Bill Oreilly / Jon Steward going to debate

[G.T.]

October 6th, streaming.

Jon Stewart to debate Bill O

This should be entertaining!

 

[waltky]

Granny makin' popcorn an' candy apple, Uncle Ferd blowin' up some red an' blue balloons...

Presidential debates: Top tips on how to prepare
2 October 2012 - In a few hours, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will face each other in their first presidential debate. The debates are widely regarded as one of the key moments in the US election campaign. How does a candidate prepare for this most crucial of duels?

"It's a 24/7 event for months," says Republican Judd Gregg, who helped George W Bush with his debate prep in 2000 and 2004. The former governor and senator from New Hampshire, was called upon to play that most critical of roles - the sparring partner, playing the part of Al Gore in the mock debate sessions in 2000, and then John Kerry four years later. "It's an extraordinarily important responsibility," says Gregg, and "very intense", involving months of getting into the mind of the opponent, watching tapes and scouring speeches. "You don't mimic the voice, or comb your hair the same way," says Tad Devine, a senior adviser and strategist who worked during the same period with the Democratic presidential contenders. But that aside, the role of the sparring partner is to recreate the persona of the opponent, right down to the smallest of details.

This year Ohio Senator Rob Portman has been playing Obama in Romney's debate prep, a role he appears to have taken on with gusto. "I want to kick him out the room, he's so good," Romney has said of his performance. President Obama has been ensconced for the last three days in a debate camp in Nevada, with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry playing the role of Romney. The months of preparation for George Bush's debates in 2000 included 10 or 12 full mock debate sessions, mostly at his ranch in Texas, says Gregg. "It's best to start as soon as possible," agrees Devine, but it is only after the conventions, he says, that "you really have the frame" on your opponent and can hone your strategy accordingly.

Some candidates like to re-create the setting as much as possible. Al Gore, for example, wanted the presidential debate room replicated right down to the position of the podiums, and even the "ambient temperature" in the room, says Devine. As to the prep team, it is best to keep this small, and tight. "You don't want 10 people in the room yammering at the candidate," says Eli Attie, who worked with Bill Clinton, and was part of Gore's debate prep team in 2000 before working as a writer and producer on The West Wing. After the mock debate sessions, the team would huddle to discuss, he says, but giving feedback to the candidate was the responsibility of one top strategist. "Obama has a very small, tight circle of people he really trusts," says Attie. "I'm sure that no one other than those people will be whispering into his ear at debate prep sessions."

A key task for the debate prep team is to put together a briefing book on policy, for the candidate - or more likely, several of them - as well as a position book (or books) detailing the opponent's stance on all the key issues. The team will try to anticipate the questions - not just in terms of the subject matter, but right down to the possible phrasing, says Devine, with a team of researchers pouring over archive interviews by the moderator, looking for clues. Don't expect to hear anything much new - a candidate will generally be advised to stick to familiar territory, says Attie, using tried and tested material, which has been run past focus groups. More than 95% of material on debate night tends to fits into this category, he says. "You are not trying to re-programme them," says Attie. "You take their greatest hits and distil it down." Sharp one-liner attacks known as "zingers" - are a key part of this, and can be very effective.

More BBC News - Presidential debates: Top tips on how to prepare

See also:

Do the US presidential debates matter?
2 October 2012 - The first debate of 2012 is taking place at the University of Denver, in the swing state of Colorado

US President Barack Obama, meet your Republican opponent Mitt Romney. Live. In the flesh. It is quite a moment. This ill-tempered US election campaign has largely been about both sides drawing a hideous caricature of their opponent producing endless adverts, stuffed with half-truths and quotations taken out of context. This is the first chance America has had to look into the eyes of the two men who would be president and to hear what they say to each other, face to face. The experts I have been talking to say that, yes, in a close election the debates can matter.

What matters most is not the closely drawn intellectual argument about rival policy platforms, but the body language and the pithy one-liner that sums up an opponent's faults. The tone was set by the very first presidential TV debate: John Kennedy vs Richard Nixon in 1960. One commentator at the time said JFK looked like "a bronzed warrior" whereas Tricky Dicky appeared sick, unshaven and sweaty. Ronald Reagan's put-down of Jimmy Carter in 1979, "There you go again", encapsulated the feelings of many that the incumbent was a bit wordy and long-winded, and allowed Reagan to appear sharp and unthreatening.

Above all, the candidates must avoid blundering, making some stray error of fact or tone that makes them appear ineligible for high office. Avoiding the pitfalls is priority number one. I am told President Obama sees debates as a "jump-ball" - a moment when a team can grab control of a game from a difficult position. So he would probably settle, to change sporting metaphors, for a no-score draw. His conference speech was judged "workmanlike" (by me, among others) and he would probably settle for a similar verdict on this debate. Mr Romney, on the other hand, is behind in most opinion polls - badly so in the vital swing states - and needs a win. But the debates serve another purpose.

One of my most interesting recent interviews was with a professor of political communication, Kathleen Jamieson, who made the point that while debates only occasionally change minds, they do leave voters much better informed. She sees that as valuable in itself, an exploration of how candidates would govern - a kind of manifesto in a country that does not go in for manifestos, a promissory note for the next four years, during which one of the two will be in the White House. I will be tweeting as the debate happens, technology willing, and blogging when it is over.

BBC News - Do the US presidential debates matter?

 

[editec]

Bill O Riellly is incapable of debating.

They'll talk, perhaps they'll trade some amusing barbs and that's about it.

Debates are formal events, they come with timing, rules and moderators. They start out with a specific subject under consideration and that subject is all that is discussed.

Few Americans have ever seen or heard an actual debate.

Certainly none of the "Presidental Debates" fall into the catagory of real debate.

 

[blastoff]

It should be interesting. I've enjoyed the two of them going at it in the past.

 

[G.T.]

It should be interesting. I've enjoyed the two of them going at it in the past.

Me too, it'll be a fun watch, except it's on Saturday so I'll probably just see it later on.

 

[MarcATL]

O'Riled up is going to get his clock cleaned...again.

I'll watch the clips after the fact.