NationStates Jolt Archive

Within the last two weeks, Dr. Phil (for those of you who don't know, check out www.drphil.com), interviewed both President & First Lady Bush (http://www.drphil.com/show/show.jhtml?contentId=3201_bush.xml) and John and Teresa Kerry (http://www.drphil.com/show/show.jhtml?contentId=3203_kerry.xml).

I was wondering what everyone thought about pop culture, and not just Dr. Phil, and the Presidential elections this year; d'you think candidates appearing on such shows as Dr. Phil, Jay Leno, MTV, etc. provides an opportunity for them to be more connected with the American population than a speech and podium present them?

Personally, I was impressed that both sides agreed to be on Dr. Phil, and I thoroughly enjoyed hearing both sides discuss things other than politics; I'd rather know who they are as men when they aren't politiking than when they are when making up my mind on who to vote for in November.

Did they "keep it real"?

Did they "keep it real"?

lol. I thought both sides presented themselves as humans rather than as politicians, which is as I said, something I enjoy seeing.

President Bush, in particular, is much more effective in a one-on-one type setting like the Dr. Phil show than I feel he is publically speaking. I do enjoy when he gives interviews, like a recent one with Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News, in which he can remain calm, cool, and collected as I do not think he can when he gives a public speech or rally.

Mahre said it best :p

"I don't WANT the president to be a person! I don't care if he has a little dog, or liked to play with other kids when he was five! I wanna know why Saddam was a threat to America!"

Mahre said it best :p

"I don't WANT the president to be a person! I don't care if he has a little dog, or liked to play with other kids when he was five! I wanna know why Saddam was a threat to America!"
Yea, there is some point here (although it's spelled Maher). I don't think voting for a person based on how they look or based of what the enjoy doing in their free time is a good idea. I mean...look at what Clinton enjoyed in his free time, and he made for a pretty good president...

I don't think voting for a person based on how they look or based of what the enjoy doing in their free time is a good idea.

That wasn't the point I was making.

The post I was making which was obviously lost was that I want to know everything about a man's character and political speeches don't showcase that. If they did, would Clinto - as you use per example - be where he is today?

That wasn't the point I was making.

The post I was making which was obviously lost was that I want to know everything about a man's character and political speeches don't showcase that. If they did, would Clinto - as you use per example - be where he is today?
He's writing books about his character and people are buying it...

but the point I make, that you obviously missed...is that Clinton was a good president, but had people known more about his character, he wouldn't've been elected, despite being such a great president.

No, it just goes to show that the swing voters aren't "NASCAR dads" (they're not swing, they're mostly already Republican,) and "Security Moms" (Women with children who list security as their number one concern are mostly long-time Republicans as well.) No, the swing voter is the average Dr Phil watcher.

Fat, insecure and easily swayed.

(somewhat tongue-in-cheek!)

but the point I make, that you obviously missed...is that Clinton was a good president, but had people known more about his character, he wouldn't've been elected, despite being such a great president.

If you would've listened instead of trying to prove me wrong, you'd realize I was agreeing with you.

i have a very low opinion of people who take Dr. Phil and his ilk seriously, so that fact that the candidates appeared on his show lowered my respect for all of them. that said, it was a smart political move because there are more people who think Dr. Phil is a genius than there are people who have been educated enough to recognize what a hack he is.

If you would've listened instead of trying to prove me wrong, you'd realize I was agreeing with you.
You said you wanted to know a great deal about a president, everything including his character. If Clinton's character was known before the elections, he wouldn't've been elected, despite the great job he ended up doing as president.

Did they "keep it real"?
Yeah, I can just see TV defining "reality". Witness "Survivor", etc. As for it defining candidates and winners, I'm old enough to remember watching the Kennedy/Nixon debates back in '59, and the American public has stupidly gone for the looks every time since then. Maybe we should have a Presidential Bathing Suit contest, along with all the OTHER assinine stuff, huh? I didn't watch the show, and I'm glad. If the only way candidates can "connect" to the voters is through these vapid TV shows, then America is in SERIOUS trouble.

<in response to "did they 'keep it real'?>Yeah, I can just see TV defining "reality". Witness "Survivor", etc. As for it defining candidates and winners, I'm old enough to remember watching the Kennedy/Nixon debates back in '59, and the American public has stupidly gone for the looks every time since then. Maybe we should have a Presidential Bathing Suit contest, along with all the OTHER assinine stuff, huh? I didn't watch the show, and I'm glad. If the only way candidates can "connect" to the voters is through these vapid TV shows, then America is in SERIOUS trouble.

Eh, "keep it real" is a catch phrase Dr. Phil frequently uses. Along with "what the hell were you thinking?" which would have been quite appropriate to direct toward W. ;D

As for candidate appearances on Phil, Letterman, etc.... Given that all programs on television, including the so-called news programs, are biased due to their commercial nature and gloss over complex issues, does it really matter on which programs candidates appear?