克里VS布殊(第一回合)


克里:能否一洗木訥形象?

布殊與克里,將在美東時間周四晚於佛羅里達州的邁阿密大學舉行第一輪辯論會,主題將圍繞外交政策及國家保安。以傳統智慧而言,總統候選人的第一次辯論會,對選民起的作用最大,而選前多個民意調查顯示,布殊的支持度仍然遙遙領先克里:例如《華盛頓郵報》及美國廣播公司進行的民調,是布殊以五十一個百分點,領先克里的四十四個百分點;而《今日美國報》、CNN及蓋洛普進行的調查則發現,布殊與克里的對比是五十二對四十四,若然一向以木訥見稱的克里,在辯論會沒有好表現的話,相信形勢只有更惡劣。

雖然克里獲得不少演藝界、科學界人士力撐,但他木訥寡言,且不鮮明的性格,卻是他的致命傷。但是更令人驚訝的是,是他在今日較早前於美國廣播公司的訪問中,公然向布殊陣營「投降」,表示他「並未完全準備好(辯論會)」之餘,還稱布殊陣營近期指摘他在伊拉克問題反覆不定的宣傳攻勢「頗為成功」--雖然這「並不反映現實」云云(”I think their advertising and their effort over these last months — to use that word — have been particularly successful. I give them credit for it.”)真不知克里是否「未打先認輸」,但這言論給我的印象是他不夠強硬,而這正正中了布殊陣營的下懷。

至於布殊方面,雖然優勢在他的一方,不過他也不是贏定了。近日油價在五十美元一桶的水平上落,若油價升勢持續,或在現水平維持至十一月的大選,無油不行的美國人,始終會將這筆帳,算到布殊的頭上。另外布殊雖有優勢,但來來去去也只是攻擊他搖擺不定,及他的越戰紀念惹人生疑而已,但他自已的紀錄卻也不怎麼「見得光」,若然被克里在辯論會中捉著這點,恐怕兩人只會在越戰時的紀錄互相糾纏--難怪《時代》雜誌早已揚言,這次總統大選將是美國史上「最骯髒」的選舉!

《新聞周刊》的首席政治記者Howard Fineman,今天在MSNBC.com撰文,指出克里及布殊兩人在今晚辯論會中應該注意的事項,我認為是頗中肯的評論,大家不妨拿此來對比兩人的表現。


布殊:會否再度失言?

3 Responses to “克里VS布殊(第一回合)”


  • This debate is sooooo structured that it will turn out to be no more than each candidate take turn regurgitating prepared speeches. The following is an article from today’s (9/30) Los Angeles Times article on the “debate”:
    ***************
    You Can Rule Out Spontaneity in the Debates
    By Matea Gold Times Staff Writer
    Voters tuning in to the first 2004 presidential debate Thursday may be expecting a freewheeling give-and-take between the candidates, but the occasion will actually be one of the most carefully structured events of the campaign.
    The rules for the three presidential debates were negotiated between representatives of Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) and President Bush (news – web sites) in a 32-page memorandum of understanding, and they leave little room for spontaneity.
    They specify, among other things, that the candidates cannot pose questions directly to each other and that the moderators must use specific language when cutting off long-winded answers.
    The two campaigns haggled over the temperature of the room, how far the men could wander from their lecterns and how a colored light would alert them if they went over their allotted time. The candidates can bring paper and pens or pencils, but all of the items must be submitted ahead of time so they can be placed on the lecterns, each of which will be constructed and placed to Kerry-Bush specifications.
    Though past campaigns have made similar agreements, the 2004 debate rules between Kerry and Bush are the most detailed and far-reaching of any election, and have rankled political observers who say the candidates are attempting to control media coverage.
    Under the agreement, which also covers the Oct. 5 vice presidential debate, television cameras cannot show one candidate while the other is speaking or broadcast images of the audience’s response — prohibitions that the networks have rejected.
    Political experts said the campaigns’ micro-management of the debates undermined their value.
    “This is a parody of what real civic give-and-take is and could be in America,” said Martin Kaplan, director of USC’s Norman Lear Center, which studies the intersection of politics and entertainment.
    “What we’re desperate for is some really serious discussion, beyond the sound bites, about the problems the country is facing,” he said. “Instead, what we’ve guaranteed is an exchange of bumper sticker slogans.”
    The nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which sponsors and produces the events, has not signed the agreement, as requested by the Kerry and Bush campaigns. But in a statement posted on its website Monday, the commission said it would enforce the guidelines and not depart from them without the approval of the campaigns.
    The campaigns are insisting that the moderators also sign the agreement or risk being replaced. ABC said Charles Gibson, who is to moderate the second debate, on Oct. 8 in St. Louis, would not do so.
    Whether Jim Lehrer of PBS, who is to moderate the first debate — in Coral Gables, Fla., on Thursday — and the two other moderators will go along with the campaigns’ demands is unclear.
    Some networks indicated they did not think they would.
    The carefully crafted rules are part of a larger effort by the campaigns to control the image and impressions of each candidate, as well as to cut down on the element of surprise.
    “It basically is ensuring that there will be a healthy exchange of ideas, there’ll be a lot of topics covered…. No gimmicks, no tricks, no sudden surprises, so that we really can have a debate that’s dominated by the issues,” Bush senior advisor Karen Hughes told ABC News Radio on Tuesday.
    Both sides brought in political heavyweights to lead the negotiations: powerhouse Washington attorney Vernon Jordan for Kerry and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III for Bush.
    “They’re trying to take into account all the contingencies,” said Zachary White, assistant professor of communication studies at the University of San Francisco. “They don’t want anything to be left to chance so the voters will fill in the gaps themselves.”
    The lecterns will be 10 feet apart — enough distance so the president’s shorter stature will not be in strong contrast to that of his lanky rival. And “no candidate shall be permitted to use risers or any other device to create an impression of elevated height,” according to the memorandum.
    One issue that is somewhat unresolved: the temperature in the room. The Bush campaign wanted it above 70 degrees, hoping to get Kerry to break out in a sweat, while the Democrats were pushing for a cooler ambience. In the end, they settled on “industry standard.”
    The most controversial provision in the memo attempts to prevent the TV networks from broadcasting the reaction of either candidate as the other is speaking. Those familiar with the negotiations said the president’s reelection team wanted the stipulation, which Bush also insisted on during his 1994 debate with then-Texas Gov. Ann Richards.
    The networks have balked at such restrictions and refused to comply.
    “We are not subject to agreements between the candidates,” said Barbara Levin, a spokeswoman for NBC News. “We will use pictures as we see fit.”
    Media experts said the requirement infringes on journalistic freedom.
    “Sometimes the expression of opinion or the reaction to differences is an essential piece of the story,” said Bob Steele, a senior member of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute. “To restrict video or still images of one candidate reacting to what the other has to say is exceptionally problematic.”
    The Kerry campaign declined to comment on the attempted regulation, but Bush aides defended the move.
    “I don’t think there’s any desire for anyone to control content in any way,” deputy campaign manager Mark Wallace said.
    “The consensus of the campaigns is that it’s important that the productions focus on what’s important to the American people … and the American people want to know what the candidates are saying.”
    Most of the rules agreed upon by the campaigns govern the candidates’ behavior.
    The rules include a ban on props of any kind, including charts, diagrams or “other tangible things.”
    The candidates cannot refer to anyone in the audience, as Al Gore (news – web sites) did in a 2000 debate with former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley (news – web sites), when he pointed out an Iowa farmer who had lost most of his crops in flooding, then asked his opponent why he had voted against the flood relief bill that year.
    The former vice president also apparently inspired another regulation when, in a 2000 debate with Bush, he walked toward his rival while making a point. This year, the candidates must limit their movements to a “predesignated” area determined by the commission. The level of detail has made historians wistful for the days when the verbal jousting between candidates took a freer form.
    Wayne Fields, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who has written extensively on political rhetoric, noted that in the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, one candidate spoke for an hour, the other rebutted for 90 minutes, and the first one had another 30 minutes to respond.
    He described the upcoming Bush-Kerry sessions as “speeches coordinated so that they take place at the same time, planned by handlers in such a way the candidates will be influenced as little as possible by the other one’s presence.”
    *
    Times staff writer Mark Z. Barabak contributed to this report.

  • 周兄,克里由頭到尾唔似係一個可以扭轉型勢狄候選人,他缺乏魅力,
    在鏡頭前竟然比布殊更軟弱,不妙。

    — 收買佬

  • I beg to differ – Bush seemed irritated and frustrated at times during the debate, whereas Kerry was more organized and more composed. A majority of the people here believed Kerry did better than Bush at last night’s debate, according to a news article here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20041001/ap_on_el_pr/debate_rdp_30

Comments are currently closed.



%d bloggers like this: