Political Discussions
Who Won the 1st Presidential Debate?
Posted by TonyB • 9/26/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: presidential debate
Was there a winner?
Share your thoughts here.
User Comments
-
-
GlobalGirl, very nice!
-
At your service
-
-
I kept my eyes glued to the Audience Response graph, and based on that Obama wins. However, neither candidate really wowed me.
BUT! John McCain's use of the word "existential" pissed me off.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism-
Why did his use of "existential", "piss you off"?
-
It really annoyed me for the simple reason that the meaning of existential did not fit the context in which he use the word. I can't find it in the transcript, so I can only conclude it was a blunder.
-
Can't find "existential" in the transcript
-
I know, but I clearly heard it on TV. That transcript also doesn't contain any permutations of the word "Iran," and it seems to cut off after McCain's spending freeze comment.
-
I heard it to, but can't recall where. -
He said Israel would face an existential crisis if Iran had nuclear weapons. It's the one line of the debate I remember (was trying to ignore it and do work), because it seemed so strange to use that word in that way. -
I don't remember the exact wording either, so I'm waiting until the transcript updates before I attack it.
-
OH! THat was the question where McCain broke Godwin's law.
-
I dont remember him using the word existential,
however "Existential" as an adverb just means pertaining to the participation of real human experience.
Not necessarily the philosophical stand point of Existentialism.
(just like agnostic doesn't mean the practice of agnosticism) -
ex·is·ten·tial [eg-zi-sten-shuhl, ek-si-] –adjective
1. pertaining to existence.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of existentialism: an existential hero. -
He did use the word existential, but I don't believe he was using it as you perceived it, Kobra. It was in reference to a foreign policy issue, and he said that some decision (I can't recall the exact context) was "existential" for a particular nation. I believe that he meant to indicate that our actions in that arena could literally impact whether or not the nation (probably Israel) continued to exist. -
You can twist it around to make it fit, but that doesn't make it the right word to use. English is a language of degrees, after all.
-
I hate that little audience response thingy. It's useless and distracting...like the ticker at the bottom of CNN news.
-
-
McCain. Not because I am voting for him, but because he showed more substance. I found Obama to remain pretty much, and empty suite. -
Just finished watching it - I missed maybe the first 20 minutes - this was a serious debate with a lot of meat to it, which is badly needed now. So that was welcome.
I think Obama really held his own and demonstrated his comprehensive grasp of the issues and breadth of knowledge on the issues. He also did a great job of zapping McCain's lies right there in the moment.
McCain, especially in the last segment, came off as overly paternal. If I'd been in Obama's place, I would have slugged him! And when McCain closed by saying Obama didn't have the knowledge or experience - when we all know how much knowledge & experience McCain's running mate doesn't have - my bullsh*t detector started screaming (okay, my BS detector screamed a number of times earlier in the debate).
Still, McCain has a way of appealing to the reptilian brain (and not only because he sort of looks like one). For low-information voters who just want reassurance and big daddy telling them everything's going to be just fine, this is very appealing.
And for those who are pissed off and want someone who doesn't drink the "more of the same" kool-aid, Obama did very well. -
First real debate I can remember in years. Actual conversation instead of strictly sound bites.
-
This is true!
-
I have to disagree somewhat Mark, I think there were plenty of sound bites, most of them from McCain - "Obama doesn't understand." -
Hence my phrase "instead of strictly," meaning not exclusively , not only.
-
opinionstreams,
The other "sound bites" was from Obama agreeing with McCain. "John is right" or "Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right" about nine times... lol -
"The other "sound bites" was from Obama agreeing with McCain. "John is right" or "Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right" about nine times... lol"
That could either be construed as a sign of weakness or one in which Obama is willing to lead in a bipartisan manner. I think it was the latter. -
When Bush agreed with Gore, he said as much. Didn't hurt him. Why would anyone disagree on everything just for the sake of disagreeing. The difference in strategic vision is pretty stark enough.
• McCain/Bush = strategic focus on Iraq at expense of every other issue in the world and at home
• Obama = someone who sees the connections among multiplicity of domestic and international issues and can do more than one thing at once
But they agree on particulars when you get McCain to actually think about more than Iraq.
-
-
Did McCain have to clearly win this debate in order to gain ground in the polls and win the election?
-
Well, no. He still has a chance of winning the election, regardless of this debate.
-
I think McCain actually had/has more to lose with this debate than Obama did/does.
McCain is too liberal for the far right conservative base, but too far right for anyone just slightly to the right of center and onward left from there.
So depending on how he answered will depend on how he appealed to the largest, most likely base, thus their vote. -
Win the election? Who knows? I don't think so, but I don't think he'll win.
To gain in the polls? Yes, McCain needed to put it away here to overtake Obama in the polls. He didn't. -
Tony B
I think McCain had to knock people's socks off and offer a sharp contrast with Obama for people to forget how erratic he has been during the last two weeks.
It didn't happen. Both candidates were solid, but since there was no clear winner, IMO it's a wash. McCain no longer has the clear foreign policy edge, and he remains responsible for his double-talk and strange behavior during the week. His discussion of earmarks did not touch the economic issues on the table this week, and he gained back no lost credibility on the economy.
Obama didn't harm himself, didn't make mistakes, and wasn't caught off-guard. He also used the camera to speak "directly to the people" several times. He was more engaged and engaging (although that's not difficult) than McCain. I thought he showed an enormous amount of poise and restraint on the issue of the bailout, where he *could* have really come out swinging on the issue of McCain-Bush and big government. He did that later in the debate, but not at first. And I thought that was a good decision.
-
-
It seemed like they really talked about the issues and called each other out when they disagreed instead of just repeating talking points. I'd call it a draw (again, I didn't watch too closely), but since Obama is currently leading in the polls, and he isn't considered to be a great debater, I think McCain really needed a decisive win, and I didn't see it.
-
I don't see how Obama can't be considered a great debater. Didn't he graduate first in his class at Harvard Law School?
-
And he could barely hold his own against McCain who didn't even fair that well at the Naval Academy... Doesn't speak well for Harvard. -
Very funny
-
-
Honestly, I think Obama has it. McCain kept to the old guard old hat tactics for answers and "solutions" - while Obama is talking about new, efficient strategies fro economics, national security, and foreign policy.
One of the things that struck me however, was that McCain constantly tried to bait Obama with his campaign rhetoric attacks. He was visibly flustered when Obama didn't bite.
And why...why...would McCain focus on staying in Iraq, and cutting all spending except for defense, to stay in Iraq - when he knows (or does he?) that 75% of the population has been against Iraq, wants a solid timetable out of Iraq, and wants a focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan...you know, where the terrorists are and have been for the last, what, seven years?
Why? You'd think he'd play at least some political play in saying there is a reasonable way to bring the focus away from Iraq, and back towards Afghanistan where major causalities have made the news recently, where we have been struggling, and where the terrorists ARE.
And what "win" in Iraq? There was never and WMD's, so we can't win from getting rid of those, the terrorists were not there, so it didn't win our war on terror, the dictator we put into power has long since been removed - so if that was their "win" it happened a long time ago - so what win? Cleaning up the mess we made is not a "win". Why was he focusing on that?
And why the hell would he propose a total freeze of all government spending except for the defense industry? Certain things need to be removed, reduced or re-budgeted for sure - but let's freeze ALL government programs? Really? Does he want this economy to just shut up and die already?
Oh dear Goodness.
I found McCain's reliance on Vietnam war stories to be cliche, his insistence on traveling to places (yet not accomplishing anything) as some sort of experience to be disingenuous, and his generalities and focus on failed foreign policies of the past to be, well, tired.
McCain did start off strong though I'll give him that. But by the end - I don't know if he was angry, worried or flustered - but his voice was wavering, he took on a quieter tone and looked a lot less enthusiastic to be there - while Obama started off a little rough, a little stutter-y, and ended on a very strong note, with confidence.
And even though Obama tried to dodge the "what will you trim question" at first, he nailed it in the rebuttal.-
[Certain things need to be removed, reduced or re-budgeted for sure - but let's freeze ALL government programs? Really? Does he want this economy to just shut up and die already?]
Even scarier, Repubs were praising him for that. -
Well, the Repubs do kinda like the idea of "drowning the government in the bathtub" or some such nonsense. Not that they've done much positive in "shrinking" the govt in the last 8 years, given that we've got the hugest deficit ever and more intrusive governmental powers than ever:-P
-
WHAT, You think OBAMA WON.. the hell you say i NEVER expected that from you.
-
Gee CSI, what a helpful response.
You and McCain have the same debate tactics, I see.
Jan - I agree - they only like government intrusion on lowly Americans and foreigners - not the rich folks and large corporations. -
I don't even know why people who have made up their mind already would even watch the debates. I sure didn't. The highlights (didn't watch the thing, just the post game show) were line-by-line predictable, apart from when McCain morphed into Ronald Reagan for 5 seconds and said he'd control government spending. That was exciting. Stupid, but exciting.
I think different parts of the country will see different things in the candidates, so who's really to say who won. Poll different areas of undecided voters and you will get very different opinions, I think. -
Great observations Anok! I agree!
-
-
McCAIN played the contemptuously dismissive gam whic doesn't play well with those in the middle, and was good at continuing to tell people how often he was on the ground in foreign countries and how often he had met with leaders. Obama proved he was capable. I think as always McCain get a little histrionic and that doesn't work with most people, he was more concise in Russia I admit. He however and I've talked about before still promoting that "league of democracies" thing which is not going to work in this day and age, with so much of our economy now depending on China, we can't go back to a time where it is democracies against those who are not because we need to work with them all.
I missed a few key parts as this whole building is on Direct TV and every five minutes there would be a one or two minute rain black out. We walked to the bar a block down for the last half hour because they are on cable. -
Hands down, no questions asked - Mc Cain all the way... TKO...
Don't want pain... Vote for McCain!!!-
Actually, if it was a tie, then McCain would be at a loss - as he is supposed to have the experience and presidential know how more than Obama.
If he only tied with such a "newb" then he did not perform well. He needed to knock it out of the park, which he did not.
Crap, that was to Monkeysuit... -
Like I said, McCain appeals to the reptilian brain:-P
-
Ruthie ... Did you think that up all by yourself? -
Actually, if it was a tie, then McCain would be at a loss - as he is supposed to have the experience and presidential know how more than Obama.
My point exactly. -
Anok wrote, "Actually, if it was a tie, then McCain would be at a loss - as he is supposed to have the experience and presidential know how more than Obama."
That's true. Foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's expertise and Obama's weakness, and although I wanted Obama to do better, he held his own. -
Anok Yes but McCain is always fumbling around, which he didn't really do. And Obama has this huge wave of support. But I guess no telepromter means he really isn't a good speaker. -
You know, some of his responses reminded me of the debates we have here, On BC.
Where Obama had to come back a couple of times (n the preconditions part) and restate what that actually means, and what he actually proposed, and how what he proposed was not what McCain was making it out to be, and was actually consistent even with McCain's own advisers.
Did you see the look on McCain's face when he said that? I thought he was going to blow it right there. He immediately retaliated with "he's my friend and I know better and.." this i snot presidential.
And even if his friend told him in confidence that what he released publicly wasn't exactly something he agreed with all the way - you don't out him to try and corner your opponent on a lost debate point!
Plus, he made McCain change his original answer there
@Monkey - I didn't say McCain fumbled around - I said McCain lost it if he only tied with such a newb - I'm talking policy, platforms and debate points here - not bumbling a few words when put on the spot. -
Yes satijournal but it wasn't all about foreign policy it had the economy in the beginning.
-
To tell the truth, I think Obama took it -- although McCain scored a lot of points. There were a few places where McCain was visibly upset and animated. If you were watching with the sound off, I think you would've assumed he was shouting. Obama pretty much took over the debate twice, cutting McCain off and telling the moderator to go ahead with the next question.
I really think Obama was trying to get under McCain's skin, to make him seem a little too much of a hothead, and I think he succeeded. Obama seemed cool and collected and, most importantly, in control. I think he was the most presidential of the two.
Still, we'll see how people take it. In any case, I can't see McCain's performance as putting him over the top. It's what McCain needed to do and I don't think he did it. McCain needs a knock out, he didn't get it.-
You and Anok BOTH think Obama Won... what a surprise.. I need to lay down to recover...
-
Check the polls Monday and see who's right. Not to brag, but my track record in this election has been more on than off. I'm pretty confident.
-
-
I had really low expectations for McCain and high expectations for Obama. McCain surprised me. No blunders. He was articulate and knowledgeable. And Obama, well, he's Obama. I would have liked to see him be more aggressive, especially when McCain was getting pissed off. Obama should have gone after him until he totally lost it. And when they were talking about the economic crisis, where was the mention of the Keating 5!!? McCain is going to rid the government of corruption when he was involved in the major economic scandal of the 80s?? Where the S&Ls had to be bailed out with tax dollars because of John McCain (et al.)?!!
So I give this one to McCain.-
Now Sati, THAT was the real surprise of the day.
I agree that Obama missed out on a couple of opportunities. But Even though this might be counted as an up for McCain, it wasn't the big hit he needed.
McCain needs to lose the campaign trail sound bites and focus more on going after Obama, he was on a good offensive today, but didn't completely follow through on putting him in a corner.
Obama did better than he should have in McCains Wheelhouse of foreign policy. -
I was actually quite impressed that he didn't take the bait. In debates, taking the side topic bait to defend your opinions on a non relevant topic is the perfect distraction - Obama didn't fall for it.
He addressed things in short order, and got back on topic - as a voter, that's what I want to see - not someone who is flustered because his opponent has largely ignored fallacious or disingenuous attacks, save to say "that's not true" and leave it at that.
I think Obama was more specific, and forward oriented (consistent with his campaign) and stuttered less as he gained a bit of confidence.
McCain did talk a lot though - they were just, as usual, manly attacks on Obama, and less about what he actually planned to do.
-
-
Senator McCain lost. Actually I found him to be defensive, rude and dismissive toward Senator Obama. One of those Good Old Boy intimidations. Come January 20th we'll still be calling him Senator McCain.
-
I listened to it on the radio and I think that McCain, marginally, got the better of it. My impression was that he spoke for longer than Obama although I can't be sure of this.
McCain got his points across more clearly and at times Obama's attempts to interject did him no favours.
Obama has some work to do for the next debate. I imagine he will do better in the next one.-
Actually, there was one point when McCain was talking when, due to my sleep deprivation, I almost dozed off. My mom snapped me out of it.
-
You should watch it too. The body language was strikingly different.
-
-
A bit of a draw. However, I felt that Obama appeared more presidential, with a better temperament, and held his ground without demeaning McCain. As far as content, wanting on both sides.
McCain's demeanor was dismissive, and in general he brought up the past too much (which included using his tired catch phrases such as "Any earmarked, pork barrel...you'll know their names" or "I wasn't voted Miss Congeniality").
I was underwhelmed by the debate, in general. To say that either won "hands down" is probably misguided. -
If I were to venture a guess, I would suggest that Obama wins by not losing, insofar as he clearly came away looking presidential, no matter what you think of his policies.
Still, I think it's pretty hard for most of us here to tell, because we're partisan and each guy did a decent job. How this plays to that mystifying undecided crowd is the real question, and we won't know about that through polls till next week. Thing is, though, there are still potentially explosive headlines on the economy coming out at the same time, meaning events could outpace this debate very quickly. -
This just in, CNN poll:
www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml
CBS News and Knowledge Networks conducted a nationally representative poll of approximately 500 uncommitted voters reacting to the debate in the minutes after it happened.
These figures are still preliminary and could change as more respondents complete the survey. But here's what we have so far:
Forty percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-two percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-eight percent saw it as a draw.
Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight.
Sixty-eight percent of uncommitted voters think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy. Forty-one percent think McCain would.
Forty-nine percent of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. Fifty-five percent think McCain would.
We will have a full report on the poll later on. Uncommitted voters are those who don't yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds.-
There ya go then. Y'know, I'm getting pretty good at this stuff
Edit to add: Stolen for my blog. Thanks for the link. -
Dammit! YOu got to it before me!
-
Happy to oblige:-)
-
-
I probably should point out that McCain announced he'd won the debate this morning:
He bought this ad for the Washington Post's website today -- before the debate and before he flip-flopped and "unsuspended" his campaign.
gripernews.blogspot.com/2008/09/stuff-i-didnt-get-to-92608.html
These are the gaffes -- constant gaffes, I might add -- that McCain has to live down. I don't think he did.-
Gaffe or just boyhood prank?
-
Either way, it turns his "I'm not campaigning" pledge into a baldfaced lie.
-
Well sure. Boys will be boys.
-
Ok.. show me where you got that he bought it today?
I keep hearing this from those that make fun of this ad, but so far. no one has been able to show me any information that says that this was bought today.
Which is funny, since media purchasing is normally done weeks and months in advance. -
So, you're saying he bought an ad saying he'd won months in advance? How is that better?
-
That ad ran before the debate even took place.
voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_wins_debate.html
-
-
I'm Having a blast flipping channels between MSNBC CNN and FOX... by how they are reacting to it. You'd think that they watched three different debates.
The worst in the aftermath so far was Obamas Senior Campaign manager/adviser or whatever she was who couldn't answer a single question but went on the sound bite rampage of all times. I heard every Obama/BIden statement from the last three weeks in 40 seconds.. (except for Lipstick pig)
You should try it. Flipping channels right now is completely surreal.-
Obama's top advisers are men; Axelrod and Plouffe. Not sure who you're talking about here.
-
I got enough through PBS. (No cable anyway.)
Seriously, though, don't we all need a bit of time to digest? I guess not with the 24-hour news cycle. Well, drama's over and I've got a deadline to meet. Later. -
It was a dark blonde woman in her 40's-50's. It said "Obamas Senior" something under it.
Not important, she is insignificant in the big run, it was just impressive to hear that amount of sound bites crammed into almost no time. Quite a feat actually.
-
-
Unfortunately I only saw the last few questions, but McCain appeared to be more of a leader than Obama. McCain also provided more substance while Obama spewed more empty rhetoric and ideal.
Obama seemed too consessional.. "I agree..I agree..John McCain is right..I agree.. Senator McCain is right.. I agree.."
Irregardless, either way I'll be voting for McCain.. I view Obama akin to a wolf in sheeps clothing.. something sneaky and deceptive.-
Actually, it is wise - and beneficial - for a leader of a country to acknowledge and address points that are correct, then expand on them, and correct what isn't correct.
Just because it came from the other side of the aisle doesn't mean you should ignore or berate it.
But, like you said, you'll be voting McCain no matter what anyway... -
"Irregardless" is not a word.
Too bad you missed most of it. Even if you didn't change your mind, you might have learned to take the opponent more seriously—always a good thing in politics. -
Tangled
"I view Obama akin to a wolf in sheeps clothing.. something sneaky and deceptive."
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. He comes across as slippery and sneaky to me too. -
*sigh*
I guess talking about the substance of the evening would be too much to expect. -
OMG Mark, I'm so glad you said that. It's a pet peeve of mine (irregardless).
It's just "regardless" or irrespective - not both!
-
-
OK, since Jan just totally took the wind out of my sails
I'll post this link from Huffington post www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/presidential-debate-moder_n_117048.html
Which gives more of a transcript of the analysis and not the debate.
ANd from CNN:
www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.friday/index.html-
Well surprise surprise.. Fox News says 81% think McCain won...
None of these polls are worth the bits they take up of your bandwidth. -
Are you talking about the question of the day poll - where you can vote as many times as you want, and McCain is preselected?
I can't even get it to show me the results -
Well surprise surprise.. Fox News says 81% think McCain won...
A link would be nice...
-
-
I've flipped through several most of the less biased rank it tied, most are surprised the economy wasn't talked about longer, but the fact checkers make them about even. McCain did not look Obama in the eye, what's with that, Obama called him John, McCain called him Senator Obama....uh oh disprespectful,,,,,,
weirdly enough one channel interviewed Biden and in Palin's place Rudy G.-
The "disrespectful" aspect should be a minor, But it did bite Gore in the rear end when he did it. Although he was a lot worse with constant Sighing and other acts that showed complete lack of respect.
We'll see if this is something that people get hung up on. -
That refusal to look Obama in the eye was not good in my opinion. Wonder how that will play among the undecided.
@CSI: Most people I know look people in the eye when they're having a conversation. I believe they do that in Sweden too, no? -
I lik ethe fact check stuff:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/26/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4481610.sht... -
Well to be honest, I didn't see that at all. Maybe he did, but it didn't seem like it to me.
And what your posture and eye position is like in a debate as opposed to a conversation changes because of the setup. I have been in more debates than i care to think of, and I can't remember thinking about looking my opponent in the eye.
Like i said, we'll see if people get hung up on it or not.
I did notice the difference in addressing each other though. Don't know if the climate has changed to where first names are a good idea or not. It could be a good thing for Obama if it has. -
@Mark
That refusal to look Obama in the eye was not good in my opinion. Wonder how that will play among the undecided.
I think that is a standard temper-keeping tactic. If he didn't engage Obama directly, he would have an easier time maintaining his composure.
I'm pretty sure that that the directive not to look at his opponent would have come from his debate prep team. -
If true, that would be even worse. Imagine needing that kind of device.
-
-
@ markstoneman
Perhaps irregardless is not a word where you're from, nonetheless, tell that to New Englanders whom use it in speech every day even though it's a non standard-
I'm a new englander - and it is not a word.
Not even to new englanders. -
@TW: Ayuh. But my teachers in New Hampshire would get wicked ugly if we used a word like that.
-
My husband is a 4th generation New Englander and I have lived in Boston 50% of the time for the past 8 years. Irregardless is only a word for people who don't speak proper English. Seriously. So don't pull the "it's a word in our part of the country" card.
-
-
@ Anok
taken from wikipedia.
"Irregardless is primarily found in North America, most notably in Boston and surrounding areas, where for instance, it was used in the title of a poetry evening 'irregardless of content' at The Baron of Srebrenica, primarily to keep it in circulation"-
This is thread creep, but I can't resist. I give you "Professor Wikipedia" clioandme.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/professor-wikipedia/
-
Yes, but look it up in a dictionary - colloquialism not withstanding.
Irregardless is the matrimony of regardless, and irrespective.
In the English language, using "ir" as a prefix means to imply "without" as does the suffix "less" so saying irregardless is the same thing as saying without without regard.
I mean, if you'd like to type idea as "idear" too - you're more than welcome - but it's still not a word.
-
-
That bit about Pakistan being a failed state before Musharaff when indeed it was a democratically elected government shows either he didn't know the failed state he is talking about is not a failed state as most think of it.
I've alos heard various thoughts on Pakistan and how we should be handling this situation and they are so diverse depending on where they are coming from I can't decide on this one.
I also think that it is important to be thought of highly by the rest of the world, know your enemies and you will be safer. I think right now I am frightened because the dislike of us and the disrespect we have and ot the debt we have makes us much less able to do what we need to do and I don't see this changing with McCain.
I think I can skip the analysis watching, two drunk guys at the bar gave us two different five second analysis's before we left, so I think that is probably as good as the media's.
I do think we should start taking bets as to when Palin will be removed though.
For real money...-
You think so? That would be downright strange, even for McCain.
But Politico did do a piece on some Republican worries about the governor: www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13991.html. I say let the woman get more practical experience with the media and she'll get better. Be a real hoot too. -
Try this
Type in "Pakistan Failed State" in google, and see what comes up.
It's been in the top 10 of that list for a very long time. It's not like McCain coined that expression.
Even Obama's adviser Senator Sam Nunn was discussing this as late as July of this year.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/pakistan-the-worlds-next_n_111796.html
New York Times, BBC, And other major outlets have used that expression about Pakistan. -
I was impressed when Obama failed to flinch at saying we supported Musharaf when we should not have. From teh transcript"
And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.
And yes, Musharraf was a dictator - even he was "democratically" elected.
it's not too democratic when the election's been suspended along with the constitution, and then rigged, and the merger of State and military power brings you one leader whose sole serious opposition suddenly dies before the election takes place...
Obama's right - we've danced with the devil long enough. -
csiunatc: no kidding on the perception of it, but it is highly unusual for someone who is planning to be the president ent to actually call Pakistan a failed state especially right now when we may have to do some work there if ya know what I mean. It is not that he was wrong to call it so, that is debatable and has been debatable for years depending on how you look at it. It was this circumstance which was kind of an odd thing to do it on national television, it is something a president might do behind closed doors to his cabinet, his secretary of state or whatever.
-
Yeah, both candidates have a pretty strange relationship with the country. Fact remains, Pakistan is a very cranky pitbull that right now is fortunately mostly sleeping.
McCain calling it a failed state is definately not smart. Obama talking about adversary relations with a nuclear power is even worse.
This is one mutt we don't want to wake up.
Everyone is worried about Iran and North Korea getting usable nukes. Let's not forget that Pakistan HAS them already... and has been posturing with them more than once against India over Kashmir.
-
-
I wrote my thoughts regarding the debates on my blog: opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=57
Basically, I think that there were quite a few sound bites that will stick in the minds of viewers, and potentially also independent voters. I also think, unfortunately, that McCain carried most of those sound bites and walked away with the phrase that will remain in peoples minds - whether they agree with it or not - for the next few weeks - "Obama doesn't understand."
I go in depth in the post. I don't want to call it for either side, but I definitely think McCain commanded the discussion of foreign policy, forcing Obama on the defensive and setting the theme for those viewers who aren't "tuned in" enough.-
I think you misjudge the public if you think sound bites are enough to win a debate. I thought Obama did well on foreign policy, McCain definitely came off showy and forceful but he made a few slip ups and I think all Obama had to do is show he was capable, he did that. One of my grad degrees will be in foreign affairs, so it will be interesting to see what those I go to school with see this as. There is a wide range of ideologies among the students I spend much of my time with so it will be interesting to hear their thoughts next week.
-
cooper - here's my source for the importance of soundbites: www.huffingtonpost.com/judd-legum/how-to-figure-out-who-won_b_129605.html
You may disagree with the guy, but I think he has a pretty good point that people will be more apt to remember the witty phrases or good exchanges between the candidates. Do I agree that a person should consider the winner to be the one who made the most memorable witty remark or who bested the other guy in a WWE style exchange? No. Do I think that this "American Idol" mindset country has people who will base their decision on this? Unfortunately, yes...and those people vote too. For those people, I think McCain carried it.
It's interesting that you're getting your grad degree in foreign affairs. I studied it in undergrad and, although I went and got a law degree, I'm now in a program that will hopefully lead to a masters in global security studies. I really love this stuff. -
I think a great sound bite will be Obama saying, "You said you knew where the WMD were. You were wrong. You said . .. You were wrong. You said . .. You were wrong" -
xmarks,
I liked the sound other "sound bites" from Obama agreeing with McCain. "John is right" or "Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right" about nine times... lol -
I think it shows maturity to actually say your opponent is right on some issues. McCain didn't have the class to say Obama is right even if McCain agreed with him.
-
xmark, "I think it shows maturity to actually say your opponent is right on some issues. McCain didn't have the class to say Obama is right even if McCain agreed with him."
Yeah, maybe Obama is finally starting to get a clue. I think it was nine times Obama agreed with McCain. Sounds more like Obama was was beginning to see the error of his ways and was jumping on the McCain's "Straight Talk Express".... lol -
AmmoBob,
This is the second time in this thread that you've derided Obama (verbatim) for being honest by admitting where he agreed with McCain. Also, you keep ending your posts with "lol" even though nothing you said was funny.
Maybe you should take a little break from this discussion. -
This is the second time in this thread that you've derided Obama (verbatim) for being honest by admitting where he agreed with McCain. Also, you keep ending your posts with "lol" even though nothing you said was funny.
That means he's either a Bond villain or a mad scientist -- they always laugh at things that aren't funny. "And, with my Destructo ray, I'll annihilate them all! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
-
-
ha! opportunist question! ;-)
but that is how it is. BO does not have congressional deeds as does as JM. JM appeals to a majority at the moment. many folks have already voted despite the debates. a post that agrees with both candidates that the present administration does NOT present/advise upon important information to USA and world powers...
designapplause.com/2008/the-presentation-important/487/
the jury may still out for what may be the deciders... -
-
@cs, what's the point. A link out to another site without anything else isn't a discussion.
-
@csi - these guys must have missed the debate. And so must you have if you agree with them. Obama compared himself to McCain with just about every answer.
-
Yeah... He agreed with an awful lot.. I guess thats a comparison of sorts.
-
He definitely made distinctions - since that is what that website/blog was really asking for.
He also acknowledged point that he agreed with McCain on.
This is good. SO what's the problem? -
@csi - sheesh, I guess there's almost no point. You seem predisposed toward a view negative of Obama and favorable of your guy - no matter what the obviously observable facts are. If you read my post, you'll see I have the ability to be objective about who did what in the debate. I want to be able to expect the same of you. I'll help you. This is an example of an exchange that directly contradicts your website:
Obama: Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion....
And in his tax plan, you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out.
So my attitude is, we've got to grow the economy from the bottom up. What I've called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent.
And that means that the ordinary American out there who's collecting a paycheck every day, they've got a little extra money to be able to buy a computer for their kid, to fill up on this gas that is killing them.
And over time, that, I think, is going to be a better recipe for economic growth than the -- the policies of President Bush that John McCain wants to -- wants to follow. -
Well primariy, he risks the soundbites to read as follows.
On the points that he agrees.. McCain is right..
On the points he doesn't.. Obama doesn't understand..
Obama is largely running a campaign on what he's not (bush). so constantly agreeing sure didn't seem like it to me.
You have to consider what will be remembered on election day from this debate, and i can guarantee you it won't be the finer points.
In two weeks time, given a good spin from the Republicans this debate will have been reduced to "Obama doesn't understand" and what he does understand he agrees with McCain on. -
@csi - I take that back, you must have read my post because your talking points seem to have been taken directly from it. opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=57
-
No I didn't read it until now. But it does seem like we agree on that point.
Edited to add:
This isn't about being descriptive. this is about branding. Creating the memory snippet that you want people to have.
Talking numbers as differentiating points and then agreeing with McCain too much didn't help him i think. -
Or, from another perspective - when he agreed with McCain he agreed with McCain.
When he didn't he didn't/
The only person who said he "didn't understand" was McCain.
-
-
Mc Cain was far better than I thought it would be and Obama was his usual.
But what was obvious during the debate, for me anyway, is that Mc Cain is "old" and Obama is young. Reminded me of China not so long ago, when you could not be president when you were younger than 70. Not enough experience. And nothing was changing in China.
So what experience is he talking about? Another Chinese proverb "Experience is a light hooked on your back that just lights up the way you went through..." Or said differently, the world evolves fast and you need "young" people to keep pace with it. I think. -
I thought it was a great debate with both candidates scoring more points within their own parties. However, I don't think either of them said anything that would win over swing votes. That makes it a tie in my mind.-
I agree with the tie. Generally speaking though, a tie goes to who is ahead in the polls. The logic being the underdog needs to make something happen and the one who is ahead can let things stay where they are. So far it still looks pretty close though.
I wish they would do the debates much more French style. Have the two candidates sit at a table and talk about things. Remove the moderator and the clock.
-
-
On reading the transcripts this morning, Obama definitely came out on top. Things like "you act like the war in Iraq began in 2007 with the surge. The war began in 2003." read a lot better than the actual delivery last night. Obama is a little too controlled during the debates. He needs to use some of the emotion he exhibits in his speeches to drive his points home.
-
It truly amazes me how people can watch the same thing and come away with what they want to see.
If you were to objectively look at the debate here is exactly what did happen, on foreign policy McCain obviously has far more experience and relationships with other foreign leaders to jump into the job.
Both agree that the military is going to be a major part of our national security in the near future.
Obama is now committing to more troops, when he originally stated he is bringing them home.
I give Obama credit for doing a good job being out classed in this subject, but he clearly shows he has no military experience.
But I noticed something far more important about Obama, his whole campaign is running for change telling everyone he will do all these things to make life better in America for the average person.
I think everything he has to say is great. But from the beginning I kept asking my self where was he going to get the money to do this.
Obama himself said that due to the current finical crisis that he wouldn’t be able to do most of the things he promised to do.
Obama said that McCain was right consistently.
So I have to ask what change are we getting if Obama is elected?-
Repeatedly saying McCain is right is very different than saying McCain is right consistently. McCain does know some facts and Obama/McCain agree on some issues. there is nothing wrong with stating that. I would argue it is presidential to state that.
What McCain is wrong on is pretty much everything doing with foreign affairs. Iraq is wrong to go into. McCain only wants to stay in Iraq because of Vietnam. That isn't strategy. McCain is wrong on Pakistan. McCain is wrong on Afganistan. Obama has been saying for a long time that we need more troops in Iraq. McCain is wrong on economics. McCain is wrong on continueing the type of leadership that destroyed much of America'a greatness.
McCain did a great job of saying that he traveled a lot on the tax payers dime. Unfortuantely it didn't teach him much. -
Yeah, that's objective all right.
-
Obama is now committing to more troops, when he originally stated he is bringing them home.
Wrong. He wants to get out of Iraq and put two or three more brigades into Afghanistan so we can finish the job there, which is the central war on terror. (a war on an emotion?)
I think everything he has to say is great. But from the beginning I kept asking my self where was he going to get the money to do this.
Part of it comes from raising taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes in our tax code. Pumping money into R&D for alternative fuels will generate new jobs which will wind up paying for itself. Making education more affordable is a great investment by the government. People earn a lot more with an education which translates into increased tax revenue.
-
-
How is it that during war in Afghanistan, one Obama opposes and claims he wants to end, has never yet had a hearing, as the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO in Afghanistan?
For someone espousing a need for change and an end to war, not to mention his role with NATO, don't you think it behooves him to do so?!
I do!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MCCAIN: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that's in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regarding this, let's also look at what Hillary Clinton stated about this very interesting fact: [source-- www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/379/ ]
“I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee,” Clinton said. “He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan."He chairs the subcommittee on Europe.” Yep.
“It has jurisdiction over NATO.” Yep.
“NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.” Yep.-
MCCAIN: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that's in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.
factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_obama_chair_a_senate_subcommittee_that.html -
He didn't oppose Afghanistan he opposed Iraq that diverted resources from Afghanistan.
He doesn't call meetings of the Foreign Relations committee. -
@satijournal
Damn those facts. It's like I always say, reality has a liberal bias. -
Yup... just like I thought...
As subcommittee chairman, Obama could have held hearings pertaining to the role of NATO in the war in Afghanistan, but he has not.
factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_obama_chair_a_senate_subcommittee_that.html
For one seeking Presidency during a time of war, one would think he'd be on the ground assessing the situation himself... but, alas, Obama still has yet to get his fanny over there.
-
-
So you are saying if Obama is elected the troops in Iraq have to look forward to moving into Afghanistan and not coming home as promised?
Or is he getting out of Iraq, and sending new troops into Afghanistan?
Like I said he is committing more troops, not bringing them home.
Maybe you didn't here obama say himself that due to the current finical crisis that he wouldn’t be able to do most of the things he promised to do.
Now i have to say people read what they want to read LOL-
He'll be sending all the fitness fanatics to fight in Afghanistan.
-
-
I'm very interested and surprised to see the strong reactions on both "sides" here. I thought both candidates held their own and showed some strengths; I thought each faltered a couple of times.
-
Big business, I'd hazard. Definitely not the American people or anybody else around the world either... -
Some people keep pointing out how Obama noted several times how he agreed with McCain as if this is a bad thing. Sure it might have been unwise in the sense that the McCain campaign can easily isolate those comments and use them in an ad or something. But are you faulting the man for being honest?
Keep a few things in mind: He certainly disagreed with McCain much more than he agreed with him... what do you expect them to disagree on everything? Secondly, when he said he agreed, it usually meant on some broader issue or goal, after which he went on to explain how there were differences between them on certain details or specifics. And finally, if Obama agrees with McCain on something, by the powerful laws of logic, guess what? It also means McCain agrees with Obama on it. What difference does it make which one of them is honestly willing to admit this?-
@RMania
I agree with you. This country has a long history of people disagreeing for the sake of it.
I am more interested in leaders who can look at a given set of facts and agree on the basics even if they differ on where to go from here.
Acknowledging areas of commonality is not a sign of weakness.
-
-
I thought both candidates did well and having the debate was good for the American people. Obama looked very presidential and offered good, clear answers to most questions. I would say it was almost a draw with Obama doing slightly better than McCain.
Here are some articles/polls:
Poll Results Suggest More Uncommitted Voters Saw Obama As Debate Winner
www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml
MediaCurves: 2008 Debate Results
mediacurves.com/
Analysis: Debate draws familiar battlelines
www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-26-debate-analysis_N.ht...-
Ruinous, after watching it in full again I'm not surprised. Obama didn't play the "trash it game" some on the far left would have liked - which would have alienated the middle undecideds, and McCain came off way to crotchety old mannish. If Obama had tried to throttle McCain he would have lost the middle he didn't, I think he got them with this.
There was actually a lot of substantive talk on both side in regard to FP.
For those worried about hot headed foreign leaders I think McCain did not give the impression of someone who could deal well because of his general demeanor and tendency toward hot hotheadedness himself.
The pundits really got this tie thing wrong it seems. At least with those undecideds. -
Most polls seem to show that Obama was favored by Independents and undecided voters.
-
More articles/polls:
Round 1 in debates goes to Obama, poll says
www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html
MSNBC Poll
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26906945/
Fox News Poll (bottom of page & still open)
elections.foxnews.com/ -
It seems that Fox News has removed their poll and/or poll results. It was showing 51% for McCain and 49% for Obama yesterday morning, but now it's been removed from the site (as far as I can tell). I guess it was a little too close to be shown on the Republican Propaganda Channel for long. Interesting.
-
-
I though both candidates performed well overall. McCain was probably more effective at appealing to people emotionally. Obama was good at not letting any specific lies or distortions from McCain slip by without providing convincing clarification.
Predictably, both of them did a little evading.
I feel like for anybody who has been following the campaign somewhat closely the last few months, you didn't hear much if anything that was new, and this debate wasn't going to sway you one way or the other. How it will play out amongst undecided, less informed voters seems tough to say.-
I heard a lot of FP things I hadn't heard before and I've followed it pretty closely. Maybe we watched different debates.
-
Yeah I think we were. Are you sure you weren't watching a Model United Nations debate at your local high school?
I did hear some foreign policy points from both candidates that were new to me, but again not much. Maybe I have been following the campaign and the candidates' stances not somewhat, but very closely. -
Might be harder for me to follow, grad school in foreign relations and public policy takes a lot of time - trying to cram years worth of information into three years is time consuming.
-
Then that explains it. I work a part-time job about 20 hours a week. I have an almost ridiculous amount of free time.
-
-
Obama won...if you take away points from McCain for answering too many questions with the inclusion of his against-Obama talking points. We see too much don't vote Obama points from McCain.
I didn't like McCain's "let's freeze all spending" comment when both candidates were pushed on the economic question. Obama countered correctly when he said McCain's solution was "taking a hatchet (or axe) to it" while his was "taking a surgical knife."
Obama is proving my original point about him and that is that he is a better communicator and appears to be more rational.-
I'd have to say that was the most simplistic, uninformed remark of the entire debate... McCain's idea to freeze all spending. And I agree with you that Obama had a great response.
-
I was surprised that McCain said "How about . . . ?" as if he were at a brainstorming session and really didn't know what to do. Still, he did a good job last night, much better than I expected. Coming out equal with Obama in the foreign policy debate, however, could amount to a loss for McCain among undecided voters.
-
-
But I still think Palin rocks!
-
Alex, you're incorrigible.
-
We won't know that for sure unless she goes on Ellen. Or have you seen some YouTube footage that I haven't?
-
Because she's sexy or because she is a good leader? Seriously. I am so tired of people liking her based on her good looks. That's a terrible way to judge a potential president.
She didn't even know what the Bush doctrine was in the Gibson interview--for crying out loud!!!
-
-
The Obama camp has wasted little time getting out a new ad that references the debate:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqqyTcdCzc8-
I love that ad. Obama's people asked me for a donation and sent me that ad this a.m. I cut him another check.
-
-
It all depends on how you look at it and what is important to you. I hear many people proclaiming Obama the winner because of his confidence, but for me personally, no one won. Obama's proclamations of "when I become president...." came off to me as smug and arrogant. I also found his sarcasm off putting and was able to see clearly why so many people call him an elitist. I see many people saying McCain was easily riled and hot tempered, well for me that shows a passion for the job. I get the same way over Pit bulls, children and acting. However, McCain's laughing at Obama was in poor taste, as was Obama's constant interuptions. As far as issues go, they both stated their cases to about the same extent. McCain started off shakey, and his early statements seemed to have caused many to not even pay attention to his later statements even though once he found his footing I did not see many flaws with the delivery. Obama in contrast started off strong but seemed to lose focus shortly after. So in my opinion this first debate was a draw, I expected more from McCain, and I am hopeful his game will be stepped up next debate
-
According to Mark Halperin, McCain got a B- and Obama got an A-.
news.yahoo.com/s/time/gradingthefirstpresidentialdebate -
Personally I call it a draw. I went into the debate thinking that McCain would rule given the focus of the night being FP. I was impressed with McCain's story approach to reaching the voters. It makes him seem very down to earth and approachable. Not sure how true that is but it works for him. In that respect I think Obama can learn a few things from McCain. At the same time I was impressed with Obama's sharpness in terms of the economy and his ideas to regain America's standing in the world.
Overall my favorite comment of the night was Obama stating that the war didn't begin in 2007. Sometimes I think everyone forgets the need for a successful surge wouldn't be necessary if we weren't there in the first place. So while the surge has brought about positive results the reason for this tactic wouldn't be necessary if sound judgment happened in 2003. Just a thought. -
I don't know if it is a win or lose debate. They have very different world views and that is what I think people will ultimately have to decide on. That being said McCain seemed OLD and condescending. I thought the format was fantastic even if McCain would not look at Obama throughout. He was probably advised not to so as to not make Obama seem presidential, at the same level as McCain.
As for ads, McCain's camp had internet ads running on the wall street journal yesterday morning, before he even "decided" he would be there. I've got a screenshot on my blog if you think I'm full of it. -
Obama was the DECISIVE winner.-
Writing in all caps doesn't make it so--can you point to a reason?
-
Ah. Caps. Well, I'm convinced.
-
-
McCain is the decisive winner! More coherent and sound in his speech -
That whole thing bored me to tears while my bf slept right through it. As a presenter, I think Obama did a better job by engaging the audience with eye contact. Mcain er...Mcsame just looked down the whole time which gave him that perfect shady politician look.
I just want this all to be over so we can get GWB off the "Destroy America" button. He is going down in flames as the worlds worst leader EVER.
I'm counting down the days until ANYONE bumps him out of the office. -
Obama was the winner in my unbiased opinion! I thought McCain looked like a petty, arrogant attack dog. In 90 minutes, he didn't mention "working people" or "middle class" once. He's so out of touch.
-
It did take awhile before McCain said, "I'm a pow vote for me." Not an exact quote but a reliable theme whenever McCain speaks.
-
-
Obama was the clear winner, McCain was acting childish.
-
Obama won. He had points laid out on what needed to be done. McCain wanted to attack Obama on ear marks. By the way McCain has earmarks in the money that he is seeking.
McCain wants to talk about Iraq, Obama wants to talk About Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yes the surge worked, but if we were right in the first place we would not have to worry about the the damn surge.
McCain wants to bring up that he was a POW, Obama has a bracelet also.
Obama, new, McCain OLD in more ways that one.
I'm voting for the black guy. -
My 3 year old liked McCain and my 5 year old liked Obama... I personally wanted to watch something else. However I felt neither of them lived up to my expectations. Yes I have them. -
Hi guys I think I'm gonna vote for Barack O-
comment removed by the community. -
McCain won, barely.
The only reason he won was because he didn't demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the matters at hand while Obama, though only a few times, did demonstrate ignorance or at least a lack of understanding on some issues.-
Specifically?
-
-
Here are the comments from the Obama's side...
After his erratic and reckless response to the economic crisis, McCain needed a game-changer last night to restore his campaign. He didn't even come close.
In a CBS News poll, uncommitted voters see Barack as the debate winner. When it comes to the economy, 66% say Barack would make the right decisions versus 42% for McCain.
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-
How surprising that they forget to mention the CNN "disclaimer" that is mentioned every time they run these numbers..
"Most of the people surveyed were Democrats..."
Go watch CNN for a bit, you'll hear it. -
Erik -- I hate to tell ya, but most registered voters these days are Democrats.
I'll let you blame Bush if you want.
-
-
It's funny as I really don't care who "won" this debate...as much as I am interested in having the best candidate leading our country. That being said, I think McCain did a better job.
-
They both sounded pretty much the same when you peeled away all the rhetoric.
Where were the other candidates in this "Presidential Debate?"
Where was Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin? -
How about last night's debate on SNL?
-
Link to the video: www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/presidential-debate/704121/
-
-
Here are numbers from USA Today and Gallup Poll on Saturday: www.gallup.com/poll/110779/Debate-Watchers-Give-Obama-Edge-Over-McCain.aspx
According to them, Obama came out better, though I myself feel like the race is both Obama's and McCain's to lose.-
That's good. I gave it to McCain because I had such low expectations for him and high expectations for Obama. The next morning it occurred to me that I wanted to see a Bill Clinton-like performance from Obama, which isn't going to happen.
-
-
BTW: Were was McCain's flag pin Friday night?! Doesn't he love America?! He's no longer patriotic?! Where is the outrage?!
-
Do you REALLY want to go there?
-
I just did. Ludicrous isn't it?
-
I think he hates 'Merica and is a secret terr'ist sympa.. sympathize.. terr'ist lover!
-
No wisco, he doesn't have that much in common with you
-
-
I give it to Obama, due to McCain terrible handling of the economic issues, and Obama's ok handling of the forgiven policy issues.
McCain's inability to make appropriate eye contact also left me uncomfortable. -
An article talking about the debate and more poll results: www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14042.html.
Even McCain's buddy Lindsey Graham acknowledges Obama's gains.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
