The Candidates Debates

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I thought McCain won by a fair margin, but Obama did well enough for his purposes.

Do you think that McCain won on the points? If so, which points?

Which candidate do you think won on the aesthetics?

[kg_veteran]

I think McCain was clearly more comfortable on the substance, and he spent most of the evening on the offensive. Obama did a fair job for most of the evening of getting his talking points out on the table, but McCain wore him down as the debate went on, won the head-to-head exchanges, and was easily the more knowledgeable of the two candidates. By the end of the debate, the experience and knowledge gap was evident.

The reason I say that Obama did well enough for his purposes is that he just had to survive this debate. I think he accomplished that.

[chumdawg]

No surprise here, but I thought Obama showed a great depth of knowledge on the issues, and I thought that was actually highlighted by McCain's repeated assertion that Obama "doesn't understand" the issues. Obama spoke at depth on the issues, and had substance. Hard to figure how he "just doesn't understand."

On the aesthetics, I thought McCain did not do well. He was evidently unwilling to engage Obama directly. I would be hard pressed to remember more than a handful of times that he even made eye contact to his left.

If you've got the best of it, you don't shy away. Obama appeared to me, with his steady willingness to engage McCain directly, as a guy who didn't fear he had the worst of it.

[kg_veteran]

I guess we just see it differently. I thought Obama regurgitated talking points well, but it was absolutely clear who had real insight into foreign policy issues, and it wasn't Obama. And how could he? He doesn't have any real experience in those areas to speak of, so he has to rely on what's he's been told to say.

As for aesthetics, I thought Obama's impatience and need to get in the last word got the best of him on several occasions and made him look somewhat petty. Also, I don't agree with your impression that McCain was unwilling to engage Obama directly. He may not have looked at him much, but he definitely went head-to-head with him in a number of different verbal exchanges, and in my view he won each of them.

I can see why you think Obama did well, because he gave answers that for the most part will appeal to his base. I don't know how he did with people who wonder about his knowledge or ability on matters of foreign policy, though. My bet is not that well.

[Flacolaco]

Everyone sees what they were expecting to see.

[Fidel]

This wasn´t even close. Obama handled McCain pretty easily. McCain was nervous, he never engaged Obama directly. Obama was crisp and clean and showed good knowledge. He looked young and energetic. McCain just looked like a tired old man, nervous and unsure. Combine him with the desastrous Sarah Palin and you really have a "dream ticket".

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Everyone sees what they were expecting to see.

I think you're probably right. I've read at least 10 different blogs, on both sides of the spectrum, and both sides are declaring that their guy won.

It'll be interesting to see the polling data in the morning or tomorrow and see what the supposed "undecideds" or "independents" thought.

[Flacolaco]

Which candidate do you think won on the aesthetics?

It is everything wrong with this country that this should matter at all, and I'm sure it does.

Incidentally...Do any of you (Americans) know anyone in real life that hasn't made up their mind about this months ago? That's the part of the debates that bugs me the most....by this point, shouldn't you have enough conviction and belief in the issues to know which candidate is your guy? They're wildly different on the only thing that matters, the issues. Therefore, I can only assume that people who are flip flopping between the two are basing their opinions on something that doesn't matter.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I think you're probably right. I've read at least 10 different blogs, on both sides of the spectrum, and both sides are declaring that their guy won.

It'll be interesting to see the polling data in the morning or tomorrow and see what the supposed "undecideds" or "independents" thought.

Well, the TV networks will inform American who won.

And we've seen here that the Germans have cast their zero electoral votes for the extremely junior senator.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Well, the TV networks will inform American who won.

And we've seen here that the Germans have cast their zero electoral votes for the extremely junior senator.

Drudge has a poll up, and out of 150k votes so far the results are about 67-30 in favor of McCain.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I guess we just see it differently. I thought Obama regurgitated talking points well, but it was absolutely clear who had real insight into foreign policy issues, and it wasn't Obama. And how could he? He doesn't have any real experience in those areas to speak of, so he has to rely on what's he's been told to say.

As for aesthetics, I thought Obama's impatience and need to get in the last word got the best of him on several occasions and made him look somewhat petty. Also, I don't agree with your impression that McCain was unwilling to engage Obama directly. He may not have looked at him much, but he definitely went head-to-head with him in a number of different verbal exchanges, and in my view he won each of them.

I can see why you think Obama did well, because he gave answers that for the most part will appeal to his base. I don't know how he did with people who wonder about his knowledge or ability on matters of foreign policy, though. My bet is not that well.

I think we do see it differently. I see it through the lens, as you and I have discussed, of careful reasoning versus impulsive action. Obama comes across to me as a guy who understands broad ramifications. McCain comes across to me as a guy who firmly believes that because he has visited a place (as he reminded us several times tonight) and has been in the Senate a long time, he has the best judgment to lead the nation.

From my point of view, that is a flimsy argument. I find it entirely possible that John McCain could have a serious lack of judgment despite his time in the Senate and his visits to foreign lands. In other words, I see no reason to write him a blank check based on his passport.

As for the aesthetics...I will give McCain credit for showing knowledge of the foreign affairs issues, but I don't know how you could claim that he came across as more presidential.

He looked pretty small to me. And that's not a good thing, when you are running for president.

[Flacolaco]

Headlines from around Google News at this hour....

New York Daily News says "Score one for McCain"
TIME magazine gives Obama a A- and McCain a B
CBS says "Both Candidates flying high after debate"

And it goes on and on in that fashion.

[fluid.forty.one]

I think Obama won the economic portion and McCain won the foreign policy. Which was to be expected.

I thought McCain did seem a little bitter and attacked Obama more, and Obama gave McCain a lot of credit (which republicans used to bash Obama). *shrug*

Overall I'd give the edge to McCain since the bitterness I saw and the negativity I had towards him could have been biased.

[rabbitproof]

On first glance, McCain wins. He got the "biting" comments in, stayed on his theme of "Obama doesn't understand" and "I'm the experienced one". It was like a team that was intent on establishing the low post and continually going to that, even if it was getting old and losing some relevance at times. His debate purpose was obviously more offensive, as he's trailing in the polls, which he pulled off fairly well IMO.

Obama fell into it a few times by trying to defend very specific statements but, on the whole, kept away from trying to prove himself and rather was able to illustrate why he would be different (and depending on the viewer, better) than McCain - and Bush. I thought McCain made an effort to distinguish himself from Bush, but other than torturing POWs, he failed. I don't see any Bush-haters or "non-fans" feeling McCain right now.

I'd say both says will say their side won. Nothing resounding either way. As for the independents, I think this debate will serve them well. On foreign policy, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum so there wasn't much politicking to be done (and I felt for the most part, both sides kept away from cherry-picking or nitpicking). It's pretty clear cut. You like white bread or brown bread. You want mayo or you don't. So, independents will migrate to the field they are most attracted to. Obama's insistance that the Iraq WAR (not the tactical surge) is a mistake and focus on Afghanistan may not be very quotable but should score bigger and more long-term points than anything McCain said IMO.

Personality wise, McCain came off a little standoffish and aggressive while Obama seemed slightly aloof. McCain's approach will probably make the stronger first impression but over time, I'll prefer the guy who is more calm and willing to admit he agrees - but that's just me.

I think we may see a point or two shift either way but for the most part, we did not learn much about these guys tonight and little opinions will change from this debate.

[Mavdog]

imo both candidates showed why they are their party's nominee, and both men accomplished what they wanted.

mccain hammered on his opposition to out of control spending, and his experience in foreign affairs.

obama communicated his goal of changing the direction of the country, both domestically and internationally.

it was striking how comfortable obama was, how many times he looked directly at the camera to make his point, and the intelligence with which he approaches the issues.

mccain did well behind the podium with few problems with his phrases and words (he's preferred more open settings), and it's clearly the "experience" theme that he believes will win him the election.

as for "talking points", that was clearly where mccain was much more comfortable. he used those much, much more than obama, who was more free flowing with his responses.

I'm not expecting this debate to have altered the public much, although my initial reaction is that obama appeared more engaging by his body language and concise answers to the questions. if the voters get comfortable with him, get past the relative youth and the onslaught of rumours that have been tossed out about him, not to mention did you know he is a black american?, he has the election won.

one would expect that the viewers did get a good glimpse of the differences between them, and we should thank a good job by jim lehrer. he was eager to get them to talk to each other although they both resisted, and his questioning kept the time going at a good pace.

[Murphy3]

I haven't finished watching.. Did Obama abort any living children during the debates?

[92bDad]

In terms of debate...at best this was a tie.

It was about what anyone could have expected.

Obama was very articulate and appeared to be the more polished actor on stage. It's as if he has been well coached on what to say and how to say it. But was it the real him, or some character he is playing?

McCain was very knowledgable and although he tried to be warm on stage, this is not his best environment. He did appear more presenditial in that he consistantly referred to Senator Obama, while Obama tried to minimize the stage and refer to Senator McCain as "John". IMHO, this was HIGHLY inappropriate and showed me another level of poor judgement by Obama.

But my opinion is extremely clouded and I acknowledge that. This is the reason I call this a tie.

I believe that there is a strong number of people who are vulnerable to being woooed by Obama and his stage presence and demeanor is that of a broadway actor. He's like an American Idol contestant and lord knows when people vote for an Idol, we all are scratching our heads wondering how they keep advancing.

In my eyes, McCain is genuine, authentic and full of substance that I believe is ready to lead this nation.

Obama is a puppet and I fear the puppet master.

It's been said for years that the only thing that can destroy America is America itself...Obama is a step in that direction. But I digress...

This debate was a tie, saddly it's not a result of the meat in the debate but in the delivery of the message. It's on eye candy and not the issues...I supppose it comes down to what people value:

Do they want someone that looks good, looks like change or do they want someone who actually has the scars and wisdom to understand the impact of the decisions he will make?

[Arne]

The Debate in a Nutshell

Posted by James Ostrowski at September 27, 2008 08:00 AM

McBama favors the Billionaire Bailout.

McBama won't say what programs have to be cut to pay for the Billionaire Bailout.

McBama thinks "we should never hesitate to use military force."

McBama wants to escalate the other unwinnable "land war in Asia" (Afghanistan).

McBama is not sure about whether to start a third unwinnable land war in Asia, against nuclear power Pakistan.

McBama would go to war against Iran for the sake of Israel if necessary. He is not sure if he wants to talk with the Iranians before bombing them.

McBama thinks that Russia is the villain in Georgia.

And the winner of the debate is: Ron Paul, who said recently that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023140.html

[Mavdog]

and there's a reason that ron paul couldn't get any support.

it isn't because he wasn't provided a forum to express his views and beliefs.

it is simply that just like lew rockwell is wrong, so is ron paul.

[Kirobaito]

Having just now watched it on tape delay, I'd say it was a tie. I didn't see much of anything that would push voters to one side or the other who weren't already decided. Both had their strong points, both had their weak points. That said, McCain was "supposed" to win this one, so I don't know. I'm still amazed there are as many undecideds as there are.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and there's a reason that ron paul couldn't get any support.

it isn't because he wasn't provided a forum to express his views and beliefs.

it is simply that just like lew rockwell is wrong, so is ron paul.

Non-interventionist country first foreign policy, sound monetary policy, realistic domestic policy and free-markets won't be proven wrong during the next couple of years. Interventionism in markets, in foreign affairs of other countries, reckless spending and fiat money will. It hasn't been long that the world has left a commodity based money standard and, as soon as the world leaves the dollar standard America will have to realize what kind of a bubble it is living on and the world will have to learn that fiat money is what causes the problems economically not free markets. These won't be great years but hopefully they will teach a lesson.

Hail McBama!

[Mavdog]

please explain how the conflict in afganistan could possibly be characterized as "interventionist". apparently lew and ron see some reason why the us should not be involved there.

as for "free markets", well, we're reaping the results of markets that were left to determine their own limits.

like I said, the public has heard from ron, and the public says no. all this talk that the two candidates are the same is very hollow. only those on the very fringe could view them as the same.

[Flacolaco]

as for "free markets", well, we're reaping the results of markets that were left to determine their own limits.

"Affirmative action" banking was not something the free markets came up with all by themselves. Carters' Community Reinvestment Act and Clintons further tweaking of those banking rules that required lenders to make risky loans weren't limits pushed by the free market willingly.

Their stupid liberal ideas about how it's every Americans right to own a home is as much as responsible for this mess as anything else.

[Mavdog]

it is absurd to direct blame for the current crisis on the cra. there isn't any data that supports your position.

the cra has NOTHING to do with option arms, nor 100% financed mortgages. the act was to stop redlining, not to change lending standards. the cra does not mandate loose lending requirements. it also was not just directed to mortgages but also to small business lending.

the primary writers of the risky mortgages, such a countrywide or indymac, aren't even involved with the cra, they were not governed by its provisions.

it is also wrong to characterize lower income borrowers as all sub-prime credit risks. lower income does not equate to a sub-prime credit rating.

take a look at the locations of home foreclosures, they are not concentrated in low income neighborhoods that the cra was intended to aid.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

please explain how the conflict in afganistan could possibly be characterized as "interventionist". apparently lew and ron see some reason why the us should not be involved there.

as for "free markets", well, we're reaping the results of markets that were left to determine their own limits.

like I said, the public has heard from ron, and the public says no. all this talk that the two candidates are the same is very hollow. only those on the very fringe could view them as the same.

Nation building is always interventionist. Ron Paul did vote to go into Afghanisthan to take out some of the people responsible for 9/11. In the word's of George W. Bush "I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation-building".

Those markets you're talking about were manipulated by central bankers. Interest rates were no longer a result of supply (of savings) and demand.

I don't care about what the public says. But back in Decembre a study came out that said Ron Paul's name was mentioned 4700 times in the media, while John McCain's name was mentioned 95000 times. - And John McCain wasn't exactly the frontrunner back in Decembre...

Anyways it doesn't make much difference, because the majority opinion certainly isn't the most intelligent one.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it is absurd to direct blame for the current crisis on the cra. there isn't any data that supports your position.

the cra has NOTHING to do with option arms, nor 100% financed mortgages. the act was to stop redlining, not to change lending standards. the cra does not mandate loose lending requirements. it also was not just directed to mortgages but also to small business lending.

the primary writers of the risky mortgages, such a countrywide or indymac, aren't even involved with the cra, they were not governed by its provisions.

it is also wrong to characterize lower income borrowers as all sub-prime credit risks. lower income does not equate to a sub-prime credit rating.

take a look at the locations of home foreclosures, they are not concentrated in low income neighborhoods that the cra was intended to aid.

Some nice charts supporting the thesis in this video:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

Nation building is always interventionist. Ron Paul did vote to go into Afghanisthan to take out some of the people responsible for 9/11. In the word's of George W. Bush "I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation-building".

so it is "nation building" to pursue those who attacked the us on 9/11?

Those markets you're talking about were manipulated by central bankers. Interest rates were no longer a result of supply (of savings) and demand.

those "central bankers" did not write the mortgages, give out the loans, nor securitize them.

I don't care about what the public says. But back in Decembre a study came out that said Ron Paul's name was mentioned 4700 times in the media, while John McCain's name was mentioned 95000 times. - And John McCain wasn't exactly the frontrunner back in Decembre...

Anyways it doesn't make much difference, because the majority opinion certainly isn't the most intelligent one.

oh yeah, it's the media's fault....

how very elitist.

again, there is a great deal of difference between the proposals of mccain and obama.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

those "central bankers" did not write the mortgages, give out the loans, nor securitize them.

The drug dealer doesn't make the addicts consume the cocaine himself, as well.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

"Affirmative action" banking was not something the free markets came up with all by themselves. Carters' Community Reinvestment Act and Clintons further tweaking of those banking rules that required lenders to make risky loans weren't limits pushed by the free market willingly.

Their stupid liberal ideas about how it's every Americans right to own a home is as much as responsible for this mess as anything else.

Some charts and indicators on the housing mess. Very interesting. The Clinton changes to the CRA came into effect in January of 1995:

http://www.cepr.net/documents/public...rs_2007_02.pdf

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

Some nice charts supporting the thesis in this video:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

really? the video has nothing to support the assertion that the mortgage crisis is a result of the cra.

it is also incorrect in tying franklin raines to the obama campaign, and in the clear connection that cra loans are sub-prime loans.

can you show where the cra required lenders to issue mortgages to borrowers with bad credit?

where is a definition of bad credit that equates to lower income or minority borrowers?

if the crisis is rooted in the cra, why are these foreclosed homes not concentrated in minority areas that the cra is focused on?

in discussing the cra why even mention non-bank lenders, the primary writers of the mortgages to sub-prime credit borrowers, who were not even governed by the cra?

with sub-prime or alt-a mortgages only about a fifth of all mortages, why ignore the other contributors to the mess such as option arms, no income verification loans and 100% financing loans (none of which were even mentioned in the cra)?

as is said, garbage in garbage out, and that video is based on garbage.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

really? the video has nothing to support the assertion that the mortgage crisis is a result of the cra.

it is also incorrect in tying franklin raines to the obama campaign, and in the clear connection that cra loans are sub-prime loans.

can you show where the cra required lenders to issue mortgages to borrowers with bad credit?

where is a definition of bad credit that equates to lower income or minority borrowers?

if the crisis is rooted in the cra, why are these foreclosed homes not concentrated in minority areas that the cra is focused on?

in discussing the cra why even mention non-bank lenders, the primary writers of the mortgages to sub-prime credit borrowers, who were not even governed by the cra?

with sub-prime or alt-a mortgages only about a fifth of all mortages, why ignore the other contributors to the mess such as option arms, no income verification loans and 100% financing loans (none of which were even mentioned in the cra)?

as is said, garbage in garbage out, and that video is based on garbage.

I've stated many many reasons for this mortgage crisis.

[12 Tone Melodies]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

...On the aesthetics, I thought McCain did not do well. He was evidently unwilling to engage Obama directly. I would be hard pressed to remember more than a handful of times that he even made eye contact to his left...

He was pobably trying to keep from laughing out loud at Obamessiah's suddenly graying hair--must have been one horror of a plane ride from DC to Mississippi to turn a man's hair gray that fast

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by 12 Tone Melodies

He was pobably trying to keep from laughing out loud at Obamessiah's suddenly graying hair--must have been one horror of a plane ride from DC to Mississippi to turn a man's hair gray that fast

His hair was grey at Saddleback. This is not the first time.

A more likely reason is that Mac was trying to prove some point.

Perhaps likelier still, that Mac was afraid of what would happen if he looked.

[rabbitproof]

Polls looking like Obama took round 1. Gallup has it at 50-42 in its three day rolling (with only one day being post-debate).

In retrospect, the policies of the two are well known so particular lines or arguments did not sway much.

What might've really helped Obama was, even if his policies aren't lock step with everybody's, he looked ready to be Commander in Chief, which was a big concern for some independents. He was calm, well spoken, spoke in detail and had a vision. He didn't look like he could NOT handle the job despite McCain's desire to paint him as such. So, if you remove that 'fear factor', Obama represents a change from Bush-McCain's foreign policy of nation-building and domestic policy of focusing on the upper crust, which agree with or not, the nation is tired of.

[chumdawg]

I think the one thing that will be observed from this debate in the long run is McCain's insistence on the talking point that Obama "does not understand," in the face of Obama's ready demonstration that he does indeed understand.

It was certainly a tactic that Mac's campaign bet on. In betting that Obama wouldn't be ready to speak on the issues, they made a strategic mistake.

I cannot fault them, though, because they just don't have anything else.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by mary

Can we get a link, please?

you want a link to makebelieve fairyland?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Everyone sees what they were expecting to see.

bingo.

Mac supporters thought Mac clearly won, Obama supporters thought Obama clearly won.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

bingo.

Mac supporters thought Mac clearly won, Obama supporters thought Obama clearly won.

I'm going to vote for McCain, but I don't really consider myself a big McCain supporter. I looked at the debate as objectively as possible, and I think that McCain won handily. Now, whether that makes a difference for the wishy-washy "undecideds" out there, I have no idea. In fact, it probably doesn't.

[Flacolaco]

VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book
Focuses on blacks who are 'forging a bold new path to political power'

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Gwen Ifill

The moderator of Thursday's vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out about the time the next president takes the oath of office that aims to "shed new light" on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."

Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service program "Washington Week" is promoting "The Breakthrough," in which she argues the "black political structure" of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality.

Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.

During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."


"Well, that's all you've got," she told Cheney.

Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney." She explained that wasn't her intent.

But she also was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., earlier this month.

Some viewers complained of a "dismissive" look by Ifill during her report on Palin's speech. According to Getler, some also said she wore a look of "disgust" while reporting on the Republican candidate.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=76645

Oh well that sounds perfectly fair.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Oh well that sounds perfectly fair.

Here's that reaction to Palin's speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zafLsAtp_Q

here she is looking not so put off when talking about Obama. I mean her book. I mean Obama. Well, no, she's selling a book - by talking about good things about Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhkmZ...eature=related


Why do we put up with PBS as neutral moderators?