Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who Won: The Video Edition

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. -- They say a picture is worth a 1,000 words. So how many words is a 30-second ad worth?

The campaigns of both John McCain and Barack Obama have new ads (McCain's is a web video) that seek to distill last night's presidential debate into just 30 seconds.

For McCain's side, the debate boiled down to Obama repeatedly agreeing with the Arizona Senator or acknowledging that he was right on an issue position or a statement.

From the Obama perspective, the central point of the debate was that McCain never used the words "middle class" during the 90 plus minutes the two men were on stage together at Ole Miss.

The two ads are below. Which one is more effective and why?

MCCAIN AD

OBAMA AD

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 27, 2008; 11:50 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Mississippi Debate: First Thoughts and Who Won?
Next: SNL: Variations on a Palin Theme

Comments

Even though I'm a committed Obama supporter, I thought that McCain may have edged Obama in the "rousing political theater" category at the debate last Friday. By this I mean that he was more combative, hurled a few more "zingers," and may have persuaded those small-minded persons who value such things. When it came to substance, I thought Obama was much more on target. And as one of those reviled elitist intellectuals who cares about logic and substance, I actually value being on target.

As for the ads, I guess McCain's would be more effective for those who don't care about the larger context of Obama's comment saying that McCain is "absolutely right." But it was abundantly obvious to one who actually listened to the remainder of such comments that Obama was really spanking McCain thoroughly. So as a person who is middle class (who knows for how much longer that will remain true. . . ?) and who actually prefers a president who thinks, the Obama ad is more appealing to me.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | September 29, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Poor McCain - he just doesn't know how to debate. See, a debate is "a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides." Not only does John not match Barack's IQ, but he doesn't seem to match his understanding of the world as it IS. What is "victory" in Iraq? I want to know this! He was a POW in a war where there could be no victory, so there's gonna be "victory" in Iraq OR ELSE! Obama is a statesman, and he knows how to debate. In a REAL debate, quite often one will say " I agree with my opponent...BUT" as in "I agree with John that tax rates are high for small businesses BUT I also know there are loopholes in the tax laws so that they end up paying NO taxes." I know he was right because I have personally benefitted from those loopholes. Obama clearly won the debate.
McCain won the crotchety old man debate.
"Crotchety - subject to whims, crankiness, or ill temper." Merriam Webster is never wrong.

Posted by: sheridan1 | September 29, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Very typical of John McCain to instinctively associate agreement with a lack of leadership. The guy can't function unless he's got some enemy to steel himself against, some conflict with the whole world, so that he can be in the role of lone hero.

We'd all be better off keeping Mr. High Stakes Drama out of the Oval Office, in my opinion.

Posted by: SportinLife | September 29, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

Debate Analysis shows that McCain increased his support from Key Demographics like Old Coots, Grumpy Grannies, and People Who Avoid Eye Contact, and others:

http://megasizzle.com/politics/mccain-successfully-locked-up-the-key-old-coot-vote-on-friday/

Posted by: slappywhyte | September 28, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Debate Analysis shows that McCain increased his support from Key Demographics like Old Coots, Grumpy Grannies, and People Who Avoid Eye Contact, and others:

http://megasizzle.com/politics/mccain-successfully-locked-up-the-key-old-coot-vote-on-friday/

Posted by: slappywhyte | September 28, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Debate Analysis shows McCain strengthened his support with key demographics of Old Coots, Grumpy Grannies, and People Who Avoid Eye Contact:

http://megasizzle.com/politics/mccain-successfully-locked-up-the-key-old-coot-vote-on-friday/

Posted by: slappywhyte | September 28, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Debate Analysis shows McCain strengthened his support with key demographics of Old Coots, Grumpy Grannies, and People Who Avoid Eye Contact:

http://megasizzle.com/politics/mccain-successfully-locked-up-the-key-old-coot-vote-on-friday/

Posted by: slappywhyte | September 28, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

"37th and O is the address of Georgetown University."

Actually, it is O and 37th Street.

You are correct, though, that 37thandOStreet is a ridiculous burro. I could not put it better.

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | September 28, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

What world would that be?

=======
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 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | September 28, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

For those readers of the FIX who are not native to D.C., 37th and O is the address of Georgetown University. The guy who signs himself as "37th and O" is a long-time poster on the Fix. He is a right-wing blogger who is an embarrassment to all affiliated with Georgetown University, past and present.

Posted by: annieb346 | September 28, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris
What I am waiting for is the polls taken around the world. Why won't the media show the polls taken from each country? Why not?
BECAUSE THE WORLD ALREADY DISMISS MCCAIN AS INCAPABLE OF RESTORING THE FAITH AND LOVE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The buzz word around the world is "OBAMA."
Obama is the only one who people of the world trust to restore the order of things here at home as well as in the world. THE WHOLE OF EUROPE, ASIA, SOUTH AMERICA, AFRICA HATES, AND I REPEAT, HATES McCAIN.
I pray to God almighty Barack Obama becomes president of the USA if only for reasons that it will bring world peace and order. AMEN.

Posted by: prudencerussell | September 28, 2008 3:28 PM

Posted by: prudencerussell | September 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute, how can McCain put out an ad when he publicly stated, with much fanfare, he was suspending his campaign? He said he would not advertise or campaign until there was a resolution to the economic crisis. Once again McCain shows his true colors as a grandstanding teller of lies. The guy will say anything to become President.

John McCain is the greatest stuntman since P.T. Barnum.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 28, 2008 2:48 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 2:40 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 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I will not dignify this impostor's lies and half-truths except to point out that it is a silly donkey indeed who thinks that Obama is not leading in the polls. Once the post-debate impact is measured in the polls, Senator Obama will hold or increase his lead.

The Terms of Service says that donkeys, burros, mules, and jackasses are forbidden from using The Fix. I will report your foolishness.

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | 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 2:06 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 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Gallup today has O up 8. If you subtract 5 for the so-called Bradley effect, he's up a solid 3. On Monday, CBS will air the third installment of TV entertainer Katie Couric's interview with Palin. Reports are Mrs. P outdoes herself in this last segment.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

My friend, not to distract you with actual facts, but even the most conservative electoral polls, e.g., Daily Clear Politics, show O leading Mac, with O getting 273.

The 273 assumes O's loss of VA, OH, and FL, a possible but not likely scenario. Significantly, some polls also show O leading or tying Mac in NC. Virtually every analyst says Mac has no credible path to 270 without winning NC. The national polls, see today's DailyKos, show O up 7, 2 higher than a couple of days ago.

As for the media's role, many think that but for the media's dwelling on a series of idiotic irrelevancies early on, like fistbumps, emails to O from Scarlett Johnassen, O's middle name, and Rev. Wright (and providing non-stop coverage of HRC's narcissistic histronics well after she had mathematically lost), this race would be over already.
____
"McCain is also leading in the Electoral College and the media is straining itself to make this appear to be a close race."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 28, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I thought restoring the registration was supposed to eliminate all the kooks. Who is this jackanape calling himself 37thandOStreet? What a donkey.

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | September 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

So many impostors.

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 28, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

You should really see someone about that paranoia problem you have, 37 and O. Your delusions are unsettling.

Obama clearly won. He is steady and statesmenlike. McCain is impetuous, impulsive and childish--and flailing from one stunt to another.

Posted by: drindl | September 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The McCain ad doesn't even make sense. Are they trying to suggest that agreeing with John McCain makes someone unfit to lead the country? He's not ready to lead because he's too polite? Too bipartisan? Because he's willing to actually look his opponent in the eye? What are the McCain people trying to say here? The mind boggles.

Posted by: Chip_M | September 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"McCain is also leading in the Electoral College and the media is straining itself to make this appear to be a close race."

How can he be leading in the EC when the election is still more than a month away? What a stupid donkey you are.

The polls show Senator Obama winning in the electoral college, if that is what you mean. Don't lie and say McCain is winning in the polls. He is being clobbered. Do you think this is golf, where the lowest score wins?

This is not golf. You are a confused, stupid donkey. I am 37thOStreet, not you.

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 28, 2008 12:45 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 12:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain won the debate - one could see it clearly on Obama's face as Obama left the stage.


The media, well, they want a race to boost their ratings and newspaper circulation.


McCain is also leading in the Electoral College and the media is straining itself to make this appear to be a close race.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 28, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

nobama and the washington post,
complete sensorship,
propanda
lies

Posted by: simonsays1 | September 28, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama won the debate and the video addition. Mccains ad is a lie, Mccain once again distorted what Obama said during the debate. Obama's ad is accurate because Mccain didn't mention the middle class at all. Thats the difference between Mccain and Obama. Mccain ads are distortions of the truth and Obama's ads are the truth. Mccain is trying to decieve voters into voting for him and Obama is telling voters the truth into voting for him. Its clear which canidate to vote for Obama/Biden O8

Posted by: amosdefnails | September 28, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama won the debate, and he also won the ad contest that followed it.

It is apparent to all but the most bigoted observers that we are witnessing the most historic presidential campaign in American history, and that Senator Obama is, not just at the doorstep of greatness, but about to kick that door in. John McCain will be thrown on the scrap heap of history, alongside Bob Dole and Walter Mondale, sacrificial goats to be slaughtered in the Electoral College.

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 28, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Wait a minute, how can McCain put out an ad when he publicly stated, with much fanfare, he was suspending his campaign? He said he would not advertise or campaign until there was a resolution to the economic crisis. Once again McCain shows his true colors as a grandstanding teller of lies. The guy will say anything to become President.

John McCain is the greatest stuntman since P.T. Barnum.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 28, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

To answer the question posed. Obama probably wins the ad battle this time. Showing that Obama can agree with his opponent shows that he can be bipartisan. Anyone who sees that as a weakness and that McCain is "right" about everything is myopic (another word for Republican). The Obama ad speaks to the people. In this time of crisis it points out how the middle class is not even on McCain's mind. I find it amazing that if a politician agrees with his opponent that the GOP sees that as a weakness? Are they not done with the Bush mentality?

Ad Battle winner for this week: Obama.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 28, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

To answer the question posed. Obama probably wins the ad battle this time. Showing that Obama can agree with his opponent shows that he can be bipartisan. Anyone who sees that as a weakness and that McCain is "right" about everything is myopic (another word for Republican). The Obama ad speaks to the people. In this time of crisis it points out how the middle class is not even on McCain's mind. I find it amazing that if a politician agrees with his opponent that the GOP sees that as a weakness? Are they not done with the Bush mentality?

Ad Battle winner for this week: Obama.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 28, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Regarding the ads, I am perplexed by the McCain ad. Obama shares McCain's assessment and I guess that implies that agreeing with McCain is a negative. I guess I can understand that. I am just shocked and surprised by McCain's candor that anyone who agree's with him couldn't possibly be ready to lead.

With the Obama ad the message is pretty clear, McCain is not addressing the middle class when discussing his financial strategy. Obviously the middle class is a large voting block Obama hopes to tap.

Posted by: atomiccow | September 28, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Regarding the ads, I am perplexed by the McCain ad. Obama shares McCain's assessment and I guess that implies that agreeing with McCain is a negative. I guess I can understand that. I am just shocked and surprised by McCain's candor that anyone who agree's with him couldn't possibly be ready to lead.

With the Obama ad the message is pretty clear, McCain is not addressing the middle class when discussing his financial strategy. Obviously the middle class is a large voting block Obama hopes to tap.

Posted by: atomiccow | September 28, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

The CNN poll results are also clear:


Who did the best job tonight?
Barack: 51
McCain: 38

Who would better handle Iraq?
Barack: 52
McCain: 47

Who would better handle the economy?
Barack: 58
McCain: 37

Posted by: vicbennettnet | September 28, 2008 5:57 AM | Report abuse

thecannula,

Your take on John McCain's role in the bailout is exaggerated at best. The deal, which looks as if it may come to a vote on Sunday, is structured exactly the way the Democrats wanted it: installment outlays, guaranteed financial stake in companies that are bailed out, a cap on executive pay, and maybe even a fee or fine on financial institutions if the government doesn't recoup its investment within five years.

The conservative plan to create an insurance system was a non-starter, and their proposal was little more than new tax cuts for the rich disguised as a plan to solve the crisis. The Dems appear to be getting exactly what they want. Do you think that was McCain's master plan?

Posted by: cam8 | September 28, 2008 2:45 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 Blount. Frank and Dodd had the deal "all done"- rushed through before McCain landed in Washington-then they blamed him for stopping it! Do you think they'll NOW give him credit for a deal that has much more protection for Americans in it? I doubt they will.... WILL YOU?


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

Obama won the debate and the ad war. In the debate, he held his own against a self-acknowleged expert in foreign policy. As for the ad, nothing is more powerful than the truth. Obama's ad is based on a true statement. That established, we are ready for Obama's powerful statement.

A college kid with a PC could put together a better ad than McCain's. It is devoid of a compelling message. And in the debate, all of McCain's talk of travels and meetings of world leaders doesn't amount to a hill of beans. So he gained some knowledge at taxpayer's expense. What did he do with that knowledge -- he was a whole-hearted supporter of the worse military disaster in a lifetime.

Posted by: 1calgal | September 28, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

McCain-

Pushed the Surge!

Stopped the Splurge!

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

WHICH REPORTER WILL ASK THE CANDIDATES ABOUT THIS...

TARGETING OF AMERICANS BY GOV'T AGENCIES
A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET MELTDOWN?

Once again, Congress is being asked to rush through emergency legislation -- to cede effective control of the economy to the government.

Officials continue to blame lax lending policies on the part of the mortgage industry for spawning this crisis.

But were lenders ORDERED to offer "easy credit" to people "targeted" by government agencies?

Is government "targeting" of American citizens a root cause of the mortgage meltdown that spawned the broader financial crisis?

Consider this:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis OR
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 28, 2008 1:19 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 1:13 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 Blount. Frank and Dodd had the deal "all done"- rushed through before McCain landed in Washington-then they blamed him for stopping it! Do you think they'll NOW give him credit for a deal that has much more protection for Americans in it? I doubt they will.... WILL YOU?


Posted by: thecannula | September 28, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

but can they spin the fact that life is a miasma of pain, confusion, and loneliness???

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

The story is all over Progressive Talk Radio today about the MCain campaign sending absentee ballot applications to registered democrats or people that have donated to Obama’s camapign. These ballots are dilberately misleading and have postage paid return addresses that are for an election clerk that is outside of your city or town. What this will end up doing is either having your vote not counted, or if you return one of these, they will cite you for election fraud, saying that you already voted absentee.These ballots are only being sent out in ‘purple states’ and this is a big deal.. This is called voter caging, and is a huge problem.

The McCain campaign is stealing this election as we speak. Please get this information out to as many people as you can ,and tell anyone you know who has received one of these ballots that they need to contact their city election clerk or the supoervisor of elections immediately. Also call the local media and let them know what is going on.

The main stream media is never going to cover this so we have to depend on our ground campaign to get the word out to our voters.

I think this really needs to be looked into

Posted by: MDickey28 | September 27, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

John McCain’s Staff,

Both candidates have stressed and repeated many times the necessity to work bipartisan to solve the problems facing our country and to stop the partisan bickering. This was stated by both men in the debate. Looking at these two ads, it's very apparent Obama won the willing to work bipartisan issue.

Thank you for the video proof of Osama’s bipartisanship. Bipartisanship was never demonstrated by John McCain in the debate.

Posted by: snman37922 | September 27, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Just a quick note of appreciation for CC and the Fix...Thank You Thank You Thank You for restoring registration!

Nearly every note here is on topic, and I observe a very low percentage of of brain-dead slimes.

About four months ago, I gave up on the Fix, after counting about twenty sock puppet spams for every rational, on-topic posting (actual numbers--I really did count). Glad I still checked the Friday Line occasionally.

I look forward to resuming the dialog next week.

Posted by: malis | September 27, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I thought Obama showed his real lack of character, when he could not even remember the soldier's name and then could not even read it on his bracelet !!!

Does anyone remember when Obama early in the primary campaign said he'd "Nuke" Pakistan?

Obama is a loose cannon, an elitist, who is to inexperienced to challenge the insiders in the beltway and his talking points are spoon feed.

McCain makes waves and that is what we need, along with term limits.

What was once was unacceptable is now accepted and America's public servants are on trial today.

I was disappointed Senator McCain didn't nail Obama on his advisers who took down the Freddie's with their wax on wax off theory, I'll disappear with the tax payers money gang. I do have confidence that Senator McCain will do what is right for America and not take for himself.

Maybe the good Senator McCain will lend VP Sarah Palin to New York State and to clean up the corruption and ethics here as well, we all deserve better too.

Posted by: citizensforbrucelayman | September 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I thought Obama showed his real lack of character, when he could not even remember the soldier's name and then could not even read it on his bracelet !!!

Does anyone remember when Obama early in the primary campaign said he'd "Nuke" Pakistan?

Obama is a loose cannon, an elitist, who is to inexperienced to challenge the insiders in the beltway and his talking points are spoon feed.

McCain makes waves and that is what we need, along with term limits.

What was once was unacceptable is now accepted and America's public servants are on trial today.

I was disappointed Senator McCain didn't nail Obama on his advisers who took down the Freddie's with their wax on wax off theory, I'll disappear with the tax payers money gang. I do have confidence that Senator McCain will do what is right for America and not take for himself.

Maybe the good Senator McCain will lend VP Sarah Palin to New York State and to clean up the corruption and ethics here as well, we all deserve better too.

Posted by: citizensforbrucelayman | September 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Someone should explain the term 'blowback' to Team McCain. Their ad was very effective - in getting voters to support Obama.

Posted by: TomJx | September 27, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

This is a little bit of a joke . The Mccain people don't have a clue. Obamas ad goes from making a point about Mccain to a nice straight forward pitch for Obama. A very effective ad with a contrast in it. It is by the way a real ad buy that will be seen by tens of millions of people. Mccains youtube ad looks like it was made by a kid on his PC and posted. It has like a couple hundred thousand views and tomorrow will be forgotten. Obama's ads run in prime time. Ad's like Mccain's are meaningless and can't even hold a candle to Obama girl.
I really don't think Mccains PR people have a clue. This is crunch time now and this is what they are doing? That ad will not get Mccain "ONE" extra vote, so what is the point? Not even worth the time to make it. I am in Florida and Obama has a series of ad's running here where he just talks to the camera for about 45 seconds laying out his plans. These are powerful ad's. Obama's ad's "ARE" vote getters. Mccains are just nothing. Hard to believe he even pays these people.

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

"I just wish Barack had stopped for one second and said, "John, look me in the eye when I'm talking to you...", and in his ad you can catch one of those moments

It would have surely been both appropriate, and very indicative of the kind of childishness McCain displayed and teh kind of maturity Obama displayed."

No, that would have come across as condescending. There is no need to point out that McCain wasn't looking him in the eye. People can pick up on that without help.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

One more comment about Obama's agreement with McCain...

Mccain speaks in patriotic platitudes, based on simple-minded perspectives, so those premises are easy to agree with.

Notice none of the quotes get beyond Obama's polite acknowledgement of these platitudes, into the substance of his response. The McCain ad, as usual, crudely truncates the truth and turns it into one of their lies.

Nothing new here.

Posted by: JEP7 | September 27, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

They may as well have put blinders on McCain, I'm sure Cindy could have borrowed a pair from one of her Clydesdales.

Posted by: JEP7 | September 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I just wish Barack had stopped for one second and said, "John, look me in the eye when I'm talking to you...", and in his ad you can catch one of those moments

It would have surely been both appropriate, and very indicative of the kind of childishness McCain displayed and teh kind of maturity Obama displayed.

That moment would have fit nicely right after the words "look at your tax policies".

Obama would have been the stern parent and McCain the lying child. We've all been there, some of us on both ends of that classic confrontation.

But when it happened to me, I was either the rebellious child or the stern parent.

The thought that McCain could be so childish in A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE is just beyond the palin...

Grow up Johnny, and treat your opponent like you are equals, not like some punk 9th grader smirking at the school principle

Posted by: JEP7 | September 27, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting tonight to see what SNL has to say about the debate. It should be funny. They will go after Mccain actions and never looking at Obama. You remember what they did to Gore? Gore actually changed the way he acted in his next debate based in what SNL did.

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

"Actually, the McCain ad could work AGAINST McCain with some Independents or those who see politicians as too partisan."

"I'm not sure what agreeing with John McCain has to do with being ready to lead. Are leaders required to always disagree with their political opponents?"


I liked both of these quotes.

I think the message in the McCain ad would have been more effective as a pro-McCain rather than an anti-Obama ad. Obama's ad isn't great on its own, but as part of the larger narrative of McCain being out of touch, its something that's really starting to take hold.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 27, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I think next Thursdays second act will be "Don't miss TV"
Capitol Hill sources are telling saying that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."
On Friday, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker said that after seeing Palin in interviews, she thinks the vice presidential nominee should drop out.

Posted by: popasmoke | September 27, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't see the point of McCain's ad. So what if Obama occasionally thinks he's right? He's being gracious-- the opposite of McCain's bellicosity and condescension.

The fact that McCain wouldn't even look Obama in the eye was also quite telling. The man is extraordinaly rude.

Posted by: drindl | September 27, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The Obama ad: clear, succinct, accurate. It makes no attempt to misrepresent any of McCain's statements or positions.

The McCain ad: misleading and foolish. Just a cheap, obvious, opportunistic jab. It clumsily quotes Obama's agreeing with McCain that our corporate tax rates are low "on paper," and anyone watching the ad can tell that the quote is taken out of context and that Obama continued to make a point that disagreed with McCain's contention.

In fact, here's the quote in full:

"Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right. Here’s the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world."

Source: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002963298

I wouldn't categorize that as a situation where Obama agreed with McCain. Not surprisingly, McCain's ad is simply dishonest.

Posted by: MidwestforObama | September 27, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

armpeg: Just look at the candidate that is outright lying to the public, you know, the one that has been called out by the media from both sides for distorting and lying.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

.
.
.
Neither ad is particularly effective or persuasive. Just like the debate itself. Which is not particularly good news for McCain since this debate was playing to his perceived strong suit: foreign policy.

According to Gallup, debates rarely change the race UNLESS there is a game-changing gaffe: "You're no Jack Kennedy"; "Eastern Europe isn't under the influence of the USSR"; "There you go again, Mr. President."

So, the debate and the ads are a wash.
.
.
.

Posted by: egc52556 | September 27, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I guess the verdict is in on who won last night. Obama is up is every poll and his stock is still climbing on intrade.

Posted by: popasmoke | September 27, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about a youtube video that no one sees unless it gets a little play on the news shows. Obama at least does real ad buys that get seen. Mccains campaign is a joke no wonder he is losing.

Posted by: popasmoke | September 27, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

First off, to 37th and O..I am not an Obama paid staffer. I'm a white, 42 yr old married, working mother of two. That said, I feel McCain showed immaturity and lack of respect by not looking Obama in the eye for 90 mins. Obama was composed, gracious and above all intelligent! I can't imagine Americans wanting 4 more years of cowboy diplomacy, we need a thoughtful leader, not another one with the "ready,fire,aim!" mentality. Obama won hands down!!

Posted by: radio3142 | September 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The trouble with what Barack Obama spoke about during the debate is that no one knows if to believe in whatever he said. Obama in every speech is all things to all people depending on the makeup of his audience. He'll tell one audience one thing and something totally different to another. To a Jewish audience in a speech on a question of dividing Jerusalem for instance, he tells them that Jerusalem will never be devided under his watch. To a pro-Palestinian audience however a week later he tells them that deviding Jerusalem is "negotiable". To a all-liberal audience he tells them he'd cut-and-run as soon as he's elected in the Mideast War. To a pro-military audience he waffles and tells them of long "timelines", leaving "a military presence" (whatever that means), bringing in more UN countries military to do the fighting, "bombing Pakistan if we find credible evidence of Al Qaeda activeties in the tribal areas", etc, etc. It's like that with every Obama speech, he's all things to all people.

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

What are you doing in Newport News? (From someone who is in Newport News, wondering if there's a campaign event here...)

Posted by: plynch1 | September 27, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

McCain's ad is a more negative and less clever version of an ad that Joe Biden ran in the primaries... "Joe is Right".

Biden's ad was humorous and positive about himself.

But, even that ad didn't move Biden up much in the polls and obviously didn't help him win the nomination.

McCain's ad is really shallow and just doesn't resonate. The only thing that matters is the question about whether Obama is "ready to lead." But, the examples of it almost undermine the force of the question. It parallels McCain's closing comments in the debate that Obama was not ready to be president, after everyone had just seen (at minimum) and ample if not strong performance by Obama.

Both of McCain's attacks ring a big hollow.

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

On the whole "I agree with John" comments by Obama.

I disagree with the conventional wisdom that this was a bad thing. Maybe neutral, but not bad.

People are looking for a leader who can find common ground with others. It's a way of appearing gracious, to say that on some points Obama can agree with McCain.

It's not weak.

If it is, then McCain is a culprit as well--he's the one who keeps talking about reaching across the aisle.

And on those points, it was often or perhaps even always the case that McCain got the question first and provided the response that Obama did agree with.

The "I agree" statements are a way to counteract listeners who might be thinking... "I liked McCain's answer." If Obama never says he agrees, then the normal listener may not fully connect that Obama also is in favor of those policies.

Posted by: MNobserver | September 27, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama's strategy of agreeing with some of John McCain's points was calculated. It was designed to attract independents.

I thought the CNN coverage, with the live tracking of their dial-focus group was interesting. It clearly showed that Obama was picking up ground with independents, and McCain was not.

The move to give McCain credit where credit was due made Obama look post-partisan. McCain's regular stream of shots at Obama made him look angry.

I don't think that either knocked it out of the park. That said, McCain needed a clear, decisive victory in order to stall Obama's momentum. He didn't get it. I suspect that McCain's numbers will continue to drop, and I think that the Palin-Biden debate could turn out to be the knockout blow.

Posted by: cam8 | September 27, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Good fact-checking by Newsweek, point by point. Both have some misstatements, but McCain was by far the greater culprit.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/161148/page/1

I think that's why some have said Obama appeared to be on the defensive. I actually saw it as Obama aggressively refuting McCain's lies and distortions.

I actually saw this as strong on Obama's part.

Posted by: MNobserver | September 27, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Fascinating how registration has limited the number of pro-McCain posts up here. It's almost as if all of the posts were...written by the same deranged, schizophrenic individual.

I thought the debate was a tie on first viewing, but after watching it a second time I really thought Obama had thoughtful answers while McCain looked like nothing more than Grandpa Simpson.

Posted by: PDiddy | September 27, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The Obama ad is pretty ordinary, though it reinforces their theme about the ticket ignoring middle class issues (I recall Joe Biden making a big point about the lack of discussion of that in Republican convention speeches).

The McCain ad is just dumb; ignoring the cutting up and taking things out of context (which is part and parcel of political advertising), the point of the ad seems to be that Obama is a bad choice because he agrees with John McCain on some issues.

I'd rate Obama's as average, McCain's as poor.

Posted by: scurley1 | September 27, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah Repubs, the media is soooo biased. That's why all the polls of undecided voters say that Obama won the debate.

If you don't want the media to say bad things about your candidate, nominate someone better. That goes for McCain and Palin.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | September 27, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

So let's look at it from McBlah-blah's perspective. If you are contending that Obama is not fit to lead and doesn't have the judgement or knowledge you need, how would showing where he agrees with you on various positions help make your case?

It makes it look like he is saying "Hey, he agrees with me on these issues. See, he's not fit to be President after all!"

This was supposed to be his strongest debate. If this is his strongest performance, he's in more trouble than even I thought.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato1 | September 27, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The McCain ad is the worst ad ever! Firstly, he wanted to accentuate the contrasts between the two candidates on nation security/leadership. Secondly, and I think more importantly, this ad could make Obama seem more bipartisan then inexperienced or whatever.

The Obama ad was nothing special but was very clear and on message. Given the lack of a narrative among Obama ads to this point, I think this ad was a good choice, even if it's typical politicing as usual.

I've got a flaming liberal bias, but I simply cant imagine what the McCain ad was meant to accomplish. The last four seconds were more effective then the entire rest of the add.

Posted by: theamazingjex | September 27, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like 37thandO's world of REAL PEOPLE is limited to the Fox News Channel.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato1 | September 27, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

That's a really dumb commercial. Obama is not ready to lead because he agrees with McCain? Waaa? So McCain finds that anyone that agrees with his own policies is not ready to lead? Up is down in McCainland.

Posted by: stopthestunts | September 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is an even-tempered, mature, reasonable and fair man who gives credit when and where he feels it is due. Too bad John McCain doesn't have such dignity. Another of many cases of McCain's vanishing ethics using phrases and words spoken in a totally inappropropriate and misleading context. It was so obvious that his superiority complex didn't even allow him to look Obama in the eye. Classless, as is the ad. The Obama ad gets a 10... the McCain ad is a waste of money.

Posted by: ree283 | September 27, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse


The McCain ad is dumb.

First, those were only a few of his answers at the debate.

Second, they cut off his answer on taxes. He agreed "on paper" but goes on to say the actual rates paid aren't as high and goes on to talk about closing loopholes McCain hasn't managed to close in all his years in Washington.

Finally, they are saying because Obama agrees with John McCain, he isn't ready to lead.

The Obama ad makes the point that John McCain doesn't seem to care about the middle class. And it is actually running on tv where the middle class will see it.

And Obama is speaking right now in NC emphasizing the point of the ad, "for 90 minutes last night John McCain had a lot to say about me, but nothing to say about you." And that was just one line from a few minutes of new material in his stump speech.

The people who see McCain's video will mostly either be political junkies on sites like this or people who already support him and see it on his youtube site and right wing anti-Obama blogs.

Posted by: srhodes1 | September 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The aim of the Obama ad is to make appear Obama presidential and able to connect to middle-class voters, while associating McCain with the unpopular Bush administration. The ad is focused and effective at each of those aims. The debate backdrop makes Obama appear serious, and the editing makes his comments seem fully contextualized, crisp, and with good flow.
The McCain ad's aim is less direct: to have voters question Obama's readiness to lead by riffing on his logo in a disco gold and culling examples of Obama agreeing with McCain. The trouble with this approach is that one can accept that Obama often agrees with McCain and take it as a sign of bipartisanship and fair-mindedness rather than political expedience or naivete. Second, the editing is choppy and makes it clear that the "buts" which followed each statement of agreement have been excised from the ad, playing into the narrative of the McCain's negative and less than factual ads.
I'm an Obama supporter and try to take my bias into account when evaluating these ads.

Posted by: shnnn | September 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The McCain ad is pointless, so OBAMA says he's right -- so what. An obvious play on a phrase no real message, besides in years past McCain has been wrong plenty of times -- every time he joined a Democrat on an issue -- like Amnesty for Illegals.

The OBAMA ad -- class warfare! Divide and conquerer. I wonder if he's talking about the black middle class?
Is middle class a new code word?

Anyone not on food stamps or Donald Trump think of themselves as middle class. Bogus pander!

OBAMA the flim-flam man. I wonder if that was what Chris Matthews felt moving up his leg?

Posted by: mjdb | September 27, 2008 12:49 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 27, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

On a scale of 1-10:
Obama ad = 8; McCain ad = 1.5. Actually, the McCain ad could work AGAINST McCain with some Independents or those who see politicians as too partisan.

Posted by: Byron5 | September 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

McCain clearly won the debate and the headline is "No Knockout Punch" - well what did you want.


The media really has to be conscious of the bias this year.


This year the bias is unbelievable. Chris Matthews and MSNBC are off the reservation.


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain didn't look presidential last night... if anything, he looked curmudgeonly and cranky.

Barack Obama looked serious to the point of almost overanalyzing each question.

Who do you want sitting in the Oval Office? A 72 year old "maverick" who acts first and thinks later, or one who thinks before he acts?

And if there is any real comparison between Bush and McCain, it isn't so much their tandem stand on issues, it is their "act first-think later" (if at all) view of decision-making.

Maverick = Cowboy
McCain = Bush

Time for a change and let's put "thinking" back on the job application for president.

Posted by: mnbucklew | September 27, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what agreeing with John McCain has to do with being ready to lead. Are leaders required to always disagree with their political opponents? The McCain camp could have used those clips much more effectively I think.

Posted by: InterestedObserver1 | September 27, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama was right, McCain was wrong.

McCain in his own words!

http://www.jedreport.com/

Posted by: wave06 | September 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company