The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

In Case You Missed It

Complete Footage: The First Presidential Debate

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.
Missed the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama last night in Oxford, Miss.? Forgot to set your DVR? You can watch the whole thing -- all 97 minutes of it -- above.

And we want to know: Who do you thing won? And why? What were the outstanding moments?

We'll come back later in the day and select some of the best comments for publication here on The Trail.

Posted at 9:28 AM ET on Sep 27, 2008  | Category:  In Case You Missed It
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Debate Live Fact Check Starts at 9 p.m. | Next: McCain Skips Vote on Spending Bill


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Yesterday's Washington Post

"When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to "just touch gloves" with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.


"I appreciate what you've done here, but I'm not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal," McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. "Just like Iraq, I'm not afraid to go it alone if I need to."

For a moment, as Graham described it, "you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable." Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before -- one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans -- was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain's presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day's events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain's arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit -- even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

"If there is a deal with the House involved, it's because of John McCain," Graham, one of the Arizonan's closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain's dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

The Republican Study Committee, an enclave of House conservatives, had already begun turning against the Paulson plan. When McCain announced his return, the conservatives feared he would forge an agreement largely along Paulson's lines, with slight alterations and the GOP leadership's blessing. "
*************

A much better bill than the one Frank, Dodd,Pelosi, and Reid declared as "done" on Thursday is now posted on the internet. They "blamed" him for stopping it and now amazingly forget all about it! By getting the House Republicans at the table, the insurance branch of the deal was included, sheltering the American public from risk. McCain got Blunt to the table. Now we all profit by McCain's suspension of his campaign and visit to Washington DC. On ABC this morning, Stephanopolous asked McCain if he took credit for this breakthrough. He declined. So have the Democrats in congress...WILL YOU?

Posted by: thecannula | September 28, 2008 7:43 PM

Latest MCCain strategy?

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4837644.ece

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 28, 2008 4:11 PM

Palin's executive experience....

Though Sarah Palin depicts herself as a pit bull fighting good-old-boy politics, in her years as mayor she and her friends received special benefits more typical of small-town politics as usual, an Associated Press investigation shows.

When Palin needed to sell her house during her last year as Wasilla mayor, she got the city to sign off on a special zoning exception - and did so without keeping a promise to remove a potential fire hazard.

She gladly accepted gifts from merchants: A free "awesome facial" she raved about in a thank-you note to a spa. The "absolutely gorgeous flowers" she received from a welding supply store. Even fresh salmon to take home.

She also stepped in to help friends or neighbors with City Hall dealings. She asked the City Council to add a friend to the list of speakers at a 2002 meeting - and then the friend got up and asked them to give his radio station advertising business.

That year, records show, she tried to help a neighbor and political contributor fighting City Hall over his small lakeside development. Palin wanted the city to refund some of the man's fees, but the city attorney told the mayor she didn't have the authority.

Palin claims she has more executive experience than her opponent and the two presidential candidates, but most of those years were spent running a city with a population of less than 7,000.

Some of her first actions after being elected mayor in 1996 raised possible ethical red flags: She cast the tie-breaking vote to propose a tax exemption on aircraft when her father-in-law owned one, and backed the city's repeal of all taxes a year later on planes, snow machines and other personal property. She also asked the council to consider looser rules for snow machine races. Palin and her husband, Todd, a champion racer, co-owned a snow machine store at the time.

......

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALIN_ETHICS?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 28, 2008 1:17 PM

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 28, 2008 12:28 PM

SO are you saying David Axelrod should be President? Is this a revolt?
-----------------------

No, sugar. Axelrod works for Obama. I know Repubs do it the other way around, so your confusion is understandable.

Now, explain Palin's putting her city into debt with that sports complex. I want to hear all about her executive accomplishments for Wassila.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 28, 2008 12:25 PM

Running a wildly successful multi-million dollar Presidential campaign against all odds without going broke or losing staff is.

Posted by: wpost4112
SO are you saying David Axelrod should be President? Is this a revolt?

Posted by: thecannula | September 28, 2008 12:11 PM

The President of the United States of America fall under the Executive Branch of the Government. The Mayor and the Governor belong to the same category.

Sarah Palin has 8 years Executive experience, Obama has 0.

-----------------------

Being mayor of Hooterville, and putting it in deep debt is hardly a recommendation of executive abilities.

Running a wildly successful multi-million dollar Presidential campaign against all odds without going broke or losing staff is.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 28, 2008 10:15 AM

Mccain-

Pushed the Surge!

Stopped the Splurge!

Posted by: thecannula | September 28, 2008 1:49 AM

McCain was incoherent and seemed senile. He pushed a simple-minded, two-prong agenda, demonstrating that he lacks the intellect or knowledge to lead this country in this century:

1. Leaving Iraq=defeat. By whom? Where is McCain going to find the money to keep 100,000+ troops in Iraq indefinitely, staving off this "defeat?" And where will he find the men -- the military says the present committment is unsustainable.

2. His solution to everything else was a spending freeze. Nonsensical. The government is running a deficit now. That means the deficit will continue to grow, thus the debt and thus interest on the debt and spending. McCain seems unable to understand that the key is reducing spending as a percentage of GDP by spending in ways that increase GDP (as occurred under Clinton, with the reverse ocuring under Bush). Totally clueless.

Posted by: mnjam | September 28, 2008 1:20 AM

Yesterday's Washington Post

"When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to "just touch gloves" with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.


"I appreciate what you've done here, but I'm not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal," McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. "Just like Iraq, I'm not afraid to go it alone if I need to."

For a moment, as Graham described it, "you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable." Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before -- one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans -- was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain's presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day's events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain's arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit -- even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

"If there is a deal with the House involved, it's because of John McCain," Graham, one of the Arizonan's closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain's dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

The Republican Study Committee, an enclave of House conservatives, had already begun turning against the Paulson plan. When McCain announced his return, the conservatives feared he would forge an agreement largely along Paulson's lines, with slight alterations and the GOP leadership's blessing.
******************
9/28/09
WE HAVE A DEAL AND THANKS TO JOHN MCCAIN A BETTER ONE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
While Obama was saying "Call Me", McCain was working in Washington to secure the House Republicans a seat at the negotiating table in the person of Roy Blount. Frank and Dodd had the deal "all done"- rushed through before McCain landed in Washington-then they blamed him for stopping it! Do you think they'll NOW give him credit for a deal that has much more protection for Americans in it? I doubt they will.... WILL YOU?

Posted by: thecannula | September 28, 2008 1:03 AM

Yesterday's Washington Post

"When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to "just touch gloves" with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.


"I appreciate what you've done here, but I'm not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal," McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. "Just like Iraq, I'm not afraid to go it alone if I need to."

For a moment, as Graham described it, "you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable." Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before -- one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans -- was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain's presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day's events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain's arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit -- even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

"If there is a deal with the House involved, it's because of John McCain," Graham, one of the Arizonan's closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain's dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

The Republican Study Committee, an enclave of House conservatives, had already begun turning against the Paulson plan. When McCain announced his return, the conservatives feared he would forge an agreement largely along Paulson's lines, with slight alterations and the GOP leadership's blessing.
******************
9/28/09
WE HAVE A DEAL AND THANKS TO JOHN MCCAIN A BETTER ONE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
While Obama was saying "Call Me" , McCain was working in Washington to secure the House Republicans a seat at the negotiating table in the person of Roy Blount. Frank and Dodd had the deal "all done"- rushed through before McCain landed in Washington-then they blamed him for stopping it! Do you think they'll NOW give him credit for a deal that has much more protection for Americans in it? I doubt they will.... WILL YOU?

Posted by: thecannula | September 28, 2008 1:01 AM

The President of the United States of America fall under the Executive Branch of the Government. The Mayor and the Governor belong to the same category.

Sarah Palin has 8 years Executive experience, Obama has 0.

Posted by: theecomonist101 | September 27, 2008 9:45 PM

If the majority of undecided voters think that Obambi won, then Obama won. It is that simple. Nothing else matters. McCain needed to knock Obama out to change the game. He didn't.

Posted by: andrewp111 | September 27, 2008 6:25 PM

Dear TomJX,
I agree. Senator Obama clearly won this first debate. My concern is a phyrric Democratic victory. The ongoing Philadelphia lawsuit (Berg vs Obama 08-cv-4083) questions Obama's eligibility to become president. Why won't Obama simply provide a certified vault copy of his original birth certificate? We'd all submit our birth certificates as a condition for employment. Obama should show the court this specific legal identification that will make Mr. Berg go away. Senator Obama should meet this challenge head on! Hiding behind a motion for dismissal is cowardly. I want to be proud of our next president; not ashamed that I was victimized by another well-marketed confidence game. -Concerned Democrat

Posted by: brownpride046 | September 27, 2008 5:32 PM

McCain won the debate for which Senator should stay in the Senate.

Obama won the debate for which Senator will make the best President.

Posted by: TomJx | September 27, 2008 4:32 PM

McCain's behavior was intentional. He wanted to signify that Barack wasn't fit to be even on the stage. That is, he can't even be considered as presidential material. Unfortunately, it backfired big time. It made McCain look unPresidential and afraid of looking Barack in the eye...an important American leadership value.

Ironically, McCain treated Barack with the same contempt with which Barack treated Hillary in their primary debate. And Barack suffered for it in the polls.

He learned his lesson. McCain didn't. And he will suffer for it in the polls. Strikingly, Barack scored heavily among women...just as Hillary did.

So, McCain lost the Hillary crowd he so desperately wanted.

Advantage Barack.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 3:15 PM

I have the impression when McCain speaks that he is on-stage, whereas when Obama speaks, I have the impression that he is actually thinking and responding from a genuine sense of humanity.

I guess another way of saying that is that McCain strikes me as staged, fake, and on-camera, whereas Obama seems alive and real.

Palin, in her few instances on camera, seems petrified, trying to remember her talking points, throwing key-word phrases into the conversation hoping they make sense, as though it is all happening too fast for her. She has the advantage on the VP debate, in that, if she doesnt absolutely blow up in front of us, it will be a pleasant surprise. Its even money she will use the same word in the same sentence three times. She uses the same word in the same sentence two times in each of her interviews. The fluster factor is off the charts. Two key conservatives have publicly begged her to withdraw for the good of the party and the good of the nation. Nothing McCain did on Friday was enough to overcome a weak running mate.
At best if you were already sold on McCain, it was an even event.
He didnt mess up. For someone whose expertise was just on view, it was a hollow victory if it was a victory at all.
From my perspective, Obama demonstrated he is superior to McCain on McCain's turf.
Of course, those 300,000 Amish farmers who carried Ohio for Bush are blissfully unaware of any of this.

Posted by: ottothewise | September 27, 2008 1:54 PM

Suppose you were doing an ad like "I'm a PC." "And I'm a Mac." Which of these guys would you want to promote your product? The scrappy one, or the calm, collected one? (Leave age out of this.) Obama won because he did what he wanted to do: appear presidential and reassuring to undecided voters, while avoiding any gaffes of his own and you-tube moments for his opponent. McCain lost because he came across, not as the affable, reassuring Reagan, but as a cranky guy, discourteous to his opponent and looking to pick a pointless fight.

Posted by: landsend | September 27, 2008 1:49 PM

McCain did nothing of the sort. McCain is not intrested in the American people. In the debate all you heard was his stories and as if he was pleading with the American people to vote for him. No substance, no committment, no nothing.

It is intresting to know though, How in the world could his VP pick allow Russia to enter into Alaska which is American territorial airspace without approval from the Secretary of Defence, The Pentagon, Or the approval of the President.

I mean I didn't make this up She said it herself in an interview live on TV.
But this is who some people would love to see as President. I don't think so.

OBAMA & BIDEN 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APydh8XnO9c

Posted by: MDickey28 | September 27, 2008 1:09 PM

I watched the debate on CNN. Their camera angles were kind to McCain (probably unintentionally) in that I didn't see how wooden he was or that he either rare or never acknowledged Obama's presence on the stage. In person that would have been apparent and would have made a great difference - body language is often more truthful than the spoken word. At this point, I think the debate was a draw. Each candidate was able to make the points their ideologues had set out. I am for Obama and wanted him to spell out much much more clearly that Iraq is essentially over, there is a withdrawal plan agreed to by U.S. and Iraqi officials in place, and the war will wind down as agreed to by both sides. Waiting for victory is not an option, just a conservative mantra to keep the folks at home happy until after the election. Obama made a very good point of the cost of tax reductions to the rich as compared to the cost of "bridges to nowhere," and that type of spending must be limited as well. He could have stressed much more strongly that soldiers that give their life for their country are heroes, whether that battle or war was won or lost. They went where ordered to go, did what they were asked to do, and paid the ultimate price, and their families and friends - all of society - paid dearly as well. We have an obligation to their lives and to soldiers now in the field and those that will be to be much more careful than Bush, McCain, and that segment of our society that is too willing to believe whatever their party tells them. I believe Obama understands this, and that McCain does not.

Posted by: sniderb1 | September 27, 2008 12:22 PM

An observation: If Mr. McCain can't even look into Mr. Obama's eyes, how the heck did he look into Mr. Putin's eyes and saw KGB?

Posted by: zahid1 | September 27, 2008 12:20 PM

I had anticipated that Sen. Obama would make a greater effort to tie Sen. McCain to George W. Bush. However, McCain did this better than anyone else ever could.

Remember the recent obsession with analyzing Bush's decision making style - don't spend too much time in thought, just go with the gut, trust in your god given moral superiority, then don't look back. We know where that has gotten our Country.

This is the very same character flaw that McCain revealed (again) last night. Don't we already have enough problems without taking on the indigestion, diverticulosis, and cancer that McCain's gut would inevitably bring to us all.

Kudos to "caraprado1" for an excellent post.

Posted by: Walb608 | September 27, 2008 12:16 PM

"Why Voters Thought Obama Won

TPM has the internals of the CNN poll of debate-watchers, which had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. The poll suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness.

Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/why-voters-thought-obama-won.html

Posted by: nowanna3 | September 27, 2008 12:03 PM

Republican comments:

Ellen Ratner
Bureau Chief, Talk Radio News Service/FOX News Political Contributor

I did not learn much new about either candidate tonight. I thought Senator McCain made some points that made him look presidential in the area of foreign affairs. But Senator Obama had more detail on many of the issues. Obama warmed up towards the end of the debate. Obama was first out of the gate with the words Usama bin Laden which was a definite point for him.

This was not the knock out for McCain that he really needed since international affairs is his strong suit.

-------------------
James P. Pinkerton
Writer/Columnist, The American Conservative magazine/FOX New Political Contributor

McCain Had Better Emotion and Perspective but Obama Looked Good and Spoke Smoothly

McCain is closer to the political middle on spending, energy, and the conduct of the Iraq war. McCain had better emotion, and better historical anecdotes and perspective. But Obama looked good, spoke smoothly, and showed a savvy willingness to copycat popular Republican positions, on such issues as energy and missile defense.

And Obama had a good point when he said, ‘There has never been a country on earth that saw its economy decline but maintained its military superiority”—in the midst of the current financial crisis, McCain didn’t have a good comeback.

--------------------------
Charles Krauthammer
Syndicated Columnist/FOX News Political Analyst

Obama came out ahead. … He didn’t have a knock out moment. This was a draw. [But] it gets out of the way a potential liability. I’d be surprised if McCain had a bounce from this.


------------------

Hardly "hit out of the park", even by conservative scorecards.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 11:53 AM

Posted by: thecannula | September 27, 2008 11:40 AM

Clearly, Sen. McCain demolished his junior Sen. Obama.
---------------------------

Your judgment is about as good as McCain's. Hyperbolic, self-centered, and dead wrong.

Hung by your own leotard.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 11:29 AM

This is what I noted from the voters’ feedbacks: “McCain knocked it out of the park”; “Obama was shaken and stuttering”; “He proved himself as a sensible, studious, informed thinker”; “Wouldn't it be nice to have an intelligent, well-spoken president?” To me it was like a high school debater going against the master. The high school debater is full of facts, knowledge bits, and fair commends of the language, but all of a sudden finds himself trying to define broad ideas and put them into a specific context of a particular subject, a country or a foreign policy problem. Clearly, Sen. McCain demolished his junior Sen. Obama.

Posted by: Wiel | September 27, 2008 11:24 AM

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 10:38 AM

I agree.

What I think became apparent to me as a member of McCain's generation is that Obama represents the big picture, the outline of everything and McCain represents the petty, the minutia the focus on detail without getting the big picture.

Although I agree that Obama is the future and McCain is the past, more importantly Obama can put things into perspective because of his broad view and would never make the mistake of viewing the world through the lens of Iraq as Bush and McCain have done.

I do not think that Obama was great but he did show himself to be substantial. McCain tried to show himself as more knowledgeable and somehow superior. The message the viewer received was contrary to that so that a performance I would otherwise evaluated as equal went to Obama because McCain's evaluation of Obama was at odds with what I was seeing.

Posted by: Gator-ron | September 27, 2008 11:03 AM

Substantively, the debate was a draw. Either you subscribe to one ideology or the other.

This was a clear and decisive victory for Obama though from an undecided narrative.

McCain needed to make the case Obama was inexperienced and didn’t have a command of the issues. It would be clear to anyone who watched it that was far from the case and impossible to argue.

Obama needed to link McCain to 4 more years of Bush policy. McCain did that himself. The most definitive and jarring moment came about dealing with adversaries.

Obama represents the future, McCain the past.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 10:38 AM

I actually think it is great that Bill Clinton appears to be endorsing McCain. Who would want his endorsement anyway. Look what it did to Hillary.

As for the debate, great show Obama!
http://www.boppoll.com

I woke up today and added 500 bops to McCAin and then called and emailed five friends to do the same. The meter is spinning!

Posted by: acarponzo | September 27, 2008 10:33 AM

I'm sure by tomorrow Bill Clinton will say McCain won the debate. It's clear the McCain campaign and the Clintons are working together. Too many connections.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 10:28 AM

Thanks for this.

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

Saturday, September 27, 2008
What A Debate Reveals: Anger, Entitlement and Contempt

What I found shocking reflecting on last night's debate was how angry and entitled McCain was, in a very open way.

McCain's manner was one of that who believed he should not even be on the same stage with this person. This indicates a person of extreme rights and extreme wrongs, not a statesmanlike persona, but an angry and impulsive one.

McCain carries strong ideas of what a liberal is, ideas that very little from his cherished ideas of who betrayed the nation during the Vietnam war. A stock character, driven and created by his own rage, carried, as it has been since the '70s, with a virtual ideological blindness--blinded by a contemptuous rage--that there are others who cannot understand the world the way he can. This is not judgment, but angry certainty. This is not readiness, but a just-contained rage that he should be confronted by such ideas.

You can see it in his constricted "can you believe it" rage at one who disagrees with him. This kind of contemptuous, angry dismissal of others ideas leads easily into the impulsive decisions of the last few months--generated with barely contained contemptuous rejection of those who would reject his ideas--only the most recent forms of those essential constructs--a contemptible media, easily fed with false notions and panaceas, as he believes they were earlier in his life; intellectuals, whose reason and deliberation is contrasted with the sharp, impulsive action that for his life has constituted a certain knowledge, and an angry, certain need to sweep away those who would stand in the path of righteous certainty.

What is beautifully ironic is how McCain maintains this contempt even as he switches from one position to another in the opportunistic second--this is when the look of contempt and entitlement turns, for a moment, to anxiety and panic.

Soon, however, the gaze is back. No matter what the new position is--impulsively determined, desperately grasped--if only "they" knew better. If only "they" knew the truth.

This kind of ideological rigidity and certainty (note how Obama could not contain himself from smiling when McCain attempted to compare him to Bush in that regard) combined with impulsive decision making, from the "gut" of sure knowledge, is what has created the outcomes of the past 8 years.

It was--in a setting where one would not expect it to be, where one would expect McCain to contain it--glaring apparent last night.

This is an amplification of the last 8 years rather than a change.

We do not need to experience this type of decision making again.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

Posted by: caraprado1 | September 27, 2008 9:42 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company