This has been a busy media two weeks for the office of the President of the United States.
Former
President Bill Clinton and current
Commander-In-Chief President Bush both had their separate run-ins with the Media. Chris Wallace interviewed Clinton, and Matt Lauer interviewed President Bush.
I think y'all know who came out on top.
I just came up with some "Strength, Weeakness, Sustain, and Improve" bullets for each of them. I'm interested in what you think of the two interviews, and who you think was better.
Clinton Strengths:
1. Very well-spoken, persuasive speaker. Was trying to pull out all stops to convince Chris Wallace that he tried everything he could to get Bin Laden.
2. Masterful at his attempts to steer the conversation back to the Global Charity he's working on.
3. Very good in his attempts to deflect criticism, and failing that, feign "injury" when Wallace wasn't buying it.
Bush Strengths:
1. Great job at using body language to not let Lauer intimidate. "On the offensive" posture speaks volumes on his foreign policy and how we fight the War on Terror.
2. Didn't mince words or use flowery speech. Took personal responsibility for the War and how we are fighting it: "I have a responsibility to protect this country, to protect your family, Matt."
3. Lauer couldn't pin him down and pounce, but it wasn't due to any fancy footwork. President Bush just used brute force and logic to defy wordplay.
Clinton Weaknesses:
1. Looked whiny, came across as a "big conspiracy" was attacking him.
2. Refused to "man up" on getting Bin Laden when he had the chance. Tried to pawn it off of the CIA and FBI "not being able to certify" or some such nonsense. Too bad "Dereliction Of Duty" tells the real story.
3. Needs to wear longer pants or longer socks. Pretty unnerving to see a dude's shins over his socks when he's sitting down.
Bush Weaknesses:
1. Sometimes, a little too passionate in making a point. Scared the hell out of Lauer when he lunged forward. I honestly thought he was gonna b*tch-slap Matt Lauer. Now THAT would have been good TV!
2. Facial expressions: the President has a low tolerance for the stupidity of the media, and it comes across in his facial expressions. He should watch that.
3. Doesn't bring the conversation back to the reason that we are fighting the War enough. It's a simple, powerful point, but you need to keep coming back and reminding people of that awesome "Clash
for Civilization" line.
Clinton Sustain:
* Keep up with the word ballet. Any way you can turn away criticism and direct it somewhere else, if good for you (considering your ineffectiveness in recognizing and defeating the threat back in the 90's).
Bush Sustain:
* The passion of your arguements. Conviction and sincerity are simple sentiments, and you need to keep them simple. Always maintain the high ground.
Clinton Improve:
* Cut the crap with the whining. Seriously. First the 9/11 movie, then the crying about the criticism you get about your lack of action in the 90's. No one is buying it. There is no "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" trying to bring you down: you were your own worst enemy. To maybe 40% of the American people, you were a hero, but to the other 60%, you are a joke. You won't change opinions that are that deeply held. Live with it. And it's always bad to throw the conspiracy blanket over your interviwer. That's just grasping at straws.
Bush Improve:
* Don't "reach out" to the Left. They aren't going to wake up one day and magically turn into "Pro-War Conservatives". They are lost. The Conservatives have a majority (no matter how weak), and you need to continue to inspire them. Solidify your base, and let
them do the fighting in the trenches. They can actually reach out and touch their neighbors, debate over coffee, try to convert them one-on-one. While your words and convictions are powerful, you need to come to grips with the fact that the outlets for putting out that message will never, ever paint you in a positive light. So keep it simple, but keep it strong.
Obviously, this critique is a little slanted (y'think?), but I think I brought up some pretty good points.
What do you think?