Video of my TV appearance tonight - please help with critique

[WilliamPitt]

The caliber of my opponent tonight was exponentially higher than the last time I was on this network. The last time, they put me up against this meat puppet named Torkelson. Tonight, I faced off against Tom Nichols, director of strategic studies at the Naval War College. Nice guy, sharp operator.

Critiquing my own performance, I could definitely have done better. I need to learn to jump in more when obvious bullshit is being flapped about; there were 10 moments in the debate when I had the guy dead to rights, but I let the moment pass and the subject of the debate moved on.

Granted, it's more difficult to do these gigs than I can accurately describe. I'm not running the debate; the guys who own the show are, and they set the tone and steer the debate, and when they change the subject before I can rebut the last subject, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It's a mortal lock that they will defer to the guy from the Naval War College before me; they gave him the last word and did not provide me with an opportunity to rebut the seven things he said wrong. I am not yet impolite enough to interrupt people in a format like this, which is either honorable or a demonstrable flaw.

But I can do better, I think. Take a look at this and tell me how, bearing in mind the Monday Morning Quarterback factor (i.e. there are factors involved with TV debating that you can't know unless you've been there).

I appreciate the input. Here is the page:

http://www.boston.com/news/necn/Shows/news_night/

The 'Iraq Insurgency' link, or the 'Watch Video' link, will get you there. You need Real Player to watch. Sorry about that, and thanks again.

[Ellen Forradalom]

1. You're cute

Too bad you lost your heart to a turtle.

[WilliamPitt]

2. She tempted me

[7th_Sephiroth]

51. whats up

with duers and turtlef#cking

[SOteric]

43. He really is a hottie.

I had no idea he was my age. I thought he was some old crusty dude.

[LeftCoast]

3. Couldn't view it

Sorry Will, I went to go view it, but when I clicked on the "Iraq Insurgency" link I got an error. I tried this with two browsers (Mozilla and IE). It could be my firewall.

In any case, I'm sure you did very well! :hi:

[Scott Lee]

4. Nicely done, William

I watched the news piece.

You did very well, I thought...I didn't really get the impression that you "lost" any of it, but then again the discussion didn't have the fire I thought that it might. Both of you seemed pretty calm and measured about your comments.

Tom Nichols, amicable as he came off, was clearly trying to put the rosiest face on this mess. That being said, I couldn't come away with the distinct feeling that even he believed everything he was trying to assert. I know that sounds odd, but my gut was telling me that he was doing a bit of bullshitting on himself.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. A couple of things

The debate was very cordial which was great. When you are being interviewed versus speaking publicly, try not to look up or away to gather your thoughts (just noticed it a couple times but something worth practicing with a friend.)

The ONLY time I thought you messed up was when you two argued the point of Al Queda "being in one basket."

You should have simply stated that that was PURE SPECULATION on his part rather than argued the point. When the interviewer brought it back to you, THAT should have been your response. "Yes, it's a nice idea but it's pure speculation to suggest that that is what's occurring and one cannot combat terrorism with wishful thinking."

[WilliamPitt]

6. Agreed

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. It's a function of recognizing when that is what one is doing

Raven could give you some good pointers in that regard ;-)

[WilliamPitt]

9. Agreed again

:)

[Generic Other]

13. I liked how civil the discourse was

No screeching Ann Coulter types. A cakewalk.

You seemed very articulate. Well-informed.

Hey! Was that an earring in your ear, dude?

[WilliamPitt]

14. T'was

I can't get the damned thing out. Seriouslly. I tried pliers. The hoop is fused.

[juajen]

40. Will, you did good

The earring thing - get wire clippers and cut the damn stubborn thing.

[VelmaD]

54. Don't listen to them...

I love the earring. Very hot. ;-)

[alfredo]

24. good work. Just remember

Belching, loud farting*, and picking your nose will not help your case.


I have no idea of the pressures involved in a TV debate. All I can do is judge the way you presented yourself and your arguments. You came across as very credible. Selling yourself is as important selling the idea.


Take it from an old salesman, ya did good.







* A well timed SBD will distract your opponent, and throw the questioner off their game. You can get off a few good lines while they are retching off camera.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Actually Will, this post does raise a good point

If you save a fart for when your opponent speaks and slowly release it on time to waft over to his side of the table before he speaks, you can TOTALLY throw him off his game.

Just make sure you aren't OBVIOUS when you lift your ass cheek up off the chair and remember, you MUST AIM...lift the side closest to him..maybe casually LEAN in your chair upon release to give it a bit of a PUSH in his general direction :D

I recommend eating broccoli for maximum debate benefit :evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

36. Forget the broccoli

I'll make you some of my Noodle El Toro!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. Oh yeah and don't let the strain show on your face

practice at home with a loved one

[sendero]

65. LOL...

... I'll have to remember that tactic :) Might I suggest beer and scrambled eggs :)

[proud patriot]

7. OMG Will You did great

Kept your cool , :thumbsup:

[Clete]

10. Interesting a real news show. I think I will watch the videos

on the Boston news instead of my local tabloid version. The guy you faced off, Tom Nicols didn't impress me. He still had the same propaganda points that the Bush crowd are still trying to push on the public even though he spun them a little differently. I think you did quite well. You made him defend his position more than once and you sounded articulate and well informed. My two-cents.

[frank frankly]

11. Will, this was very good.

Re: the part where Nichols talks about drawing terrorists into Iraq being a good thing--it seems you might want to aggressively turn this back on people (I'm sure you'll run into this talking point again) by pointing out that means SOLDIERS=FLYPAPER. I don't think that many people will go along with this, because only lunatic conservative lapdogs could imagine considering soldiers as disposable targets.

You did very well. You were very composed, very quick, and I think your tone towards Nichols was excellent. If you had dropped that tone, though, when he brought up the flypaper strategy, that may have been very very effective.

Having done my first TV interview recently, I know how hard it is, especially when advancing the truth about BushCo. For my part, I fumbled and trailed off, but I was passionate and told the truth. Next time I hope to have my legs under me.

It was, though, impossible to see anything but confidence and quick thinking on your part. I watched your last appearance and this guy Nichols was much better than the last clown, but you more than held your own. I think you did better than you think you did!

Great work. It is appreciated! :hi:

[submerged99]

21. Strange Talking point

>Re: the part where Nichols talks about drawing terrorists into Iraq being a good thing--it seems you might want to aggressively turn this back on people (I'm sure you'll run into this talking point again)<

I always thought that was a strange talking point for the conservatives to espouse. On the one hand, they claim to welcome the "terrorist influx" and on the other, they are condemning Syria and Iran for letting the "terrorists" in through the borders. Why not have an open border policy if the goal TRULY is to trap as many "terrorist" in some sort of trap?

[realFedUp]

55. I agree with this post

Someone needs to counter this "terrorists all in one basket" argument
for invasion of Iraq. I'm not sure if the "terrorists"
activity can be measured in numbers and data in each country
that Al-Queda currently resides...it's probably more a gathering
of news articles around the world or talking to someone
who's a credible source. The point is that terrorist groups
have garnered strength from the on-going poverty, lack of
jobs, cleric rhetoric, anti-Americanism etc. and that
as we've seen terrorist activities aren't confined in one nation.

Good to quote credible source names when you have them.
Makes your arguments weightier.

[Goldmund]

12. You did really good

Only two things I didn't like:

1) In the "How long could Americans politically sustain the support?" segment, you should have called him on "the American people could stomach Vietnam for a decade" followed by the even more proposterous "the American people could stomach the defense of Korea for 50 years". One good point was made by one of the hosts, "there was no Vietnam before Vietnam"; another would be to point out that 6 months after the Gulf of Tonkin, there was nowhere near the level of opposition to the war that there is 6 months after the beginning of the Iraq mess, or the level of suspicion of the respective motives for military action. As for Korea, well, the "small" difference is that there isn't a flow of casualties nor perpetual armed chaos in Korea. In short, the political climate in reference to the present situation is completely incomparable to early Vietnam or to Korea.

2) The "we should abolish 'exit strategy' from the dictionary" comment, justified by "war is unpredictable" rhetoric. The response to that could have been "OK, let's abolish 'exit strategy'. Should we abolish "objective" too?". Yes, war is unpredictable, but the specific course of war shouldn't have anything to do with the necessity to state an objective. Every winnable war was won after its stated objective was accomplished. When is it, exactly, that the US has accomplished its objectives in Iraq?

[WilliamPitt]

15. That last one

he made as part of the last word he was given; I was not provided an opportunity to rebut. On the first one, you're spot-on.

[DrFunkenstein]

83. Ask The French If There Was No Vietnam Before Vietnam

The Vietnamese had literally hundreds of years of anti-colonial struggle. The writing was on the wall, and the local US intelligence there was summarily ignored during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

[Dover]

95. Re: "Exit Strategy".......from the horse's mouth

In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush, Senior, wrote the following :

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

[economic justice]

16. I'm guessing

I am guessing that since you posted reminders for people to watch here earlier in the day that you feel it is necessary to explain your lack of fight. It's not necessary because actually, you did fine. From reading your posts I would have thought you would have been more aggressive but maybe the tone was right for that show. You made some good points. Could you have done better? Well, yeah. So could we all at about everything we do every single day. You did fine! :)

[WilliamPitt]

18. It wasn't a fight-y sort of show

I get the sense that these hosts are grooming me for more appearances. They've upped the challenge level with this guy. If I had flipped out or gotten all aggressive, they might not have invited me back. The tone of the program is moderate, always has been. NECN is a good station. Check the show from the night before; these two and liberal Rep. Marty Meehan talking Iraq.

Sidebar: I smoked a butt with Chet, the guy on the left with the glasses, before the taping. Awesome guy. He and I were in hysterics about Bush's press conference...and Chet isn't the 'lefty' on that program.

[stevedeshazer]

17. Nice job, my 2 cents here

Your best points (paraphrasing here) were

-asking Bushco for a show of humbleness of some kind instead of aggression

-bringing Halliburton up :thumbsup:

-Pakistanis working @ Burger King (no Iraqis)

Nichols could have been called on the new Republican line (I also heard Hannity use it today) that we've 'brought the war to Iraq, better than on the streets of NY' line....there is NO evidence that the Iraqis or even al-Qaeda had the capability to threaten the US.

Plus, next time I hear that old saw that Nichols brought up about Iraq being '26 million people and the size of California, how can you expect us to fix it in X weeks' I want to scream, but you did a good job interjecting here that Rumsfeld led Americans to believe that it would be easier than it has been/was.

Hard to do on TV, I know.

[Sticky]

19. I learned something....

I know it's a small thing but I didn't know about the Burger King hirings. It's something all the listeners would understand - that bush can't even employ people when the jobs are staring him in the face.

Great job!

[ComerPerro]

20. I like the Burger King mention

You did well, IMO

[VolcanoJen]

22. Just finished watching, here are my thoughts!

Without reading what others have said, I'll write this in hopes of not duplicating anyone else. :-)

Discuss: "These attacks have a much more political impact than a military one"

I liked your reminder of the Tet Offensive; many of us drew the same parallel over the weekend. I enjoyed the way you drew attention to the "shrewdness" of their tactics.

"What do we do now to keep this from becoming Vietnam?"

"An ounce of humbleness before the United Nations" is exactly what is prescribed, and we need to drive home the point that honestly, it's impossible for us to look worse in the eyes of the world than we do now. We have nothing to lose from giving this strategy a try, and everything to gain. You did an admirable job of propelling that course.

"Why is time on the side of the United States?"

You had an opportunity to nail Nichols on some disinformation in his answer to this question. He even called up the flawed evidence that attacks "dipped" after the deaths of Uday and Qusay. None of Nichols' arguments addressed the need for more international involvement. His was the essential "Harden up, stay the course" argument, and while I think you could have challenged him a bit on his point, the format really didn't allow for it.

"Let's round-up the terrorists in Iraq and fight 'em there"

EXCELLENT job of refuting this silly RW point. It's really a stretch to think that we'll get all the terrorists in "one basket," and you were very confident and relaxed in the way you rebutted this classic talking point.

All-in-all, I think the other guy got a little more airtime than you did, but you were much easier to stomach, looked great (and well-groomed!) on television, and did your best work when drawing the Iraq-Vietnam analogies, especially in terms of the lack of international involvement in both.

It was an excellent job. You seemed collected and confident. I thought it was just great, and I'm sure I join others in saying that I'm proud you're a representative of our common concerns and goals.

:-)
Jennifer

[incapsulated]

23. Three quick suggestions

Speak faster, don't look up or away, learn to interrupt! It will not appear rude if you do it correctly, ie; he makes a rather sweeping assertion that you "simply cannot let go". This is pretty standard behaviour on these shows, you shouldn't feel uncomfortable jumping in.

You had the moderators sympathetic to your side and the other guy was on the defensive, even if he was allowed more time. He said a lot of things that were wide open to attack and I wished you had jumped in a bit (interrupted). He spoke quickly and was very focused though. That comes easily when you aren't really thinking about what you say and are just repeating the standard lines. This is also why he left himself open on several occasions though, since a lot of the usual spin is sounding increasingly silly.

I would keep the Viet Nam analogies to a minimum, imho. There is more than enough reason to criticize the Iraq situation on its own terms. Bringing in comparisons to other wars drags the focus away from Iraq and into a debate about whether those comparisons are valid or not.

The Burger King story was a great insert into the conversation. It was a simple, and importantly, memorable little tale that people will remember and repeat.

Good job!

[HEyHEY]

25. Get rid of the ear-ring...stop wearing black...

;-)

Well done.

[WilliamPitt]

26. Never happen

Like I said above, this fuckin earring is in there for good; I've slept on it for so many years that the hoop is fused. I tried pliers before my first NECN appearance to get it out. Seriously.

[incapsulated]

27. I didn't even notice the earring :)

Wear a lighter shirt, keep the dark suits.

;)

[HEyHEY]

28. yikes

Well, at least it makes for attention. I imagine many who watch the news won't think "Here's another tv newsguy...god they're all the same" when the see the ring....you stand out.

[Fridays Child]

45. You could cut it open with a Dremel.

Just be sure to hold that lobe under running water while the Dremel is...uh, dremeling. Otherwise, the Dremel will heat up the earring and burn your ear.

[LearnedHand]

38. NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Don't listen to that crazy Canuck! Wear your black and your earring, and joke 'em if they can't take a fuck! (Sorry, HEyHEy! :hi:)

[Armstead]

29. You did fine

I think you struck the right tone, and taised good points. NECN's Newsnight is one of the better cable yak shows, because the hosts do encourage conversation rather then superficial yelling. And they get some really smart guests on there too (a byproduct of being in the acadedemic capital of the east, I suppose).

I think if you'd been all fiery, it would have been out of place. Now if it were Hardball or one of the national cable shoutfests, you might want to "amp it up" a bit.

[WilliamPitt]

30. I'll save my freakouts

for Matthews. :)

[kaitykaity]

31. You did great.

First, you were very credible, and your last slam
of "asymetrical war" was spot on target. Bravo.

Only three things I noticed.

1. Lock your fingers together in front of you
and keep them there. I know it's tough not to
talk with your hands, but it is a distraction you
can ill afford.

2. Don't ever answer a question with "that's an
interesting question". It sounds like you are stalling
for time, afraid to say what first pops into your mind,
or that you were unprepared for the question.

This last one is my own partisan hatred speaking, but
you seemed awfully civilized, and you didn't inject
very much partisanship into the discussion. "Bush
lied, our kids died", that sort of thing. Oh well.

Good show. Thanks for linking us into it.

[are_we_united_yet]

32. Couldn't view it either Will.

Removed firewall but it didn't help. Not sure what went wrong.

[sendero]

66. I had trouble...

... with Opera but it worked fine with IE. Maybe it is an intermittent problem???

[Andy_Stephenson]

33. You wiped the floor with that guy

He looked like an ass.

:yourock:

[Forkboy]

34. Wear a dress next time

keep the bastards off balance!

[JewelDigger]

37. Well Done!

You definitely 'know your stuff' and it's difficult to attempt to 'get it all out there' in the little sound-bits you are offered. Suggestions for improvement:

1) As mentioned already - wear a white shirt (good guys wear white - shallow, but it's already 'in the conditioning')

2) tie color - red or blue...NEVER green or yellow (cowardly)

(as shallow as this sounds, remember you're not trying to 'sing to the choir' anymore....you want to 'speak in a way that people need to hear' .... and 'rememba dahling, it's not how you FEEL - it's how you LOOK ;-)

3) Practice looking people in the eye - if you mean what you say, you can look them STRAIGHT IN THE EYE.

As mentioned above, you know your 'subject', you know what your history. You have the ability to look out to the future. With some minor adjustments, imho, You've GOT IT! DO IT!

[LearnedHand]

41. Some small things, etc.

I agree with KaityKaity, Will Pitt, about your hands. BE STILL! Your head, too. It's great on stage, but the movements look very large and distracting on television. When you get a chance, and when you won't puke when you do so, look at the vid again to notice how everyone else uses their hands and nods their heads.

Don't listen to a soul who tells you to discard the black-on-black, but I agree about the color of the tie: red or blue are best on television; rich gold is next best, but be careful with it. And keep the patterns small, not large.

On the talking points:

When Nichols said, "Americans just aren't seeing the good that's happening there," you should have looked straight at him, wide-eyed and innocently amazed, and said, "Why not?" I.e., force him into that old "liberal-media-doesn't-tell-the-troof" bullshit and make him show his hand.

And you might have mentioned, when he said the above, that you had heard the pResident say the exact same thing the other day, just after the White House announced its PR blitz about the "successes" in Iraq.

All-in-all, going up against a Navy College prof is pretty ballsy. You rock, dude.

[FDRrocks]

42. You did VERY well for...

talkin military strategy with a man in his position. The level was obviously inbalanced. Besides the minor physical critiques and possible missed chances you had (which cannot be given much weight, due to the immediate circumstances), you did really well, in my eyes.

[SOteric]

44. You did well, maintained your composure

and, I think, struck just the right tone.

Good work! :pals:

[Isome]

46. Definitely KEEP the earring.

I first saw it in the video on democracynow.org a few days ago. It's tre' cool (coming from a child of the eighties), especially with the small-framed glasses.

The dark shirt & jacket combo seems to be your favorite. Not bad, but I'd suggest a lighter color shirt, and wear a color-blocked tie instead of print. I can sense the fashion hound in you.

Terrorists in one basket:

Those fools! Next time, don't forget to remind them that increased efforts to fight them militarily in Iraq also distracts us from what they're doing elsewhere. Not to mention, the money we spend fighting them is a strain on the budget to secure homeland defense.

How long will Americans stomach the war:

The remark about Americans accepting 50 years (Korea) is wrong on so many levels. That needs to be rebutted with reminders that the public wasn't in an outrage about the Korean war, whereas this one had protests before it started.

Tet Offensive analogy:

The war college guy must be a shill, a polite shill, but ... The important commonalities are: 1)the Tet Offensive took our forces by surprise (like the recent bombings in Iraq), despite the many casualties, 2) intelligence failed to detect the changing strategy that led to Tet, just as ours failed to realize the changing targets that led to the recent bombings and 3) it took place during a Vietnamese holiday 'season', and the latest attacks took place during holidays.

It was a good exchange, you didn't mess up at all. It's all about the moderators' timing and bias.

[RuB]

47. A man is tried by the praise accorded to him.

I heard you speak in S.F. a few months ago, it was on C-Span. You seemed hungrier then than you did in this interview. You seemed pleased with yourself more than you were with kicking Bushies ass. You have to see Bushie in the face of everyone who you debate. The debate is Bush. As long as the debate can be moved off him and onto policy or strategy or whatever other than Bush, Bush has won and will win in 04. The terrorists see the face of Bushie on every American soldier in Iraq. Bushie is the cause of all the death in Iraq, he is the cause of the death of every American soldier that is blown up in Iraq. Every American soldier that comes home maimed, it is because of Bushie. He lied. His arrogant policy produces the bombings of the U.N. and Red Cross and Iraqi police buildings. You may not need to get angry but you deffinately need more passion so you can stick this war and its tragedies straight in Bushies face where it belongs. He failed. Now get in there and kick some ass Pitt!!

[dudeness]

48. good job will

it may be of some concern to people the disproportionate allocation of time during this "debate"..however, i believe this is symptomatic of those progressing the arguement this particular chap put forward..as momentum swings against the pro- invasion camp, more air time is required to quell the discontent amongst the populous. this in fact leads to the situation where wills points are more succinct and targetted..easy points victory will..

[FrenchieCat]

49. Excellent Job....

You made the guy look foolish (or maybe it was just me). Keep remind viewers that this was Bush's war. We have to start saying that as a liberal talking point....Bush's war, Bush's war. This will help during the 2004 election. We can't let them forget that.

Also, when he yakked about how six months was not enough time for such a large country, blah, blah, you could have reminded viewers that since the Bush Admin didn't exhibit patience when it was dealing with the U.N. and the weapon inspection process, it's seems kinda of pointless to expect so much more out of the American people. In fact, it's unfair to even demand it!

Finally, when the guy was talking about how wars are chaotic, yada, yada, yada...and one never knows how one is going to turn out....a statement saying this was not like other wars, because this war, Bush's war, was an elected war utilizing the Bush Doctrine. The point being that it was foolish for Bush to start his war without having plan A, Plan B, Plan C, etc.....in place. It illustrates why the Bush doctrine and Bush's war are both such a miserable failure. Again, we need to make these our talking points for the 2004 election. We must use the words used by the opposition against them.

You are very articulate and cogent. I was impressed!

[Scairp]

50. Very glad you did not smoke this time

Seriously, I can imagine how very difficult one of these little discussions can be and how hard it is to get your point across with the short amount of time they give you to make it. The good news is you did not come off as some smart-mouthed kid and had cogent points. I give you a 7.5 out of 10.

P.S. Will you ever try to give up smoking?

[WilliamPitt]

53. I've made a deal with God

We win in 2004 and I quit. We lose in 2004 and I use statues of his son as ashtrays.

[SOteric]

63. But first

the speech: "Haec credam a deo pio? A deo iusto, a deo scito? Cruciatus in crucem. Tuus in terra servus, nuntius fui. Officium perfeci. Cruciatus in crucem. Eas in crucem..."

[Scairp]

86. Oh come on

Stop giving in to corporate greed. You must admit you are addicted to cigarettes and quit now. I know it's hard but you can do it! I am sick and tired of good people dying of lung cancer. Don't be another statistic.

[RogueTrooper]

52. I thought you did very well

You know the areas that you want to tighten up around, so I will not bring them up. You looked and sounded very professional.

I thought the "Cakewalk" comeback was very effective.

I did not notice the earing,to be honest.

[VelmaD]

56. My thoughts...

I don't have a lot to say that hasn't been said already.

I guess I can see the point of the people who harped on the earring and the black but I disagree (I know - not a surprise). I thought you looked "professional" without looking like everyone else on tv.

I also agree that you could have jumped in a little more in some places but I imagine that's easier to know in retrospect. I thought you did a good job at presenting liberals as sensible, rational human beings and lord knows that's always a good thing. ;-)

I would be interested to know what other people on the board thought about your body language. I love watching your hands when you talk but I come from a family that gesticulates a lot so it may just be me. :-)

I hope you're right and that they are grooming you for more appearances.

[piece sine]

57. wish I could open the link

I know a thing or two about how to cosntructively critique media presentations. Oh well, maybe later.

[are_we_united_yet]

75. If you download the the free real player

It works (at least it did for me). I'm using IE 5 and Windows 98.

[RedSox02]

58. Help Will! I cannot open link

Is the link now dead? Any other source for the video?

[brainshrub]

59. You nearly pounced on him when he said:

"The Vietcong were longer a cohesive fighting force after the Tet Offensive."

I wanted to hear what you thought about that analysis.

[WilliamPitt]

62. Grrrrr...

Yeah. He was basically arguing that Tet was a good thing. Why I otta...

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. Great Job, Will.

I happen to like the black/black shirt/suit....don't change it. It looks good on you and comes across the T.V. looking nice. It looks good on you with your hair and skintones. If you add color, do it with a red "power" tie. The earring? I like it also but, if you really want it removed, go to a doctor and he/she can probably have it out in 5 minutes.

As for the debate, you were great! I happen to like people who talk with their hands.....it's one of the things I loved about Wellstone...his animation. Look at James Carville! He's very entertaining and extremely animated.

If you don't feel polite when interupting a RWer, then wait until the next question is asked and THEN say, "I would just like to address the issue that so and so just made that is wrong." Hit it before you answer the question. Also, this appearance really can't be compared to one of your speeches. Two totally different venues...you hit the perfect tone with this one.

[xJlM]

61. You're just a young feller

I thought you were older than I am, but I guess I'm getting older.

I think that was a pretty civil debate. I for one would have been calling that fat repug an idiot. His fantasy about getting all of the terrorists in one place, so the Amerinazi Military could proceed to wipe them out was ludicrous. I guess that's right wing thinking, though. If the facts don't back you up, paint a pleasant fiction.

[Khephra]

64. I'll be sure to look at it in a bit!

Looking forward to it!

:bounce:

[Blue_Roses]

67. after reading alot of

the above posts...I agree--you are a cutie and have a nice "TV face"!

With that said, I think you were right on target and made some excellent points that alot of us were unaware of, ie: burger king--had no idea they were bringing in others to work there.

Your body language spoke with confidence and knowledge of your topic. I read a post that stated don't look around for thoughts, maybe so, but it wasn't that obvious, however, it may be just something to remember for Chris Mattthews. You won't have time to look around with him and his hyper comments.

Critiquing is so subjective from one person to another and unless the person looked like an uninformed, uneducated baffoon (bush at the press conference yesterday) then I wouldn't put much stock into negative comments--not that I'm saying there are any.

You did good and we will be looking for you on Chris Matthews or Aaron Brown!

:)

[sendero]

68. Very good job...

... and my congratulations.

The main thing wrong with the exchange was that Nichols got a lot more air time. Nothing much you could have done about that without coming off as a dick.

I hope you get to do more and more of these, you are effective at telling our side of the story and you have a good "manner" for lack of a better term.

And even though you look a bit like my brother (who looks nothing like me :)), I didn't even notice the earring! :)

[AP]

69. A few comments...

1) Any time anyone brings up "attacking the Iraqi police force," I would use it as an opportunity to talk about how imperialism works. There was an article in the NYT about a book that was written about how the US "won" in the Phillipines -- part of the way to win is to use the "natives" to police themselves. The thing the NYT didn't mention was that we didn't win in the Philipines -- thousands of people were slaughtered and the country is fucked up today, 100 years later. So, in race-based imperialist BS invasions, you'd do exactly what the US did with getting the Iraqis to police themselves (which doesn't really work). However, it looks like the anti-invasion forces have read Edward Said, and know the score, and they're attacking the tools of imperialism.

2) What's your strategy? I'd use that as an opportunity to say, well, "what's Bush's strategy, because it doesn't seem to be working?" I'd say something like, it's obvious what's going on -- it's the same thing that imperialis nations have down around the world for centuries...it's about profits and markets and making profits for the imperialist country while impoverishing the country invaded. Like Edward Said says, no imperialist endeavor perpetrated by white people against brown people (or even against Catholic people in Ireland) has ever ended in anything but tears. The ONLY solution is if America changes its aims and does what it does best, and that's liberal internationalism (ie, NOT being an imperialist country). American imperialism has left of wake of disasters (the Philipines is a mess, S. Asia was left a mess, and the countries we got involved in lag far behind the countries we didn't). On the other hand, when the US took out an imperialist dicatator in Japan and Germany and encouraged a liberal democracy, and when the US helped S. Africa convert to democracy, we've seen improvements -- either the light at then end of the tunnel, or we've come out of the tunnel completely.

So, the solution in my mind is to come down firmly on the side of liberal internationalism, and get away from imperialism. Bush talks the liberal internationalism talk, but he's walking the imperialist walk (just look at the direction the money is flowing).

(I'd read the introduction of Said's first couple books if you're looking for a good way to phrase these issues.)

3) There came a moment when it might have been appropriate to talk about how crazy the US was not to acknowledge this fact: muslims fought Russia in Afghanistan. They turned their attention to fighting Indians in Kashmir. Now the battle is coming to the US in Iraq. They've developed skills. It's hypocritical to say things like "I think there's some kind of foreign element" -- hell yes. But it's not "foreign" in the sense that there's one country. It's foreign in the sense that muslims from all over the world are going to fight to defend Islam from imperialsts wherever the battle is, and we've known this for decades. And again, if we're on the side of imperialism, we're going to fight this battle and there's no end. If we're for liberal internationalism and democracy, then we'll see countries like S.Africa, Japan and Germany come out of the mess.

4) The moment of RW spin was when your fellow guest said "who thought this would take 6 months" and you cleaned up on that one. Excellent way to jump in and set the tone. You really pulled the rug out from under that one. When that guy got back on message, he made the "exit strategy" comment. It would have been nice to pull the rug out from under him again by, perhaps, talking over hime with a short comment like, "Japan and Germany, might disagree with that philosophy," and I'd throw in something in about S.Africa being an example of the transition from dictartorship to democracy that offers a good model.

5) Wolfowitz getting shot at...I would love to see that worked into any discussion about Iraq today. E.g., I'd love to know whether Wolfowitz is rethinking putting soldiers in harms way now that he knows what it's like to get shot at. Also, I'd note that Tony Blair has had the courage to go to Iraq, but Bush has only flown over it at 40K feet.

Just a stylistic thing: look into the camera every once in a while. The way they had you seated, you had to look away from the camera to look at the guy to your right. It's sort of distracting to have you turn away from the camera. It would have been kind of interesting if you only looked at the guy on your left, and then turned to face the camera every once in a while.

[eleny]

70. I thought you did very well

The other guest seemed too nervous. Right off the bat, that gave you an advantage. If you didn't make certain points, I didn't notice. You were on the mark when you spoke. When you refrained, it was a display of propriety on your part. A nice display of confidence that you didn't have to jump in at every turn. The right is under the gun these days shooting themselves in the foot with their weak reasonings.

This all left me with the impression that Nichols was on the defensive. Dragging out the old flypaper "tactic" was an embarrasment. Leaving that lingering in the air seemed like you were taking the high road and not rubbing it in. That whole deal stinks on its own. And then, you had allies in the program hosts. They took Nichols to task and were a good counterpoint.

Congratulations, Will.

[are_we_united_yet]

71. Man and I thought you played a mean game of darts!

Well done Will. I like the way you keep your composure. It looks real good. You are sharp guy yourself (but we already knew that).

You came across pretty damn good from my vantage point (and yes I was cheering you on at every turn). I felt like they gave you a little less time to speak than the other guy (but I admit I might be biased).

My only critique is hammer those bastards immediately when they ask you the lame questions like what would you do if you were the American Military right now (Is fire * an acceptable answer?).

I think its a lame question because its like a criminal who goes out steals 10 cars, breaks into 30 houses, set 5 buildings on fire, carjacks somebody, get caught by the police and thrown in jail and he comes to you (as his lawyer) and says "Now what do I do?". Its like WTF?

The UN answer was superb by the way.

[Blue-Jay]

72. Well done, Will!

I don't have any critiques with regards to the content at all. You made your points well. I was impressed to say the least.

Non-content related suggestions: If it's possible to look confident and uncomfortable at the same time, you did it. Someone else mentioned eye contact. Don't squint or furrow your brow. That makes it look like you're thinking too hard. Watch Hannity in action, and you'll know why that's a bad thing. Relax.

Don't trail off at the end of sentences. That implies that everyone knows how you're going to finish your point. Not everyone is that smart. To be honest, I only noticed that once but I'm being picky.

When you reply to someone else's statement, say their name. Example: "No, it wasn't true, Assmaster, but that was the rhetoric".

Smile more when you're addressing a question. Makes you seem more "honest" to the average viewer.

I'd still give you an "A", though. I hope to see you with your own show one day, Will. You'd absolutely kill. I hope I get to buy you a beer in Bloomington.

[nomatrix]

73. How much lead time do you get?

To study your opponent....
Even when I post on the net, I try to research the way the person to whom I am challenging, thinks, teaches, writes, etc. If I have an idea of what direction he's going to take the topic, I can try and head him off with his own words. For example:

Nichols wrote...

"Terrorism, after all, is a strategy used by the weak against the strong. The whole point is to exhaust the enemy without wounding him so badly that he will ultimately bring the advantages of his size and power into the fray. Moreover, terrorism should isolate the opponent, divorce him from the comfort of his friends and allies, and generate sympathy for the cause in whose name he has been struck. In general, the object is to convince the target that life would be more placid if only he would grant the one thing, or few things, that are being demanded of him."


http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/news/nichols.htm

To me...
Chess, terror, poker, debate, internet... it's all about understanding what or who you are up against, find their Achilles heel, and study them. Don't show your hand to soon, and throw them off.
If they derail your train of thought by interrupting, as they sometimes do...

Suggest behavior modification or medication for treatment of...(ADHD)
because over the years, it is still considered rude and lacking in self control. Condescend while remaining calm. (After all you were asked as a guest, for your opinion) Wouldn't that just flip you out?

Study this battleground and the players.

You are doing great Will!

[WilliamPitt]

74. Zero lead time

I didn't know who I would be facing until I showed up at the studio, 15 minutes before taping.

[liberalcapitalist]

76. good job, but...

Good job, but your opponent managed to rebut you with or without aid from the hosts, and he did so without appearing rude. He was a very skilled orator as you said, so maybe you can try to learn from how he did this, as it was pretty impressive. He didn't come off as combatative or nutty, despite the fact he was arguing from the right.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eleny]

79. Welcome to my Ignore List

[Room101]

80. hefditz - Welcome to my ignore list

You just had your post handed to you. It helps when you have substance and reason on your side. :hi:

[liberalcapitalist]

97. what happened here?

?

[eleny]

78. Isn't it odd how we saw him so different?

I thought that the right winger appeared nervous and over eager. That didn't come across as very confident. I never saw him or Will speak before. So, I didn't know what to expect from either one. Will appeared more confident over all. Interesting.

[gulliver]

81. Main points.

1. Ground your Tet Offensive comments. You said something like you "remember" Tet. That might be a bit cloying coming from someone so young. You should cite your research and discussions with people who do "remember" it.

2. Clearly, the "all the terrorists in one basket theory" is a keystone Republican fantasy functioning to counterract war buyer's remorse. It should be scoffed at cruelly. The Republicans are trying to counter the (correct) impression that we got less than nothing out of this war.

3. You could have defenestrated the guy on the "exit strategy" remark. His "war college" obviously never heard of the Powell Doctrine. Your opponent was saying he's smarter than "General Powell." You should have interjected something about that, rudely.

Hope that helps. I thought you quitted yourself very well, BTW.

[Emboldened Chimp]

82. You let that guy get away with some biggies

Exit Strategy: Everyone in the adminstration said we wouldn't be there long. Yet another lie to go along with all the others. And you should've reminded them of Ari's little phrase, "Weeks, not months."

Korea: The guy mentioned the American people putting up with Korea for 50 years. You should've reminded him that soldiers weren't dying in Korea every day, as they are in Iraq.

All in all, it was good. And it didn't seem to me that he was all that formidable. Good show.

On edit: The Vietnam comparison isn't apt. It's more akin to Russia in Afghanistan: a quick victory followed by a long and ultimately financially ruinous occupation.

[DrFunkenstein]

84. Banning The Phrase "Exit Strategy"!!!!

I agree about the Russian analogy. In fact, I would not be surprised if some of the people the CIA trained against Russia were fighting in Iraq now. Sobering thought.

[John_Shadows_1]

85. the guy contradicted himself...

... by saying that the Vietnamese were backed by foreign powers, and that was the difference between tet and this insurgency, then later he conceded that foreign powers (Arab countries, I presume he meant) could be involved in feeding the soldiers and explosives into Iraq. I don't think that the comparison with Tet was "terribly flawed" - though you should be prepared to deal with the fact that History will judge it right or wrong.

You might want to break down the elements of our withdrawal for future discussions. They would seem to be:
(1) UN involvement - you mentioned this
(2) Rebuilding the infrastructure (and I can tell you this - we won't leave until those oil facilities are upgraded, because that's the real reason that we're there).
(3) Establishing a government, and most importantly (and most volatilely, if that's a word) ,
(4) the building of a native security and intelligence force in Iraq.

On this last point, it's clear that those bombings aimed at the police stations last weekend were meant to intimidate any Iraqis who were cooperating with the Gringos, and let's face it, Iraqi cops are going to be a lot more vulnerable than American military convoys. That could be a source of constant disruption. That was good you brought up the border issue - keeping the Al-Qaeda guys from coming in from Syria and Iran., and detecting them once they're in there is paramount (that's why you have to develop a security network).

(3) is problematic - yesterday I saw a column by John Zogby (from the polling organization) . They conducted opinion polls in Iraq, and found that 52 percent of the people there don't want democracy , and a majority would prefer an Islamic state. And less than half trusted America and wanted us there. And now we have to devise a government there, that ameliorates these concerns as well as the ethnic strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

(1) - bush fucked this one up, of course. You were right there.

(2) One thing you might look into - how much progress is Halliburton actually making over there? I keep hearing about pipelines being blown up. remember, Cheney made the claim that we could triple Iraqi oil production in a few years - and now I'm reading that it might take 10 years to get to 6mbd ( they were at 2 mbd before the war) - you might try and find some numbers, there.

[teryang]

87. This guy is a foreign policy pro

...therefore he extemporarizes well. However there were several errors he got away with. ( By the way I thought you did very well.)

A minor one was his characterization of the Korean war. American enthusiasm for that war lasted less than a year. Once the Chinese intervened successfully it became a very unpopular war. Men who had gotten their combat credentials in WWII were forced to fight again in very unfavorable circumstances. They didn't expect to have to fight again and they didn't like it. Neither did the public. We didn't win that war. We sued for an armistice. The terms of the armistice changed nothing.

Which brings me to my second point. The no exit strategy comment is virtually heresy. Wars are politics by other means. Political goals are readily defined. When they are achieved you leave. First we had to disarm Iraq. Of course that was a lie. Then the issue was regime change. We changed the regime, ( Actually based upon my studies of guerilla warfare I don't think we did change the regime it is still out there in the villages coordinating attacks and obtaining funding somehow) but now we don't know what we will get, so the goal or exit strategy becomes establishing a market economy in Iraq for American corporations and we'll call it democracy. This is what is being fought over now, allegedly. You can't have an exit strategy if you don't state what your goals are. The administration lied about it's goals and the attainment or failure of those goals and changes its goals like a chameleon. Following the no exit strategy stated policy you are not accountable to reason or to anyone. If there is not standard to judge effective accomplishment of goals, then it cannot be said whether one is succeeding or failing. If you follow the logic of undefined goals you can only leave until you achieved total submission of the occupied or until you have exhausted yourself in a fruitless struggle.

The former would be colonialism. Colonialism was completely discredited after the WWII. Vietnam was colonialism in drag. Iraq is colonialism in drag. Colonialism will not stand up to nationalism period. It is a discredited political policy and form of government.

This is why exit strategies are not wanted. They force you to define a political goal. Americans can't be honest about what the political goal in Iraq really is- subjugation.

Time is not on our side for two reasons. The remoteness of the battlefront from the base of embarkation imposes hugely disproportionate costs on our side. To deliver a clean lightweight uniform to soldier probably costs thousands if it can even be accomplished, when the organization and coordination of logistic factors is taken into account. The brouhaha over armor vests is a classic example of logistic failures. The most routine every day items are difficult to obtain in war zone so far away. Just getting clean water or a meal that won't make you sick is a big deal. To add to the burdens imposed by absurdly long lines of communication, is that the enemy is using assymetric guerilla warfare against us. He chooses the time and place of attack. Our effectiveness is very limited in countering this method of warfare. Finally, the extremely disproportionate effort results in only marginal effectiveness rather than "victory" and interminable costs that taxpayers and businessmen will not tolerate indefinitely. One starts looking at the purported goals of such military endeavors and wonders, what were they? Are they worth it?

Your comments about tet were right on. When one analogizes to Vietnam, it is the political dynamic not the superficial similarities or differences that matter. Your opponent stated that the Iraqis don't have substantial outside help from a superpower. Don't think so? This kind of foreign invasion into Arab land traditionally draws support from the entire Arab world, if not the entire muslim world. This phenomenon has been observed throughout the centuries. Particular groups or sects among the politically motivated gain their pan Arab credentials by fighting for a cause in a threatened Arab region. This is not Al Qaeda this is an Arab cultural tradition many centuries old. Some experts question whether Al Qaeda even exists. It is a legend really. Various guerilla groups exist sponsored by various powers as a regional defense strategy.

Was "Al Qaeda" weakened by fighting the Russians in Afghanistan or Chechnya or Serbs in Kosovo? This notion that some tactical advantage is sustained by fighting the enemy on the turf that favors him is complete nonsense. We don't know the language. We don't know the people. The people don't like us. The lines of communication are horrible. Yet fighting domestic and international resistance fighters in such an environment favors us? Wrong! Under such circumstances there is no way time is on our side. Such a posture assumes limitless resources. It is a political fallacy of the highest order.

[teryang]

88. Oops,

Apologize for the grammar and usage errors. I can't edit for some reason.

[nostamj]

89. you did well, when you were talking

i don't think you had equal time though.

do dems want to be polite and NOT use the interrupt/overtalk techniques of the right?

seems that way. and I understand it to a degree.

it's a problem. we see them as rude. other perceive strength.

i think the challenge must be strong. specific. and, you may HAVE to interrupt. lord knows the RWers will.

always love your stuff. you'll get better and better at this.

don't obsess if this didn't go as well as you may have liked.

next!

nost

[Kat45]

90. Couldn't connect to it -but I have a question:

Where do I know the name Jim Braude from? It sounds so familiar.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

93. Former Cambridge City Councillor

and talk show host with Margie Eagan on WTKK.

[Ernesto]

91. You

Get a job.

[LittleApple81]

92. Why didn't you ask him "why do you think that Iraqis lives are worth less

than others?" Isn't that what the US is implying by saying that they want to use Iraq as a "cockroach motel" a term used by repugs frequently and with relish.
We we are attracting the "terrorist" to Iraq that means their lives are more expendable than anybody else's.

[GinaMaria]

94. I really liked it

You did a wonderful job. I have a few things for you to consider, take them with a grain of salt. I've never been on tv. I'd probably have the Cindy Brady reaction if there was a camera pointed at me. Here goes:

1. Look into the camera when speaking. It looked like you were looking at the host across from you, sort of up and to the right. I really wanted you to look forward, like you were speaking to all the potential new DUers out there. There's somebody out there who will hear what you say and it will wake him/her for the first time. I think you might have an easier time reaching people like that if it looks like you are speaking right to them. What you say is compelling and not often heard on television, imo.

2. When ever I train/teach I keep a saying on top of my notes that keeps me focused on what I have to do that day. As a teacher you probably know this little saying, but just in case... The saying says: What gets across most is not what you teach, It's who you are. I think you have an amazing ability to make other people think and feel. You inspire people to believe the truth that is already inside them. The Burger King story is a great example of that. Burger King jobs are not even going to the Iraqis. People make the obvious leap in their heads... if they can't get jobs at Burger King then they aren't getting other jobs rebuilding their own country.

3. Stay as focused on the average person as you are when you write. He/she really needs you. So many voices are not represented in the media or our government. You are providing a service. You are needed. They want to hear you. They are leaning forward in their seats waiting for your words. Give them what they want, Will.

Can't wait for your next appearance.

Peace always,
Gina

[GinaMaria]

98. thought of something else

The guy you debated seemed to have read your work and could anticipate to some degree your position. Do they tell you ahead of time who you will debate? If so, maybe that's something DU could help you with. We could research the person and give you links to look at their work. :shrug: just an idea. There are some amazing researchers here.

Edit: just read above that you didn't get significant lead time. Sure seems that your opponent did. He said he read your work.

[MoonRiver]

96. I can't see anything you did wrong!

You told the absolute truth about this BFEE. Those commentators obviously gave more air time to the scum rightwing propagandist. You would have had to scream and yell, not cool, to interupt the obvious media bias. I do believe that the more you and other Dems appear on t.v. and radio programs, the more reality will sink into our brainwashed populace. Then, hopefully, we can get our messages out. Thanks, Will!

:loveya:

[DeepModem Mom]

99. Will -- listen to DeepModem Mom....

I've now read your writing, heard you speak in person, and seen the video of your recent tv appearance. You've a verbal gift, and could be the kind of Pitt-bull, so to speak, we need many more of on our side. I saw very little wrong with your tv appearance, but I'm no expert. My advice would be to consult an expert. I know this is costly, but is there no one connected to Democratic/liberal causes who has access to coaching re. tv appearances, or is there no one out there who is expert and might lend a hand? Do you know anyone, for example, at the B.U. School of Communications, or any way to get some advice there?

I agree with others that you are an attractive and appealing man, and your hair and glasses terrific. I can see that the black shirt is your style -- but I don't know how tv viewers perceive a black shirt, positively or negatively. Maybe an expert would.

Two things I do feel strongly about. Another poster mentioned smoking on tv -- I think there's a reason that is never seen. And I worry about that earring, and your trying, without success, to remove it yourself. I think you need to see another expert about the earring: a physician.

Finally, in considering the possibility of expert help, I think you should think about how far you can, or want to, go. I think you could go very far indeed, and someday be sitting with the biggest of the talking heads.

[Cheswick2.0]

100. good job and BTW great voice for Radio/TV

Your voice is very distinctive and a pleasure to listen to.

I agree about the looking up and away, learn not to do it. Also loose the hands palm up "gathering your thoughts" gesture. When using gestures allow yourself one in that amount of time but make it a forceful gesture. Poke the air to emphasize some point or that kind of cut through the bullshit gesture Clinton uses. You might want to watch him, Sharpton or another effective speaker and study the force with which they gesture.

The other point is this. You came across very well. You might want to learn how to interrupt gracefully.

Also, don't let anyone say your analogy was bad without disputing them. You don't have to argue the point, but I would come right back with something like "actually my analogy was correct". Then give a one sentence sound bite about why it was correct, even if you have to simply repeat a phrase you first used. Get the last word in even if it is "I'd like to dispute that last point". Leave people thinking you have an agument even if you know there is no time left.

Overall great job though

[Crewleader]

101. William you looked good and spoke well!

Just look into the camera more and you will capture the whole audience with the truth you inform.
You looked professional and came across knowledgeable, and sincere.
Like others here who mentioned your great voice, I agree,
you have a great accent. ;-)

When we judge ourselves, we look at the negative more but as you read here there is plenty of positive feedback because you are doing something you believe in and it shows friend.

I'm Very Proud of You! :-)

[grok]

102. Hmmm

The power of your rhetoric is the passion of your words in writing or otherwise. This is what wasn't allowed to shine in this forum. If your opponent was a similarly passionate proponent on the right, you would have wiped the floor with him. He wouldn't have been able to ignore you. And you have the facts on your side.

Each time you pointed out the wrongness, the lies, the sillyness of the Bush administration. Your opponent ignored your point and proceeded along his merry way, on his preset path. As if it didn't matter.

The other problem was, for whatever reason, your opponent seemed to be the appear the nonpartisan policy wonk. The one WITH the "pure, dispassionate" answers. Consequently, the interviewers, for the most part, asked questions of your opponent FIRST. You came last.

You really shined when you did a follow up to his response WITHOUT waiting for the interviewer to give you a cue, thereby getting more time. And you needed to get more time in. And the interviewers were NOT helpful in this regard.

Grok