And the saddest part is that he was an enlisted soldier. So you'd think it would look natural. But ofcourse those yrs were loooong behind him and I dont think he was some combat hardened soldier. He couldnt make that feel natural
LIke I said in a different post, the reason Dukakis looked so stupid WASN'T the head gear. The real issue, the thing that made him look like he was playing dress-up, was that he was WEARING A TIE! The dude actually got into a tank with a tie on! If he had just zipped up the jacket, or taken the tie off, he wouldn't have looked nearly so foolish and out of place. But the whole idea of being in a tank was pretty stupid, because it made him look like a passenger rather than a "driver". He didn't look like he was in control of the situation...he just looked like he was "going for a ride".
The Dukakis Tank Blunder is a lesson in politics similar to the adage for lawyers in the courtroom: You don't ask a question of a witness in which you don't already know the answer. Translated into politics, you don't engage in a political stunt in which you are not reasonably certain of a positive outcome. Earlier, then Vice President George HW Bush was taking photos in a bomber plane which worked to his advantage because he had been a bomber pilot during World War II. Governor Michael Dukakis thought he could play the tit-for-tat game and invited press and public for a demonstration of himself riding in a tank and the results were no less than disastrous. Despite being a relatively intelligent-looking governor, Dukakis appeared a bit like a happy schoolboy taking a joy-ride in a Disneyland attraction when he decided to ride in the tank. His sheepish boyish grin in the tank helmet caused many an on-looker to start snickering uncontrollably because the whole episode made him look ridiculous. Worst of all it made him look un-presidential, and the George HW Bush campaign seized the moment and replayed ads with Dukakis in the tank ad infinitum. I have always wondered that if Dukakis had changed the situation slightly and had been in a control room giving orders via radio to the tank driver, telling him where to maneuver that might have looked much more presidential, giving rise to a perception of him as a presidential authority. By riding in the tank, he looked more like someone who thought tanks were fun to ride. Tanks are for military engagement, not for politicians to get free joy-rides.
If memory serves, they got the idea from Margaret Thatcher who had ridden in a tank and it was a huge PR success, but she of course had that steely glare of hers and had led the UK to victory in the Falklands War, and was already known as "The Iron Lady".
Despite his WWII heroics and time as UN Ambassador and CIA director, George Bush had a big reputation as a wimp. What helped change the perception was when he got into an on-air argument with Dan Rather on CBS in 1987.
This reminds me of the fiasco that was the "Howard Dean Scream" which was heavily ridiculed when it happened in early 2004. Howard Dean's political career never recovered.
Yes, that was and still is considered the end of Dean. However, based on how he was doing in the primaries and his sinking poll numbers, he would have lost to Kerry anyway. The scream just added a hilarious visual to it.
@@Myndir This. It's June 25, 2024. Jamal Bowman and AOC recently 'performed' in the Bronx. Matt Walsh did a bit on the Howard Dean incident by way of contrast to what's tolerated as decorum, now.
I was not a Dukakis supporter, and I am glad Bush won. But the Dukakis tank incident was needlessly overblown. He would have no need to "play soldier" because he actually served honorably in the US Army in his youth. Of course Bush had the sterling military credentials as a WW2 Naval Aviator, but the fact that the tank incident destroyed Dukakis' campaign doesn't make sense to me.
It wasn’t just that, was other things. Certainly didn’t help him, but he never should’ve done it. He was a seasoned politician and should’ve known better.
The whole point of the event was to be overblown, just in a different way. The idea was to change voters' perception of Dukakis by showing him in the tank----as if an image that worked well for him would've somehow shown that he should be president. If the image had worked as intended, it would've been overblown because people would've formed an impression about a matter of substance from a mere matter of style.
All these years and they still haven't figured out that Dukakis' helmet wasn't the right size for his head or that he wasn't riding in the commander's position.
@@milianozuniga-deanda4955 Depends on the tank. I believe Dukakis rode in an M1 Abrams. I don't have any experience with that tank, but I believe it has two hatches (and a third on the bottom): a loader's hatch, and a commander's hatch.
Not sure how relevant it is which hatch he was in. All of the jobs of a tank crew are important, and none are particularly relevant to running for political office.
I find it hard to believe Dukakis is 5'8". He looks about 5'6" to me. At any rate, he looks like a child playing war in that tank because of his size. I don't think a man of 5'8" would have looked that small. Dukakis is lying about his height.
He was 5’8”. But tis was not about height. It was a political commercial that was poorly conceived and executed. It had nothing substtto do with him, really.
The Democrats were set to lose 1988 no matter what. It was inevitable. Too many factors kept the incumbent party strong enough to hold on to power. Factors which one by one fell apart 4 years later. However, Dukasis's weakness as a candidate, exemplified by this moment and his disastrous debate answer, probably is the reason why he lost 40 states. A better candidate would have had a narrower loss.
After the conventions, Dukakis had a 10 point lead so I believe the 1988 election was absolutely winnable, but it was his own self inflicted errors that cost him
@RUclips Veterinarian Firstly, it's a cap, not a hat. Secondly, it clearly wasn't intended to appeal not to _all_ Americans, but to Trump's Core demographic, conservative rural white middle-aged people, who are the ones usually donning caps with any kind of regularity.
@Paul Kryder The rural Midwestern and southern US' populations have always been conservative, backward, intolerant and chronically terrified of 'socialism', so they absolutely were. They just didn't know it yet.
Being 68 inches tall is not a problem for getting on an Abrams... so I dunno why they cared about that. Just teach him where to put his feet and voilà. You've got two foot slings and two rear sprockets to choose from. Also, oh my god... these people. There's nothing scary about standing in the loader's hatch of an Abrams on the move. You cannot fall from it. For doing a figure-8 on a flat yard, you don't even really need a helmet.
I wanted to see this again, having recalled it from my youth, and wow folks, you just OVERDELIVERED right here. This is far more than I was expecting. Keep it up!!
Margaret Thatcher got into a tank in 1986. She wore a scarf around her head and goggles. In fairness, the tank was stationary and part of shooting contest with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.
This whole episode from political history is the perfect illustration of how superficial and stupid American politics has become. I guess maybe it's always been stupid, I don't know. We don't elect a president because we think the candidate has good good policy ideas and the experience and talent needed to run the executive branch. Instead we elect someone because of their headgear choices. Or based on whether we'd like to have a beer with the candidate.
The Cold War had not yet ended so foreign policy was very important in 1988. The whole tank ride showed such a lapse in judgement from Dukakis, it almost single-handedly disqualified him!!!
People pay attention to characters of politicians. This makes sense: you've got to be a moron to vote just based on policy ideas, experience, and talent, because you can't anticipate all the issues that will occur. Think of covid or 9/11.
@@Myndir But I'm not talking about assessing strength of character, or what underlying political philosophy might guide decisions in future unknown circumstances. The Dukakis tank episode is a classic example: that didn't say anything about how he might govern in the future. It's a superficial concern that doesn't predict whether he'd be effective in a crisis like 9/11 or a pandemic. Also: experience and talent are certainly reasonable things to look at if you want to assess how well a politician might cope with unforeseeable future events. And policy ideas are specific to the current problem a person is talking about, but if they're thoughtful and nuanced, they probably predict how effectively the candidate might craft policy to address a future problem.
@@gdoublell1002 I think its the way he looks with his helmet and the fact the he was trying to show support for military while he was for military budget cuts.
I've never seen this shit before, but it's the actually delivery more that mattered...Everyone's right here, I've never served but picked up so many terrible parts 1: It's semi disrespectful because he's never served IMO. 2: He DOES look so small... 3: He's riding around and then smiling like a child that makes it worse...He should've literally just gone straight down to the reporters and practiced to get off with some seriousness as a leader...... From others: 1: The helmets too small. 2: Not in the commanders position?
I was 6 during this time, my household is/was Democratic. Ultimately, politicians need to be knowledgable but the great ones are able to come off authentic. Be yourself is advice we give to everyone else. Politicians gotta just be themselves. We the public can tell when something isnt quite right. Even though he was in the military, those days were so far off and didnt really align with who he was at the time. Gotta try to keep candidates in natural situations.
"Politicians gotta just be themselves"...problem with that is if half of these nitwits showed who they really are, nobody -- not even stalwarts in their own party -- would vote for them. It's all a game. Deceive the people long enough to get their votes so you can hold onto power.
Honestly I always thought the worst part was the name tape on the front of the helmet. I gotta ask though, could they not get him a headset to hear the tank driver as opposed to the built-in one from the helmet?
There is a second moral of this story: DON'T GO TO WAR! If you don't go to war, you won't need a tank to begin with. And subsequently, if you don't have a tank, your political campaign will not tank.
Gary Hart in a boat was worse than Dukakis in a tank. Had he not got caught in that scandal he would have been a more credible opponent to Bush. He was a long serving Senator and had prior campaign experience back in '84.
I'm probably the only person who doesn't see what the big deal was. To me, he looked less ridiculous in that tank, that helmet, and that uniform than he did in a suit.
USA Political History never ceazes to amaze me, as for what trully are the criterias of choosing the President. For God 's sake, why the image of a Man, a photo,a glance and even a stupid quote could play such a significant role?
This tank fiasco wasn't just about Dukakis looking goofy. It was about what that goofiness MEANT. Dukakis had a reputation for being soft on military issues, he had no foreign policy experience, etc. Bush didn't look like a fish out of water when he sat in a jet, while Dukakis clearly did when he sat in that tank. It illustrated the fact that Dukakis would've been in WAY over his head as commander-in-chief. THAT's why it's significant. Politicians have goofy blunders all the time; the blunders only significantly matter if they illuminate a larger flaw within the politician themselves. And clearly this did. Bush was one of the Navy's youngest pilots during World War II, and he survived being shot down on one of his missions. That experience alone made him more qualified than Dukakis to speak on military matters. Not to mention the foreign policy expertise Bush acquired from being a UN ambassador, CIA director, and US envoy to China. I would say that Bush was one of the best foreign policy presidents in the modern era. He had a plethora of experience. Certainly none of his successors have been able to match his foreign policy achievements--especially not his son, lmao. Think about the global events that took place during Bush's term. I shudder to imagine Dukakis being at the helm during the end of the Cold War, or when Saddam invades Kuwait. Bush 41 is incredibly underrated.
Your biggest problem was trying to make Dukakis look like a strong leader who could make hard decisions. He didn't lose 40 states because of a helmet he lost because everyone could see he was a fake.
An aircraft carrier takeoff controller wears a" Mickey Mouse" helmet. White Arctic thermal controlled footgear are called "Mickey Mouse boots". Does wearing his in sercvice preclude a candidacy?
The name tag 'Mike Dukakis' was the worst part. In fact, that's what made it all look so dopey and hokey. And, the fact that everyone knew Dukakis was a wormy phony since he'd always been an anti-military typical Democrat. If Trump did the tank thing he would have fit perfectly with the image of being a tough leader. Speaking of hats and the 'Never Put Your Candidate In a Hat' rule... Trump famously changed that. His MAGA hat became a hugely successful thing for him.
I remember this vividly. I never thought it looked that foolish. (George Bush did the exact same thing, btw,) Never wear a hat. Great to see how concerned about real issues are democratic process is, huh?
It was dumb. Dukakis couldn't pull that off. Dukakis had no buisness getting the nomination and to be honest would never have been even seriously considered had Gary Hart not had the scandal he had.
You've gotta be kidding me, Richard. Bush was one of the Navy's youngest pilots during World War II, and he survived being shot down on one of his missions. That experience alone made him more qualified than Dukakis to speak on military matters. Not to mention the foreign policy expertise Bush acquired from being a UN ambassador, CIA director, and US envoy to China. Bush didn't look like a fish out of water when he sat in a jet. Dukakis clearly did when he sat in that tank. Also, I hope that at least in hindsight you realize we picked the right man for the job. Think about the global events that took place during Bush's term. I shudder to imagine Dukakis being at the helm during the end of the Cold War, or when Saddam invades Kuwait. Bush 41 is incredibly underrated.
Dukakis in a tank wasn't why he lost. Made him look like a weenie but that's a single day story. Talking emotion less after hearing the debate question on the death penalty hurt worse. Willie Horton furlough was a killer, as was Dukakis supporting burning the American flag.
The thing the EVERYONE IS OVERLOOKING...it's actually not the head gear that makes him look silly--IT'S THE TIE!!!! This dude not only looks like he was absent on the day they passed out the "bad ass" at school, but he's riding around in a tank WEARING A TIE!!! The tie makes it look not only like he was playing dress-up, but that he was doing it badly. THAT is the part of this picture that made him look so foolish.
In the future they may examine this from 2016 - that had a similar effect (tried to mirror the opponent, yet made the candidate look comical) ruclips.net/video/h7zmjyhSpbs/видео.html
george h. w. bush semper fi served america in ww2 reinforced with honoring visit to american flag facility. gov dukakis came across as mocking the pentagon comander in chief.as ronald reagan responded, why change horses in mid stream.
Honestly...Dukakis looked ridiculous in that tank with a helmet on...he never even saw military service and Americans knew it. And contrast this image, pushed by the mainstream media over and over again at the time, with actual historical footage of Bush Sr. being rescued from his plane after being shot down in WW2 on a submarine. That tank image of Dukakis was laughable, even to the mainstream media and spelled Dukakis' doom. George Bush Sr, shown at the Republican convention being rescued on a submarine in WW 2 ,after being shot down sealed the deal and Dukakis was toast!
This was clearly a bunch of horseshit and a typical example of the Republicans playing dirty pool. They sent folks to laugh like jackasses under the mic when he came out in the tank. Their is nothing funny about him on a tank - clearly. If you disagree - please tell me what it is. His height? Can't see that at all in a tank shot like this one. The actual tank driver looked like a professor or nerd compared to him. But the media went hard to work for the neo con and made it look as bad as possible. Just a stupid guy on a tank and he looks like any of the tank operators. The guy above was probably paid for as well as others in his campaign. That's why he got to work with the Clintons. Mike didn't know how to play dirty like a criminal - that's all he did wrong.
One fact that nobody wants to talk about is that Dukakis served in the Army from '55 to '57. So this wasn't necessarily a "square peg in a round hole."
@@kurtvonfricken6829 because not all military vets think the same way. They may be unified in their objectives, but definitely not monolithic in thought as the ranks are drawn from diverse backgrounds
It's nothing to do with the hat. The problem is that he looks like he is playing soldier rather than being one.
This. In the information age it's getting increasingly difficult to "construct" an image.
He looked like a mushroom to me and I said so at the time. Voted for Reagan twice and G.H.W. Bush twice.
And the saddest part is that he was an enlisted soldier. So you'd think it would look natural. But ofcourse those yrs were loooong behind him and I dont think he was some combat hardened soldier. He couldnt make that feel natural
LIke I said in a different post, the reason Dukakis looked so stupid WASN'T the head gear. The real issue, the thing that made him look like he was playing dress-up, was that he was WEARING A TIE! The dude actually got into a tank with a tie on! If he had just zipped up the jacket, or taken the tie off, he wouldn't have looked nearly so foolish and out of place. But the whole idea of being in a tank was pretty stupid, because it made him look like a passenger rather than a "driver". He didn't look like he was in control of the situation...he just looked like he was "going for a ride".
The Dukakis Tank Blunder is a lesson in politics similar to the adage for lawyers in the courtroom: You don't ask a question of a witness in which you don't already know the answer. Translated into politics, you don't engage in a political stunt in which you are not reasonably certain of a positive outcome. Earlier, then Vice President George HW Bush was taking photos in a bomber plane which worked to his advantage because he had been a bomber pilot during World War II. Governor Michael Dukakis thought he could play the tit-for-tat game and invited press and public for a demonstration of himself riding in a tank and the results were no less than disastrous. Despite being a relatively intelligent-looking governor, Dukakis appeared a bit like a happy schoolboy taking a joy-ride in a Disneyland attraction when he decided to ride in the tank. His sheepish boyish grin in the tank helmet caused many an on-looker to start snickering uncontrollably because the whole episode made him look ridiculous. Worst of all it made him look un-presidential, and the George HW Bush campaign seized the moment and replayed ads with Dukakis in the tank ad infinitum. I have always wondered that if Dukakis had changed the situation slightly and had been in a control room giving orders via radio to the tank driver, telling him where to maneuver that might have looked much more presidential, giving rise to a perception of him as a presidential authority. By riding in the tank, he looked more like someone who thought tanks were fun to ride. Tanks are for military engagement, not for politicians to get free joy-rides.
gothatway09
Yes but it’s easy to make yourself look silly.
If memory serves, they got the idea from Margaret Thatcher who had ridden in a tank and it was a huge PR success, but she of course had that steely glare of hers and had led the UK to victory in the Falklands War, and was already known as "The Iron Lady".
Despite his WWII heroics and time as UN Ambassador and CIA director, George Bush had a big reputation as a wimp.
What helped change the perception was when he got into an on-air argument with Dan Rather on CBS in 1987.
It would be best if you wrote political ads. You seem to know what you're talking about.
@@ian_b And she covered up her hat.
This reminds me of the fiasco that was the "Howard Dean Scream" which was heavily ridiculed when it happened in early 2004. Howard Dean's political career never recovered.
HeeeeeYaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Yes, that was and still is considered the end of Dean. However, based on how he was doing in the primaries and his sinking poll numbers, he would have lost to Kerry anyway. The scream just added a hilarious visual to it.
Yea I think the same thing. Dude blew it... hell yea
These days, he'd had problems of being seen as having too much decorum...
@@Myndir This. It's June 25, 2024. Jamal Bowman and AOC recently 'performed' in the Bronx. Matt Walsh did a bit on the Howard Dean incident by way of contrast to what's tolerated as decorum, now.
I was not a Dukakis supporter, and I am glad Bush won. But the Dukakis tank incident was needlessly overblown. He would have no need to "play soldier" because he actually served honorably in the US Army in his youth. Of course Bush had the sterling military credentials as a WW2 Naval Aviator, but the fact that the tank incident destroyed Dukakis' campaign doesn't make sense to me.
It wasn’t just that, was other things. Certainly didn’t help him, but he never should’ve done it. He was a seasoned politician and should’ve known better.
The whole point of the event was to be overblown, just in a different way. The idea was to change voters' perception of Dukakis by showing him in the tank----as if an image that worked well for him would've somehow shown that he should be president. If the image had worked as intended, it would've been overblown because people would've formed an impression about a matter of substance from a mere matter of style.
07:20 -- the hat, the hat, the hat. No. You shouldn't have put your candidate . . . IN A TANK! Bennett still doesn't see that fatal flaw.
I have rewatched this clip maybe 5 times in the last 2 years... its such a funny/compelling little bit of US political history.
1:09 man that bookshelf in the background is in PERFECT FOCUS!!
+Ka'lika T. Fria'niquia (Tay Tay) Ambrose is a great historian.
Ka'lika T. Fria'niquia was reading the titles of the books. :) at least something good with it. :)
All these years and they still haven't figured out that Dukakis' helmet wasn't the right size for his head or that he wasn't riding in the commander's position.
Huh? I didn't know there were actually different sides of the tank for commanders...Isn't there just one opening?
@@milianozuniga-deanda4955 Depends on the tank. I believe Dukakis rode in an M1 Abrams. I don't have any experience with that tank, but I believe it has two hatches (and a third on the bottom): a loader's hatch, and a commander's hatch.
Not sure how relevant it is which hatch he was in. All of the jobs of a tank crew are important, and none are particularly relevant to running for political office.
Donald Trump is blowing that "don't put your candidate In a hat" mantra out of the water.
Absolutely.
Kind of surprising. Then again, he’s breaking all kinds of political taboos. He doesn’t even look at ease in the trucker hat.
Yet another way Trump has defied "conventionall wisdom." When it comes to politics, today's "conventional wisdom" is tomorrow's "outdated thinking."
"Tanks for nothing"--Howie Carr
"He looks like Snoopy in there"- Jerry Williams
I find it hard to believe Dukakis is 5'8". He looks about 5'6" to me. At any rate, he looks like a child playing war in that tank because of his size. I don't think a man of 5'8" would have looked that small. Dukakis is lying about his height.
I have a feeling everyone adds an inch or two to their height, especially if they're not exactly on the tall side.
He was 5’8”. But tis was not about height. It was a political commercial that was poorly conceived and executed. It had nothing substtto do with him, really.
Substantive.
The Democrats were set to lose 1988 no matter what. It was inevitable. Too many factors kept the incumbent party strong enough to hold on to power. Factors which one by one fell apart 4 years later. However, Dukasis's weakness as a candidate, exemplified by this moment and his disastrous debate answer, probably is the reason why he lost 40 states. A better candidate would have had a narrower loss.
After the conventions, Dukakis had a 10 point lead so I believe the 1988 election was absolutely winnable, but it was his own self inflicted errors that cost him
"One cardinal rule of advance is never, ever put your candidate in any kind of hat or head gear." Campaigning pre-MAGA was a simpler time
@RUclips Veterinarian
Firstly, it's a cap, not a hat.
Secondly, it clearly wasn't intended to appeal not to _all_ Americans, but to Trump's Core demographic, conservative rural white middle-aged people, who are the ones usually donning caps with any kind of regularity.
@Paul Kryder
Not quite. He'd been up to his 'playboy millionaire' schtick since the 70s.
@Paul Kryder
The rural Midwestern and southern US' populations have always been conservative, backward, intolerant and chronically terrified of 'socialism', so they absolutely were. They just didn't know it yet.
@Paul Kryder
My mistake, I meant "were".
lol, trump sure did a 180 when it comes to that advice
Being 68 inches tall is not a problem for getting on an Abrams... so I dunno why they cared about that. Just teach him where to put his feet and voilà. You've got two foot slings and two rear sprockets to choose from.
Also, oh my god... these people. There's nothing scary about standing in the loader's hatch of an Abrams on the move. You cannot fall from it. For doing a figure-8 on a flat yard, you don't even really need a helmet.
They’re political operatives, not soldiers
I wanted to see this again, having recalled it from my youth, and wow folks, you just OVERDELIVERED right here. This is far more than I was expecting. Keep it up!!
Dukakis was doing well, but then decided to tank his political career.
You probably didn't even realize you were doing it, but your use of "tank" as a verb turns out to be a brilliant (albeit unintentional) play on words.
@@benmeltzer really dude?
@@LanceCampeau 😉
@@benmeltzeri think they realized what they were doing
The classic case of the old switcheroo on a man playing soldier.
He had no business doing that for a dumb photo op.
He actually was a soldier at one point.
Now the president plays like a 5 year old in a fire truck with zero effect.
Margaret Thatcher got into a tank in 1986. She wore a scarf around her head and goggles. In fairness, the tank was stationary and part of shooting contest with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.
"Don't try to force square pegs into round holes." This is the ultimate lesson from the tank photo-op debacle.
This whole episode from political history is the perfect illustration of how superficial and stupid American politics has become. I guess maybe it's always been stupid, I don't know. We don't elect a president because we think the candidate has good good policy ideas and the experience and talent needed to run the executive branch. Instead we elect someone because of their headgear choices. Or based on whether we'd like to have a beer with the candidate.
The Cold War had not yet ended so foreign policy was very important in 1988. The whole tank ride showed such a lapse in judgement from Dukakis, it almost single-handedly disqualified him!!!
Nothing superficial about it!!!
People pay attention to characters of politicians. This makes sense: you've got to be a moron to vote just based on policy ideas, experience, and talent, because you can't anticipate all the issues that will occur. Think of covid or 9/11.
@@Myndir But I'm not talking about assessing strength of character, or what underlying political philosophy might guide decisions in future unknown circumstances. The Dukakis tank episode is a classic example: that didn't say anything about how he might govern in the future. It's a superficial concern that doesn't predict whether he'd be effective in a crisis like 9/11 or a pandemic.
Also: experience and talent are certainly reasonable things to look at if you want to assess how well a politician might cope with unforeseeable future events. And policy ideas are specific to the current problem a person is talking about, but if they're thoughtful and nuanced, they probably predict how effectively the candidate might craft policy to address a future problem.
8:24 now if it had been the helmet I bet they would have been more interested, takes up less space and more closely related to what went wrong.
+wurmsrus that was the helmet, just smaller and from an angle
Funny, I was in high school and this is one of the few things that I remember from M Dukakis.
Ha! me too!
I just don’t get it. Why is it funny?
@@gdoublell1002 I think its the way he looks with his helmet and the fact the he was trying to show support for military while he was for military budget cuts.
My college political science teacher mocked his tank publicity stunt and had the whole class rolling in laughter.
Why is does the background music have to sound so ominous?
I've never seen this shit before, but it's the actually delivery more that mattered...Everyone's right here, I've never served but picked up so many terrible parts
1: It's semi disrespectful because he's never served IMO.
2: He DOES look so small...
3: He's riding around and then smiling like a child that makes it worse...He should've literally just gone straight down to the reporters and practiced to get off with some seriousness as a leader......
From others:
1: The helmets too small.
2: Not in the commanders position?
I was 6 during this time, my household is/was Democratic. Ultimately, politicians need to be knowledgable but the great ones are able to come off authentic. Be yourself is advice we give to everyone else. Politicians gotta just be themselves. We the public can tell when something isnt quite right. Even though he was in the military, those days were so far off and didnt really align with who he was at the time. Gotta try to keep candidates in natural situations.
"Politicians gotta just be themselves"...problem with that is if half of these nitwits showed who they really are, nobody -- not even stalwarts in their own party -- would vote for them. It's all a game. Deceive the people long enough to get their votes so you can hold onto power.
Honestly I always thought the worst part was the name tape on the front of the helmet. I gotta ask though, could they not get him a headset to hear the tank driver as opposed to the built-in one from the helmet?
There is a second moral of this story: DON'T GO TO WAR! If you don't go to war, you won't need a tank to begin with. And subsequently, if you don't have a tank, your political campaign will not tank.
Haha. The Smithsonian didn't want the suit. He did look ridiculous.
It wasn't Dukakis in the it was how he rode ram rod straight no matter if the tank going uphill or downhill.
However, his eyebrows went on to serve over 40 years in the Senate.
Gary Hart in a boat was worse than Dukakis in a tank. Had he not got caught in that scandal he would have been a more credible opponent to Bush. He was a long serving Senator and had prior campaign experience back in '84.
Technical note…why did they not read the text that began this video? :(
I'm probably the only person who doesn't see what the big deal was. To me, he looked less ridiculous in that tank, that helmet, and that uniform than he did in a suit.
The Smithsonian would want the helmet if you had that, but not the suit.
Unbelievable something like this could derail a campaign. Look at what we have now. What the hell is going on?
Amazing the blame-throwing here. Own it, guys. Win and lose as a team, no?
He looks more like a Special Ed student on a field trip
USA Political History never ceazes to amaze me, as for what trully are the criterias of choosing the President. For God 's sake, why the image of a Man, a photo,a glance and even a stupid quote could play such a significant role?
The problem es that he didn’t look like he was in control of the tank (which, of course, he wasn’t)
This was awesome. Keep going!
Michael Dukakis helmet was the least embarrassing. But Jimmy Carter @3:15 is priceless!
Allen1773 thank God Dukakis lost! God think about it..the ussr would still be around too
This tank fiasco wasn't just about Dukakis looking goofy. It was about what that goofiness MEANT. Dukakis had a reputation for being soft on military issues, he had no foreign policy experience, etc. Bush didn't look like a fish out of water when he sat in a jet, while Dukakis clearly did when he sat in that tank. It illustrated the fact that Dukakis would've been in WAY over his head as commander-in-chief. THAT's why it's significant. Politicians have goofy blunders all the time; the blunders only significantly matter if they illuminate a larger flaw within the politician themselves. And clearly this did.
Bush was one of the Navy's youngest pilots during World War II, and he survived being shot down on one of his missions. That experience alone made him more qualified than Dukakis to speak on military matters. Not to mention the foreign policy expertise Bush acquired from being a UN ambassador, CIA director, and US envoy to China. I would say that Bush was one of the best foreign policy presidents in the modern era. He had a plethora of experience. Certainly none of his successors have been able to match his foreign policy achievements--especially not his son, lmao.
Think about the global events that took place during Bush's term. I shudder to imagine Dukakis being at the helm during the end of the Cold War, or when Saddam invades Kuwait.
Bush 41 is incredibly underrated.
Somehow Carter managed to look even more ridiculous than Coolidge.
I think history has been a little too hard on him. He did enlist and served for 2 years. That's more than Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden can say.
Your biggest problem was trying to make Dukakis look like a strong leader who could make hard decisions. He didn't lose 40 states because of a helmet he lost because everyone could see he was a fake.
He lost because of anti-Greek prejudice 🇬🇷
Never put your candidate in a hat does not apply in Australia.
Well stated . Kurt
7:17 Unless that candidate is Donald Trump.
Trump did okay with hats.
He was a bad candidate, blaming the helmet is a scapegoat.
Mondale had his tank, Bush had his watch…..
When you jump the shark it is rarely effective
Not the reason he lost though.
Ron DeSantis' new ad makes this look normal
8 minutes of CYA.
An aircraft carrier takeoff controller wears a" Mickey Mouse" helmet. White Arctic thermal controlled footgear are called "Mickey Mouse boots". Does wearing his in sercvice preclude a candidacy?
Snoopy dog hat politican wanted to play soldier, yet still wearing a business shirt and tie under the jacket.
Snoopy Dog hat!
The name tag 'Mike Dukakis' was the worst part. In fact, that's what made it all look so dopey and hokey. And, the fact that everyone knew Dukakis was a wormy phony since he'd always been an anti-military typical Democrat. If Trump did the tank thing he would have fit perfectly with the image of being a tough leader. Speaking of hats and the 'Never Put Your Candidate In a Hat' rule... Trump famously changed that. His MAGA hat became a hugely successful thing for him.
If Trump did that he wouldn't fit. His campaing was based on bringing troops home.
No one cares about the suit. Its the helmet that belongs in the Smithsonian.
I remember this vividly. I never thought it looked that foolish. (George Bush did the exact same thing, btw,) Never wear a hat. Great to see how concerned about real issues are democratic process is, huh?
It was dumb. Dukakis couldn't pull that off. Dukakis had no buisness getting the nomination and to be honest would never have been even seriously considered had Gary Hart not had the scandal he had.
You've gotta be kidding me, Richard. Bush was one of the Navy's youngest pilots during World War II, and he survived being shot down on one of his missions. That experience alone made him more qualified than Dukakis to speak on military matters. Not to mention the foreign policy expertise Bush acquired from being a UN ambassador, CIA director, and US envoy to China.
Bush didn't look like a fish out of water when he sat in a jet. Dukakis clearly did when he sat in that tank.
Also, I hope that at least in hindsight you realize we picked the right man for the job. Think about the global events that took place during Bush's term. I shudder to imagine Dukakis being at the helm during the end of the Cold War, or when Saddam invades Kuwait.
Bush 41 is incredibly underrated.
Dukakis in a tank wasn't why he lost. Made him look like a weenie but that's a single day story.
Talking emotion less after hearing the debate question on the death penalty hurt worse. Willie Horton furlough was a killer, as was Dukakis supporting burning the American flag.
The thing the EVERYONE IS OVERLOOKING...it's actually not the head gear that makes him look silly--IT'S THE TIE!!!! This dude not only looks like he was absent on the day they passed out the "bad ass" at school, but he's riding around in a tank WEARING A TIE!!! The tie makes it look not only like he was playing dress-up, but that he was doing it badly. THAT is the part of this picture that made him look so foolish.
That hat was the least of his problems that's what's wrong with the country who gives a dam about a hat
In the future they may examine this from 2016 - that had a similar effect (tried to mirror the opponent, yet made the candidate look comical) ruclips.net/video/h7zmjyhSpbs/видео.html
george h. w. bush semper fi served america in ww2 reinforced with honoring visit to american flag facility. gov dukakis came across as mocking the pentagon comander in chief.as ronald reagan responded, why change horses in mid stream.
8:35 "All you have to say is from the Bennet Collection, which is one piece..." The best line of the video!
MAGA Hat worked wonders for Trump 2016
HA HA HA. Democrats being Democrats.
Snoopy lmaooo
Strep Dukakis
Honestly...Dukakis looked ridiculous in that tank with a helmet on...he never even saw military service and Americans knew it. And contrast this image, pushed by the mainstream media over and over again at the time, with actual historical footage of Bush Sr. being rescued from his plane after being shot down in WW2 on a submarine. That tank image of Dukakis was laughable, even to the mainstream media and spelled Dukakis' doom. George Bush Sr, shown at the Republican convention being rescued on a submarine in WW 2 ,after being shot down sealed the deal and Dukakis was toast!
This was clearly a bunch of horseshit and a typical example of the Republicans playing dirty pool. They sent folks to laugh like jackasses under the mic when he came out in the tank. Their is nothing funny about him on a tank - clearly. If you disagree - please tell me what it is. His height? Can't see that at all in a tank shot like this one. The actual tank driver looked like a professor or nerd compared to him. But the media went hard to work for the neo con and made it look as bad as possible. Just a stupid guy on a tank and he looks like any of the tank operators. The guy above was probably paid for as well as others in his campaign. That's why he got to work with the Clintons. Mike didn't know how to play dirty like a criminal - that's all he did wrong.
One fact that nobody wants to talk about is that Dukakis served in the Army from '55 to '57. So this wasn't necessarily a "square peg in a round hole."
John Doe No John - not at all. I would have never spotted it back then but now that I know how they work, I got it pegged.
John Doe
So why was he against everything proposed for the military?
@@kurtvonfricken6829 because not all military vets think the same way. They may be unified in their objectives, but definitely not monolithic in thought as the ranks are drawn from diverse backgrounds
Yet Trump did it majestically with both a MAGA and a hard hat!