly as possible.

"This confidence regarding Clinton eviscerating Thompson in debate reminds me of how entire lengthy articles were written of how supposed master debater Gore would do the same to Bush. Then Gore went out and looked like the guy running for high school class president who is despised by most, and Bush, despite being extremely lacking in many ways, is far from being left in an eviscerated state, in terms of the only thing that matters, winning votes"

Didn't Gore WIN in terms of raw votes? So... what's your point again?

Will Allen, I find your comments regarding Gore and Bush in the debates amusing when contrasted to your silence regarding the debates between Kerry and Bush. You lamely decry Gore's inability to wipe the floor totally with Bush despite having served in a popular administration theoretically experiencing good times at the time of the election (we now know that Greenspan's precipitate rate hikes had already started to contract the economy by the last quarter of 200). Yet, you fail to note that Kerry DID wipe the floor three times with an incumbent pResident who was serving during a time of war and supposedly good economic times and came within an eyelash of winning the Presidency but for questionable voter suppression tactics in Ohio and elsewhere. Why is that? Are you actually ashamed?

Gee, Bob Somerby, do you want to quote the margins of error in those polls, or the median margins of victory instead of the average, or look at more than the first debate? Or examine polling methods? Remember when an honest examination of facts was desirable? To tell you the truth, I don't, and it appears Somerby doesn't either.

From the cited mysterypollster post:

"The most sophisticated way to try to measure the impact of the debate itself would be to contact a random sample just before the debate, ask about their vote preference and attitudes toward the candidates, then call back just after the debate, repeat the same questions and ask the respondents to judge each candidate’s performance. Such a design allows the pollster to compare the reactions of pre-debate Kerry supporters to pre-debate Bush supporters and measure whether either candidate gained or lost support among individual respondents.

That is exactly the design used by the ABC News Polling Unit for all four of the presidential and vice-presidential debates in 2000. Here are a few examples of their results: The first debate looked like a dead heat (Gore fell in the polls in the week that followed due to coverage of the debate, but reaction to the debate itself was more favorable). Although slightly more Gore supporters (79%) than Bush supporters (70%) thought their man won, Bush’s support increased by 1 percentage point during the debate. After the second debate, 76% of Bush supporters judged their man the winner vs. 63% of Gore supporters who thought their man won. Bush’ margin grew from 10 to 13 points during the debate. (Press releases for all four of these surveys are still available online here, here, here and here)."

Rilkefan, you still are to dim to grasp it. In television, the merits don't matter, and until you grasp this, you are too stupid to discuss electoral politics.

Yes, Mike, when your opponent does more poorly in articulating his case on the merits, but you don't win a decisive victory, yes, your manner of addressing the audience sucked.

Being from Ohio I will say that the voter fraud happend in FAVOR of Kerry - making the election in Ohio seem closer than it really was. But keep those Kerry/Edwards stickers on your cars folks - they remind everyone of how big of a losers the Dem candidates really are.

Republican scandals within the state of Ohio helped Kerry, not Kerry's so called "masterful" debate abilities. He was taken out by the swiftboats.

Hillary win the debates against Thompson? Hillary can't even face hecklers. "Mrs. Clinton, have you ever been under the presidents desk so that the interns didn't have to?"

I hope she gets the nomination - then we can drag up the Whitewater stuff and Vince Foster again. Fun fun fun.

Kevin is right.

This is not due to Clinton being a razor sharp politician (she is, Gore never had a tenth of her electoral acumen), it is because F.D. Thompson is utterly incapable of speaking at length about a subject. Even when presented with extremely receptive audiences, he has consistently underwhelmed. If the debates consisted entirely of quips, winks and grins, he'd be unbeatable. Two minutes of quips, winks and grins and he will look like a spastic.

PrahaPartizan, if you would read instead of yammer, you would note that I never made any claims regarding Bush's debating ability. I merely put forth the notion that pre-debate predictions of one candidate eviscerating another were silly. People in this thread still claim that Bush was so eviscerated that an incumbent VP in a time of peace and prosperity won a popular vote landslide of .5% while losing his home state. Some evisceration.

"Bob Somerby, do you want to quote the margins of error in those polls"

Just a comment for the statistics-challenged: the above would be (coming from a non-troll) an argument for the position that the debate response wasn't measured with enough data to form an opinion. Five polls gives about a 2.2 increase in statistical power (assuming similar sample sizes), so an average spread of 10 points would be hard to mistake. Taking the cited 4% as typical suggests that "innumerate argument for the too-little-data position" would be more accurate. Here though since Will Allen is making a "despised" claim I guess he's just trolling, which is boring.

"Mrs. Clinton, have you ever been under the presidents desk"

Misogyny like this also gets boring, though I expect that it'll only help Clinton if she's the nominee.

No, rilkefan, it is an argument that a claim of "mopping the floor" involves margin of error in determining whether the floor was mopped, as does polling method, as does the results of the 2nd debate etc., etc.. You ignored those issues when citing the one poll which best supported your position, because you are merely trolling, instead of trying to discuss the matter honestly.

I'll ask again; why are you so devoted to revisionism and trolling that you only cited the CBS poll?

I told you I'd do it and I'm doing it. I'm like a meta me. Or do I mean mental me? I don't know. I need to wash my hands.

Ga-ga over Fred Thompson? Where? It certainly wasn't in Iowa.

Thompson just LOOKS stupid and UGLY. Americans don't want that.

The man has goddamn fucking cancer. He looks worse than Eisenhower did on the day he died.

it is because F.D. Thompson is utterly incapable of speaking at length about a subject. If the debates consisted entirely of quips, winks and grins, he'd be unbeatable. Two minutes of quips, winks and grins and he will look like a spastic.

Two minutes of quips, winks and grins earned Reagan eight years in the Oval Office. Where the hell were you in 1980 and 1984? Were you even born yet?

Orwell: how big of a losers

For crying out loud. If you're going to use a great writer's name, learn the language.

There you go again, KDR.

Republicans have always liked style over substance. It's why they like symbology. Like cowboy boots and hats worn by men whose only connection to these symbols were fake ranches. One rode horses on Hollywood backlots, the other rode hobby horses at the childrens' photographers' shops.

This election will be like all previous ones of our modern times: Whatever the public relations consultants can do with the raw material. Fred Thompson could read the phone book and people would hang on every syllable. But he wouldn't be reading a phone book; he'd be well prepared and spinning to beat the band. And wearing a cowboy hat and boots. As would Romney, and Guiliani, too.

The only mystery is why vocal coaches haven't been working with Hillary Clinton these last years. When she's not shrill, she's a flat monotone. The content doesn't matter if listeners tune out her voice because it is so unattractive.

I thought Madame Defarge was famous for knitting, not for talking.

Gore did destroy Bush in the debates, only to lose it through post-debate spin. See Bob Somerby. And I saw all the debates in 2004. How Bush "won" them, I haven't the foggiest idea.

After being virtually tied with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for several months, Republican contender Rudy Giuliani now leads Clinton up 47% to 40% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

In the match-up of the frontrunners, this result marks a significant shift. For the last three months the two frontrunners have never been further apart than three percentage points. Last month, Giuliani and Clinton were separated by just a single point.

And I saw all the debates in 2004. How Bush "won" them, I haven't the foggiest idea.

He "won" because after Kerry brought up the fact that Bush stated publicly that he didn't care about Osama bin Laden, and after a few TV stations showed it, suddenly the rest of the media got their panties in a twist because OMG Kerry outed Cheney's daughter! How could anyone have guessed that she was gay just because she was publicly gay, had a long-term girlfriend and was the Gay and Lesbian Liaison for Coors! Kerry was a horrible man for discussing the Cheney family secret that no one knew until that moment!

No, seriously. That was it.

After observing the 2004 presidential election why would anyone believe that the american electorate will act rationally in 2008?

The democrats need to focus on form, not function. They obviously need taller candidates with deeper voices.

But, to tell you the truth, if Rocky the Squirrel was anwhere in sight, he'd have my vote!

And speaking of Rocky, who's Boris, Natasha or...

Fearless Leader was the dictator of the fictional nation of Pottsylvania, and the employer of the inept spies Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale and could always be found in the underground hideout called "Central Control. (from wikipedia)

Shades of 1999-2000! "Gore will cream him in the debates!" (oh, the pain)
Remember H.L.Mencken; "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"
He said that in the post WWI decade when "fear" was the weapon of the "wowsers".
The Repubs have nothing to lose, just like 2000. They'll try anything to "wowser" the "bulk of men who live their lives in quiet desperation"(H.D.Thoreau?)
It could work again.
On the other hand, I do hope and want to believe that HRC won't let it happen.

Snicker-Snack - a lifetime ago, right after the wall came down, I was at a "do" and one of my husbands former Soviet counterparts was in attendance, seated at our table. I couldn't resist...I leaned in close and said "Would you humor me and say 'Moose & Squirrel?' " His eyes crinkled up, and he started to laugh and happily obliged. And another wall came down...

"On the other hand, I do hope and want to believe that HRC won't let it happen."

Well, good luck with that thought... the Dems have repeatedly caved in to the fear mongers for the last 7 years.

Slick Willy is spinning again. Gore eviscerated Bush in all of the debates. Why doesn't everyone remember that? Because the Republicans went out and told a huge number of lies about Gore and the press and gullible "independents" repeated those talking points endlessly.

Bush, in the real debates, claimed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling in Mexico. Not one talking head commented on Will "I am a big fan of mass murder because I have this fantasy that it is actually saving lives" Allen's favorite candidate having annexed Mexico because everyone knew Bush was a total fucking moron. If your opponent accidentally annexes a foreign nation in the midst of the debate that's an automatic floor mopping.

The bar for Bush was so low all he had to do was show up and pronounce his own name right and the press gave him a win.

Fred Thompson won't work as a presidential candidate, Rupert Murdochs papers will be too worried about his profession being too offensive the the Mid West Religious voters.

Thespians are only acceptable to them when they're Dick Cheney's daughter...

Yeah, noel just ignore the most sophisticated post debate polls, from ABC, because it doesn't fit your ideology. You and Bob Somerby, that Titan of Intellectual Honesty.

I guess you are also dumb enough to think that content is paramount in a television debate, in terms of what matters in such a debate, which is furthering the goal of winning an election. What a dunce.

"Real conservatives" want Newt to run.

I say let these Trotsky wanna'be's go ahead and nominate him. The guy is toxic to 75% of voters.

Here's the real rundown on the GOP candidates:

Rudy--cruising toward implosion. The GOP's Howard Dean moment. I hope he has the decency to wait until '08.

McCain--the walk in the market in Bagdad was the straw that broke the camel's back. Now irrelevant.

Ron Paul--Nutcase. Yeah sure, get him up there to explain to all of us how the Federal Reserve Act of 1916 was a conspiracy. The guy is an eliminationist right wing kook. Candidate status: Like an acid rush, startling, but it passes. Libertarian wet dream.

Thompson--physically imposing, intellectually stunted. When opportunism becomes a widely shared virture, he will be a shoe in. Until then his utter lack of either depth or experience dooms him. His wife should run. I hear she's the brains in that family.

Mitt Romney--absolutely fuckin' scary. He will most likely get the nomination. The nation will at last get what the GOP has striven for for many years, a 21st century Warren G. Harding.

So fear not about a Hillary-Thompson duel. It won't happen.

Are some of you people in middle school?

Squeezing through the cholesterol-filled pissing-at-each-other-over-the-polling-errors-after-the-GoreBush-debates vein of this thread was a hell of a lot of work. And really boring. Thanks for that.

And OT sort of, if Guiliani becomes President, we all might as well move to Canada.

Now quite bitchin' about statistics and get to some good old name calling, dammit!

And bobbyp is right. Mitt is the man. A Republican that is acutally really friggin' smart. I just hope he doesn't mean it when he claims that we need to stay in Iraq. His history of changing fundamental convictions leaves us with a small ray of hope, I guess.

Why can't Republicant men just admit that they are gay and stop this closet-style gibberish about big men and booming voices? Oh, then they wouldn't be repressed and angry. And they wouldn't be good Christians. sorry.

I agree with bobbyp that it'll be Romney vs. one of the top 3 dems, most likely Hillary (blurgh). Given how toxic Bush is, I just don't see the GOP pulling out a win. I think the polls are essentially meaningless at this point.

In 1980, Carter led Reagan in most polls all the way up to election day, but lost to him by 10 points. My hunch is something similar will happen this time, though with the election still over a year off, anything could happen.

Hillary would win easily against Thompson for one simple reason; the Trophy Wife.

Women have contempt for trophy wives and the men who marry them.

I realize Kevin is highly partisan and seems supersharged today, but what is the foundation for the declaration that: "Clinton would eviscerate Fred Thompson in a debate?"

Has she ever done that to anyone in a debate? Has Thompson ever been eviscerated by anyone? Has any major politician eviscerated an opponent in a debate? Some might say Bentsen eviscerated Quayle, but that was more of a good pre-planned line. We have all seen these debates for years and I can't remember any evisceratoin -- where they make a difference it has been in a good line or a major mistake.

By the way, Thompson towering over Hillary in the debate photograph is a problem for Hillary. I don't know how significant, but no politician likes a photo of an opponent towering over him/her.

"If there's any reason to support Hillary Clinton in the primaries, this is it."

There is NO reason to support Shillary Clinton in the primaries. She's just Dick Cheney in drag.

Hillary is just waiting for someone to do a Lazio on her. The debate I would love to see is Hill-Rudy.

Hillary is just waiting for someone to do a Lazio on her.

Bingo. The Republicans' problem is that they don't have a disdain for Hillary, they hate her. To play to his base, Thompson would have to be so over-the-top agressive against Clinton that it would screw him over, particularly since he's not very well-informed.

The debate format, particularly when debating Hillary, just wouldn't suit Thompson very well. His very weakness is that his supporters want to see him (metaphorically) give her a beat-down on stage.

Fred and Rudy are the Republicans' id gone awry. Romney represents the "I'm-kind-of-embarassed- by-the-Iraq-war -but-supporting-it- anyway-because-I-like-tax-cuts" wing of the Republican party

And they said the Repugs did have Hollywood ties - Now, they want their candidate to come from Central Casting.

Don't worry about Mitt keeping our troops in Iraq - He only wants them there until his boys finish basic training.

particularly since he's not very well-informed.

I believe "dumb as hell but friendly" was how Nixon put it, discussing Thompson's "help" to the White House re Watergate.

Rick Lazio did the domineering male thing in his debate with Clinton back in 2000. I seem to recall that blowing up in his face.

Yes, Slick Willy, ignore the performance in the debate, ignore the fact that the candidate you selected twice was revealed to be a shallow moron with less understanding of foreign policy than your average cocker spaniel (which explains both of your votes for him), and pretend the election turned on Bush's hideous debate performance, and ignore the fact that Bush lost the election.

Face it Slick. You've got nothing.

And brian, try to keep up. Fred Thompson has never been known as a bright light. The only way for him to win a debate against Clinton is for the useful idiots like you and Slick to work overtime on your spin - hell, Slick Willy is still spinning seven years later. Then again, he was dumb enough to vote for the least competent candidate available in two successive elections so he's not really the brightest light.

Noel, would you at least pretend to read the thread? I never stated the election turned on Bush's debate performance. How many voices do you hear in your head? I merely noted that Kevin's assertion that Senator Clinton would "eviscerate" Thompson in a debate was silly, because nobody has a clue as to how that would go. I then pointed out that is was commonly pointed out that Gore would do the same to Bush, which simply did not happen (all disiengenuous twaddle by Somerby and others aside), in the only way that matters, which is changing or attracting votes.

Now, you just may be stupid enough to think (your idiocy is a bottomless well, of course) that a televised Presidential debate is some sort of intellectual contest in which the empirical value of what is said, or demonstrated mastery of subject matter, is the point of the exercise. This belief reveals a towering ignorance of electoral politics, but given your towering numbskullery, it is an unsurprising development.

It's interesting that that tall drink of (brackish) water, Fred Thompson was so determined to get the endorsement of Margaret Thatcher. He thought that she was the only one left who was still painted with the Reagan glitter. I guess that her womanly shortness didn't matter much there.

Anyone who claims that Bush beat Gore in any of the debates should be required to surrender their drivers licenses. They obviously are under the influence of a debilitating substance.

blaze, I don't know if you are referring to my posts, but I never stated that Bush beat Gore in any of the debates. My view of it is that substance doesn't matter much in these exercises, at least compared to the atmospherics, and that Gore piddled away whatever advantage he had on substance by not being good in regards to the atmospherics.

To the extent folks here echo Kevin's view that Hillary would "eviscerate" Thompson, is it just a matter of partisanship being so extreme that Kevin and you are not really interested in being serious?

Honesty would require a person to acknowledge that no one knows what will happen in a debate and the chance of one major politician "eviscerating" another is very small. I thought Kerry generally was better in the debates than Bush, but all that mattered were a couple stupid comments by Kerry (one about Mary Cheney being a lesbian and another about a "global test" for military intervention).

On a Hillary/Thompson debate, I think the most likely "winner" would be the actor Thompson delivering some good soundbite line.

Man, I can't believe I had to read over 100 comments before anyone mentioned the lazio/clinton debates. That was the first thing I thought of when Drum said Clinton would eviscerate Thompson. Not that she would do better on content (though I think she would. I think, even though she is not my candidate of choice at all, she does a good job of explaining things in a way that sounds like her position is really reasonable), but that in the format of a debate, a big macho guy taking on a woman does not favor the man. I think female independent voters would be totally won over by Clinton since so many of them have had to deal with aggressive men in their lives, from their obnoxious boss to their creepy ex-husband, that they would end up totally siding with Clinton. And that is a really important voter bloc, those soccer mom types.

Clinton would eviscerate Fred Thompson in a debate

Wait a minute. Gore eviscerated Bush in 2000. 53% of the public thought he won. Kerry disemboweled Bush in '04. It doesn't matter.

J.B., your take makes sense if one presumes to know how Thompson would behave. Nobody knows that, however.

"blaze, I don't know if you are referring to my posts . . . "

Sheesh, Will, give it a rest! We've read your posts! At least, I have, all of them. There is no need for you to not only keep saying the same thing, but to keep saying it to everyone who posts, whether or not they are speaking to you. Defensive much?

Slick, pretending that Bush didn't embarrass himself in the debate is par for the course. You have revealed yourself, once again, an apologist for the lackwitted, a buffoon of the highest order, and a Bush voter. Whatever you want to claim, anyone interested can read the debate transcripts for themselves. Gore demonstrated himself to be up to the task of intelligently answering the questions. Bush did not. I realize that admitting just how badly Bush did in these mock debates shatters your self-esteem - after all, even in a canned debate your preferred candidate demonstrated an appalling grasp of the facts.

Be honest Will "Wannabe Pol Pot" Allen, you know Gore eviscerated Bush, but you keep trying to find ways to salvage your ego. Grow up and stop being such a Bush tribalist. The only reason Bush reflects badly on you is because of your unwavering support when it counted.

Slick, I know you hate when people actually understand the English language (it makes your incessant spinning for the RNC just impossible), but here's what Bush actually said:

I brought this up recently with the newly elected president in Mexico, he's a man I know from Mexico. I talked to him about how best to expedite the exploration of natural gas in Mexico and transport it up to the United States so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil.

One of the many differences between us, Slick, is that I'm not an apologist for a blithering idiot.

Before Will "killing tens of thousands isn't really mass murder" shows back up - I was wrong.

I'd read this years ago and remembered it incorrectly and didn't read it carefully before posting it. Natural gas isn't oil. This undermines my original point (just because I'm far smarter than the lump of slime mold that goes by Will Allen doesn't mean I never make mistakes).

Even so, Slick Willy's candidate still lost all of the debates on substance. All Slick Willy's talk of polls and the election does nothing to change that. The question of how someone does in a debate is independent of the spin about it.

I should have elaborated more earlier. Here is why I agree with Kevin, and why I would love to see this debate. Hillary was a successful lawyer in Arkansas for many years. I'm sure she dealt with her share of the big southern guys who try to use their 'presence', or whatever you want to call it, to intimidate, and their so-called charm to win points. And she is married to the best example of that particular specimen. I feel quite sure that she knows how to handle herself in a debate with this type of person, and I think it would be enormous fun to watch.

I'm not saying that the post-debate polls would show she won by a statisticly signif