bringthetroopshonenow_debate

If you are on a slow phone line (or if the video below doesn't play), please click here.

(Other versions of this video are at the bottom of this page.)

About this video

This video was inspired by the video file "Keeping America scared", which is about playing on people's fears in order to further other causes.

I thought it might be interesting to apply the same process to a presidential "debate" as was used in "Keeping America scared", to see what happens. Also because "Keeping America scared" is strictly anti-Bush, I thought some balancing out was due.

As I began to scan the recorded file of debate #2, I realized I was not going to keep up with the candidate's use of single words, such as "weapons" for example, because such words were used profusely. Therefore, I elected to continue extracting the WMD word, but mainly proceed by separating out the story unfolding before my eyes.

I wondered what the finished file would look like, would one candidate have a monopoly on spreading fear while the other spoke of reason? Would the file show a difference in the behavior of the two candidates? You can be the judge.

I should mention that I simply scanned the debate file as it went along. If a candidate said a "trigger word", or a frightening idea, it went in the final file. I did not try to skew the file towards one candidate or the other by skipping over clips, I simply extracted clips as they came along. If they said it, it went into the file.

There were some slight alterations to the above in the timing of some of the clips. Some of them were moved out of sequence to illustrate contradiction. For example, Kerry blasted Bush for having a tax cut while we are at war, he went on to name wartime presidents who knew the wisdom of 'asking Americans for more during wartime'. Then, something like thirty one seconds later, Kerry was over in the corner, offering his own tax cut. This clip where Kerry proposed a tax cut was moved back to the end of the clip where he was scolding Bush for cutting taxes, to show his contradiction of himself.

Similarly, another Kerry clip was moved back to show contradiction. Kerry was expounding his firm conviction that Saddam was a great threat and he wanted to give Clinton the power to use force. The contradictory clip came shortly after when Kerry went on to blame Bush for diverting attention from Afghanistan to use force in Iraq, "where there wasn't a threat." That second clip was moved back in sequence to show it's contradiction to the first.

Also, several clips from both candidates (that stood alone), were moved back from the last third of the debate into the section on foreign policy to get them into the finished file. These clips were fairly even, and minor. I believe moving them into the finished file was a fairly even task.

However, it should be mentioned that I went a little harder on Bush because I moved his "nexus of haters getting WMD's" speech from his closing statements back into the middle of the file. By the time I had scanned as far as the closing statements, the file I was producing had made it's point and I was no longer extracting clips from either candidate. However, when I saw the Bush's nexus speech, I extracted it as it was such a classic. This may present itself as a bias in file production against Bush. I made no corresponding extractions from Kerry to offset this, I had finished collecting data, (I just couldn't resist that nexus speech).

Also to mention, if you don't "get" something, the reason may be in the clip before. Sometimes it's subtle as well, for example a comment from Bush saying "my opponent is right, we need good intelligence.", or when Kerry screws up his fear line about when the terrorists are going to hit us, ("...it's not a question of when"). There is a lot that is subtle in this video.

I did want to inject external footage in three sections, the crickets from "Keeping America scared". They were actually in my original production of the file, but I removed them because they represented an injection of something that wasn't natural to "the way the chips fell in the debate. If you viewed the file "Keeping America scared", you know what the "crickets" are, the inability of a candidate to defend a position. There were three instances where I wanted to "give them the crickets."

The first two were the failure of the candidates to answer questions posed by audience members. The first instance was Bush failing to give a complete and straightforward answer to the questioner when she asked him to name three mistakes he'd made as president, and his actions to correct them. We got the beginnings of an answer, but soon Bush was talking about how he's not afraid to make the tough decisions, even when they're unpopular. I wanted to give him the crickets after the woman asked the question because he didn't answer it. I wanted to offset this by giving Kerry the crickets for missing a golden opportunity when a woman asked specifically how we are going to bring other nations into the war. Kerry used the opportunity to attack Bush for rushing into the war, instead of telling us what dynamics of the occupation are going to be changed to allow other nations to come in.

The final place I wanted to insert crickets was not for failing to answer a question, but in response to Bush's comment, "Howard Dean, the antiwar candidate." I wanted to have a shot of a silent Kerry with crickets to drive home the point that Kerry has no answer for this. If Kerry was an antiwar candidate, he could have had trounced on Bush for this comment, unfortunately, he had to let Bush's comment go unchallenged.

Because the "insertion of crickets" into the file would ruin the purity of "letting the cards fall where they may," I did not leave them in the final file. In the file above, they chips fell where they may.

With regards to the text at the end of the file, I also feel I have maintained balance. The only text that I needed to give special scrutiny to in this area was the quote from The Wall Street Journal which pointed out that Kerry, like Bush, appeals to the "ruling elite" in that he can be trusted to carry forward the occupation of Iraq. I felt that folks need to see this quote from The Wall Street Journal, and that since it shows BOTH Bush and Kerry are endeavoring to appeal to this group (there's gold in them hills), that the quote is balanced between the two.

I also need to say that some Bush and Kerry voters may see this as their particular "torn down", and some folks through biased glasses, may see this file as an attack on their candidate specifically. If they are looking at the file this way, then I hope this tendency is offset by being able to see their candidate's opponent equally torn down. This means that if I turn somebody off you your candidate, they can't be attracted to the other for the same reasons he was turned away from yours. It all works out quite well I think.

And finally, I'm making these words in yellow so if anyone is scan reading, they'll be sure not to miss this paragraph. I feel it's important to mention about this file that it is neither fair, nor accurate to report this as a clear view of the debate. One must keep in mind what we're doing. This is a heavily edited video. The file does illustrate several important points, but it should not be taken as a comprehensive, nor an accurate rendition of debate #2. (And for that matter, neither should this file's mother, "Keeping America scared").

Other versions of this file for download

QuickTime (free player, click here)

Low resolution 4.5 meg QuickTime version

Higher resolution 12 meg QuickTime version

Windows Media Player (free player, for Mac, for Windows)

Low resolution 1.5 meg Windows version

Higher resolution 20 meg Windows Media version

RealPlayer (free player, click here)

Low resolution 1.5 meg RealPlayer version

Higher resolution 18 meg RealPlayer version

Skip to The Case For Peace page.

Skip to anti war march in NYC page

People who have seen this page since October 18, 2004:

Please consider emailing this page to a friend or a group if you think it would interest them.