At this point, I should probably just move on to other topics, but one thing about the mysterious bump on Bush’s back in the first debate is still bugging me.<\/p>\n
First, for those who thought that perhaps the individual snap shot I posted the other day was a random misrepresentation, you can check the video. The Post put the video of the debate online<\/a> — for the relevant portion, right-click on the video to open it in a separate RealPlayer window and fast-forward to the 14:55 mark.<\/p>\n But the point that deserves emphasis right now is the “memorandum of understanding<\/a>” (the agreement struck between the campaigns over how the debates would be structured). Page 17, section 7, sub-section a, clause vi says the following:<\/p>\n “The camera at the rear of the stage shall be used only to take shots of the moderator.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, which ever side insisted on having this provision didn’t want the candidates seen from behind. Since the candidates’ backs are rarely of interest, it seems like a strange request to formalize in the document. Why was this part of the agreement? And which campaign made sure it was?<\/p>\n Yesterday, Michael Froomkin wrote<\/a> what I was thinking.<\/p>\n Someone should really ask Vernon Jordan who suggested the prohibition on photographing candidates from behind during the pre-debate negotiations and what reason if any was given. Because it’s that condition, said to have been demanded by the Bush negotiators, that gives this story what legs it has.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Exactly. If BC04 didn’t want the candidates’ backs shown, and went out of its way to include this in the pre-debate agreement, then the Battle of the Bulge could get a bit more interesting. Someone from KE04 could probably shed light on those negotiations.
\n
\nOn a lighter but related note, Tom Tomorrow had an entertaining thought<\/a> on what might have been under Bush’s jacket.<\/p>\n