THE WRISTWATCH GAFFE. Kids, one of the most discussed things in the 1992 debate between Clinton and the first President Bush involved a wristwatch. The cameras showed Bush looking at his wristwatch during the debate and a great fuss was made about this. Google has several entries about the fuss. It was said that looking at the wristwatch showed that Bush was bored and indifferent, and apparently Bush has said that maybe he was anxious for the debate to be over. I have always thought that the fuss about the wristwatch was a good example of judging Presidential candidates by whether they could be good anchormen. Debaters in debate tournaments keep one eye on the time. Oral advocates before a court keep an eye on their watches. Walter Cronkite and Tom Brokaw have set a different standard. They don’t look at their watches Of course, they don’t need to because they are using teleprompters.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- Gary Nuetzel on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Francesca on EATING PEAS WITH A KNIFE.
- avon wilsmore on CHEATING IN CHAMPIONSHIP BRIDGE.
- Anonymous on THE LANGUAGE WEIRDNESS INDEX.
- James Friscia on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Lickity Splitfingers on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- David Quemere on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Nicholas Schaefer on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
Meta
I’ve always felt bad for GHWB getting so much flak for that. Not only is your point about a debater wanting to know the time a good one, I check the time compulsively no matter what’s going on. Then again being a watch fanatic like me does include a lot of wrist gazing anyway (I’m weird).
The whole gaffe issue is a symptom of how the media operates these days, I think. So often they want to tell you what to think of a candidate or their actions or distill the meaning of a 20 second soundbite for the viewer. I could go on all day about how useless television news is.
I agree with Lee; I never watch television news. The one notable exception occurred in 2001 and that was because the Internet was down.
As a former debater myself (high school), I can definitely vouch for the usefulness of checking one’s watch to make sure one doesn’t run out of time and end up omitting a vital argument or fact. Sadly, the debates I participated in were far more structured and rich in information and clashing than the debates that Dad describes here. In my debate style, the most important element for judges to consider was whether we met our opponents’ arguments with rebuttals. It didn’t matter if we succeeded in discrediting them; what was important was acknowledging the argument with a response. I was amazed when Dad (who sacrificed many Saturdays to be a judge and never got to see me debate) told me that. I assumed it was vital for us to defeat our opponents’ arguments with stronger arguments. Nowadays, as Dad tells me, political candidates focus on what a jerk their opponent is and then quickly switch to talking themselves up.
Sorry if I stole your thunder there, Dad!
He not only gave up watching you debate to judge, but he also missed the last two competitive basketball games (5on5 with a ref anyways) of my life. I suppose until IM the last few years, but regardless – that he could watch.
There’s a feature on presidents and their watches in the December issue of WatchTime and they had this bit on the wristwatch gaffe:
Clunky commas, ahoy.
Great catch, Lee. But was Bush joking?
I’m not sure. I don’t even know whether to believe he said any of that (even though he IS a Republican). A WatchTime puff piece might not have the highest standards of journalism.