The Presidential Debate Thread- McCain, Obama,who won?, who rambles off subject more?

Yeah, I'm not saying he's meaning to be disrespectful. But it sort of comes off that way, at least to me. All the smiling and stuff seems pressured and calculated.

 

obama scored big on pork 18 to 300 million seemed a big hit on Mccain. on iran and not talking without condition i thought McCain looked childish [i am pro talk]

 

I'm not talking generally - I'm talking specifically about his continued use of "he doesn't understand," etc. It just felt canned, and it didn't work - it's almost like it was a tactic going in, expecting a floundering Obama. But when Obama acquitted himself quite well, to say, "he doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy," etc., just made him look sour. There were times when his sardonic smile turned to a sneer, and, to be honest, made him look like he was about to go just a bit off in a bit of a fit of anger, which is not a quality he scores well on. It just didn't come off well.

 

McCain was like just talking to the moderator... Obama had stage presence, he talked to the audience and to McCain too, exactly what a leader should be.

 

I found that interesting as well, Grim. I kept waiting for a surge in Republican audience support, and I just didn't see it - I agree with you, what I saw, showed quite a flat Republican audience line with few exceptions - mostly, a secular, flat line just above neutral a good part of the time whenever McCain spoke. On the other hand, there were many areas, much to my surprise again, when Obama took all 3 demographic segments, sometimes quite strikingly.

 

The White Hair Dude Vs Obama ... Obama is still the top!!! A++

 

Well, there apparently is a certain benefit when one side isnt constrained by "facts" and the opponent fails to mention it frequently.

Example 1: Obama came across about championing a fight against self serving earmarks.

Related Fact: Two months Obama got his senate seat his wife got a raise by her employer (Univ of Chicago's hospital) from $121,910 to $316,962, which included a one-time bonus. That was 2005. On the first round of earmarks afterward Obama requested a $1 million dollar earmark for his wife's employer... and it was (correctly) turned down. His response afterward was he should have asked another senator to request the earmark for his wife’s workplace. Source: Dallas Morning News

Example 2: Obama mentioned he'd been bi-partisan by citing an example where he worked with Republican Tom Coburn on a bill.

Related Fact: Tom Coburn also proposed an amendment to a funding bill that specifically would have diverted the infamous "bridge to nowhere" funds to be used for the repair of two bridges damaged by hurricane Katrina. Obama and Biden both voted against diverting the funds from the bridge to nowhere to the bridges detroyed by Katrina. McCain should have hung Obama, whose campaign has consistently laughed about the bridge to nowhere AND the GOPs response to Katrina. An opportunity missed.
Sources: CNN article and US Library of Congress



Example 3: Obama consistently ascribed blame for the current economic crisis on the failed policies of george Bush that John McCain supported.

Related Fact: The current crisis is a result of mortgage defaults that were the result of lenient sub-prime lending practices of Fannie and Freddie authorized by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 ... an unfortunate timebomb implemented during the Clinton administration.
Source: Investors Business Daily

===============

McCain could have easily put Obama on his heels with the first two and taken the point on the third simply by pointing out that the problem was an economic time bomb planted by a Democrat. On the third Bush erred in not correcting it, but neither of the three current candidates who were in Congress managed to do so either.

Bottom line the first two would have killed Obama, and McCain failed to bring the facts down on his head, tho he should have. McCain probably won the debate on facts, but many will say Obama had to be soundly thrashed for it to count. He could have been, but he wasn't. Basically on form it was a draw.

I'll give Obama credit for being capable of basically evading the facts very skillfully, and if McCain loses to him it will be a simple fact of image over substance. I'll watch the election carefully, but if the voters fall for Obama's subterfuge then we will have gotten the representation we deserve. I say that with the realization that sometimes we deserve what we get and that is not always a good thing. Guess we shall see.

Thats the full extent of my input in this thread... involved in too many already, have work to do unfortunately, cant debate 'em all.

 

Biggest point where Obama really slammed McCain was on the taxes. McCain tried to make Obama come of as "going to raise your taxes", and Obama came right back with specifics and who would pay a fair amount, and what the cut off point was.

McCain also tried to justify giving tax breaks to corporations and Obama came right back, pointing out that on paper it looks like Corps. pay 35%, but in reality with all the loop holes they end up paying less than the average citizen. That was a show stopper to me.

It was like a heavyweight fight. Obama scored with quick decisive jabs, directly on target, and McCain clinched when he was in trouble and tried to control the round time by sticking and moving until the clock ran out.

Mccain needed to "win" this one, and he did not do that. CNN and Fox also pointed out that McCain showing up in Washington actually stalled progress instead of moving it along. He was of no help.

I think Obama held his ground well on the issues of foreign policy making the case that it was more about the judgment to enter into the wrong war , in the wrong location, against the wrong enemy looking for violations and weapons that did not exist, instead of what the plan was to mop up the initial mistake. Had that decision been more tempered, we wouldn't be here in the first place. Proper judgment would have avoided that issue all together.

I think he made that point, and it rang loud and clear.

McCains "Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand" crap looked exactly like what it was, and attempt to plant negativity into the mind of the voters. That is an old Ronald Regan tactic and he used it in the debates when he was running for President. Apparently the republicans don't have any new strategies.

McCain seriously needs to stop insulting the intelligence of the American people to think that we can't see tactics when we see it. I think it is he that doesn't understand the difference between and tactic and a strategy, it appears tactics are all the he has.


Gotta score "1" for Obama and "0" for McCain on this one.

Maybe Palin will help him gain some ground on the V.P. debate

 

I thought that McCain showed Obama as weak. Obama has not met our General David H. Petraeus?
Obama as a typical tax-and-spend liberal during the first debate of the general election campaign. US business pay the highest taxes in the world and by increases taxes on business, it will increase the price of everything on the people Obama is trying to help. (Inflation)

Obama incredibly had not gone to Iraq for 900 days and asked for a meeting with General David H. Petraeus, and its apparent Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.

Mr. Obama for requesting $932 million in earmark spending as a senator and giving big oil tax breaks hit hard and is dominating local radio.

It's obvious that McCain came out on top due to Obama lack of experience on foreign policy and it also obvious by the responses that the debate was viewed with bias goggles on by the same crowd in the forum.

 

With a night's perspective, I think the fallout from this will be that McCain came off like an angry, stiff, uncomfortable man who had stuffed his head with soundbites intended to put the would-be floundering Obama on the ropes - only Obama didn't flounder. He was in command of his facts and presence, and spoke them with force and conviction. McCain came off quite poorly, when he could least afford it.

He didn't make Obama look "weak," by any stretch of the imagination. His constant refrains were obviously memorized - most especially, "Sen. Obama (sneer) doesn't understand (giggle) _____________, perhaps most strikingly, "tactic v. strategy." It was an astoundingly club-fisted attempt at mockery, and it failed, badly. Someone should help Senator McCain to understand the difference, since Gen. Petraeus's surge was a tactic, not a strategy - a new tactic to achieve Bush's strategy of a "seed" of representative democracy in the middle east, in a stable Iraq .

His looked like schoolyard taunts, while Obama stayed above the attempt, for the most part, and came off looking more presidential than he did previous to last night's debate. McCain couldn't look at Obama once during the debate, and appeared to be so pissed by the end he couldn't wait to leave the podium, while Obama was generous, affable, and gentlemanly. Surface, yes, but in terms of "points," McCain's bad attempts at humor - "as old as this pen," "Miss Congeniality" - bombed, badly.

Basically, McCain seemed like he just didn't want to be there. He didn't, in fact, want to be there, and came back kicking and screaming after his "suspended campaign" tactic (not strategy) was thrown back on him. The more I've thought about this, the more I'd hand this to Obama as a "win."

 

Some twisted facts, I'm not going to spend too much time.

However McCain is one to talk about 'earmarks' when Palin is no saint when it comes to 'earmarks'

McCain himself has gone for pork, granted you need access for these 2 articles.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/49_50/news/3502-1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...DEQ7B5Q20Q7BrQ22xoQ26o1kQ7B5Q20PjfFjfm)wQ26Fx

Neither of the are 'above' the radar totally when it comes to earmarks.

'Example 2' is a related fact that does not take away from the fact being posted, but instead is a way to discredit the fact by attacking something else entirely.

#3 Both sides are to blame. Who was a senator during the Clinton years? hmmmmmm
There is more to it than just the issue cited by your source as well, there are so many reasons being listed, no one source is the cause. Many experts have been saying it started back in Regan, Bush #1, Clinton and then Bush Jr threw gasoline on it from my readings.

I don't think either side 'won' I did see Obama stammer a bit, McCain look angry. McCain however needed a win, something I don't believe he got.

McCain also was not 'truthful' by any stretch of the imagination if we want to bring 'facts' up.

Going to use CNN simply because it was the first 'fact check' type source I found.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...as-iraq-withdrawal-plan-dangerous/#more-21072

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/fact-check-did-obama-vote-to-raise-taxes/#more-20950

Neither side in all reality for me personally impressed me.

Factcheck.org has something now

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

Since I recall recently someone being ripped apart of being wrong on timing in history I found this one funny

 

Nothing to bank on, in terms of a scientific survey, but in an MSNBC poll, 705,425 respondents, 51% give the win to Obama, 35% to McCain, 6.3% tie, 7.9% not sure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26906945?GT1=43001

 

CNN shows Obama won as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html

More dems were included however making it not very accurate at all.

 

Obama has been to Iraq and has meet with General Petraeus. Curious you got the opposite impression from McCain.

 

To me it looks like someone changed 'their' view after they were able to read some news stories after the fact. Until then it was 'both' came off good.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html

This one even has a picture of them riding side by side in a helicopter. Sure looks like they have 'met'

 

Republican supporters keep pounding this point, but as it stands big businesses do not pay all of the taxes that it says on paper that they should. The tax code is on their favor and with all the deductions and breaks they actually pay less than the average American does normally.

Here in lies the problem with republican rhetoric. It's not an out right lie, but it is proven on paper that businesses do not pay all that they are supposed to, so to make that point is misleading, and it is that kind of half truth that keeps getting brought up, although it does not reflect the reality of the actual taxes collected from large business (the real money into the general fund) that makes the Republican Party seem less than honest.

The majority of the taxes in America are paid by hard working Americans right out of their paychecks and taxes at the gas pumps

Attempting to scare Americans into voting for them by not telling the whole truth is a desperate tactic (not a strategy).

To hear you guys continue on this road about the taxes, when you know based on your own tax returns what is going on. you either pay like all other Americans, or you are privy to the breaks of the last 8 years and you don't. You can see that right on your own paperwork. I imagine most of us here are not making $5mill a years, so we are paying. Unless you are a multimillion dollar corporation, you have no idea the kind of breaks that they have been getting, so all you really have to go on is what McCain keeps telling you, and he is depending on that because you will never know unless you get into that tax bracket.

As far as meeting Petraeus, most of the Congressman and Senators have not met him, that is Bush's boy.
Every sitting Senator is not allowed to just fly into Iraq whenever they feel like it.
Judging from the photo before me, it appears that was another outright lie by McCain to draw sensationalism.

Meeting the current commander of this quagmire (giggity) is less important than the judgment that got us into this conflict in the first place.
The problem started in 2002, not just recently.

 

Bingo, good observation, Grim. I actually held out a (naive) hope that ole' Biz had turned a bit of a corner, based on his early comments post-debate (after all, he didn't say Obama looked like a janitor, etc.), but the comments above - like a plug of cheese to a brook trout, the propaganda swallowed hook, line and sinker. Nothing new.

 

It is almost word for word what the Republican spinsters have come out with, doesn't take even a 3rd grade education to see through it.

 

I would think a person with a free market outlook would hate both of them. Obama's plan to tax the wealthy and give a break to the other 95% is clearly redistribution, and one either accepts this builds a better country, or impedes it. McCain got hammered on his plan, his "tax and spend" soundbites notwithstanding. One either accepts that the financial market requires regulation, or one does not, but if the former (as I do), Obama was able to score in saying that he warned about this back in the Spring - a fact check this morning confirms that he did, something I didn't recall. McCain's attempt to pin earmarks on Obama didn't, well, stick, and to his credit Obama didn't allow him to get away with it.

But it was in the area of foreign policy when I was most surprised to see Obama come out so astoundingly well. This was the area he was putatively considered to be weak on, and he was anything but. I was actually quite impressed with Obama's display of understanding regarding the complexities of the foreign policy crises facing us. He scored very well in showing how Senator McCain, like Bush, has an apparently single-minded focus, placing all hopes on Iraq, when the world doesn't come to such a reductionist vision.

Perhaps most important, for Obama, is that he utterly dispelled the myth he is air, and nothing else. Biz, for example, when he isn't saying Obama "would make a good janitor," has (falsely) repeatedly tried to portray him as nothing more than a mannequin mouthing platitudes written by his speechwriters, but last night, no one on hand but the man, and he commanded very well.

 

Couple of points in perspective.

I was dissapointed neither candidate really addressed the bailout situation and the possible impact on budgets and their plans.

Maybe it was too early after the DC meetings. Maybe the structure of a bailout effort will differ. They were both vague and didn't address the issue.

To me, one of the issues about war in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we simply don't have the ground troops. Politicians don't bring this up. It is patently obvious. The latest Woodward book has been published. It describes how the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not want to approve the surge, didn't see how it could be accomplished, and were fearful of its impact on maintaining troops and dealing with other emergencies. Bush took a gamble on the surge.

With Afghanistan turning worse we can't just send more troops there. We don't have them. This is a fundamental issue that should address all the tough talk about war. Its no secret. Other nations see it

Personally, I think that issue rips into the reasons for being in Iraq....but that is beside the point.

I thought the debate was kind of even. Didn't see a knockout from either guy or a huge mistake.

I think emphasizing the earmark story is political gimmickry. The entire volume of earmarks is a simple drop in the bucket in terms of overall government spending. They are great examples of government stupidity and foolishness. On the otherhand you could get rid of every single one of them and it wouldn't mean squat to the problems with the federal budget and spending.

I don't suppose either guy is going to go off and take a gamble saying something dramatic about the debt crisis. Meanwhile it is UGGGLLLLYYY