Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Mississippi Debate: First Thoughts and Who Won?

The first presidential debate of the 2008 election, which as recently as 12 hours ago looked like it might not happen, is in the books.

The spin between the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, of course, has only just begun. (McCain's campaign released a Web video featuring footage of Obama agreeing with the Arizona senator; Obama campaign manager David Plouffe declared the debate a "clear victory for Barack Obama on John McCain's home turf.")

While we spent most of the debate Twittering our thoughts, we've expanded on a few of our initial observations below.

Also, make sure to check out our new Debate Decoder where you can watch the entire event again, hear commentary from yours truly, peruse an annotated transcript with fact checks and analysis thrown in and even see which words were used the most by the two candidates.

We want to hear from our readers too. Who won the debate and why? The comments section awaits.

• McCain, who came into tonight's debate a bit frantic from his failed gambit to broker a deal on Capitol Hill to save the financial industry, looked as relaxed, at home and, well, stable, as we have seen him in any debate during this long election process. He wore an almost permanent smile, which, for the most part seemed natural as opposed the force Joker-grin plastered on his face during the primary debates. He poked fun at his age several times, jabbed Obama playfully yet effectively ("I don't even have a presidential seal") and seemed in command of the subject matter and the stage. When moderator Jim Lehrer said at one point that the two candidates had spoken for almost the same amount of time, we were surprised; McCain seemed from our perspective to command more time.

• Obama had a simple goal in this debate: tie McCain to the policies of George W. Bush. Right from the start, Obama sought to link the economic policies responsible for the financial crisis to Bush and McCain; he noted at another time that although McCain as casting himself as a maverick, he had voted with the current president 90 percent of the time. With Bush's approval ratings consistently mired in the upper 20s or low 30s and with huge majorities of voters believing the country is on the wrong track, it's a smart strategy on paper. But, will the average voter become convinced that McCain and Bush are one in the same? Remember that the lasting image most voters have of McCain is as the guy who ran against Bush in 2000.

• The candidates' differing approaches to these sorts of gatherings was on display tonight. Much like at Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum last month, McCain virtually ignored the moderator and the audience in attendance -- focusing all of his attention on the television audience. As several observers pointed out to The Fix, McCain rarely if ever glanced in Obama's direction during the entirety of the 90 minute plus debate. Obama, on the other hand, sought to have more of a discussion with McCain, Lehrer and the crowd in attendance at the University of Mississippi. Which approach worked better?

• McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

• After abandoning the experience argument in picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, McCain went right back to it tonight. Sure, he threw a few references to himself as a maverick into the mix but he used the word "experience" more than the word "change." Is this the sign of (another) shifting strategy for McCain? Or did his campaign make the decision that their candidate's long resume on foreign policy worked in his favor when the subject was foreign policy?

• Lehrer is the PERFECT person to moderate these debates. Unlike some of the primary debates where the moderators often jumped in to the middle of a potentially compelling exchange between the candidates, Lehrer seemed perfectly content to step out of the conversation and let McCain and Obama got at one another. Kudos and a job well done to the man from PBS.

• Much is being made on cable of McCain's difficulty in pronouncing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's last name. It wasn't a banner moment for McCain but it didn't strike us as a major gaffe either. Of course, these debates are almost entirely visual in nature so if average voters thought it made McCain look hesitant, uncertain or out of it, it could be a real trouble spot. But, that wasn't our first reaction. Time will tell.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 26, 2008; 11:18 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Fix Twitters the Debate
Next: Who Won: The Video Edition

Comments

“RIGHT on pursuing BinLaden wherever he is…”
===================
Mr. wpost4112, we know where is Bin Laden. He is somewhere in Pakistan; probably he is hiding under Musharraf bed, and he is being protected by Pakistan Gov. and Pak. people. Million $ question is, how do you find him under these conditions? Sen. Obama seems to suggest that he wants to send Americas troops to rummage through entire Pakistan to look for Bin Laden. During the debate Sen. McCain said America is currently looking in Pakistan for Bin Laden, but not in such a bold way as Sen. Obama seems to suggest.


BTW,
* FDR Gov. did not have a Fed. Budget of 3$ trillions or a national deficit of 10$ trillions to deal with. America is in a totally different situation currently.
* Bush/McCain overspending and wasteful spending do not make these things right. Money does not grow on trees.
* Regarding Iraq, no one knew if Iraq had wmd. Also we need their oil.

Posted by: lazerboy | September 30, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

If you were allready siding with McCain, as many pundits had allready declared they expected McCant to do Very well ,then there's no way to dissuade you from your feelings.
If You put aside your FEELINGS, this was a HUGE WIN for Obama,no doubt's whatsoever.
Obama spoke with style, not the GOP reported "Uppity" or Airy they usually use to describe Obama.He addressed McCain,Lehrer, and the Audience(cameras included) without missing a beat.
As for substance, OBAMA HIT A HOME RUNS> McCain and his camp love spewing everytime they get in front of a camera or mic.
I dont recall, possibly because McCains speaking style PUTS ME TO SLEEP(allmost instantly)any REAL ANSWERS or SOlutions brought up by McCain, just phoney controversy, made up B>S> about OBAMAS SUPERIOR tax plan,and another waste of 5 minutes on story about a bracelet.
I really think Cris got it wrong with his comment about the exchange on foreign leaders, namely country's associated with terrorism.McCain had no response or plan of his own, JUST 4 More Years of Bush's plan, which now seems to be unraveling.
And if John Brings up the whole SURGE thing again, OBAMA should split his skull with the obvious,THE SURGE was a necessary change of Tactic because the WAR up until the surge was a complete FAILURE, it was succesful in stopping American causalties, and stopping further insurgencies,IT took 4100+ sldiers dieing in Iraq Before anyone decided we needed a new course of action.So the only thing the SURGE got right was to stop spilling AMERICAN BLOOD on soil we shouldent even be on.

Posted by: mullett | September 29, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

You have an odd definition of "relaxed," Chris! McCain looked really uncomfortable during the debate. His unwillingness to look at Obama at all spoke volumes, too. In matters of substance, it was a draw, but in matters of style, Obama won easily.

Posted by: Heron | September 28, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Amended Post
This is the most recent Polls
McCain trailing Obama
McCain did not win the Debate
STOP KIDDING YOURSELVES

Gallup Daily: Obama Moves to 50% to 42% Lead
Obama registers strong performance over Thursday-Saturday time period
September 28, 2008
Barack Obama leads John McCain, 50% to 42%, among registered voters in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday -- just one point shy of his strongest showing of the year.
Debate Watchers Give Obama Edge Over McCain
Obama seen as improving his standing on the economy
September 28, 2008
A USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted Saturday, Sept. 27, shows that Americans who watched the first presidential debate gave Barack Obama the edge over John McCain as having done the better job, by a 46% to 34% margin.
Gallup Daily: Obama Holds 5-Point Lead
Momentum in his favor going into debate
September 27, 2008
Barack Obama leads John McCain, 49% to 44%, in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update. This is one of Obama’s best showings since the Republican National Convention, and suggests he had some momentum going into Friday night’s debate.

Posted by: prudencerussell | September 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Just listening to you who believe John McCain won the debate....here are your latest statistic
Gallup Daily: Obama Holds 5-Point Lead
Momentum in his favor going into debate
September 27, 2008
Barack Obama leads John McCain, 49% to 44%, in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update. This is one of Obama’s best showings since the Republican National Convention, and suggests he had some momentum going into Friday night’s debate.

Posted by: prudencerussell | September 28, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama has reached the tipping point in his campaign. But if he wins the election it will not be because of his skill but because of McCain's associations and mistakes in judgment.
Phil Gramm, Sarah Palin, Rick Davis are McCain's albatrosses.
But his mistakes in judgment on the economy will not be forgiven. Pretending to suspend his campaign is recognized as a transparent stunt. Swing voters know this and will desert him just as he deserted Letterman.

Posted by: seemstome | September 28, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

he paid Obama staffers are the only ones on this comments section saying that McCain did not look good, or Obama won - EVERYONE IN THE REAL WORLD SAID MCCAIN WON ISSUE AFTER ISSUE.

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

Again, the "real world" is not your collection of action figures.

The real world is actual polling of actual voters, who, by large margins, give the win to Obama.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 28, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

In today's Sunday NY Post (nypost.com), Nick Gillespie, in one of the most important articles of the year, provides a serious indepth psychological analysis of why Wm. J. Clinton continues to campaign aggressively AGAINST his party's nominee, Barack Obama.

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

The article is neither important, let alone "one of the most important articles of the year," nor particularly analytical.

Bill suffers from pathological narcissism. This is not news.

Obama will win with or without his support.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 28, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Do you all really want to know what is wrong with the Republicans - we have an idea. .............
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/09/26/subliminal-bush/

Posted by: glclark4750 | September 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

In today's Sunday NY Post (nypost.com), Nick Gillespie, in one of the most important articles of the year, provides a serious indepth psychological analysis of why Wm. J. Clinton continues to campaign aggressively AGAINST his party's nominee, Barack Obama. There is no rational justification for WJC's behavior, so Gillespie concludes the answer must lie in psychology. Short excerpt below:

"WHY CLINTON CAN'T HELP IT
By NICK GILLESPIE
September 28, 2008 --

Back in 1993 - doesn't that seem like a century ago? - President Bill Clinton likened himself to a famously resilient comic book character. "I'm a lot like Baby Huey. I'm fat. I'm ugly. But if you push me down, I keep coming back."

But if recent events have proven anything, it may be that the self-styled "Comeback Kid" is a lot more like Baby Jane Hudson, the captivating-yet-repugnant title character played by Bette Davis in the 1962 camp classic, "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" Like the faded, bitter and spiteful ex-child star, Clinton doesn't seem to know how to share, much less exit, the stage gracefully. Worse still, like Baby Jane, he seems to have little sense of how he's horrifying his audience.
How else to explain his behavior related to this year's presidential election (which, alas, unlike the debates, has no chance of being postponed or canceled)? During the Democratic primaries, Clinton continued to take swipes at Barack Obama long past the point of helping Hillary Clinton's chances at securing the nomination. In January, he derided Obama's derogatory claims about Sen. Clinton's voting record as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." That and similar outbursts were widely viewed as damaging his wife's campaign and causing serious harm to the larger Democratic cause.
In June, Britain's Telegraph reported that Clinton had told friends that Obama would have to "kiss my ass" to garner his support and only a few weeks before the Democratic National Convention in August, Clinton was still pointedly refusing to state unequivocally that the Illinois senator was qualified to hold the nation's highest office.
Then there's recent history. During an appearance on "The Late Show with David Letterman" this week, Clinton lavished praise on his wife and GOP nominee John McCain while mustering little to no enthusiasm for his party's nominee, whose name scarcely passed his lips during a quarter-hour chat. "People will wind up liking both [McCain and Obama]," suggested Clinton, "People will go in that polling booth and say: 'You know, I really admire Senator McCain. He gave about all you could give to this country without getting killed for it. But I've got to have a change, and I'm going the other way.' " Clinton's reticence to unambiguously stump for Obama led the show's next guest, comedian Chris Rock, to comment, "Is it me, or he didn't want to say the name 'Barack Obama'?"
The Letterman appearance wasn't a one-off. During an appearance on "The View," he said the former POW has "given something in life the rest of us can't match" and emphasized that Hillary Clinton had garnered more primary votes than Obama, flourishes he repeated on "Good Morning America." Elsewhere, he praised Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in terms he might have once reserved for a White House intern: "I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there . . . why she's doing well."" END

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 28, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

who won

Posted by: seemstome | September 28, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

.

The paid Obama staffers are the only ones on this comments section saying that McCain did not look good, or Obama won - EVERYONE IN THE REAL WORLD SAID MCCAIN WON ISSUE AFTER ISSUE.


Obama did not land one punch or do well with one issue.


McCain won issue after issue - especially making Obama look horrible and not ready for office with the Iranian meeting and Henry Kissinger topics.


McCain won.


The look on Obama's face as he left the stage showed disappointment that Obama knew that he did not do well. It is a wonder that the spinmeisters were able to get the media to write such things after the debate.


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 28, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama has reached the tipping point in his campaign. But if he wins the election it will not be because of his skill but because of McCain's associations and mistakes in judgment.
Phil Gramm, Sarah Palin, Rick Davis are McCain's albatrosses.
But his mistakes in judgment on the economy will not be forgiven. Pretending to suspend his campaign is recognized as a transparent stunt. Swing voters know this and will desert him just as he deserted Letterman.

Posted by: seemstome | September 28, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama has reached the tipping point in his campaign. But if he wins the election it will not be because of his skill but because of McCain's associations and mistakes in judgment.
Phil Gramm, Sarah Palin, Rick Davis are McCain's albatrosses.
But his mistakes in judgment on the economy will not be forgiven. Pretending to suspend his campaign is recognized as a transparent stunt. Swing voters know this and will desert him just as he deserted Letterman.

Posted by: seemstome | September 28, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama has reached the tipping point in his campaign. But if he wins the election it will not be because of his skill but because of McCain's associations and mistakes in judgment.
Phil Gramm, Sarah Palin, Rick Davis are McCain's albatrosses.
But his mistakes in judgment on the economy will not be forgiven. Pretending to suspend his campaign is recognized as a transparent stunt. Swing voters know this and will desert him just as he deserted Letterman.

Posted by: seemstome | September 28, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama:

* Wrong on surge in Iraq.

RIGHT ion the Iraq invasion which has bankrupted this country financially, morally and poltically

* Wrong on no preconditions before negotiating with foreign nations.

RIGHT and fully supported by Kissinger and all other former Sectretaries of States.


* Wrong on BOLDLY attacking Pakistan, so we can get Binladen.(With his plan, Binladen/terrorist could seize control of Pak. nukes).

RIGHT on pursuing BinLaden wherever he is and whenever we have actionable intelligence, regardless of whether or not the host nation gives a green light.


* Wrong on energy.

RIGHT on his 10 year plan to get us off of foreign oil, which fills the pockets of the Bushes, Cheneys and other super-rich Republican fat cats.

* His economic plan doesn't fix our overspending and inefficiently spending Government.

His economic plan has the blessing of Buffett and is similar to FDR's plan which increased domestic spending in the midst of our worst economic crisis and led to great prosperity for teh middle class.


* His economic plan is our current problem.(overspending and inefficient spending.)

The Bush/McCain administration has the most overspending and wasteful spending of any administration ever.

Plus huge tax breaks for the supper rich and companies who have taken jobs to other countries and pay not axes because of the many tax loopholes.


Look deeper, my friend.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 28, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"Aside from the fact that Mccain has used that line since he started his campaign, someone should call him on that. Do you know what the study is?"

My comment had nothing to do with what I actually thought of the study. I think its important to study natural science. I just liked the line.

I didn't know this was oft-used, though. Its the first time I've heard it.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 28, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

.


.


Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark It Now !!!


.


.


Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark It Now !!!

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 28, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Independents really responded to Obama, even when he wasn't saying anything important or significant. Rather, they were responding to the amount of emotion or "personality" he exhibited at times.

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

Politics is all about emotional response...for every party and every voter.

That's the Palin phenomenon. No one knows the least thing about her and they swoon.

The diff between her and Obama is that when they DO finally hear her speak extemporaneously, they stop swooning and sober up quick and reject her, as Kathleeen Parker and other are beginning to so....but not so with Obama...he has substance beyond the emotional attraction.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 28, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

John McCain won the debate by showing a command of the issues, controlling the topics and keeping his opponent on the defensive. Mr. Obama even agreed with Senator McCain's points on eight separate occasions. John McCain showed real leadership and that he is ready to be Commander in Chief on day one.
http://savetheusavotemccain.blogspot.com

Posted by: gw12 | September 28, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

John McCain won the first debate by showing a real command of the issues, directing the flow and constantly putting his opponent on the defensive. Obama even praised McCain as being right eight or agreeing with him on separate occasions. He showed he is the Commander in Chief and ready to lead on day one. http://savetheusavotemccain.blogspot.com

Posted by: gw12 | September 28, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Re:
Independents really responded to Obama, even when he wasn't saying anything important or significant. Rather, they were responding to the amount of emotion or "personality" he exhibited at times.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 28, 2008 9:49 AM

Obama, on the other hand, responded to McCain. That President's Seal thing really got him.

Posted by: peteonline | September 28, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE IS SUPERFICIAL LIKE MOST OF THE PUNDITS ON TV !!!! Lets look a little deeper.


Sen. Obama:

* Wrong on surge in Iraq.
* Wrong on no preconditions before negotiating with foreign nations.
* Wrong on BOLDLY attacking Pakistan, so we can get Binladen.(With his plan, Binladen/terrorist could seize control of Pak. nukes).
* Wrong on energy.
* His economic plan doesn't fix our overspending and inefficiently spending Government.
* His economic plan is our current problem.(overspending and inefficient spending.)

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

Sen. Obama clearly won the debate hands-down! He was crisp and totally composed and in control. While McCain looked testy, arrogant and rude to not even acknowledge his competitor when talking!! He was a total grouch!!

Posted by: maripil | September 28, 2008 3:19 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lazerboy | September 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

As a resident of the UK, a country that's nearly as indebted as the US, I was amazed to hear those two guys discussing who was going to get the tax breaks. Your government has just agreed to pump $700 billion into the banking sector, with no guarantee that will be enough. You're fighting the same two ruinously expensive wars we are. It's like the crew of the Titanic pausing from the job of rearranging the deckchairs to discuss who they're going to invite to the party when the ship gets into harbour.

Posted by: martinmet | September 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

As a resident of the UK, a country that's nearly as indebted as the US, I was amazed to hear those two guys discussing who was going to get the tax breaks. Your government has just agreed to pump $700 billion into the banking sector, with no guarantee that will be enough. You're fighting the same two ruinously expensive wars we are. It's like the crew of the Titanic pausing from the job of rearranging the deckchairs to discuss who they're going to invite to the party when the ship gets into harbour.

Posted by: martinmet | September 28, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

So did anyone catch McCain's line about the money for studying the DNA of bears and not knowing whether it was a criminal or paternity issue?

Unfortunately, that seems to have been glossed over. It was one of the funniest moments of the debate.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 27, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse
-------------
relpy:
Aside from the fact that Mccain has used that line since he started his campaign, someone should call him on that. Do you know what the study is? It is a more efficient way of counting the bears by collecting the hair they leave on trees when they scratch and putting it in a data base. This was normally done by actually tranquilizing the bears and putting collars on them so they can be identified. This is very time consuming as well as dangerous to the people doing the work, quite a few have been killed over the years doing the work. The reason for doing this is to get an accurate count so the bears so they can be taken off the endangered list. The main reason was that be getting the bears off the list they could do oil drilling on the land as well as use the trees for lumber. It was worth 100 million dollars to the local community as well as would provide thousands of jobs. By the way, they were spending twice as much counting the bears the old way so it saver over 3 million dollars. Mccain is just a idiot to knock such a valuable study, one that was already being done at greater cost and taking much longer..

Posted by: popasmoke | September 28, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

TINA FEY DOES HILARIOUS "SARAH PALIN" INTERVIEWED BY "KATIE COURIC" OF CBS ON
"SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE"

See the super funny clip from last night's show at:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

Tina Fey does a better "Sarah" than Sarah.

Posted by: mykolas1 | September 28, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

TINA FEY DOES HILARIOUS "SARAH PALIN" INTERVIEWED BY "KATIE COURIC" OF CBS ON
"SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE"

See the super funny clip from last night's show at:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

Tina Fey does a better "Sarah" than Sarah.

Posted by: mykolas1 | September 28, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"At the risk of being accused of spamming talking points. I really thought Obama won. I was watching CNN hoping to get a minimum of spin. And I found myself staring a lot at the audience reaction graph and it was apparent there that Obama was getting more consistent and higher positives and never hit steep lows like McCain did."

Posted by: atomiccow | September 28, 2008 4:12 AM

Independents really responded to Obama, even when he wasn't saying anything important or significant. Rather, they were responding to the amount of emotion or "personality" he exhibited at times.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 28, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama won, but on further reflection, O should have done better given that all the issues favored him and he knew his opponent was gruff, snarly, and quick to temper. The economy and the War were fastballs down the middle O knew were coming: some clever verbal zingers from O to cause Mac to blow his stack and this game would have been over for good.

But O didn't do that and the game goes on. By the way, give mucho credit to Lehrer as moderator. No George Stephanopolous trickeration and foolishness (Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do? Why don;t you wear a flag pin?) just solid fair questions about the issues of the day.

The bootom line is, though, O won: all the major public polls, including those of CNN and CBS, and even anti-O'ers like TIME's Mark Halperin and GOP guru Frank Luntz said O won. One outlier poll, though -- The Post's Broder's poll of one (himself) today said O lost. Whatever.

Further good news: no more "campaigning" "for" O by Bill and Hill...perhaps? Could it be Bitter Bill's comically sad "Say-No-to-O" tour and his Missus' parallel "Enshrine the Whine" campaign have finally ended? Could it be they punched themselves out by pounding on O 24/7 for the past month? Have we finally heard the last of their tiresome 127 grievances against O, the media, the system, "the Man," Chris Matthews, Patti Solis Doyle, all men, Bill Richardson, Keith Olbermann, and, of course, the most notorious transgressor--the guy in the front row who, four months ago, asked HRC to iron his shirt.

__

Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize winner Maureen Dowd's take in the NYT today on the debate:

"Given the past week, the debate should have been a cinch for Obama. But, just as in the primaries, he willfully refuses to accept what debates are about. It’s not a lecture hall; it’s a joust. It’s not how cerebral you are. It’s how visceral you are. You need memorable, sharp, forceful and witty lines."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 28, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

At the risk of being accused of spamming talking points. I really thought Obama won. I was watching CNN hoping to get a minimum of spin. And I found myself staring a lot at the audience reaction graph and it was apparent there that Obama was getting more consistent and higher positives and never hit steep lows like McCain did. So I was confused when so many of the pundits were scoring a slight win for McCain. The snap audience polls scoring like 45 Obama 36 McCain seemed to reflect my reaction to what I saw.

Expected McCain to beat Obama on foreign policy and this was where I parted with the pundits. I thought Obama did better overall with his expertise. I could follow his concepts and remember them more freely than with McCain especially in areas like Russia and Pakistan. On Iraq I agree that Obama did well pinning him on the war and McCain made some gains on Obama's take on the surge. That was very close.

On CNN I noticed the dials drop on two interesting areas. McCain's reference to Senator Palin. They would also drop after McCain would repeat his "Senator Obama doesn't understand" lines right after Obama would give what I thought was an eloquent demonstration of his understanding of world affairs. And I saw Obama's dials rise the highest of the evening when he was talking about restoring America's damaged stature around the globe.

However in reading the pundits comments I did perhaps miss that McCain lead the discussion into areas like earmarks and Obama followed. In discussing repeated Obama's "John is right." comments. I think too much may be made of that as they were usually John is right but here is where we differ strongly.

My impression was it was a modest Obama win on what was expected to be the best debate night for McCain. I was also left an impression I didn't have before the debate, that Senator McCain really dislikes Senator Obama.

Posted by: atomiccow | September 28, 2008 4:12 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote:
So did anyone catch McCain's line about the money for studying the DNA of bears and not knowing whether it was a criminal or paternity issue?

Unfortunately, that seems to have been glossed over. It was one of the funniest moments of the debate.
---------------

Ummmm...I guess it would be funny if we hadn't heard it a million times. He's been using that "joke" since he started his campaign. Even the people at his rallies don't laugh anymore.

What WAS the funniest moment of the debate was when McCain compared Obama to Bush. Obama laughed openly at McCain.

McCain is a doddering, dangerous old man.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

Posted by: dastubbs | September 28, 2008 4:07 AM | Report abuse

Just wanted to drop this on you guys, You are funny.....Mccain lost and proved to most thinkers he is a fool.

From "fact of The Matter"
http://www.need4trth.blogspot.com

Posted by: need4trth | September 28, 2008 3:48 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama clearly won the debate hands-down! He was crisp and totally composed and in control. While McCain looked testy, arrogant and rude to not even acknowledge his competitor when talking!! He was a total grouch!!

Posted by: maripil | September 28, 2008 3:19 AM | Report abuse

"..We want a good balance. Now the backbone of the American economy has been and always will be the entrepreneur. To deny this is stupid. However, there is a role for government to push the values that we deem important as a society. To ignore this role is also problematic and has led to many of the problems we are now facing.
"
I do agree we need a good balance. But the problem now is the balance is way over tipped to the oversize of the government rather than undersize. The problem we are facing now is not due to the size of government not big enough, is due to a culture of greed, a culture of rewarding/toleration of inefficiency and incompetence, a culture that reprimand any attempt to enforce discpline as mean-spirited. Had the pseudo government Fannie and Freddie not given the green light to loosen regulation to promote home ownership irregardless of credit socre of the buyers, the private banks won't attempt to make quick bucks in making the bad loans as they won't be able to sell them to Fannie and Freddie under formal functional governance and regulations. That's the exact example of the consequence of a culture that encourage spending beyond means.
We shouldn't be in Iraq in first place, but now that we are in, we need to think of a smart exit strategy. To pull out without careful deliberation of consequence and set a arbitary deadline is a product of child-like, irresponsible thinking. Iran can quickly fill the vacuum once American withdraw. We should exit, but exit with middle east stability intact. I am sure McCain if elected will consider exit and exit in a responsible way. We should drill oil and not depend on unfriendly nations that could threaten our economic and national security with oil. Plus new oil drilling will create more jobs. In the long term, alternative energies should be encouraged, but to think it can replace oil to meet american demand within a decade or two is an unrealistic dream.

Posted by: jerryh1 | September 28, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

I'm not quite sure what happened to the first comment I typed here, but I shall repeat it in a slightly different way. I wrote an entire commentary piece for a blog called Associated Content. It was right on the money and echoes many here, saying, basically, that the mannerisms that McCain displayed were irritating and made him seem irascible. Also, the "attack dog" role is not one I wish to see us continue in the world at large. I much prefer the laid-back style of Senator Obama, and I think it is the way to achieve consensus in a troubled world. My article was likened McCain to a bulldog, with his teeth sunk in Obama's leg and noted that it will be difficult to dislodge the bulldog's teeth, but it is necessary to do so in order to bring some sanity to this country. Just think how the world, at large, will react if we elect an old, out-of-touch war-monger with a completely unqualified housewife VP when we could have had a Harvard Grad and one of the most experienced members of the Senate on the topic of foreign relations. Wake up, America. Rome (or D.C.) is burning and "W" is fiddling. It is time to act and elect the best man for the job, and it was pretty clear that the man in question is the Democratic candidate. At least, if anything were to prevent Senator Obama from finishing out his term as President, we'd have an experienced individual to pick up the reins...not another Dan Quayle-like no-nothing.

Posted by: EINNOC10 | September 28, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

IT'S OBVIOUS SEN. MCCAIN WANTS TO EARN THIS PRESIDENCY WITH DEEDS AND ACTIONS AND NOT WITH WORDS LIKE DEEP THROAD OBAMA.

Posted by: CoreyB2 | September 28, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

I wrote about my impressions on the debate here:http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1067111/mccains_bulldog_grip_on_obamas_pantleg.html

It's pretty funny...and accurate. Check it out!

Posted by: EINNOC10 | September 28, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

McCain-
Pushed the Surge!
Stopped the Splurge!

Posted by: thecannula | September 28, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

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 Blunt. 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 1:19 AM | Report abuse

McCain was irrascible, erratic and 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 1:16 AM | Report abuse

McCain was incoherent and seemed senile. He had a two-pronged agenda:

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 1:12 AM | Report abuse

====== Sen. Obama = C Sen. McCain = A ====

Sen. Obama economic policies stinks. His solution to all domestic problems is to spend more money. His solution is our current problem. Our Gov. is currently overspending and like all Gov. spending inefficiently. For heaven sake, nations with a billion people are effectively running their government with half our Gov. budget.

As for Sen. Obama foreign policies, his foreign policies also stinks. As we all know, setting preconditions before negotiations is basic and a must. Otherwise, nations will start making all kinds of unreasonable demands on America. I don't trust Sen. Obama to negotiate for America because he would be lucky to walk out of the negotiating room with his shorts on. He doesn't know what the hell he is doing.

Posted by: CoreyB2 | September 28, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

"McCain is more likely to stand up to special interest and stop the wasteful spendings, and as a counter balance to the congress."

Problem with McCain is that he takes the other extreme. Government can't solve everything, but it does have a responsibility to pursue an agenda that betters the condition of its citizens. We need schools, we need a strong military, we need healthcare, we need roads, we need to care for senior citizens, we need to invest in basic sciences. We need some regulation over the most critical aspects of services and industry. To deny the role of government in these aspects of American society is also detrimental. Conservatives are too purist in their goals. The real world doesn't work that way. The invisible hand is not just invisible, but also blind. It needs guidance. Now a complete socialist government is also problematic. Its something that plagues parts of Europe.

But we aren't trying to sit an extreme. We want a good balance. Now the backbone of the American economy has been and always will be the entrepreneur. To deny this is stupid. However, there is a role for government to push the values that we deem important as a society. To ignore this role is also problematic and has led to many of the problems we are now facing.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 28, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

THE MEDIA PUNDITS GAVE VERY SUPERFICIAL ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE.

They never analyze whether these candidates were making sense or whether they were practical. Why is anyone paying these people money?

Posted by: oldgirl1 | September 28, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

THE MEDIA PUNDITS GAVE VERY SUPERFICIAL ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE.

They never analyze whether these candidates were making sense or whether they were practical. Why is anyone paying these people money?

Posted by: oldgirl1 | September 28, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

seems more people are preoccupied with win or lose as if this is a football game. People need to watch Bill Moyer's interview of Andrew John Bacevich. Andrew told something few would admit. That we don't look ourselves in the mirror. We lived beyond our means and look for the government as the solution. As a result the government grows bigger and bigger, the presidential power grew greater and greater, to a degree people preoccupied more with winning and losing of every trivial tibits of the candidates than looking for a real solution that guides the country back on track, also as a result, the candidates won't take unpopular positions and tried to cater to every interest group to help him get elected. As a result, neither candidate will have the mandate to make the tough call for american to start look within. Kennedy has the courage to ask people to not ask what the country can do for you, but ask what you can do for the country. That's why he's a great president.
Obama is just typical politician, albeit quite smart one I'd say, he shouted hope and change as if the election is an Hollywood drama. Or maybe it is, as he's their favorite and Hollywood (and Oprah, and rest of the media) runs this country. Until we get back to a culture that the candidates can tell the truth that this country cannot continue living on a credit line and fantasize it's unlimited. No election would change anything. Each president just grow the big government machine as people demanded it. Each president just project military power oversea as a way to cover up his incapability to solve the fundamental problem of growing irresponsible indulgence on debt domestically. Bill Clinton did slightly better than others. But nevertheless, the false sense of superiority of american government power, the voters' refusal to admit their own responsiblity and just use the government as the source of problem and source of solution continues nonstop for decades since the 60s. Since majority is duped into this addiction of debt, crooks use the opportunities to corrupt the government into wasteful spending and regulation that creates ever larger gap between the rich and poor. Democrats and republican are equally at blame.
McCain is more likely to stand up to special interest and stop the wasteful spendings, and as a counter balance to the congress. Every time this country have president and congress by the same party, the country fared worse and government grew bigger. One thing I like McCain from the debate is he's straight, honest talk of the need for reducing the military spending that grew under Bush and overshadowed everything else. Wake up from imperial pipe dream, America! Left or right. The government is not the unlimited credit line nor the solution for everything. Or else it's too late, as the day of reckoning is getting closer. This finacial criris is just a precursor.

Posted by: jerryh1 | September 28, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Is Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin the greatest in the history of SNL?

I mean, she absolutely captures the crazy mannerisms of McCain's choice for VP.

I really thought there was NO WAY someone else could make Palin look more comical and ridiculous than she does herself, but it's hilarious seeing another person so perfectly capture Palin's utter ignorance of basic issues!

WELL DONE TINA!

Posted by: jgarrisn | September 27, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

8:01pm PST 09/27/08

PLEASE try to understand my political party's beliefs and philosophies as they have been demonstrably crucial in elevating the status of this nation to the greatest over all the others on this planet:

"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH"

and

"FREEDOM (including FREE MARKET CAPITALI$M) IS NOT FREE!"

Very proud of the conduct of the Nephilim / Illuminati Warrior $enator McCain tactfully and strategically DEMONstrated last night.

I know all of his Nephilim / Illuminati friends and family in "The Party" are too, including of course, "THE PRINCE", and the current Nephilim / Illuminati Warrior in the White House despite their differences.

The $enator's training showed how strong The Force is with him.

The $enator DEMONstrated that he can be trusted to tow "The Party's philosophy and agenda".

Everyone's children (including The Party's own if necessary) should continue to pay for our enjoyed freedoms and private rights to pro$per, accumulate, and keep our individual wealth with blood if necessary through warfare.

In other words,

Ou individual, GOD-given right to oppress others and exploit the earth's resources, in order to pro$per materially and financially should continue to be defended by the precious sacrificial blood of our soldiers in the United States Armed Forces!

(For this I don't mind paying taxes for! But to feed lazy ass Leroy, his illegitimate children, and "Baby Mama's", because he has aspiration of becoming the next big "Gangsta Rappa" and won't work like everyone else, I do!)

I am eagerly awaiting the $enator's reception of the Sword, Torch, and Baton from the current occupying Knight, so that $enator McCain can solely push "The Agenda" from the Oval Office as planned.

Even though we only need 4 more year$ there, in order to transition to "The Big Event", I believe the $enator has DEMONstrated enough faith for him to continue to hold our position there in the Oval Office for another full 8!

I hope that my family and I will personally be continued to be counted worthy to po$itively participate and continue to benefit as we have the past 8 years.

Everything is proceeding as foreseen and planned!

"The Bailout" will help maximize our profit$ and pro$perity before the coming war with Iran.

Even the liberal media has reflected this in their recent coverage of our orchestration of the current events and their public pollings. I am surprised that they even have the courage to go public with "Our Truth!".

I hope this post will encourage you, the elite, elect, and enlightened in "The Party" as well as assist the undetermined to join u$. If any readers are unsure and need more information, please don't hesitate to ask any Republican Party member for clarification and assistance!

It is such a joy to see things transpire as planned! Thank you for listening.

CHRI$Tian Verde,

Liberty Farms, Solano County, California, USA

This "Country First!"

$upport our troops, keep America free, VOTE McCAIN-PALIN!

"Drill, Baby Drill!"

"Bomb Iran Now!"

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Beloved Founding Father & 3rd American President: Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: american_patriot | September 27, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

The Obama supporters will of course think Obama is the greatest, just as they thought the Disney Channel was the greatest, because they haven't lived long enough to know any better.

Next they will decide to kill off the elderly because they drive too slow. It's all about them.

Posted by: KateSheahan | September 27, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Some responses were noteworthy. Regarding a spending freeze, Obama's remark about not using a hatchet when its better to use a scapel-demonstrates the difference between McCain the bulldozer, and Obama the thinker. McCain's plan to give a $300 billion break to corporations puts taxpayers on notice, he's no maverick except in spin. And the plan to give employees a $5000 tax credit to buy their own health insurance??? How much adjusted income would you have to been making to get that check? This was a lost opportunity for Obama to have pounded home the fact that McCain is in the pocket of corporate/insurance lobbyists, just like the current resident. McCain didn't really have any specific details about foreign policy, nor the economy, and Obama could have done better had he presented a more detailed plan relevant to the average citizen. The voters, contrary to the D.C. cult, aren't stupid, and want answers. Jim Leher had the right idea about asking the candidates to debate, and speak to each other, but the debate still looked a whole lot like another campaign speech.

Posted by: Chinkapin | September 27, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Polls after Kennedy's first debate with Nixon showed a majority who listened on radio thought Nixon "won," while most persons who watched on television believed Kennedy "won." This shows the potential importance of body language, facial expressions and verbal comments in a televised debate.

Kennedy is widely considered a great orator, yet if one actually listens to his answers during press conferences, he often came across as Barack does, with frequent pauses, uhs, etc.

McCain with his self-righteous condescension, rudeness, smirking, sneering came across worse than Nixon did on television in his first debate with Kennedy. Most independents want a president who will actually try to work in a bupartisan way to solve or alleviate problems, through wise, just policies. Barack, though occasionally coming across as somewhat insufficiently assertive toward the end of the debate, overall came across as far more intelligent, balanced in his judgment, respectful of other opinions, showing the right temperament, in short clearly more presidential.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | September 27, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Renu1 wrote: "In the transcript, it was pretty close. Watching on tv, Obama dominated. I read a review by a primatologist who explained that Obama had the alpha male body language and McCain had the submissive body language. The audiences of independent voters confirmed that Obama won. Polling numbers over the next few days will show what effect, if any, there was from the debate."

I can't believe that a literate citizen of the USA would care to decide elections that way. If that's what democracy is about, give me monarchy.

I was looking for an opportunity for voters to hear candidate positions on the issues, and I thought the debate was fairly successful on that level.

Posted by: officermancuso | September 27, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

In the transcript, it was pretty close. Watching on tv, Obama dominated. I read a review by a primatologist who explained that Obama had the alpha male body language and McCain had the submissive body language. The audiences of independent voters confirmed that Obama won. Polling numbers over the next few days will show what effect, if any, there was from the debate.

Posted by: Renu1 | September 27, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Come to think of it, McCain said, during the debate "I didn't win Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate."

Maybe that was why he picked Palin, to fulfill some fantasy of his...

Posted by: capemh | September 27, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

So did anyone catch McCain's line about the money for studying the DNA of bears and not knowing whether it was a criminal or paternity issue?

Unfortunately, that seems to have been glossed over. It was one of the funniest moments of the debate.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 27, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Calwineman, McCain hasn't "done" anything...he has been a gigolo Senator forever and his main goal has been to take care of his wife's investments (see Lincoln Savings and Loan-Keating 5), help his friends, and try to get face time in the media by pissing off his fellow Republicans (up until 2004, when he decided to run again in 2008, then he started kissing ass all over the place).
He is far too loose with US troops, I imagine we are going to need a draft to keep up with all of the military entanglements he would get us into.

He was quite the maverick, except when he went along with George W. 91% of the time.
He even voted against improving the GI Bill for the soldiers he wants to fight his wars.

Now that he admitted there was torture committed by the United States under George W (check the transcript, he said it during the debate), what is he now going to do about it? Nothing, nada, zilch. Maybe the odd pardon, but that's all...

And, don't forget, he picked Palin to run the country if anything happens to him.

Let's not forget his sterling work chairing the Commerce Committee, you know, the one overseeing insurance companies and investment houses...

Not to mention that he was born during FDR's first term...

Posted by: capemh | September 27, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

I said:

"McCain as Bush III -- I tend to think Obama uses as part of his post-partisan tactic or stratgy. Rather than attack conservative Republicans, he makes shorthand reference to eight years, four more years and Bush. So, its not as simple as casting McCain and Bush as one in the same. It's much deeper."

Invention13-- You said: "Sorry, but I just don't see it. This is supposed to be 'post-partisan'? Repeating something about your opponent you know is not true? There are just too many instances of McCain publicly disagreeing with Bush. McCain has his faults, but running in lock step with Bush is not one of them."

Obama is running against 8 years of conversative Republican control of government. So you can try to figure out what is going on here a few simple words:

Obama is running against conservative Republican government casting it as "eight years", "four more years" or "Bush III" instead of party philosophy.

Almost everyone knows that he is running against partisan labels so he refuses to run against "conservatives" as a liberal but rather as a change from what was.

McCain is more of the same -- the last eight years, four more years or Bush III.
What you fail to understand is everyone but you know this and that he has constructed a winning argument against consevative Republicans like you.

Posted by: Marletter | September 27, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

In foreign policy judgement is a serious subject. After nearly 24 hours of reflection there were two things stood out at the debate regarding judgement.
Senator McCain listed a number of cases regarding judgement; Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnisa, Kosovo, the "Surge" and others. He demonstrated a number of examples of judgement and told us what shaped his decisions.
Senator Obama had one example, he opposed the Iraq war. Period. There were virtually no examples that he used to justify that he has "better judgement". He simply has never done anything big other than run for office.

Posted by: CalWineMan | September 27, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

The drama builds toward the Palin/Biden debate, as prominent media conservatives distance themselves from the former beauty contestant.

It's not so much that she makes Gerald Ford-like "Eastern Europe" gaffes, it's that she spins meaningless, syntactically indecipherable nonsense most of the time - the sort of thing you'd expect from an airhead.

I have made no secret of my disdain for Joe Biden, a largemouthed bass in a tiny pond (Delaware).

I know it never could have happened, but in my dreams tonight, Hillary Clinton (I opposed her for the Dem nomination) will debate Ms. Palin.

I hope Biden can control the demons that regularly hijack his tongue.

Posted by: officermancuso | September 27, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

:Asper, as pointed out by other posters (obviously to no avail), Kissinger modified his position on "speaking to the enemy" after-the-fact to accommodate his candidate. That's pure Kissinger and understandable. O got Kissinger's stance on this right."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 5:06 PM

Well, now you're talking about Kissinger lying about Kissinger, which I'm not going to get into. Seems like a lot of people are lying now, and Obama's the only one who is telling the truth about he has so much support for his suggestion that something presidents never do is a great idea.

I would be remiss if I didn't say that Obama performed much better than I expected. He wasn't the vacuous empty suit he was in the debates with Clinton or as he was a the Rev. Warren Saddleback Church forum. So he did very well at seeming like a credible candidate on foreign policy.

If he performs as well with a domestic issues or energy programs debate, he might outperform McCain.

Good night.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

:Asper, as pointed out by other posters (obviously to no avail), Kissinger modified his position on "speaking to the enemy" after-the-fact to accommodate his candidate. That's pure Kissinger and understandable. O got Kissinger's stance on this right."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 5:06 PM

Well, now you're talking about Kissinger lying about Kissinger, which I'm not going to get into. Seems like a lot of people are lying now, and Obama's the only one who is telling the truth about he has so much support for his suggestion that something presidents never do is a great idea.

I would be remiss if I didn't say that Obama performed much better than I expected. He wasn't the vacuous empty suit he was in the debates with Clinton or as he was a the Rev. Warren Saddleback Church forum. So he did very well at seeming like a credible candidate on foreign policy.

If he performs as well with a domestic issues or energy programs debate, he might outperform McCain.

Good night.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Just an FYI Chris...

Not sure if this has already been noted, but interesting -- and correct -- commentary about your comment regarding McCain's "best moment"...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809270009?f=h_latest

It wasn't a misstatement by Obama, it was an attempt by McCain to misstate Obama's position...one of many last nite. Surely the Fix was aware of the difference...

Posted by: annr1 | September 27, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I really like Joe Biden. He is afable, effusive and knowledgeable. His problem, of course, he sticks his foot in his mouth in such bizarre ways. He will probably do some of that when debating with Palin. Not to worry, the attention is much more on what Palin is going to say. He should just make sure he doesn't do obvious blunders. Also, he has to be mindfull she might play the "sexist" card. Other than that, although she is obviously smart, we all expect her to say at least one or two really dumb things. Will it happen?

Posted by: RegisUrgel | September 27, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

It is important that we Americans keep some perspective and understand that Ahmadinejad is not Iran.

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

Of course he's not Iran. Never said he was.

But no way will I give an inch to anyone who denies the Holocaust or calls for any nation's extinction.

He is hateful, admittedly ignorantly so.

Bush is just ignorant. Dangerous in itself but not as dangerous as ignorant hatefulness.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I watched the first half of the debate then had to get in a car and go somewhere so I heard the 2d half on radio. Initially I thought Obama had done well, but thought McCain had held his own. Then I came home and viewed the 2d half on CNN's split screen (which caught all of McCain's nasty grimaces while listening to Sen. Obama) and their instant analysis. To my surprise I reached a very different conclusion: Sen. McCain's constant use of "you don't understand" his refusal to look at Sen. Obama and muttering under his breath seemed angry, dismissive and condescending. It seemed to emphasize his old, cranky side (again, it wasn't even in what he SAID as in the reaction shots). I wish Sen. Obama had crammed that "you don't understand" line back in his face but we've had 8 years of an impulsive cowboy. Don't need that again.

Posted by: Omyobama | September 27, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

JohnDoug wrote:

"McCain should really be called out on his war mongering towards Iran. McCain does not speak Farsi. Those who do have tried to correct the false interpretations of Ahmadinejad's statements about "wiping Israel off the map". Ahmadinejad himself has tried to clarify his remarks and soften his tone towards Israel in recent months....(Not unlike McCain has had to clarify his own statements about the economy).

"Obama, of course, can't address this directly without looking soft on defense so the lies slide by, but McCain's attitude towards Iran is what gets us into unnecessary wars.

"Ahmadinejad is a punk who should be rebuked, but punkish behavior should be rejected, not emulated by our own politicians."

A punk (your term, not mine) with nuclear weapons, who intends to humiliate the United States and exterminate Israel is not someone I need to know Farsi to know what my duty is where he is concerned.

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: officermancuso | September 27, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

The guy is a nut case and a source of evil acts. All Americans agree on that.
Period.

Posted by: wpost4112

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

And you would have to agree that much of the world views George W Bush in the same light. Fortunately they also understand that Bush is not America. It is important that we Americans keep some perspective and understand that Ahmadinejad is not Iran. He is a somewhat unpopular figure among Iranians whose power and influence increases every time our bellicose leaders make threatening statements. Therefore, McCain and W are Ahmadinejad's best political buddies.

Posted by: gstew999 | September 27, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

So much for Palin's foreign policy creds:

Opportunities abound for Alaska governors to engage in Russian diplomacy, with the state host to several organizations focusing on Arctic issues. Anchorage is the seat of the Northern Forum, an 18-year-old organization that represents the leaders of regional governments in Russia, as well as Finland, Iceland and Canada, Japan, China and South Korea.

Yet under Palin, the state government — without consultation — reduced its annual financial support to the Northern Forum to $15,000 from $75,000, according to Priscilla Wohl, the group's executive director. That forced the forum's Anchorage office to go without pay for two months.

Palin — unlike the previous administrations of Gov. Frank Murkowski and Gov. Tony Knowles — also stopped sending representatives to Northern Forum's annual meetings, including one last year for regional governors held in the heart of Russia's oil territory.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008174647&zsection_id=2003905675&slug=palinrussia12m0&date=20080912

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Ahmadinejad himself has tried to clarify his remarks and soften his tone towards Israel in recent months. (Not unlike McCain has had to clarify his own statements about the economy).

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

The guy is a nut case and a source of evil acts. All Americans agree on that.
Period.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

McCain holds on to Missouri, Montana, and Indiana

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

Not so fast. Obama is now within 1 point of McCain in Missouri.

But a day is a year in an election.

Polls come and go and this election will go down to wire (I predict that PA will be the deciding state)...unless Palin self-destructs on Thursday.

But I have a feeling she will not. She will be a rabid attack dog on Obama, regardless of what Gwen asks and conservative America will love it. Biden won't know what hit him.

McCain's numbers will shoot through the roof.

America wanted some energy and passion on Friday and got none. Perfect set up for Palin. That's her strong suit.

Repubs will be foaming at the mouth delirious.

Those who elected Bush and set the bar below ground have allowed someone like Palin to be seriously considered for the White House.

The USA has gone to the dogs.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

McCain should really be called out on his war mongering towards Iran. McCain does not speak Farsi. Those who do have tried to correct the false interpretations of Ahmadinejad's statements about "wiping Israel off the map". Ahmadinejad himself has tried to clarify his remarks and soften his tone towards Israel in recent months. (Not unlike McCain has had to clarify his own statements about the economy).
Obama, of course, can't address this directly without looking soft on defense so the lies slide by, but McCain's attitude towards Iran is what gets us into unnecessary wars.
Ahmadinejad is a punk who should be rebuked, but punkish behavior should be rejected, not emulated by our own politicians.

Posted by: JohnDoug | September 27, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

McCain provided Obama with two GIGANTIC openings that Obama did not take advantage of. This is what disappointed me most about Obama's performance.

First, McCain seemed to throw out an off-the-cuff policy statement about a spending freeze for all areas of government except defense/military, veteran's affairs and social security/medicare type entitlements. What an unbelievable opening!! Considering that energy policy is now considered crucial to our national security, Obama should have pounced. He should have immediately argued that not only would new offshore drilling not provide benefits for at least 10 years, but now he is proposing no new investment in energy solutions that could supply much earlier returns. Energy/gas prices is what hits all Americans every day. Obama should have been able to turn "drill baby drill"/"spending freeze" into a major advantage.

Second, just like W, McCain again stated that Iraq was "the central issue of our time". How Obama did not jump all over this shocks me. He had the opportunity to show McCain as a relic of the Bush past with this quote. He could have presented all of these as the central issues of our time:

1) Religious extremism leading to terrorism
2) Energy independence
3) The economy
4) Ramifications of China and a resurgent Russia eventually joining the US as superpowers

Any of these would show Obama is living in the present and looking towards the future, while McCain is living in the past.

Posted by: gstew999 | September 27, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.


Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.


One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

Posted by: dmooney | September 27, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

The times are too serious and too dificult, to entrust the numerous and life changing decision coming our way, to a man in his 70s. Nothing personal against Sen. Mc Cain, I actually think he's a good man, who actually believes in family, country, God and being the best that he can and as such, he believes that only he can solve the big problems facing our nation and the world. But just like your body doesn't function the same, the older you get; the same happens to your brain and the sharpness of your decision making abilities. It's just a fact of life and time, case in point, Mr. McCain's bursts and utterly ilogical decisions (i.e. his VP choice). And Sen. Obama's age, temperament, intelligence, and apparent desire to do good, I believe is exactly what the country needs. So America, please, please, please, make your vote count.

Posted by: Pedayba | September 27, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the conventional wisdom: Obama, as the younger, less experienced person on stage won by not losing.

The insta-polls bear this out, and so does the "put your money where your mouth is" market at intrade.com, where Obama's now gained about 1.4 per cent over the past 24 hours while McCain has lost about 2 per cent.

As a very partisan Obama supporter, I personally had the common experience of feeling that Obama won every single debate point - not a particularly useful experience for evaluating the debate's impact on the all-important undecided voters.

I was particularly moved by Obama's refusal to be hoisted on the Petraeus petard, pointing out that the war in Iraq was a mistake in the first place.

Those who argue that McCain's all substance and Obama's just "debating skill" are regurgitating Rovian spin of the sort that allowed a walking, talking malapropism from Texas to occupy D.C.'s most prestigious address for eight very long, very punishing years.

When dinosaurs roamed the earth and college professors were trying to beat some sense into my head, I was frequently told that if you can't state something clearly, your thinking about it is probably muddled.

Posted by: officermancuso | September 27, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

McCain appeared bitter and angry that he had to debate Obama in the first place. Obama is almost 30 years younger than McCain, and, of course, Obama has never been to war, let alone been a prisoner of war. In McCain's mind this debate shouldn't even happen. Because of that resentment, McCain came across as cranky and patronizing. That is not helpfull to McCain's cause, and it gets in the way of McCain delivering Obama a clean blow. This highstrung exchange about who knows Kisinger the longest was really stupid. McCain "won" that dumb argument, but it was costly, and at the end he made little progress in solving his Obama problem.

Posted by: RegisUrgel | September 27, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.


Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.


One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

Posted by: dmooney | September 27, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

This isn't even going to be close.
Obama 353
McCain 185

Obama wins CO, NV, NM, NH, OH, NC, FL, VA.
McCain holds on to Missouri, Montana, and Indiana

I can't wait until November 5th. The silence from the right on here is going to be delicious.

Posted by: spectre42 | September 27, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.


Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.


One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

Posted by: dmooney | September 27, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.


Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.


One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

Posted by: dmooney | September 27, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I missed the debate that Mr. Cilliza watched. Of course, I seem to be missing the election cycle he is covering so I guess that is no surprise.

Posted by: kentwinchester | September 27, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.


Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.


One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

Posted by: dmooney | September 27, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter who supported McCain in 2000. The reasons I support Obama are the same reasons that I would be predisposed to believe that he won the debate. So my bias is evident in that opinion.

But I don't find it relevant as to who "won" or "lost" the debate. An objective viewer of this election would see that in the abstract it would take an extraordinary series of events for a Republican to win the 2008 Presidency. Circumstances are so aligned against the Republicans that all the Democratic nominee needs to do is be unobjectionable. What would make Obama objectionable?

To many it would be his color. And this certainly qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance (a minority nominee). But his campaign has completely mitigated this negative by essentially running a color-blind campaign and (for the most part) avoiding/eschewing racial politics. I would argue that Obama's campaign has done a better job of mitigating the possibility of racial voting than McCain's campaign has done mitigating the possibility of ageist voting (and there will certainly be some that will not vote for McCain because of his age).

The other most likely objectionable Obama characteristic is his inexperience. And only Obama himself can mitigate this factor....and only during the debates. IMHO, the question to answer after each debate is not "who won?", but "did Obama allay concerns over his lack of experience?".

I believe that Obama's campaign has succeeded in persuading independent voters to view him as a candidate, not a "black" candidate. And I believe that Obama passed the CIC test, the only thing that truly mattered about last night's debate. If McCain does not somehow make Obama's inexperience truly objectionable in the next two debates I do not see how he has even the slightest chance of victory.

Posted by: gstew999 | September 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The reason McCain avoided looking at Obama is because they were standing and Obama is taller, and if the camera focused on McCain "looking up" at Obama it's a weak perspective. This isn't rocket science.

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

Talk about nonsense.

It's always weak not to look your opponent in the eye. That's how you make height difference disappear. And the polls are bearing that out.

It's the physical equivalent to Barack's "You're likeable enough" comment to Hillary.

It was a major political miscalculation if intentional; a major leadership defect if not.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The reason McCain avoided looking at Obama is because they were standing and Obama is taller, and if the camera focused on McCain "looking up" at Obama it's a weak perspective. This isn't rocket science.

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

Talk about nonsense.

It's always weak not to look your opponent in the eye. That's how you make height difference disappear. And the polls are bearing that out.

It's the physical equivalent to Barack's "You're likeable enough" comment to Hillary.

It was a major political miscalculation if intentional; a major leadership defect if not.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The reason McCain avoided looking at Obama is because they were standing and Obama is taller, and if the camera focused on McCain "looking up" at Obama it's a weak perspective. This isn't rocket science.

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

Talk about nonsense.

It's always weak not to look your opponent in the eye. That's how you make height difference disappear. And the polls are bearing that out.

It's the physical equivalent to Barack's "You're likeable enough" comment to Hillary.

It was a major political miscalculation if intentional; a major leadership defect if not.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I heard the debate on radio and it seemed a tie to me. However, most pollsters are saying independents think Obama won, and that is what counts. McCain needed to knock Obama out last night, and he didn't do it. Obama showed himself to be acceptable, and that is all he had to do. Since Obama is ahead in the polls, and the public wants to vote for Democrats, Obama wins.

Posted by: andrewp111 | September 27, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I agree with most of the comments here in that Obama had the edge last night. With his foreign expertise experience, this should not have been the case for McCain. At certain times, it felt like it was McCain who was the professor, on History, rambling on about things that happened in the past, and dropping names that do not address the questions posed. I also found that he was backing up his foreign affairs approach with arguments that that's how things were done, so it must be how it must be done today, whereas Obama appeared to have a more forward looking approach, and an openness to new approaches to emerging problems. McCain very clearly fell flat on his face when he tried to justify his $300Billion tax cuts with a budget freeze that would at most account for $18 billion in expenditure. I felt that Obama did well there, but I felt he should have given more details about how he would now phase out his plans, and which are the broad areas where he would cut, or how the broader economic plan would help offset both the bailout, and his spending plan...

Posted by: andytoh | September 27, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Come on. Putin isn't going to play lawerly word games. That is for domestic politics. Putin will play with troops, tanks, and missiles. Palin will do fine.

"I think that Sarah Palin isn't ready to be attacked verbally and maneuver with people who are maliciously construing her words. She's from a very plain-spoken culture and background. That's a big problem with her interviews and it's going to be a problem with her debating.

--------------
Then she isn't ready to be Vice-President or, God forbid, President should McCain die.

What, is she going to hide when Putin maliciously distorts her words?

Your own words have proven the point that she is not White House material.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 3:53 PM"

Posted by: andrewp111 | September 27, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Lot's of silliness and immaturity here.

The reason McCain avoided looking at Obama is because they were standing and Obama is taller, and if the camera focused on McCain "looking up" at Obama it's a weak perspective. This isn't rocket science.

Funny how this board, and everywhere else where Obama posters predominate, they try to get you focused on nonsense. This groupthink won't sustain you, or the country, if Obama wins and we are stuck thereby with the second Carter administration.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Another bad day of polling for McCain as we start to get evidence that his theatrics of the last few days has backfired.

-- In Virginia, Rasmussen has Obama opening up a 5% lead over McCain, 50% to 45%. This poll was done yesterday, so it includes whatever the reaction was to McCain's stunt. Just FOUR days ago, Rasmussen had McCain up by 2%. That's a 7% swing in four days. And the most shocking detail from this poll is that Obama now leads among investors. That is flat out unheard of. Republicans usually win investors by a large margin. The fact that McCain has lost that group for now to Obama indicates that confidence in McCain's ability to deal with Wall Street has continued to fall. Just about all pollsters are now showing Obama leading in Virginia.

-- In Florida, Rasmussen has McCain's lead all but gone. He now has a 48% to 47% advantage. Just THREE days ago, Rasmussen had McCain up by 5%. That's a 4% swing in three days.

-- In Missouri, SurveyUSA has McCain's lead down to 2%, 48% to 46%, while Research 2000 has McCain's lead down to 1%, 47% to 46%. SurveyUSA's last poll of Missouri had McCain up 5% while Research 2000's last Missouri poll had McCain up by 4%. These two polls represent the closest Obama has been in Missouri in awhile.

-- And McCain took a hit in today's daily tracking poll numbers, another sign that his campaign suspension gambit didn't help him.

* Gallup - Obama 48%, McCain 45%
* Diageo - Obama 49%, McCain 42%
* Rasmussen - Obama 50%, McCain 45%
* Research 2000 - Obama 48%, McCain 43%

The Rasmussen and Diageo numbers are close to Obama's all time highs in those polls.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I am sure John Mccain would be proud of you since his whole campaign is based on lies. You are his kind of person.

=========
If I could figure out how to edit the clips of the debate, I would make a YouTube video titled :Condensed version of the DEbate;

clip; McCain "Obama just doesnt understand"
clip: Obama " I agree with John"
clip Mccain "Obama is naive..."
clip Obama " I agree with John"
clip Mccain " He just doesn't get it"
clip Obama "I have a bracelet too..."
clip Mccain "benefit to having experience and judgement"

Posted by: atlantaGA | September 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | September 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Forget the debates, why isn't anybody covering the Obama campaign's attempt to suppress free speech in Missouri.

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

LOL. Because it's a non-issue.

The Repubs are making noise because today's polls show that Obama now LEADS in Missouri polls.

It's about time someone push back against Republican lies and smears.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

ALL ABOARD! The Stop Obama Express. A great site for Anti-Obama Fun, videos, pictures, quotes and more. Check it out at www.StopObamaExpress.com

Posted by: jeff23 | September 27, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Asper, as pointed out by other posters (obviously to no avail), Kissinger modified his position on "speaking to the enemy" after-the-fact to accommodate his candidate. That's pure Kissinger and understandable. O got Kissinger's stance on this right.

Re Malkin: once you cite Malkin, a sad case of clinically observable self-hatred, you have no credibility. Just as when you cite noted antisemite Westbrook Pegler (as Palin did at the convention) or cite that German guy who died in 1945.

Also not a good idea to boast, as Palin has, of supporting Pat Buchanan, whose "views" (never referenced on the mainstream shows he appears on) take up four full pages on the website of the respected Anti-Defamation League.

When you refer to Obama as "S-mbo" and Eskimos as Arctic Arabs openly at a restaurant (as reported Sept. 5 by Internet journalist Charley James of laprogressive) as Palin allegedly did, you have thoroughly discredited and disqualified yourself. Don't you think? Huh?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

If I could figure out how to edit the clips of the debate, I would make a YouTube video titled :Condensed version of the DEbate;

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

It's astonishing how some people take great pride, even delight, in being malicious and deceptive.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Forget the debates, why isn't anybody covering the Obama campaign's attempt to suppress free speech in Missouri.

Video story here;

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

Response for Missouri Governor here:

http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem

Posted by: Derwood_Res | September 27, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

If I could figure out how to edit the clips of the debate, I would make a YouTube video titled :Condensed version of the DEbate;

clip; McCain "Obama just doesnt understand"
clip: Obama " I agree with John"
clip Mccain "Obama is naive..."
clip Obama " I agree with John"
clip Mccain " He just doesn't get it"
clip Obama "I have a bracelet too..."
clip Mccain "benefit to having experience and judgement"

Posted by: atlantaGA | September 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

In interesting point. I watched the debate with a group and we did a little focus group exercise afterwards.
One of the questions to the group was, "How many times did you think of Obama as a black man during the debate"? The answers were none. Not one person watching saw Mccain and Obama as black and white. It is an interesting trick Obama accomplished. He is now becoming not the "Black" candidate but just the candidate. I think he is going to begin to connect and close the deal with a lot of people who have been hesitant. It has taken a long time but he may finally have achieved it.

By the way this is not lost on Mccains campaign. They had an internal memo about a week ago that said they need to start painting Obama as black again because people are forgetting.

Posted by: popasmoke | September 27, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Lets not forget folks, Kissinger had Tricky Dick Nixon's ear for his entire deceit-filled stretch as prez...

Posted by: free-donny | September 27, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Asper, Asper, Asper,
Slow down and read carefully.

Obama never said anything about the President, McCain did. Obama spoke about pre-conditions, which Kissinger did agree about.


Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Kissinger is very predictably and retroactively adjusting his previous statements to now support his candidate. Why would anyone expect anything else?

Posted by: free-donny | September 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm wondering if McCain's refusal to look at Obama will be magnified in days to come; not only by pundits, but by Saturday Night Live, Leno, Letterman, Comedy Central, etc. It seems like the kind of thing they would latch on to, and it may even end up being a pretty big deal, politically.

More here, if you're interested: http://policomic.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/is-this-going-to-be-a-thing/

Posted by: policomic | September 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

If this is perceived as a draw in the Presidential debate level, then it is basically "doomsday" for the Republicans if they have to depend on Sarah Palin to break that draw in the Vice-Presidential debates. Once the independent voters see that the country is really "one heart beat away" from having Mrs. Palin being the next commander in chief, they will definitely vote base on logic and common sense instead of the "Flavor of the week". I saw the interview of Mrs. Palin with Katie Couric and even I felt sorry for her being used by the Republican party this way. I understand that it takes two to tangle and Mrs. Palin was just as eager to aspire as the next Vice-President, but I blame the Republican party, and John McCain specifically, for taking advantage of a delusional power-hungry woman whose family will now suffer the wrath of the mass public and media scrutiny. If McCain would have had the sense and wisdom to choose the right person for the job of Vice-Presidential candidate (4 or 5 other more qualified women) then even I would have to consider voting for him as an independent voter base on Obama's inexperience. But after seeing his body language and his condescending attitude towards Obama during the debate and his choice for Vice-President candidate based on his fading "Testosterone", I am now willing to vote for Obama and Joe Biden based on how they will enhance the Presidency as a team, instead of being solely dependent on the health of an "average" experienced leader. As Mr. Obama stated in the debate, it is just not the people in the United States who are following the presidency, other countries are watching too and they are neither Republicans nor Democrats.

Posted by: JohnWWW | September 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

First a correction: Obama quoted Kissinger CORRECTLY regarding future meetings with leaders of other nations. McCain was obviously wrong, but stubbornly and nervously stood his ground.

McCain showed up and did not dishonor himself by leaving an empty podium with his name on it. However, Obama stayed on point and answered questions directly and in an organized fashion - unadorned. McCain often slanted the question to best suit himself an utilized many stretched historical references...seemingly to add meat to his responses.

When Obama nailed McCain with a few extremely strong points, McCain always responded with "Senator Obama does not understand" or "there's that naivete again". Then he would promptly change the subject.

THe thing was, it was obvious Obama DID understand and McCain could not factually contest his points, so he went back to personal criticism - vaguely defining ignorance or inexperience.

I wanted McCain to respond better than he did, but to be honest...he ended up painting the picture that he once could have beena good president, but that time has long passed.

Obama imprinted a vision that he was forward looking, had planned for the future and was willing to examine what went wrong over the past 7 years.

I think the polling thus far is accurate with about toice as many saying Obama won than said McCain won. However, polls are just polls. I also expect Obama to gain 2 to 4 points nationally among voter polls.

Early yesterday, several polls showed Obama overtaking McCain in NC and tying him in VA, with McCain's lead in FL down to only one point. That is significant progress. One other key demographic, McCain is slipping among senior citizen voters.

I think what will do him in eventually is Palin.

Posted by: free-donny | September 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"Aspergirl, citing Michelle Malkin for support is like quoting the late legendary antisemite, Westbrook Pegler..."

Posted by: broadwayjoe

When Michelle Malkin provides a link to a video of Obama himself speaking at last night's debate, along with commentary that is merely observational about his "bracelet" statement and her take on them, saying that Obama didn't say or do that "bracelet" gaffe because Michelle Malkin posted it is pure Alice-in-Wonderland harassment of a poster who doesn't agree with your candidate.

Calling other posters liars, saying that Obama did no such thing, when they provide links to the video of his "bracelet" gaffe, is just the behavior of message board trolls designed to harass other posters.

You have no point except to be a paid troll. Don't bother me with your self-deluded denials of reality.

Half of what you guys are paid to do is sit there and call anyone who points out Obama's gaffes a liar. Example:

"Contrary to Kissinger's suggestion today, at no point during the debate did Obama suggest that Kissinger had previously endorsed presidential-level talks between the United States and Iran.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 3:37 PM "

wpost4112 is trying to call Kissinger a liar for issuing a statement that Obama misrepresented his statements.

Obama has repeatedly cited Kissinger in support of his -- Obama's -- declaration that he -- as President Obama -- would sit down with rogue dictators without preconditions.

DEBATE:

OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition

MCCAIN: Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the PRESIDENT of the United States and the president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.

OBAMA: When we talk about preconditions — and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions — the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.

MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama’s depiction of his — of his positions on the issue. I’ve known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not — he would not say that presidential top level.

So who was right? Obviously McCain. Kissinger made the following statement on 9/20/08

From CNN, (9/20):
Kissinger: “Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it AT THE SECRETARY OF STATE LEVEL…”

After the Debate Kissinger released the following statement:

“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality. “

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"DailyKos groupthink"

Ain't no such critter, sweetie.

If you can get 20 Kossacks to agree on any two things, you are Mother Teresa...

DKos is about as ecclectic as a blog can get, but Drudge and Malkin are mainline bigots and provocateurs, with no concern for decency. Like Savage (wimpiest savage I've ever read) they live to hate.

At least I try to be subtle with my insults.

BTW, what shade of lipstick do you wear?

Posted by: JEP7 | September 27, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The American Viewer decides the winner. When the debate was over, I don’t think the Viewer expected to see it go in to over time, You see, Viewers don’t play by the rules of debating procedure . So when Joe Biden was interviewed just after the debate, it was still on for us. And Palin as no the show, said it all, not being there and say nothing. Is McCane really the man you want making decisions for the country? Palin is his decision to what he will leave America if he becomes unable to complete his term. Help me here. Some decisions need to be made on economic, foreign policy, national defense, .ect, ect. McCaim decision for his VP shows me he has little for thought to Americas future. That’s like a man leading us down the road, only to find he is gone, and he’s lead us to dead end alley.

Posted by: peterd2 | September 27, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

McCain was a clear leader last night. Obama spent most of the night on defense and at times was clearly over his head.
The big difference that was clear was McCain spoke from experience and Obama spoke from his rehearsed lines. Obama was well schooled. Since he has no experience that is all he is able to offer. McClain was clearly out in front and came across as a real leader who will not need OJT.

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

Experience without good judgment is useless. McCain's recent reckless response to the economic meltdown is ample evidence that the man has zero good judgment in a crisis.

If he can't look his political opponent in the eye, he can't be trusted to stare down our enemies.

McC: s great Senator who has lost his way. No longer Presidential material.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

If the Enquirer's reporting on Brad Hanson (as referenced in today's HuffPo ) is on target (and their journalism is actually better sourced than the MSM's), it's game, set, match, and thank you for coming.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

On speaker points (i.e., ignoring substance), they both fared equally well. However, where did it get to be the rule that someone is "hammered" when the other one simply says something louder with more repetition? Isn't there supposed to be some correspondence between the response and the original comment? But then, that's substance.

On the foreign policy substance, McCain continued to show his remarkable ignorance of the difference between strategy and tactics. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then a wartime strategy is successful when the political objectives are met. To date, they have not been, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, and certainly not with respect to Al Qaeda. Clausewitz is probably spinning in his grave and Petraeus (who does know the difference) is probably twisting on his chair.

Posted by: Publius14 | September 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't McCain on Capital Hill today forging consensus on that bill?? Is the campaign still suspended?? Where is the urgency of the pre-debate "I MUST away to save the nation!"

Theatrics. Curtain is pulled back. Just 'ol John, looking for the next adrenalin rush.



Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl, citing Michelle Malkin for support is like quoting the late legendary antisemite, Westbrook Pegler, in a convention acceptance speech. Oh wait, Palin did just that, didn't she? Oops.

Look, so far she has managed to avoid even a single legitimate question from any legitimate journalist. Her answers to softball questions posed by TV entertainer Katie Couric were considered moronic even by rightwingers, some of whom asked her to step down.

But as Joe Louis said, you can run but you can't hide. Soon at the debate Palin will sit down and answer real questions from a moderator and her answer can't always be "World Peace."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

McCain was a clear leader last night. Obama spent most of the night on defense and at times was clearly over his head.
The big difference that was clear was McCain spoke from experience and Obama spoke from his rehearsed lines. Obama was well schooled. Since he has no experience that is all he is able to offer. McClain was clearly out in front and came across as a real leader who will not need OJT.

Posted by: sirchatz | September 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious about how inadequate the McCain preparation seems to be, not only for Palin but for McCain's economic preparation this year. There seems to be a curiously amateurish nature to the issue-specific preparation and for-media prepping of the candidates. Who's in charge of getting McCain and Palin ready for prime time? Do they have any professionals advising them, or just their wives and friends giving them advice on how to talk, etc?

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

McCain was thoroughly rehearsed. It seemed amateurish because of McCain's insufficient grasp of the issues. What one would expect from a shoot-from-the hip Senator.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"AspirinGirl; First you use Malkin as a reference (much to our giddy delight at your ever-evident ignorance), THEN you conjur up the effete, effeminate, milquetoast extraordinaire William (I'm NOT Billy!) Kristol as if he's some sort of trump card of respectability. ..."

Posted by: JEP7

Your attack on any reporter who posts embarrassing Obama gaffe links, thinking that it invalidates their criticism of Obama, just by saying "Oh, that's Michelle Malkin", is an incoherent tactic of a DailyKos groupthink idiot who lives in a simplistic rhetorical world of "us good -- them demons". I really don't care how you imagine Michelle Malkin to be some demonized character that, as a conservative commentator, all her work product exists in some invalid universe you can ignore. Why don't you go comfort yourself in the familiar reality of DailyKos instead of venturing out in the world where people exist in reality other than your left-wing bloggers and those who support your world view?

"Can't wait to see what you all try to do with the sow's ear."

No thanks, got nothing to show you. I don't waste time discussing with men that I can obviously beat up.

Go crawl back into your one-dimensional DailyKos world and suck your thumb and pretend the conservative media don't exist.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I think that Sarah Palin isn't ready to be attacked verbally and maneuver with people who are maliciously construing her words. She's from a very plain-spoken culture and background. That's a big problem with her interviews and it's going to be a problem with her debating.

--------------
Then she isn't ready to be Vice-President or, God forbid, President should McCain die.

What, is she going to hide when Putin maliciously distorts her words?

Your own words have proven the point that she is not White House material.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet (see trends). Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, McCain by 54%.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"Aspergirl--you miss the point. Obama was calling McCain on his anecodtal approach to discussing world issues by saying, "And there are also mothers who don't want other mothers to be mourning sons whose lives didn't have to be lost." Look at the big picture."

"As far as Palin...only since Bush took office and the media was portrayed as "the big bad guys" did the American public ever fault a journalist for asking difficult and probing questions. That's their JOB, and if they'd been more diligent in pursuing Bush and his false claims of WMD, we wouldn't be losing our sons and daughters in Iraq. If Sarah Palin is going to have the arrogance to say she's "ready" to be President of the United States and one of the most powerful people in the world, she better be prepared to defend herself when she makes absolutely absurd, nonsensical statements like she made to Katie Couric."

Posted by: writer8856 | September 27, 2008 3:24 PM

I understand that this was the point Obama wanted to make -- that mothers felt they wanted their dead sons honored by stopping the war. However, he was undermining McCain by attacking McCain's bracelet by invoking his own bracelet that was for Obama, clearly a gimmick without real meaning. There's a personal dimension to his gaffe that is symbolic, too.

I think that Sarah Palin isn't ready to be attacked verbally and maneuver with people who are maliciously construing her words. She's from a very plain-spoken culture and background. That's a big problem with her interviews and it's going to be a problem with her debating.

Sarah Palin has to learn rhetorical tricks to answer the rudeness and undermining Q&A tactics, like reporters asking the same question over and over after she ahs answered them. Like, even learning to dismissively say, "Already asked and answered", would help her more than just politely repeating her answer in response to the rudeness. It's like she doesn't understand that the reporter is implying she's lying or defective, by repeatedly asking the same question.

Katie Couric had an excellent question in asking about John McCain's potential as a future banking industry regulator in light of his traditional deregulatory preferences and it was appropriate for her to ask given the current mortgage banking crisis. But she also had a great example right John McCain's record that was a spot-on response to her question: John McCain himself proposed and sponsored legislation to regulate Fannie and Freddie, in his Federal Mortgage Regulatory Act of 2005 (that the Democrats defeated). For Katie Couric to keep asking the same question, as if there were lingering doubts about John McCain's truthfulness when saying he would regulate banking in light of the Fannie and Freddie mess this month, is just rude, undermining, adversarial and prosecutorial interviewing.

Sarah Palin has to learn that the media are snakes, that she can't talk to them as if they are sincerely conversing with her and when they repeatedly ask the same questions after already getting an answer, they are only trying to undermine or attack her implicitly. She has to learn how to deal with the rhetorical snake-handlers that the media and Washington word-twisters and underminers are, or they will continue to make her look stupid.

I'm curious about how inadequate the McCain preparation seems to be, not only for Palin but for McCain's economic preparation this year. There seems to be a curiously amateurish nature to the issue-specific preparation and for-media prepping of the candidates. Who's in charge of getting McCain and Palin ready for prime time? Do they have any professionals advising them, or just their wives and friends giving them advice on how to talk, etc?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

geaaronson--well put. And where would we be if Kennedy had not engaged in dialogue during the missile crisis?

As far as what Kissinger said, check out where he said it--one week ago, on the CNN panel discussion with Christina Amanpour and 5 former Secretaries of State: Warren Christopher, Kissinger, Madeline Albright, James Baker and Colin Powell. In that discussion, Kissinger did say--and mentioned that he'd been saying it to the current administration, as well--that the US should speak to Iran. And to Russia. In fact, ALL five secretaries of state said that "reconstituting diplomacy" was of paramount importance and continuing the approach of not talking to our "enemies" was a completely failed policy.

Of course Kissinger is going to immediately issue a statement on McCain's behalf; Kissinger's a party man, through and through. Side note: Colin Powell said McCain was a good friend of his but he hasn't made up his mind on who he's going to support. Nonetheless, much of what he said that night was in agreement with Obama's agenda. And some sources say that it looks like that (i.e. Obama) is who Powell's going to endorse. If he does, it'll be interesting to see the reaction from the McCain camp.

Posted by: writer8856 | September 27, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

AspirinGirl;

First you use Malkin as a reference (much to our giddy delight at your ever-evident ignorance), THEN you conjur up the effete, effeminate, milquetoast extraordinaire William (I'm NOT Billy!) Kristol as if he's some sort of trump card of respectability.

Thanks for the comic relief, I know you didn't mean it that way, but there are a lot of people LingOL, some of us are actually rolling on the floor with our legs in the air (LOL707LOL707)...

I'm saving some of your stuff for publication in a blogger's synopsis after the election is over, as an example of just how hilarious your wingnuts have become in your attempts to put lipstick on this pig.

Can't wait to see what you all try to do with the sow's ear.

Posted by: JEP7 | September 27, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

If you check http://www.factcheck.org instead of a conservative Republican source with an agenda, you'd find what Kissinger actually said.

Did Kissinger Back Obama?

McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him:

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.
McCain rejected Obama's claim:
McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
Obama: We will take a look.
McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: Nobody's talking about that.
So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions:
Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Posted by: lindro | September 27, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama was also called out by Kissinger for lying during the debate about Kissinger's endorsement of his statements re: meeting without preconditions. Funny how the press is ignoring that today....
-================


Yes, Aspergirl is at her usual lying tricks again...

"In fact, Obama's comments during the debate accurately reflected Kissinger's comments during a September 15 forum. Kissinger said, "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic -- with authentic proposals." Asked by CNN's Frank Sesno, "To put at a very high level right out of the box?" Kissinger responded:

"Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government."


Contrary to Kissinger's suggestion today, at no point during the debate did Obama suggest that Kissinger had previously endorsed presidential-level talks between the United States and Iran.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming..."

Posted by: geaaronson | September 27, 2008 3:22 PM

Obama was also called out by Kissinger for lying during the debate about Kissinger's endorsement of his statements re: meeting without preconditions. Funny how the press is ignoring that today....

"Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/tws_exclusive_kissinger_unhapp.asp

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Neither candidate answered the first question about what they planned to do about the financial failures which is the gravest crisis we've faced in my lifetime and I'm in my 60s.

I'm afraid history will show that this outshines 911 and will, without a doubt, cost more and take more lives in the long run.

I believe that the collapse of the banks and the economy could be the “October surprise” and we don’t realize it -- especially if Congress doesn't agree to put their rubber stamp on on Bush's bailout plan.

Remember that Presidential Directive from May 9, 2007 giving the president total control over the government and the country, bypassing Congress and all other levels of government at state, federal, local, levels? The one where he alone has the power to declare martial law and ensure total unprecedented dictatorial power. It also gives him the power to decide WHAT IS a national emergency.

The financial crisis could be the opportunity for which Bushco planned for when this directive (and some others) were signed.

And don't think it will be our soldiers riding down main streeet in tanks. Most of our National Guard, including my son, are halfway around the world. We now have Blackwater, a privatized army which has the power to institute force that our soldiers are forbidden to use.

If the country shuts down, we won't have an election.

Posted by: lindro | September 27, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

McCain nailed Obama on the economic front and the foreign policy front.
In simple debate scores that's plain. McCain won hands down.

Examples: On spending.
Obama's $932M or 1 Million dollars a day for everyday Obama's been in the senate.

MCCAIN: Senator Obama suspended those requests for pork-barrel projects after he was running for president of the
United States. He didn't happen to see that light during the first three years as a member of the United States Senate,
$932 million in requests.
FYI - what are the earmarks for? Some examples:
Earmarks for ACORN: A leftist group notoriously found guilty of fradulent voter registration drives.
Earmarks for The Chicago Annenburg Challenge founded by terrorist Bill Ayers. An indoctrination apparatus
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=

To paraphrase McCain:
Obama stopped and "saw the light" when he started running for president, rather than doing the job he was elected to do. McCain effectively underscored Obama's lack of qualifications to assume high command.
Obama doesn't even perform his current duties. This was a consistent and effective theme of McCains rejoinders
to Obama and it kept Obama on defense.
Obama's main defense: He lies..
McCain's: His sparse record underscores lack of achievement and his overt liberalism. The record speaks.

On the "truth" about the taxcut for 95%. 60% of taxpayers pay no income tax now. They pay SS/medicaid but re income tax it all comes back plus additional money, by EIC. So on that point Obama really loses.

To any Obama supporter:
Please provide 3 substantive achievements of Obama's that UNIQUELY qualify him to be president.
These qualifications MUST be actual significant accomplishments.

Please provide 3 substantive UNIQUE changes that Obama brings to the table.
These changes must differ from the static Democratic party standard bullets.

I genuinely would like to know.

Here are his own words when pressed to answer: 60 minutes interview
Kroft: But what is there specifically about you. You mentioned disposition. What skills and traits do you have that
would make you a good president?
Obama: I am a practical person. One of the things I'm good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas
who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground, and a sense of common direction. And that's the kind of approach that I think prevents you from making some of the enormous mistakes that we've seen over the last eight years.

Posted by: dcooktam456 | September 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl--you miss the point. Obama was calling McCain on his anecodtal approach to discussing world issues by saying, "And there are also mothers who don't want other mothers to be mourning sons whose lives didn't have to be lost." Look at the big picture.

As far as Palin...only since Bush took office and the media was portrayed as "the big bad guys" did the American public ever fault a journalist for asking difficult and probing questions. That's their JOB, and if they'd been more diligent in pursuing Bush and his false claims of WMD, we wouldn't be losing our sons and daughters in Iraq. If Sarah Palin is going to have the arrogance to say she's "ready" to be President of the United States and one of the most powerful people in the world, she better be prepared to defend herself when she makes absolutely absurd, nonsensical statements like she made to Katie Couric.

Posted by: writer8856 | September 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama sure liked McCain's answers during the debate:

“I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…”

“He’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…”

“John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right…”

“John is right we have to make cuts…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families…”

“John — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…”

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2E4MmYxZjMxMDgwMDI0NzJhMWM2NDY0ZjRmMWMxODU

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given enough hell to Hitler that Hitler´s rise to world dominance would have slowed.


Posted by: geaaronson | September 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

37th and O;
"honey to flies"

You have flies confused with bees and honey confused with manure...

But your point is well taken, just keep in mind, if you were trying to tell a stranger about Malkin, you sure wouldn't say "she's full of honey..."

Also, Chris, this pandering line of yours really stunk...

"Much is being made on cable of McCain's difficulty in pronouncing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's last name. It wasn't a banner moment for McCain but it didn't strike us as a major gaffe either."

ONLY Johnny could mangle so many important words and names (and thereby display his complete lack of real international understanding or sophistication), and still get a bye from you McCain-leaning poundits...

If Obama or Clinton or Biden or even Palin, ANYONE BUT precious little Johnny continued to commit these persistent, nay, stacatto gaffes, you would consider them unworthy of any respect.

But for McCain, it's not just OK, it is what makes him so "cute." This fits so nicely in the IOIYAR class of hypocrisy.

Have you read Yepsen's blog today? In terms of Mccain enablers being forced to show their true colors, another one bites the dust.

I had hope most of you would climb off the tire swing when the rope started to frey, especially when the logic-challenged Palin plan unfolded, but apparently there is still a partisan influence working on many levels in the good old MSM.

Which brings me back to my favorite parting comment...

Viva la Blogs!

Without them there would be no 4th Estate.

Just a bunch of partisan poundits...

Posted by: JEP7 | September 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given enough hell to Hitler that Hitler´s rise to world dominance would have slowed.


Posted by: geaaronson | September 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

So I guess Iran and Spain are in the same boat as far as McCain goes

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given enough hell to Hitler that Hitler´s rise to world dominance would have slowed.


Posted by: geaaronson | September 27, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given enough hell to Hitler that Hitler´s rise to world dominance would have slowed.


Posted by: geaaronson | September 27, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

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 3:16 PM | Report abuse

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given Hitler enough hell to Hitler that his attempted rise to world dominance would have slowed.
If anything, considering McCain´s deepseated overt anger towards Iran´s leader, McCain should be the one who publicly promise that he will meet with his counterpart. It could clearly be a superior gambit to have such a hothead chewing Iran out for its agressive stance towards Iran. I would hope that once Obama becomes president, McCain tags along for the meeting and when our mildmannered Obama can´t muster the ire to deal with Iran´s shennanigans, McCain gives them holy hell!


Posted by: geaaronson | September 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

37thOStreet, you're right. You know the citation of certain people as authority discredits one's entire post instantly.

The country's most infamous and ridiculous self-hating minority, M. Malkin, sadly, is one of those people.

AsperGirl's reference to Malkin pretty much destroyed any credibility AGirl had forever...
_____


"I've got a bracelet too. Uhh ... uh ... waassis name?"

That never happened. You are covering up your ignorance with lies.

No wonder. You are reading Michelle Malkin. She prints nothing but lies, and her lies are like honey to flies. You have been captured.

Again, there is no shame in admitting "I don't know," Aspergirl. We are here for you.

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 2:52 PM

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"As The New Republic's Michael Crowley noted during the post-debate coverage, Palin's absence looked particularly awkward given the fact that Joe Biden was appearing all over the place."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 2:57 PM

Yeah, there's no way for her to win. Joe Biden spouts pure insanity and nonsense half the time and no one pays attention. All Sarah Palin has to do is repeat her answer to a question that is (rudely) asked repeatedly after she already answered the first time, to be panned as an idiot. Or point out that Alaska is next to Russia and trades with Russia, to be called "scary".

At this point, there is nothing she can say or do that will not be bashed except for those statements she executes flawlessly.

On the other hand, Joe Biden is running around spouting what sounds at times to be really scary mentally ill crap, and no one cares.

There is no way for Sarah Palin to win any points any time she opens her mouth under these conditions. The McCain campaign can and should keep her under wraps as much as possible.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Boston Herald:

"And the winner is... Mac by a bracelet. McCain mentions that he’s wearing a bracelet he got from the mother of a soldier slain in New Hampshire. To which Obama responds: “I have a bracelet, too. ..."

news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view/2008_09_27__And_the_winner_is____Mac_by_a_bracelet:_McCain_outshines_Obama_in_battle_of_the_bracelets_/srvc=home&position=also

Video of Obama:

"I've got a bracelet too... from uhhh... suhhh" (reads the name off the bracelet)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgNJmrQj9Bg&eurl=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/obama_emotionally_recalls_fall.html

Obama emotionally recalls fallen soldier: What's his name?
by Ed Lasky
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/obama_emotionally_recalls_fall.html

HEY, ISN'T WEARING THE BRACELET EVERY DAY SUPPOSED TO BE SO YOU DON'T FORGET?

Maybe Obama's got that backward.

Or maybe he's a phony hypocrite. Bet his flag pin is engraved with the word "NOT!!" on the back.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

PALIN NOT TRUSTED BY MAC TO GIVE POST-DEBATE SPIN TO HELP MAC

HuffPo is reporting increased media buzz concerning Palin not being allowed by Mac's campaign yesterday to provide post-debate spin for Mac.

Her opposite number, Biden, was all over the place with post-debate support for O. But Palin was nowhere to be found. That doesn't bode well for her upcoming debates with Biden. It was earlier reported Mrs. Palin badly flunked the campaign's practice debates. Also there's reporting that in the third installment of Couric's interview with her, which airs Monday, Palin was far worse than in all of her previous embarrassing, Miss Congeniality-type performances.

When Mac does not trust you enough to say, "Go Mac, go!" there's a problem.

From HuffPo:

"As the New York Times reported before Friday night's debate, Sarah Palin would not be providing post-debate spin for John McCain on the major TV networks:

After Barack Obama and John McCain stop talking on the debate stage Friday night, their surrogates will start spinning. But one high-profile supporter of Mr. McCain will be missing: his running mate Sarah Palin.[...]

Ms. Palin is scheduled to be at a debate-viewing event in Philadelphia, covered by a limited group of reporters, and she is not listed by any networks as a post-debate guest. On NBC and CBS, the former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani will be commenting on the debate performances.

As The New Republic's Michael Crowley noted during the post-debate coverage, Palin's absence looked particularly awkward given the fact that Joe Biden was appearing all over the place." END

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"I've got a bracelet too. Uhh ... uh ... waassis name?"

That never happened. You are covering up your ignorance with lies.

No wonder. You are reading Michelle Malkin. She prints nothing but lies, and her lies are like honey to flies. You have been captured.

Again, there is no shame in admitting "I don't know," Aspergirl. We are here for you.

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHICH PARTY is in charge when it comes to bailing out the Wall Street hustlers whose shenanigans have bankrupted so many ordinary folks? Not if the Democrats roll over and cede power to the former head of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank at the center of our economic meltdown.

What arrogance for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson—who the year before President Bush appointed him treasury secretary was paid $16.4 million for heading the company that did as much as any to engineer this financial travesty—to now insist we must blindly trust him to solve the problem. Paulson is demanding the power to act with “absolute impunity,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who admonished the treasury chief:“After reading this proposal, it is not only our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution as well.”

Clearly, it’s a vast improvement to have Dodd in the chairman’s seat of the Senate Banking Committee, asking the right questions, rather than his predecessor, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, who presided over the committee in the years when the American economy, long the envy of the world, was viciously sabotaged by radical deregulation legislation.

Gramm, whom Sen. John McCain backed for president in 1996, pushed through the financial market deregulation that has brought the American economy to its knees. Maybe this time Congress won’t give the financial moguls everything they want, including a bailout for foreign-owned banks like Swiss-based UBS, where Gramm now hangs out as a very well paid executive when he’s not advising the presidential campaign of McCain, his old buddy and partner in crime. Oops, sorry, no crimes were committed because the deregulation laws Gramm pursued and McCain faithfully supported decriminalized the financial scams that have proved so costly.

Just check out the language of Gramm’s pet projects, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street, the former act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing. The latter legitimized the “swap agreements” and other “hybrid instruments” that are at the core of the crisis.

The legislation’s “Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000,” Title IV of the law—a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the Christmas recess—provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.

One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III, ensured the “Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements,” which successfully divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm’s law is at the very heart of the problem. But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry mergers:“No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000.…”

Even some Republicans on the Senate committee expressed exasperation Monday with the swindles that they had voted for with such enthusiasm in the past, as well as with giving Wall Street yet another blank check. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., condemned Paulson’s proposal as an effort to “take Wall Street’s pain and spread it to the taxpayers.” He added,“It’s financial socialism and it’s un-American.”

He’s wrong on that last point, for what is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state that services the politico-economic elite at the expense of the people is more accurately referred to as “financial fascism.” After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company’s corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler’s bubble burst.

This bailout SHOULD NOT HAPPEN - SHOULD HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED TO BE PUT ON THE BACKS OF TAXPAYERS! But if Congress does help the Bush Admin. to betray us yet again, smell a rat if Congress approves the Paulson plan without severely curtailing CEO pay and putting a freeze on the mortgage foreclosures that are threatening to destroy the homes of millions of Americans.

Posted by: AJAX2 | September 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez signed new energy agreements with Russia on Friday, shortly after obtaining a $1 billion loan to buy more Russian arms. The budding relationship between the two countries is raising concern in Washington.

"Russia, angry at U.S. support for Georgia -- with which it fought a brief war this summer -- has visibly increased its ties with the Venezuelan populist, who calls himself the U.S.'s biggest foe in the Americas.

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez holds a replica of a Tupolev TU-160 bomber during his meeting this week in Moscow with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

"Responding to what Russia sees as U.S. interference in its sphere of influence in the neighboring Caucasus region, Moscow recently sent two long-range bombers to visit Venezuela. Moscow also dispatched a nuclear cruiser, the Peter the Great, to take part in exercises with the Venezuelan navy."

more at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122242592738578617.html

Russia is also reinvigorating its ties with Cuba. It's entirely likely that Russian will be drilling off the Florida coast for oil before the U.S. does. Not to mention increasing military exchanges with Cuba, too.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHICH PARTY is in charge when it comes to bailing out the Wall Street hustlers whose shenanigans have bankrupted so many ordinary folks? Not if the Democrats roll over and cede power to the former head of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank at the center of our economic meltdown.

What arrogance for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson—who the year before President Bush appointed him treasury secretary was paid $16.4 million for heading the company that did as much as any to engineer this financial travesty—to now insist we must blindly trust him to solve the problem. Paulson is demanding the power to act with “absolute impunity,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who admonished the treasury chief:“After reading this proposal, it is not only our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution as well.”

Clearly, it’s a vast improvement to have Dodd in the chairman’s seat of the Senate Banking Committee, asking the right questions, rather than his predecessor, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, who presided over the committee in the years when the American economy, long the envy of the world, was viciously sabotaged by radical deregulation legislation.

Gramm, whom Sen. John McCain backed for president in 1996, pushed through the financial market deregulation that has brought the American economy to its knees. Maybe this time Congress won’t give the financial moguls everything they want, including a bailout for foreign-owned banks like Swiss-based UBS, where Gramm now hangs out as a very well paid executive when he’s not advising the presidential campaign of McCain, his old buddy and partner in crime. Oops, sorry, no crimes were committed because the deregulation laws Gramm pursued and McCain faithfully supported decriminalized the financial scams that have proved so costly.

Just check out the language of Gramm’s pet projects, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street, the former act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing. The latter legitimized the “swap agreements” and other “hybrid instruments” that are at the core of the crisis.

The legislation’s “Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000,” Title IV of the law—a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the Christmas recess—provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.

One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III, ensured the “Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements,” which successfully divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm’s law is at the very heart of the problem. But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry mergers:“No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000.…”

Even some Republicans on the Senate committee expressed exasperation Monday with the swindles that they had voted for with such enthusiasm in the past, as well as with giving Wall Street yet another blank check. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., condemned Paulson’s proposal as an effort to “take Wall Street’s pain and spread it to the taxpayers.” He added,“It’s financial socialism and it’s un-American.”

He’s wrong on that last point, for what is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state that services the politico-economic elite at the expense of the people is more accurately referred to as “financial fascism.” After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company’s corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler’s bubble burst.

This bailout SHOULD NOT HAPPEN - SHOULD HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED TO BE PUT ON THE BACKS OF TAXPAYERS! But if Congress does help the Bush Admin. to betray us yet again, smell a rat if Congress approves the Paulson plan without severely curtailing CEO pay and putting a freeze on the mortgage foreclosures that are threatening to destroy the homes of millions of Americans.

Posted by: AJAX2 | September 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"Most of the Obama supporters who commented here tonight probable either did not even see the debate or were in a bar drinking and getting high while watching it. They have no clue about who answers correctly and showing that they were experienced to serve as our president and commander in chief."

WOW.

Did you really say that? Do you really think all liberal people sit around bars drinking beer and watch elections while getting high?

WOW.

And as far as answering correctly... this is A DEBATE. A debate is a conversation of opposing VIEWS.

Apparently you can only see one side of the coin and are unwilling to flip it over. Even at the cost of your country.

Posted by: P-Town | September 27, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

This debate was a tie. There are zero articles or posts attacking Jim Lehrer for setting up one candidate or the other. If no one is attacking the moderator, both sides feel as if they got what they needed.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for coming. Wait up, Dianne72 and Asper"Girl" will be right with you.
______

"I see the Obama spammers are back here again. I'll go find a site where people are actually trading opinions rather than ping-pong volleying cut-and-paste Obama talking points.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 1:18 PM"


Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

BTW if Sarah Palin is going to learn how to debate, now is the time, not next week.

In particular, she has problems in interviews where rude, insulting interviewers persistently ask her the same question. This trips her up every time. She just experiences cognitive dissonance and then repeats her last answer.

Granted, when the interviewer does this, it's rude and disrespectful, like adversarially interrogating a hostile witness like a prosecutor, but Palin has to get used to it. She can't just give the questioner a weird look like, what kind of game are you playing, and stammer out the same response again. That makes her look programmed. She either needs to learn debating tactics to deal with that kind of subtle attack or she needs to just be frank and say, I've already answered that question.

Sarah Palin seems to not be prepared to deal with undermining, subtly adversarial people, coming as she does, from an apparently blunt-spoken world. She needs to get much more sophisticated in her verbal Machiavellian skills to do better in interviews and debates.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"jedmons wrote:
After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain"
---
Posted by: JRM2

Typical fear-mongerer, do you have nothing better to do than hide in your room and worry about being attacked by Venezuela?

------------------------------------------JRM2: No fear mongering here. JUST GOOD AMERICAN FACT! Attacked by Venezuela?? Read the post!

What many Americans don't understand. We are more vulnerable to foreign aggression now. Than at any time in our history. This is due to our current financial crisis and the fact we have no oil. Look at the recent actions taken by Russia..

When in your life time did Russia ever participate in war games in Venezuela? Next will have Russian war ships and bombers in Cuba..

I'll asked you again. Do you really want Obama at the helm durring these critical times. After last night's debate..

I say we need Sen. John McCain.. TATA

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


Posted by: jedmons | September 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"jedmons wrote:
After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain"
---
Posted by: JRM2

Typical fear-mongerer, do you have nothing better to do than hide in your room and worry about being attacked by Venezuela?

------------------------------------------JRM2: No fear mongering here. JUST GOOD AMERICAN FACT! Attacked by Venezuela?? Read the post!

What many Americans don't understand. We are more vulnerable to foreign aggression now. Than at any time in our history. This is due to our current financial crisis and the fact we have no oil. Look at the recent actions taken by Russia..

When in your life time did Russia ever participate in war games in Venezuela? Next will have Russian war ships and bombers in Cuba..

I'll asked you again. Do you really want Obama at the helm durring these critical times. After last night's debate..

I say we need Sen. John McCain.. TATA

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


Posted by: jedmons | September 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who continues to believe that John McCain is capable of leading the country in this highly complex world is either so partisan they refuse to see him for who he is or has been living in a vacuum. McCain is temperamental, unpredictable and the exact anti-thesis of what this country needs in these times. In the past, he's described himself as someone who likes to "make decisions fast and live with the consequences." That may work as a tenured senator guaranteed re-election in his home state of Arizona but is disastrous in a world leader who also commands the most powerful military in the world.

Look at his behavior this past week during an extraordinarily serious national crisis. He didn't behave like a leader; he seemed incapable of deciding upon any realistic, consistent course of action. Then, once he decided, chose a course of action that reeked of political motivations and not only didn't facilitate the country moving through this crisis but actually impeded progress.

He's touted himself over and over as the candidate with the experience to be commander in chief, but what in his foreign policy indicates anything different than what this country's been suffering for the past 8 years? He has no clear idea or plan for getting out of Iraq-while we continue to spend $10 billion a month. He continues to brag about the surge but the surge is OVER. He's said NOTHING about the next, best steps to end the war and chooses to ignore that Iraq itself is calling for us to leave. He advocates a continued policy of isolation--only talking to "friends" and countries "like us". He's dismissive of the power of diplomacy and wants to have a coalition of democracies in dealing with Iran--almost guaranteed failure since that leaves out China and Russia, 2 countries we need if we're to put real, significant pressure on Iran to deal. Until recently, he's been virtually silent on the subject of Afghanistan--the real center of terrorism, according to almost every single expert. His response to Russian aggression against Georgia was to proclaim, "We're all Georgians!" which raised eyebrows among even his supporters in the Senate.

If that's not enough, go a little further back in recent history. While it may have helped him in his candidacy and shoring up support from the far right of his own party, choosing Palin was clearly a political move and was done without considering the welfare of our country. When was the last time we had a candidate that literally frightened the public with her inexperience and ineptitude? No one in their right mind could actually believe Palin is even close to being able to handle the intricacies of foreign relations or the current financial crisis. She can't even answer reporters' questions in any coherent, sensible way and seems only able to parrot the same one line responses over and over again.

McCain is a victim of his own ambitions. He's abandoned his former beliefs on Bush's tax cuts, his opposition to offshore drilling, his support of Roe v. Wade and his call for immigration reform, just to name a few. He's hired staffers to run his campaign who are straight out of the Rove camp and has run such a dirty campaign that I seriously doubt his ability to "reach across the aisles" should he be elected. He may call up some of his recent oppositions to his own party (while refusing to recognize that Obama's standing against the war was not only going against his party but against the entire sentiment of the country); he may recall, once again, his experiences as a POW; he may refer to himself as a maverick. He may do all those things, but he can't ignore his own performance in the last several years, let alone the past few months. And there's truth to the old saying: the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. And McCain has NOT behaved as a man capable of leading our country to a restored sense of respect and security in the world and prosperity at home.

Posted by: writer8856 | September 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I would have thought that McCain had an advantage going into the debate because of his inside knowledge of "financial crisis and meltdowns" in the banking industry, but he didn't use it last night. Being at the center of the destruction of the long gone Savings and Loan industry as a member of the Keating Five that helped bring down the S&Ls he has unique knowledge of what is happening today in our financial industry. He should have shared it with the public but didn't.

Posted by: leahcima | September 27, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"I found Senator McCain's continual refrain of "Senator Obama doesn't understand" to be condescending. It's obvious McCain personally does not like Obama - he wouldn't even look at him."

Posted by: miafl48 | September 27, 2008 2:09 PM

I agree with the above remarks. The thing is, it's such an absurdity for someone in Obama's unqualified state of naivete to be lecturing John McCain that McCain's rather straightforward condescension was a fitting and appropriate response.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

There is only candidate who appeared and spoke like a President last evening and anyone who couldn't see it wasn't looking - John McCain. The camera loved him last night. He not only came across in control, knowledgeable and secure in his positions, he was also able to speak with details that exposed his years of experience. Obama was defensive, rattled at times, and spoke in 'canned sentences' for the most part. He offerred few if any real 'details' to back up his broad statements. Those of us who really listened with an open mind and who can apply what we know it takes to do our own jobs - it takes experience, details, and skills - found it easy to identify the winner last night. Hats off to Jim Lehr as he did the best job I have even witnessed in a moderator. He was totally impartial, a real newsman, and gave the candidates their time to speak equally. He didn't need to hear himself talk. I ususally end up turning off debates not because of the candidates but because the moderators are terrible and clearly biased Jim Lehr was awesome.

Posted by: lmcnama1 | September 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I found Senator McCain's continual refrain of "Senator Obama doesn't understand" to be condescending. It's obvious McCain personally does not like Obama - he wouldn't even look at him. Talk about juvenile! He also seemed like his knee jerk reaction to every foreign policy issue would be to rattle the saber. This country needs someone with more judgment and an ability to see war as a last not a first choice. We certainly don't need another President with a cowboy (or jet pilot) mentality.

Posted by: miafl48 | September 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The Tom Shales summation works for me: too nasty/too nice. McCrochety will have given cheer to his base, but probably didn't add many voters. Bigfoot parried well but essentially ran out (and probably sought to run out) the clock on another round, disappointingly.

No memorable take-aways here. Probably Sarah Palin is being trained on a hearty regimen of zingers. As a partisan I hope Biden too is being prepared with potent sound bites, if only to minimize his residual ready memory capacity to yield yet more gaffes.

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | September 27, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"The next step is to follow through. It is apparent in every post that you have ever made that you do not know what you are talking about, and must lie and distort reality to justify your world-view. Remember, the most important words in learning are "I don't know." ...

Posted by: 37thOStreet

When your only point made to people's posted opinions that cite facts and have ideas in them is "you don't know" (without any amplifying information), you're just a boring troll who insults others. After the first sentence above, I didn't read the rest of your post. Really. Someone who cites no argument in support of their comments that other posters are stupid, is not worth the time.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I think they both showed their true natures: McCain, a bitter, angry old coot who thinks the world revolves around him.
Obama, a friendly, reasonable person who is almost always cool-headed under pressure.

Posted by: moocat | September 27, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

From the "rah, rah, Obama" telemarketers, I expect the scripted responses as to the greatness of "The One" and to point out "flaws" in McCain. McCain won this debate. He was decisive, direct, and knowledgeable.

Obama stammers, stutters, and shoots himself in the foot.

People claiming Obama's agreements, with McCain, was showing efforts to reach across the isle are ludicrous. Obama did the very same thing debating with Hillary. Remember his "I agree with her" statements?

Most pro Obama posts I view with skepticism. His campaign has been so shrouded with deceit, manipulation and brainwashing techniques, how many legitimate posts actually exist? These posts could simply be coming from hacks out to make at buck at the expense of our people and country.

Obama had a Mt. Olympus theatrical show. He has crazy far left Hollyweirdos, Axelrod, Goddess Oprah, Ayers, Farrakhan, Hamas, Odinga, The View, the biased wolf pack media and a long list of others supporting him but still can't seal the deal? Because he can't and won't.

My thanks and admiration to Lehrer. He did an excellent job moderating. Best moderator I have watched!!! Charlie Gibson, The View, and others might want to check out what "journalism" is supposed to look like.

Posted by: Free2bMe1 | September 27, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

As Obama said last night - McCain is wrong - on several points, including wanting to 'freeze all spending" - sheer madness.
But it is in McCain's body language we can tell that he is an arrogant, lying, rambling old man who is stuck in the distant past. McCain NEVER looked Obama in the eye (sure sign of a liar), and was beyond rude when he refused to allow Obama to respond. Obama proved to be the more gracious of the two and at the end, proved his magnanimity by walking with his wife from one side of the stage to the other side to shake hands with McCain & his wife. How noble, how presidential. As far as good manners and courtesy are necessary for a President, McCain is totally lacking.

Posted by: dopera2004 | September 27, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Although I prefer Obama, I'll have to admit that these "cut-and-paste-spammers" are not doing any good here. Only those who've already made up their minds are reading that...
Please quit.
Actually; you're not helping the one that you think you're helping, so to speak.

Posted by: FlyingFinn | September 27, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Well, I must say, I was a little frustrated at the beginning. I felt Obama gave up some opportunities to hit McCain on the economics. He did okay getting out his points, but McCain deserves to be called out on his part in how this crisis happened. I thought Obama could have emphasized the middleclass pains more. He's a gentlemen, I know. That's why he agrees where he can (John is right ads already playing) before he gives his points and ideas. Listen, I'm a Hillary supporter, I like a little more fight in my pols. But, even with his own style, Obama wins. And this is why....he held on an equal playing field with McCain on Foreign Policy. He appeared more rational and logical on how he views the world and our place in it. He looked confident, very clear in his beliefs and more importantly I could foresee a path in his words that looked beyond. I realized something I had wishfully suspected...This man is ready to be the President of the United States. And basically, that is all he really needed to do. Even an absolute tie was going to translate into an Obama win. I was planning to vote for him (even though it's been difficult to forgive how the primary went down). Let's face it, we didn't put our best candidate forward...Hill was winning, she had the momentum, and then had to hand the baton to McCain. It's very unnerving to realize that she would have a 15 point lead right now, and that we have put other issues into the voting that we didn't need to worry about this year. But, I feel better today, I think the undecideds were able to see a President Obama. Advantage Obama

Posted by: mndjones | September 27, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I see the Obama spammers are back here again. I'll go find a site where people are actually trading opinions rather than ping-pong volleying cut-and-paste Obama talking points.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

CNN's Columbus, OH focus group thought Obama won (61-39). Foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's strong suit and Obama's weak one; if this debate is seen as a draw, it can only bode well for Obama in the next two debates. If Obama is seen as the winner tonight, the race could be over. A knowledgeable friend thinks this race resembles 1980; people don't like McCain but want to be convinced Obama is safe enough to trust. In 1980, Reagan came across in the 1st debate as not nuts, and he won the popular vote 51-41. The same could happen here. Many people have written about this election being a referendum on Obama.

I thought Obama had gotten more time. I thought he edged McCain out last night.

This felt different than any other presidential debate I've seen, and I have all of them since 1992 on tape. I think the pundits were right that neither is a great debater. Both missed significant opportunities. As Tom Shales observed, McCain studiously avoided ever looking at Obama (who mostly looked at McCain while he was speaking), and with one exception I can remember from Obama, both looked at Lehrer rather than the camera (viewing public!) when answering questions. Neither of these guys is Bill Clinton.

McCain reminded me of Gore in 2000 and Dole in 1996--the longtime congressional insider who doesn't even realize when he's so deep in the weeds most people don't know or care what he's saying. When McCain mentioned Nunn-Lugar, it immediately reminded me of Gore pressing Bush on "the Dingell-Norwood bill" (patient's bill of rights). I bet most Americans don't even remember who Nunn is. When he proclaimed that he runs his subcommittees right, Obama should've said, "Tell you what, John. When I'm in the White House, you can run your subcommittees however you want". I thought McCain's remark about not setting the schedule or having a seal yet was weak, defensive, and snippy. I could sense Obama supporters everywhere thinking "Sure you have a seal--Sarah Palin!"

I didn't think the meeting foreign leaders colloquy was a McCain win at all. They seemed to be talking past each other. McCain kept repeating the same things to what I thought little effect--like Bush in 04 who seemed unable to reply with anything but his prepared talking points. He couldn't even pronounce Ahmedinejad. Obama was right about Kissinger and 4 other former SecStates, as video clips showed on CNN post-debate. Obama was very good in reminding McCain he sang songs about bombing Iran.

Obama was not nearly forceful, focused, or passionate enough about ending the war. He mentioned that al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went there, but not clearly enough. Lessons of Iraq should've been a slam dunk for him, but it was weak. Don't cook the intelligence? Don't cherry pick it? Don't fight wars unilaterally or pre-emptively? Don't change the stated purpose of the war when your original one is fully disproven? Don't scare the bejesus out of people so they'll support the war? Don't use a war vote as a hammer over Congress right before an election? Don't pay off people to write what you want them to in the press? Don't go to war when you don't understand the history or human makeup of the country? Don't try to impose democracy on a place with no culture and little desire for it? Don't torture? Don't sh*t on the Constitution? Don't fire military experts because you don't like their advice? The list is endless, but we heard almost none of this.

I thought Obama came across as more presidential; calm, fluent on the substance of important issues, and in control. McCain seemed more like a bitter old man. Though I really wish Obama would've tried to goad McCain into one of his flying off the handle tirades.

Why no opening (I assume--missed the first few minutes) or closing statements?

It's been clear for years that Jim Lehrer is the best debate moderator we have. I remember in 1988 when we had different moderators for each debate, or panels of journalists. There's a reason why Lehrer has done them all for so long.

Missed opportunities:
McCain suggested we should be suspect of Obama's definition of "rich" (an old tactic Bush 41 used against Clinton in 1992). Obama should've pointed out that McCain said you have to make $5M a year to be rich. And maybe that McCain himself is a multi-millionaire with 7 houses, and suggest he's out of touch with working and middle class folks.

Obama noted that even Bush/his Administration, unlike McCain, had come around to some of his foreign policy positions. McCain could've used this to argue that he's not simply a continuation of Bush.

McCain tried to hit Obama with his $923M of earmark requests. Obama should know that McCain has made them too. Obama wasn't clear enough that the problem with earmarks is their corrupting influence, not that they're responsible for the deficits or debt. Obama should've pointed out that roughly 2/3 of economists are backing him, and independent analyses have found his tax and budget policies would be less harmful to the national debt. McCain could've hit Obama for opting out of the public financing system. Obama could've hit McCain for flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts and offshore drilling, among other things (though not if he's going to advocate drilling too--GRR).

Obama said refusing to talk with Iran and North Korea hasn't worked. He should've included the most obvious and indisputable example of all--Cuba. It's been 49 years, and they're still Communist, still ruled by Castros. Fat lot of good the embargo has done.

McCain said every federal agency, department, etc. has useless or inefficient operations that deserve cutting. Then he exempted defense and veterans affairs (entitlements are irrelevant to this discussion since they're mandatory spending, not discretionary) from his across the board spending freeze. Does he really mean to say there's no bloat at DOD?? Has he not seen the audits giving them Ds and Fs? And he didn't exempt Homeland Security. Why cut DHS but not DOD?

McCain noted that Madeline Albright had talked to an unfriendly power as Secretary of State and produced positive results. Obama should've pointed out that was under the Clinton Administration, not Bush.

Posted by: JonSM99 | September 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Problem: both candidates seem to accept as proven that Iran is aiming not at electrical generation, but at nuclear weapons. Yet, the latest Intelligence Document that was made public indicates there is no convincing evidence one way or the other. Iran claims to need nuclear power generation against the inevitable decline in their native oil and gas reserves, so that they are not forced into the role of customer.

Both candidates feel Iran can’t be trusted. The older candidate seems willing to attack first, rather than attempt any negotiations, the “bad guy” theory of foreign affairs. The younger candidate would try negotiations first.

Question. If a nation successfully reaches nuclear fusion, as we have, for power production, does that mean:

a) that there is an intimate connection between nuclear power and nuclear weaponry: the same manufacturing process and equipment used for power can now be used to make nuclear weapons?

-OR-

b) that a totally new manufacturing process would be needed to produce weapons, but the expertise and equipment is now at hand or easily obtained?

Or, putting the issue another way, IF Iran agreed to a permanent freeze of enrichment, would that mean they could never reach a nuclear fuel process for electrical generation because there is an intimate connection? If so, as their oil and gas reserves inevitably shrink to zero, they would be totally dependent on the outside world for power, becoming a customer rather than a supplier. Why would they do that? Are we asking that Iran agree to give up nuclear power generation when we and other countries have nuclear power plants? If so, we should make that clear. I wish the media would explain yes or no about the connection.

Posted by: gbyron60 | September 27, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

McCain's worldview is all about "conflict is inevitable and here's how I will respond". Obama's is about trying to make it so conflict doesn't happen, and is more thoughtful about how he would respond if it DOES so that it's not counterproductive in the bigger picture. McCain is, despite his questioning of Obama's knowledge of the two, a tactical not a strategic thinker when it comes to how we exist in the world at large, and that is what has continuously gotten us into trouble.

Posted by: vaindependent | September 27, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain kept repeating "Obama doesn't understand." I think Barack needs to tell McCain that the only thing he, as well as the American people, do not understand is why McCain wants to solve the country's problems by continuing the failed policies of George Bush. Barack needs to tell McCain that it is McCain who does not understand our economy, the struggles of the working people, and America's standing in the world.

McCain kept talking about his "history" in the senate. Well, how about McCain involvement the worst ethics scandal in the senate history, "The Keating 5" prior to the S&L bailout which cost the American taxpayers billions. How about his recent turnaround (flip flopping in Rove's terms) in just about every policy contradicting his record? Is that not history?

McCain inquired about Obama’s definition of “rich Americans.” How about McCain’s definition: “…in terms of dollars about $5 million”; he has said. Obama promises to help families that make under $250,000 a year by giving them a tax break. McCain talks about tax reductions that will only benefit the rich while for the first time in America’s history his plan will tax the health benefits of working families.

McCain's "pork barrel" project reform is a political stunt. McCain or his running mate, Sarah Palin, are not "pork barrel" free. USA today reported (5/19/08: "McCain, who has made fighting special-interest projects a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, inserted $14.3 million in a 2003 defense bill to buy land around Luke Air Force Base in a provision sought by SunCor Development." Even though Alaska has enjoyed billions of dollars in state budget surplus starting before Sarah Palin became governor, her administration has the nerve to request $100’s of millions of dollars in “pork barrel” projects from Washington.

McCain is equating earmark projects with "pork barrel" which should not be. According to the Washington post, earmarks include "such items as $4 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which could not be eliminated without halting hundreds of construction projects around the country. Another big chunk goes to military construction, including housing for servicemen and their families. Large spending programs that Mr. McCain supports count as earmarks.

Barack’s earmark projects benefit working Americans and their communities. They are projects that support health care, education, veterans, and infrastructure. Most voters would approve. These are not giveaways to rich corporations like SunCor Development.

It is McCain who does not understand.

Posted by: irric | September 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"YOU ARE SUCH A GREAT SPOTTER-OF-PEOPLE-WHO-DON'T-KNOW. WHY DON'T YOU GO GRADE SOME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAPERS INSTEAD OF POSTING ON A SITE WHERE PEOPLE GIVE OPINIONS?"

Aspergirl - Press the CAPS LOCK, and step away from the computer. I am glad that you have taken the first step in accepting my truth, by scouring The Fix for other comments made by me, and acknowledging that you, like others, lack the data and analytical skills to make a worthwhile point.

The next step is to follow through. It is apparent in every post that you have ever made that you do not know what you are talking about, and must lie and distort reality to justify your world-view. Remember, the most important words in learning are "I don't know." You have stated these three words implicitly in every syllable you have ever written - now take the next step and say them explicitly.

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

akhajawall,

Could you expand a little more please?

Posted by: trace-sc | September 27, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Supcat714 I think yu need to look at the what the news media are saying mccain is running second

Posted by: Mariewest111 | September 27, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

CNN poll = NYT poll = CBS poll = we want you to believe that Obama won!

Posted by: trace-sc | September 27, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

PLAGIARISM

I thought McCain had a damn nerve plagiarising one of Winston Churchill's most famous quotes and passing it off as his own.

On 10 November 1942, five months after Admiral Nimitz stopped Admiral Yamamoto's expansion across the Pacific at the battle of Midway and one week after General Montgomery's defeat at El Alamein of General Rommel's attempt to seize the Suez Canal and just one week before the great Soviet counter attack at Stalingrad Churchill summarised the War situation thus: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning".

Last night Senator John McCain tried to pass those lines off as his own -even though, as usual, he fluffed them- "Now this isn't the beginning of the end but it is the end of the beginning".

Plagiarist!

Posted by: gerardmulholland1 | September 27, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

--"My overall impression watching the debate was an acute awareness of the contempt being shown to Senator Obama by Senator McCain. He never made eye contact with his opponent, he sneered, and was dismissive of Obama to the point of rudeness. The impression was one of him telegraphing that no way did Obama have any business believing he was his equal or deserving of even a modicum of respect."--

At this level I expect professional grade politics: paste a smile on your face and put your arm around Satan (or George W. Bush) if the situation calls for it. McCain can't choose the other heads of state of the world, but you must ALWAYS treat them with respect and civility whether you loath or like them. He didn’t show me that last night.

Posted by: DonJasper | September 27, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse


Bipartisanship and ? Maverick McCain.

Dear concerned citizens of America and Mass Media of the U.S.A.
As a concerned registered independent voter, forensic psychiatrist, disabled American I made my decision to vote after taking into consideration following joint tickets attributes and characteristics.

1. Has the ticket shown adequate calmness, coolness, and connectedness's under pressure to lead our nation [Presidential Temperament]?
2. Has the ticket shown sustained sound "Judgment and Caliber"?
3. Has the ticket shown adequate understanding of depth and degree to address the crucial challenges in their their purpose, policies, and positions [ Honesty, integrity and sincerity]?
4. Has the ticket sufficient "understanding and knowledge" of inside Washington workings [Experience]"?
5. Has the ticket reservoir resilience, wisdom, and vigor to address the present and future f our beloved "Great-grand Nation"?
6. Has the ticket enough joint foreign policy experience and exposure based on " Values, Virtues, Vastness, and " [American moral soul]"?
7. Has their campaign talk, slogans, ads, plans, and programs based on facts and are they free of fear, fiction, frivolous labels, unfair attacks, negativity, and impulsively? [No "imminent danger to national
security and safety"].
8. Has the ticket genuinely kept on message of country first and politics last and avoided copying [Message change"]?
9.Has the ticket message stayed away from Culture divide and war[ Disaster prevention ]?
10. Has the ticket resisted being surrounded, supported and surrogate's by divisiveness, distortion's, and destructive characters, [ Real patriotism VS shiftiness and shameless parrot-ism]?
11. Has the ticket thoughtful, real non-partisan, & non-impulsive plans to address our current economic crisis or political tactics and temperamental statements.
I have personally and professionally concluded that OBAMA-BIDEN ticket will lift and inspire our greatgrand nation back to its greatness within and restore our global standing with the use of maximum, firm
international diplomacy and minimal force if and when indicated {" Peace thru Strenght "}.
12. The era of responsibility has to replace irresponsibility and unaccountability will change to accountability and transparency. The Wall Street greed will change to Main Street need.
13. Temperamental and Angry McCain is out to play and create a card mistrust and distress around Obama with the Vail of claim that he will bring bipartisanship in Washington DC. He is destroying him claim every by painting Obama naive. It is tragic, sad, and unfortunate that so called Maverick McCain has already generated a disdain and demeaning face off in the debates and bailout suggestion. Obama is real Presidential and he maintained a smile during the debate and while McCain had a constant grin and disdain towards Obama.

Yours sincerely,

COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret] MD.
Forensic psychiatrist, Disabled American Veteran and Iraq
Freedom team. Grass roots California leader per Senator McCain's

PS: It is sad and unfortunate that Hon, Temperamental and angry Maverick McCain had a constant grin and disdain towards his debater.

Posted by: akhajawall | September 27, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Who is Neville Chamberlain? What does he have in common with Obama? If Obama was being civil and appeasing to McCain, who does that make McNasty seem like?
Is Iran going to be like Czechoslovakia in 1939?

Posted by: seemstome | September 27, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

My overall impression watching the debate was an acute awareness of the contempt being shown to Senator Obama by Senator McCain. He never made eye contact with his opponent, he sneered, and was dismissive of Obama to the point of rudeness. The impression was one of him telegraphing that no way did Obama have any business believing he was his equal or deserving of even a modicum of respect. McCain came across as a mean spirited, nasty old man. I am white, a female, and 73 years of age. I was very put off by McCain's attitude.

Obama more than held his own with McCain

Remember the "SIGH" ?

I believe this insulting and dismissive attitude by McCain will be what viewers will remember in the days to come. And not to McCain's benefit.

Posted by: betty4 | September 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"McCain as Bush III -- I tend to think Obama uses as part of his post-partisan tactic or stratgy. Rather than attack conservative Republicans, he makes shorthand reference to eight years, four more years and Bush. So, its not as simple as casting McCain and Bush as one in the same. It's much deeper."
Sorry, but I just don't see it. This is supposed to be 'post-partisan'? Repeating something about your opponent you know is not true? There are just too many instances of McCain publicly disagreeing with Bush. McCain has his faults, but running in lock step with Bush is not one of them.

Posted by: invention13 | September 27, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I just watched the first presidential debate, and I really think that these two men have good strong points about the future for the country. One of the men (not mentioning any names)choked up a little bit on one of the topics. From what I saw both men were trying to suck up on the whole "braclet with honor" thing, involving the war in Iraq. It's funny because the whole question was supposed to be about their plans for the war. What were they going to do about it? Are they going to send them home, or bring in more money to support the war! What would be the future outcome? The future likelihood (sp.???) of the second 9/11 attack, we should be prepared for anything because who knows what would happen next. We really need to nip this thing in the bud and go ahead and knock this thing out.

Posted by: ChaniquaF | September 27, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Aspergirl, you don't know what you are talking about. You should watch the debates before you comment on them."

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 12:26 PM

(To another poster) "You don't know what you're talking about. Judging by your shallow grasp of foreign affairs, I would guess you are a Sarah Palin sock puppet."

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 11:22 AM

YOU ARE SUCH A GREAT SPOTTER-OF-PEOPLE-WHO-DON'T-KNOW. WHY DON'T YOU GO GRADE SOME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAPERS INSTEAD OF POSTING ON A SITE WHERE PEOPLE GIVE OPINIONS?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

The debate proved that THE OBAMA is Neville Chamberlain reincarnated!

Boy! is this county skrewed if THE OBAMA wins.

PS. Boy is not a racist remark for all you victim wannabes.

Posted by: mjdb | September 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The problem I have with Obama is that, despite being obviously bright and articulate, what has he actually done? I would be much more comfortable with him if I were to see a single instance of him bucking his own party or championing some cause (like Hillary with health care).
McCain, on the other hand, has done this numerous times.
I just found McCain more believable.

Posted by: invention13 | September 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Whats with these old stories from the retirement home?

How do they fit in with a 21st century America slipping into second place economically behind China and Russia?

McCain is living in the past and can't face the future any more than he could look Obama in the eye.

Posted by: seemstome | September 27, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Jim Lehrer did a great job. Best debate so far this election year in terms of getting a real read on candidates' positioning without setting up one candidate to benefit the other.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl, you don't know what you are talking about. You should watch the debates before you comment on them.

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I have read several posts on the debates and I flipped between the MSNBC and CNN after commentary last night. Although, as the night wore on, the cable commentators seemed to focus their cameras and have a better view of reality. It appears that maybe Cillizza has not had the opportunity for reflection.

No Presidential (or VP) candidate should get a "by" based on age, demeanor, presentation, intelligence or disability. This is the most important public figure in the nation. Elements of personal style are clearly up for subjective disagreement, but realize they are subjective. Getting that out of the way….repetition of mildly ironic phrases like the litany of Ms Congeniality references strike me as substitutes for substantial thought. The anecdotes that McCain frequently uses do not resonate with me as touching, patriotic, or examples of how he puts country first. For me they are overly sentimental attempts to distract the listener from real problems and to place war, any war, center stage. His voice even takes on the sing-songy tone that signals a “heart tugging” moment. The smile that Cillizza characterizes as “permanent” seemed more like a sneer to me.Those are all elements of style that are objectionable to me and many will disagree. However, they are subjective style points and should be judged in that light.

There are more concrete ways to look at this speech. It is not a sign of strength to refuse to look your opponent in the eye when you are speaking directly to him. Leherer directed O'Bama to do so, but, not McCain. It is a sign of either insecurity or disdain - take your pick, to ignore your debate opponent. If McCain has this depth of negative feeling about O'Bama, be it disdain or insecurity, how will he operate on behalf of the country on the world stage with leaders who are difficult and objectionable to our interests. In the context of building alliances and gaining concessions disdain or insecurity are both ineffective.

Nearly all McCain’s references are toward the past and not just 2 weeks or 2 years ago – way in the past. This is indicative of not understanding that the country and the world are changing dramatically and continue to do so as I am writing. He doesn’t demonstrate an ability to articulate a forward vision that speaks to emerging economies, important world relationships, or regional issues. O’Bama nearly always articulates a forward vision that embraces current and future reality, as well as the complexities and subtleties of our country and the world. In the debate, he spoke about elevating our country’s standing in the world. McCain did not. “Winning the war” seems to be his only measure of America’s standing in the world.

It is not a sign of weakness to acknowledge agreement with an opponent on an issue. It is a starting point for accomplishing a goal. O’Bama actually demonstrates the trait that McCain consistently insists that he has – “reaching across the aisle”. It is clear that a person who can acknowledge points of agreement with an opponent in front of millions of constituents – not behind the closed doors of the Senate – is demonstrating an important strength in a volatile and contentious world.

Although McCain only flubbed twice on leaders’ name ( Pakistan / Iran), he never-the-less flubbed. Look at me, even I say only flubbed twice… Everyone knows that a person’s name carries his or her identity, heritage and pride. Mispronouncing a name is the worst kind of gaffe on the world stage. This isn’t a party where you momentarily forget that the guy’s name is Dick not Dan,.

I need to bring this rather long post to an end. My point – many people in the media ignore the obvious and give McCain a pass based on his status as a former POW, his disability and his age – minimize his numerous significant shortcomings. Not recognizing Zapatero as the leader of our ally, Spain is not excusable, it is way beyond an “oh well” moment. In my mind, people should have the opportunity to compete regardless of their age , disability, etc. Once given the opportunity, they should be judged on equal footing with others, particularly for such a critical position as the Presidency. Come on Cillizza, call ‘em as they are, McCain isn’t your father or grandfather.

Posted by: Beezercal1 | September 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Scary news -- Daily Kos reports: "On Saturday, the former first lady [Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton] will campaign on behalf of Obama in Grand Ledge, Grand Rapids and Flint, Michigan."

Re the above, we think we can speak -- on a completely unauthorized and unasked-for basis -- for O's campaign just this once: Mrs. C. PLEASE DON'T!!!! DON'T!!!!!!

O had enough of your generous "help" last week during Bitter Bill's endless Say-No-to-O TV tour.

Please no more "helpful" campaign stops where you or Bitter Bill say not one good word about O, and then gush about your respect for Mac, how Palin is "hot" (at least that was Bitter Bill's stated opinion on "the View"), and how real "hard working" Americans can identify with Mac and Palin.

No more reminders of your 127 personal and totally beside-the-point grievances against O, the system, Patti Solis Doyle, men in general, Chris Matthews, Bill Richardson, the guy in the front row that yelled at you four months ago about ironing his shirt, etc., etc. No more planted media stories that you will replace Biden. ENOUGH.

Thanks, but no thanks. You've "HELPED" quite enough. If you HELPED anymore, O would be on life support.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Fix:

It might be helpful to have a dialog on what set of traits profiles a good "depression president" and how each candidate would measure up to those traits.

Good slasher-of-budgets? Good grasper of new ideas and theories and novel plans of action? Good economic program leadership targeting a demoralized, growing poverty class? Good maker-of-painful-and-unpopular decisions? Good motivate-the-nation inspirational speaker?

What kind of person makes a good president during a depression and how do the candidates measure up?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Your talking points:

1. McCain looked relaxed and smiled naturally -- I disagree. He seemed tense and grumpy, smirked oddly and frequently feel into stump speech lines we have heard too often.

2. McCain as Bush III -- I tend to think Obama uses as part of his post-partisan tactic or stratgy. Rather than attack conservative Republicans, he makes shorthand reference to eight years, four more years and Bush. So, its not as simple as casting McCain and Bush as one in the same. It's much deeper.

3. Speaking to the TV audience -- I don't know if you were watching live or on TV. However, as a TV viewer, I say Obama frequently speaking directly to the TV camera. Rarely, did McCain do so. Most of the time, McCain seemed to be speaking to the right side of the live audience.

4. Preconditions vs. preparations -- The Washington Post's fact-checker concludes that Mcain twisted the record here. Aslo, you may be only person viewing this debate who seems to think this was Obama's weakest moment. Rather, it was his failure to pounce on McCain $700 billion bailout gambit.

5. Experience, Change and Miss Congeniality -- An angry old pitbull without lipstick. Enough said.

6. The "Perfect" Debate Moderator -- Would not be drawn from the ranks of TV news anchors. As a former journalist, I can understand some media self back-slapping but, please.

6. An Ahmadinejad Moment -- I would have hesitated before insulting your readers by suggesting that debates are almost entirely visual. Give us at least some credit.

7. Bonus Extra Credit Reaction -- Great groans went up across America when MCain pulled out his ink marker, lifted his braceleted wrist and uttered the words POW.

Posted by: Marletter | September 27, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama seemed poised and the voice of reason.
McCain seemed like a crazed character from a batman movie with his twisted smile and snickering laughter.
However, I may be biased.

Posted by: seemstome | September 27, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I feel as if Obama won this debate because of the fact that he is working within a box. Yes people I am white and I am going to pull the race card that we all pretend to not know exists. If he had beeen hard on McCain he would have been seen as uppity, given that he was in a box he still was able to come accross as presidential and knowledgable without appearing uppity, which I still don't know how he and his wife got labled as elitist when it is Cindy and John who are out of touch with the middle class, I suggest he ran to Washington to save Cindy's portfolio. Pundits even took cause with him referring to him as John maybe he should have said your lordship, even though they are colleagues in the Senate. And I would say it was McCain who was very condescending to Obama whenever he disagreed, trying to twist his words saying that Obama intended to bomb Pakistan, you don't even say that mockingly, this is why we are in this mess with the rest of the world. I guess Sarah Palin is still being schooled on what exactly a vice president does. People wake up Iraq has a 79 billion dollar surplus and we are still funding that war, wake up people, get rid of your prejudices and vote for the person with a clear vision for the future, OBAMA 08.

Posted by: pamshep2006 | September 27, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Verrazzano, you are full of Sh!t.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

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

Did I hit a nerve? How could he not recognize and give well wishes to the man that gave him such a big boost during the primaries? How do you think the super delegates started drifting towards Obama and away from Clinton? What does that tell you about his character, that he truly is out to look out for your interest? The man is not only an empty suit, he has no soul.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

McCain doesn't seem to understand that our country's weakness will never be in our military as long as our financial security remains strong.
Our enemies will attack us on wall street just like Osama Bin Laden.
He seems to be playing right into their hands.

Posted by: seemstome | September 27, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"As for McCain's personal style, Obama is simply a much smoother talker, even when, as last night, he is saying nothing at all. Since I am voting for President and not for a used car salesman, I'll vote for McCain."

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 11:46 AM

I agree with you there. To me, the debate looked like one between an articulate arguer who has been doing his memorizing and studying, and an actual expert.

But my point is that the expert doesn't explain himself well, and doesn't use rhetoric that independents and democrats would find meaningful.

I do think McCain should find a way to talk about deficits and earmarks in a way that uses language that speaks to those who aren't already in his base and already familiar with the theories and ideas underlying his approaches. I.e. sometimes Obama explains his ideas whereas McCain always just argues like an expert. Obama must reach the not-really-informed and independents better than McCain does, for that reason.

McCain should really try to work off a different set of words and imagery, than he has been using so far to debate economics. Hard to see that most people get what his points are. He should explain how spending along with excessive federal debt (in the Bush Administration) and easy-mortgage programs put in place by Democrats and enabled by Democrats to go unchecked, created this problem. He should be able to explain, in a few sentences, what connection there is between the deficits, energy purchases abroad, our interest rates, inflation rates and credit market problems. Using the same "cut the budget" and "eliminate earmarks" mantras don't really mean a lot to most people who aren't economists.

McCain should learn how to be a better communicator. With the media shutting him out and misrepresenting his every move and word, he needs to be a better, clearer advocate for his positions.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Verazzano, it's cool you watched all the major news outlets and comically captured the pundit's facial expressions. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of polls show Obama won the first debate.

You wanna take my bet that McCain's polls are going to spiral further down this week?

Anyone want to take bets on what stunt McCain will come up with to "suspend" the remaining debates?

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

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

Are these the same poll that showed Kerry outdoing Bush during the debates?

If you want to look at polls, go ahead. Considering Bush's approval ratings, the economy, the unpopularity of the war, Obama should be ahead in big double digits. The polls are very close. And don't think that this is not disturbing to the Obama camp.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 27, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Body language: Did John McCain realize Barack Obama was at the debate?

Why couldn't McCain look at Obama? Watching on several networks it was interesting that McCain had positioned himself to face slightly away from Obama. Even when being spoken to directly by Obama he stared away into the audience.

I was not surprised that the image of the after-debate handshake in our local paper shows Obama shaking hands - making eye contact - McCain looking away. I'll bet he looked at Obama less than 10 times during the debate. How about a comparison count?

It seemed that Lehrer picked up on it - asking them to talk to each other. Obama felt it, answering some of his questions to Lehrer after looking to his opponent for response from McCain.

Compare this with Obama who spoke directly to McCain, and looked right at him even when receiving retorts he didn't want to hear.

Have you ever been so angry with someone that you couldn't even talk to them? Couldn't even look at them? Hard to reach across the aisle from there.

What do you think?

Posted by: toddwilliamsmith | September 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Verrazzano, you are full of Sh!t.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

While such a big fuss has been made last night and this morning that McCain never looked Obama in the eye (the podiums were not faced at each other), what was completely ignored was how both men opened the debate. Obama went first, thanked Lehrer, the debate commitee and the school. He then went to his canned opening speech (afterall, he spent a whole week in Debate Camp to prepare). Then McCain came on. First thing he did was give well wishes to Ted Kennedy who went to the hospital that night. Now this coming from a Republican towards one of the most liberal senators in our history. But did not Kennedy come out and give Obama a big push during his primary fight with Clinton? Who gives a crap about looking at someone in the eye? If this is a debate about character, one has it, the other does not.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 27, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

They both looked Presidential-
Therefore McCain loses.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Verazzano, it's cool you watched all the major news outlets and comically captured the pundit's facial expressions. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of polls show Obama won the first debate.

You wanna take my bet that McCain's polls are going to spiral further down this week?

Anyone want to take bets on what stunt McCain will come up with to "suspend" the remaining debates?

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

McCain will handle the financial crisis by cutting all spending except for defense, social securtiy and medicare. The hell with the infrastructure, programs for the poor and alternative energy.
Its just drill,drill,drill and kill,kill,kill.
One Bush is enough. Another one will be fatal for our country.

Posted by: seemstome | September 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

No body wins this debate. None of them answered the question about the bailout nor do they have a clear plan toward stablizing our economy.

McCain does show his strength in the foreign policy but he focused too much into it, since the economy is the main concern at the moment. However, if we lose America, there won't be any economy to worry about.

Obama did succeed in keeping his cool more than half the time, but looking cool and avoiding to answer the question is not a solution. Interrupting McCain to keep the camera pointing at himself is also not a solution.

I am still troubled by Obama raising tax on small business owners with income $250,000 and up. In 2006, the national average salary for small business was $258,400. According to Salary.com ( http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041&part=Par545 ). That is more than half of the small business owners here in the US. Today's amount should be slightly higher. Is that a solution to our economy crisis when we need more jobs avaliability here in the US?

I am looking forward to the VPs debate in October.

Posted by: BrokeJade | September 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Vote for your favorite candidate. This story, thewashingtonpost.com, and other websites at TheWebTitan.com.

The number one website: wikipedia.org

The last vote: youtube.com

Suggest other websites at TheWebTitan.com/phpBB2.

Posted by: dophinsluv | September 27, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

natural smile?

Are you untethered from reality (re: see below)? Every media outlet has stated that he couldn't look Obama in the eye etc etc

McCain, who came into tonight's debate a bit frantic from his failed gambit to broker a deal on Capitol Hill to save the financial industry, looked as relaxed, at home and, well, stable, as we have seen him in any debate during this long election process. He wore an almost permanent smile, which, for the most part seemed natural as opposed the force Joker-grin plastered on his face during the primary debates

Posted by: gweeks | September 27, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"Stategy VS Tactic"

Oddly no-one is discussing this particular point of the dabate that I found rather fascinating yet perplexing. I believe that I possess the expertise to decipher a strategy in comparison to a tactic being a current enlisted member in the Armed Services. I am priviledged enough to have been in service since 2001, served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and will deploy to Afghanistan for the much needed support to Operation Enduring Freeom.

Here are the facts the initial strategy for the campaign in Iraq did not include a surge of troops during the 06-07 years of the war. This is partly due to the fact that no strategy was ever drafted to begin with. My recollection of the early years of the war was the commanders on the ground made the decisions. It was not until after the war's unpopularity and Bush's diminishing approval rating over the death of American soldiers that a "surge of troops" would be necessary. Did I also mention that sectarian violence and the threat of a Sunni and Shia civil war was dangling over the horizon? The sense that way-back in 2002 when congress approved the Use of Force in Iraq, that SEC. Rumsfeld had the insight to determine a surge would be apart of the STRATEGY, to me this is ludacris and insulting. Great Job to Obama.

Ironically his insight disturbs me a little. Indeed, Osama Bin Laden fled to the Mountains of Tora Borah, and US forces are fighting the Taliban, AL Queada, and Pakistani Forces in Afghanistan. He was absolutely 100% correct that reinforcements are needed. I have one question though, Sen. Obama what will be the exit strategy for Afghanistan? I am in support of Sen. Obama but if I am going sacrifice another wedding anniversary, birthday party, graduation from kindergartin and middle school, put my own life on the line by driving on IED saturated roads again, please let's learn from the mistakes in Iraq. Give me a tangible stop sign that will let me know when enough is enough and I can come home to my family.

Posted by: Widowmaker6 | September 27, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"The Obama surrogates, whether they were from the media or his campaign, had the look as if their friend went to the hospital (which is telling about Obama's characteristic as a person that he started the debate and said nothing of his supporter Ted Kennedy while McCain wished him well when he opened). Begala on CNN usually has that big grin. It was missing. Palin lover Campbell Brown looked like she was going to puke he cookies. Olbermann had a look as if he has not been able to take a crap for three days. Maddow had those sad eyes as if she just received a Dear John letter (or is it Dear Joan?). The political surrogates were busy trying to fill in the gaps of arguments that perhaps Obama forgot to make during the debate...."

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

Interesting analysis. Reading the faces of the Obama talking heads works sometimes. After Obama announced Biden as his VP, every single Obama surrogate had a ghastly look of dismay on his/her face.

The media exists in their echo chamber. Maybe by last night all the media & Obama supporters started believing their own make believe stories that McCain was in DC because he was afraid of debating and was desperately flailing for some escape.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

From DailyKos, Obama won big.

Drudge's "poll" (which probably reflects his readership more than an objective evaluation of the debate) is the only one we've seen saying Mac won.
___

Quoting a DailyKos diary:

"CNN: Polls Say Obama Won, Disaster for McCain
by EmperorHadrian
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:57:55 PM PDT
Somehow, CNN has already conducted an actual phone poll which shows that voters overwhelmingly think Obama won the debate. Apparently, CBS just released a poll with a similar result. One CNN pundit (David Gergen) implied that these numbers, if correct, may be a fatal disastor for John McCain's campaign. This was the night he had to knock the debate out of the park. Even two republican pundits called this a draw. John King from CNN, who apparently had some part in the poll, said something very important after they talked about this. He said that if we start having headlines tomorrow, with polls showing Obama won the debate, it becomes self-fullfilling, and the message reinforces itself. Suddenly, all those who didn't see it, or who did see it and didn't have a solid impression, become influenced by this emerging consensus.
EmperorHadrian’s diary::
David Gergen said:
I cannot emphisize how important I think these numbers are, because this is a pivotal night for John McCain. He needed to take this night, and if these polls are right, that is a major deal in this election, because this is his home turf, because Barack Obama is the younger man, and the issue is 'can the younger man hold his own with the older guy with more experience'. Thats what John Kennedy did in 1960, because that won the debate that drove the election and elected him, because he held his own." "

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl - a lot of good points, but the other side of the coin for McCain is he kept the conversation on his own turf last night. That is a rhetorical feat in itself, and it's hard to know how much better he did by means of keeping the game on his playing field.

As for McCain's personal style, Obama is simply a much smoother talker, even when, as last night, he is saying nothing at all. Since I am voting for President and not for a used car salesman, I'll vote for McCain.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"McCain doesn't get it either. His only response to ANY international crisis is to start BOMBING someone."

"And if he can't look Obama in the eye once in 90 minutes, how the hell is he going to stare down any of our enemies?"

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 11:27 AM

Wow. You really missed a lot of what he said during the debate. You just have your own fixed ideas and are putting them on him. McCain specifically criticized how you talk about bombing and attacking other countries, as opposed to what you would actually do. I.e. you don't talk about attacking Pakistan, even if you might do it under some circumstances.

It's like a whole level of discussion in the debate just flew past you without your even registering it. All you are posting are biased views that are unrelated to the things said during the debate.

About looking at Obama, I'm sure he has his reasons. Obama was attacking him during the meeting at the White House on Thursday, demanding over and over again to know if he backed the House Republicans' ideas about having a federal insurance pool for banks' credit-backed portfolio products, instead of bailing them out. Obama's behavior was inappropriate, confrontational and disruptive and McCain walked out of that White House meeting. Obama's campaign has also been inappropriate and slimy in how it has attacked Sarah Palin.

IMO, John McCain finds Barack Obama to be offensive and actively dislikes him. Judging from his body language and the tone of the statements released by the McCain campaign, I think McCain thinks Obama's a disrespectful man running a personally destructive campaign.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: thecannula | September 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"jedmons wrote:
After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain"
---
Typical fear-mongerer, do you have nothing better to do than hide in your room and worry about being attacked by Venezuela?

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

>I am watching Rudy on Fox right now. He has a big grin.

Well if Rudy Gulliani is smiling then I guess its clear to anyone McCain clearly won. Hun?

You gave away your partisanship - "watching Fox". It's a classic 101 mistake.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

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

And if you read any of my other posts, you would have seen that I checked all three of the cable networks. The Obama surrogates, whether they were from the media or his campaign, had the look as if their friend went to the hospital (which is telling about Obama's characteristic as a person that he started the debate and said nothing of his supporter Ted Kennedy while McCain wished him well when he opened). Begala on CNN usually has that big grin. It was missing. Palin lover Campbell Brown looked like she was going to puke he cookies. Olbermann had a look as if he has not been able to take a crap for three days. Maddow had those sad eyes as if she just received a Dear John letter (or is it Dear Joan?). The political surrogates were busy trying to fill in the gaps of arguments that perhaps Obama forgot to make during the debate. No one had that look of confidence as if their man hit a grand slam. So as I was changing channels on the remote and came upon Fox, there was Rudy with a big grin. Sure, he is in the McCain camp but considering that none from the Obama side had that look, very telling signs.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 27, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

WHY WASN"T MCCAIN WEARING A FLAG PIN?, HUH?, HUH?

HE MUST BE A MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Mccain forgot his new message


Number of times John McCain mentioned:
CHANGE: 1 time
MIDDLE CLASS: not once

Posted by: popasmoke | September 27, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Matt Drudge is a republican hack who writes talking points for Fox News.

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Anyone watching McCain's twisted smile and warlike demeanor can see this man is ready to start hostilities with Iran.
His eagerness should be viewed by sane americans as a warning that McCain will not put country first when it comes to the middle class.
Instead, he will continue down the road to financial and moral bankruptcy in war which is George Bush's trademark.

Posted by: seemstome | September 27, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Drudge is trying to game this for Mac. He shouldn't be trying to game this for anyone.

Drudge is publishing his own poll showing Mac won. And he's not reporting ANY of the other polls, including CBS's (which are referenced in HuffPo) showing O won. If you get a chance today, you may want to put in your "vote" in Drudge's "poll."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

It has been a horrific two-weeks for McCain, he needed an absolute blow-out with his "home field advantage".

He didn't get it.

More very bad news coming for McCain on Monday when the Katie Couric-Sarah Palin interview airs, I've seen clips and heard that it is a train-wreck for Palin/McCain.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

jedmons wrote:
After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain
--------------

You don't get it....we ARE being threatened by Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Al-Qaeda.

McCain doesn't get it either. His only response to ANY international crisis is to start BOMBING someone.

And if he can't look Obama in the eye once in 90 minutes, how the hell is he going to stare down any of our enemies?

The answer, of source, is that he can't. He would continue to be a coward dropping bombs all over the world.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Yes, and why were we listening to Rudy instead of Palin? Can't she ever speak without rehearsal?

Posted by: tuckerdogavl | September 27, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Hope you watched C-span. Wonder if the media will report on McCain's squinting, smirking, bobbing up and down like a school boy, laughing, grumfing, staring into space like a deer caught in the headlights never looking at Obama at all, and did you catch the couple times he shielded his eyes to look out into the audience, then squint and nod? What the heck was that about? Was he getting morse code sent to him with a mirror? Of course, one sigh from Al Gore DESTROYED him in the debates with Dubya....I was switching around to ABC, NBC, CBS from MSNBC and C-SPAN, and mostly ALL OF THEM didn't show the two of them at the same time like C-SPAN did. It was very telling. Obama would look over at McCain while he was speaking, but McCain did everything but listen when Obama was talking. My favorite was at the summation when McCain started gathering up his papers and shuffling them when Obama was speaking: Obama should have said, "EXCUSE ME JOHN. I'm talking!" but, of course, he didn't.  Plus, Palin "declining to comment" after the debate? Excuse me? And ABC inteviews Rudy instead. No. THey should have said, "nope. no rebuttal." Come on. Palin "refuses to comment? " Are we ever going to hear her speak without rehearsal?

Posted by: tuckerdogavl | September 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Neither man got knocked out in last night's debate. Senator Obama was composed seemed like the "logical problem solver" while McCain, just seemed agitated and "stuck in his old ways". With the failing billion+ dollar blunder of a War in Iraq and our major economic problems here at home, it just seemed to me the guy who voted with Bush 90% of the time was much less convincing last night. It was like "new school" and "old school" thinking on both sides of the stage. (Obama with the laptop, and McCain with the scratch paper). Obama won this debate hands down.

Posted by: greatlakes2 | September 27, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"Why go on and on about Hillary and Bitter Bill?"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 11:04 AM

I'm just saying that, after Hillary Clinton dropped out, we were left with the usual election choice between two flawed idiots.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?"

You don't know what you're talking about. Judging by your shallow grasp of foreign affairs, I would guess you are a Sarah Palin sock puppet.

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"McCain stuck to the substance. A little stiff sometimes...",

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:40 AM

McCain could use a little less "straight talk" and a little more rhetorical art.

It was not helpful for him that he kept talking about Iraq, for example. It is useful to hammer Obama on his mistakes with, but, as Obama pointed out, not as a lens through which to interpret the broad world of foreign affairs.

McCain's "sentiment" reader dived when he talked about Iraq outside of a direct question on the country. Surely he knows that is not the most popular hill on which to climb each time he wants to make a national security point.

Substance is one thing, understanding what turns off Independents is another. Surely there is another way he can learn to talk about national security except by way of Iraq.

Similarly, continuing to talk about the economy by invoking federal deficits and earmarks sounds clueless to those who don't understand the relationship between deficits and, say, inflation and how inflation is making it harder for banks to make money lending, etc. If he's going to continue to revert to deficit spending and earmarks talks when asked about the economy, he could at least play the role of teacher and explain the linkages. Instead, he keeps saying the same shallow stuff that doesn't connect to most people.

Here again, he's probably right on substance, but clueless about how to connect intellectually with the broader public, especially independents, on a variety of issues like economy.

McCain could definitely benefit from learning more the art of rhetoric instead of continuing to rely on substance and expecting everyone to be on the same page when he skips providing a tutorial for the whys and wherefores of his ideas. He ends up using tired rhetoric from his base, that probably doesn't mean much to independents & democrats.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Overall, I thought Obama did very well for the first 3/4 of the debate.

He seemed more forceful, and foreward leaning than I expected. He was calling McCain on everything and correcting all of his misstatements. He looked quick on his feet, very confident and in control of the facts.

He was the aggressor. McCain seemed too mild mannered--sort of the reverse perhaps of what expectations may have been.

In the last 10-15 minutes is when McCain seemed to land his biggest blows.

Obama won the first 3/4.
McCain won the last 1/4.

What does that leave people with?

McCain's direct challenge of Obama, saying he was not ready to be CIC because of his experience may have rung a little hollow at the END of the debate, because I think Obama actually showed he WAS capable for the first 3/4.

Posted by: MNobserver | September 27, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

McCain's arrogance and belligerence with respect to Iran leaves no doubt that, like Iraq for George Bush, bomb,bomb,bombing Iranians is the first thing McNasty will do if elected.

For Americans tired of seeing their money being squandered overseas and disgusted with war corporation fat cat executives like Cheney, McCain is just another George Bush.

Posted by: seemstome | September 27, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I thought they both did well. McCain displayed a depth of knowledge that made clear what most people already suspected: that he's ready to be a great Commander in Chief (far better than the one we currently have) from the moment he's sworn in. Similarly, I believe Obama displayed his full potential: that he may one day mature into an above-average U.S. Senator.

As for Cillizza's dig characterizing McCain's leadership on the rescue plan as a "failed gambit to broker a deal" -- I mean, gimme a break. Given that McCain is back in DC working on improving the deal right now, and given the fact that he successfully brought House Republicans (whose support Pelosi is insisting on) to the negotiating table, it's abundantly clear that McCain's leadership was neither "failed" nor a "gambit."

If the Paulson-Frank bailout as first outlined were viable, they would have gone ahead and done it. In fact, it was wildly unpopular with the public and would have been DOA on the House floor.

If they get a half-decent piece of legislation drafted over the weekend, it will be in no small part thanks to John McCain's decision to assert himself on behalf of the American taxpayer.

And Barack's contribution to the effort? As with the rest of his professional career, nothing of significance.

Posted by: tresangelas | September 27, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

It was a great night for obama, and he polls of undecided voters indicate he sealed the deal tonight.

Ladies and gentlemen: president Obama.

Let's get out there, vote and finish off the politics of yesterday!

Posted by: bernie11 | September 27, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin won.
The Republican Party lost.
Palin won because without a knockout punch on foreign affairs, John McCain's campaign is over with. Because her handlers are keeping her undercover (with good reason after seeing the Couric interview), she is set up to be the leader for the nomination in 2012. The Social/Fundamentalist Conservative wing will proclaim that McCain was not conservative enough and will adopt Palin as their poster child.
The Republican Party loses because this election represented their last chance to attract moderates and independents. In the next election they will be the party of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan.
If McCain had picked Romney, Mitt would have been a brilliant surrogate last night, would have been a reassuring voice in the economic crisis and McCain would be in a tight race. And - win or lose - moderates would have retained respect for the GOP.
The Palin choice and the "I will go to DC and say 14 wishy washy words to show I a a leader" ploy establish that Steve Schmidt is clueless.

Posted by: djah | September 27, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

During the debate, I thought it remained to be seen who won the Kissinger argument. It depended on who ended up being right when the factchecking was completed.

In the end, McCain probably wins that... slightly. Kissinger in fact HAS said there should be high level (starting with Sec. of State) talks with Iran without precondition, but after the debate he claims at least that he has not proposed or supported starting with presidential level talks.

To Obama's credit, when McCain said Kissinger had not approved presidential talks Obama kept saying "no one has suggested that." In other words, Obama wasn't sayign that.

There were TWO points of contention in their exchange about talks with Iran.
Whether it should be:

presidential

without conditions

Obama was essentially right that all the former Secs of State favor talks with Iran without preconditions. Obama himself has since backed down from emphasizing presidential talks, but since he did say that initially in the primaries, he was forced to defend it. It would have gotten to complicated otherwise.

It was essentially a tie--but because Obama brought up Kissinger, the burden was probably on him to be 100% correct.

Posted by: MNobserver | September 27, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Clearly we all see and hear the same thing but our reaction depends upon our preconceived ideas and biases. I felt Obama did well because I favor him. I can see why someone who favors McCain would see him as the winner. Bottom line is that it matters little what we say. Each of us has already decided who "won."
No matter what the candidates say, it comes down to what they will do and no one will know until it is done.
Sadly, our election process has become a popularity contest with the majority of voters.

Posted by: socalken | September 27, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies1 wrote:
The "looking in the eye" thing is a silly charge against McCain when you remember that it is McCain who has been pushing for a series of informal, one-on-one town halls with Obama, and Obama is the one who is scared to do that. McCain stuck to the substance. A little stiff sometimes, but get real- first you folks said he was afraid to debate, now you're saying he's afraid to
engage. Both claims are silly.
--------------------

It was McCain who wanted to cancel, remember? His downward spiral in the polls began and people started LAUGHNING at Palin. Unable or unwilling to publicly discuss in detail any of his proposals, he needed a gimmick. The only gimmick he could come up with was to "suspend" his campaign and try to suspend the debate.

Obama's not afraid to meet McCain, whose "ten town hall meetings" would be an incredible waste of time. Particularly since McCain can't clearly explain any of his proposals in even ONE debate. All he would do in ten town hall meetings is precisely what he did last night: drone on about his past experience and stand there like an idiot waving the flag. The American voter is WAY past flag-waving as the sole qualification for president.

Failing to look your opponent / adversary / enemy in the eye, however, is a clear sign of cowardice. Or perhaps, at the very least, a sign of submission. Neither trait Americans want to see in their president. And I understand why you just can't bring yourself to admit that.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

One moment worth noting in the debate: McCain coming out on national TV and affirming his opposition to ethanol subsidies, clearly indicating he's ceded Iowa to the Democrats.

Posted by: scurley1 | September 27, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

With all respect, jedmons' concern is valid, but... not the choice.

Having to lived in the region and grew up there for many years... you may be wrong with your decision. They are much smarter than incoherent Palin evidenced by Katie's interview - it was a hard pill to swallow. McCain with military experience spent most of it as POW... with respect, could have had a better back up. Personal stubbornness and ego may go contrary to what is best for the country.

Obama handled it well - gentleman and firm. As I am one of the few - decision is made - NOT PALIN for President, but between Obama and McCain...to be made. So far, this one... I am one of 68%...

Be fair and listen... as this is REALLY a crucial... one of the most difficult election for us... Our economy, foreign respect, global status and everything is on the stake. NBC show of Palin interview... it was unbearable... wish we could go back and erase it. It was aired and picked up around the world. Sad...

Posted by: Munki | September 27, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I was more impressed with McCain's stage presence than I expected to be. He hasn't done nearly as well in debates up to now. That said, I wasn't convinced by his arguments that he would make a good leader. He seemed stuck on the same old talking points about cutting spending, which as Obama pointed out are like using a hatchet to when you need a scalpel. Obama seemed more in tune with how to deal with complex issues, and more capable of leading in a complex, 21st century world.

Posted by: poliarts | September 27, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

It would seem that many are interested in who won the Obama McCain get together, but a more important question might well be who lost in this tepid exchange of sound bites. A case can be made that we all lost. It is clear that both candidates offer U.S. war without end. McCain's fatuous alluding to rallying the people of Pakistan is more a symptom of several diagnosis than a workable foreign policy. Except for the fat cats we are not loved in the Muslim world and if you don't believe that why don't you put your American flag pin and take a stroll down the streets of Cairo, Baghdad or take your choice. Such misguided thinking will result in supplying to a politically fragile Pakistan the same benefits we supplied to Cambodia. Obama, with an insistence on building forces in Afghanistan, marches in the historic company of The Great Khan, The Roman Legions, The British Empire and the Russian Empire and will experience the same results. Bomber McCain can't help seeing military solutions as the legitimate substitute for foreign policy as he is a third generation card carrying member of the military industrial complex general Eisenhower warned U.S. about. The presence of American troops in support of a cause alien to the Afghanistan people, while propping up an extraordinarily corrupt regime that shows little or no concern for the lives of the people of Afghanistan is a receipt for continuing bloody disaster. The surge of troops in Iraq that McCain, Obama and others praise so highly was also accompanied with a surge of tax payer money and promises of jobs for those Iraqi's were willing to stop shooting each other for a while. The promise of jobs has already been reneged on and the results are predictable. You will not read about these results in those terms. It will be presented a surge of terrorism. Pulling the surge of troops would be a lot less dangerous than pulling out the surge of greenbacks. Can't say if paying people to stop killing each other is good foreign policy but it does have the merit of working. Http://www.saintpeterii.com

Posted by: saintpeterii | September 27, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Why go on and on about Hillary and Bitter Bill?

Do you see Mac's side wasting time and energy talking about Huckabee, Thompson, or Ron Paul? No. They lost and you move on. While you're at it, why not ruminate about Tom Dewey and Wendell Wilkie?

The only distinguishing thing about Bill and Hill is that they have made history (if you want to call it that) by actively campaigning AGAINST their party's nominee, as with Bitter Bill's now infamous Say-No-to-O TV road show recently made fun of by Maureen Dowd and Chris Rock.

Let's move on and focus on a bravura performance by O and the issues facing the country...Oy.
____

Earlier post:

"In response to the below poster:
>>Neither McCain nor Obama are "idiots."

They are compared to Hillary Clinton. McCain is an economic and health care-impaired idiot compared to Hillary Clinton and Obama is an all-around empty suit phony who is good at memorizing and speechifying. Obama's a great political animal, but a left-wing-programmed idiot compared to Hillary Clinton.

*********************

Why don't you go talk about politics at church, where I'm sure you put people off there, too, with your combination of ad-hominem, judgmental hypocrisy.""

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse


Neither of the two men got knocked out last night, butit was clear Senator Obama got in the most effective jabs to the face last night. Senator Obama was compoased ans steady throughout the debate while McCain had moments of flailing arms worthy of resrtaints. Obama was clearly the thinker and problem solver of the two, while McCain seemed more stuck in his old ways, as he had great difficulty differentiating himself from Bush's failed policies. it was like "New World" vs "old World" thinking on each end of the stage for the world to see. I'm more inclined to vote for the more convincing of the 2 candidates, and the polls have shown that, that man was Senator Obama.

Posted by: greatlakes2 | September 27, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

>I am watching Rudy on Fox right now. He has a big grin.

Well if Rudy Gulliani is smiling then I guess its clear to anyone McCain clearly won. Hun?

You gave away your partisanship - "watching Fox". It's a classic 101 mistake.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"McCain stuck to the substance. A little stiff sometimes...",

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

You're joking right?, if I hear ONE MORE of his (probably phony) corn-ball stories about bracelets and drawing crosses in the dirt I'm gonna hurl.

And I am sick and tired to death of hearing him remind me every time he speaks that he was a POW, I really don't care, it's not one of my requirements for being POTUS.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain

Posted by: jedmons | September 27, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Consensus: OBAMA WON

From HuffPo/according to pundits and the people, Obama WON. Even TIME’s Mark Halperin, a fiercely anti-Obama guy, and GOP strategist Frank Luntz said he won. If Halperin and Luntz said Obama won, he won.

Quoting HuffPo --

““Several positive reviews for Obama. A CBS News instant poll finds:
40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.

68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision
about the economy. 41% think McCain would.
49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.
Two focus groups, one by GOP pollster Frank Luntz and another by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, both declared Obama the winner. Here's video of Luntz, some pretty powerful stuff:
And even Time's Mark Halperin weighs in with his grades: Obama A-, McCain B-.
Update: CNN's poll has all Obama winning overall, on the economy and on Iraq.” " END

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

It is clear that McCain has overall more knowledge on foreign affairs.

But I think it is also clear that he has shown poor judgment in applying that knowledge.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

In response to the below poster:

>>Neither McCain nor Obama are "idiots."

They are compared to Hillary Clinton. McCain is an economic and health care-impaired idiot compared to Hillary Clinton and Obama is an all-around empty suit phony who is good at memorizing and speechifying. Obama's a great political animal, but a left-wing-programmed idiot compared to Hillary Clinton.

>>"My personal guideline: if I would not say it from the pulpit of my church, then I should not say it."

I don't give a damn about your personal guideline. Your religious temperament should tell you not to attack how other people think and express themselves, but rather what their points are, hypocrite.

Why don't you go talk about politics at church, where I'm sure you put people off there, too, with your combination of ad-hominem, judgmental hypocrisy.

::::::::::::::::
"This is true. After she [Hillary] dropped out we were left with a choice between two idiots.

"She beat Obama in debate after debate."

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 8:21 AM

* * * *

It is really time for Aspergirl to take a long walk off a short pier. Neither McCain nor Obama are "idiots." Perhaps Aspergirl can supply us with her credentials for making such a comment. Or is that "it takes one to know one"?

There is absolutely no reason to slander or libel another human being. We may disagree, but being disagreeable is not the answer. Diplomacy is always good and never requires regrets. Where is the civility in discourse with people like Aspergirl? Even Hillary would not approve. My personal guideline: if I would not say it from the pulpit of my church, then I should not say it. Sometimes I step over the line, but this guideline is my single criterion.

Posted by: EarlC | September 27, 2008 9:48 AM |

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

The "looking in the eye" thing is a silly charge against McCain when you remember that it is McCain who has been pushing for a series of informal, one-on-one town halls with Obama, and Obama is the one who is scared to do that. McCain stuck to the substance. A little stiff sometimes, but get real- first you folks said he was afraid to debate, now you're saying he's afraid to engage. Both claims are silly.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

on subject of eyecontact. You have NO IDEA how important it is. (I have a child w/ autism. We struggle to get him to make eyecontact...I repeat DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF EYECONTACT and how it reflects on your ability to empathize, respect, feel compassion and understand your fellow human beings. In battle, it is the eye contact they make before killing that haunts the soldiers afterward.
I'm guessing McCain's advisers will point out these facts.

Posted by: sgoewey | September 27, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies1 wrote:
"In looking through various websites, it appears that the Obama people are indeed spamming the comments sections and insta-polls (same as the Bush people did in 2000 and 2004) but the commentariat is having none of it. They are calling it a draw or a narrow win for McCain."
------------------

It depends which snap polls you looked at.

In those polls where the news organization conducted random samples, it wasn't narrow at all. The CNN poll doesn't look narrow. Nor does the CBS poll. Even the Fox News "poll" wasn't narrow.

Fox News had McCain the winner 86-14. Not surprising since Fox didn't actually CONDUCT a poll, instead asking their VIEWERS to send in their text votes.

It was incredibly FUNNY to watch Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) referring to the Fox call-in results and saying, "I've never seen a blowout in a presidential debate." Well, he still hasn't seen one.

More interesting was re-watching the debate on CNN with the "dial-a-meter" running simultaneously. It was plainly obvious McCain didn't move any independents his way. They went to Obama.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

McCain likes to call Obama naive. Who was naive in deregulating the banks? .........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/09/27/mccains-problematic-use-of-naive/

Posted by: glclark4750 | September 27, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

McCain showed that he has been trained to not negotiate and always go for the jugular. McCain is a great foot soldier. He is loyal even when his Commander in Chief is clearly wrong and that is what you need in a good foot soldier. Someone who will follow your orders without thinking. McCain has been trained to not look at the enemy. Kill them and move on.

Obama on the other hand is not a foot soldier. Obama is a thinker and a great leader who can can look his enemy in the eye and get a read. Obama is a man who is not afraid to say that even his enemy may have good points with which he can agree, but then go on to articulate where his enemies logic is flawed.

Final analysis? McCain is a foot soldier and not a leader. Obama is a leader and a Commander in Chief.

Posted by: dave40 | September 27, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"McCain looked like Shmegel in the Lord of the Rings. Pretty pathetic."

Posted by: majorteddy | September 27, 2008 10:12 AM

It's funny to see the DailyKos trolls having to use their real logins for a change.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

majorteddy - lying? Check the MSNBC website now. Andrew Romano calls it for McCain. It's right there.

(That, and the sad passing of Paul Newman, a truly admirable man).

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Though they both stuck to their arguments and defended themselves well, McCain came across as more confident than Obama. I am a supporter of McCain and was a bit nervous for him going into the debate. But McCain relishes it and if in future debates they ratchet up the flak he will pull his seat belt tight and deliver the pay load.

Posted by: TrueHawk | September 27, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

bethillinois said, "Man, if I were that boy's family, I would be livid." leads me to believe that you are NOT a mother.

No, you'd be heartbroken that your boy had been sent to Iraq to die for a lie...and you'd hope other mother's sons would NOT be so poorly served by his country's "leaders," just as Obama noted. He died for his country, but his country's leaders made a horrendous mistake declaring a "preventive" war on Iran...McCain seems to think we can only have peace w/ war, "my friends." scary.


Posted by: sgoewey | September 27, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

For a man who almost seemed like he was avoiding a debate John McCain was clearly comfortable in dealing with the subject-matter. This debate was to me a tie.
On substance, I give this one to McCain. He clearly knows the regions of the world and their leaders and fits them perfectly onto his conservative view of the world, a very Reaganesque vision.
However, he seemed very condescending in doing so. McCain didnt look like someone who could build consensus with world leaders or even leaders in this country, which runs against his own statements that he's bipartisan. At times he looked almost smug trying to down Obama and by implication the voters who voted for Obama. He had the look of a mean old man like Mr. Smithers in the Simpsons.
Obama was conversational and engaging with Lehrer and his opponent. He had the Kennedy look perfectly. Did he look presidential? yes Did he look like someone who could learn more about international issues? absolutely. He looked very calm, cool and collected.

Posted by: latinles1 | September 27, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Apparently, McCain won and won big because virtually all of the left wingnut blogs and sites, including the MSM, said it was a draw. Just like when BHO met with the leadership on the economy at the WH - when he tried to insert himself he was told in no uncertain terms to pipe down because he didn't know what he was talking about, as evidenced further by Harry and Nacy rushing to the mike to blast McCain as they didn't have anything positive about Barack (call me if you need me) Hussein Obama.

Posted by: BeanerECMO | September 27, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin was in a hotel room partying with Republicans and eating hors d'euvres instead of being available to the press for a reaction and comment. Hopefully it was brain food.

Posted by: majorteddy | September 27, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I was undecided before this debate and I am even more undecided today. I was hoping one of the candidates would "wow" me but that just didn't happen. Right now I would vote for Jim Lehrer over either candidate. From the very beginning, when neither Obama or McCain answered Lehrer's question on what they were willing to give up to McCain's chiding, Obama's interrupting and smugness, neither candidate showed me anything I needed to see to make an informed decision. As usual, people who already had their minds made up are declaring victory for their candidate when neither distinguished himself. One thing that really bothers me is when Obama supporters run out the racism card when anyone disagrees with him and/or supports McCain. What about all of the African -American voters who will vote for Obama simply because he is half African-American? Before you indignantly fire up that keyboard I have been happily married to a wonderful woman of color for ten years and she hasn't made up her mind yet either. The choice on who to vote for should not be made because of anyone's race, McCain or Obama and shame on anyone who does that.

Posted by: willh27 | September 27, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

All these people saying Obama won the debate because he did a better job of making eye-contact -- well, okay, McCain was on top of all the issues, McCain wasn't afraid to say he'd cut the military in order to help us balance our national budget -- as he has ALREADY DONE in the past -- but, hey, Obama did a better job of making eye contact.

Me, I'd rather vote for the guy who knows what he's talking about and who has a solid history of making important (even when frequently controversial) decisions which are consistant with his current talking points.

I can't believe so many posters here think that making eye contact is somehow meaningful to choosing which person best deserves to get our vote.

Posted by: SiberianOb | September 27, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

dyinglike flies===I think you are wrong when you say that Newsweek's guy said McCain won. I just saw Jonathan Alter on Morning Joe and he said he thought Obama came out ahead. That is Newsweek's guy. I think we have some people on here who are lying like McCain.

Posted by: majorteddy | September 27, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I thought both men did well and neither was a clear winner. Each won some points.

I thought Obama looked absolutely childish and petulant, however, when he had his "I have one too!" moment, holding up the bracelet of a dead soldier. The clue that it was simply a political prop? The fact he couldn't remember the soldier's name.

Man, if I were that boy's family, I would be livid.

Posted by: bethIllinois | September 27, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Jim Lehrer was the winner of the debate! He was a professional who stayed where he was supposed to instead of posturing up on the stage. Jim is an example of old time professionalism. Unfortunately Lehrer has been overshadowed by silly, biased posers who are there to show off themselves instead of providing information to the public.

The debate itself started off slowly and finally got going half way thru. There was no clear knock out. Sen. Obama misquoted Henry Kissenger who actually said that we should talk to our enemies at the Sec. of State level or lower.

Sen. McCain should have talked more about cosponsoring Senate Bill 190 (2005) which would have avoided this financial crisis if it hadn't been defeated by the Dems and the large contributions to Sens. Dodd, Kerry and Obama from Freddie/Frannie. Also the Dem. plan to give a large amount of the bail out to Acorn which seems to be a group of footsoldiers for the Dems.

Posted by: Xanadu3 | September 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I agree w/ ssgermain's comments about McCain's rude interrupting/bullying/repeated misstatement of facts (and Eisenhower DID NOT write a letter of resignation ... the most annoying thing McCain said last night was the dismissive "oh, please" about Obama's "naivite" re: iran... it's the hypocriscy stupid. McCain offers no respect (or, duh, no "deference") to obama, yet he demands it from media/citizens for his inexperienced/uninformed #2 -- someone who cannot verbalize to Katie Couric ONE coherent thought about foreign policy.

as ssgermaine noted, it is upsetting to witness: "his demeanor and meanness of spirit. He bullied his way through the debate, interrupting, refusing to stop talking when it was time for Obama to speak and speaking in a demeaning and sarcastic way when he addressed Obama. Obama, on the other hand, was, as always, nuanced in his speaking, and open to admitting when he agreed with McCain about things. He treated McCain with the respect one would expect to receive from a fellow debater.

Bottom line: I don't want a bully for president. I want someone who thinks before he acts, and someone who will reach out to others, not try to bully them into submission."

It is just unbelieveable that we will elect another liar who proclaims himself as a "straight talker"...we're in big trouble if people can't see this.

Posted by: sgoewey | September 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

McCain flat out lied about doing anything for the troops, like George Bush, he opposed the GI Bill that would help troops and said that if they done too much for the Gi's they would be tempted to quit the Army and go back to civilian life. He opposed measures that would have rehabilitated amputees and brain injured patients. Obama was instrumental in getting this passed. McCain opposed it, but didn't even show up to vote. He's a liar about helping our boys and showing gratitude. He just wants to burn up the army for war,war,war. Luckily it passed.

Posted by: majorteddy | September 27, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

McCain did the country a favor, in last night's debate. McCain's sarcasic and bellicose nature emerged, immediately. McCain's refusal to make eye-contact with Obama, or even look his way, made it easy to imagine McCain's refusing to comunicate, negotiate or compromise with foriegn leaders with whom he was not already in full agreement. I''m afraid that Sarah Palin may be a heartbeat away from replacing Dr. Strangelove.

For those too young to remember Dr. Strangelove, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, a 1964 Stanley Kubrick film.The story concerns a mentally unstable US Air Force general who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

Posted by: mitch6 | September 27, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Newsweek's guy calls it for McCain. The press in general does too.
"An interesting observation from the Politico's Ben Smith:
The mild consensus in the press file was that McCain won, if not in particularly dramatic fashion."

But the insta-polls, spammed by the Obama maneuverists, go the other way. Not a surprise.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

That's bunk. Obama won. Check out HuffPo which today reports a cross-section of the reactions from the media and polling: all say Obama won (or didn't lose -- which was the minimalist goal anyway), NONE that we've seen say Mac won.
__


"In looking through various websites, it appears that the Obama people are indeed spamming the comments sections and insta-polls (same as the Bush people did in 2000 and 2004) but the commentariat is having none of it. They are calling it a draw or a narrow win for McCain.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:02 AM"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama clearly won the first presidential debate. He was clear, concise, and very convincing as the Commander in Chief. McCain appeared condescending and his refusal to make eye contact with Obama was not only rude, but provides more insight. When a person can't look his opponent in the eye, it gives me the impression that the person is either intimidated, or is not telling the truth.

Posted by: dh1123 | September 27, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

love234america wrote:
"Most of the Obama supporters who commented here tonight probable either did not even see the debate or were in a bar drinking and getting high while watching it. They have no clue about who answers correctly and showing that they were experienced to serve as our president and commander in chief."
-------------

You are an idiot. A racist idiot at that. I'm an Obama supporter and sat in my very own living room watching the debate. I seriously doubt you saw one minute of it. I suspect the only part you watched was the spin on Fox.

I've seen many presidential debates. The only thing that made this one extraordinary was McCain never once looked Obama in the eye.

McCain is a coward. A scared, confused, eratic old man unfit for the office.

Republicans will be out of power for a generation.

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

McCain looked like Shmegel in the Lord of the Rings. Pretty pathetic.

Posted by: majorteddy | September 27, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

It is amusing and amazing to read some of the posts about who won or who lost. At least America wins by having debates of this type.

I, for one, prefer a person who has thoughtful, reasoned responses (albeit a little hesitant at times - just try debating yourself) and who is willing to look at the opposition. Even when McCain was talking about Obama in a personal way, he never looked at him. This even carried on after the debate was over. McCain found it very difficult to look at Obama. There was one brief moment when it looked like McCain glanced over to the part of the audience where Obama may have been.

Yes, I agree with a previous post. If McCain cannot look Obama in the eye, then McCain is not ready for full-time diplomacy. You see, when you fly a plane and drop bombs, you do not have to see your enemy face-to-face, or eye-to-eye. This is why McCain can "bomb, bomb, bomb" Iran without even blinking. McCain is truly a scary man. He has learned nothing from his war-time experiences. "War is hell." To send our youth into any war is to send them to Hell. To rush them to war on false pretenses or hyped-up intelligence is criminal and treasonous. Pre-emptive war or pre-emptive strikes should be outlawed.

I still give Saddam credit for his position that he had no WMD because he did not use anything on a large American army that had assembled at Camp Doha in Kuwait just before our offensive. Had a mad dictactor like Saddam had WMDs, one well-placed weapon would have reduced our forces by 70,000 in one attack in a pre-emptive strike. Think about this. Saddam told Dan Rather more about his capabilities before we launched our war than Bush told Dan Rather about his service in the national guard.

Posted by: EarlC | September 27, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I hoped this debate would help me decide which one to vote for (or whether to write in Hillary).

What I learned from watching the debate:

Obama continues to seem to me to not stand for much of anything BEYOND what the polls tell him would help him get elected -- he was FOR earmarks before polls told him that supporting earmarks would hurt him politically as he runs for president, for example.

McCain already has a long record -- we know he's sincere about his take on the issues at hand. He was right about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being in trouble, and he's right that Cox ought to be fired.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether McCain has finally learned that blanket deregulation is bad policy. If he has, then he has a chance to take our country back from the Conservatives who have been doing their best to ruin it for decades now. (Let him throw them Palin as a bone -- are we really worried that this woman will be a threat to Obama when he or Hillary runs for president 4 or 8 years from now?)

Obama has been financially irresponsible in the past -- that energy bill he signed was an example of poor decision-making on his part -- meanwhile REAL energy progress goes undone. Let Obama have 4 or 8 more years to develop policies he can be proud of -- then he can stand on his OWN record, and at that point, he'll be ready to lead us.

Posted by: SiberianOb | September 27, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

You might say that Obama deferred foreign policy to Biden, but I don't think that was as far out of line as McCain's referring to Gen. Petraeus as though he was some sort of "Mighty Mouse" with magical powers who would win all of the wars. I don't know why this hasn't been mentioned, but his repeated point about how we would win, and why we supposedly are winning, is because of this "great General". Assuming he's even right, what happens if Mighty Mouse leaves, dies, etc.? What if the next General isn't so magical? It wasn't about strategy, it was about the "great General Petraeus"...Yippee! What a great thing to pin your hopes on!

Posted by: vaindependent | September 27, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

In looking through various websites, it appears that the Obama people are indeed spamming the comments sections and insta-polls (same as the Bush people did in 2000 and 2004) but the commentariat is having none of it. They are calling it a draw or a narrow win for McCain.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"Actually it's just the opposite. McCain trying to stave off the Cold War traits that Russia/Putin are showing.

And he is doing that by standing firm with the countries that have broken off from Russian rule and are trying to live their lives under democratic governments."

I find that a curious attitude. Russian missiles in Cuba almost sparked a catastrophic hot war during the cold war. The US would not stand for having Russian arms so close to its borders. Now the US is doing the same in reverse, trying to plant them in countries around Russia. Admitting Russia's close neighbors to Nato is really provoking the bear and a dangerous policy.

Posted by: ncm1 | September 27, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama frankly belongs in Hollywood with those that make a living pretending they are somebody else. He'd fit in perfectly.

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

LOL.
Given that McCain is spending $5000 a session on a make up artist, I'd say you got the wrong man.

A great Senator, a disaster as President.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"This is true. After she [Hillary] dropped out we were left with a choice between two idiots.

"She beat Obama in debate after debate."

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 8:21 AM

* * * *

It is really time for Aspergirl to take a long walk off a short pier. Neither McCain nor Obama are "idiots." Perhaps Aspergirl can supply us with her credentials for making such a comment. Or is that "it takes one to know one"?

There is absolutely no reason to slander or libel another human being. We may disagree, but being disagreeable is not the answer. Diplomacy is always good and never requires regrets. Where is the civility in discourse with people like Aspergirl? Even Hillary would not approve. My personal guideline: if I would not say it from the pulpit of my church, then I should not say it. Sometimes I step over the line, but this guideline is my single criterion.

Posted by: EarlC | September 27, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA WINS/OBAMA WINS/THE END OF "BITTER BILL" CLINTON'S ANTI-O ROAD SHOW (MAYBE?)

Obama, not by a knockout, but by a unanimous decision.

All the major dailies gave it to Obama, as did all the legitimate polling. HuffPo's canvassing this morning of the various reactions reflects the strong consensus opinion that Obama won. No mainstream media outlet or commentator as far we can tell thought McCain won. A Paul Molitor performance for O: a couple of doubles and a clean single up the middle.

Mac came across clurish, snippy, condescending, and unpleasant. His constant blinkin' and twitchin' destroyed any attempt on his part to look like the calm thoughtful leader of the free world. O looked great: erect, clear-eyed, well-modulated.

It's his personality, we know, but O does need to rid of the pauses and occasional stammering and develop crisper attack and comeback lines. Like him or not, Reagan was the master of that and, if you can get that right, to be honest, the substance almost doesn't matter to the public.

We thought O could, and should, have knocked the economic issues out of the park, but oddly didn't. A couple of nice vignettes from O about real folks struggling (as he provides in all his stump speeches), and a plea for including working folks in the bailout, would have decked Mac for the count. Why O didn't pull those standing talking points out of his pocket? As it was, O hit opposite-field flair shot doubles.

Best news of the day: "Bitter Bill" Clinton didn't run to the Clinton News Network (CNN) and Faux News after the debate and declare Mac the winner and the gush about him for another twenty minutes. Maybe Axelrod finally DID have that talk with Bill about his recent, somewhat comical SAY-NO-to-O TV road show which, as a practical matter, probably ended any hope of future presidential runs by HRC.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

This whole Presidential Election sickens me. I am an unbiased party. At least I like to believe that. The United States has become UNUnited. Splitting up into parties was something that man years ago, George Washington was not fond of and gave his reason as to why, ( from The White House.gov site

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html

"To his disappointment, two parties were developing by the end of his first term. Wearied of politics, feeling old, he retired at the end of his second. In his Farewell Address, he urged his countrymen to forswear excessive party spirit and geographical distinctions. In foreign affairs, he warned against long-term alliances"
and look at Us now.......
BOTH Presidential Candidates have something of value to offer. Obama is MORE aware of today economics, but McCain is WELL more aware of Our need of Military Leadership. We need BOTH of thier qualifications. Why can't We have BOTH?
It's a VERY difficult decision on Whom to choose. We should be going back to the way the Constitution was writen. There's a lot of information in regards to Military Leaderships for a reason. Without Military protection, We are defenseless in Our economy, as well. Realistically, no matter Who is Elected, both need the qualities of BOTH present Candidiates for Presidency.
You know the way I see it, parties have caused a 'segregation', that has caused a racial, smurking, disrespectful, petty 'picking' Campaign. I'd rather hear exactly what each of them are planning to do besides saying "what We need to do is" and start telling Us "What I AM going to do is", and give Us something concrete. The actual plan, not just a lecture on "how We got here in the first place", with NO repricussions for people like the one saying it. I don't agree that the People should be 'taken for' for THE problem that THEY had caused, or had a part of. Knowing this crisis was looking to happen, should have been worked on a LOT harder 2 years ago by BOTH parties, when it was beginning to look grim. Why did neither do anything more apparent THEN to fix it?
There's a lot of questions unanswered. I am curious as to what they are doing now to fix this problem before I make any concrete decision of who I'd want leading me......

Posted by: LisaW11 | September 27, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Chris I am not sure what debate you watched. I agree with you on one point Jim Lehrer was fantastic. No gotcha questions, no trival pursuit, all serious business.

As for McCain, he wore a major scowl half the time and a smirk the other half. He did not engage the television audience and Obama spoke directly to the middle class many times. Plus you made a major flub on the talking to our enemies enchange. Kissenger did indeed echo Obama's remarks. For McCain we must remember facts are fungible.

I guess you really are a Drugde worshiping protoge of David Broder. Oh, now I understand why you saw a different debate than the rest of us.

Posted by: havok26 | September 27, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Anybody who thinks Obama "won" this debate is one of the tingly-legged Obama Lemmings. He came off as really hollow and smug. McCain was combative and substantive.

Posted by: TonyD1 | September 27, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I want a President who can look our enemies in the eye. McCain couldn't even look his opponent and fellow countryman in the eye.

It betrays a fundamental weakness.

Obama is made of stronger stuff.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

If the race hinges on electing a war/post war leader during horrendously dangerous times, McCain won. But if it hinges on the daily money woes of most Americans at this moment, then Obama won. McCain HAS to make his point more effectively why supporting American Industry is the only effective way to support the American family. I understand the argument, but God knows McCain did not make it very convincingly last night. Americans are willing to suffer in the short term but not without knowing why we must. Obama is offering candy to the scared and the hungry, and they are leaping for it. McCain must demonstrate that it is only candy and what we really need is meat and potatoes. Today I would not bet on McCain winning, and that is a shame.

Posted by: jdcarmine | September 27, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

It amazes me how long Obama can speak without really saying anything, and without providing specific details. Long on style, very short on actual content.

Read the transcript and see for yourself. McCain is clearly far ahead in a true understanding of fundamental economic and global issues.

Obama frankly belongs in Hollywood with those that make a living pretending they are somebody else. He'd fit in perfectly.

Posted by: backscatter | September 27, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Clearly, Obama won the debate on points, clarity, tone, and style. Barack was fairly focused during the debate while McCain often would go off on tangents to avoid either answering or responding to certain questions.

Let me say a few things about McCain's use of "You do not understand," or "Senator Obama doesn't understand," and so forth. At no time did McCain look at Obama. Obama either had already proved that he understood or responded with insightful understanding. McCain, like many Republicans, think that just because you say it, it must be true.

When Obama chose certain specific things that McCain said to agree with, Obama was demonstrating in a real way what bipartisanship looks like. To have bipartisanship, if both parties can agree on certain points in the argument, then consensus may be a possibility. At no time did McCain indicate any agreement at all with Obama. I have observed that Republicans think that agreement with the opposition on any point is a sign of weakness. Democrats think that agreement yields a working relationship upon which major achievements may occur. If Barack had said that the American flag is red, white, and blue, McCain would have said that it was green, black, and yellow. (I chose these colors on purpose.)

Regarding "preconditions." Barack is absolutely correct about not forcing another party in a discussion to accept preconditions, such as the ones that Bush wants imposed on hostile nations before engaging them in diplomacy. I was assigned to a committee once when the CEO established the committee with a set of pre-conditions about the outcome. We dissolved the committee because it was obvious that the CEO already had the answer. He just wanted to use the committee as his excuse for imposing the policy on the company.

Preconditions are akin to when Barack mentioned negotiating with hostile nations, and the Bushies attacked Barack for "appeasement." Negotiation and appeasement are not the same thing. However, this is the word game that some politicians play because they know that many people in their base are looking for reasons to either oppose or "hate" the opposition. This is one small reason for the partisan politics being practiced in America now. And we really want to export this to other countries? Really?

Barack by his responses and his nature last night showed that he can work with all parties in a truly bi- or multi-partisan way. McCain, by not even looking at Obama, demonstrated that he does not really want to engage in any form of real dialogue with the opposition. Just think about this: how would you like to try to talk to your boss, a peer, or a subordinate and he never looked at you?

McCain is a conflicted man. He covers a basic insecurity with a boisterous egocentrism that is not what we need for President of the United States. For those Republicans who just do not like the Democratic platform, they should take a good hard look at their candidate, who has departed significantly from the adopted Republican platform. Perhaps they should look at Barack and the Democratic Platform more closely or look at a third-party candidate. I can assure you of one thing, McCain will disappoint.

Posted by: EarlC | September 27, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

People like Verazzano make me cringe. You watch a debate. 99% of the people watching it come away with the correct impression: Obama did significantly better than McCain. Reporters and others analyze the debate and concur. And then there are the dummies: People here who say "Obama didn't have a good night". You have got to be either racist, just dumb or so indoctrinated by your family's Republican stance or hatred for blacks that you just do not get it. Obama RULED and OWNED McCain last night. McCain had to repeat 10 times: "Obama doesn't understand..." and Obama proved he not only understood, he has a perfect grasp of politics and what is needed in the years to come. He took the HIGH ROAD and did not attack McCain. Do not take his class as weakness. He did tell McCain that ALL his choices have been WRONG. McCain was WRONG about voting to attack IRAQ, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, etc, and followed BUSH on every bad decision...Why? McCain is pro BUSH and wanted to make money for the rich. That has been the downfall of this country. People like BUSH, McCain, etc will DESTROY THE USA. Our Dollar is WORTHLESS PEOPLE. Leave your RACISM at home when going to the polls this year or we will SINK FURTHER AND DECAY into a third world country. OBAMA is the ONLY WAY TO VOTE. McCAIN & PALIN ARE AN INSANE CHOICE. I CANNOT FATHOM HOW WE ARE ACCEPTING THIS MOOSE SHOTTING, SOCCER MOM FROM HELL WHO THINKS WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ABORTION IF THEY WANT. IT IS 2009. ARE PEOPLE REALLY GOING TO VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN THIS YEAR? DO YOU WANT TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY? DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE THAT MUCH? BARACK OBAMA WILL BE AN AMAZING PRESIDENT. I AM WHITE FOR THE RECORD FOR YOU SOUTHERN REDNECK RACIST IDIOTS...AND FOR GO-D'S SAKE VIRGINIA - UTAH, WYOMING, IDAHO -- HOW CAN YOU ALL BE SO INCREDIBLY OBTUSE? GROW A BRAIN AND VOTE DEMOCRAT THIS YEAR IF YOU WANT TO SALVAGE THIS COUNTRY. YOU ARE NOT INFORMED OUT THERE IN THE BOONIES WHERE YOU ALL LIVE. STAY IN A REAL CITY FOR A WHILE AND LEARN A FEW THINGS: LIKE THE FACT THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE KILLING THIS COUNTRY. WAKE UP DUMMIES!

Posted by: OBAMAISBEST | September 27, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

.

.


Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.


.


Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 27, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Obama came across as petty and whining as he constantly tried to get the moderater to step in and save him. That's definitely NOT presidential.

I simply cannot vote for Obama who goes to Washington during a crisis only because his opponent did and when he got there he sat back and did nothing but try to look presidential.

McCain at least tried to get the partisans to come together and he succeeded in that they are now talking.

The deal that was announced by the Democrats earlier was a deal BETWEEN Democrats only. The Republicans hadn't been consulted. That's no deal!

Obama doesn't make my leg tingle. He is NOT WHAT HE APPEARS TO BE!

If he had been properly vetted by the media this would be common knowledge.

Posted by: kdupre | September 27, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama won the debate. He was focused and made sense. McCain kept saying the same things over and over was all over the place. McCain couldn't stop talking about how the Iraq surge worked but misses the big picture...the enemy is in Afganistan / Pakistan not Iraq.

McCain may have been a maverick historically but he's in-step with the Bush Republicans now. How can the same party with the same lame policies make any difference?

Posted by: dsauer1 | September 27, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Content: a draw. Style and presentation: Obama by a mile. Neither hit it out of the park, there were no zingers, so you have a takeaway of overall impressions. On foreign policy knowledge and experience which is supposed to be McCain's usp he never looked any better than equal to Obama and that meant it was a relative loss for McCain. On economics we got Republican boilerplate while Obama message was intrinsically more attractive to ordinary people. It was on style and presentation where Obama stood out a mile. A lot is physical presence of course, this guy looks like Othello, Tiger Woods or a king, while McCain looked tense he never stopped smiling it seemed to me. All the focus groups and polls gave it to Obama by various margins and I think it was principally because of presentation although some of the internals suggest on the "looking after you" argument Obama also scored heavily. I'd have said it was a narrow win for Obama overall but the polls seem to suggest he did better even than I thought.

Posted by: johnbsmrk | September 27, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Aside from the fact that John McCain did not offer anything new in the debate, I was appalled at his demeanor and meanness of spirit. He bullied his way through the debate, interrupting, refusing to stop talking when it was time for Obama to speak and speaking in a demeaning and sarcastic way when he addressed Obama. Obama, on the other hand, was, as always, nuanced in his speaking, and open to admitting when he agreed with McCain about things. He treated McCain with the respect one would expect to receive from a fellow debater.

Bottom line: I don't want a bully for president. I want someone who thinks before he acts, and someone who will reach out to others, not try to bully them into submission.

Posted by: sstgermain | September 27, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Clearly Obama won the debate. Mainly the expectations were higher for him than McCain and he held his own on both economic and foreign policy. Was much more focused on the issue's asked than 'puffing' up his hero status and travel with lobbyists throughout the World as McCain has done.

Obama stayed on line with the average voter, needing information about his administration goals, McCain could not talk about ordinary people like me, needed something more than his travel diary and leaders that know him well, believe me, leaders and countries around the World have a very negative opinion of John McCain and a positive one for Obama and clearly the reason he kept confirming is war, war, war, leaders and generals in war, lied about everything including his record aligning with Bush, not the maverick he wants you to believe.

John McCain is not a maverick. Yes, he does get angry and buck the system, but that is with everything across the isle, his own party, his family life, his so called professional career and his campaign staffers. John McCain, in my opinion, refuses to give credit to anyone, whether a brave fireman on 9/11, a police officer, his own fellow POW's, the countries young exhausted military, the financial suffering the American people endure each and every day from unemployment and nothing to feed their children with.

It's all about him, his suffering, his knowledge, his heroism, his false dedication, false support of the troops, he exploits every avenue of society to win. That is no hero. That is sick.

Posted by: canadagirl | September 27, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

.

.


Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.


.


Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.

.


Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 27, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

“ Obama gets The McCain beat down in debate”

No doubt Obama camp is happy they kept lowering expectations for his debate performance because Obama got his clock cleaned by John McCain who kept the young inexperienced candidate looking immature and childish talking in circles. All Obama could do was interrupt with bogus claims of "lying" and looks of frustration and despair. (Not a good performer, unless someone writes a pre-written speech for Obama to study or read on teleprompter) On Iraq and all else, Obama keeps looking to the past instead of the future? Where’s the change Obama? McCain understands the next president has to look to the future and secure not only victory but also stabilizing a fledgling democracy. Obama kept up his all season stupid rhetoric, the war was wrong, the war is wrong, I’m black that makes me qualified to be president!

Especially since he stupidly picked 30 years in Washington, pro war supporter Biden (whose son is a lobbyist) as VP. Slapping the face of 18 million democratic voters, who David Axelrod said he don’t need. Again proves Obama is unstable and does not have the experience to make important decisions or have control over this great country.

Obama said seven times or more that he agreed with McCain. That’s good for McCain because when McCain is President Obama can work with him to get needed reforms through a failed Congress. McCain displayed a thorough knowledge of world affairs. Obama did not! And talked in circles and really had no coherent thoughts other than his main talking points from his pre-written campaign speech.

Bottom line; Obama got “ The McCain beat down” only because of the lowered expectations Obama just barely got across the finish line. Obama definitely finished dead last. No surprise we all know Obama is not good on his feet, as Hillary wiped the floor with him 20 plus times! Bottom line McCain had a great night while Obama is going home licking his wounds. Of course you can expect to hear the tabloid cable news , better known as Obama News Networks CNN & MSNBC media made fairy tales, that he was great, too bad for CNN that voters finally realized these two Obama news networks are not very truthful and bias. They offer voters looking for facts…NOTHING…


Posted by: dyck21005 | September 27, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

I really think Grandpa should put on his jammies, slip on the slippers, and go to bed.

He's starting to look really tired, and lives constantly in the past, If I hear the the line I was a POW one more time I'm going to puke. The country doesn't give a rat's ass how times you've been to Europe or what you did twenty years ago, he is unable to comprehend that American's want their kids to come home from Iraq, they are proud of their kids, but they don't want to lose them.

Iraq is a mistake, an unjust invasion, no matter how you justify it, no weapons, no nukes, no nothing, a dictator leader, yep, but there are lots of those around.

John says the surge worked? worked how exactly, we are still there, Americans and civilians are still being killed, the Iraqi's want the U.S. out of their country.

John McCain has a clear vision of America's past, however that vision is somewhat clouded by his lack of memory.

Tomorrow is what counts, tomorrow is where we are going, where are our kids going to be? Iraq ?

John get over the wars past, holster your six shooter, learn to talk to people, instead of pretending nobody's in the room with you, you were in a debate John, not talking to a blank wall.

Your vision of my future and my kids future, really sucks John!

Posted by: kentaylor1 | September 27, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse


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 8:41 AM | Report abuse

We still don't know Obama and he clearly STILL cannot answer a simple question. Do you know OBama?

http://doyouknowobama.blogspot.com

Posted by: jaxson | September 27, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

"the insta-polls (CNN, CBS) and focus groups (Luntz and Greenberg) all had Obama as the winner by a significant margin."

These are never trustworthy. Each election cycle, after each debate, they get spun and maneuvered, or one campaign's people spam the insta-polls. People are getting increasingly cynical about these media "declarations" about who won a debate.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Cillizza seems to be biased toward McCain, but the insta-polls (CNN, CBS) and focus groups (Luntz and Greenberg) all had Obama as the winner by a significant margin.

Posted by: pjkiger1 | September 27, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

McCain seemed like an angry old man... like a near-retirement school teacher who is frustrated that his students haven't done their homework. "I've been doing this for too long for you kids to treat me this way."

Temperament issues? I think so.

Posted by: rgrossman | September 27, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

"Who lost? We did- because Hillary Clinton, the best of the lot, was the one who should have been up there."

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 8:15 AM

This is true. After she dropped out we were left with a choice between two idiots.

She beat Obama in debate after debate.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Sure seems like a lot of right wingers are trying to fill up this section. Guess that's Rove's plan. As an independent and not living in the US, I found McCain's attitude and posture both rude and childish. I would have voted for him in 2000 but not now. And especially with that wierd VP he picked. I'm no debate judge, but I would give the edge to Obama--he was Presidential while McCain was rather obnoxious.

Posted by: taid | September 27, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

The answer to "who won" is obvious-
If you were for McCain, it's obvious he won;
If you were for Obama, it's obvious he won.

Who lost? We did- because Hillary Clinton, the best of the lot, was the one who should have been up there.

That being said, Obama gave a better appearance but McCain just flat out won on points, and on facts. If Obama could learn how to give a straight, honest answer instead of spending the night trying NOT to answer, he might have won it.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

HEY, I GOT A BRACELET, TOO!

IT HAS ... UH.. WASSISNAME ON IT.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse


.


.


EVERYONE I have spoken to in the real world believes that McCain threw Obama off balance - McCain was steady.


Obama appeared flustered.


At several times in towards the end Obama was struggling to get a word in - struggling to say something relevant - and struggling to defend himself. Obama kept on talking-over McCain and Jim Lehrer as well.


It seems like Obama was desperate in the second half to score some points because Obama thought he was losing the debate - and he did lose the debate.

McCain won on the issues - this talk about "there was no gaffe" that is sillytalk - McCain slammed Obama on issue after issue last night - McCain looked Presidential.

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 27, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Chris When are you going to moderate a debate ???

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 27, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

I thought Obama won the discussion over meeting with foreign leaders. McCain seemed to embody the old Bush doctrine of working through "democracies" to force change around the world. Obama explained his plan well and watched with a smile as McCain blustered about Kissinger.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | September 27, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

.

McCain clearly won the debate.


Obama was RUDE he kept on interrupting -


Obama appeared to be flustered several times - "Can I respond to that" he kept on saying - The interruptions were extremely bad for Obama - he sounded like a little kidd trying to talk over.


The media I have no idea where they are coming from. Obama did not look good last night - he was off-balance and many times he appeared to stutter in choosing his words.


McCain showed that he was in command of the debate - unprepared - McCain came in and presented his case that he is clearly the most qualified candidate for the position of President.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 27, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

McCain talked about Iraq too much. The Independent response dove every time he did. He should only talk about Iraq when the explicit topic is Iraq. He shouldn't have started talking about Iraq when the question was about 9/11.

What was with that? Is that truly the only lens through which he views the universe?

If this is the case, McCain should be prepared to teach others why Iraq is so central to the war on terrorism. But the Republicans don't seem to do that outreach.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

"Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/tws_exclusive_kissinger_unhapp.asp

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

As for on content and substance, McCain and Obama dueled to a draw. However, McCain appeared to have lost points with the audience (and most importantly, voters) on the nuances of his presentation and what he did not say.

First, when you're debating your opponent, you MUST acknowledge on some level that your opponent is there in the same room with you. For the life of him, McCain would not even look at Obama when McCain debated each point. That was the whole point of the debate format - debate with each other. Was McCain trying to depersonalize Obama? McCain came across somewhat annoyed - like he had contempt for Obama - maybe, that's why he would not even look at him when he delivered his response. Not an effective debate strategy to treat your opponent as a ghost when a real person is actually standing there talking to you. Some people really find the strategy of pretending the other person is not there really creepy, while others find the depersonalization strategy rather off-putting and offensive. People are real, even though they might disagreed with your viewpoints.

Second, with the focus on the economy, John McCain did not even mention the words "middle class" - NOT ONCE. It's the economy, stupid! McCain - did middle class voters even matter to you? The fact that McCain did not provide any acknowledgement of audience will work to his detriment.

The polls that were taken immediately after the debate suggested strongly that a segment of voters viewed negatively this the non-acknowledgement of middle class voters during McCain's presentation. Remember - it's the perception that counts here.

So, on content and substance, McCain and Obama played to a draw. But, McCain lost some people with his presentation. Although McCain scored strongly on foreign policy, he did not hit it out of the park because Obama mostly held his own on the foreign policy side.

As for Obama, my main criticism is that he did not show more passion on the economic issues. Although some would agree or disagree with the cumbaya moments, that too is a matter of perception. Some might view Obama's responses in agreement as a demonstration of an effort to show common ground (i.e., bipartisanship), Others, on the other hand, were left scratching their heads wondering whether he had any comeback at all that differred with the contrasting viewpoint. Most notably, McCain did not seize this issue to emphasize that he has over the years reached across the aisle. (My note: Although McCain sometimes vote against the GOP caucas, McCain does not bring anyone with him on the other side - maybe, that's why McCain did not seize these moments.)

But, you have to admit that Obama created a "You Tube" moment when he hammered McCain on the fact that he was wrong on the Iraq War, wrong on claiming the war was going to be easy to win and wrong on claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction by declaring YOU WERE WRONG. In other words, Obama in a tactful way called McCain a liar to his face (not to mention, the same goes for Bush and the war supporters, by the way). I would hedge my bets that many voters saw this gravitas as a big positive for Obama. The faceoff in the wrong on the Iraq War exchange will the moment that many will remember from this debate.

Posted by: ldsw | September 27, 2008 7:26 AM | Report abuse

WELL PEOPLE "YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG" THE 5 MILL SHOULD HAVE GONE TO CHARITY! I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM REALLY TOOK THE "CAKE WALK" YOU COULD SEE OBAMA'S ANGER IN HIS FACE, YES BLACK PEOPLE DO CHANGE COLOR WHEN THEY ARE MAD, AND AS FAR AS MY CANDIDATE, MCCAIN, HE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER! ALL IN ALL PEOPLE STOP THE LYING, IT WAS A PATHETIC DEBATE! I COULD HAVE DONE BETTER! AND ONE THING FOR BIDIN, WHEN CNN INTERVIEWED HIM, WELL LIKE USUAL HIS MOUTH NEVER STOPPED! PRAISING OBAMA, WHEN IN FACT IN THEIR DAY JOBS HE NEVER HAD TOO MUCH NICEITIES FOR OBAMA! I WANTED OBAMA TO TELL THE COUNTRY WHAT EARMARKS THE DEMS HAVE IN THIS "BAILOUT", BUT HE IS A SHREWD ONE, HE WOULDN'T DARE TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT IS WHY THIS "BAILOUT" WAS NOT APPROVED! I HOPE THE REPUBS HOLD THEIR GROUND ON THIS ONE! I SAY PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND LET THE AMERICAN WORKERS DECIDE IF WE GIVE THE BIG CEOS A BUY OUT! AND DEMS, MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE WEB TODAY TO SEE WHO GOT THE MOST HANDOUTS FROM THESE BIG CEOS SPENDING OUR MONEY! I BET PELOSI, AND RIED, AND SHUMMERS NAME SHOULD BE ON THAT TOO!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: JBRACALE | September 27, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse

During the first part of the debate, I found myself wondering when McCain and Obama were actually going to start answering the questions that Jim Lehrer was asking. Neither of them could directly answer the question of where they stand on the $700 billion bailout, as well as what they would have to give up for this crisis in terms of spending if they were president. Lehrer did a good job at acknowledging this problem and often tried to bring the candidates back to his original question.

Both candidates played up what they think they have going for them. McCain constantly talked about his experience, throwing in comments about how he has been fighting against spending his entire career and calling himself independent and a maverick of the senate. Obama tried to focus his attention on linking McCain to Bush while at the same time promoting his platform of change. When Obama mentioned his “Google for government” plan that would allow anyone on the internet to see where federal tax dollars are being spent, he managed to get a discrete jab in on McCain who has been said to not really know how to use the internet.

I thought McCain’s approach to focus most of his attention on the television audience was successful. The TV audience certainly accounts for more of the voters who need to hear from the candidates. McCain addressed the TV audience while Obama addressed McCain, often trying to bring in a more conversational aspect by calling him “John.” Interestingly enough, McCain didn’t use Obama’s first name throughout the debate. McCain often had a goofy grin on his face while Obama was speaking that seemed to bother me at times, but when the cameras showed the candidates side by side, that grin seemed to say that McCain knew exactly what he was going to say after Obama was finished speaking, or he had a point that he just couldn’t wait to make. And usually, he did.

You mentioned that McCain used the word “experience” more than “change.” This is a perfect example of a detail the media would and should pick up that was probably only falling subconsciously on the ears of the average viewer. Most voters know that Obama is running on a very strong platform for change, but when McCain tries to do the same thing, it’s often hard to compete. But his strategy—whether intentional or not—to use the word “experience” was a smart one if he wants to try and stand apart from Obama. It will be interesting to see what sound bytes the media picks out from the debate to play over and over again that will ultimately be the shorter summary of the night remembered by most viewers.

Posted by: Sharon12 | September 27, 2008 6:15 AM | Report abuse

"the country wants to rid itself of Republicans in power"

If that were true, Obama should be up by much more in the polls. The fact that he isn't and in the democrat primaries were he over polled in something like 8 out of 14 contests says a lot.

Also, with the lack of real reporting on Obama's past associations, his high profile Hollywood friends, Obama should be wiping the floor with McCain in the polls .

But yet he isn't.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 6:08 AM | Report abuse

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

Posted by: yolly | September 27, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

Posted by: yolly | September 27, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

Posted by: yolly | September 27, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

Posted by: yolly | September 27, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

Posted by: yolly | September 27, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

For those voters who are predisposed to vote Democratic, but remained undecided until now because they questioned Obama's knowledge, toughness and readiness on Foreign Policy, tonight's debate likely provided sufficient evidence for Obama to win their support.

As to those voters who were undecided because they were unsure of the two candidates on economic issues, Obama clearly came across as more understanding of the plight of the middle-class, so again he scored.

As to those who want change but were thinking Obama might be too "liberal" the fact Obama was willing to acknowledge points of agreement with McCain was probably helpful in presenting Obama as bipartisan or non-partisan in approach.

McCain came across as angry and rather grouchy throughout the debate, whereas Obama seemed more sharp and concise than in the Primary debates. While Obama was willing to admit to areas of agreement with McCain, that served to make his expressions of real disagreement on Iraq all the more powerful.

In short, there were no real knockouts registered in this debate. However, since Obama now has a clear lead and there was nothing of a game-changer in this debate, Obama benefits. Especially since this debate was on McCain's "turf" of Foreign Policy. If McCain is going to score a knockout, it's going to be in that issue area. Obama displayed Presidential qualities. He didn't allow McCain to rattle him, and he seemed to get under McCain's skin at times.

While Obama probably should have pivoted away from the taxes/spending topic when discussing the Economy to trying to explain why the financial crisis occurred and the way out of it, overall Obama performed well.

McCain is now in a box. He needs events to change or he needs a knockout in one of the two remaining debates. He is starting to look like Walter Matthau in Grumpy Old Men and less Presidential.

McCain's performance overall wasn't bad, but he didn't get the boost he needed. The election is really starting to break for Obama, as it should in a year where the country wants to rid itself of Republicans in power. Some Republicans appear incapable of acknowledging how unpopular they truly are. As I have commented previously, this is 1980 in reverse. Many Republicans refuse to understand, or are incapable of understanding that.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | September 27, 2008 5:54 AM | Report abuse

"When moderator Jim Lehrer said at one point that the two candidates had spoken for almost the same amount of time, we were surprised; McCain seemed from our perspective to command more time."

Obama speaks so much but says so little

Posted by: oldsport | September 27, 2008 5:43 AM | Report abuse

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

MCCAIN 65% 135,485
OBAMA 33% 67,840
NEITHER 2% 4,725

Total Votes: 208,050

Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 5:38 AM | Report abuse

CNN Poll of Debate Watchers:

Who won?

Obama: 57%

McCain: 38%

Posted by: caraprado1 | September 27, 2008 5:31 AM | Report abuse

"Just count how many times he referred to Reagan and his approach with the Cold war.

I'm sorry but how is knowing history and it's effects a policy?

"He does not understand the value of diplomacy."

Bill Clinton just said the other day that he couldn't normalize relations with Vietnam without John McCain. I don't think there is higher example of understanding diplomacy than meeting with your former torturers.

He knows plenty and he also knows when & where to place it at the highest presidential levels.

Obama's "diplomacy speak" and from his followers always sounds a little like a low level UN diplomat's training motto.

Obama's "We Are the World" sloganeering is best suited for perhaps the UN, not the leader of the free world.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 5:25 AM | Report abuse

"I don't trust him with education"

I do.

It's Obama's education philosophies that are untrustworthy.

Obama's connection to William Ayers, the Chicago Anneberg educational challenge which was basically an indoctrination of William Ayers radical 60's leftist agenda being taught to children.

Also, Obama's behavior regarding this connection has been troubling too. Obama's lawyers tried to block any investigation into the challenge and has tried to halt commercials airing ads that connect him to Ayers.

Obama has lied to the American people about William Ayers. William Ayers isn't just a person who lives in his neighborhood. Their relationship is much closer than that and much deeper.

Let's hope the MSM starts to really doing their job and investigating Obama on his relationship.

And with ACORN too, which I last heard may get up to 20% of any profits the government recovers from these bad loans. It's been written into this 700 billion bailout. Scary!

This would be terrible as ACORN is an organization rife with corruption, radical agenda's and lawlessness.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 5:12 AM | Report abuse

Good job Chris, when delusion is all around. As a Canadian, I can simply declare the obvious - McCain was Presidential. Obama was not, more like a high school teacher level actually. McCain confidently knew the facts and figure and was sharp as a tack. Obama had the 5 o'clock shadow, the grumpiness, the glares, the whinings; he's put his hand up like some little school kid. I like what the anchoress said, Obama was the little terrier at the side of the Bulldog McCain, as the hand from the vulldog smacks him fown with the words, "Shadddaaap!"
Shew 'em who's a man and who is a metrosexual. McCain: make my day, punk.
Let's see McCain won the Conventions, the VP picks, the Saddleback Forum, and now the First Debate...
Doesn't matter all the shrieks coming (and cutting themselves!) from the priests of Baal; McCain hit it out of the Park like Babe Ruth, while Obama was still tryin' to sell hotdogs....

Posted by: shanelm | September 27, 2008 5:10 AM | Report abuse

sheryl7962:

Just count how many times he referred to Reagan and his approach with the Cold war. Apparently that is his raw model.

The guy said that he will not talk to the Spanish prime minister, an ally in NATO and a democratic western country because they decided to pull out of Iraq. He does not understand the value of diplomacy. He only knows that we need to show force. His VP said that we would have to attack Russia to defend Georgia if they were part of NATO. Maybe we need to nuke them too?

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't concern me that pessimistic democrats minimize their candidate's perceived deficiencies any more than it doesn't surprise me that republicans are trumpeting the victory of their own candidate.

What WILL surprise me is seeing republicans posting on November 5th.

I can't wait to see the silence.

Posted by: spectre42 | September 27, 2008 5:05 AM | Report abuse

"I do not need the views of a guy that is stuck in a cold war mentality."

Please expand on that. Where is John McCain and his policies akin to the Cold War?

Actually it's just the opposite. McCain trying to stave off the Cold War traits that Russia/Putin are showing.

And he is doing that by standing firm with the countries that have broken off from Russian rule and are trying to live their lives under democratic governments.

If anything Obama deferring the matter to the UN in his first response is the world you shouldn't want your children to grow up in.


Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 5:02 AM | Report abuse

I am a lifelong Democrat and thought that John McCain was the winner tonight. Obama came off as too-young and inexperienced, arrogant (kept calling McCain "John" as if he was talking to a child), petulant and impatient (kept interrupting). Obama had lots of facts memorized, but he didn't speak from the heart - he spoke as if he was giving a college lecture.
It is typical that the far-left media on TV immediately began slamming McCain after the debate and declaring him the loser.
It is strange that Obama always talks about "finding common ground" with our political enemies, but has never found common ground with Republicans in Congress. For that matter, he never found common ground with the Clintons!
Obama may present himself as a change candidate, but he owes a lot of people a lot of favors for getting him elected if he wins. He will do the bidding of Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, just as he has shown that he will with this $700B bailout of Wall Street. He has no thoughts of his own outside of the straight party line, and he will never do what is right - he will only do what is politically easy.
We don't need a President who says that he is going to let Congress "do what they do best" and "I told them to call me if they need me" re: why he didn't return to Washington for the bailout talks.
I come from Hawaii and know the real story about Obama's upbringing. He was raised by grandparents who spoiled him rotten. He went to a very elite school here in Hawaii where only rich kids go. He came out thinking he was just a little better than those around him. And he still comes across that way...

Posted by: keaukaha | September 27, 2008 5:02 AM | Report abuse

Energy? Who is talking about energy when we spend billions of dollars on an even bigger pipe dream : Hydrogen, instead we should put our money on efficiency, geothermal, distributed power generation (e.g. windows that act as solar panels - see latest inventions, solar panels on rooftops in big cities etc.)

McCain is an old, grouchy out-of-touch rich guy that does not know anything about the common person. I don't trust him with education, i don't trust him with science and technology. Look what the other smart cookie, Bush, did with EPA, science research etc. Sorry but these guys are and have been total failures when it comes to what it really matters, retaining the competitive, inventive edge of America.
Pipe dreamers. We need new ideas and new perspectives. If the best the republicans have to offer is McCain then we are in serious trouble as a nation.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 4:59 AM | Report abuse

sheryl7962:

Sorry but the world that a 70 year old sees is not my world and not my children's world. I do not need the views of a guy that is stuck in a cold war mentality.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 4:50 AM | Report abuse

"I am amazed at the number of responses in favor of McCain."

Then you should have more diversity in your life if you are surprised by how many people are favorable to McCain.

Both these men have legions of voters.

It's very nice for you that Obama speaks to you but he doesn't speak to me at all.

I like America, flaws and all. I don't want such a rookie leading this nation. He doesn't even have a sense of himself let alone what this country stands for.

Which isn't uncommon from a man who was abandoned by three parents, who's mother was a socialist anthropologist with very little kinship with America.

In order for America to stay strong and the most powerful, prosperous country in the world, we need a leader that loves it to his core.

Barack Obama has, too many times, talked about not being proud of Americans e.g we use too much of the world's oil, we don't speak a second language, people cling to their religion and guns.

Heck Obama even ended this debate on a negative note saying nobody in the world likes us anymore.

It just ends up making him sound like he would be better off being the president of the UN, not America.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 4:47 AM | Report abuse

If media outlets are saying it was a tie, then clearly McCain won. They are so in the tank for Obama, that this is the best they can do for him: lie and call it a tie. All of the angry democrats on here saying how bitter and old and grumpy McCain was, are only projecting their own nastiness upon him. I am a lifetime Democrat, and I just don't see what you saw. These are the same arguments we made describing Bush during his debates with Gore. Gore, naturally, was smarter, more poised, etc., while Dubya was dumb and smirking. Well, he won twice. I loathe conservativism, but I loathe phoney liberals even more. Obama has really brought out the phoney liberal in Democrats. Pathetic.

Posted by: darrren12000 | September 27, 2008 4:39 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the number of responses in favor of McCain. From my own experience in watching the debate, I saw a man who would not directly answer the questions, but who add "I have experience with that. I can do that." but wouldn't go into HOW, or what exactly that experience was. I don't buy the cake that's labeled "best" without looking at the ingredients. Half of the time I had to stop and ask what he was talking about now because he trailed away from the subject time and time again.

Obama stuck to the topics in debate and rebutted what McCain brought up. "

You are right." isn't necessarily a defeating statement as the press is trying to make it out to be. How many "buts" followed those comments. THIS is a strategy in debating. But people of America are stopping at the opening of the argument. But again, the attention span of most people is three seconds.

As far as the economy is concerned, Obama spoke to me personally. Meaning, he showed me how he could change my life today. McCain showed me how the CEO's can add another wad to their pile. He also showed me how cutting government spending can affect the lives and jobs of thousands of people that will only increase the cycle we're already in.

As far as foreign policy or at least Iraq is concerned... Bring our troops home. After being sent back time and time again, you can't expect them to have that much more to give. What we should have learned about Vietnam is to get out of a war that we should have never been a part of. Why do we keep falling into the same cycles of history repeating itself.

As Einstein defined, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

McCain is in the past, lives in the past and will remain in the past. How many times did he comment on "being older and more experienced"? Because as stated many times before I will here... we need more of the same, right? Because what has happened and occurred in the past is working for us now.

Obama's eyes are focused on the future. Tomorrow and ten years from now.

What this world needs is change. The entire world is looking at this election and watching where we go from here. Maybe it's time to look in the mirror and see what it is that they all see. It's time to be honest with who we are and where we're headed. It's finally time to be brave enough to take a step forward.

Voting McCain is Insane.

Thank God and all that is good in the world for our Next President, Barack Obama.

Posted by: P-Town | September 27, 2008 4:30 AM | Report abuse

"It's been fun decimating you personally"

"Remember, it isn't that you won or lost, it's that you tried"

LOL, these "legends in their own mind" types in blogs are always good for a laugh.

Remember Dixie Wrecked, self love, high mindedness is a cry for help.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 4:17 AM | Report abuse

"Finding common ground with an opponent is a key to diplomacy and leadership."

Obama rarely strays from the party line, In fact he has a 97% voting record with teh Democrats. Not much of a record of "finding common ground with an opponent".

So these pretty words are just that pretty words. Obama is just filled with pretty words and very little deeds.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

how anyone who is backing McCain and the female version of Jethro Clampett, question another's intelligence is beyond me.

Posted by: jwald1 | September 27, 2008 4:05 AM | Report abuse

Thisisreality,

you were dumb enough to take the bait. Everyone else was smart enough to back off. It's been fun decimating you personally. We should do this again sometime on another thread. In the spirit of things I will be gracious enough to give you the final words in our little tit-for-tat. Nighty-night. Make sure you kiss your mother and say your prayers to Jesus. And don't forget to brush your teeth.
Remember, it isn't that you won or lost, it's that you tried, but next time you should try HARDER!

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 4:02 AM | Report abuse

I am for fiscal conservatism and personal responsibilities. But one thing I think Obama may do better than republican is the world police attitude of GOPs. Seems they have geopolitical blood running in their vein. Though no candidates want to point out as its politically unpopular. The core of many problem with North Korea and Iran nuclear weapon issues has to do with the bellicose, adversary stance that the Bush government took against Russia and China. That push these two former communist countries (China though still communist party ruled but effectively state capitalist) to exploit the situation to counter the US. If US build more alliance than bully the world, we would have to spend much less of our hard earned tax dollars on oversea military operations. Of course, that's not Cheney or many geopolitical camp wants, not the big defense contractors like Halliburton want.
Having said that, I still believe McCain has the maverick spirit and right judgement to make sensible call on these issues.

Posted by: jerryh1 | September 27, 2008 3:56 AM | Report abuse

Finding common ground with an opponent is a key to diplomacy and leadership. Arrogance and condescension are not the traits of a great leader. Neither are they the traits of a great human being. While John McCain's demeanor may appeal to a certain type of person, to me and many others, he behaved with little grace and appeared spiteful, mean tempered and out of touch. I cannot imagine him in diplomatic talks with world leaders, particularly when things are not going his way.

That Barak Obama was kind to this sad, and angry older man only makes me more convinced that he is the right man, with the right temperament, to lead our country out of the dismal ruin of the last eight years of republican rule.

Posted by: Mysticalsister | September 27, 2008 3:55 AM | Report abuse

mortfan,I have to disagree with you, a ton of people are making minimum wage or less. This study is from last year, but given the shape this country is in, I doubt things have improved. we started with the most recent Current Population Survey data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (from 2005). From this source, we learned that there are 75,609,000 workers in the U.S. who are paid wages or salaries at an hourly rate (or 60.2% of the total U.S. workforce of 125+ million in 2005.) We also learned that 479,000 people are paid the minimum wage and that 1,403,000 people on average earn less than the current minimum wage level of $5.15.


Posted by: jwald1 | September 27, 2008 3:48 AM | Report abuse

well DixieWrecked, if it's possible for a droolie like you to exist, then anything could be possible. Nevertheless, I'm sure that Obama is really aware of your support and very probably points to you often as an example of the caliber of his followers. And then cries.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

I know America has been attacking. However, they have been very cautious. Yet, look what happened to the bombed hotel in Pakistan. On the other hand, Sen. Obama wants an open, all out war with this nation. Just think what would happen then. This guy is totally irrational.

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

"Lazerboy: read the news more often please. The US has indeed attacked many times within Pakistan already!!! by your president Bush."

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lazerboy | September 27, 2008 3:42 AM | Report abuse

wa3ronds, OK, gotta go to bed after this one, I am simply saying this: The people of America have great opportunities to succeed. I am NOT against someone needing assistance. I just want to see progress in people's lives. I "struggle" in the respect that I have to live pay check to pay check most of the time but I can pay my bills. I am not against reform, I just think that Obama does not have a clue as to the HOW of the problem. He is not an achiever in this area. My opinions on the issues presented are as follows: Healthcare: low cost from the originator $200 for an office visit?!?!
Education: Reform here would be great! Lower tuition for college students but do NOT let the Government dictate the HOW of education which is what Obama's plans would do.
Energy/Fuel: Yes on natural gas and biodiesel but on solar and wind; we have been at this for 30 plus years with very little measurable success. Energy independence in 10 years is a pipedream with Obama's plans. (Wait, what are they again?)
I just do not want to be the taxpayer who has to pay for Obama's spending spree. Anyone who thinks that adding a higher tax on fuel will make people jump into action on some new found super feul is crazy! We would just be paying that tax in high feul prices.
I hope that is clear enough for you.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 3:42 AM | Report abuse

Thisisreality,

e-blogging stamp police... right... bet you still believe in the tooth fairy and jesus christ too.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 3:40 AM | Report abuse

"then I think clearly Sen. Obama offers a new direction for a new and improved America."

This is so typical of an Obama supporter.

There is nothing in Obama's history that proves he has the ability to improve anything.

He has:

NO leadership role in government local, state or federal
NO leadership in business
NO leadership in the military
NO organizations he founded or managed.
NO law firm partnerships.
NO important cases tried as a lawyer
NO work of legal scholarship has ever been published.

The last one really is astonishing for a man that was a professor and an editor.

There is adage that says the only way you can judge what a person will do in the future is what they've done in the past.

Why does Obama talk so little about his past?

Why is he trying to shut down people who try to bring up his past like his past relationship with William Ayers? Or with ACORN?


Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 3:40 AM | Report abuse

mort, no matter how we disagree I am proud we have not stooped to the level of some of these bloggers! Good night, be well, and keep on moving up! And best wishes!

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 3:37 AM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked, you don't have to double-post. Just because you're half as smart as the average human doesn't mean that saying things twice will even things out. And beside, you'll have to pay double the postage rate in e-blogging stamps. Oh, no, here come the stamp police now! Pull the ejection handle, DixieWrecked, so they can't capture you!

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 3:36 AM | Report abuse

KraftyKonservative,

Please do that, I could use some recognition. They say bad press is better than no press. This still doesn't excuse the fact that you had no idea who Ali Khamenie was until after I told you and you googled it.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

Thisisreality,

I don't have to bray, I'm not a jackass like McCain. The pool boy must be doing a number on your old lady. You know what they say about once you go Mexican.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 3:31 AM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked:

You are SO funny! I've never heard a response evenly remotely as original as that. In fact, I'm going to personally nominate you for the Blogger Hall of Fame.

Posted by: KraftyKonservative | September 27, 2008 3:31 AM | Report abuse

"do you really think that the debates are to show one's intelligence?"

Yes.

"if you think that McCain is on par with Obama on intelligence and capacity to understand the issues in depth and quickly then you should stop be delusional."

McCain was above par with Obama and proved it tonight.

McCain's ability to site historical facts and his breadth of knowledge of how the world works was way above Obama's pay grade.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 3:29 AM | Report abuse

Thisisreality,

I don't have to bray, I'm not a jackass like McCain. The pool boy must be doing a number on your old lady. You know what they about once you go Mexican.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 3:29 AM | Report abuse

mortfan
I think you stated that you had improved your life and worked hard to do so, so why are you struggling? And I did not mention welfare at all did I? Or is education, healthcare, affordable (read: realistic) housing, lower gas prices, etc. now what McCain calls "entitlement"?

While you claim to feel for the less fortunate, you seem to be of the opinion that the problems are all of their making and that, I think, is where we have an ideological difference. Agree?

Just like the debate, it is not a matter of needing things to change, but how we approach the change! And the difference in opinions should lead to good policy making rather than an imperialistic dominance!

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 3:28 AM | Report abuse

KraftyKonservative,

I can't understand you... pull McCain's d1ck out of your mouth before you speak if you want to be heard clearly.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

krafty, you heard Obama right.Ali Khamani is the ruling power in Iran.

Posted by: jwald1 | September 27, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

After watching the debate I thought it came out the way it was expected.
One has more experience on the economy the other on a foreign war and 26 years of trying to reform Washington. By the way, Didn't work.
The debate wondered off the questions asked, and it seemed both candidates had prepared things to say and intended to get them said. I think they both did that.
The guys are not debators and I would bet most of us would find it hard to be in this arena.
So, I give them an atta boy!
People's minds will not be changed by this debate. People, have chosen a candidate, and just want to see how he proformed.
Arguing about who won and picking on every uttered word is a silly game and gets us
nowhere.
Truly, whoever wins the election will not be inheriting anythng so great.
They will have major financial issues to deal with.
McCain and his idea about tax cuts for the rich or Obama and his idea to rescue the middle class is not going to be that easy.
How do we pay for the things they each think, are their priorities?

I can bet either presidential pick, will have their party to deal with on these issues.
There is a lot of paybacks and millions to get any candidate elected.
The parties have their own agendas.
They can cut into every program but I would bet the secret cows like, national security, the military, will not see any cuts, it will be social programs, first.
10 Billion being sent to Pakistan will not be cut or the other countries, like Georgia and on down the line.
Are these billions listed some where.
I would like to know who we send Billions to in foreign countries..
If some of these handouts were reexamined maybe we could use the money to pay down our debt to china.
We could throw the Wall Streets boys under the bus, but we would still have the problem.
It is like us and our budget.
We over extended ourselves or have unexpected bills. So, we start to rob from Peter to pay Paul, You borrow money, you max out your credit limits and soon there is no more life lines.. So what happens? We go bankrupt. Like a massive monopoly game.
We need to look at this mess on
Wall Street in simpler terms, they are bankrupt. They took too many risks, they grew too big, they are tied up in
the world web of business.
What congress does now, effects other countries as well as ours,
We needed oversight. It wasn't there.
Our attention has been on a war for the last 7 years.
Do the candidates have the answers to the bail out, is there and quick fix, probably not? Even Paulson is not sure this will fix everything, but our investors in other countries will not invest here if this is not fixed.
It is interesting no one has mentioned the Billions we are spending in Iraq, but the 700 billion to restart the economy get some protesters out there.
We are at a Crossroads we may need to get back to some basics.
I know about basics.. I retired, I had to learn to live on a leaner budget..
No credit,not too many trips around town,the gas costs too much, food costs high, now I need to be very selective on what I buy at the grocery store.
Very little budget for shoes or clothes. Can't go anywhere no money to spare.
Had to choose an antenna for the TV, can't afford cable, that is now a luxury.
So, many changes since, I retired and now living on a small social security check.
If I have to do it! The government should have to do it.

Posted by: crich520 | September 27, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

ONE MORE STUPID IDEA FROM SEN. OBAMA!!!!!!

Sen. Obama wants to talk to Iranian Pres. without any precondition. However, what would happen if he has a meeting with the Iranian president, and Iranian president says that all negotiations have to include Israel giving back territory to the Palestinian; American has to completely withdraw from the Middle East; and Iran, Syria and Lebanon should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. What would happen is America would say no way and Iran would say no way. They both would walk out of the negotiating room. And we would be in the same spot we are in right now. Not even Pres. Clinton tried this stupid idea.

Posted by: lazerboy | September 27, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked, You don't know your ejection seat handle from your old lady's moustache. Bray some more to us about how much better you are than McCain, and then maybe you can forget about that Loser-Glow that is all over you.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

G'night mates...Tomorrow (ahem...today) is another day.

Keep on msgng. Human is a political animal.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

On debates:
I think that debates are merely an opportunity for the people to see how candidates differ (or agree) with each other. I have to say that I prefer this format to 30 second sound bites (if I had TV) and would like to have more of them rather than less.
I really noticed that Sen. McCain was very much a cold war politician which had not been so obvious until he was seen with Sen. Obama. If we are looking at the debates from that perspective, then I think clearly Sen. Obama offers a new direction for a new and improved America.

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked:

Perhaps Obama's comment was an oblique reference to the "Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei". If so, why didn't he mention it? Maybe Khamenei is one of Obama's campaign contributors? Like Hamas or Hezbollah.

Posted by: KraftyKonservative | September 27, 2008 3:23 AM | Report abuse

wa#ronds, do you think that those for whom you speak should just stay where they are? Of course, I understand the plight of those who make minimmum wage but contrary to popular opinion, it is not TONS of poeple. If you will follow allong with all of my posts you will see that I, and others who believe as I do, have a heart for those who are struggling. I am one of them. The point of the posts is that I think that if a person believes that they can be more than society tells them that they can be, then they will try to move on up at every opourtunity. I want to see change just like you. I just want to see it done sensibly. Welfare programs as they are today are not successful. Look at the projects and the families who are generational welfare recipiants. Don't you want to see ALL people succeed?

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

So much is made of Obama's intelligence and education that you would think he would make mental mincemeat of McCain.

Yet, he doesn't.....far from it. Obama seems to know very little about history. Especially his own history. He talks so little about his past accomplishments it's hard to gauge how he would govern in the future.

McCain gave example after example of what he's done in the past, both rights and wrongs, how it would guide his presidency. His knowledge of history was very impressive.

Also, the way the two candidates ended the debate was stark.

McCain ends on a positive note saying he has the experience to heal past relations with his enemies (a reference to Vietnam) and lead this country.

Obama ends on a negative note telling Americans "hey, nobody really likes us anymore."

That's not what I want to hear coming from a potential POTUS.


Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 3:20 AM | Report abuse

sheryl7962: do you really think that the debates are to show one's intelligence? If that happened they would cream Obama in the media as elitist, professorial, out of touch with the commoner. However McCain is "you get what you see". if you think that McCain is on par with Obama on intelligence and capacity to understand the issues in depth and quickly then you should stop be delusional.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 3:18 AM | Report abuse

Thisisreality,

I'm saying chicks marry for money but screw the pool boy for satisfaction. Keep an eye on your pool boy. He just might be diddling your old lady.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

KraftyKonservative: Don't let your ignorance show that much. Iran is governed by the clerics, their supreme council and the republican guard. The same way that in the bush years US was governed by Cheney, defense contractors and other big corporations.

Lazerboy: read the news more often please. The US has indeed attacked many times within Pakistan already!!! by your president Bush.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

aksnot, I knew deep down inside you really did understand what I am saying. Success for us both!

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

To DixieWrecked, who said "The reality is, is that no matter what you say your pen1s is still smaller than the average democrats and it eats you up at night so you can't sleep, and you support the most incompetent squid officer on the face of the planet."

Whadaysaying, you have to be a democrat and an ignorant half-wit to have what you call a pen1s? You and the other anti-McCainiac who talks about toilet paper all the time should get together. Or probably you already did.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

So much is made of Obama's intelligence and education that you would think he would make mental mincemeat of McCain.

Yet, he doesn't.....far from it. Obama seems to know very little about history. Especially his own history. He talks so little about his past accomplishments it's hard to gauge how he would govern in the future.

McCain gave example after example of what he's done in the past, both rights and wrongs, how it would guide his presidency. His knowledge of history was very impressive.

Also, the way the two candidates ended the debate was stark.

McCain ends on a positive note saying he has the experience to heal past relations with his enemies (a reference to Vietnam) and lead this country.

Obama ends on a negative note telling Americans "hey, nobody really likes us anymore."

That's not what I want to hear coming from a potential POTUS.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | September 27, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

KraftyKonservative,

Obama was referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei you uneducated fool. Just because a person has the title president doesn't necessarily make them the leader of a country. Go to college and learn a thing or ten, you wouldn't be a conservative.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Champions of the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy are too smug to realize that there are TONS of people who cannot afford the bootstraps in the first place. So why can't we at least give them that? ie, good education, affordable homes, lower gas prices, health care, etc. Or is that too much to much to ask of this country? Or is it their own fault if they can't pay for anything because they only make minimum wage? (Which is yet another disgraceful aspect of our country.)

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

Without reading or being influenced by all the comments people have seen fit to share, I will simply ad my two cents:

Being an Obama supporter, I am compelled to admit that John McCain surprised me with how relaxed he seemed tonight. He wasn't his usual bumbling self, unable to speak without the aid of his notes. He expressing his thoughts and positions well. However, his positions are completely wrong for America and the world.

Obama proved to have complete mastery of the issues, looked assured, presidential and was able to counter McCain's attempt to paint him as inexperienced. As cool as McCain looked under the circumstances, he also looked like a complete hawk... (1) hell bent on not trusting anyone or anything, (2) being in love with the idea that war is the only option available for America when dealing with adversaries, and (3) incapable of agreeing with anything - or willing to compromise any position. His claim to be bipartisan and reach out to the other side rang hollow. Further, it was apparent that McCain had some misguided notion that a victory in Iraq meant the "enemy" would crawl on their collective knees and beg for forgiveness and present us with a formal surrender like in WWII. The idea that we even deserve a victory escapes me because we unilaterally attacked another country without provocation, and under false pretenses, and with no clear understanding of what the ramifications would be. How John McCain thinks there can be any honor in that is unfathomable.

War, War, War, Drill, Drill, Drill. I heard nothing new here. Both sides stretched the truth and made statements that were both factual and misleading. Obama did not, however, tie McCain to Bush forcefully enough. Nor did Obama hit McCain in the gut by stressing the magnitude of the pain the average American is feeling. Obama did show that he is a measured, poised man of great intellect. He showed, by comparison, that John McCain is senatorial, but Obama is much more presidential. Let the pundits beware... don't over-analyze this too much. The people of the United States will make their judgment call on their own.

Based on the look of the debate, I'd have to say it really was a tie. But if you read the transcripts, it was a win by a knock out in favor of Obama. Hopefully, you'll see it that way.

Posted by: RobGreenstone | September 27, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

jwald1, I used to be one of "them". Now I just see life differently.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

mortfan, you are probably right. However, and this is a big however. I have heard this argument for ages from the right and this is universal - not just a US phenomenon. Safety net is not a handout. And the majority of the people are embarrassed to receive any help from outside. I disagree that a lazy few will render all that are unable to stand back to their feet (because the are unable to work due to PTSD or lack of functioning limbs coming back from Iraq or for any other reason) as settling to the comforts of the handout and not wanting to excel and progress and move upwards. Are there really people that think that most of the homeless like being unemployed and homeless, living on the handout of the fortunate? As long as we do not allow some bad apples to define a behavior for all of the apples then we are on the same page on the specific issue.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

Two takeaways from the debate: First, did Obama say Ahmadinejad was NOT the most important guy in Iran? That's news to me. I wonder how they feel about that in Tel Aviv, or in Tehran for that matter. And, lets not forget about the bracelet gaffe: "I've got a bracelet, too! From Sergeant... uuuuuhhhhh... from... errrr. What's his name, again? Sergeant York? Private Pyle? Lieutenant Dan? Oh, yeah! I've got the bracelet. I'll just have a quick look to check the name of this poor dead guy whose mother is grieving so deeply." I won't publish the website b/c I don't intend to promote the product, but there is an official "I have a bracelet" T-shirt available for purchase on the web. Don't think this gaffe will stick to Obama? Think again. There's a T-Shirt.

Posted by: KraftyKonservative | September 27, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

mortfan, give up. some people revel in their ignorance, you really should have pity for them.

Posted by: jwald1 | September 27, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

wa3ronds, are you reading the same posts I'm writing? I think a person who makes $20,000 a year and is happy providing for their family to be champions of success. You are trying to paint a picture that is not there. I am still amoung the rural poor community and I love them all. We just don't whine about our lack of money as being someones elses fault. As for stuff, I have very little in that area. I know it might suprise you, and those of your clan, to know that not all low income people, myself included, think of ourselves as victims.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 3:05 AM | Report abuse

SEN. OBAMA IS IRRATIONAL!!!

He wants America to attack Pakistan, so we can kill Binladen. If America attacks Pakistan, America could cause a riot in Pakistan. This could cause the Pakistan Gov. to loose control of its' nuclear weapon. Binladen and the rest of terrorists in Pakistan could then seize control of these nukes. This would be a nightmare.

BTW, Sen. Obama sounds good tonight. However, when everyone have a chance to scrutinise what he said, everyone will realize he made little sense.

Posted by: lazerboy | September 27, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Thisisreality,

The reality is, is that no matter what you say your pen1s is still smaller than the average democrats and it eats you up at night so you can't sleep, and you support the most incompetent squid officer on the face of the planet.

What's wrong. Hate it when the other side uses the same tactics, not strategy, against you?

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 3:01 AM | Report abuse

asknot, saftey-net: Yes. Live in the saftey-net: No. I do not think that you and I are that far apart on this really. I would completely agree with aid to those less fortunate on a temporary basis backed by the push to achieve in the future and not just continue generation after generation of dependence on the big ole government. People need to be motivated to move on and move up.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama stood tall and John McCain held his own -- but then McCain couldn't resist the juvenile put downs ... "you don't understand." How condescending and scolding. Here's the other interesting thing; I watched the 1st half and had to get in the car and listened to the radio for the 2d half. I thought McCain handled himself well ... then I came home and watched the 2d half on CNN's reruns with a split screen and onscreen analyst scoring. McCain's grimaces and negative posturing while Obama was talking to me reduced his effectiveness enormously. Seeing the debate caused me to be much more critical. Sort of like the Nixon/Kennedy debates when Nixon had the flu and no makeup ... interesting.

Posted by: Omyobama | September 27, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

Let me explain McCain' failure tonight. He spent 90 minutes sneering and being a condescending a_ _. The problem for McCain is that he threw a series of punches and tried to take Barack out. Barack showed something we needed to see from him tonight. Backbone. Every punch McCain threw, Obama swung right back at him, never backing down and getting in his face about the Iraq war and Iran. He passed the threshold for president with flying colors and appeared presidential.

Posted by: bluevoter | September 27, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

mortfan:
I understand you now, thanks. You think people who make 20K a year who are happy are, well, losers. It seems to me that it is that kind of thinking that got us into this Wall Street mess. You stated earlier that you do not measure your sucess by how much money you have and that was clearly an untruth. It is, in fact, okay for you to measure it that way (or in cool "stuff"). What I am suggesting is that many people do not. Your apparent disdain for your roots and for rural people is sad though, even as you claim you "work with your hands." It is not, in my humble opinion, a "poverty mentality" to be content - merely a moral judgement on your part.

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

McCain + Bush = Fingers of the same hand


John McCain proved that he is a continuation of Bush’s dirty politics. His message still unclear about the economy, foreign policy etc…John McCain and George Bush are, as the pygmies of Central African Republic say,”the fingers of the same hand.”
Guy Blaise

Posted by: guy2 | September 27, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked said: "I would have handled it better. I would have found the handle to my ejection seat sooner and then would not have been captured, but what do you expect from a squid who graduated at the bottom of his class."

And ejecting sooner would have prevented you being captured how, you ignorant half-wit?

I think DixieWrecked's post proves it: if you added up all the brainpower of the anti-McCainiacs on this forum, the result would still be a deeply ignorant person.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 2:57 AM | Report abuse

.
.
.
I found McCain condescending and continued the standard Republican tactic of twisting the facts to suit the philosophy.

Obama should have smacked him upside the head, and the country would have applauded. See Biden's comments post-debate for examples.
.
.
.

Posted by: egc52556 | September 27, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

McCain looked like petulant old geezer.
Considering how many times he has ran for office he should be a pro at debating. He looked like he was struggling to keep his temper in check. Could it be that he is pissed off because his ploy to duck the debate didn't work? I am sure his managers will make sure he makes eye contact in the next debate.

Posted by: jwald1 | September 27, 2008 2:54 AM | Report abuse

Jerryh1,

You're on the wrong part of the net. Go to the more liberal sites if you want to see some republican foul mouths.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

mortfan. Then why do you disagree with the loathing of a person that thinks that you need $5M to consider yourself rich? Why do you disagree with the notion of a safety net for unfortunate people that cancer strikes and no insurance is there to help them? Do you think that without regulations HMOs and other private entities that only consider the maximization of their shareholders (not even their employees) profit, will run to the rescue of that unfortunate soul?

My grandmother was herding goats in a second-world country and my parents had to get a loan for me to be able to come abroad to study and settle and become a productive and contributing citizen.

I believe in a fair and egalitarian society where anybody advances based on their own capacity and not on their daddy's connections. I also believe in the fairness of a safety net for all people, since as we all know, s**t happens and everybody needs help from time to time.

I don't need people that leave everything to the free-market and the complete de-regulation. We have seen the results in the state of our economy.

That is where I stand.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

wa3ronds, First of all (yawn stretch) I am suprised by your misunderstanding. Apparently, you and others like you decide where your success lies. I find success in accomplishment. The "geography" reference relates to what people in one area of THIS country call rich versus what those in a different geographic location consider "rich". A person in the hills of Tennessee might find $20,000 a year quite pleasing where someone in Califonia would find that income destitute. I have lived around poor rural poeple most of my life and find them to be happier than most of those of the Urban elite. What I see this country needs is leadership that does not pander to inability but rather to ability. If a person develops a poverty mentality, then that is all they will be. I, on the other hand, have decided to abandon that lost road and move on to asw much success as I can find in life. I am not afraid to be dependant on myself.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

prhornbeak, are you a Vet? Well, if you are then state the fact. I have all respect for all who are serving and for those who have served. I never said anything negative about Vets. I have family members who have served. As for racism, if the blog post is racist, I will say so and that is my opinion. All of us know what racism is and when it isn't. It is time that ALL Americans just each other on their merits and their character. And, from what I saw and heard in the debate tonight, they both did well, but McCain should have made something happen tonight to reverse the polls in which he is falling and he didn't! McCain is out of his league with a genius!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

it's just my observation, as an independent, I see more name calling and foul languages used by some Obama supporters than supporters of any other candidates, including Hillary's. Obama actually not that bad though I don't think he's quite qualified. It's who he's with and who supported him concern me more as that'll affect how he governs. Bush got Cheney and the network of oil riches, and we get sky high gas price, coincidence? I think not.

Posted by: jerryh1 | September 27, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse

Painskeeper...

Al I hear from you is "blah, blah, blah, sucking McCain's c0ck, blah, blah, blah, gag, swallow"

A squid is a squid is a squid.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 2:49 AM | Report abuse

I am done, but nice name you infantile loser. I am embarraced that I wasted my time with you now that I realize what your little coded name means. Grow up dude!

Posted by: Paineskeeper | September 27, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

Re:McCain did not win so therefore Obama did.

Posted by: arcadiola | September 27, 2008 2:33 AM

...Or Obama 'won' THE DEBATE for McCain by acknowledging that McCain was right at each and every turn.

Posted by: peteonline | September 27, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

I agree with you ThisIsReality. I was just trying to couch my comments in a way that would not be met with charges of "bitterness" or "stupidity" ha!

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

All I heard McCain say in the debate tonight was that he was just going to continue in the same vein as Bush - same war - same pandering to the rich with the big tax breaks. Financing these things alone will be his excuse for not properly funding education and healthcare. And what about Social Security and Medicare? Will those be the next things to fund McCain's ongoing wars with every other country he's antagonizing? This man doesn't have a clue about diplomacy or statesmanship. I can't believe that tonight in the debate Obama let McCain off the hook by not mentioning that McCain is the big champion of deregulation which caused this financial crisis. He was one of the "Keating Five" supporting deregulation that destroyed the savings and loan industry back in the '80's and he's still doing the same thing today. What happens in our economy won’t touch John McCain with his heiress wife, his planes, 13 cars and 7 houses. That man could care less about the voters (unless they have lots of money to support his run for the presidency). I don't want another ignorant president like Bush - all McCain and Palin can do is spout the party line rhetoric -I want a president with a brain and some dignity like Obama - he'll be able to get our country back on track and restore some respect for the US worldwide. A vote for McCain is a vote for the drug companies, insurance companies and big oil to run riot over our country just like they have for the past eight years.

cheryl m

Posted by: cherylcm | September 27, 2008 2:43 AM | Report abuse

Painskeeper...

I would have handled it better. I would have found the handle to my ejection seat sooner and then would not have been captured, but what do you expect from a squid who graduated at the bottom of his class.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 2:43 AM | Report abuse

asknot, i grew up the child of a simple farm-hand. I am pround to say that I have worked with my hands enough to find satisfaction in a job well done with or without great financial compensation. I am afraid to break your bubble and tell you that I am simply a working class guy who is not a victim of my own self-loathing.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

O.k., wa3ronds, I'll take you at your word.

Do we all want reform? Sure, I would like the kind of reform that means the politicians who have been making good livings off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Dodd, Frank, Obama, etc.) get kicked far out of office. I also would like the kind of reform that means that crooks like Franklin Raines and James Johnson spend some time behind bars. Who says that only public corporation execs should be accountable for their crimes? Shouldn't the selfish creeps who have run the quasi-governmental enterprises answer for what they did?

Does that mean we agree? Probably not.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 2:41 AM | Report abuse

mortfan:
You wrote:
One persons lack of success is what tends to make one bitter about those who are successful. A definition of "rich" is relative to geography.

Not only obscure, but you fail to define what you mean by "geography." Who drew the map? What is the criteria for "lack of success"? Who gets to determine who is "successful" and by analogy, who is the failure? You are making assumptions here about how people define themselves with absent criteria.

This goes to the heart of the current ideological debate for me because the Repubs are makings assertions about what this country "needs" when they appear to be living in a "geographical" world that is clearly not one the vast majority of Americans are familiar with. And for the past 8 years have been "mapping" our lives from a set of false premises. Huge disconnect.

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 2:41 AM | Report abuse

I am sure that you handled it better when your fighter jet was shot down. Right?

Posted by: Paineskeeper | September 27, 2008 2:40 AM | Report abuse

The squid couldn't even perform basic evasive maneuvers and got shot down. And he couldn't even find the handle to his ejection seat.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 2:38 AM | Report abuse

DSM_CAL, did you think you was going to post what you posted and go to sleep witout me responding? I don't need a guy to be the President of the US, I need a MAN like Obama. Both of them will increase the debt, but with Obama, it will be a lot less. Chech it out here - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411750

I do thank you for the discourse and wish you the best no matter what. And, I sincerely mean that. From one Amerian to another American, I was born in the bible belt and raised, but the USA we need in this 21st Century needs a tranformational person like Obama who is a genius.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

Bitterness loves company

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

mortfan:

I bet you are the fun center of parties!! You really equate riches with success??? When was the last time you have worked with your hands?? A farmer will tell you that he feels successful when his crop yields are high and he derives satisfaction knowing that his product will feed many mouths, even if he will just break even with the loans and the mortgage that he has to pay off. A nurse will tell you that she/he is successful when the patients return home happy and healthy and grateful of the care they have just received, even if they work long hours for less than $40K. A cabbie at new york will tell you that he is successful when he is considered the best cabbie by his peers. All these people want is a chance to access good health care for their kids, good education for their kids and themselves and the knowledge that their government will protect them when catastrophy hits.

Sorry to break your bubble, but anybody that is able to feed, educate and provide a roof for their kids will tell you that they feel rich satisfied and successful.

What kind of a successful society are we living in, when more than 40 million of our fellow citizens are without health care even when they are working like oxen from morning till night in two or more jobs? What kind of a success and superiority do you claim when there are kids that go on with decaying teeth because they cannot find a dentist to treat them? Remember that kid at DC that died from a tooth infection? Is it a success story when the government cannot help him?

We are not discussing the comparison between the US and the rest of the world. We are striving for the improvement of our situation first. And homelessness and lack of health insurance are shameful for an advanced and successful society.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

And you still suck.
Good night.

Posted by: Paineskeeper | September 27, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse

A squid is still a squid no matter what his POW status.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

wa3ronds, obscure? Really? I do not measure my success by how much money I amke either. I am a person who spent most of my young life suckling at the teat of mother government and then realized that I too can be successfull so I sat out to change my destiny. I know now that I can't blame other people for my lack of success or give them credit for my success.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 2:33 AM | Report abuse

McCain did not win so therefore Obama did.

Posted by: arcadiola | September 27, 2008 2:33 AM | Report abuse

prhornbreak said...

It is easy for you to call others names as you are insulated by electronics. Try your rant in the real world. Call a vet and patriot racist to his face just because you are threatened by his take. Probably not a good outcome for you.

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

Easy for you to say behind your computer. Just like DSW you are a freak...

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 2:33 AM | Report abuse

Regardless of who you support, I think that it is a real disapointment that there are people who will bash down a POW and a vet about being those very things.
YOU SUCK!

Posted by: Paineskeeper | September 27, 2008 2:32 AM | Report abuse

On bitterness and TV:

I cannot afford TV - and I am opposed to it anyway - so I get my news in hard copy and read the transcripts. You know - reading?

Seriously, I think that everyone realizes that we need change and reform - can we all agree on that? It is the process that seem to disagree on. Do we want a "tax and spend" govt or a "spend and spend" govt?

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

To: need4trth
Why are YOU so angry? And how much are you getting paid to bash McCain? Do you report it to IRS?

Posted by: kambizb | September 27, 2008 2:29 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama showed a lack of good judgement in saying that he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

More on this:

************************************
Fact Check: Kissinger Defends McCain's Iran Stance
September 26, 2008 11:54 PM

ABC News' Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday's presidential debate saying he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality," Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.

***********************

Obama clearly showed a lack of good judgement on this issue.

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

WEBERCISE, dude it is not up to you to determine who is racist or who blogs.

Obama is the one who brought it up as he " doesn't look like the others on the $ bill, has afunny name and by the way is black"

It is easy for you to call others names as you are insulated by electronics. Try your rant in the real world. Call a vet and patriot racist to his face just because you are threatened by his take. Probably not a good outcome for you.

Posted by: prhornbeak | September 27, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

wa3ronds, only in America. I like what you said.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Duh, I meant that i DO NOT measure success via money

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

mortfan, it's funny that you used the word "bitter" in your latest post (congrats, by the way). After reading some of the more hysterical anti-mcCain postings on this board, the thought had just occurred to me that "man, these people are bitter and are clinging to their TV shows.." , and by TV shows I mean Couric, MSNBC, and the other conveyor belts of misrepresentation. Without their TV shows, these people must be lost. Anyone who heard Obama misrepresent Kissinger's views tonight without at once knowing it was a complete misstatement must have a deep and profound ignorance of the world. Anyway, thanks for the sanity.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

webercise:

McCain is for all Americans ... poor middle & rich ... ALL Americans.

McCain will cut Goverment waste & reduce Goverment spending.

He's the guy that has fought earmarks.
He's the guy that has PROVEN his willingness to reach across the aisle.

He's the guy.

I think you'll find most people agree with him that Government spending & earmarks are out of control.


McCain's the guy to stop it.

You can sure bet Obama & his Liberal agenda would increase spending.

It is getting late here in Des Moines, Iowa ... Good night & sleep well ... I will ... my guy's going to win in November!

Sincerely,
DSM_CAL

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Asknot, do you really think that 95% of Americans are not successful! That is sad. I belive that we live in the greatest country on the planet where anyone can enjoy success. Most people who share your opinion are simply disgruntled about life and they want those who are not to be punished. I do not have to go to extreme measures to prove that the world is against me. I just set out to prove that I am stronger than those who are against me. I define who I am. I believe that Americans are stronger than libs give us credit to be. If you want success asknot, go get it!

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

mortfan:
Could you possibly be more obscure?

I measure my own personal "success" in terms of money... does that make me a "loser" or somehow "bitter" toward those who do? I admittedly do not understand the unrestrained greed or pursuit of wealth for its own sake, but on the other hand, when things go sour I do get to point and laugh. In either case, I am not the one asking the govt for a handout like these failed corps are - how ironic is that?

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

McCain proved he is no Reformer just a nasty rank and file republican with a special bent on lying.

From 'fact of the matter' http://www.need4trth.blogspot.com

Nation,

FUNNY HOW THINGS CHANGE IN JUST A FEW DAYS A FEW HOURS......

Tonites debate was interesting, very interesting. It was to say the least a TRAVESTY AND THE MOST EGREGIOUS demonstration of childishness,disrespect of the American populace, Senator Obama, and Mr. Lehr the moderator by John McShame It speaks to the fact that Senator McCain is living with UNTREATED POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER. All this bad behaviour coming from an Angry condescending FULL OF HIMSELF, prideful, unabashed, SHAMELESS LIAR and Warmonger who is 72 years old..
IT BECAME APPARENT TONITE THAT JOHN MCCAIN IS SUFFERING FROM PTSD...THAT IN HIS MIND HE IS STILL FIGHTING WITH THE FACT THAT HE BELIEVES HE CAME FROM DEFEAT IN VIETNAM WHEN HE RETURNED HOME that administration wouldn't allow him to win.

This is the reason that the so-called 'victory in Iraq' Senator McCain has taken on, an continues to support this occupation, no matter the cost of American Forces or Coalition members lives, no matter what the condition of our home front or our economy is. He is the one who is willing to destroy our existence and future in order to "CONTINUE A WAR' to victory. A war that exist only in his mind. He is a classic case of untreated PTSD. In McCain's trauma riddled mind the war in Iraq is the war in Vietnam. A war, that in reality has been ended for over 30 years. Iraq is McCain's Vietnam. I came to an understanding tonite that when McCain appears to humbly recount the desire for victory as he injects in conversations he has had with the troops, the adage "LET US WIN", He isn't speaking of the troops, he is speaking of himself. Senator McCain believes we failed in Vietnam by pulling out, when we did. He believes in his mind that if we'd only had a WAR CONTINUUM, we may have won.

A WAR CONTINUUM.....As McCain spoke about foreign policy it became a LECTURE and a small view into his true desired policy of A WAR CONTINUUM. He first leaked out bits and pieces in the past with statements like: Thursday, April 19, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At a town hall meeting in South Carolina Wednesday, Arizona Sen. John McCain was asked if there is a plan to attack Iran. McCain began his answer by changing the words to a classic Beach Boys' song.

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" the Republican presidential candidate said. Then, he sang. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." and the infamous statement: During a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told a crowd of roughly two hundred people that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years“:

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that … (cut off)

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

You see Senator McCain really isn't concerned about the the SAFETY, PROTECTION, WELFARE nor PROSPERITY of our Nation. John McCain didn't mention the MIDDLE-CLASS once tonite. Not once. Why, We are not his concern. Economic concerns are not his, balancing our budget isn't his concern, diplomacy is not on his agenda, this is why he supports The Bush administrations FAILED POLICIES OF THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. Senator McCain isn't concerned about change or changing anything. No, Senator McCain is concerned solely with winning the war and crushing the shame of the defeat he felt and still feels about our strategy and failed war in Vietnam. I believe he lives this in his mind day in and day out. We can not AFFORD a president with such a Mental illness as this.

When McCain spoke tonite about war he linked nation after nation together, which we'd had war with or involvement. He mentioned failed American attempts at Colonizing, and all the many wars we've been involved in and then to add insult to injury, a look of PURE JOY crested his face. His desire is many more wars where we can use what he called "this new winning strategy", "THE SURGE". He mentioned using this strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. McCain when asked the question about our American standing in the world, in other words how our allies and even enemies see us, said, he'd skip that and went back on the his TIRADE about winning wars.

What constituency is he speaking too? What Ghost of soldiers from wars passed is he trying to sell this too?

I was offended, unimpressed, but not surprised. I was angered by his Blatant REBUSHAGAIN PARTY LIES. The Republican Party does not want to participate in the REAL conversation the American populace is engaged in. Senator Obama Pointedly and tactfully ripped the web of deception around the Iraq war and 'the surge" right out from underneathe the feet of the lying CHARLA TON extension of the RNC/GOP THE PUPPETTED MOUTHPIECE John McCain. When Obama stated "John You act like this war started in 2007 and not 2003.

DO NOT BE DECIEVED BY THIS REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA ATTEMPT AT REDATING THE WAR AND OOUPATION IN IRAQ. THE SURGE WAS NOT THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR AND OCCUPATION IN IRAQ..
For those of you who do not know it, the Iraq war (2nd Iraq war) started as this Wikipedia article states:

This article is about the war that began in 2003. For other uses, see Iraq war (disambiguation).
Iraq War
The Iraq War, also known as the Second Gulf War, the Occupation of Iraq,[32] or the War in Iraq, is an ongoing military campaign which began on March 20, 2003 with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a multinational coalition composed of United States and United Kingdom troops supported by smaller contingents from Australia, Denmark, Poland and other nations.[33]

Prior to the war, U.S. officials asserted that Iraq's possession and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a serious and imminent threat to U.S. national security.[34][35] This assessment was supported by the U.K. intelligence services, but not by other countries such as France, Russia and Germany.[36][37][38] United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission weapon inspectors found no evidence of WMD, giving support to earlier criticism of poor intelligence on Iraqi WMDs.[39] After the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted.[40] Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical and biological weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons for which the coalition invaded.[41] The failure to find WMD in Iraq caused controversy, particularly in the United States.[42] Some U.S. officials also accused Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda,[43] but no evidence of any collaborative relationship was found.[44][45] Other reasons for the invasion stated by U.S. officials included Iraq's alleged financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers,[46] Iraqi government human rights abuses,[47] spreading democracy,[48] and Iraq's oil reserves,[49][50][51][52] although the latter was denied by other officials

Those are the facts. The surge was not the beginning of the War and Occupation of Iraq. Let no Republican Facist fool you.

ON THE ECONOMY JOHN MCCAIN AN THE RNC WERE NO MATCH FOR OBAMA, JUST DIRTY TRICKSMcCain adjudicated for the same failed policies of the last 8 years and that's no CHANGE, that's not even pocket change. McCain waxed weakly, deceptively, often using lies from his propaganda ad campaign as distractions and diversions from the dealings of the fact that he is one of the main components in the dereuglation mess.

John you said, "look at my record..." SO EVERYONE HERE'S A PEEK AT THE RECORD OF JOHN MCCAIN THE DEREGULATOR....
McCain’s comment on Monday that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong” was a gift for Democrats. Throughout the week, the Obama campaign has been able to seize on McCain’s foible by painting the Republican nominee as “simply out of touch” with the brick-and-mortar economy on Main Street. And this is not McCain’s only weakness at the moment on the economic front.

We are now learning that McCain has a long and distinguished track record in Congress as a staunch advocate of deregulation which will likely further damage his credibility with voters. Given his well documented history as a pro-deregulation lawmaker, it is hard to see how McCain will be able to convince blue-collar voters in Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that he is the right person to address the current financial crisis on Wall Street. Below is a summary of citations documenting his long history as a pro-deregulation lawmaker in the Senate.


John McCain: The Deregulator

I don’t think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country.”
– John McCain [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, 4/23/08]

McCain Is An Avid Supporter Of Lax Rules For Financial Institutions
McCain Supported A Banking Bill Because It Eliminated “The Tremendous Regulatory Burden Imposed On Financial Institutions.” While speaking in favor of bank deregulation on the floor of the senate, John McCain said, “This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions… One principal reason banks are unable to make loans is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community.” [Congressional Record, 11/19/93; emphasis added]

McCain Supported A Bill To “Takes A Small Step Forward Toward Eliminating Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Imposed On Banks.” While speaking in favor of bank deregulation on the floor of the senate, John McCain said, “While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community … This bill recognizes this fact, and takes a small step forward toward eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens imposed on banks.” [Congressional Record, 11/19/93; emphasis added]

McCain Said The Best Thing Government Can Do For Business Is “Stay Out Of Its Way.” While speaking about the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act on the floor on the Senate in 2000, John McCain said, “I am convinced that the best thing government can often do to advance the fortunes of the private sector is to stay out of its way. I support this bill because it makes progress toward that end, by improving companies’ flexibility to hire the talent they need, while providing for the regulatory framework and new educational opportunities to protect and promote American workers.” [Congressional Record, 10/3/00; emphasis added]

In 1999, McCain Supported Phil Gramm’s Banking Deregulation Bill. In 1999, John McCain voted for passage of the Senate version of a bill that would eliminate current barriers erected by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and other laws that impede affiliations between banking, securities, insurance and other firms. The bill also would exempt small, non-urban banks from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), revise the Federal Home Loan Bank system and require that owners of automated teller machines (ATMs) provide notice on the ATM and on-screen of any charges imposed for the use of the terminal. The bill passed 54-44. [S. 900, Vote #105, 5/6/99]

McCain Missed The Vote For Final Passage Because He Was Campaigning In New Hampshire. John McCain missed the final vote on Phil Gramm’s banking deregulation bill because he was campaigning in New Hampshire. [NPR, “Morning Edition,” 11/5/99; S. 900, Vote #354, 11/4/99]

McCain Has Based His 2008 Campaign On Promoting Less Regulation
McCain: “I Don’t Think Anyone Who Wants To Increase The Burden Of Government Regulation And Higher Taxes Has Any Real Understanding Of Economics.” During a McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, John McCain said, “When we come out of this recession and we will because I believe that the fundamentals of our economy are good … Sen. Clinton wants the government to make the decisions for you on your health care, I want the families to make the decisions on their health care. I don’t think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country.” [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, 4/23/08; emphasis added]


McCain: “I Understand Why The AFL-CIO And Maybe Other Unions May Oppose My Free Market, Less Regulation, Right To Work.” During an appearance on Fox’s “Special Report with Brit Hume,” John McCain said, “I understand why the AFL-CIO and maybe other unions may oppose my free market less regulation right to work. I think we have honest differences of opinion. I respect those labor unions, but I’m sure that those differences are very intense and very real.” [Fox News,” Special Report with Brit Hume,” 3/12/08]

McCain: “Let’s Reduce Regulation.” While speaking about the economy in St. Louis, Missouri, John McCain said, “I’m asked all the time are we in a recession or not in a recession. And I don’t know the answer to that because it’s kind of a technical term… I do not believe we should raise your taxes. I think it would be the worst thing we could do. And that means to me I think the tax cuts need to be made permanent. When you’ve got a bad economy, the worst thing you can do is increase people’s tax burden. Let’s reduce it. Let’s reduce regulation.” [CNN, “Ballot Bowl, 3/15/08]

McCain: “We Need To Return To The Reagan Years… We Need Less Regulation.” As shown on PBS’s “Washington Week,” John McCain said, “We need to return to the Reagan years. We need to have fiscal conservatism. We need less government. We need less regulation. We need to end of spending spree which has eroded our base of Republican support.” [PBS, “Washington Week,” 1/25/08]

McCain Promised To “Give Them Lower Taxes, Less Regulation, Less Government In Their Lives.” As shown on CNN’s “CNN Newsroom,” John McCain said, “We’ve got to do the other things necessary to encourage business and give them lower taxes, less regulation, less government in their lives, and that means a simpler, fairer — tax code. The tax code in America is broken and it needs to be fixed.” [CNN, “CNN Newsroom,” 2/14/08]

To Fix the Economy, McCain Would “We’ve Got To Take Specific Actions, Keep Their Taxes Low, Less Regulation.” As shown on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” John McCain said, “That our economy is in terrible shape, that we’ve got to take specific actions, keep their taxes low, less regulation, get - start exploring and exploiting offshore oil deposits.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 7/2/08]

McCain Said The Difference Between Obama & Himself Would Be “More Regulation Or Less Regulation.” During a media availability in Phoenix, Arizona, John McCain said, “I think the important thing is that there will be stark differences between either Senator [Clinton] or Senator Obama and me because they are liberal Democrats and I’m a conservative Republican… whether we pursue the present strategy in Iraq or whether we — or whether we set a date for withdrawal, which will mean Al Qaida wins; whether we have more regulation or less regulation.” [McCain Media Availability via CQ Transcriptions, 3/3/08; emphasis added]

McCain: “Less Government, Lower Taxes, Less Regulation, Safer America Is What I Can Give America.” During an appearance on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” John McCain said, “I can make a case that a less government, lower taxes, less regulation, safer America is what I can give America. But I don’t underestimate the size of the challenge.” [CBS, “60 Minutes,” 3/9/08]

McCain Is Long-Time Supporter Of Deregulation
McCain: “I Am A Deregulator. I Believe In Deregulation.” While speaking about the cable and satellite television during an appearance on CNN’s “On the Money,” John McCain said, “I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation.” [CNN, “In the Money,” 7/13/03]

MCCAIN THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY....MISLEAD, LIE, SMEAR, DECECIVE..

So now that we've gotten a small peek into the LYING MIND OF POLITICAL MANIPULATOR, once again we must remember the conversation the nation is engaing the candidates in today is definately not the republicans foretay. Our economy is suffering from the last 8 years of borrowing from China in the trillions, borrowing from Japan in the untold billions, waging a War and Occupation based on a mistake. Speaking of which John McCain is determined to keep your children and their childrens children, in debt and 'COMMITTED TO A MISTAKE". We AK no bones about it here at "Fact of the Matter".

Don't believe the pun dents, don't believe the Republican owned CORPORATE MEDIAS talking points, even if the press as they will probably deceitfully try, and give this debate to McCain. MCCAIN WAS NEVER REALLY EVEN IN THE REAL CONVERSATION THAT WAS THE DEBATE....HE WAS AUDITIONING FOR A DECEPTIVE PROPAGANDA AD. Not with us, the Nation, not even on the same page.

As far as the conversation of the debate was about The Economy, The war and Occupation in Iraq, (Our ultimate, to date, mistake),The middle-class, and money of the tune of 10 billion dollars a month we shell out to that mistake, and of course FOREIGN POLICY, John McCain is completely OUT OF TOUCH...HE IS LIVING IN HIS untreated PTSD SICKENED MIND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE UTTER DEFEAT AND LOST OF a war that ended over 30 years ago.

JOHN MCCAIN IS LIVING IN VIETNAM AND CRYING OUT, "I won't leave, I refuse to go back to America in dishonor, WE CAN WIN THIS THING GUYS, WE CAN KILL THOSE F------ G---.SEND THE TROOPS BACK, THE SURGE IS WORKING, WE'LL NEVER ADMIT DEFEAT AND LEAVE WITHOUT HONOR."

Yet, he dishonored himself yet, again as he stood for a LIE and tried to deceive the American populace with his MENTAL DELUSIONS

need4trth

Posted by: need4trth | September 27, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

McCain came off contemptuous and angry “cranky” old man. McCain appeared to be annoyed and inconvenienced by the whole debate. I suppose he considers the presidency to be his birthright that he scoffs anyone who even questions him. He kept making snarky and irrelevant marks. I was really surprised that McCain would not even look at Obama.

On the other hand, Obama came off in command, well-informed, and congenial—in other words, Obama looked Presidential. And McCain looked angry, repetitive, and un-presidential.

Barack Obama was crisp, reassuring and strong -- in short, presidential, as he has been throughout the financial storm of the past two weeks. McCain was not as bad as he has been recently; but much of this debate was fought on what was supposed to be his high ground. As the encounter ended, Obama not only controlled the commanding heights of the economic issue -- and he not only held his own on national security -- but clearly passed the threshold as a credible commander-in-chief. McCain kept repeating that Obama doesn't "understand." But he clearly did. McCain made up no ground. That's similar to what happened in 1960 when Nixon ran on the slogan "Experience Counts" but found it didn't count that much when voters decided JFK was up to the job after the side by side comparison they saw in the first debate.

CBS’s poll of 500 uncommitted voters who watched found this: 40% said Obama won, 38% said it was a draw, and 22% called McCain the winner. CNN had Obama winning 51-38% overall, winning on the economy 58-37%, and even winning on Iraq 52-47%.

This was clearly a homerun for Obama. He hit it out of the park.

Posted by: JJames081 | September 27, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Webercise

What was I told the next would be?
Black, is that it?
Is that what I was told would happen in my lifetime?
Black is just fine with me, it just the stupid that realy bothers me. Just the stupid webercise. Just the stupid.

Posted by: Paineskeeper | September 27, 2008 2:22 AM | Report abuse

no mater what label you try to pin on these candidates you still have two men , one who WILL be president, who are going to have to deal with this countries desperate situation! After reading some of the B.S. from some obviously racist middle school drop-outs it seems we have a lot of reason to worry about the future!
McCain is soooooo deeply in the pockets of the good ole boy's club "and is being marketed like the used car he is " that I get the feeling that the thought and action's are those of a man and a party that not only is afraid of losing its power base ,but is deathly afraid of being the first "white" anything to lose a presidential election to a "black man" . Lets be honest folks I am sure that topic has been brought up more then once behind closed doors and "do and say whatever it takes to win this election " is high on the list of the republican think tank"s !
I am white and you know what Obama still has my vote because he has what this country truly needs -the ability to break with tradition and think outside the box , with a new view of things and the ability to gather together those that share his dream and vision! Clinton had it! Reagan had it,Roosevelt had it! Kennedy had it! We need it more then ever before.
We are hanging over the precipice of utter failure who do you feel is going to be able to pull us back from the brink-the old man who helped shape this disaster or the visionary who is looking for way out of this mess for everyone?

Posted by: american10 | September 27, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

What a load of bull....Then you call 95% of the Americans bitter? Is it success to be the CEO of a company that underwrites predatory loans?

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse

ThisIsReality, answer the question or be quiet, because your reality is deliverance.

What legislation has McCain passed in the 26 years he has been in congress that was directly in favor for middle and lower class Americans and not the rich?"

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse

John McCain on Troop Withdrawal

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.

July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to draw down troop levels in Iraq.

June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops that year, but did not state a deadline to do so.

John McCain on Veteran Affairs: 2006 Rating from Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America: D

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

One persons lack of success is what tends to make one bitter about those who are successful. A definition of "rich" is relative to geography.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

John McCain on Veteran Health Care

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive corporate tax loopholes.

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

ffffrabbit.

I just don't see anything else about Obama.

I support McCain because I listen and I use my head. Your support of Obama could never be logically explained so sit back down.

Posted by: Paineskeeper | September 27, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Hey PRHornBreak,
I support Obama and hate AIPAC and everything it stands for. We're both racist... right?

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

prhornbeak, you are a racist and don't belong on any blog. Your time and views have passed you a long time ago just like the kite you wish you had but couldn't afford.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

As a confirmed anti-Republican, I wasn't happy at the conclusion of these debates. I thought Obama did well, but was surprised that erratic, crazy McCain came across as clear and direct and stable as he did -- especially after the insane last few days he had. Like other posters, I thought the pro-Dem media seemed disappointed immediately after, and was surprised that the flash polls afterwards showed Obama as "having won." Then again, like Pat Buchanan, I always thought Bush lost every debate in his elections, though the general public generally pronounced him the winner. I'll concede that the American electorate must have a better take on who's going to win than I do. Fortunately "his friends" can see through that poser McCain, even when his acting talents ratchet up a notch.

Obama/Biden 08

Posted by: noGOP4me | September 27, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

to jwald1 -:) afraid? guilty? it might seem like it...but actually, JWALD, John McStupid is again lying to his teeth. For the last 1 hour and 47 minutes during the debate, NOT EVEN ONCE DID MCSTUPID LOOK AT OBAMA. I take that attitude (body language)as contempt for Obama or condescendingly disrespectful of Obama.
My! my! what a spoil sport. John McMoron in tonight's debate showed his true self...he pick and choose who he wants to ignore or honor. As simple as that. Now, why would I put a President who has the capacity for hate and indifference...bias and prejudice...partial and preference. This is not presidential qualities at all. This tells me that if I am a minority, he would not look at me for the simple reason I'm a minority. That he would ignore me because I am not one of the select few he regard as equal. Looking at him, he is such a hateful man. He hates the world as much as he hates himself. One thing I notice of McAncient is JOHN MCMORON LOVES TO TALK IN PAST TENSE. WHAT I MEAN BY PAST TENSE IS, HE LOVES TO TELL STORIES OF LONG TIME AGO. CAN HE MAYBE TAKE US SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE PERHAPS?
This Presidential Debate on all COUNTS, domestic polls showing Obama in high numbers, likewise the international polls taken around the world...Obama is indeed the clear winner in tonights debate, Sept.26, 2008.
SORRY REPUBLICANS....EAT YOUR HEARTS OUT.

Posted by: prudencerussell | September 27, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

webercise said "What legislation has McCain passed in the 26 years he has been in congress that was directly in favor for middle and lower class Americans and not the rich?"

Whaddayawant, webercise, a toilet paper subsidy? Since toilet paper seems to be such a big topic with you.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 2:13 AM | Report abuse

Disrespect is at the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. I will not respect a person that thinks that $5M income and above define a rich person. Tell that to the cashier that makes less than $20,000 and supports a family.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Paineskeeper, the next US President is exactly what you have been told would happen in your lifetime. And, it isn't going to be McCain.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Just as I thought, Obama is an empty suit. No way he could be in charge of anything more complicated than maybe an elevator in Chicago.

He was 90 minutes of platitudes and liberal dogma that has failed for the past 50 years. His ideas are the regurgitated Soros, move-on.org crap that came from Hubert Humphrey to Jimmy Carter, to Gore, Kerry and now Obama.

did not include Clinton as he is really less liberal than the others and would not like to be included with such a group of losers.

These goons just parade Obama around like a rock star and don't understand they will not win an election just by repeating liar, liar. They don't want any details exposed and truly get angry as they feel like it is a moral imparative for them to win…..just cause they have lost so many times.

They resort to race, try to make voters feel guilty and/or racist if they don't support the empty suit. He is affirmative action's shining star, but not equipped to be President.

Once again, liberals lose in the arena of ideas that are American in nature….Obama would be perfect in Germany or France.

Posted by: prhornbeak | September 27, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry you socialists are offended if someone tells you "you don't understand", but YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. So, Dr. Kissinger decided to help you out tonight:

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."
--------------------

You know I'm really getting pissed off with all of the Repugnican trolls reiterating over and over this latest blurb from Henry Kissinger who is clearly either intentionally misrepresenting what he said just days earlier or is so old and senile that he can't remember from one day to the next what he says and believes.

Kissinger clearly and succinctly stated earlier in the week that he supported the idea of "high-level discussions" with Iranian leadership, "without preconditions." This was reported by MSM news organizations and confirmed by Katie Couric after her interview of Sarah Palin.

Also, in regard to McCain's consistent and self-important claim tonight that "Veterans know me and they know I'll take care of them", it must be noted that this is the same John McCain who consistently and unashamedly opposed almost every Senate bill brought to a vote that involved increases and upgrades in Veteran's benefits and health care. He voted against the Webb GI Bill, a bill that passed the House & Senate and was signed into law with almost overwhelming support by the rest of congress.

Being a veteran, myself, that really chapped my hide. Here is a man who served his country with honor and suffered terribly, returning home with permanent disabilities who "says" he is for veterans but when push comes to shove won't "say" YES, when his name is called for a vote on veterans benefit increases or the GI Bill.

John McCain is too old & too out of touch with the reality of the current economic scene. He is for big oil and big business and, most importantly, for himself. Barack Obama may not have the years in the House and Senate that McCain has but to me that is an asset, not a liability.

I was undecided about who to vote for or whether I could, in good conscience, vote for either candidate. After the recent antics of McCain and the tortuously sad and incompetent interviews given by Sarah Palin and after seeing and hearing Obama tonight, I am finally decided and will proudly cast my vote for Obama/Biden.

Posted by: WallyReed | September 27, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Paineskeeper


How many are supporting McCain only because his is vet, was a POW, white and/or cancer patient?

Posted by: ffffffrabbit | September 27, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Here is something to ponder about the VP debate:

I would be willing to bet that if Sen. Biden says that Gov. Palin is "naive" and does not "understand" the issues, he will be charged with bullying a poor defenseless woman.

On the other the neo-cons are saying that Sen. McCain made great points about Sen. Obamas "inexperience."

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama won. He did a good job of pointing out times when his judgment steered him right when others were wrong. Since McCain was often wrong at those times, he did quite a bit of grasping to try to throw off Obama and sounded desperate occasionally. One example was how we got distracted from Afghanistan. I worry about the chip on McCain’s shoulder from when he said he knows what it’s like to come home defeated and dishonored, therefore he would have our troops in Iraq stay until victory...past when the Iraqi people want us there? and when we could be fighting Al Qaeda more effectively in Afghanistan? Obama knows better.

I thought both answered where they'd get the money for their programs as well as anyone campaigning would: cutting waste & unhelpful programs, and from Obama: the $10 billion per month now going to Iraq. In two months, that would be more than the earmarks McCain so loathes.

Posted by: eburke2 | September 27, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Had a great joke about wasps, republicans, and pen!s' and it got moderated. Stupid blog moderators. It was aimed at you !!!DSW!!!. If you haven't noticed you are now my personal problem child and I will hunt you down to thwart you when it suits my fancy.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

McCain was repeating way too much
Obama was stale and sounded like he was taking an oral exam

Both failed to reach me

Posted by: ffffffrabbit | September 27, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Be honest, how many of you support him because he is black, and that is the only reason? Just be honest

Posted by: Paineskeeper | September 27, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

McCain is an outright liar. Please everyone look at his record of voting in regards to the veterans. He stated he would do everything for the veteran - he's a friend. His record shows he consistently voted against armor wear, equipment and adequate troop rest and veterans health issues. What a great looking out for John, keep up the support!!!!

Is that what America wants an outright liar for the President? Come on American, that is insulting!!!

Posted by: MsOv | September 27, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

DSM_CAL, What legislation has McCain passed in the 26 years he has been in congress that was directly in favor for middle and lower class Americans and not the rich?

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

WHY WAS SEN. OBAMA CONSTANTLY LOOKING AT SEN. MCCAIN IN THE EYES AND SEN. MCCAIN DID NOT DO THE SAME?

A blogger on The Fix goaded Sen. "Goat" I mean Obama into looking Sen. McCain in the eyes. They did this, so Sen. Obama will be distracted during the debate. The goat fell for it. Sen. McCain did not.

Posted by: CoreyB2 | September 27, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

JOHN MCCAIN ON FOREIGN MATTERS


MCCAIN ON SPAIN

The Spanish press is buzzing after U.S. presidential candidate John McCain failed to correctly identify Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain. According to the reporter that spoke with Senator McCain:
"Tuve la sensacion de que McCain no sabia de quien le estaba hablando."

(translation: "I had the feeling that McCain didn't know what he was talking about.")

According to one Spanish speaking TPM reader, "He gets confused in the interview, apparently thinking Zapatero is someone from Latin America who is an enemy of the United States and manages to create a minor international incident."

This is an odd one, making headlines in Spain but, likely due to the language barrier, seems slow in catching on here in the U.S.. The McCain/Palin ticket's credibility on "Foreign policy experience" vs. the Obama/Biden ticket seems to be evaporating faster than boiled alcohol.


MCCAIN ON PAKISTAN

McCain just badly misstated the history of Pakistan. For someone claiming extensive foreign policy knowledge, this is simply not acceptable. McCain said Pakistan was a failed state before President Musharraf came to power. That is not true.

Musharraf took power in a military coup in 1999 when he diposed Nawaz Sharif - who recently participated in the latest election. The coup followed the 1999 war in Kashmir with India and was due to a power struggle with Sharif, not due to Pakistan being a "failed state." The United States did not welcome the Musharraf coup. Instead the government of the United States imposed sanctions against this action.

Remember Pakistan had nuclear weapons in 1999. Did McCain believe that there was a failed state that possessed nuclear weapons? If he did he showed no concern at the time. The fact is McCain made a huge gaffe and demonstrated he has little understanding if the region. Huffington Post


MCCAIN ON THE IRAQ/PAKISTAN BORDER

During an interview on ABC's Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer, Senator McCain expressed concern over events "on the Iraq/Pakistan border". This would otherwise be a mild gaffe in that it is Iran and not Iraq that borders Pakistan. However, it achieves inclusion here because even if Senator McCain had correctly identified "Iran" as the country that borders Pakistan, the "situation" that both Sawyer and McCain are referring to are events on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, not Iran (or Iraq).


MCCAIN ON CZEXHOSLOVAKIA

During a July 14th Town Hall meeting in his home state of Arizona, Senator McCain referred to the country of "Czechoslovakia", which has not existed since it was divided into the Czech Republic & Slovakia back in 1993. This alone would not be a big deal, if Senator McCain hadn't made reference to the non-existent country again just two days later during a Town Hall meeting in neighboring New Mexico.

While picking on a reference to the nonexistent "Czechoslovakia" in the space of two days may seem unfair, Presidential Candidate, Governor George W. Bush also caught the Senator making the same gaffe during the 2000 Presidential campaign:

"In early 2000, then-Gov. George W. Bush told Roger Simon, then with U.S. News & World Report, that he was befuddled by how soft the media was on Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

"I don't think there is any plot; I hope there isn't," Bush said. "But it's an amazing phenomenon, I'll tell you that. It's like the flap over the foreign-leader deal. A guy gets up and quizzes me -- it's my fault for trying to answer -- but John McCain says something about the 'ambassador to Czechoslovakia.' Well, I know there is no Czechoslovakia (there's a Czech Republic and a Slovakia), but yet it didn't make the nightly national news. I'm not going to gripe about it, but the media question is starting to pop up."

Yes, even George Bush knew there is no longer a "Czechoslovakia", but eight years later, John McCain is still saying there is.

www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 2:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama clearly was the better prepared. John McCain was name dropping & big noting his experience but it was all tip & no iceberg.
I agree with one pundit who posted that if Obama was white & had an Anglo Saxon name, this would be a no contest. But unfortunately he is up against it. Despite this apparent handicap, I think enough new registered young voters will get him home in a tight finish though I hope to god the Democrats man the polling booths. How John Kerry lost to Bush last time round smelt rotten considering the exit poll numbers.

Posted by: jcorral1 | September 27, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Most of the Obama supporters who commented here tonight probable either did not even see the debate or were in a bar drinking and getting high while watching it. They have no clue about who answers correctly and showing that they were experienced to serve as our president and commander in chief.

Posted by: love234america | September 27, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

asknot, adding a "disclaimer" statement doesn't give you a pass on disrespect. It is not McCain's POW status that makes him the best canidate for the Presidency, it is just an added bonus.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

ziadora, you do realize that your quote of Kissinger's proves that Obama was off his nut in claiming that Kissinger agreed with Obama, don't you?

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

THE NEW AMERICAN
Though the Obama-McCain debate went more or less smoothly as compared to some other defining moments in politics like the Kenneddy-Nixon one, it dawned on me that I just had witnessed the tip of a great change in our culture.
The vannishing of an era, represented by an old, tired and angry man personified by McCain, and the raise of the new American, one which will be able to look forward, face high up into the ominous challenges of the future. And how the challenges from this 21st century in all fronts need more than the easy and simple answers of the past. The world just changed a few years ago... just a few days ago! and some haven't noticed.
Some pivotal changes come to happen unnoticed right away, like tonight. Not at any other moment in the present time, emodied in the political campaign, wasn't clear to me as how things are different. The contrast couln't be greater- on the issues, one stubbornly clinging to old concepts and ideas and the other being proactive. Body language wise, John McCain bent over as if carrying a heavy load, eye sight down with a grimace, in sharp contraste with Barak Obama's overall poise...
... On how we don't need anymore the sheriff shooting his guns to impose law and order but a statesman able to lead its people through a mined path. Today's needs are other and if this society is to survive, we should find new answers to a most complicated world.
And Obama just happens to be here at the right moment and the right time, being the new American needed.
Tonight and for many years to come, we are all Obama!

Posted by: WEAREALLOBAMA | September 27, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse

victoriaewell, you must be one of the three monkeys - see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse

McCain was very well spoken, even if he stumbled over a name. He was witty and handed Obama humility time and time again. It was a wonderful thing to watch an older man put that ignorant wanna be in his place. Never trust anyone who changes the way they feel as much as Obama does. But hey, if Holywood tells you to vote for Obama you best get it done... Right?

Posted by: Paineskeeper | September 27, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse

Look at each other. Discuss, ignore that we are watching. Obama, look at McCain. McCain look at Obama. I want to see the discussion between the two of you.

Lehrer was like a bad marriage counselor looking for the couple to fight.

McCain looked as if he was wearing a neck brace. McCain can hardly bend his arms, please stand straight up. We get it McCain . . . you are a vet, got it. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Obama could have been more straight forward. What does he half to loose? Seriously. What are you willing to cut or consolidate?

Nobody even took the easy answers . . . like National Parks and National Forest are not under the same Department? How about higher import taxes? How about taxing all companies that mass import wares (ie Kmart, Walmart).

Easy answers.
Just frustrating to watch.

Put in all 5 candidates next time:

Nadar, Barr, Paul, Obama, McCain


Neither candidate was willing to say what needed to

Posted by: ffffffrabbit | September 27, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse

"ASKNOT

Corporate/legal entities are not human.

That's where the dis-connect lies.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | September 27, 2008 1:54 AM "

An extraterrestrial entity developed all this institutions? Did they appear to as scribed on stone? Aren't they the product of a fertile human intelligence? Aren't they run/operated/defined/developed/prescribed/analyzed/financed/invested-to by humans?


Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

webercise:

Come on ... what do you want to debate?

Or don't you have anything beyond ad hominem attacks and comments about toilet paper?

Sincerely,
DSM_CAL

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

John McCain Won. Barak Obama Lose Unbelieveable.

Posted by: hankomatic1 | September 27, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

On the bailout:
Both candidates agreed that we are going to have to "suck it up" and accept some form of bailout. What Sen. Obama said is that he cannot measure the effect it would have on his presidency until he knows the final dollar amount. And both candidates clearly had no idea of what the specifics were going to be - after all, the final proposal has not surfaced yet. So in essence the question was not really a fair one.

As for who looked better than whom, while I think it is a silly question, NPR had a program that showed the vast majority of Americans vote on just those type of issues. Kind of embarassing isn't it?

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Disclaimer: A soldier's service to country is one of the noblest deeds.

However, being a P.O.W. does not give you the abilities to become a president and guide the future of $300M people!!!. Enough with this ranting. It is really sickening to see good and honest people fall into that trap. If that is the case, why don't we enforce a draft to make sure that all future officers of government have an experience of war and soldiering?


Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

I decided to come at this completely neutral.

I think both canidates brought it tonight. Great job to both!!!

I enjoyed this debate because I felt like the watcher really needed a brain to decipher a clear winner or loser.

My conclusion is that, although both were very well rehaersed, and coached, Obama Just seemed a little naive. Perhaps McCain was able to establish this beause he's been at it for so long, but to me, Obama seemed like he may actually need what McCain referenced in his closing statement as "on the job training".

I do give kudos to both though. I think each of them gave some well thought answers, and if nothing else, showed us where the major differences between them lay.

Tonight, I'm giving it to McCain, his experience, and his ability to emphasize it, has served him well in this arena.

Posted by: victoriaewell | September 27, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Obama should talk to Ahmadinejad. He has
plenty of experience dealing with lunatics
like his pastor of 20 years & his terrorist
pals.

Posted by: jbianco28 | September 27, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Not even close. McCain was the clear winner. More poised, more articulate, more presidential.

Obama was his usual stuttering self ... He clearly cannot speak extemporaneously.

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

McCain has scr*wed the middle class!!

McCain Has Based His 2008 Campaign On Promoting Less Regulation

McCain: “I Don’t Think Anyone Who Wants To Increase The Burden Of Government Regulation And Higher Taxes Has Any Real Understanding Of Economics.” During a McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, John McCain said, “When we come out of this recession and we will because I believe that the fundamentals of our economy are good … Sen. Clinton wants the government to make the decisions for you on your health care, I want the families to make the decisions on their health care. I don’t think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country.” [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, 4/23/08; emphasis added]

McCain: “I Understand Why The AFL-CIO And Maybe Other Unions May Oppose My Free Market, Less Regulation, Right To Work.” During an appearance on Fox’s “Special Report with Brit Hume,” John McCain said, “I understand why the AFL-CIO and maybe other unions may oppose my free market less regulation right to work. I think we have honest differences of opinion. I respect those labor unions, but I’m sure that those differences are very intense and very real.” [Fox News,” Special Report with Brit Hume,” 3/12/08]

McCain: “Let’s Reduce Regulation.” While speaking about the economy in St. Louis, Missouri, John McCain said, “I’m asked all the time are we in a recession or not in a recession. And I don’t know the answer to that because it’s kind of a technical term… I do not believe we should raise your taxes. I think it would be the worst thing we could do. And that means to me I think the tax cuts need to be made permanent. When you’ve got a bad economy, the worst thing you can do is increase people’s tax burden. Let’s reduce it. Let’s reduce regulation.” [CNN, “Ballot Bowl, 3/15/08]

McCain: “We Need To Return To The Reagan Years… We Need Less Regulation.” As shown on PBS’s “Washington Week,” John McCain said, “We need to return to the Reagan years. We need to have fiscal conservatism. We need less government. We need less regulation. We need to end of spending spree which has eroded our base of Republican support.” [PBS, “Washington Week,” 1/25/08]

McCain Promised To “Give Them Lower Taxes, Less Regulation, Less Government In Their Lives.” As shown on CNN’s “CNN Newsroom,” John McCain said, “We’ve got to do the other things necessary to encourage business and give them lower taxes, less regulation, less government in their lives, and that means a simpler, fairer — tax code. The tax code in America is broken and it needs to be fixed.” [CNN, “CNN Newsroom,” 2/14/08]

To Fix the Economy, McCain Would “We’ve Got To Take Specific Actions, Keep Their Taxes Low, Less Regulation.” As shown on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” John McCain said, “That our economy is in terrible shape, that we’ve got to take specific actions, keep their taxes low, less regulation, get - start exploring and exploiting offshore oil deposits.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 7/2/08]

McCain Said The Difference Between Obama & Himself Would Be “More Regulation Or Less Regulation.” During a media availability in Phoenix, Arizona, John McCain said, “I think the important thing is that there will be stark differences between either Senator [Clinton] or Senator Obama and me because they are liberal Democrats and I’m a conservative Republican… whether we pursue the present strategy in Iraq or whether we — or whether we set a date for withdrawal, which will mean Al Qaida wins; whether we have more regulation or less regulation.” [McCain Media Availability via CQ Transcriptions, 3/3/08; emphasis added]

McCain: “Less Government, Lower Taxes, Less Regulation, Safer America Is What I Can Give America.” During an appearance on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” John McCain said, “I can make a case that a less government, lower taxes, less regulation, safer America is what I can give America. But I don’t underestimate the size of the challenge.” [CBS, “60 Minutes,” 3/9/08]

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

webercise, a debate?! (yawn) My point is that Obama saw the right direction for this country but he saw it in McCain's ideology. Obama's repeated agreement with McCain comes across as simple deferment to a man who already knows the right answer.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

ASKNOT

Corporate/legal entities are not human.

That's where the dis-connect lies.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | September 27, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

DSM_CAL, So you aren't in the toilet yet. I live in Arizona and I know McCain first hand and he doesn't care nothing about you are me or anybody else. He cares only about himself and doing whatever he can to be the President! If you can't see that then you definitely should wipe your butt with that toilet papper you have in your hand.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

CNN's instant poll of 524 voters had Obama winning 51% to 38%.

MediaCurves had a focus group of Independent voters.
61% said Obama won, 39% McCain won

http://mediacurves.com/

The Frank Luntz focus groups also said Obama won.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i23rDuymLwk

The Frank Luntz focus groups on Palin was 2 to 1 against Palin

http://tinyurl.com/4jd2cn

Posted by: JimWalsh1 | September 27, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

This debate doesn't change anything. People take what they like. If this financial crisis didn't teach us all what we should have learned long ago, may be more economic difficulties ahead will wake somebody up. Fermented by hollywood and the media, a culture of instant gratification, instant success, no requirement of accountabilty and hardwork, taking everything for granted, counting on debt and government as the solution is pervading and permeate the fabric of the society from top to bottom. It's a cancer that undermines the competitiveness of America for years to come. Obama fits the hollywood image of a person should play the role of the drama. And the nation is still in fantasy and believe things will mircalously turn around if Obama is elected and Iraq troop comes home. That's the consequence of the failed public education system that discourages discipline and encourages tolerance of failures with no accountability.

Posted by: jerryh1 | September 27, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

The debate showed McCain definitely had the upper hand on experience. Obama sounded like he was taking an oral exam.

Some mentioned McCain didn't wear a flag pin......he doesn't need to....his patriotism has been proven.

Posted by: ca67klein | September 27, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

I am a little puzzled by the approval expressed for Obama. I thought he didn't perform well at all. Many of his answers to the questions given seemed really long, confusing, and disorganized. McCain was much more clear in his delivery.

McCain really surprised me tonight, and at this rate, I think he'll convince a lot of voters to vote Republican this election.

It seems that a lot of commentary posted here appears to be attempting to justify Obama's performance after the fact, which gives me more reason to doubt that he did well tonight. And no, that isn't racism, it's called sincerity.

Posted by: Jack_Sharkey | September 27, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, royalaxation, your simple-minded quoting of Katie Couric as some kinda authority on Kissinger's views about Iran was overtaken earlier tonight when Kissinger said that Obama's interpretation (received from Couric) was wrong. Obama looks foolish now and Couric looks like a liar. Hey, I guess this shows that Palin is smarter than either Couric or Obama. Not that that's any big deal.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

McCain appeared brain damaged. He was heavily scripted, with little off-point punch lines, which he often repeated slight variations of, almost always inappropriate to the topic context. McCain repeatedly did not respond to questions, nor to comeback remarks by Obama.

Obama clearly had talking points, but wove them into the topic. He was direct, and responsive, as well as articulate.

Both candidates evaded answering about the bank bailout, which is probably wise, since the proposed $700 billion plan is nothing more than a decadent giveaway to the banks to continue their follies. A reasonable alternative, proposed by conservative Republicans, surely would not have gotten positive comment from the two debaters.

Posted by: blueduck2 | September 27, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

I find many things that supporters of Obama share amongst themselves. Self delusion, ignorance and a complete lack of respect for what being American means.
Often throughout your posts you call McCain a caward. Really? this man was a P.O.W. I am sure that he has faced more fear than all of you put togather. You call him out of touch old man. How can you not call Obama out of touch. He changes his tune every half hour, ever since he started running for President.
I am a very open person about these things and try not to take sides too quickly, but I have to say that McCain schooled that little boy! And the rudeness that I have witnessed over the months from Democratic supporters of Obama, I would never want to call myself a Democrat. So thank you for helping me completely make up my mind that I am difinitly a Republican. Most definitly!

Posted by: Paineskeeper | September 27, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama won this debate. Obama achieved what he went into this debate which was his vision for the country, expose Mccain supporting Bush and this administration 90% of the time and taking the foriegn policy argument away from Mccain. Obama won because Mccain had no vision for where he wants to take the country and didn't command Obama on foreign policy which was his stronghold, and just about every subject Mccain had a problem with eventhough Obama didn't hammer him on them. Obama looked presidential, he was confident and very insightfull, and came across like a gentlemen and where was Sarah Palin? Obama's VP Biden was giving interviews, why wasn't Palin giving interviews for Mccain? Obama/Biden is clearly the winning ticket.

Posted by: amosdefnails | September 27, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Still wondering why he did not look Obama in the eye. Possible: (1) afraid of opponent; (2) McCain avoiding being distracted by seeing Obama while sticking to scripted answers; (3) rude and hostile but does not know any better; ???
Cowards avoid eye contact. So should you when encountering certain animals, e.g. mean dogs, wolves, etc. Puzzled.

Posted by: robertjj1 | September 27, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Finally, some republicans who want to DEBATE!

mortfan, and your point is?

ThisIsReality, what are you talking about? My point was that Kissinger said without ANY CONDITIONS in talking to Iran.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Asknot:
Are you responding to my post? Please believe me, I am not in any way suggesting that Sen. Obama's plans are socialist. Just that that is the way they have been presented in order to terrify the older voters, if that makes sense?

I too am tired of the assumption that "free Markets" = honest markets. I am all for severe regulations and oversight.

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Regarding Henry Kissinger on Iran, please see the info. below.

CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL

The Next President: A World of Challenges

5 former Secretaries of State tell Christiane Amanpour & Frank Sesno what advice they have for “The Next President.”

Aired September 20, 2008 - 21:00 ET

KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/20/se.01.html

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

webercise:

Since you seem interested in McCain's health, how about Obama's?

I wonder if he has any lung damage from smoking cigarettes (has he even really quit?), or nasal damage from his cocaine use?

Sincerely,
DSM_CAL

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Socialism??? I don't think you even grasp the ideas of socialism. Unless of course you are equating socialism with stalinism and leninism and all the marxists-leninists parties in eastern AND western europe. Because if you do, you have lost the measure of the political spectrum. Is the fact that a government wants to care for all the citizens (see universal health care) a bad thing? Do, you actually believe that private enterprise, which exists to maximize the profits of the share holders does better for providing for the citizens well-being?

Are you actually serious in thinking that private financial institutions are out there to help the little guy put a lasting roof over his/her head and provide a future for their children?

When did caring about the social well-fare of the citizens become so evil? Or do you think that the universal health care of the Germans has prevented them for developing an admirable heavy industry and financial corporate giants?

Markets are not rational because humans are not rational. Therefore we cannot expect everything from the markets as we cannot expect everything from the government. The best ability of the human race is flexibility and adaptation. A guy that seems stuck the past achievements seems inflexible and difficult to adapt. I don't expect a guy in his seventies to be able to grasp the pulse of the emerging technologies, the emerging knowledge, the face of the future.

Obama for president.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

OMG I have to respond to bifslaw!!!!
Must be nice to have stocks or shares in ANYTHING, even so much as being able to put $50 bucks a month away is beyond me right now. And you know what? My 2 children and I still try to find a way to help those even less fortunate than us in our small community. (I am supporting 2 kids on less than 18K per year and I don't whine as much as repubs making 10 times that). You are a prime example of those who are out of touch. If we don't take care of each and those in the world who are less fortunate then we have NOTHING upon which to build a sound future. I have kept my cool, but that post was so incredibly offensive. If being "liberal" means I have a brain and think about the global picture and those who live on this earth, then I am unbelievably proud to be one.

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

webercise:

Nobody will debate you? Almost all of your posts just contain ad hominem attacks. What do you want to debate?

Sincerely,
DSM_CAL

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

flyingmarlin,

Glad you saw what I saw.

Obama had the high ground and deferred to Senator McCain.

I respect John McCain, but not enough to make him president.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | September 27, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Dsm...

Your beating a dead horse about ad hominem attacks. It doesn't matter. It's too late to defend McCain by taking the highroad. Your still a freak no matter what you say. Now go please Santorum... sexually! Thank you. I'm tired of hearing his drivel on Fox News.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Why is the bar set so low for Obama? Afterall, he is the brilliant orator, educated at Harvard Law and Columbia University with vision and hope. Old man McCain, near his death bed, barely made it out of the Naval Academy somehow was suppose to win this easily? If you are going to make an argument, be consistent at least.

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 27, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

webercise, as I do not have the transcript in front of me, I can hardly give an exact number at this point but I will count them when I read the transcript. On almost every 2 or 3 response from McCain, Obama would insert the phrase, "(Senator) McCain is right..." He would then repeat the whatever main point that McCain made.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

webercise, I guess the news hasn't gotten through to YOU, but the biggest news of the night is that Katie Couric was dead wrong in her interview with Palin about Kissinger's views towards Iranian negotiations and Obama followed Couric right over the cliff. Couric lied and Obama was, well, gullible. These are the people you listen to? Chuckle.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

miller51550, I would like to see McCain's entire medical history and exactly what happened while he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

One of the surest signs you are being lied to is when someone can not look you in the eye. McCain's inability to make eye contact made me feel as if he was either afraid or felt guilty.

Posted by: jwald1 | September 27, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

Bifslaw,
Good riddance, your stock ain't worth sh!t anyways... Take your Hitler posts elsewhere.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

Realbrother003 You use the same tired old speech that has been said for 110 years, it's because he's black, give us a break. If any one here is a racist it is you. So many people say race hasn't anything to do with it, after all your not supporting Obama because he's black are you? Thats not the intelligent way to chose a President is it? Do you even know what his position on policy is? I doubt it. But if any one disagrees with you and your choice they are racist. You want to see a racist, look in the mirror,
Obama is out for his own personal gain, and doesn't give a s... about you. In fact his wife thinks people like you bring down black people

Posted by: Mindroth2000 | September 27, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked:

Of course ... I agree ... you can say whatever you want. You have freedom of speech.

However, you do not have to be running for office to be guity of ad hominem attacks.

People might take what you think more seriously if you did not do that ... just saying ...

Sincerely,
DSM_CAL

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Obama showed tonight the real one that can and does reach across the aisle, by acknowledging at times, when he thought that McCain had been right. You never heard anything like that out of McCain. He is the, MY WAY ALL THE WAY, EXACTLEY THE BUSH/CHENEY ATTITUDES. No McBushs' third term.

Posted by: safmmail | September 27, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

I will cancel my subsription along with all the seniors in my building. and will subscribe to the Washington Times.
I will also insruct my stock broker to sell my shares in the Washington Post because of you left wing standing. And, I am sending a letter to Berkshire Hathaway about the one way left leaning socialistic views you all have..and how you edit out all info so it looks like Obama is winning when he is not.
Go and listnen to someone like mike savage and get a reality check! You Liberals think that you can save the world. But, you put your kids in private schools, and you buy up places like Anacostia and try to run out the black folks and turn around and say we are all alike.....and the Republicans hate you!

Posted by: bifslaw65 | September 27, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

I couldn't disagree with you more, Chris. Obama was clearly the more assertive, confident and commanding gentleman on the stage at Ole Miss. His body language and controlled speech conveyed authority and steadfastness. By contrast, McCain's smile looked painful, and his constant shifting and shuffling behind the podium made him look ill at ease and over matched.
Several times during the debate McCain attempted to cut Obama off but the senator from Illinois stood his ground until McCain backed off and allowed him to finish his point. In other words, Obama controlled McCain.
Obama addressed McCain, he looked at him and attempted to engage him in debate, while McCain stared childishly at Lehrer, looking for a way out.
And a government spending freeze!? What the hell is he talking about? What about education? What about fire departments, city government, health clinics, social security, libraries, judicial systems, road maintenance, forest and resource management, water management, BLM lands, climate research, etc. etc. etc. What does he think a spending freeze would possibly accomplish? And how long would it last? Days? Weeks? Months? This is an even bigger gimmick than his "Gas Tax Holiday." It sounds to me like he's offering Americans the Blue Light Special, a Buy-One-Get-One-Free government where everyday's a bargain. Ludicrous.
What happened to the "Straight Talk Express?" What happened to John McCain, the man who's gonna tell it to ya straight even if you don't like it because he's his own man, beholden to no one but the American public and you should like him for being a real, honest guy that presents the cold hard truth? Seems to me like he's been replaced with a slithering, conniving old man who's willing to do whatever, say whatever, and sell out to whomever he can to become president. How else to explain his decision to adhere to Rove's recommendation that he not select his buddy Lieberman because the so-called "Christian" right wouldn't buy the choice. Instead he chose a completely unqualified, dim-witted running mate with a conservative, evangelical background. The first in a series of desperate, sell-out moves in his avaricious grasp for power.
I also thought that Obama's comment regarding McCain's misinterpretation of Kissinger was well made and totally appropriate. After her interview with Sara Palin, Katie Couric reported that Kissinger has stated - contrary to Sara Palin's belief as well as to McCain's assertions at tonight's debate - that "[Kissinger] supports talks if not with Ahmadinejad, than with high-level Iranian officials without preconditions." (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/palin-kissinger.html)
Also, after the debate, CBS showed a room full of undecided voters who were providing moment-by-moment feedback on the debate. In their opinion, Obama provided the strongest talking point of the night. When asked to raise their hands to show whom they thought won the debate, three, maybe four of the people in a room of about twenty believed McCain had. The rest chose Obama. And a poll on The Guardian's website shows that nearly 84% of respondents (2,324 people) believe Obama won the debate. Only 448, a little over 16%, believe McCain did. Sounds like a lot of people disagree with you, Chris.

Posted by: royalaxation | September 27, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

mortfan, please clarify your post.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

THIS was the debate McCain was supposed to WIN? Not only win, but WIN BIG?

Not so fast, my friends.
Obama stood toe to toe with the supposed foreign policy expert in this campaign.

Obama displayed just as much knowledge about the issues as McCain. Not a big win for Obama, but, as far as expectations go, a tie is a win for Obama here.

It would be like taking the Detroit Lions and making them play the All Time Steelers team, and it ended in a 21-21 tie.


On the economy, as expected, Obama won big.

Of course, on style, class, and temperment, Obama won real big.

Another bad night for McCain.

Posted by: jgarrisn | September 27, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

miller51550, your blog post reminded me of the interview that Palin did with Couric.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Apparently, even Obama is a MCain supporter. I lost count of how many times Obama agreed with McCain or stated that MCain was right. I think anyone who is looking for Presidential ability has to look at accomplishment not speculation. Obama's tax plan will be what causes the biggest "change". It will only leave change in the pockets of the American people.

Posted by: mortfan | September 27, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Most of this debate was a slam dunk for Barack Obama. McCain looked old and tired and never looked his opponent in the eyss.

I am convinced that embedded racism is the ONLY reason Sen. Obama is not up by 15 points right now.

The skinheads trying to diss Obama in this forum are exhibit A. By the time Palin swan dives next thursday this race will finally be over.

Posted by: bernie11 | September 27, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Amazing how strongly people's emotions and preconceptions edit their perceptions.

Obama cleared a major hurdle tonight. You may not want to believe it, but you can't deny it. McCain did nothing to dispel the notion that he talks change better than he walks it, and Obama made good progress dispelling the idea he would be in over his head as CoC.

Both candidates performed well, and I have seen a lot of commentary to the effect we're not looking at a "lesser of two evils" election this time, which is all to the good.

Posted by: starthom | September 27, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Where was McCain's lapel flag pin?
Obama had his on,so I guess he wins.

To all of you wing-nuts who cried anti-american when Obama didn't wear one,this is for you.

Posted by: jime2000 | September 27, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Can someone explain what exactly this means:

We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems.

Obama has used that term often, as if it somehow has some significant meaning. Is he stealing Clinton's "bridge to the 21st century" line? Is there any substance in this man?

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 27, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Not once did McCain look Obama in the eye. McCain is a COWARD.

The best moment of the debate was when McCain compared Obama to Bush ("We've seen this stubborness before.") and Obama LAUGHED at him.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse
_________________________________

i noticed that too....it was kinda weak for mccain to go there since it did not make much sense....the statement that obama made about mccain acting like the war started in 2007 instead of 2003 was funny too...americans aren't foolish enough to just look at the "surge" they are looking at the war as a whole...

Posted by: bitterindependent | September 27, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

I again am amazed.. Beauty is truly in the beholder.

As usual... the Obama supporters feel that he won...he was more Presidential.

One poster even made a comment about how Obama did not mentioned on his application to HARVARD that he was Black.

For that poster I would like to see printed, validated proof that is a true statement.

But the real issue is the debate, I think McCain is limited in his mobility like one of the other posters. Everyone is quick to jump on him about not looking Obama in the Eye, and telling Obama that he did not know what he was talking about.

Obama had 300 advisors help HIM gather data/information for this DEBATE. He has been practicing for weeks. (I think HE HAD TO do the debate tonight.. because he did not want to continue to practice or have his INFORMATION CHANGE ON HIM.)

His entire debate style was out of the classic debate handbook or the training of a defense lawyer. Therefore it was an ACT. Obama showed me little more that being able to practice, give a pre-canned speech/debate.. making sure that he got his points across.

The Democrat ploy is to keep hammering McCain on the same ole Bush policies for the next four years.

I trust McCain more than Obama to make PAINFUL decisions regarding spending in Washington. Obama kept repeating that he would keep find ways to fund his education, energy, and other programs by ???? That is the big question. From the Appearance in what has gone on in funding the past two weeks. His cronies in the Democratic Party... continue to spend money on special projects.. They JUST PUSHED THROUGH A 1 TRILLION SPENDING BILL FOR NEXT YEAR.

Obey takes great pride in the fact that this was done IN SECRET.. and it was presented and signed in 24 HOURS.

This has not hit the news channels BECAUSE THE OBAMA campaign could not handle the fallout.

So you can declare the winner of the debate, you can sit and dream about change, and hope. You can believe a 'new' fresh face. But OBAMA does not offer nothing but the same dirty politics he learned while being a community organizer.

Posted by: miller51550 | September 27, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

i have been reading these posts all night and I think we can do without the name calling (Idiots) and racial remarks. While I think race is going to be an important issue (whether people admit it or not), Sen. Obama may lose votes for other reasons. For example, in discussing the economy and the bailout, there have been charges of economic "socialism" for the govt to take a share of the businesses in order to recoup losses. And the same charge has been made about Sen. Obama's health care plan (and Hillary's before him). Even the word "socialism" terrifies the older boomers who clearly are in favor of corporate largesse -just not for the impoverished. At any rate, this election is polarizing enough without all of us being rude and making charges of racism. "You can disagree without being disagreeable." Unless you are Sen. McCain (couldn't resist). And my vote is going to Obama - no contest.

Posted by: wa3ronds | September 27, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

DSM_CAL:

I love the fact that you are trying to portray McCain as the erudite of the two. We are going to exchange one idiot for another? Oh, come on....

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Damn, I have been on this blog for over an hour and not one republican has answered by request to debate on the issues! I guess the talking points don't go beyond one sentence. I'm feeling REAL good............ Obama is a genius and McCain is ? Sh*t it must be some where in the toilet. Oh, yes. I just flushed it down the toilet. Oops. Ha! Ha! Ha!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

The idelogical differences were dramatic. Obama is tomorrow, McCain the past.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

bitterindependent makes a good point.

This was the foreign policy debate, and this was suppose to be McCain's strength. He needed to get a home run especially with the bad 2 weeks he's been having.

A slight edge to Obama or a tie does McCain no good.

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

-----

John McCain's a racist bigot.


Sarah Palin is a bigot along with her witch hunter friend.

-----

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA WINS 1st ROUND

Clearly, Barack Obama won the key points:

Obama was calm, poised, and presidentail

Obama displayed thorough knowledge of every issue

Obama showed that he can work across the aisle by agreeing with McCain on some points, while clarifying his differences with McCain on the details

Obama gave specific examples of how he will fix the economy and give tax cuts to the middle class

McCain gave no specifics. He merely implied he will continue the economic and foreign policies of George W Bush

And, quite simple, McCain appeared ANGRY and ARROGANT. NOT traits that independents are looking for in thier next president.

The biggest win for Obama tonight, even bigger than outclassing and expressing better knowledge of the facts than McCain, was that Obama passed the "does he look and sound like a president" test. He passed with flying colors!

Posted by: jgarrisn | September 27, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama showed a lack of good judgement in saying that he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

More on this:

************************************
Fact Check: Kissinger Defends McCain's Iran Stance
September 26, 2008 11:54 PM

ABC News' Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday's presidential debate saying he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality," Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.

***********************

Obama clearly showed a lack of good judgement on this issue.

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

private message to schmetterlingtoo

You can put lipstick on a pig, but her name is still SP.

Posted by: dave40 | September 27, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

DSM_CAL said...

DixieWrecked:

You called me a, and I quote, "Freak".

I think you need to look up ad hominem in the dictionary too.

It's seems like that's YOUR debate strategy too!

lol

Sincerely,
DSM_CAL
______________

"It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."

I'm not running for political office... Freak... I do as I please...

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

One thing I'll give Republicans credit for is there allegance is remarkable.

You could put crap on a plate to run with McCain and they would vote for it.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

foreign policy was supposed to be obamas weakness, but in the debates he showed that he could hold his own and at times was more knowledgeable than mccain...i thought that obama did a good job of tying mccains judgement with bush every chance he got....the fact that mccain could not look obama in the eye and phrases like "he just doesn't understand" made mccain appear frustrated that he could not shake or rattle obama in a debate that he was clearly supposed to be an expert on....i felt like it was more of a draw, but i give a slight edge to obama because mccain was unable to out pace or pummel obama on the issues.....

Posted by: bitterindependent | September 27, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Not even close. McCain was the clear winner. More poised, more articulate, more presidential.

Obama was his usual stuttering self ... He clearly cannot speak extemporaneously.

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

CBS News polled 500 uncommitted voters and found:

* 40% thought Obama won, 22% thought McCain won, and the rest thought it was a draw
* 46% said their opinion of Obama got better tonight
* 68% think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy, compared to 42% for John McCain
* 55% think McCain would make the right decisions about Iraq, compared to 49% for Obama

MediaCurves held a focus group, and while Democrats and Republicans broke along party lines, independents gave the edge to Obama on every segment:

* 61% of independents said Obama won, compared to 39% for McCain (”tie” wasn’t given as an option)
* Independents rated the segment on Russia as Obama’s best, giving him the edge 66.7% to 33.3%
* Independents rated the segment on government spending as Obama’s worst, giving him the edge over McCain 53.4% to 46.6%

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

What if he was Jewish biflaw?
Bet you wouldn't try to crack the same hitler post. Of course you fall inline with the Israeli zionist regime and don't realize your being used. Call me anti-semitic... I don't care. Aipac has too much power in D.C. compared to the percentage of the population THEY represent. Not against anti-zionist jews.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

schmetterlingtoo, if McCain was a genius, we would have won the Iraq invasion in a few weeks, the economy would be sound and we would be energy independent. Come on. Is that all you got? My 7 yr. old can out debate you.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

Dano111 you're right. Notice that the Reps. won't discuss the issues that were discussed in the debate? They have made up their minds. They have a strategy of trying to paint Obama as stupid and inexperienced and unable to "understand" how Superior White people are and its silly.

Trust that while the Right Wingers actually "think" we are stupid enough for them to convince us that we saw something we didn't see its them that are actually DUMB enough to think that we are buying their BS.

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Oh, Yeah, sure. McCain's an idiot like Palin. That's why he picked her.

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

DixieWrecked:

You called me a, and I quote, "Freak".

I think you need to look up ad hominem in the dictionary too.

It's seems like that's YOUR debate strategy too!

lol

Sincerely,
DSM_CAL

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

If John McCain can’t even look his opponent in a civil debate in the eye, how the heck is he gonna sit across the table from a world leader, yes even an antagonistic world leader who McCain doesn’t like much, and look him or her in the eye. Isn’t the purpose of a statesman to persuade? I would think the ability to persuade starts with the ability to look someone straight in the eye while talking. McCain’s eye avoidance does nothing to inspire confidence that he could persuade anybody of anything. Not the demeanor I want representing me in the White House.

Posted by: dlopata | September 27, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Next up: Palin and Biden.

Biden will throw her softballs, Plain will take care of the rest.

Even McCain supporters must admit she isnt experienced enough. It would be deliberate, reckless treason to put her in office.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Not once did McCain look Obama in the eye. McCain is a COWARD.

The best moment of the debate was when McCain compared Obama to Bush ("We've seen this stubborness before.") and Obama LAUGHED at him.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

bifslaw65, what republican office are you typing from?

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

Again, the Racists, Black Supremacists(White man hating lesbians) are going to have to come up with something more then how the Candidates "looked". They both had blue suits on and white shirts. Who fidgetted and who made eye contack (sic) and hand gesters (sic) is NOT what we were going on.

Only because Obama made NO POINTS and McCain skunked him do you Idiots want to talk about how someone "looked".

Stop that, this is about the issues and who is better suited to be the NEXT PRESIDENT not about some nonsense and stereotypes.

John McCain is a genius and Barack Obama is a closet racist Rev. Wright lovin' fool.

And I agree, Barack Obama DOES need lipstick!

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

This debate was McCain recovering the onside kick. This isn't game changing, but did save him from defeat. The thing was that when it comes to non-Iraq foreign policy, there isn't a lot of difference between Obama and McCain. When it comes to iraq, people didn't hear anything new.

Downside for Obama is that he didn't "close the deal"

Downside for McCain is that he couldn't make up ground on a subject that is his strong point.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 27, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Come on you republicans! Admit it, you are backing a LOSER. Sorry, you backing LOSERS! Your time has passed and the true USA is just around the corner! A true democracy that trickles from the bottom up! Your Reagon economics is DEAD!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

The very question as to who "won" a debate is largely irrevelant. A presidential debate is not a sporting event or beauty contest. The candidate, who comes across on television as performing better, is but one factor, of many, in deciding who is likely to become a better president. Far more important are his/her positions on issues, who offers the best, most just and wisest proposals on a variety of domestic, as well as foreign issues. Other important factors include how a candidate comes across in speeches, press conferences, knowledge about issues, integrity, relevant experience, proper temperament, wise judgment and the kind of advisers the presidential candidate will likely choose.

I thought Al Gore came across as rude and condescending with his frequent sighs in the debate with George W Bush. John Mccain came across as far more rude and condescending in his frequent, obviously scripted, derisive comments about Barack not understanding various issues. By doing so he seemed less presidential, clearly partisan and petty.

As to Jim Lehrer, I do not think he often asks good, specific questions. Some of his questions, especially toward the end of the debate, were so general, both candidates gave predictable platitudes as replies.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | September 27, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

"Who was condesending? Obama only called McCain by his first name--John." dknecht

---

Actually, that is quite respectful of Obama...afterall, he could have called him...oh, I don't know, something like...Scabbers McCain : )

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

I see why you folks are falling in the ratings. you cant stand any negatives about your boy...and you will do what it takes to keep him looking like a decent person. however, he is a Chicago thug that has takin more kick backs and bribes than any other chico in a long time. How about Ayres? Why does he get a pass from you people? Because he is black?

Posted by: bifslaw65 | September 27, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

>This was a clear case of the merely articulate versus the expert.

Come on. Being partisan is one thing, being dishonest is another.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

BTW, what's up with this moderator? He did a pretty lousy job, especially when McCain kept talking without giving Obama a chance to speak. Jim should have cut off McCain. McCain came out very arrogant throughout the debate.

I am also pretty sure Obama will figure out how to punch this guy in the next two rounds.

Posted by: nri1998 | September 27, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Next up: Palin and Biden.

Now THAT will be fun.

Posted by: ElrodinTN | September 27, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Much to my regret I have to say that the tenor of this debate could be described as a draw by more people than I would have expected before.

I believe Obama did not use the chance to really cook Cain's goose, when he had plenty of chances to do so:

1. Bailout: Obama should have grilled Cain because of the chaos he caused and doesn't realize the seriousness of the situation

2.General Economy: Cain sated the US would be still No. 1 exporter, producer, importer... boy, he is really clueless, it's really more than scary to think about him and Palin maneuvering our country in these days which such an naive picture.

3. Foreign Affairs: I cannot hear that veteran waffle anymore. Cain would really start any war he can see and fight it to the very end - just as a matter of principle - to finally lose it anyway. Only because he believes the US is so powerful and we are all so proud of our men and women Cain would send to war. He appears even more banal than Bush and Reagan appears almost inspirational and modern. I believe he even bores the soldiers he seems to love to hang around with - being a POW telling old stories from Nam is not enough. McCain simply never had and will never have the intellectual, moral and ideological capacity to lead a country like the US now and in the future.

Obama was way to soft and polite with McCain and he mentioned way to often that he agrees with him. Although one could say Obama was cautious not to make a mistake I believe he has to be more aggressive and that he should relentlessly corner McCain during future occasions. Just by doing so, Obama will be able to expose McCains weak points and stress his shortcomings which is important to convince voters why Obama is the better choice.
Being nice does not pay off in the long run and can be even very dangerous in such a close run.

Posted by: flyingmarlin | September 27, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

DSM_CAL.... said...

webercise,

Look this one up in the dictionary: ad hominem

As in ad hominem attack.

Is that your debate strategy?

Sincerely,
DSM_CAL
____________________

It sure is McCain's debate strategy. Freak!

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

"SO MCCAIN, YOU...YES YOU....DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN'T TALK DOWN TO PEOPLE AND GET ELECTED. "
Posted by: sallieismydog

Right, Obama understands it.

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..."
~Barack Obama

"That’s just how white folks will do you."
~Barack Obama

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

~Barack Obama

Posted by: Troilus1 | September 27, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

Again, the Racists, White Supremacists(Black man hating lesbians) are going to have to come up with something more then how the Candidates "looked". They both had blue suits on and white shirts. Who fidgetted and who made eye contack and hand gesters is NOT what we were going on.

Only because McCain made NO POINTS and Obama skunked him do you Idiots want to talk about how someone "looked".

Stop that, this is about the issues and who is better suited to be the NEXT PRESIDENT not about some nonsense and stereotypes.

Barack Obama is a genius and John McCain is an old fool.

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

I think it's fair to say that after tonight, anyone who says Obama is only capable of giving a good speech is too partisan to be objective.

McCain needed to convince Obama was inexperienced and unknowledgeable. McCain clearly didn’t.

Obama needed to convince he would take the country in a new direction. He succeeded.

The contrast was stark. McCain lost when the Bush ideology bled through when trying to make a case for not engaging our adversaries. It was the same old saber rattling ideology. America doesn’t want that anymore.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

McCain's health plan : we'll give you $5,000 when actually a self-purchased insurance plan cost more like $10 - $11K. Good work Johny boy---again and again the republican philosophy shows up --> you are on your own middle-class person, we are for a society of the 1/3.

Go Johny boy, go.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Just LOOK around YOU !

Piss-Poor State-Craft...
Great Job Barack !

A Bungled Economy...

Is this the America you remember growing up?
So where does the Buck Stop NOW ?

Why would America REWARD complete Republican failure ?

We wont.

Posted by: PulSamsara | September 27, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

This was a clear case of the merely articulate versus the expert.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

These Debates are like inkblot tests, everyone partisan is going to take what they want to take but the truth is neither candidate scoring any major point.

It was a tie.

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

I thought Barack won across the board. The undecided voters more or less agreed. Though, oddly, there doesn't seem to be anything the Dems can do to demonstrate the right's foreign policy is counterproductive, illegal and dangerous, not to mention bad economics. The voters appear to appreciate faux drama and voice lowering and urgent posturing, cannot appreciate that torturing and killing around the world will create more enemies. Kill 'em all, especially when their grievances are rooted in our own imperialism, is a horrific foreign policy.

Posted by: e9999999 | September 27, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

P.S. Obama could STILL use some lipstick.

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

CNN, MSNBC and CBS polls all have Obama the winner. McCain lost among the undecideds because he acted mean and nasty at every opportunity. In general people react negatively to that and I think women voters especially would. And this comes after his threatening not to come and going to Washington and helping upset the economic agreement. He has really sunk in my estimation this week. He reminds me of Nixon and how I felt about Nixon.

Posted by: jandmward | September 27, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Did Obama win on the economy because he promised more to the middle class?

Does he really think that we can spend our way to a better economy?

When my family is struggling with money we cut out the excess spending. Our country needs to do the same!

How is it that Obama wins on the economy??

Posted by: deb4 | September 27, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

dknecht wrote:

Who was condesending? Obama only called McCain by his first name--John. Obama never referred to McCain a "Senator." Total elitist disrespect from BO. McCain at least used that title of respect when referring to the junior Senator and Cummunity Orgizer from Illinois.

I'd say it was a tie, but considering that BO is the most eloquent candidate since RR: McCain won. BO should have eaten his lunch, but didn't.
____________________________


Dknecht is 100% insightful.

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

webercise,

Look this one up in the dictionary: ad hominem

As in ad hominem attack.

Is that your debate strategy?

Sincerely,
DSM_CAL

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Just LOOK around YOU !

Piss-Poor State-Craft...
A Bungled Economy...

Is this the America you remember growing up?
So where does the Buck Stop NOW ?

Why would America REWARD complete Republican failure ?

We wont.

Posted by: PulSamsara | September 27, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

bifslaw65, your talking point is moot. Get a high school diploma!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

"I wouldn’t knock McCain too much for referring to the past. If we do not study history we are doomed to repeat it." KingofCool

-------

McCain's History

McCain became enmeshed in a scandal during the 1980s as one of five United States Senators comprising the so-called "Keating Five".[88] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful[89] political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, along with trips on Keating's jets[88] that McCain belatedly repaid two years later.[90] In 1987, McCain was one of the five senators whom Keating contacted in order to prevent the government's seizure of Lincoln, and McCain met twice with federal regulators to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

bifslaw65 :

go back to your nuclear underground shelter and leave the rest of the world to the people that have a brain that works.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Henry Kissinger last week, regarding starting negotiations with Iran: "I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."

Posted by: dlopata | September 27, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

To bifslaw65,

except Hitler was a right-wing fascist.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

I havw never been so insulted in my life ! I was hopeing to hear a debate that was going to show america what we ,could expect from or leaders in the next 4 yrs. during these trying times we need leadership and insperation! we need someone who cares about our vetrans ,but doesn't use them like McCain did. I have family who have served in Iraq, my son is considering joining the air force ,so I am all for veterans , but give it a break you old fart-we all know or have someone who is a veteran of some damn war and that includes you too-I am not concerned about the past and all McCain did or didn't do OR for that mater all that Obama did or didn't do! We need someone who can look beyond yesterday and see what needs to be done for tomarrow,because even though your days are winding down to an end McCain the rest of us have to live with the mistakes of the past 8 yrs and the mistakes of the next 4 yrs! I personally think it is time to quit fooling ourselves with the free market/trickledown theory of so-called economist (you know the same ones who brought you the great meltdown of 08 ) the politicians who made themselves and their cronies rich at the cost of our American dream! Obama has it right ,We do have to fix the health care system -with the baby boomers retiring and more and more cost for health,S.S. and housing eating away at their savings and now the collapse of our financial base and housing values in decline who is going to pick up the tab-THE MERICAN WORKER ,THATS WHO! but wait we offloaded those jobs to overseas corp. who do not pay taxes here ,and pensions WHAT PENSIONS ! few foreign corp. offer pensions and 401K"s don't make me laugh if you can afford to put money into one you probably just lost half your value ! ALL I saw tonight was an old man in a bad suit play same ole" cards that we have heard so many times before and that "MY FRIENDS" LEAVES ME ONLY ONE CHOICE "OBAMA" GOD HELP US IF YOU FAIL-YOU HAVE MY VOTE

Posted by: american10 | September 27, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Where are the republicans! I know who you are and how you think and what is happening now is what you feared. An American who is a genius that you can't put in his place! Wow. I'm feeling good for all Americans who have been used by you for sooooooooooooooo many years!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

It was a clear win for Obama. McCain did try to filabuster by throwing out a bunch of names of leaders and countries that most voters do not care about. Obama repeatedly returned to to issues that most voters will remember: McCain was wrong about the war and Bush/McCain policies have bankrupted this country.

Posted by: 1calgal | September 27, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

My take is, Obama was sound on facts, calm, thoughtful, Presidential and with a vision, though I would have preferred Obama getting hard on him regarding spending. He matured a lot and he passed the commander-in-chief test. Not even Republicans can say with a straight face now that Obama isn't ready. He held his ground and infact he seem to have more knowledge on foreign policy issues than McCain. McCain giving out all those world leader names sounded like a tour guide, not an expert. As for McCain, he seemed grumpy, very disrespectful to Obama, arrogant, someone who is out of touch and who think people are fools not to understand this whole Iraq thing. Apart from that, he seem to lie all the time and keep twisting Obama's words especially. That is not Presidential. That's sleazy tactics, not desired in a President.

Posted by: nri1998 | September 27, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Obama sounded like a pre-recorded Hitler record from the 1930s. Now I can see the connection with him and the left wingers.

Posted by: bifslaw65 | September 27, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

I actually thought McCain's 'hammering' Obama on the meeting with dictators was his worst moment. McCain was the one 'parsing words.' Obama--and Kissinger--believe we should meet with these people. Of course Obama will not jump on the first plane if Raul Castro invites him to dinner. McCain knows that too and I perceived his attack on this issue to be totally disingenuous.

Posted by: housefrau | September 27, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Considering that foreign policy is McCain's strong point and Obama's weak point I think that McCain is in for a rough ride to Nov. 4th. The only thing McCain proved is that he was unable to trounce Obama on the policies that McCain knows best.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

The dam country has been a mess since independence.

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

McCain on Pakistan

McCain just badly misstated the history of Pakistan. For someone claiming extensive foreign policy knowledge, this is simply not acceptable. McCain said Pakistan was a failed state before President Musharraf came to power. That is not true.

Musharraf took power in a military coup in 1999 when he diposed Nawaz Sharif - who recently participated in the latest election. The coup followed the 1999 war in Kashmir with India and was due to a power struggle with Sharif, not due to Pakistan being a "failed state." The United States did not welcome the Musharraf coup. Instead the government of the United States imposed sanctions against this action.

Remember Pakistan had nuclear weapons in 1999. Did McCain believe that there was a failed state that possessed nuclear weapons? If he did he showed no concern at the time. The fact is McCain made a huge gaffe and demonstrated he has little understanding if the region. Huffington Post

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: CoreyB2 | September 27, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA SHOWS LACK OF GOOD JUDGEMENT:

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday's presidential debate saying he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality".

McCain was spot-on ... Obama's dangerous.

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the President of our fifty seven United States of America, President Barack Obama!

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

I don’t understand why people view Obama as too "Professorial". Maybe were just too used to having an incompetent red-neck running the country or I underestimate how much white trash America is actually comprised of.

I love to fish, bbq and shoot skeet as much as anyone, but it's refreshing to have someone as President who is eloquent, intelligent and cultured for a change. No more hill-billys please.

Hey don’t get me wrong, I’m not better than anyone else, but our President damn well better be.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

YOU GUYS ARE BEING FOOLED AGAIN. REMEMBER IOWA? ALL THE AUDIENCE POLLS, DISPITE THE PUDITS, REPORTERS, NEWS SHOWS INCLUDING FOX NEWS SHOWS OBAMA WINNING THE DEBATE.

Posted by: MILLER123 | September 27, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn’t knock McCain too much for referring to the past. If we do not study history we are doomed to repeat it. I can recall many American leaders stating that “Pearl Harbour” would never again be repeated.

Obama LOOKED presidential! - never judge a book by its cover.

Although I am a conservative by nature and agree with McCain’s philosophy sadly I think that Obama will continue to put his views across better and McCain cannot win the presidency.

Loved McCain’s last quote that the presidency is no place for on the job training - apparently vice presidency is.

Posted by: KingofCool | September 27, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

dknecht, you must be a novice to political discourse.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

The funny thing about debates, is that in the end every partisan here is going to take what they want from them.

the important factor here is what the undecided voter took away from this debate, and all polls and focus-groups have them leaning heavily toward Obama on this debate.

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Ladies and gentlemen, meet our forty-fourth President of the United States, President Barack Obama!

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

And about economics, economics is not something you can decide on 1,2,3 about. And people that really knows economics knows this too.

Why can not someone in the USA work out two different scenario and explain this to the nation, choose a approach and unravel this. Lay down The pro's and contra's of a bailout and pro's and contra's of "non bailout". Let the people see the consequence of both scenarios. Help the people understand. Things like this the Media should do, to help the american nation understand and form an opinion base on objective information.

Posted by: Sun-angel | September 27, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

CoreyB2, your post is absolutely silly and filled with White Supremacist stereotypes. You give McCain a "A" because you find him "sensable" ?

I mean WRONG on each and every issue(The War, The Economy, Taxes, Hatchet Spending Cuts, Terror,Not wanting to talk to Iran etc.)

Again, how does a candidate(unless he's White going up against someone Black) win a debate in which he LOSES on each and every point?

You Idiots sound like Hillary's supporters. She LOSES and everyone's upset because they think she should have won because she was a White woman.

No, when will you Idiots learn you have to WIN to have WON?

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

barrylip, you don't make any sense at all just like Palin!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama connected with middle class taxpayers on the economy. McCain connected with Bush on the economy.

Obama displayed sound judgment on foreign affairs, enough so that Americans will trust him with their future. McCain still seems to be fighting the Viet Nam War.

It was evident that there were quite a few things McCain just doesn't understand. That will be more evident next week when judgment comes into question regarding Vice-Presidential candidate picks. Talk about judgment in action!

Posted by: akmk | September 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Who was condesending? Obama only called McCain by his first name--John. Obama never referred to McCain a "Senator." Total elitist disrespect from BO. McCain at least used that title of respect when referring to the junior Senator and Cummunity Orgizer from Illinois.

I'd say it was a tie, but considering that BO is the most eloquent candidate since RR: McCain won. BO should have eaten his lunch, but didn't.

Posted by: dknecht | September 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

It's not who won or lost but what the each of them had to do. That said I thought the debate was even to me as a Republican supporting Obama.

Obama needed to show he had enough or the right kind of experience. That was answered with a big yes.

McCain needed a game changer and that didn't happen. They spent 40 minutes on the Economic crisis also a loser for McCain
it is a Republican administration and Congress for 6 of 8 years that put us here right or wrong.

foreign policy was a wash

with respect nobody cares if the President has a one on one meeting with Iran and does anyone feel personally offended if he does without preconditions or preparations.

You won't talk to Iran until they agree to stop their Nuclear program so you can talk to them about their Nuclear program

don't care if McCain can't pronounce name of foreign leaders or know their names but that would be different if it was Obama did the same thing.

and spare me the "Sen Obama doesn't Understand" crap

put your positions out their vote for the person you agree with and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: scarletknight | September 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Webercize: You are a bigot! I bet you live in a blue state!

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

For those of you that talk about Ireland: The first European country to go into recession.

McCain was about the Surge, that he is a Maverick and other colorful sound-bites. Sorry, but I don't trust somebody that was 5th from the bottom in his class. I don't trust the judgment of a person that calls the economy as being fundamentally sound just a few days ago. I don't need another "real" person to govern. i need somebody that has the intelligent to understand issues, consult and seek solutions. I am sick and tired of "executives" that parachute and save the world and expect to get the credit, when the only thing the do is to pat the back of the people that actually do the work.

Obama for president.

Posted by: ASKNOT | September 27, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

I'm reading all the comments about McCain not making eye contact with Obama and his being smug to the point of condescending with his opponent. Those close to McCain says that he has disdain for Obama. And I know why. Obama is smart, cool and genuine - everything McCain WANTS to be but clearly isn't.

America needs someone smart, cool and genuine. And McCain needs all his glorious yesterdays to keep him warm in his old age.

But (please, God) not at our expense!

Posted by: miraclestudies | September 27, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Don't pay any attention to DSM_CAL, he is a republican troll! Go back to your home underneath the bridge to nowwhere! Ha! Ha!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

All that I understood from Obama is that he agrees with McCain on alot of issues, has a very hard time picking his words, stares at McCain wishing he had such a knowledge of the world issues, looking like a five year old trying to shut McCain up while getting hammered, hand motions did not coincide with his mouth, You liberals want a pussyfoot leader who will make the world all good buddies, well it just cannot be. There are evil countries out there who would like to wipe the US off of the face of the earth (9-11) If we do not have a seasoned leader with a good understanding of the world issues to deal with these issues as they arise then God help us all. Obama stated his dad was from Kenya and come to college in the US and after that mentioned about five to six different subjects. Not me brother, when there is a discussion going about the future security of our United States, I will put John McCain in the drivers seat. McCain won Hands down. (Just look at the expression on Obamas face right as the debate ended)

Posted by: barrylip | September 27, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Independents in the MediaCurves focus group "gave the debate to Obama 61-39. They also think he won every individual segment. Republicans gave the debate to McCain 90-10, Democrats to Obama 93-7.

Two focus groups, one by GOP pollster Frank Luntz and another by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, both declared Obama the winner.

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

I learned a lot from Obama. I like his judgement and his committment. Like sticking to his guns and holding the debates. I understood him clearly knows that he could have KNOCK McCain out flat but didn't. STAY TUNE.

Posted by: MILLER123 | September 27, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

I also thought Lehrer did a heckuva job. I am voting for McCain but thought Obama looked strong for much of the debate and his answers were better than I thought.

Posted by: ikez78 | September 27, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

"I agree with Sen McCain on that one too."He is ready to be President and Sen Obama is ready to finish his term in the Senate. No contest tonight.The only things Obama was sure about were the nes that he made up like his "long standing "support" of missile defense.It is also telling that his groupies here are so angry and abusive. They get that way whjen their guy lays an egg and have sincethe primaries

Posted by: Portle | September 27, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Not even close. McCain was the clear winner. More poised, more articulate, more presidential.

Obama was his usual stuttering self ... He clearly cannot speak extemporaneously.

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

No Idiots don't do that, don't try to suggest that we are saying McCain mopped up the floor with Obama because Obama was intimidated and couldn't look John McCain in the eye.

I don't care if Obama turned around backwards when he spoke he did NOT make ONE POINT.

Here we are facing the WORST financial crises since the Great Depression and the Idiots who got us into it with their FAILED policies are being touted as having better policies?

Miss me with that nonsense. Forget Obama

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Re:I am amazed that everyone's so caught up on whether McCain looked at Obama or not. I listened to the first part of the debate, the economics part, on the radio, because I was stuck in traffic in CA. McCain's content was far better than Obama's, if you just listened and didn't have the visual. I saw the visual was better with Obama when I got home - he's better looking, more amenable, blah blah blah. But on just the audio content, the meaning, the logic, and the positioning, McCain was far better.
Interesting. In the 1992 debates, I was similarly forced to listening on the radio. Perot won every one of them. I'd watch them the next day, and Clinton's visual impact was overpowering - he won them. But if I had to judge on just content, Perot has the best positions, and the most zingers.
I say this as a formerly Dem-voting registered Independent CA voter who will be voting McCain.

Posted by: sharonevolving | September 27, 2008 12:48 AM


Good post, I watched it on BBC web and have the same impression. Hopefully, viewers connected with a war wounded McCain.

Posted by: peteonline | September 27, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

McCain is clueless!

McCain just badly misstated the history of Pakistan. For someone claiming extensive foreign policy knowledge, this is simply not acceptable. McCain said Pakistan was a failed state before President Musharraf came to power. That is not true.

Musharraf took power in a military coup in 1999 when he diposed Nawaz Sharif - who recently participated in the latest election. The coup followed the 1999 war in Kashmir with India and was due to a power struggle with Sharif, not due to Pakistan being a "failed state." The United States did not welcome the Musharraf coup. Instead the government of the United States imposed sanctions against this action.

Remember Pakistan had nuclear weapons in 1999. Did McCain believe that there was a failed state that possessed nuclear weapons? If he did he showed no concern at the time. The fact is McCain made a huge gaffe and demonstrated he has little understanding if the region. Huffington Post

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

schmetterlingtoo,

You are a bigot. I bet you live in a red state!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

I'm watching the debate on CNN again with that ticker at the bottom of the screen showing the viewers reaction and the part when Obama said I have a bracelet too that graph went up and up and up even the one showing Reps. reaction.

Posted by: thor2 | September 27, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

I think it was a very close call, but I would give the edge to Obama. For Independents that were still on the fence, I believe he showed compelling evidence that he was knowledgeable in world affairs. For Democrats and Republicans, both probably felt their candidate did well or better than the opponent.

Posted by: stopthestunts | September 27, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

I thought McCain was fidgety and got visibly p*ssed off during the debate. Obama I thought was more under control and seemed more dignified.

McCain seemed to reach more. Ronald Regan? Eisenhower? McCain has a personal conviction that he can do the job, and seems to think his self-confidence is enough. (He kept going back to it) "I know how ... " Without backing up his claims.

Obama seemed to see the big picture, more nuanced. Nuclear proliferation. McCain apparently doesn't think much of - did he mention it at all?? McCain sees Ahmadinejad and Iran as inseparable. I thought that Obama's statement about talking to other people in Iran was significant. I get the impression that McCain's world-wide foreign policy will be put on hold until Iraq is dealt with. He sorta just skipped over where the additional troops for Afghanistan would come from. He does one thing at a time, Obama came across as more of a multi-tasker.

I thought it was funny that Palin wasn't allowed to appear after the debate, and instead we got that Giuliani hack.

No knock-out blows, nothing particularly memorable, probably played well to their bases. The passing comment about talking to other people in Iran, resonanted with me - but I'm happy neing alone in that.

Posted by: DonJasper | September 27, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

First debates have always been "foreplay" warm-ups for the following debates in the series. This was no exception. No clear winner. As an undecided Independent, I did see more statesmanship from McCain...avoiding eye contact can be a very powerful tool. Obama's youth and inexperience came through toward the end...he seemed punch drunk and off his game. That's the whole idea for Round One...study your opponents strengths and weaknesses and prepare for Rounds Two and Three. Obama will probably have more stamina, but McCain will be able to take the shots. This is going to be an interesting set of debates. Biden-Palin won't be as interesting...Biden loves the sound of his voice and can talk for 20 minutes and end up talking himself out of his original position. Palin's youth and inexperience will be her strengths...I hope she picked up all of Obama's positive punches in this round and uses them to her advantage. "Better to sit quietly and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Posted by: chefdaniel | September 27, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

McCain seems to think of everything in military terms. His whole bellicose thought process seems like it came out of a front yard bomb shelter in the 1950s. I would be interested to see if he gave any answer tonight that didn't depend on the word "military" for its solution. He mind is just thoroughly entrenched in the military and war as the only solution.

Posted by: dlopata | September 27, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

BTW, why do pundits assume that the public digs the "I met a woman in Hoboken who had a son in the army" type stories? They're arguing that both McCain and Obama should be including more of those in their arguments. No, they shouldn't. I know a B.S. play-on-the-heartstrings (a.k.a distraction) moment when I hear it. Please, candidates... stop with that stuff. Cut to the chase and just tell me what you're going to do policy wise for the economy and for our national security.

Posted by: DogBitez | September 27, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

DEREGULATOR MCCAIN

McCain Supported A Banking Bill Because It Eliminated "The Tremendous Regulatory Burden Imposed On Financial Institutions." While speaking in favor of bank deregulation on the floor of the senate, John McCain said, "This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institution... One principal reason banks are unable to make loans is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community." [Congressional Record, 11/19/93; emphasis added]

McCain Supported A Bill To "Takes A Small Step Forward Toward Eliminating Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Imposed On Banks." While speaking in favor of bank deregulation on the floor of the senate, John McCain said, "While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community.... This bill recognizes this fact, and takes a small step forward toward eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens imposed on banks." [Congressional Record, 11/19/93; emphasis added]

McCain Said The Best Thing Government Can Do For Business Is "Stay Out Of Its Way." While speaking about the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act on the floor on the Senate in 2000, John McCain said, 'I am convinced that the best thing government can often do to advance the fortunes of the private sector is to stay out of its way. I support this bill because it makes progress toward that end, by improving companies' flexibility to hire the talent they need, while providing for the regulatory framework and new educational opportunities to protect and promote American workers." [Congressional Record, 10/3/00; emphasis added]

In 1999, McCain Supported Phil Gramm's Banking Deregulation Bill. In 1999, John McCain voted for passage of the Senate version of a bill that would eliminate current barriers erected by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and other laws that impede affiliations between banking, securities, insurance and other firms. The bill also would exempt small, non-urban banks from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), revise the Federal Home Loan Bank system and require that owners of automated teller machines (ATMs) provide notice on the ATM and on-screen of any charges imposed for the use of the terminal. The bill passed 54-44. [S. 900, Vote #105, 5/6/99] McCain Missed The Vote For Final Passage Because He Was Campaigning In New Hampshire. John McCain missed the final vote on Phil Gramm's banking deregulation bill because he was campaigning in New Hampshire. [NPR, "Morning Edition," 11/5/99; S. 900, Vote #354, 11/4/99] --Progressive Accountability

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Obama could use some lipstick.

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Are there any republicans out there who want to debate me RIGHT NOW! Where are you? Step up to the plate with your righteous bs. Your man McCain did not win the debate! Plain and simple. Your man was in congress for 26 years. Yes, 26 years and he can't even win a debate with a junior senator! All he can do is call himself a maverick, which is exactly what he didn't act like in cowing to Charles Keating!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

McCain came across as a little nutty,a little dumb, and a little senile. He was incoherent the first third of the debate.A transcript is out already, try to find two connected thoughts.Obama was calm,in control of himself, knowledgible and very likable.

Posted by: wtammelleo | September 27, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Not a chance that McCain won any part of the debate. He seemed sluggish and robotic. And, he seemed unable to rationally battle Obama's arguments about policy matters. Furthermore, Obama walked all over McCain when it came to economics. He easily linked McCain to Bush/Reagan economics and tied it to today's disastorous financial situation. Lastly, everytime Obama was able to effectively rebuke McCain's arguments and attacks, McCain would smirk, fidget, and laugh clear signs of defeat.

Posted by: joe77713 | September 27, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

No Idiots don't do that, don't try to suggest that we are saying Obama mopped up the floor with McCain because McCain was intimidated and couldn't look Barack Obama in the eye.

I don't care if McCain turned around backwards when he spoke he did NOT make ONE POINT.

Here we are facing the WORST financial crises since the Great Depression and the Idiots who got us into it with their FAILED policies are being touted as having better policies?

Miss me with that nonsense.

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

AuggieinCanada thank goodness your uninformed butt can't vote in this election. I take issue with all your points. First of all you Idiots keep wanting to give Obama the benefit of not having "more" experience and its silly.

Its the policies of Idiots with Obama's utter lack of experience that will have us in an even greater mess than we are in now. Obama was WRONG about the War and even his lack of experience in everything, absolutely everything won't change that.

Being black you want to give the edge to Obama but you can't do that, he has to show by his actions he's better not just show that he's Black.

TKCAL

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama won the debate. McCain sounded like a broken record, saying the same thing over and over again. I could see Obama as the President much easier than I could McCain.

Posted by: KDfromOklahoma | September 27, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

DSM_Call,

You don't know what you are talking about. Kissinger is going to say what he needs to say right now because he is for McCain, but what did he really say in real time. Check the facts before you speack!

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/16/Kissinger_Open_direct_Iran_talks/UPI-46971221579660/

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

The only thing McCain could touch Obama on concerning the economy was earmarks which the cost of the war in Iraq puts to shame every two months. 10 billion a month compared to 18 billion a year. You do the math.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

From 3 steps back camera eye view:

Obama came across a someone would make america and the world proud to be president. Future, competent, intelegent.

McCain came accoss as someone who would make a good general, secretary of defense. The past, passionate, tough.

Even you conceed the debate a tie it a loss for McCain because he needed to proove Obama is inexperienced and unknowledgeable. He didnt.

Obama needed to link McCain to Bush ideology. He did.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

CBS Instant Poll

40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.

68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision
about the economy. 41% think McCain would.

49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama's answers to the questions were solid, and my personal (and admittedly biased) feeling is that Obama was the clear winner. However, that doesn't matter because people look for different things in a winner. For example, I don't expect that any staunch McCain supporters will waver, and neither will any staunch Obama supporters. I look for how well the questions were answered logically, but not everyone looks at logic. Comments welcome: http://whenelephantsfly.blogspot.com

Posted by: whenelephantsfly | September 27, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama was composed, informative, and dignified.

Bravo, Obama!

Vote for Peace, Prosperity, Obama.

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

As far as substance I thought it was pretty even. But a debate is not judged on substance alone. McCain's mannerisms was off. He looked angry, never looked Obama in the eye, did not seem like a diplomat that is so needed in our next President. Even when they shook hands at the beginning and at the end, McCain did not look gracious at all. It was almost as if McCain was saying Obama did not belong in the same room with him. This lack of respect turned me off.

I must admit, prior to the debate, McCain's stunt of running to Wash to save the day, made me not trust McCain's words as much. Every time McCain made a statement and Obama would say it was not true, I believed Obama over McCain.

I guess the next debate may tell more, but to be honest, I think it is going to get worse for McCain. One can change their words, but it is harder to change your disposition and character. McCain looked mad, did not show respect to his opponent, and seem to fit the stereotype of a war monger that he has been labeled with.

Posted by: steveeyes | September 27, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama: sounds good, feels good, lacks sense. He scores C.

Sen. McCain: boring, practical and sensible. He scores A.

Posted by: CoreyB2 | September 27, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Obama lost tonight's debate. Not on substance, knowledge, or the war or any thing else, certainly not on economics.
BUT: What sticks out is that McBush several times said "he does not understand" and Obama several times said "I agree with Senator McCain."
Obama needs to counter this condescending attack and get some coaching that "I agree with my opponent" is NOT a good debate strategy.

Posted by: johnbear1 | September 27, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Did McCain actually say he'd put a spending freeze on EVERYTHING except the military and veterans benefits? Yipes!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: markiejoe | September 27, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Oh my gosh, McCain looked and talked like someone who graduated at the bottom of the class. This was no contest. Obama was the clear winner and I'm sure that the polls will reflect that in the days ahead.

Posted by: Lilly1 | September 27, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

You f-ing idiots, McCain is clueless. His answer to every question is war & "reform". What about the 83 lobbyists working on his campaign? The "maverick" with 8 houses.

Posted by: jsparks | September 27, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Can someone explain to me why the thought Obama won on the economy?

His answer when Jim Lehrer asked about what he would cut back in his platform, given that we now have this $700 billion bailout burden was that he was going to spend another umpteen billion on his programs.

Does anyone actually believe that the top 5% of the taxpayers can afford it?

If I were one of those taxpayers and not a teacher, I would run like hell out of the country!

My take is that winning on the economy means winning on pandering to the people.

Just like when my family is in financial struggles, we need to cut our spending and balance the budget. It is not the time to please my husband by buying him a new BMW

Posted by: deb4 | September 27, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

McCain knows a lot of people and he's been around. He's a hard hitter and he believes what he believes.

But let's face it .. McCain's a good ground soldier and Obama's a Commander in Chief.

That's what I saw.

Posted by: dave40 | September 27, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Nearly every poll shows Obama winning this debate by a landslide.


Posted by: monk4hall | September 27, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama showed a lack of good judgement in saying that he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

More on this:

************************************
Fact Check: Kissinger Defends McCain's Iran Stance
September 26, 2008 11:54 PM

ABC News' Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday's presidential debate saying he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality," Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.

***********************

Obama clearly showed a lack of good judgement on this issue.

Posted by: DSM_CAL | September 27, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

McCain on Pakistan

McCain just badly misstated the history of Pakistan. For someone claiming extensive foreign policy knowledge, this is simply not acceptable. McCain said Pakistan was a failed state before President Musharraf came to power. That is not true.

Musharraf took power in a military coup in 1999 when he diposed Nawaz Sharif - who recently participated in the latest election. The coup followed the 1999 war in Kashmir with India and was due to a power struggle with Sharif, not due to Pakistan being a "failed state." The United States did not welcome the Musharraf coup. Instead the government of the United States imposed sanctions against this action.

Remember Pakistan had nuclear weapons in 1999. Did McCain believe that there was a failed state that possessed nuclear weapons? If he did he showed no concern at the time. The fact is McCain made a huge gaffe and demonstrated he has little understanding if the region. Huffington Post

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

texan 2007 wrote"Barack is a genius! I have been teaching high school for 25 years and genius's don't care about grades in high school. At Harvard, Obama was the President of the Harvard Review, which happens to be the most important lawyer news in the WORLD" to this I add, those that can, do. Those that can't teach. The obamanation showed its true color tonight.

Posted by: bentothemountain | September 27, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

McCain reminded me of the aging android in "Millennium Man" (only without the heart).

And he's a relic caught up in his own revisionist history.

Rigid. Wrong. So last century...

Posted by: miraclestudies | September 27, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Considering that foreign policy is McCain's strong point and Obama's weak point I think that McCain is in for a rough ride to Nov. 4th. The only thing McCain proved is that he was unable to trounce Obama on the policies that McCain knows best.

Posted by: DixieWrecked | September 27, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

No real surprises on the substance of what either candidate had to say tonight. As for style, Obama continues to labor in starting, finding a middle, and finally concluding what he's saying. McCain, on the other hand, never warmed up to Obama, thus refraining from really ever looking at or even directing a comment toward his opponent. All in all, my thought is that if voters know for whom they're voting, then they'll have justified ground to claim their candidate either won or drew up even with the opponent. But the more interesting statistic will come down to the thought of undecided voters. Since I'm not one of those, I'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, it'll be interesting to see if a bailout plan of nearly $1 trillion is issued by Congress and whether the public's reaction simultaneously involves quickly making this debate something less than an afterthought while catapulting the election onto yet another entirely new playing field.

Posted by: haselwoodc | September 27, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Chris- are you out of your mind? McCain had a natural smile? He looked like a moron the way he kept smirking throughout the debate, like he was laughing at a joke nobody else heard. This old fart with his $5000 makeup jobs is completely out of touch.

Posted by: jsparks | September 27, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

AuggieinCanada thank goodness your uninformed butt can't vote in this election. I take issue with all your points. First of all you Idiots keep giving McCain the benefit of having "more" experience and its silly.

Its the policies of Idiots with McCain's experience that have us in the mess we are in. McCain was WRONG about the War and his experience won't change that.

Also lame is the claim that McCain better understands that tax breaks for the RICH creates more jobs it doesn't, it just makes the RICH RICHER. By FORCING these Corps. to stay in America and rewarding them for doing so creates more jobs (any Idiot should be able to see that).

Being White you want to give the edge to McCain but you can't do that, he has to show by his actions he's better not just show that he's White.

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

The problem with McCain saying Kennedy was in the hospital was that Kennedy was not in the hospital at the time. He had already been released. The first of McCain's falsehoods.

Posted by: markiejoe | September 27, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Not even close. Obama was the clear winner. More poised, more articulate, more presidential.

McCain looked surly, cranky and clenched.

Posted by: monk4hall | September 27, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

In my view, Obama won because McCain's behavior this week cost him a lot of ground. McCain showed up at this debate despite the fact that his publicly stated preconditions were not met. Makes me wonder how he'll fare with the ruthless leaders of the rogue states of the world.

Posted by: anne3 | September 27, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

I thought both cadidates did well, both knowledgable, both spoke with conviction, passion, and seemed deeply concerned with the welfare of the country. I think Obama did sound defensive at times, but then he has also shown himself to be careful about stating things truthfully. Maybe some of the things McCain said really were more "mis-statements" and needed to be corrected. I agreed with more of Obama's positions than McCain's, although not all. McCain did better than I expected and actually seemed the more personable of the two. If McCain were running as an independent (without Palin) I would have more trouble making up my mind. I just can't get past the thought of most of Bush's goverment staying on if McCain is elected. Weren't they running the show while all of this mess was brewing?

Posted by: idahodem | September 27, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Are there any republicans out there who want to debate me RIGHT NOW! Where are you? Step up to the plate with your righteous bs. Your man McCain did not win the debate! Plain and simple. Your man was in congress for 26 years. Yes, 26 years and he can't even win a debate with a junior senator! All he can do is call himself a maverick, which is exactly what he didn't act like in cowing to Charles Keating!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

rossasmith brings POW bathos to a new level: "I believe the issue of McCain not addressing Obama directly is overblown. My impression from watching him is that he has limited mobility turning his head left or right, due to his war wounds."

Wow, I've heard lots of spin, but that's got to take the cake. I have youtube videos of Mccain here in front of me and I don't see that kind of right-left problem. Yes, everyone knows that McCain has difficulty raising his arms due to war wounds, but that is irrelevant to his inability to face an opponent in debate.

Posted by: Hokuto | September 27, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

"One question, Is there MUCH being made on Mr Obama mis-using Mr Mccains name 2wice?

Once he said Jim and I think Tom"

Jim is the name of the invigilator, Jim Lehrer, that is who Obama was adressing at that point, the other was a mispeak which he corrected immedietley, neither are important enought to warrent discussion over the other issues

Posted by: brunco | September 27, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

MAGICIAN MCCAIN

Step right up, step right up. Magician McCain illusions performed regularly throughout this campaign:

Illusion of Production: Magician McCain produces something from nothing--Puff...Silly Sarah from Alaska.

Illusion of Transformation: Magician McCain transforms something from one state into another--Puff...Deregulator McCain becomes Savior McCain on the economy.

Illusion of Vanishing: Magician McCain makes something disappear--Puff...himself from the campaign...well, supposedly.

Illusion of Prediction: Magician McCain predicts the outcome of an event--Puff...himself as tonight's debate winner...not.

Endless tricks, gimmicks, and stunts performed for our entertainment and Magician McCain's poll numbers.

Newsflash! It's not working! September 26, 2008, Gallup Daily: Obama 48%, McCain 45%

Posted by: ziadora | September 27, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

As a political junkie and policy wonk I have to call this the best debate I have ever seen- they actually talked, at least a little about issues rather than personal traits. It was not about springing one-liners on each other- and although they both avoided hard questions like politicians- this was more like a senate debate than the way we have run presidential debates since Reagan/Carter. I respect them both more for this.
Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | September 27, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Jim Lehrer was awful as a moderator. Besides the afore-mentioned too-general questions, his topics were almost abstract. Get down to specifics. And when he mentioned 9/11 toward the end, he just sucked the life out of the debate. My suggestion to the next moderator: Get real on the issues. Ask about concrete, narrow issues and decisions that will affect an individual American.

Posted by: markiejoe | September 27, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

MCCAIM WON??????? Yes he won his way back to home to enjoy his pension.

This was a debate McCain supposed to win ....And he didn't. Obama had demostrated big knowledge about foreign policy, he stood high. Very presidential.

Ohhh Obama the world can't wait for you to win so America can see the entire world celebrating with them.

Of Course John McCain was everywhere he is 72 years old and he is rich but that don't mean he knows a thing or understand a thing. Sounds like he had met Alexander the greatest too or Wilhelmus van Nassau and also Cristobal Colombo!!! And so What? Don't impressed me.....Does he has any sollution, will he stop killing American youth in Wars? Will he Stop wasting USA money in War (3 billion a month)? Nooooooo!!

Ohhh my god I start feeling sorry for Sara Palin with her childish interviews and talks "we're the good guys..they are the bad guys (college talks)...I can see Russia from my house".

WELL DONE BARACK!! Well Done!

Posted by: Sun-angel | September 27, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Partisans on both sides are going to take what they want to take from this.

The big issue is how the undecided voter will take from this, and so far the polls have them tilting heavily over to Obama on this debate.

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

SEN. OBAMA ECONOMIC APPROACH FEELS GOOD, BUT IT IS UNWISE!!!

Sen. Obama just wants to tax and spend more and more. However, as we know, Gov. can't spend money effectively. So, we need to put the money into consumers' and private companies' pocket because they can spend money much more wisely than Gov.. Gov. is the problem not the solution to our problems.

BTW, a lot of people will say Sen. Obama won tonight's debate because he gives away a lot of free B's'. However, his economic solutions are totally senseless and unpractical because he puts money in the wrong hands; also, we do not have all the money he wants to spend.

Posted by: CoreyB2 | September 27, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

I have to laugh at all the critics who say Obama goofed by saying he agreed with McCain so many times. This just shows that Obama is the bigger man. It is okay to agree, where you can. And where they agreed, it was quite okay to agree - for example, he praised and agreed with McCain's torture position. And why should he not?

It takes a bigger man to deal across partisan lines. It takes a bigger man to deal across cultural lines and borders. I think Obama's agreement with McCain on many issues made it easier to swat him on other issues. And, he did. For example with the bracelet.

Posted by: paulstewart | September 27, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed that everyone's so caught up on whether McCain looked at Obama or not. I listened to the first part of the debate, the economics part, on the radio, because I was stuck in traffic in CA. McCain's content was far better than Obama's, if you just listened and didn't have the visual. I saw the visual was better with Obama when I got home - he's better looking, more amenable, blah blah blah. But on just the audio content, the meaning, the logic, and the positioning, McCain was far better.
Interesting. In the 1992 debates, I was similarly forced to listening on the radio. Perot won every one of them. I'd watch them the next day, and Clinton's visual impact was overpowering - he won them. But if I had to judge on just content, Perot has the best positions, and the most zingers.
I say this as a formerly Dem-voting registered Independent CA voter who will be voting McCain.

Posted by: sharonevolving | September 27, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

McCain makes reference to Alexander the Great???

Senator, you served with Alexander the Great.

Alexander the Great was a friend of yours.

Senator, you are no Alexander the Great.

Posted by: Andrew11 | September 27, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Did every network use the same camera? Because there were several times when Obama looked directly into the camera. McCain never looked at the camera (or at Obama).

Posted by: ElrodinTN | September 27, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

While some of you are making a big fuss about McCain not looking at Obama in the eye, let's not ignore the most blaring mistake Obama made at the very start of the debate. He did a nice little intro thanking the Lehrer, the debate commission and Ole Miss. Then he went to his prepared opening speech. When McCain started his two minutes, this is what he had to say:

And I do have a sad note tonight. Senator Kennedy is in the hospital. He's a dear and beloved friend to all of us. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the lion of the Senate.

Now who seeked Kennedy's support during the primaries? What does that tell you about character of these two candidates? Who do you want to be our leader?

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 27, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

mh53, you say Obama's been running for president for four years? Well, that's less than half the time mccain's been running. Began in earnest in 1999, trying to win in 2000. So that's nine years mccain's been running. So yeah, I guess mccain does have more experience. And he still is losing.

Posted by: mikel7 | September 27, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama made eye contact with the camera at least a ciuple of times;MccAin never did. MccAin was really nervous and shakey at the start of the debate--he was breathing heavily and his voice was quivering. He came accross as a braggart, an odd and erratic man with an ugly phoney smile. By continually taking a condescending attitude toward Obam McCain made himself look petty and small. Obama might have attacked Mccain for his erratic and impulsive reactions to world events-he speaks and acts before a decent analysis of issues. McCain is frightening because of it,and his age only makes it worse as his intellectual capacity will deteriorate and it is already far behind Barack's.

Posted by: xkm97 | September 27, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

sales9,

evidently, you don't know how to debate.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Obama clearly won. He looked and sounded like a true presidential statesman, while McCain looked old, flustered and sounded belligerent. Not once did he give Obama the respect of looking at him directly while he was being spoken to, and I believe this disrespect speaks volumes about how McCain will conduct his foreign and domestic policies:

The same disrespect Bush has shown the world and the American people for the last 8 years.

Posted by: dotmafia | September 27, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Chris, were you in the hall? On TV it didn't look at all like McCain was focusing on the TV audience at all. He never looked directly into the camera and talked directly to us. Obama made a couple of direct looks in the camera when he talked about middle class problems but if McCain wasn't looking at Lehrer or at the audience (and we know he clearly wasn't looking at Obama) who was he looking at?

Posted by: jenn1967 | September 27, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

I think it was close. I think Obama did well in tying McCain to Bush and Bush's policies [ key word here is policy ]. Obama stumbled with his Kissinger statement. . . . . . .

However, and this is a big however, I came away with the impression that Obama can talk to people and to leaders and draw their thoughts out. A number of times Obama would say, "You're right John." . . . . . . I now believe that Obama is a much, much better facilitator than McCain. . . . . . . . Yes, McCain may have worked across party lines but it was on his ideas. I felt that Obama would do a much better job of building consensus both in America and the world than McCain.

Posted by: coldcomfort | September 27, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Obama's winning all the polls. Another bad event in a bad couple of weeks for McCain. Let's just keep it going! Can't wait for the VP debate!

Posted by: bcmakeitso | September 27, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama was on the defensive the entire night. McCain did ok but should hammer home the tax issue. Who do you think makes the jobs? The top 5% Obama intends to tax to death. And who says this was do or die for McCain? People need to stop getting their thoughts from Obama's corrupt campaign manager. McCain should have mentioned the following :

Why is Obama #2 on the list of receivers of funds from Freddie and Fannie? Government backed or not thye are still lobbyists.

You repeatedly bring up judgement yet you sat in a church with a racist minister for 20 years and named your book after him. You also got your start from a former terrorist and got a sweetheart deal on your Mansion while another crooked real estate activists bought the lot next door for a premium. Is this the sort of "Judgement" Obama thinks is needed?

Posted by: darkknight0072004 | September 27, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and Obama won.

Posted by: SGall23241 | September 27, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Have any of the campaign operatives who post regularly on this site ever actually read the Constitution? I'm referring to both donkeys and elephants. If you haven't, please take up the habit. Then, start spoon-feeding your bosses with small doses of Article II. They will soon realize what a dull job it was designed to be, and they will leave us alone and go back to community organizing (exploding) with Bill Ayers and counting cars.

Posted by: EliPeyton | September 27, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Obama had the high ground on many issues and I find that he did not fully capitalize on it.

Example: answer on Russia. He didn't note that international outrage and opposition to our invasion of Iraq on false pretenses gave Russia permission to act as the agressor in Georgia and leaves us too weak to respond. Instead he changed the subject to energy policy.

Was all over the map with useless data - like Hillary Clinton. He couldn't simplify as well as John McCain who also succeeded in making his experience a strength in foreign policy and government.

Obama's answers did not control the debate or focus my attention on his American vision.

Also - strategy of running against Bush didn't stick. He needs to go after McCain
("I hate Bush" didn't work the last time either. McCain's message tonight is that we on the left really need to get over Bush.)

I didn't expect much from McCain so I got more than I expected.

I was not entirely gratified by Obama.

Hate to post it but this election deserves my best effort at honest judgment.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | September 27, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

CNN's poll has all Obama winning overall, on the economy and on Iraq:

Obama 51% McCain 38%

Who Would Better Handle Economy?

Obama 58% McCain 37%

Who Would Better Handle Iraq?

Obama 52% McCain 47%

Even Dick Morris says Obama won for godsake.

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

One thing sticks with me in this debate: The way Mccain treated Obama, both by not looking at him, and that blasted nasty, condescending/patronizing smile of McCain's. McCain's not respecting Obama, period. At least look him in the eye when you address Obama, McCain! REAL mean do that!

Posted by: SGall23241 | September 27, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Texan2007,

You don't know what the heck you are talking about! Barack is a genius! I have been teaching high school for 25 years and genius's don't care about grades in high school. At Harvard, Obama was the President of the Harvard Review, which happens to be the most important lawyer news in the WORLD! And, do you know what number Obama graduated in his class at Harvard! It sure wasn't the 5th from the bottom of his class. And, by the way, Obama did not disclose his race on his Harvard application, so he didn't get a pass! Man, you republican trolls are the feces of American that needs to be wiped clean and flushed down the toilet.

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

All of the telephone polls and focus groups gave the debate to Obama - by quite a bit.

It seems that Independents in particular thought that McCain was condescending "You just don't understand" he kept saying, even after Obama gave compelling answers of his own. The debate confirmed in many undecided voters' minds that McCain is quick-tempered and angry. Obama looked cool and confident by comparison.

I will confess that I thought it was more of a tie. I was less interested in mood and sympathy than I was in policy. And I thought both were equally strong on substantive issues.

But the polls and focus groups thought otherwise, and that will become conventional wisdom very quickly.

This might be like Gore's intimidation walk in 2000 or even Obama's "you're likable enough" line with Hillary.

Posted by: ElrodinTN | September 27, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

McCain won this one. Obama looked nervous on the subjects at hand. I was shocked that Obama did not do better...after all he is half his age.

Posted by: kcpost1 | September 27, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama would agree with McCain, McCain won.

Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility,
Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused
And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with meBest regards,
Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right.
Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.
And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say.
Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.
I think Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues
And I have to say, Senator McCain and I, I think agree on the importance of energy
give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security --

Art Narverud

Posted by: sales9 | September 27, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

I felt that Obama was much more flexible. Lehrer wanted the candidates to talk with one another. Obama seemed to get the idea; but McCain couldn't. Obama stood by respectfully when McCain was telling war stories, as anyone with a grandparent should do, but called McCain out when he was lying or misrepresenting Obama's positions. I much prefer Obama as President because he's capable of thinking on his feet, listening to someone and responding effectively.

Posted by: Jay161 | September 27, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

I kept waiting for McCain to say, "Four score and seventy five years ago..."

But seriously, the Republicans are NOT going to fool us into thinking we didn't see what we clearly saw and that was a genius in Barack Obama and an old fool in John McCain which is exaclty what we all knew we would see.

As for the Kissinger stuff we know he's a Republican but he can't take back what he said. He said we SHOULD talk to Iran without pre-conditions and McCain looks even DUMBER trying to deny it.

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Obama was head and shoulders above McCain as a person. His morals, his personal skills, his confidence and intelligence stood out. He was courteous, yet tough. He took the trash thrown at him and dealt with it, where it was not clear already that it was trash. He put his punches and he took them from McCain. I think the bracelet comment was brilliant.

I think McCain came across a smaller person than Obama. And his age and his character - beady eyes, talk a good line, but it is mostly a line, insult your opponent, but not straight to his face, just to everyone one else, with you in ear shot etc.... Going on about how Obama does not understand and does not have the experience he does was shown to be incorrect, just by looking at and listening to Obama, who not only looked Presidential, but is clearly ready to be President now.

McCain, despite supposedly being more knowledgeable than Obama, did not come off as a superior man. And in fact, he was too much into details that are not important to the voter. He seemed to lose the forest in the trees. Fit in well with Obama's comments about him making mistakes on all the big stuff. And, McCain, who is supposed to be the know all, didn't even pronounce the name of the Iranian President right.

I always thought Obama was a Commander in Chief. Now others will see that too. McCain completed a bad week with a bad debate result. It will show in the polls quickly. Obama will solidify with a 5% advantage. And some key battleground states will go and stay firmly for Obama.

Posted by: paulstewart | September 27, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

We've heard a brilliant mind and we've seen a compassionate human being. He is going to be a great President.

Whom am I taliking about?

Posted by: stearm | September 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

As an observer from your neighbour to the north, I found the debate fascinating. Obama can think on his feet. He showed flashes of brilliance in both foreign policy areas and on the economy, hwever I would give the nudge to McCain overall on his ability to truly explain foreign policy issues on the basis of first hand experience. On the economic front, McCain had the better understanding on taxation and its impact on the social well being of the nation. Taxing businesses too heavily does drive jobs away. That is the last thing that the American economy needs. I would say that McCain drove the ball to the 30 yeard line and entering the red zone.
auuggieinCnada

Posted by: auggieinCanada | September 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

I believe the issue of McCain not addressing Obama directly is overblown. My impression from watching him is that he has limited mobility turning his head left or right, due to his war wounds. I suspect that, due to the placement of the side cameras and podium, he would have had to completely turn his back to part of the audience and at least one of the cameras in order to face Obama. Most media handlers will tell you this is a bad idea.

It's likely he made the choice to just look ahead and not risk showing the camera his backside. If I'm correct, I think it was a tactical mistake not to address Obama directly just once, for effect, and let the producers find the best camera shot.

Posted by: rossasmith | September 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Spin is hardening as we speak. Polls suggest viewers think Obama won. Even Fox's focus group in Nevada went 17-10 for Obama. And the dominant take-away seems to be John McCain's inability to look Obama in the eye.

Not a good way to end a bad week.

Posted by: starthom | September 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Two focus groups, one by GOP pollster Frank Luntz and another by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, both declared Obama the winner.

Independents in the MediaCurves focus group "gave the debate to Obama 61-39. They also think he won every individual segment. Republicans gave the debate to McCain 90-10, Democrats to Obama 93-7."

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Guess on this forum that the winner will be in the eye of the beholder.

If you want a fairly realistic and more unbiased assessment go to the overseas bookies eg UK Betfair:

Obama to be next President -

3 months ago - 3.0
3 weeks ago - 1.85
3 days ago - 1.73
3 minutes ago - 1.56 (McCain 2.86).


Posted by: KingofCool | September 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

"McCain won, and if you do not think so, look at Drudge, which is non-partisan:"

That says it all. Anyone who thinks Drudge is "non-partisan" is incorrigible. Here's a few real poll results:

CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL OF DEBATE WATCHERS
Who Did the Best Job In the Debate?
Obama: 51%
McCain: 38%

Who Would Better Handle Economy?
Obama: 58%
McCain: 37%

Who Would Better Handle Iraq?
Obama: 52%
McCain: 47%
=================

Frank Luntz and Stanley Greenberg focus groups go overwhelmingly for Obama.

=================
CBS post-debate poll of 500 nationwide undecideds:
Who won the debate?
Obama: 39%
McCain: 24%
Draw: 37%

Did your opinion of Obama get better tonight?
Yes: 46%
Did your opinion of McCain get better tonight?
McCain: 32%

Based on tonight's debate, would Obama make the right decisions about the economy?
Yes: 66%
Based on tonight's debate, would McCain make the right decisions about the economy?
Yes: 42%

Based on tonight's debate, would Obama make the right decisions about Iraq?
Yes: 48%
Based on tonight's debate, would McCain make the right decisions about the economy?
Yes: 56%

Posted by: Hokuto | September 27, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

.

Obama got flustered several times and showed it. McCain never wavered, never lost his composure. Obama had to resort to "I agree" seven or eight times.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | September 27, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

I was heartened by this debate. I thought both men were presidential, sober, and clearly outlined their differences. Who "won" depends on which argument -- about Iraq, about taxes, etc. -- you find most compelling. I'm an Obama supporter, but overall I must say that this was a good night for American democracy.

Posted by: cbk22 | September 27, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

I believe Obama was the winner tonight. He was knowledgeable about BOTH economics and foreign policy. He has a broad view f the world, and not such a narrow one as McCain does. McCain came across as combative, condescending, elitist and out of touch.

Comparing the two candidates, McCain appeared to be "programmed", whereas Obama appeared to be "prepared"!

I think it would be in America's best interest to have an educated, intelligent, and emotionally stable candidate such as Barack Obama as President of the United States. I believe that other countries will both respect and maybe even fear him, because they really are not sure what he may do, but McCain is easily predictable, therefore easily manipulated.

Posted by: MyAudacity | September 27, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

""Much is being made on cable of McCain's difficulty in pronouncing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's last name""

One question, Is there MUCH being made on Mr Obama mis-using Mr Mccains name 2wice?

Once he said Jim and I think Tom..

I will have to rewatch to see which it was

Posted by: loki1 | September 27, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, after so much build-up to tonight's debate, I think no chips changed hands. If you were on McCain's side, you were pleased that he didn't get steamrolled by Obama, and he even managed to avoid saying something outrageous, embarrassing, or just plain wrong (except maybe the whole 'freeze spending on everything but the military' thing... yikes!) Obama followers were probably pleased with the substance of his arguments, but disappointed that he passed on a few obvious opportunities to turn McCain into mincemeat. (I mean, did he seriously stand there and take it when McCain tried to draw a comparison between Obama and Bush? What is this, Bizarro World?) Sadly, undecided voters are now probably... undecided. I'm holding out hopes that future debates will be more lively... and at least until then we have Sarah Palin providing comic relief. (Brilliant pick, McCain! She's hilarious!!)

Posted by: nhunterp | September 27, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse

The clear winner was McCain. Obama’s responses showed lack of knowledge and experience. In addition, the American people should realize that throughout the debate, Obama agreed with McCain pretty much on everything. Obama knew that his positions were untenable and were pushed into a corner on all of his responses. That is not leadership. He shows himself to be just a follower… as he has shown in his time in the Senate. He never disagreed with his party for the good of the country. On the other hand, McCain has a fierce streak of independence. Despite Obama’s efforts to tie McCain in with Bush, the American people know better than that. They know who McCain is and what he has done throughout his career. Of course McCain agreed with Bush lots of time… afterall he is also a conservative. However, he has also charted his own course over time. Obama has not done that.

Posted by: lenanalex | September 27, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

McCain's "I don't think so" to unconditional sitting down with "wiping of the map...by Iran" is worth a few point in Florida for sure.

Posted by: peteonline | September 27, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

McCain's reference to low tax rates in Ireland only point out the effects of corporate welfare.

From Central Statistics Office Ireland (link below):

"Between 1996 and 2006, the unemployment rate in RoI fell from 12.1 per cent to 4.5 per cent. In NI, it fell from 9.7 per cent to 4.4 per cent."
(NI = Northern Ireland, RoI is Republic of Ireland)

So in essence to cure a massive, very long standing problem of unemployment and poverty, even among the well educated, the government had to bribe offshore companie (many American) to come to Ireland and build factories and offices.

A reduction of almost 63% down to the same level we have enjoyed in recent years took a huge shift of welfare from individuals to bribes for businesses to locate in Ireland.

I'm sure McCain would like to see us do the same thing: pay off corporations through reduced tax rates, but that shifts the burden of taxation onto the backs of the Middle Class - another Bush/McCain tactic.
Except the end result won't be the same because we're not going to get Chinese or Irish or Brit companies to build new factories here. Only the Japanese do that, but they take home the profits on their well made cars that are usually designed for the American market, often by Americans.

http://www.cso.ie/newsevents/pr_northsouth_08.htm

Posted by: can8tiv | September 27, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

They say that if you want to know who won the debate you have to watch it with the volume turned off and whoever looks good is the winner. My parents don't speak English and they thought that Obama won. He looked more confident and relaxed. I guess he looked more presidential.

Posted by: thor2 | September 27, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Note to Obama lovers: Post debate polls are useless. Kerry won every post debate poll and lost the election. It is about being comfortable with whi is President and tonight's proved McCain has walked the walk and Obama has been doing nothing but running for President the past four years.

Posted by: mh53ehawk | September 27, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

McCain was McCain; Obama was Obama. Oh, McCain won.

Posted by: rvgammill@yahoo.com | September 27, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

I am an independent (register libertarian) I believe that the question about their views and position on the current economic disaster was never answered by neither one. They spent about 11 minutes jockeying for position. Neither one will commit to a direct answer. A draw.
The question on foreign affairs led to an
advantage (based on answers and positions) to the Republican Candidate McCain.
Mr.Obama appeared unsure about his answers
on this topic and tried at various time to
insert his views on local -USA-issues which
-in my opinion- have no connection to the
question that was asked. He should wait for the next debate on the local economy issue -.

Posted by: jrldev | September 27, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

About the only thing I will remember from this debate is McCain's constant belittling of Obama with the "he just doesn't get it" mantra. How offensive it was the second time, and more so the third time and the fourth time and how many more times? McCain sounded like a junior high kid who has no coherent argument so he resorts to name-calling.

Posted by: markiejoe | September 27, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

McCain did a GREAT job-MUCH better than I expected-as a Dem. I can say there will be no hesitation to vote for McCain-foreign policy in the hands of Obama/Biden scares the living hell out of me-READ-IRAN-THE GREATEST THREAT FACING THE WORLD TODAY.

IT IS MCCAIN-ALL THE WAY!

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

The Polls: Anyone claiming that McCain or Obama "won" according to the polls is talking out their posterior. NO one "won" the debate yet. It will be a good 4-5 days before it's all parsed out and the pollers can get a clearer handle on how viewers (and, importantly, only those viewers who were actually POLLED, which is only the smallest percentage of American voters) viewed the debate. Anyone claiming a victory for either guy now is just touting their party's line.

Interesting comment from a black friend of mine who just called. He was really bothered that McCain wouldn't look Obama in the eye. Malcolm's words were, "It just reminded me that McCain is the same guy who seriously resisted making a national holiday acknowledging Martin Luther King's importance to history." I wonder if other black people feel that way.

Posted by: booger1 | September 27, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

I had expected that McCain would dominate the debate, but I didn't expect he would do so by ignoring Obama. I think the reason most independent women favored Obama as the winner was because of the way McCain presented himself. He lived up to my expectation of him as a person with the "prisoner" mentality, one who is hard pressed to physically acknowledge someone with whom he disagrees - or more appropriately, whom he disdains.

McCain's disdain for Obama practically screamed at the camera, and it turned off a lot of independents. His bluster belied his true self, but not to that group of women who see it. Therein lies the seeds of his defeat.

Thank God!

Posted by: BisbeeAZ | September 27, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

If you go off body language, McCain was CLEARLY uncomfortable, which he demonstrated by not even once looking at Obama. For the debate that was supposed to be McCain's strongest, I'd say Obama either won or held his own. McCain never mentioned the Middle Class, never accounted for the fact that he wants to give another $4 billion in tax cuts to the oil companies, never responded to Obama's attack about "muddling through" Afghanistan...and there are many more points along those lines.

What Republicans don't seem to understand is that the average American doesn't understand tax codes or health care policies - you can't expect them to be able to make a decision about which one is the best, especially when they're being forced to choose between buying their own health care that their employers have eliminated, or using that $5000 to heat their homes in the winter.

Posted by: raechel2002 | September 27, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

A clear win for Obama, as the CBS and CNN after-debate polling showed.

What debate were you watching, Chris? McSame trying to say he knows what war criminal Henry Kissinger thinks, when after that pathetic interview by Palin with Katie Couric yesterday, CBS went back to Kissinger to confirm he is in favor of meeting with Iran WITHOUT preconditions (which he confirmed), all of which merely proved Mcsame is one of the few people in the country who haven't watched that meltdown on CBS by now.

A meltdown so pronounced that even former conservative supporters such as Kathleen Parker today suggested that Palin withdraw. If McSame had the slightest idea of what is happening in the real world he never would have mentioned her name.

As it is McSame came off as having the body language of the Hunchback of Notre Dame. He snarled with a rather psychotic grin every time Obama made a point, and he was unable to make eye contact with Obama once over 95 minutes, which is probably why he and Sarah are always talking about "not blinking" when facing their enemies. Maybe he is physically unable to, or even look at humans in his immediate vicinity.

Very creepy.

Posted by: filmex | September 27, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

CBS Instant Poll

40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.

68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision
about the economy. 41% think McCain would.

49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.

Posted by: Variant | September 27, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

McCain didn't do poorly, but he didn't make up much ground. His style is antagonistic, which may work with some people. He gave the impression of not being entirely capable of controlling his dislike or irritation with his opponent. This may be his history, however. As for Kissinger, he is being spun both ways---comes from being so duplicitous---so I wouldn't give that point to McCain. Also, were we watching the same debate? It looked to me like McCain was trying to convince Jim Lehrer, and no one else, to vote for him. I saw it as a draw--Obama allows himself to be interuppted and hems and haws too much---and as such, I think Obama wins because he doesn't have to make up any ground and I think people will react favorably to his personality.

Posted by: jlgrant1 | September 27, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

You republican trolls are pathetic! You sit at your computers posting bs that has no business being read in a legitimate discussion like this about Americans and the issues we face today and will tomorrow. The only thing I can say that best fits you all is that you can't clean a piece of sh*t!

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

I have only one comment. McCain did not look directly at Obama even once. I thought that this was extremely weak on McCain's part. If you can't even look at your opponent, how can you effectively gauge their mettle? For this fact alone I felt that Obama was the more composed and commanding candidate.

Clearly Obama was more presidential in bearing and demeanor during this debate.

Posted by: lseater | September 27, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama conceding mccain was right about some things made him look gracious. john refused to be amiable when they shook hnds and brushed him of.
people trying to make something of Barack touching his bracelet were just determined to see something sinister in it. The disrespect for that soldier was shown by those people- not by Barack.
In 2002 Barack showed the greatest respect for all service people by opposing the stupid pointless war in the first place. yOU WARMONGERS WERE USING THEM AS CANNONFODDER.

Posted by: BobGuthrie | September 27, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

.

patch1:
"give us someone who looks to the future and not talks all the time about the past."

McCain's speaks of the past and what he did. Obama speaks of the future and what he will do. Deeds done or promises, your choice.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | September 27, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

booger1 My Nephew thought Obama was trying to scare McCain with his evil looks. Kids!

Posted by: TheoriginalMoniker1 | September 27, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

McCain won, and if you do not think so, look at Drudge, which is non-partisan"

You think the DRUDGE REPORT is non-partisan?!?

Well, Lagnese, you're either a liar or a fool. Mike Drudge is a right-wing crackpot- which is pretty much the reason for the pole result on his website.

And no, McCain didn't win. He came across as a monomaniacal, fearmongering nitwit- except for the parts where he attacked Obama for holding a specific viewpoint, then parroted that viewpoint- like he did on Russia.

Posted by: Bartron | September 27, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here,
Barack Obama was an "average" student in High School and average at best in College as an Undergraduate. Harvard with this educational background?
Obama was GIVEN a pass and a grade into Harvard over ALL the kids that TRULY studied, made strait A's and gave up their Friday nights to do so. Do me the favor of NOT calling him a genius! Bill Clinton was a RHODES SCHOLAR! Obama is NOT! He stutters in search of the next word that can make him sound intelligent.
And tonight he just looked inexperienced and angry.

Posted by: Texan2007 | September 27, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

I've paid pretty close attention to the campaign, but the "seal" line went right over my head while I was watching. It's too obscure a jab to have any effect on the undecided.

Posted by: bilder | September 27, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

This debate reminded me a lot of the Clinton Lazio debate in that Obama was stately, presidential, etc., and McCain came across like Lazio. It was a conversational vs. combative approach. I was turned off by McCain's constant attempts to put down Obama which seemed beneath the dignity of the event and what the American people want now, e.g. intelligent discussion, a dialogue, forceful but respectful discourse. Rovian put downs did not work for me, particularly in a time of crisis. Is that how a President McCain would score his points and make his points. Not impressive at all.

I thought McCain's demeanor brought down the debate for him.

Also, why would McCain go over and over his experience overseas and where he has been as a plus, and then continue to put down Obama, while praising and picking Palin. McCain's debate style tonight confirms that he knows that Palin's lack of experience makes her absolutely unqualified to be "ready" to be the VP and possible POTUS. It made him look really hypocritical. Obama came across as confident, smart and passionate. I think he could have been more forceful, but that style approach was consistent with his approach to the debate. A good one for Obama.

Posted by: Margbk | September 27, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

No Lenanalex, we fully understand that McCain is old as dust, he has more AGE then Obama and I'll even grant more experience-at being wrong and messing up the Govt.- but that has NOTHING to do with the FACT that McCain didn't make ONE POINT tonight in that debate.

You are arguing that McCain "LOOKED" older and has more experience(being OLD) and that we grant you that, but you get no POINTS for that. To get POINTS one must SCORE A POINT and McCain didn't.

I want you to list the questions where McCain won and how he won? If you fail to do this they you will be considered an Idiot, who knows not what he talks about.

(others are invited to play too).

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

What was striking was how bellicose McCain came off as. As his constant references to previous wars and conflicts reaffirmed to many how he thinks in militaristic terms. McCain came off as the pro-war candidate in a time when the country is tired of war discussions.

Posted by: case3 | September 27, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse


I agree with you when you say Obama came across as the bipartisan one, while McCain came across as angry and arrogant, someone who can't even look at his opponent. The bipartisan will be more appealing to those who were undecided.

More importantly, Obama's restraint and even concurrence with McCain on points before arguing a different point of view showed pragmatism. In diplomacy, you have to show respect to people you disagree with and McCain's disdain for Obama was visible to millions. That really hurt McCain with independents today. Independents are independents because they listen to both/all points of view. Mocking Obama for saying John McCain is right is a boneheaded move by Republicans. Who gives these guys advice? It seems the campaign is guided by an excessive dose of vindictiveness.

Posted by: asja | September 27, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

McCain knows a lot of people and he's been around. He's a hard hitter and he believes what he believes.

But let's face it .. McCain's a good ground soldier and Obama's a Commander in Chief. That's what I saw.

Posted by: dave40 | September 27, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

McCain won, and if you do not think so, look at Drudge, which is non-partisan:68% McCain, 30% Obama. Obama looked feckless as he said he had a bracelet too. What people may not have seen were the gestures Obama made when Mccain was speaking. It's too bad more stations don't broadcast everything. Lastly, Obama shot himself in the foot by standing by increased spending in the face of economic problems. Obama showed himself to be what he is, younger, arrogant, inexperienced, and an elitist. The debate was better than I thought it would be.
Jim Lagnese
http://www,therightguyshow.com

Well, apparently a majority DO agree-McCain was the clear winner!

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Quite frankly, I was extremely disappointed in Jim Lehrer's questions. He asked questions that were so general that the candidates were able to immediately get right back to their talking points in the ensuing "discussion". Bad form. Moderators need to ask very specific questions if they want specific responses. And the public wants specific responses. They get all the generalizing they can handle every day of the campaign.

Posted by: dlopata | September 27, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Their oath of office will refer to one document, and one document only. Was that document referred to tonight? If so, what did they have to say? I deliberately missed the debate to watch Kelly's Heroes and Where Eagles Dare which remind me of our country's greatness and great sacrifice during World War II, but which greatness has been eroded by the childish baby boomers who have to have it all even if it means destroying my children's future with debt.

Posted by: EliPeyton | September 27, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama definitely held his own regarding preconditions and Kissinger's statements. The right have and will attack Obama as professorial, but that's merely a ploy to draw attention away from what Obama is saying. He explained to the nation the difference between "preconditions" and "preparation." I for one appreciate that Obama will explain to the layman things like normal diplomatic processes. Call me a student; I don't mind. I also watched the forum Kissinger recently spoke at, and I don't think Obama took his statements out of context.

Obama was also very good when he was quick to say that McCain misrepresented their records and positions on past bills. I think it was good that he did that, because people do say that they don't know about him. He had to take that bull by the horns tonight, and he did it firmly.

McCain was pretty suave at lowering expectations of his performance with his threat to not debate tonight. Even so, I think he needed to blow this out of the water. Foreign policy is his perceived strength, he's behind, and I say he and Obama tied at best and he lost at worst. I personally found him to be sneering and unlikeable and was frustrated when he wouldn't address the "big picture" framing that Obama consistently put out on Iraq. McCain just kept talking about the surge.

Posted by: kristin137 | September 27, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Mr.Gilliza:
I don't know what debate you were watching. Obama was the clear winner, he looked relaxed, presidential, knowledgeble, and calm. McCain looked old, repetitive, prejudiced, and condescending. He did not look presidential at all, more of a third grade angry school teacher.

Posted by: johnycheng1 | September 27, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse


The rightguy says that Drudge is INDEPENDENT!! What planet have you been living on DUDE?

Posted by: russ_broadway | September 27, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Was I watching the same debate as everyone else? Obama seemed ashen and uninformed, while McCain came across as experienced and lively. While McCain would not be my first choice, I could never in good conscience vote for Obama. The current state of the economy and foreign affairs is not the right time for Obama to cut his teeth. I want our U.S. President to have actual interaction with world leaders and spent time on their soil…that man is McCain.
Since many have brought it up it seems best to go to the source:
Kissinger responds to the debate:"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."


Posted by: JLM_JD_LLM | September 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

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

This is exactly as it was reported on CNN. And what is this issue about looking at Obama in the eye? Really?

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 27, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who thought McCain won this debate is either a party hack or a fool. I consider myself a Republican but I am no party hack - Obama seemed the more reasonable candidate on every issue that came up, the more thoughtful and the most coherent. While I still agree with conservative economic policy, despite the current catastrophe, I cannot vote for McCain. My mind is made up. I think Obama is an exceptional talent and he is a moderate.

Posted by: diebrucke | September 27, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

A bad week for McCain , just got a whole lot worse. Lets see , we have Rick Davis , McCain dropping like a rock in the polls. Then he pulls this political stunt of supposedly suspending his Campaign and claims he has to run back to Washington to save the world. But he failed to mention that he is not part of the committees that were dealing with the bail out , and therefor wouldn't have any input anyway. Then the congressional leaders come out and make statements about not needing McCain or wanting him. McCain shows up in Washington and screws up the entire frame work of the agreement. A very Conservative Republican comes out in MSM calling for Palin to step down for the good of the Republican Party because she is way out of her league , which once again points towards McCain's very poor judgment. Then McCain flip flops again , and decides he better show up for the Debate. Then McCain GETS SPANKED , AND LOSES THE DEBATE.

NOW THE OLD DUDE LOOKS EVEN DUMBER THEN HE IS.

Did i miss anything ???????

Posted by: cakemanjb | September 27, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Advantage: Obama. But 1st I must congratulate Jim Lehrer. He was an excellent moderator. Others will do well to follow his style. Coming back to this debate. Obama as the newbie had a lot riding on this to prove himself as a confident, knowledgable strong CIC. He did all of that plus he showed himself to be very inclusive. McCain come in as the veteran senator with 26 years under his belt and his kept deflecting blows and spent all the time attacking rather than give a bold, precise vision of how he would be different from Bush. All I saw was more of Bush...so Obama won this round.

Posted by: indep99 | September 27, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Since it KEEPS coming up (and I was not a troll last time I checked).

Kissinger released this statement after the debate:
"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

Posted by: JLM_JD_LLM | September 27, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Dear floridarez,

I respect your opinion, but I would check McCain's record for veterans before you jump of the cliff based upon one observation.

Source: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

I'll be voting for Obama. but I like how McCain kept repeating "Senator Obama doesn't understand.." and "what Senator Obama doesn't understand is ..."
more subtle than his constant talk about his own experience. a good way to take away from the fact that the guy is a very old looking 72.

Posted by: tick1845 | September 27, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama provided the big picture on the economy when he characterized the current meltdown as "a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by Pres. Bush and supported by Sen. McCain."

McCain's style was completely offputting & disrespectful. Wouldn't even look over at Obama. Obama was debating; McCain was in his own world.

And where was Sarah Palin after the debate? Biden offered great commentary--but Giuliani pinch hit for Palin. They won't let her talk to the media but she's supposed to be ready to be VP?

A major victory for Obama & Biden--and polls show a majority of undecided voters saw it that way.

Posted by: simonflannery | September 27, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

"Obama has a vision for America an America of the 21st century.Mccain with his constant references to the past,still lives there.I am reminded of the new year cartoons,where the old played out year is helped out the door.Good bye John and take your trophy vice with you."


How about someone who has his head in the past, Sen. Obama....who's ONE shining moment is being against the war in Iraq, and won't let it go as the only solution to fix things is to invent time travel and go back and listen to him. Never mind that we're in 2008 now. He wants to solve the issues 5 years after they happen with hindsight. We can leave the junior Ill. Senator to get some more years under his belt.

Posted by: kolbkl | September 27, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Indeed, NOT a good night for Obama-he did not come across as knowledgeable, but peevish and arrogant. McCain on the other hand, came across as steady, self-assured and confident-in other words, presidential.

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

On rhetoric, McCain has won the debate; substance, I maintain but don’t approach with much detail here, was won by Obama. In no particular order, perhaps on the more positive side, McCain has invoked Reagan populism, knowledge of history, his POW status, Kennedy, God, Israel, military pride and love, the “first bracelet”, our country (right or wrong), and overall simple story of bad and good guys. On the nastier side of things, but still successful rhetoric (cutting both ways with no allegiance to morality), he has possibly used well utilized ‘under tones’ of racialized language that alone don’t complete the sentence, only as a gestalt (an implication of wild and stupid? a.k.a., “dangerous… stubbornness”, “does not understand” and so forth), and Clinton-esque notions of “parsing” (read as a derivative of “how do you define sex?”). By contrast, Obama didn’t tear into McCain’s very much in terms of credibility or character or oversimplifications; instead he made the mistake that many of us do, beginning with “I absolutely agree with….” — the sandwich method that works in person, not on a populist debate forum. On substance, I believe Obama won it more or less hands down; a nuanced approach to almost all, economy (corporate welfare vs. middle class investment), security, long term strategic links between domestic and international policy and so forth (and no claiming to having studying North Korean heights and poverty though who knows, malnutrition and height do co-vary). If we Americans as a whole need a simple bed time story, the McCain one has proved avuncular indeed. If we want the mysteries of the universe with reasonable places to go, we turn to Obama.

Posted by: joshfromCalif | September 27, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Both candidates were sharp in tonight's debate.
In terms of assigning a winner, you have to consider the approach that each candidate took in responding to the questions that were asked. McCain clearly thought that the best way to show his preparedness for the presidency was to belittle Barack Obama and present him as a naive young man. It was obvious that his goal was to try to present himself as more experienced, he came across as an old man who doesn't appreciate some "young whippersnapper" trying to come in a take a position that was rightfully his!

What McCain falied to realize that most of the ways that he chose to present his experience only served to make him look old. Who cares what you were doing in 1983 when you consider that in 2008 most people can't afford groceries or a mortgage??? Of course foreign policy will be important for the next president but we have enough mess right here in the US that is sure to be a greater priority over the next four years.

Barack Obama showed that he will not back down to his opponent and to any other issue that this country will face in the near future. He focused on the issues and his answers were clear and concise and showed not only preparedness but a strong understanding of domestic and foreign matters.

Posted by: HotPundit | September 27, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

If foreign policy is John McCain’s strong suit then he came up short tonight. Not only did he make gaffes about Pakistan and Afghanistan, he came across as mean, and condescending. He was so arrogant that he would not even look Obama in the eye. It reminded me of the Bush/Gore debates when Gore came across as arrogant. I don’t think his performance will set well with the voters who decide elections, people like me, the independents.

Posted by: russ_broadway | September 27, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

McCain won, and if you do not think so, look at Drudge, which is non-partisan:68% McCain, 30% Obama. Obama looked feckless as he said he had a bracelet too. What people may not have seen were the gestures Obama made when Mccain was speaking. It's too bad more stations don't broadcast everything. Lastly, Obama shot himself in the foot by standing by increased spending in the face of economic problems. Obama showed himself to be what he is, younger, arrogant, inexperienced, and an elitist. The debate was better than I thought it would be.
Jim Lagnese
http://www,therightguyshow.com

Posted by: therightguy | September 27, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I thought Obama talked more about the issues and McCain talked more about himself. McCain was more folksy and Obama was more of a statistician. McCain was more uptight - constantly blinking and forcing a smile, whereas Obama looked focused but relaxed. Not to mistake experience for longevity, I actually learned more actual facts about the global political reality from Obama. McCain interprets Obama's adjustments on issues as weakness, which would be a plus for McCain if he, McCain, didn't repeat failed policies instead of explaining his present analysis based on actual conditions. By repeating his "credentials" so often, I found myself wondering if McCain "just didn't get it."

Posted by: jhop | September 27, 2008 12:16 AM


jhop, you were listening, looking and learning like I was. One of the questions of those who are debating the debaters should be did you learn anything new and what. Obama blew him away with his world view and judgement that's needed for these times. McCain kept saying that he will take care of the vets. Walter Reed shows just how much care it has been given over the years.

Posted by: MILLER123 | September 27, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Although both candidates demonstrated knowledge about both economic issues and foreign policy, I believe that Senator Obama showed an understanding of the implications and ramifications of both sets of issue that was far superior to Senator McCain's. At this critical stage in our national life, we need a president who has an outstanding intellectual capabilities, and there is no doubt in my mind that Senator Obama demonstates a superior intelligence. Senator McCain's supposed strength in foreign policy was matched by Senator Obama's excellent grasp of the issues involved. The two men present very different approaches to and issues involved in our relationship with others in our world, and we voters need to be very careful about choosing the person who will be making critical decisions in the next four years. As far as the candidates's answers to the economic questions were concerned, I thought that Senator Obama had a much better grasp of the problems and the broader implications. Neither candidate, however, aswered Mr. Lehrer's questions: I, together with Mr. Lehrer, would have liked to have heard their economic plans (generally) and the ways in which the current crisis in the financial markets might affect their actions. with the exception of Senator McCain's comment that he might introduce a budget freeze for all spending except military spending. That was just downright scary! Otherwise, I was appalled by Senator McCain's rudeness and condescension toward Senator Obama. And I did not like Senator McCain's lies. He is not the kind of person I was as my leader.

Posted by: marmac5 | September 27, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

No, don't confuse it. I'm not saying that I'm "upset" because McCain is playing to Racial Stereotypes by suggesting that Obama "doesn't understand" when clearly Obama is a genius and knows far more then McCain does.

My point was this strategy of trying to belittle Barack Obama because he's Black while any attempt to strike back will either go over McCain's head or be construed as calling Sarah Palin a pig is lame.

To those who are saying this was a tie you're simply giving McCain too much credit because he's old and White. No, he can't fail to make ONE POINT while Barack hammers him for being WRONG on each and every issue and then claim its a damn tie.

What match does the LOSER LOSE each and every round and then its declared a tie?

Stop that.

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

The clear winner was McCain. Obama’s responses showed lack of knowledge and experience. In addition, the American people should realize that throughout the debate, Obama agreed with McCain pretty much on everything. Obama knew that his positions were untenable and were pushed into a corner on all of his responses. That is not leadership. He shows himself to be just a follower… as he has shown in his time in the Senate. He never disagreed with his party for the good of the country. On the other hand, McCain has a fierce streak of independence. Despite Obama’s efforts to tie McCain in with Bush, the American people know better than that. They know who McCain is and what he has done throughout his career. Of course McCain agreed with Bush lots of time… afterall he is also a conservative. However, he has also charted his own course over time. Obama has not done that.

Posted by: lenanalex | September 27, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

floridarez Keith Obamaman named that momment as a highlight for Obama. Go figure...

Posted by: TheoriginalMoniker1 | September 27, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

I must point out something McCain is confused about: The goal of the surge was to allow Iraq to develop some kind of political consensus and self-reliance on the part of the Iraqi government and military.

We have yet to see this come to fruition. When Neo-cons kick the ball, they always run the goal posts behind the kicker and declare a goal. Remember, the are not "The reality based" community.

Posted by: Togeika | September 27, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Obama had a better way with independents today. His first answer was competent and strong and he was on top of the issues in a very organized way.

Posted by: asja | September 27, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

The clear winner in the first Presidential debate was Barack Obama. Senator McCain came across as a grunmpy old man who is stuck in the past. He did not look at all Presidential.

The subject and format of the debate were alleged to favor John McCain so there is no real excuse for the fact that John McCain was not able to knock it out of the park.

The America people got a good impression of how effective John McCain would be on the world stage and it is clear that he is not able to make a good impression. He was not even able to look his opponent in the eye.

The last few weeks have not been good ones for John McCain so perhaps he would have been better off if he had in fact not shown up for the debate as he threatened earlier this week. John McCain came across as a mean old man and one who could not effectively be a leader in the 21st century.

Posted by: lavinsr | September 27, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

I thought it was a good debate. I'll tell you upfront that I'm an Obama supporter. I think that the next couple of days will show that Obama did himself a considerable amount of good with independents who, at this point, are the people who count. Obama came across as the bipartisan one, while McCain came across as angry and arrogant, someone who can't even look at his opponent. The bipartisan will be more appealing to those who were undecided.

Posted by: mouse2talk2u | September 27, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

I watched with some Dems. I'm independent now in McCain camp. The dem viewers all said. Wow: "McCain is presidential and both of these guys are good but McCain has a definite edge."

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

yeah, right. You can't even lie well.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

It seems like McCain's responses to all topics can be summarized as "I got experience; Obama does not understand ...".

Posted by: LMS092508 | September 27, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

John, I have a bracelet too. - This was a very important response - because it was saying that Senator McCaine's story about the bracelet he received sought to argue that he was the truer patriot - and that he was the sole representative of how our troops in Iraq and their families see the war there. And this is related to Senator McCaine's not looking directly at Senator Obama - which was consonant with his language and tone in his every reference to his opponent - total vilification, absolute delegitimation, complete disrespect - which is inextricably related to a posture shared by Senator McCaine's running mate - absolute and arrogant certitude. There is a saying: Someone who says/thinks he or she is 70% right - this is very good. Someone who says/thinks he/she is 80% right - this is impressive. Someone who says... he/she is 90% right - this is, well, wow! But someone who says and thinks he/she is 100% right is downright most seriously dangerous!
--- The critical perspective most
democrats speak and think relative to their republican colleagues - while certainly sharp - usually involves some qualification - that their view or decisions have/will be likely/very possibly will - contribute to this or that problem or wrong-headed/negative direction/consequence; it ultimately - most often - involves a critique, however harsh, that includes some basic civility, respect. In tonight's debate we even saw Senator Obama strongly praising his opponent on his stand re torture. No such even smallest word by Senator McCaine on anything at all that might be appreciated in his opponent. Likewise, the first of the two candidates to reach out his hand to the other at the close of the debate was Senator Obama. All this is not a minor question of style. It is most repercussive for the kind of interactions and processes of judgment that constitute the vital core of the task, the work, the responsibility challenging every president of the united states.

Posted by: aBostonianJerusalemite | September 27, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

I watched the debate with my 15-year-old daughter, and I found my perspective of the candidates as a whole change slightly because of her. At one point I remember thinking, what do I want for my daughter, the representative of the old, same-old way of doing and thinking about the country's business, or the person who best represents my daughter's generation. My daughter expressed it better, "Sorry mom. McCain may a war hero and experienced and all that, but I see him and I see the past. Your generation. I see Obama and I see the future, and that's what counts for me." I wonder if other young people (particularly those just now of voting age or those in college) will see it that way. It's hard to use the experience card, on the one hand, to argue why you are the better candidate when look what all this "experience" has gotten us today: most of the world doesn't like or respect us anymore; we started a war unpopular domestically and abroad; a deficit that will now likely never be paid off; wages that do not keep up with the cost of living; an obscenely huge government; an economy that is having death rattles. So no, I don't put a lot of value in so-called experience.

Posted by: booger1 | September 27, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Fox news poll clerly shows that McCain won. He has 82% of the vote. And McCain did win.
Obama supporters, give it up. Obama looked angry whenever McCain was speaking. Obama stuttered! He looked and sounded inexperienced. Way over his head! And I mean way over. He has NO business running for President. The Democrat VOTERS should have FORCED the DNC into naming Hillary Clinton the nominee instead of the DNC and MEDIA forcing the Democrat voters to name Barack Obama. No, he is not ready! Obama lost the day he was named the nominee. HELLO PRESIDENT McCAIN!

Posted by: Texan2007 | September 27, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Good night for all!

I am from Brazil and watched the debate too. I think that Obama was better than McCain. Obama showed clearly more knowledge, vision and connection with the world.
The vision of Obama on American foreign policy is exactly the our vision of all us here out.
USA need be more diplomatic and approximate the relations with this countries that are in conflicts.

Posted by: Dalmo1 | September
=======================================
Calma, dalmo. Brasil e seu, EUA e nosso. Saudades da USP.

Posted by: EliPeyton | September 27, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

During the presidential debate, John McCain humbly mentioned wearing a bracelet in honor of a dead soldier and promptly shared the name of that soldier with us. Then Obama did something I found absolutely appalling. Obama said, "I gotta bracelet too, it's uh, uh,..." and then he had to look down to read the name on the bracelet because he could not remember who the soldier was. As a military wife of a war veteran, this relayed clearly to me that Obama wears the bracelet bearing a dead soldier's name as a political prop with no thought of the individual who made the ultimate sacrifice in giving his life in service to our country. I sincerely hope the American public sees Obama's awful, heartless disrespect to the military shown over and over again in an internet or TV clip so the liberal media can't ignore it in their quest to bury Obama's blunders.

Posted by: floridarez | September 27, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

McCain handed Barack the Presidency tonight . Every American wants to know what the next Pres will do for the economy. Barack stated 4 possibilities, what was Mccain’s ? McCain is so crooked that he couldn't look Barack in his eyes , if your the better candidate why be intimidated !!! Barack 08

Posted by: rashant21 | September 27, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

McCain did okay, but left a lot to be desired in terms of both style and substance. Obama came across as very competent and presidential. Ultimately based on the debates and the campaign so far, I would pull the lever for Obama in a heartbeat.

Posted by: gregguevara | September 27, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama has a vision for America an America of the 21st century.Mccain with his constant references to the past,still lives there.I am reminded of the new year cartoons,where the old played out year is helped out the door.Good bye John and take your trophy vice with you.

Posted by: truthspeaker11 | September 27, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

McCain was full of platitudes and threw out as many fire cards as he could, playing the "inexperienced" card a lot. He looked stuck in the past and very grandpa-ish. He said some really retarded things though, like a freeze on everything but veteran benefits. And then Obama was like, "wtf? What about children?" And every time McCain tried to distort Obama's words, Obama would say, "um, nobody's talking about that," and explain how his plans worked. And whenever McCain made a false statement, Obama would interject "That's not true."

My only reservation is that perhaps Obama was too good. He was confident and very smart, knowledgeable, well-versed and assertive- which stupid ppl label "elitist." Whereas McCain appeared like an ordinary person you'd drink with...

I think my favorite moment was when McCain was talking about the mother of a fallen soldier giving him her son's bracelet and asking that her son not die in vain- McCain said this meant stay the course in Iraq. And then Obama said, "I have a bracelet too," from the mother of a soldier, and this mother asked that no other mother go through what she had to. And then he explained that responsibly leaving Iraq was NOT defeat and that no American soldier had died in vain.

Posted by: sallylinuslucy | September 27, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Let's get a fact straight, because I am tired of you trolls just saying something without the facts! What did Kissinger really say?

"Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says the United States should begin direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program. Kissinger, speaking Monday at George Washington University along with four other former U.S. State Department secretaries, said the next president should initiate high-level discussions with Iran "without conditions," ABC News reported."

Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/16/Kissinger_Open_direct_Iran_talks/UPI-46971221579660/

Posted by: webercise | September 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

"McCain kicked Obama's butt."

Your fellow republicans agree with you 95% of the time. My fellow Democrats disagree with you 97% of the time. More importantly, those wonderful independents come down on the side of Obama by 2 to 1.

Posted by: Groundhogday1 | September 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

The debate was very close, but McCain definitely came across as more confident, decisive, and experienced. Obama became visibly annoyed at times, as if he didn't know how to counter McCain's aggression. I'd say they both did well, though. As I'm a McCain guy, I'm simply more comfortable with his experience and knowledge.

Posted by: happy6 | September 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

The delusional rightwing spins on but the flash polls show a crushing victory for Barack Obama as judged by the American people not righty spin meisters. The American people have clearly decided that your 15 minutes are over.

Posted by: BlueState | September 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Was I watching the same debate as everyone else? Obama seemed ashen and uninformed, while McCain came across as experienced and lively. While McCain would not be my first choice, I could never in good conscience vote for Obama. The current state of the economy and foreign affairs is not the right time for Obama to cut his teeth. I want our U.S. President to have actual interaction with world leaders and spent time on their soil…that man is McCain.
Since many have brought it up it seems best to go to the source:
Kissinger responds to the debate:"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

Posted by: JLM_JD_LLM | September 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

McCain was not as polished a performer with words as Obama but he appeared to more passionately believe in what he said whereas Obama sounded like he was giving the party line. McCain may not have looked him in the eye but he never had that “I know it all” smirk either like Obama did.

But, overall I was impressed with the standard of both participants and the adjudicator. Good job America. Why don’t you have a combined government like you did in WW2? You might solve the problems of the USA and the world a lot better.

Posted by: KingofCool | September 27, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

I don't think either one can claim a solid victory on this debate. McCain was supposed to shine on this one, and I thought he made a decent effort but he didn't knock it out of the park (or even close). Obama held his own. They both got in a couple of jabs, but they were mostly polite. McCain came off as condescending several times -- and a couple of times merely petty -- which did not help him. Obama didn't seem quite firm enough a few times, which didn't help him. They both wandered off into talking-point territory more than I would have liked, rather than staying on-topic.

It was all right as debates go, but it was certainly not a stunning victory for either of them. Going simply by expectations, I expected McCain to do better. So I'd be tempted to put this one in Obama's column, just based on that.

Posted by: kellyne | September 27, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama was eloquent? Half the time when he started to reply, he sounded like a '32 Ford trying to get started.

Posted by: kolbkl | September 27, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

I watched with some Dems. I'm independent now in McCain camp. The dem viewers all said. Wow: "McCain is presidential and both of these guys are good but McCain has a definite edge."

Posted by: chetdbaker | September 27, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Obviously the surfing community strongly disagrees with "The Fix." Of course, we are not representative of the likeliy-voter population, and we have to wait until tomorrow morning for the results of the telephone polls. But, one thing is certain, McCain is not internet-genic. Next to Obama he looked short, with a mean grin, and an anoying air of superiority that will turn-off anybody under 50. Does he really have videos of him like that online?

Posted by: RegisUrgel | September 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

I have been swayed. I am voting Obama/Biden '08. McCain came off disrespectful, belittling and arrogant. I think we've had enough of that type of "leader" for the past 8 years!!!

Posted by: lana_mama | September 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Obama clearly won this debate. Though McCain did much better than I thought he would, Obama intelligently and steadily shot down all of McCain's bluster with facts and specifics. He had a sense of humor and at the same time, intensity that really showed me Obama is the president I can be proud of.

What bothered me the most, however, was the unsettling prejudicial despise and contempt toward Obama. McCain did not ever look at Obama - he was dismissive and disrespectful. I really hope that contempt and condescension toward Obama is not what it appeared to be...

Posted by: deniseesq | September 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

I believe Obama won. Everyone keeps saying that McCain was as at ease as he's ever been and, if that is the case, I have never seen a more stilted debater. He constantly interrupted Lehrer and Obama, was condescending, and kept repeating the same phrases over and over.

He didn't address the issues, and was more keen on namedropping and bringing up his experience in Vietnam.

Yes, McCain is a hero, but my grandfather is a POW as well (WWII/Japanese camp), and you'd be hard-pressed to get him to talk about what he experienced.

And, just because my grandfather is recognized as a war hero, I don't think he'd have made a good president.

Posted by: ceeveg | September 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Originalmoniker1 said:
"MSNBC's Keith Obamaman was at it again. This time congratulating Joe Biden on Barack Obama's performance. That is not biased or anything."

You misunderstood - Olbermann said he hadn't spoken with Biden in a long time and he was congratulating Biden on his NOMINATION, not that Obama had done well. It was Biden, of course, who made that claim.

Look for a clip of that segment and you'll see you're wrong.

Posted by: can8tiv | September 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

CNN NEEDS TO PLAY THE TAPE OF THE HEADS OF STATE. THE QUESTION WAS WHAT DOES THE NEXT PRESIDENT HAVE TO DO. Katie Couric corrected Palin. What reporters will correct McCain. (You can play with words all you want but its obivious McCain and Palin don't know the people in their own corner. Listen to the question that was asked of the five heads of state concerning the next president. Playing with words don't work for me. I can see the truth. Kissinger can clean it up now Reporters are trying to debate the debates without checking facts.)

Let me post this again.
ABC News' Teddy Davis, Arnab Datta, and Rigel Anderson Report: During an interview with CBS News' Katie Couric which aired Thursday evening, Sarah Palin called Barack Obama "beyond naïve" for wanting to talk "without preconditions" to rogue leaders.

"I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with," said Palin, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met."

"Barack Obama is so off base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met," she continued. "That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment."

Asked if she considers former Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to be "naïve" for supporting talks without preconditions, Palin said, "I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, 'Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'"

Palin was overlooking that Kissinger (with whom she met earlier this week) has backed negotiating directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues -- a point which Couric reconfirmed at the closer of her interview.

"Incidentally," said Couric, "we confirmed Henry Kissinger's position following our interview, he told us he supports talks if not with Ahmadinejad, than with high-level Iranian officials without preconditions."

When contacted by ABC News about the split in position with Kissinger, the McCain-Palin campaign had no immediate comment.

Posted by: MILLER123 | September 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Very good summary, Cilezza-WHICH ONLY CONFIRMS THAT I, AS A LIFELONG DEM., WILL NOT BE CAUGHT DEAD VOTING FOR THE NO EXPERIENCE3 AS A LEADER, NOT EVEN AS A MANAGER OF ANYTHING OBAMA. I DON'T TRUST OBAMA, AND I'M NOT VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS A NAME "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA," EITHER-AND UNDERSTAND, I'VE SPENT YEARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE A THING.

DEMS FOR MCCAIN! WE'LL BE CROSSING BY THE MILLIONS! I CAN TAKE NOT SO MCSAME FOR 4 YEARS! BUT'S THAT'S ALL!

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | September 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

McCain seemed a little angry, tense jawed. McCain was a little over the top in his in some foreign policy issues, which made him seem a little hair-trigger.

Obama seemed knowledgeable enough and reasonably well composed, which made McCain's repeated reference to how Obama "just doesn't understand" seem to be a little condescending on McCain's part.

There was overall no clear winner to the debate, which (given the current polling and momentum) puts McCain in some trouble.

Posted by: tracyperkins | September 27, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Why was Mccain afraid to look Obama in the eye? How can such a knuckle-head like Mccain be a conciliator between the Democrats and the Republicans?

At least he stopped lying about our use of torture.

Posted by: Togeika | September 27, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

I thought Obama talked more about the issues and McCain talked more about himself. McCain was more folksy and Obama was more of a statistician. McCain was more uptight - constantly blinking and forcing a smile, whereas Obama looked focused but relaxed. Not to mistake experience for longevity, I actually learned more actual facts about the global political reality from Obama. McCain interprets Obama's adjustments on issues as weakness, which would be a plus for McCain if he, McCain, didn't repeat failed policies instead of explaining his present analysis based on actual conditions. By repeating his "credentials" so often, I found myself wondering if McCain "just didn't get it."

Posted by: jhop | September 27, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Despite his lack of any substantive foreign policy experience, the Obama campaign continues to bloviate that Senator Obama is best qualified to be Commander and Chief because “only he had the judgment to make the tough decision against the use of force in Iraq”. This argument is not only hackneyed, but blatantly inaccurate.

Even if you believe in hindsight that the use of force against Iraq was the wrong decision, it’s a decision that Obama never had to confront. A decision implies one has the authority and information to make a choice which will affect an outcome. Barrack Obama had neither the authority nor the information necessary to make such a decision, let alone affect the outcome. He could not even cast one of his decisive votes of “present”, because he wasn’t! At the time, he was merely an inexperienced Illinois State legislator, representing a very anti-war district. His so called “difficult decision” was no more difficult than it was relevant.

Mr. Obama had no more information than did I, my butcher, the paperboy down the street, or any other typical American citizen on this issue. He was not in a position to receive intelligence briefings, or even debate the facts. Those who were, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, came to the same conclusion and made the same decision as John McCain. They each had the authority and the intelligence information that Obama did not, and each voted for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Obama himself admitted as much. When asked how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution he said: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." (The New York Times on July 26, 2004)

Once Obama was in fact in a position where he had both authority and information to make real decisions on Iraq, he failed in making the correct ones each and every time.

After Obama claimed that he "Absolutely wants to make sure that the troops have sufficient support to be able to win, we must fund our troops” (CNN March 28, 2003), he cast his vote against the funding for our troops in the middle of the conflict. A vote that even Joe Biden, his “experienced” pick for Vice President, has chastised.

During the most difficult times of the Iraq conflict, after public support had waned, Obama made the easy political choice. Only John McCain had the experience and the judgment to make the correct call. He went against Obama, Biden and the democrats (who seemed all too eager to lose the war in order to gain political advantage over the Bush Administration) and also the republicans (who rallied around the Administration and its failing “stay the course” policy). At his own political expense, John McCain called for the dismissal of the Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld, and the very surge policy that has succeeded, while Obama and Biden called for retreat and defeat.

After the surge had been implemented (despite Obama and Biden’s opposition), John McCain, traveling around Baghdad, proclaimed that things were in fact improving and that the surge was in fact succeeding. Senator Obama and his supporters in the mainstream media were ridiculing Senator McCain’s statements as fantasy. Although he will not admit to his failure of judgment, Obama has now stated: “The surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, including President Bush and the other supporters, it has gone very well. It succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” (O’Reilly Factor September 4, 2008)

The truth is that the success was indeed anticipated and even reported on by John McCain, months before Obama was willing to accept it. Not only did the surge succeed beyond Obama’s wildest dreams, it succeeded despite Obama’s political dreams and poor judgment.

Posted by: jonwill | September 27, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

I have to call foul on the Racists and White Supremacists(Black man hating lesbians) who are saying that McCain won because Barack Obama "looked" inexperienced, that's silly you don't "look" inexperienced. And while I freely admit McCain "looked" old and raggedy(little munchkin arms) its what was said and the points that each Candidate made that tipped the scales for Obama.

Obama was able to retort each and EVERY point McCain made. I disagree that McCain is scoring points by saying the Surge worked and Obama won't acknowledge that.

Saying we've won the war because of the Surge is silly. We are no closer to winning that war then we were before the Surge and as Biden said on CNN,"The Surge is OVER what in the heck is his plan for withdrawl?"

McCain was wrong about the War, the economy is NOT fundementally sound, tax cuts for the rich, laxed Govt. regulation Kissinger said we should talk to Iran(and not sing songs about bombing them) are all FAILED poor strategy that shows a LACK OF JUDGMENT(picking an Idiot for VP).

Obama Wins in a TKO!!

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry you socialists are offended if someone tells you "you don't understand", but YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. So, Dr. Kissinger decided to help you out tonight:

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

Looks like Sen. McCain was able to understand Dr. Kissinger's words. Common-sense realism has a neat way of working out, doesn't it. If the secular progresisves would stop living in the world of "reader response" and let words simply mean what they say, we would all be better off.

I say this as a former Democrat. The republic needs a part of the left. But we need one grounded in reality - not the postmodern playground the modern Democratic Party has become.

Posted by: nicolai11 | September 27, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

macaine win big he pick palling for vp of hotness she one hot beauty queen with safety goggles big tall hairdo and moose gun she meet leaders at us said hiya macaine showed obama whose boss he and palling get payback for all countrys who no do what we say she say russia fly into alaska we gotta bom them to stoneage vote palling macaine o8 cause she be hottest president when macaine keels over and me wanna ride her holy rollercoaster for long time!!!!!!!

Posted by: DaveMiner | September 27, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I note the alternative reality is setting in among the commenters.
Supcat714, anyone concerned with rudeness and manners would give the debate to Obama hands down. McCain swung wildly, like a sailor on leave. Obama did not respond in kind.
Verrazzano, I have never seen Rudy without that creepy smile. That's not a barometer of anything.

Posted by: sophie2 | September 27, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

After a sluggish start, McCain wiped the floor with Obama.

If only we had listened to Barack, Russia would have never invaded Georgia!

Posted by: j-blizzy | September 27, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Actually, Obama got buried and forgotten.
I can't remember a thing he has said tonight.

McCain's Ireland tax comparison was nice. That would put a lot of people at ease.
The distinction between tactics and strategy was right on.
The China debt was a direct hit.

McCain took command of the debate the second he took the time to mention Sen. Kennedy being in hospital tonight.

Posted by: peteonline | September 27, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

It was a substantive debate, well worth watching. It doesn't seem like the MSM is able to immediately distill any sound bites or game-changing moments out of it, which I take as a good sign.

The Obama-McCain match-up is finally delivering on its promise - a civil debate, and a clear contrast.

Posted by: Adastra8 | September 27, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

I have to laugh when I read the comments about "McCain's put downs to Obama". This is a debate. And those "put downs" are McCain's experience and Obama's total lack of experience.
The biased, and no lnger creditable media can say Obama won, but American voters will trust their eyes and ears. McCain kicked Obama's butt. Obama was a deer in the head lights. He spent most of his time trying to come back from McCain and whenever McCain wasa speaking, Obama looked angry and lost his composure. Quite the opposite of what was suppose to happen. Obama is not ready. Not even close to ready. And with his experience or lack there of, this should be no surprise.

Posted by: Texan2007 | September 27, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

John McCain could not look Obama in the eye. But said he was able to look Putin in the eye!!!
There are millions of other people in America who have served their country as well as our vets. Teachers, firemen, nurses, doctors, firemen, community workers, the list is endless. John McCain rightly supports our vets but what about everything else.
Mc Cain tells us that he knows what to do, he voted with Bush 90% of the time!!
Please God give us someone who looks to the future and not talks all the time about the past.

Posted by: patch1 | September 27, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Mccain always votes against veterans and for wall street hoodlums

see his record here....

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans’ medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.

Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans’ needs

Posted by: btabou | September 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Obama got it right with Iran. Ahmadinejad is NOT the power in that country. When Obama said that, McCain looked down with that icky smirk, shaking his head "no". If Mr. McCain doesn't know by now that Ahmadinejad is simply a puppet of the ruling Mullahs in Tehran, he knows less foreign policy than I thought. Kudos for Mr. Obama for realizing who is really running the show in Iran!

Posted by: GenuineRisk | September 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Fox News had a Text Poll

Sen. Mccain 82%
Sen. Obama 16%
Undecided 1%

Posted by: JoeSmith3 | September 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

During the primary season a very big deal was made about Obama's not wearing an American flag lapel pin to the point of his not being patriotic. Am I the only one who noticed tonight that John McCain was not wearing an American flag pin and Barack Obama was?

Posted by: kmgs | September 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

I see it as a tie...no home runs and no strike outs. I guess since this was on foreign policy it is a win for Obama. It should be interesting to see what polling of undecided voters says.

Posted by: joesewell | September 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

I'm a committed (not to the nut house) Obama supporter who cannot conceive of myself voting to put McCain and (shudder) Palin in the White House. I consider myself a pretty conservative old former Marine and Vietnam vet. McCain has always scared me in large measure because I've always considered him to be, in popular jargon, "inauthentic." He would appear before every television camera he could get in front of talking softly and reasonably and as I watched him I always thought, "This is not the real guy, this is a well-rehearsed performance. There is a wildman hiding behind that mask on the TV screen." I still feel the same way. John McCain is a political showman, just as all the politicians are, except that "wildman hiding behind a mask" part. I think the guy is a little bit nuts, or at least unstable and dangerous. That said, I thought he 'won' the debate tonight. He did not seem unstable or nuts (except maybe for that incredible comment [or simple lie] about Pakistan being a 'failed state' when our dear friend General Musharref ousted the elected civilian government at gun point). He looked rational. He looked controlled, in command of the situation and of himself. Even those of us who have long feared his gaining power thought, at least temporarily and probably erroneously, that 'this guy may not be the nut job we have long thought.' That's a huge victory in my book, but I'm still sending money to Obama.

Posted by: PBosleySlogthrop | September 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Mac drank Bambi's milkshake. As an BIG Obama fan I was shocked and extremely disappointed how poorly Obama came off. He lacked punch and was way too nice agreeing with every other thing Mac said. Hopefully this debate will be forgotten and Bambi gets out the gloves for the next rumble with the mumble.

Posted by: hotdice | September 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

I don't think either man "won" tonight. Since foreign/national policy is McCain's supposed strong suit, I think he should have come out clearly the winner, but he didn't. What struck me most was McCain's obvious disrespect toward Obama. Anyone notice how he never looked at Obama? Never made eye contact? Even when they shook hands at the start, it was so obvious from McCain's body language that he dislikes Obama. If he can't hide his true feelings, or make an attempt to get along with a presidential opponent with whom he has fundamental and philosophical differences, how on earth is he going to do so with both parties of Congress and with the rest of the world if they disagree with him? We've already suffered through 8 years of a bellicose, belligerent president, an antagonist. Do we need 4 more years of that? Can we afford 4 more years of that? Also, I know pro-McCain people will see his repeated references to incidents/events in the past as him re-emphasizing his experience (which, at this point, everyone already knows, so why the redundancy?), but what's interesting is comments by viewers coming in to the major network and cable outlets, many undecideds and younger viewers are saying that him doing that just made him look old, perhaps stuck in the past.

Posted by: booger1 | September 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

I thought it was pretty much a draw, but I think you left out the main goal of Obama, which was to appear statesmanlike and able to handle a crisis. He was completely successful in doing that. With regard to McCain and his repeated invocations of "experience," he made his experience seem petty and trivial. He's been to Pakistan? He knows world leaders? So what? If anything, McCain's experience seems to limit him. When he said he looks in to Putin's eyes and sees "KGB" that was just a creepy moment. We have enough challenges in the 21st century without reliving the struggles of the last one.

Posted by: sophie2 | September 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Sorry but the true Al Gore "sighing" moments came from McCain's constant smirking, laughing and saying "you don't understand"

Come next week, people will be hammering McCain for these moments.

Posted by: lightgrw | September 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

I thought they both did better than they did in their primary debates.

It was a push. I doubt anyone was swayed.

Posted by: info42 | September 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Will tomorrow's meeting between barry and bill ayers produce anything explosive? Will barry make it to the meeting after accepting Bubba's invitation to fly Fort Marcy Park airlines? Does Cook County have figures for how many babies are chopped to bits in their mother's womb versus how many are left to die via infanticide?

Posted by: EliPeyton | September 27, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

No major gaffes. Recall all the debates between Bush vs. Kerry. Media all gushed over Obama like they also said Kerry won. We know what outcome came.

Consider this too: McCain has jumped Obama in latest Zogby poll, a poll that usually slants Dems.

Posted by: chetdbaker | September 27, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I have to admit, Senator McCain exceeded my expectations. He looked more like the guy I could have voted for in the 2000 election than the ringleader of the dysfunctional circus that has been his campaign of the past few weeks.

I just wish he hadn't sold out to the neoconservative/religious fundamentalist sect of the Republican Party.

I'd be willing to overlook a few of my policy differences with Sen. McCain to vote for a person with solid foreign affair credentials and an honorable sacrifice to his country. Unfortunately, though, he's taken a hard right in his campaign since winning the nomination and instead of standing up to the demagogues in his party, he is shamelessly pandering to them.

Tonight, at least, I saw a Senator McCain who could be a good president. Let's hope this is a sign that he will regain some of the independent spirit that made him such an attractive candidate in the 2000 Republican primary.

Posted by: tsawyer_mv | September 27, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone won or lost the debate. Did Bush win his debates against Kerry? Obama did pretty much as I expected, he does his best standing up and talking. But I think McCain really did well overall. He knew what he wanted to say and expressed himself well. He drew upon his experience very well. Remembering the past and what things worked well and what did not is a GOOD thing by the way. McCain showed how he is very different than most republicans and democrats.

Posted by: politicsrfun111 | September 27, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

McCain won. No question. Obama was uncertain kept repeating his points and was - sweating! McCain gave him the Master Class in foreign policy and showed that he has not ventured beyond shallow waters in the international arena. McCain had his own explanations for tax cuts and Health Insurance that sounded good. Obama's Pakistan bloomer and his missing the advantage of a neutralised Iraq (from the Mid East point of view - Iraq was the only country to actually fire missiles at Israel in the Gulf war. The US has done the world a favour and the sacrifices made today will have big strategic advantages later. Unfortunately these things cannot be spelled out in the public domain by a Presidential candidate who may have these quoted back to him some day. So the US public needs to read between the lines..!

Posted by: uday2 | September 27, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I was annoyed exceedingly at McCain's saying at least eight times, "Senator Obama doesn't understand." Obama deserves a medal for keeping his cool.

I had thought that McCain was borderline senile because of his "lying" about Sarah and Carly. Tonight's performance seems to disprove that. He is alert enough, just wrong on almost every issue and a liar.

Posted by: eldora | September 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I was surprised how the debate's undertone was stability/experience vs. change/vision. It was a bit like watching my father and brother go at it. How does someone choose between his Dad (who has simply lived life longer and tends to be wiser) or his brother (who is his peer and wants an America for his generation too!)? I kind of wished "Mom" (aka Hillary) jumped in during the debate and declared that the world needs both stability and change!

Posted by: gaypastor | September 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

To be perfectly honest I feel it was a draw.

In this case the tie goes to Obama since this was his weak subject. However, we must also take into consideration that McCain was able to look calm and together after having a terrible past 10 days of blunder after blunder. Which may shift the focus (which he loves to do).

McCain really never answered the questions, he just basically used a lot of his cliche tactics and words. Obama did try to answer and explain his positions which is historically a mistake since viewers either a) get confused or b) think that he is an "intellectual".

In the end it was uneventful... McCain will probably gain points in the polls but that will be short lived since he has been a master at messing things up lately, Palin will become an issue when he pushes experience over change and she cannot interview worth a darn. Biden will have her for lunch and still be hungry.

On CNN they had a group of Republicans, Democrats and Independents on a real time "reaction" graph and besides the two party lines reacting as expected I find it interesting that McCain had the more consistent negative "feeling" especially amongst Independents, Obama had higher highs. A negative for Obama, according to the graph, was that when Obama went into longer answers he had long stretches of a "flatline" graph with Republicans, Democrats and Independents all feeling neutral.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

if McCain can't look his opponent in the eye at least we won't have to worry about his declaring Putin a decent guy with a good soul.

Posted by: can8tiv | September 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

TIE GOES TO MCCAIN...

Obama missed a huge opening when he failed in the initial half hour to tie the current economic crisis to the cost of the war in Iraq. He also failed to relate the economic downturn to real people. And he too often showed deference to McCain.

He came up strong in the discussion of foreign policy and energy, and he looked presidential and rather conservative.

McCain, however, brought the better fight to the ring. He was forceful and authoritative, and not once looked befuddled or out of touch.

Both men turned in good performances, but given low expectations for McCain, the tie must go to the old sailor.

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I am an independent swing voter who supported Hillary.

I think McCain won overall. Obama started out great- best I have seen him in a debate (and I watched them all). Obama was in a great space. I think by the end he was a bit unnerved. When he left the stage his countenance was constricted and he was tight- watch him say "good job" to McCain, the moderator, then go greet his wife. He had some wind knocked out of him. I think that McCain making no eye contact, ignoring him completely, not showing any response to Obama's skillfull attempts to take him off balance and closing his body language to Obama while Obama spoke directly to McCain- took it's toll.

I see Obama's genius as relating and responding. With a quiet crowd and McCain totally ignoring him, I think eventually pushed him off balance.

McCain's comments at the end about Obama not being ready and that he would take care of Veterans seemed emotional and genuine. McCain had a great ending. Obama won in the begining on the Economy, but could have been more clear I think.

Posted by: JeninReno | September 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I have to completely disagree with the first part of the debate. My hub and I both commented that McCain seemed nervous and small during the economy section... I mean, he was actually verbally shaky sounding. Stage-fright almost. As far as foreign policy... c'mon. If you dig the Iraq stuff, you liked McCain. If you think we're spinning our wheels and missing the real "bad guys" (as Palin and Bush would say) then you liked Obama. +1 point to McCain for the foreign policy section; +1 point to Obama for foreign policy also PLUS +1 to Obama for the economic questions. Overall: Obama performed better.

Posted by: DogBitez | September 27, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Full disclosure: I support McCain.

That said, McCain performed better than I thought he would. He seemed comfortable and conveyed some real information about foreign affairs.

Obama did pretty well. He did have some odd expressions on his face at times. The split screen shots were not very kind to him.

I think the McCain camp is pretty satisfied.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | September 27, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama had a few moments in this debate and didn't do badly. But McCain really won big on the experience front. On issues like Georgia, Russia, Iran, China, and the economy, Obama is in over his head.

This debate wasn't a game-changer, but I think McCain furthur solidified his base and should get a small bounce in the polls from this.

Obama didn't do anything IMO to win over middle America.

Posted by: hokie92 | September 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

The thing that I find most amusing is that if you check the poll on Fox News, McCain won by a factor of almost 60%, and if you check the poll on CNN, Obama won by a factor of almost 40%. This tells me that liberals are lining up with their party and conservatives are lining up with their party, which means the debate shouldn't have too much of an affect on the overall polls

Posted by: devo26 | September 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Good night for all!

I am from Brazil and watched the debate too. I think that Obama was better than McCain. Obama showed clearly more knowledge, vision and connection with the world.
The vision of Obama on American foreign policy is exactly the our vision of all us here out.
USA need be more diplomatic and approximate the relations with this countries that are in conflicts.

Posted by: Dalmo1 | September 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

McCain seemed to be talking in sound bites. That whole story about the bracelet seemed like an attempt to get out of answering the question.

Obama was a lot more detailed, precise and relevent in his answers. I got the impression that Obama was listening to the questions and much more interested in actually answering them.

That showed a lot more respect for the moderator as well as a better ability to think on his feet.

McCain's bit about a blanket spending freeze was just silly. Conditions and priorities in this country are rapidly changing. Promising to freeze spending across the board is like promising to not make any decisions if elected!

Posted by: rwolf01 | September 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Lehrer did a great job moderating.

As far as the candidates go, neither of these guys is a truly great debater -- and that showed pretty clearly tonight. I don't think either really scored a knock out punch.

On McCain's side he was much better in personalizing things in the sense that he used anecdotes effectively. Obama did this a little bit at the end -- in future debates he needs to work on this.

I thought McCain overall took more shots, but most were just glancing blows.

Obama exploited a couple of the openings, but let a number of opportunities slide by (e.g. he raised the point about Ahmadinejad not being the Supreme Leader of Iran -- he should have pushed harder in this area when McCain kept talking about Ahmadinejad). McCain's failure to support alternative energy was another area that Obama could have hit McCain harder. Obama could have done more to get under McCain's skin.

A more skilled debater could have raked McCain over the coals tonight. Obama pulled his punches -- perhaps saving them for later rounds.

In 2004 I thought Kerry brutalized Bush in the first debate, but that Bush kept himself from getting knocked down in the later debates. In this debate I don't think that either McCain or Obama made critical mistakes, or great shots. Mostly a snoozer.

Posted by: JPRS | September 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

100 million people tuning in saw a stark difference. One man: cool, composed, future-oriented and presidential. The other: condescending, dismissive and stuck in the past. Obama wins this debate for that reason alone.

Posted by: DemoDevil | September 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Obama wins the debate because Foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's strong point.

Posted by: appolo78 | September 27, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

The in-trade movement during the debate is the most telling factor. McCain’s odds on winning the election went up from 41% to 46% during the first half hour, and McCain only got stronger as the debate shifted to foreign policy. People voting with their money tell you who most people really think won.

Posted by: elayman | September 27, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama came off as a bit of a jerk in my eyes. I just didn't agree with him before. Now I don't like him.

Posted by: kolbkl | September 27, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Gee registration forced me to register again. Was Moniker then TheoriginalMoniker, now TheoriginalMoniker1.
Just because I said there should be a full rejection of the media's chosen one Barack Obama. MSNBC's Keith Obamaman was at it again. This time congratulating Joe Biden on Barack Obama's performance. That is not biased or anything.

Posted by: TheoriginalMoniker1 | September 27, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

I didn't think McCain hammered Obama over his "pledge to meet with rouge foreign leaders" especially since Obama never said taht. McCain tried hard to reframe what Obama said but that will only be successful with those who already plan to vote for him.

McCain looked like a petulant old man. He refused to look at Obama, refused to call him by his first name, refused to ever admit seeing eye-to-eye on any issue.

In my personal opinion, McCain seemed to have a wonderful grasp of over-arching issues but Obama actually seemed to know what to do about them.

Posted by: agolembe | September 27, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Tie goes to Obama for the foreign policy forum.

After all was said and done, it occurred to me that John McCain did not offer up one single new idea during the entire hour and a half. I felt like John McCain still thinks it's 1985 and he's running for President during the Cold War. He sounded very out of touch.


Posted by: WilliamJ1 | September 27, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

You said that, "Lehrer is the PERFECT person to moderate these debates. Unlike some of the primary debates where the moderators often jumped in to the middle of a potentially compelling exchange between the candidates, Lehrer seemed perfectly content to step out of the conversation and let McCain and Obama got at one another. Kudos and a job well done to the man from PBS."

I disagree. He needed to control the clock better and make sure the time is split evenly. I also have a problem when someone's record is distorted. I believe the moderator should have been knowledgeable in that area enough so that the record is set straight or you will have lies like McCain was telling.

Posted by: MILLER123 | September 27, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

mcCain looked awful.
He is angry, dishonest, did not look in partner's eyes) and talk ...past past past...
His manner was so inpleasant, that you are loosing the interest to listen his "points". You cedrtainly do NOT want to live Your life along with this person.
No desire to trust him.
No desire to count on him.

Posted by: lordmi | September 27, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

ABC News' Rachel Martin Reports: Former U.S.Secretary of State Henry Kissinger today told an audience in Washington, DC that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran "without conditions" and that the next President should begin such negotiations at a high level.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/kissinger-backs.html

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | September 27, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

if the consensus is that it was a tie then Obama wins. He had to show that he understood and could respond appropriately to a foreign situation or crisis, that he was calm, cool and collected (but not aloof) and he did.

His point that the Iraq invasion was wrong for many reasons and that McCain was in favor of the invasion, that it would be a short-lived situation and we'd be greeted as liberators. That was brought to the fore and put down the point McCain was hammering - that the surge had worked. Obama pointed out Bush's dual goal for the surge - to suppress the violence to a level that would permit Iraqi conciliation to go forward.

Well, it hasn't, has it? Yes, there was an election in one province the other day but that hardly qualifies as reconciliation, yet the violence level is way down (partly due to the Anbar Awakening which had nothing to do with the surge and everything to do with bribery in American dollars).

The Iraqis went on vacation for August and haven't achieved any sort of agreement on how oil revenues are to be shared, a key factor in any settlement of issues that divide the country into sectarian regions.

Obama pointed that out as an effective counter to McCain's claims that the surge had achieved its goals. Our troops did amazingly well but the Iraqis have failed completely to fulfill their end of the deal.

Posted by: can8tiv | September 27, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Real Brother here.

I think the Republicans are making a huge mistake by trying to portray Barack Obama-who is obviously a genius- as someone who "doesn't understand" and or is somehow dumb or that he would be bested by an Idiot such as McCain(or that nut Sarah Palin).

I did think it took Barack far too long to cite the Iraq War as the reason for the downturn in the economy.

Finally, what he couldn't say in regards to why so many Nations of "color" dislike America and that is because of the very Racism and White Supremacy that Idiots who are lying about John McCain even holding a candle to Barack Obama are exhibiting tonight.

Barack won hands down and the shame is few on the right are willing to admit it.

TKCAL

Posted by: Realbrother0003 | September 27, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

A lot of people are missing a point: Barack Obama showed a clear grasp of issues and priorities on foreign affairs and national security. This was the debate that John McCain had to win big to secure his position as the candidate we could trust with America's security. Not only did he not win big, he seemed uncool, angry and desperate. He fell into repeating lines from his stump speech. His story about the soldier's mother came across as cheesy.
Advantage: Obama.

Posted by: BillBlue | September 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

I am a independent who leans to voting for McCain. I thought Obama won the first part of the debate on the econmoy and McCain won the second part on foreign policy. I VERY MUCH AGREE Jim Lehrer is the perfect moderator. I love this guy in this role he's not partisan or trying to make himself the issue and lets the two go at each other with minimal intervention. Outstanding. Hope Gwen Ifil does the same next week. She seems to not care much for governor Palin.

I like Palin but I fear she's in for a tough time against Biden.

Posted by: Phillip0829 | September 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

McCain won. And it was not even close.
Obama looked inexperienced.
Pro v Rookie and Pro Wins.

And the media is not happy. They can say Obama won, but they have the same look on their faces that Obama had on his most of the debate. Angry.

Posted by: Texan2007 | September 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

This debate was about winning independents.

Obama did everything right to be likeable and competent. McCain was trying to bring him down but Obama didn't take the bait.
Rudi going on Fox won't win independents, especially after his extremely partisan speech in St. Paul.

There's only one campaign in this election playing chess and it ain't the GOP.

Posted by: asja | September 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Those who define "change" as the need for more cradle-to-grave entitlement coddling by the federal government will support Obama. Those who believe that "change" means reducing Congressional abuse, greed and spending will support McCain. Thought the debate was a draw in terms of skill points. But, content? Our constitution basically says that the government will defend and protect us and be there for us in times of crisis. That's good enough for me. If McCain will defend us and cut back spending so that I can keep more of my paycheck and handle my own life, he has my vote. That is what America is all about ... or should be.

Posted by: twoleoz | September 27, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I think that McCain definitely lost his composure in trying to pin down Obama. Obama, on the other hand, tried to engage everyone in a discussion and even took the fight to McCain on the Iraq issue. He rose to the occasion. I think you'd have to be pretty blind to not see that.

It wasn't a clear victory for either candidate, when McCain really needed a win. In the end, it was his 'loss'. All he succeeded in was making Obama look more professional.

Also, a total freeze on government spending besides defense and VA? Is he insane? It's exactly this type of 'maverick' lapses in judgment that must not be made in the Oval Office. He's erratic, unstable, and petulant.

Do you really want him in the White House, or are you that eager to drink the GOP Kool-Aid?

McCain appeared out of touch with America on the economic issues. He didn't even use the words middle class often if at all. He said in no uncertain terms that he'd be A-OK with an expensive government bailout for Wall St, while Obama said that he needs to see SPECIFICS before he can agree to anything.

McCain was all posturing and hot air. He was like a big steer: a point here, a point there, and a whole lotta bull in the middle!

Posted by: hijikatatoshizo | September 27, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA was strong centered with a solid vision of the direction the country NEEDS.
mccain calls himself the sherrif,the time for cowboy mccain is over, been over.

he just wants to start another war, I favor a cool head and dipolimacy any day over death and destruction.

OBAMA IS MY CHOICE.

Posted by: JudgeAlan | September 27, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

McCain won handedly on Foreign Policy. His experience was clear. Obama held his own but if you were electing someone based on experience, McCain's experience seems like a steady hand.

Posted by: chetdbaker | September 27, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

This was Obama's first presidential debate. He looked young, afable, did not lose his calm, did not indulge in some annoying behavior like hissing, puffing. McCain was supposed to make him look unexperienced and naive. Although McCain did not miss a chance to directly insult Obama, Obama remained on top and gave good reparties. McCain did score once, after indulging in his "I know Kissinger for 35 years" (is this really a good thing?) line That was bound to happen. Obama stayed calm and looked in control. At the end McCain did not blow Obama off, someone much younger with far less experience. But, McCain did need to blow-off Obama to make-up for his own fumbles in the public arena lately. I'd say McCain still has a problem.

Posted by: RegisUrgel | September 27, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

The poles are comming in strongly in favor of Obama in the debate, and I would have to agree. I don't think there was any defining "moment" where Obama got McCain or where McCain made any major mistake, but McCain just didn't seem to be as well thought out as Obama.

Posted by: bjuhasz | September 27, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Both candidates did a good job. McCain, however, struck me as pugnacious while Obama appeared diplomatic and considered. Pugnacious might make for interesting soundbytes, but I'd rather have a president who is diplomatic and considered.

I must say, I also appreciated Senator Obama's courtesies toward Senator McCain - a graciousness which at no time was reciprocated.

Posted by: cemoor | September 27, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

polls are showing Obama won...even among women and the over 55 crowd. huge win.

Palin/Biden should be another win if Biden keeps feet out of mouth.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 26, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

All CNN AUDIENCE POLLS HAVE OBAMA WINNING THE DEBATE ON ALL TOPICS DISCUSSED.

Posted by: MILLER123 | September 26, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that Obama won by a nose. i agree that he wiped up on the economy.

McCain had some good points towards the end, but he hurt himself by being snide, by his sneering expression, and by his failure to ever look at Obama.

Frankly, it made me notice that McCain is shorter and older. And that he seems to have a perspective at least 20 years out of date.

Posted by: thaimex | September 26, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Some comments on "The Fix":
- McCain's grin was scary.
- McCain's absolute inability and avoidance of Obama - refuse to address him by name and refuse to look him in the eye - smacked of disrespect at best and possibly other...motives at worst.
- Obama was right about Kissinger's stance on no preconditions. McCain was again mischaracterizing or outright lying.
- The lasting image most voters have is of McCain kissing George's a-- in 2004 so he'd have Rove and the money at his disposal in 2008.

Posted by: paulaann25 | September 26, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Wow! I was surprised at Obama's performance.

I'm a delegate to the Republican convention - started re-thinking McCain when he picked inexperienced Palin - and frankly, Obama was the greater statesman tonight.

Worst of all, McCain sounded like an old man talking about the past.

Posted by: DenverVoter | September 26, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Does McCain think that everyone who disagrees with him "Just doesn't understand"? That attitidue would be ineffective in either working with Democrats in Congress or other world leaders.

Maybe it is John McCain who has the celebrity ego problem. For example, thinking that he has to go to Washington to broker a deal on the financial problems.

Posted by: justMyPointOfView | September 26, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama was effective in making his points, but still needs to make some adjustments to come off better to middle America.

One major mistake I thought he made was to repeatedly express agreement with McCain (e.g., "I agree with Senator McCain on [insert issue]"). I think this is an unfortunate debating habit left over from the primaries where one might rightly dissagree agreeabley with an a rival that may end up as a potential running mate -- but it is totally out of place in a contentious battle against the opposing party.

Another example, with respect to the issue of discussion and negotiations with antagonistic regimes McCain accused Obama of being willing to meet with such leaders "without conditions". Obama responded well enough by painstakingly pointing out that the US is now negotiating with North Korea. But he has trouble bring his points home in a Reaganesque way - "Senator McCain would push to continue a policy that even George Bush has realized to be a failure". He needs to bring the dead cat back to McCain's doorstep more simply and forcefully!

McCain came across as tough, but angry and condescending. His inability to look Obama in the eye was odd. He looked almost embarrassed to do so, and I don't know what to make of that except that I think it was not cool. He also suffered from "stumpitis" - a consistent reliance of snippets from his stump speaches to make his points.

All in all, I think it doesn't bode well for McCain that Obama did so well in a debate in an area that is thought to be McCain's strength.

Posted by: LincolnX | September 26, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Lehrer was great. McCain did OK at first but became to abrasive and talked about the past alot. He hasn't gotten over losing VietNam and I think it colors everything he does. Obama was more substantive, and made the point for Gods sake lets get Bin Laden.

Posted by: susan8 | September 26, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

I liked Barack's demeanor, and I think McCain only struck a chord with his base. Time will tell.

I think it is a mistake to expect too much from these confrontations. Having been in government working on large, politically charged programs, I think the inherent advantage goes to people who by nature are nasty schemers like McCain who will say anything.

Check out the story on this website...is Mr. McCain who we think he is?

http://www.wclt.com/news/articledetail.cfm?articleid=23261

Posted by: jwallace1 | September 26, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

I had not watched many of the earlier debates during the primaries for either party. I had given money the Hillary and some other candidates on both sides of the aisle. I had not seen Mccain debate and I was highly impressed. The media does say Obama acts Godly, etc and he is not the statesman that Mccain is. I wonder how many people caught Obama's mention of his "Kenyan father". I believe that if people actually looked at this debate as Americans rather than conservative or liberal that they would agree that Obama lost to John Mccain. Mccain is a man that could look Presidential and represent America with experience and expertise. The Dems have a more experienced VP and the Repubs have a more experienced Presidential candidate. The Post's response about Obama meeting with rogue nation leaders is accurate and on the mark. This one point could cost the Dems the election. Mccain seemed to win this debate from my viewpoint.

Posted by: Scruffy1970 | September 26, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I'll admit upfront that I'm an Obama supporter but let me say this about the exchange between the candidates concerning meeting with foreign leaders we don't like, with or without preconditions.

Kissinger, being a loyal Republican, will of course lie for his party, and give the moment to McCain.

But the real point is that we should talk with leaders and regimes that we don't like. Time and time again, it emerges that there have always been back-channel discussions between advisarial parties, and this has been the path to the real deal making.

Not talking does not work. Syria and Israel are speaking, but we are opposed to the talks. To what end?

I think Obama took the moment because he sees the essential truth of the real-politik of Nation state interaction. Where has the last eight years of belligerence gotten us.

Posted by: TomSeattle1 | September 26, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

I wish Obama was more assertive with McCain, but his style is cool and aloof. His points were excellent, and I feel he has some great black and white plans for reshaping the country. McCain seems content to repeat the same old thing. We'll be getting 8 more years of the same thing with this "maverick".

Posted by: lmbingham | September 26, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

I promise you all the polls will show that Obama won the debate

Posted by: MILLER123 | September 26, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Chris I was surprised at your comment, "McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer" I didn't see it that way at all. I thought by the end of it McCain looked silly when he kept oninsisting that a president shouldn't say he could meet with a foe. Obama was forceful that he would meet with whomever he chose to when he thought it was best for the country.
Overall, each had his moments, and at times neither looked exceptional. Obama held is own in foreign policy, and McCain played to his experience well. On the economy, advantage Obama.

Posted by: Oaklandcarl | September 26, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Once the debate turned to foreign policy, I think that McCain was more successful at accomplishing what he wanted to than Obama was at accomplishing what he wanted to. Obama did much better in the discussion on the economy.

It would help if Obama had a line like Reagan's "There you go again..." that he could use when McCain ventures into Fantasyland with his phony numbers and mischaracterizations of Obama's positions. Obama came off looking at little too defensive there, although I'm blessed if I know how to combat such trash talking on McCain's part.

But remember, McCain fans, this is your guy's very best shot. He's not going to help looking like anything but a total doofus when it comes to debating any other subject.

Posted by: wkorn | September 26, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

First a few comments about the debate:

McCain was rude, condescending and imperialistic - typical Republican nastiness. That may play well with his base, but it will alienate most other people who want real solutions and understand that having McCain in the White House will lead to increased gridlock in a time when we need real change, to even lower standing in World opinion, and to an over-reactive, eruptive foreign policy.

Obama, on the other hand appeared presidential, calm and rational. He did not stoop to the insidious level of McCain because he is a decent and responsible human being.

Second, what is really important:

Regardless of the personal qualities displayed in the debate, each voter must come to the realization that this election is really about the policies of each man (and their respective parties) and their abilities to carry these out. One also has to take their past actions and votes into account. In my opinion, almost everything McCain is now espousing as his view or plan, especially with regard to the economy, energy and health care, is diametrically opposed to his previous record. How can we believe he will really carry these things out when his record is so clearly the opposite.

Posted by: spatula | September 26, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse


Obama has a real sense of this decade, this century and its thinking and technology and forward thinking. That seemed clear tonight. I was not impressed by the good old days mccain talked about. <