Did anyone else watch it? What did you think? I thought it was pretty much a draw. Both canidates said more or less what I expected them to say, and pretty much the same things they've said before. If anything, it reminded me of some of the issues on which I wish Obama was more liberal, such as raising taxes, universal health care and opposing offshore drilling. What I found interesting was more the public response. Insta-polling after the debate showed that respondents thought Obama won by double digits. I have to wonder how much of that was the "hey, he's not as scary as I though" response since I didn't see anything resembling a strong victory for either canidate. What did you think?
Saw them not answer the questions at all for the first few minutes, realized I hate all politicians because that's what they do best, and then left the room. Of course, I already know that neither McCain nor Obama will get my vote at the election, so it doesn't really matter.
I watched it and to be honest was surprised Obama held back so much - McCain kept talking over him and a number of times contradicted himself. He may have experience in many fields, but to me he comes across as a dithering old man who every week seems to issue another "untruth". His nomination of Palin was the final straw - somebody that makes Bush appear intellectual (the VP debate should be interesting). Looking at the running polls, I can't believe there is a chance that the Rupublicans could get in again.
When it comes to substance Obama obviously won. But he needs to be a bit more on the offensive and forceful. Mccain is a nasty old hag and needs to be dealt with accordingly. On a different note, did you notice how Mccain would never make eye-contact with the camera or Obama? Even at the end when Obama went straight up to him and shook his hand Mccain would not look at him and almost reluctantly shook his hand. Pretty much a good indication of Mccain's key character traits: pathalogical liar and coward. I guess having to actually *touch* a black man was a bit too much "change" for this maverick to handle? ;-)
I watched it and the response lines at the bottom. I think the Independents were more responsive to Obama on the whole. This debate was supposed to be McCain's best chance to win something out of it because it was about his strong foreign policy experience. Obama really held his own here. The audience was very unresponsive when McCain would attack Obama. They wanted to see some bipartisanship, and they weren't seeing it with McCain. The response also went way down when he (yet again) went into his Vietnam story at the end. We've all heard it way too many times. Obama is for off shore drilling as long as it's included in a comprehensive energy policy which includes alternative energy. To date, McCain has directly opposed all efforts to enact policies which would increase alternative energy. The US has 3% of the world's oil reserves and we use 25% of the oil. Obama stated that an aggressive program to cease dependence on foreign oil would be a major factor in helping the US economy. McCain made a misleading statement that Obama has plains to raise people's taxes. Obama couched his response that his tax cuts would go to 95% of all working families making less than $250,000 a year. Fact check says that this is true, but that 80% of all Americans would get a tax cut. McCain didn't mention the middle class one time during the whole debate, and he never connected with the problems most of them are dealing with. Grading the debate - McCain Grading the debate - Obama
McCain's campaign is somewhat on the back foot. He has been concentrating on national security and foreign policy, while Obama has been concentrating on the economy. Guess which, since the last few months, has been a more acute concern to the American public? McCain's move to get actively involved in the current administration's attempts to solve the credit crisis may have been intended to show how proactive he is (acting already the leader), but in fact associates him with the bungling attempts of the Bush administration to fix the debacle. By a socialist solution, no less. Obama does well to keep himself dissociated from this a bit. Let the Republicans screw up and alienate the tax payers, and he can then step in and propose an alternative approach.
Oh and what's the deal with Obama constantly saying "You're right, Mr Mccain"? Is this some careful political tactic that goes beyond what simply looks like Obama being almost pushover-ish? Is there some cultural norm of showing respect to very old people in America that's involved here? Or something else? Obama has always seemed like a person who crafts his words and ideas very eloquently and carefully, so I'm thinking Obama saying Mccain was right wasn't just a slip up, perhaps showing how friendly and bipartisan he is?
Depends on what he agrees with. If McCain states something blatantly obvious (or congruent with public opinion) then it would be stupid to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. However you can agree with a fact or opinion and disagree with the reasons, or add a new layer to it. It makes you look smarter rather than just contradictory.
Well that's understandable, but there are limits. This is a debate where you're presenting yourself to the American people. Lots of whom this is the first time they've sat down and actually listened to you thoroughly. Obama repeatedly saying "you're right", once or twice seems very bipartisan, but too many times and it looks like you're letting Mccain take the lead while sitting on the sideline and giving him a thumbsup. It really is not about whether Obama agreed with Mccain, but about presentation and hearing an intelligent man like Obama call this angry old little man "right" so many times was unwarranted and may plant the wrong image in undecideds heads. Also I'm sure the Repuglies are going to use those moments in attack ads "omfg, look Osam- err Obama thinks Mccain is rite! ROFL LIPTSTICK PIGS!"
Obama and McCain do agree on a lot of issues, though they may differ on the implementation. Global warming is one example, but there are a number of others. What I found interesting is when they were arguing about talking to unfriendly foriegn leaders, by and large they were saying the same things, that sub-presidential level talks needed to take place first. Everyone in the room agreed with this, but they still managed to spend 5 minutes arguing about it. Depite it all, I thought this is one of the places in the debate where obama did the best. His like about "I will sit down and talk to anyone if it will make America safer" was masterful. On Iraq obama has a weakness in that his point is always retroactive. He always comes back to "we should never have gone in", which is true, but also not helpful today. He needs to make the point about judgement as far as going into the next war, and also find a way to talk about the future of US involvement in Iraq and not just the past. It frustrating to me that the reality and the politics of taxes are so divergent. The reality is that if the government is going to deliver the services that the people currently expect, nevermind any new campaign promises WE MUST RAISE TAXES. Unfortunatly, this is one of the great third rails of American politics and despite the fact that I think both canidates know it, neither can say it in public. It's hard to have a rational discussion of tax policy when neither side can really talk about it
I am. It is all about impressions. Everyone recognises an argumentative **** (enough of those at the local bar). But saying: "You're right about the problem, but wrong about the cause and how to solve it" allows you to please both sides.
I thought the whole thing was rubbish, neither canidate really informed me on their stances. Rather I spent a whole car ride listening to two grown (one withered) men point fingers and contradict on unimportant points. The neat thing about it all though, I was driving back from washington U where the VP debates will also be held, hopefully they'll be better. I think Mccain did a good job and probably appealed to older people better than Obama did. Also, you have to admit he can drone on through cries of complaint very well. Obama on the otherhand had a a little more substance in his answers than Mccain did so I'm inclined to favor him but maybe not for the election. As far as Mc cain nominating Palin for VP, I don't think that would have been his natural choice, it was probably his parties. She only agrees with him on two stances, abortion and somthing else, I think it was in a times magazine article. She might actually disagree with him more than obama does, she was prabably chosen for the womans vote and because she's fun to listen to.
Since the whole Wall St fiasco, Obama has really been pulling ahead with voters over 50. This was from a poll conducted after the debate (I think). Palin believes abortion should be banned in all circumstances (even in case of rape or incest) while McCain allows for these exceptions. The other thing Palin agreed with is to run as his VP which was a pure McCain choice as it was so quirky like so many of his other erratic decisions he makes and stances that he takes.
I'm not sure it was all McCain. Everything I've heard says that McCain wanted Joe Liberman, and when he couldn't have him he picked Palin to piss everyone off. In McCain's autobiography he talked about one of his heros was a baseball player (I forget which one) and the the reason mcCain considered him a hero is that when the player was being booed at a game he turned around and spit into the crowd. This kind of petulant defiance is a McCain trademark and I think is the basis of the Palin selection.
I wouldn't consider myself politically astute, as I personally think the system doesn't work. But my views on why McCain chose Palin for his running mate: Namely that by choosing a younger woman, he has the possibility to pick up all the stray Clinton supporters (possibly even female) that didn't want to move to Obama. And because he's been known as being a bit middle-of-the-road on things in his own party because he can work with the other side on things (i.e. a 'maverick'). The extreme Right (the rather religious folks) don't like that about McCain. Palin would be considered a Christian fundamentalist, so this fills that gap in things. The really scary thing about this to me is that if McCain wins and he winds up dying in office (there's a good possibility of this too due to his age and health issues), we would be stuck with this unqualified and rather closed-minded person making decisions for us.
In 2000, with Bush about to be elected, I was scared. In 2004, with Bush being elected, I was frustrated and further depressed. In 2008, with the prospect of Palin being one heart beat away from the presidency, it would be both terrifying and hopeless at the same time.
I have to agree that the whole thing is getting pretty crazy, Palin's fundamentalism is eerily familiar to the same sort of mind set that started 9/11, pleaser don't label me a conspirasist plzthx, I know it's a little more complicated than that! /end disclaimer Atleast you live a hop and a skip from Canada, it's a ten hour drive for me.. just enough time to close the borders and stop the riots. Personaly, I don't think Mc Cain is too bad, but Palin wouldn't recive my vote in a million years! I guess I might be banking on the hope that we'd impeach her very quickly if the oportunity arrived.
A vote for McCain is a vote for Palin, So, in that sense, McCain looks pretty bad to me even if Obama didn't look so much more competent than McCain. McCain graduated 185th out of a class of 189 at the Naval Academy. This means that there were only four students with worse grades than he had. Plus, he's a son of an admiral which might have given him a little boost at that.
