I thought it would be interesting to have a simple poll. Please feel free to merge this with the other thread.

Insomniacs.

Insomniacs.
rotfl
I'm off to watch it on Tivo, but this is not a promising review.

Obama was much stronger tonight. Mccain didn't even look at him ONCE. Obama made his points very clear and explained what he wants to do very well.

I noticed that, too. (McCain not looking at Obama)

Originally Posted by General Zod View Post
Man, _______ did horrible. He shouldn't even have bothered showing up. ________ did excellent and I think this further goes to show how he's a much better candidate.

"_______ ____ _________ __" I can't believe he said that! Idiot!

Yeah, I saw that, but didn't think it would work so well as a poll option. :p

Yeah, I saw that, but didn't think it would work so well as a poll option. :p


:lol:

Wow, I'm surprised McCain's getting this many votes on DVDTalk...

Wow, I'm surprised McCain's getting this many votes on DVDTalk...I'm surprised Obama is.

Wow, I'm surprised McCain's getting this many votes on DVDTalk...Huh? Are you joking?

Keith Olbermann thinks Obama won...

rotfl

I am voting for McCain but I will admit they both looked Presidential tonight.

Keith Olbermann thinks Obama won...

rotfl

so does Bill Maher (handily)

Rachel Maddow seemed to prefer Obama too. ;)

Dick Morris thought Obama won and Hannity's head almost exploded. :lol:

McCain seemed to steamroll him on everything but the economy. But, as economy is king right now, I guess Obama won when he promised 'regular people' (also known as bums who want entitlements) that he would hold their hand with many government programs over the next 4-8 years.

Guess we should all get ready to abandon free will and responsibility and practice suckling the government teet.

Seemed pretty even to me.

McCain will get more props because of such low expectations of him. His campaign has been so awful that his ability to form complete sentences will impress most people.

Guess we should all get ready to abandon free will and responsibility and practice suckling the government teet.
Kinda like what the banks are doing, hm?

I think McCain had a slight edge based on his breadth of knowledge. I think Obama was more even keeled and likable.

both did well, i think McCain did better on foreign issues, Obama did especially well on the economy though. Seeing as how the economy is the "hot topic" these days, I say Obama won.

I think that the fact that the debat on foreign affairs was close was a win for Obama. This was McCains cheif issue, and he only tied.

I think that the fact that the debat on foreign affairs was close was a win for Obama. This was McCains cheif issue, and he only tied.

i think that it was close, but McCain edged out a little on foreign affairs.

I think it was relatively even, and since Senator McCain really needed a solid victory tonight, that means Senator Obama won by default.

I also think that -- leaving aside the current dynamics of the polls -- a draw favors Senator Obama, since his biggest obstacle is convincing voters he's not too wet behind the ears to be president. If he cana stand in the same league as Senator McCain, it does a lot to convince people he has what it takes (similar to the way the 1980 debate reassured people that Reagan had the necessary gravitas to be president).

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ec3aC8ZJZTc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ec3aC8ZJZTc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Oh - I have a bracelet too!

Obama, who’s name is on that bracelet again?

CBS did a snap poll that suggests that Senator Obama won, but not by too much:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml

one thing that bugged me that John McCain not once looked at Obama, not once, acted like he wasnt there, didnt come off well.

I don't post in politics very much, but I'll give my impressions.

McCain did a much better job than I thought he would. He appeared clear and confident most of the times. What I didn't like was that he wouldn't even attempt to engage Obama, that he did way too much smirking at Obama's points and he tried to play the emotions too much ("I wear this bracelet!!!").

Obama did a decent job, but I don't think he fought back enough at some points that McCain offered. As well, he should have known that saying "McCain's right about..." so many times will bite him in the ass. I liked how he at least attempted to engage McCain.

I would give a slight edge to Obama, but in my view, that's pretty much a win for McCain. I thought Obama would walk all over him.

So yeah, I'm Canadian and won't be voting in the US election, so it doesn't really matter what I think. But whatever...

Anyways, see you all for the Canadian Federal Election Debate Thread after the VP debate is cancelled!

none of us.

Dick Morris thought Obama won and Hannity's head almost exploded. :lol: Yeah, I saw that too. Kudos to Morris for speaking with an open free mind, unlike anything that Hannity has ever utterred.

Open-minded people (Obama) can agree with points made by closed-minded ones (McCain). It doesn't work the other way around.

Both did a good job at the debate. Obama represented the democrat's expectations and same with McCain with Republicans expectations. Obama kicked more ass though.

I wish Obama would have riled McCain up by saying that the Iraq war is another Vietnam war...

What was McCain a hero for again? For surviving torture? Or for fighting in a war which was wrong? It's 2008 - I thought everybody, including Republicans, can acknowledge that the Vietnam War was wrong? Are we supposed to feel bad for soldiers who do whatever their evil leaders command them to do? The US Soldiers followed the orders of commanders during Vietnam War, but so did nazi soldiers. "I just followed ze orderz! ya!" Calling McCain a hero is the equivalent of Germany calling a surviving nazi soldier a hero since he served in WW2...So does the term "war hero" now mean anyone who serves in a war, regardless of what side they are on?

I guess each person's opinion is biased by who they agreed with more :shrug:
I think McCain did better (maybe not much better) than Obama overall. McCain certainly looked much more presidential in my eyes.

They both held themselves well. McCain probably more than Obama.

Then again, the fact that they both put forth their positions effectively means that if you agree with McCain (Kagan), he won. And if you agree with Obama (Lake, Rice), he won.

I liked the rhetorical effect of McCain not looking at Obama.

Jim Lehrer was creepy.

What was McCain a hero for again? For surviving torture? Or for fighting in a war which was wrong? It's 2008 - I thought everybody, including Republicans, can acknowledge that the Vietnam War was wrong? Are we supposed to feel bad for soldiers who do whatever their evil leaders command them to do? The US Soldiers followed the orders of commanders during Vietnam War, but so did nazi soldiers. "I just followed ze orderz! ya!" Calling McCain a hero is the equivalent of Germany calling a surviving nazi soldier a hero since he served in WW2...So does the term "war hero" now mean anyone who serves in a war, regardless of what side they are on?

So you think Obama won?

To answer your last question, yes, so long as they serve extraordinarily.

McCain might again be in trouble. the guy just looks half dead!

I thought both of them did a good job of getting their points across. And neither made any huge mistakes. However, as far as body language and "looking presidential," Obama came out ahead by quite a bit.

Anyway, as others have said, this was the debate that was supposed to be a cakewalk for McCain. So the fact that Obama tied or won slightly is actually a huge victory for him, and that seems to be reflected in the polls I've seen.

I thought both of them did a good job of getting their points across. And neither made any huge mistakes. However, as far as body language and "looking presidential," Obama came out ahead by quite a bit.

Anyway, as others have said, this was the debate that was supposed to be a cakewalk for McCain. So the fact that Obama tied or won slightly is actually a huge victory for him, and that seems to be reflected in the polls I've seen.How many polls (credible ones) are out already?

obama was ahead on the fox news poll the last time i looked. that's pretty amazing!

What was McCain a hero for again? For surviving torture? Or for fighting in a war which was wrong? It's 2008 - I thought everybody, including Republicans, can acknowledge that the Vietnam War was wrong? Are we supposed to feel bad for soldiers who do whatever their evil leaders command them to do? The US Soldiers followed the orders of commanders during Vietnam War, but so did nazi soldiers. "I just followed ze orderz! ya!" Calling McCain a hero is the equivalent of Germany calling a surviving nazi soldier a hero since he served in WW2...So does the term "war hero" now mean anyone who serves in a war, regardless of what side they are on?
:wtf:

obama was ahead on the fox news poll the last time i looked. that's pretty amazing!

Yeah and McCain is ahead of Obama 67% to 27% on the Drudge poll, internet polls mean nothing.

I would say Obama came off slightly better. McCain looked a little tired at the top, but perked up. Both had answers queued up for every question, and there were no surprises. Both were pretty long-winded as well. Zzz.

The next morning, after the dust settled, lots of things became very apparent:

-This was supposed to be McCain's "ace in the hole" debate, the one that he was supposed to mail in, and many people feel he either underperformed, or was outperformed by Obama. (and by "many people", not just the daily kos/huff post folks, but so-called pundits from both sides, including Fox News)

-The visual aspect of the debate looks like it will hurt John McCain - his belligerent, angry tone was often met by Obama's calm demeanor, and much being said about the lack of eye contact from him.

-Obama did a pretty good job tying McCain to Bush, which is not going to help.

It should be interesting when the first post-debate numbers come out to see what happens.

How many polls (credible ones) are out already?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ has links to a few different polls, some national and some by state.

I think Obama's biggest victory came on the "which candidate is more in touch with people like you" question in the CNN poll, which he won by a 62-32. I imagine the campaign will run with that statistic.

so does Bill Maher (handily)

So, when we say Sean (I'm the loudest, so I'm right) Hannity says McCain won the debate, should we laugh too??

-Obama did a pretty good job tying McCain to Bush, which is not going to help.Not really. Obama cited several issues where he himself was in step with the Bush administration. And towards the end, McCain even compared unfavorably Obama to Bush (the stubbornness issue).

-This was supposed to be McCain's "ace in the hole" debate, the one that he was supposed to mail in, and many people feel he either underperformed, or was outperformed by Obama. (and by "many people", not just the daily kos/huff post folks, but so-called pundits from both sides, including Fox News).

I watched the debate on Foxnews and all of the talking heads afterward gave the edge to McCain.

Regardless it's not who the media decides who won, it's the very tiny group of people who are still actually undecided (or who are so wishy washy they will let who farts during a debate dicide their vote for them). Unfortunately too many people listen to the talking heads.

McCain came off a bit better, but I wasn't reading into much hype leading up to it. Obama still comes off as a bit sloppy and smug but they both did a solid job overall.

Well aside from me wishing McCain would've looked at Obama he took it to him. How can anyone say Obama won the debate when all he said the whole night was "Senator McCain is right." It clearly obvious Obama has never set foot outside our "57" states. Yes he said that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws McCain has the experience here and it showed. Obama just studdered his way through. How can you win a debate and be on the defensive the whole time. McCain took it to him and Obama was not ready for it.

I saw no confidence in McCain during that debate to make me think he's the man to vote for. Nor did he say much about how he's planning to change the course of the last 8 years. Standing there and putting down Obama's views is par for the course....it really goes without saying. Tell me what you plan to do that is different from Bush, NOT Obama. He failed.

And I am one of the key demographics the debate was aimed for...I am an independent voter (which for me that means Libertarian, but since the chances of EVER getting a Libertarian candidate in the presidency is ZERO, I guess I am a swing voter) and McCain has failed to impress me on so many levels during this campaign.

Seriously, how is he getting any numbers in the polls after this debate? Granted, there are die hard Republicans that would still vote for Carrot Top if he was placed on a Republican ticket, but that aside...the swing voters? The independent voters? To those I ask...why would you want to vote for a man that cannot look his opponent in the eye? Why would you want to vote for a man who cannot look at the camera when he gives his answers? To me, looking at the camera is like making eye contact with the people watching you on TV, and he could NOT make eye contact with America and the rest of the world watching.

EPIC FAIL.

What was McCain a hero for again? For surviving torture? Or for fighting in a war which was wrong? It's 2008 - I thought everybody, including Republicans, can acknowledge that the Vietnam War was wrong? Are we supposed to feel bad for soldiers who do whatever their evil leaders command them to do? The US Soldiers followed the orders of commanders during Vietnam War, but so did nazi soldiers. "I just followed ze orderz! ya!" Calling McCain a hero is the equivalent of Germany calling a surviving nazi soldier a hero since he served in WW2...So does the term "war hero" now mean anyone who serves in a war, regardless of what side they are on?

This HAS to be the most IDIOTIC post I have EVER read in any forum on the web!

Dude what are you thirteen? Read a fucking book and get a clue.

No wonder our country his in a heep of shit.

McCain took it to him and Obama was not ready for it.

That's not what I saw. I don't think either "won" the debate and likely very little was done to change anyone's mind.

I'm absolutely shocked!!

The Obama supporters believe Obama won.

The McCain supporters believe McCain won.

I didn't watch the debate. I attended a football game. I wouldn't have watched it had I been home. I don't watch the 'debates.' I don't watch WWE either.

Since I didn't watch it - I will have to inquire from one of our more non-partisans as to who won the debate - Red Dog. ;)

That's not what I saw. I don't think either "won" the debate and likely very little was done to change anyone's mind.

I respect your opinion mbs, however McCain obviously knows whats going on and who is responsible for what. People seem to think because he is a Republican he has been the President the last eight years. Not so. He disagrees with many of Bush's policies. The guy marches to the beat of is own drum. If we want change fast which we need McCain will get it done. Obama is just some lawyer that hasn't got the faintest clue on how to run a country.

I'm absolutely shocked!!

The Obama supporters believe Obama won.

The McCain supporters believe McCain won.

I didn't watch the debate. I attended a football game. I wouldn't have watched it had I been home. I don't watch the 'debates.' I don't watch WWE either.

Since I didn't watch it - I will have to inquire from one of our more non-partisans as to who won the debate - Red Dog. ;)

rotflrotflrotfl

Since I didn't watch it - I will have to inquire from one of our more non-partisans as to who won the debate - Red Dog. ;)


I already said who really won in the 2nd post in the thread.

mbs above you sums up my thoughts. Nobody made a blunder noticeable to the carbon blobs, so as such, it's a classic Michael Wibon PUSH.

Serious question: What percentage of the electorate do you believe take these debates seriously?

2nd serious question: What percentage of the electorate do you believe actually watch them?

btw: My wife, a stauch McCainite, thought it was a push also.

Let me ask this:

Do you think Obama would be a better candidate for president 8 years from now?

I'd say yes.

I thought Obama showed he had much more room for growth last night. McCain knows far more about foreign policy. Obama pulled the Biden card out last night as if to say "I don't need to know all this stuff I've got Biden." I'd rather have the president be the expert. I think Obama could do well 8-12 years from now.

Serious question: What percentage of the electorate do you believe take these debates seriously?

2nd serious question: What percentage of the electorate do you believe actually watch them?

btw: My wife, a stauch McCainite, thought it was a push also.
These debates aren't so much to help the undecided decide who they'll vote for as it is reinforcement for the decideds about who they already decided they will be voting for.

I don't like either one. I thought overall it was a push too. But for the intangible sense of who had command, I'd give a very slight edge to Obama. His attempts to engage McCain directly, his willingness to acknowledge points of agreement, and expressing his general vision for future foreign policy, gave the impression (at least to me) that he could stand firm on a topic (foreign policy) where everyone claimed was his weakest point, and McCain's strongest.

I wonder if Obama was playing it conservative, just holding his own, rather than going after McCain where McCain is supposedly strong. If the next debate is on the economy, it'll be interesting to see if Obama treats it differently.

Serious question: What percentage of the electorate do you believe take these debates seriously?

2nd serious question: What percentage of the electorate do you believe actually watch them?I thought I saw a poll on television that 22% watched the Gov Palin/Katie Couric interview and gave a favorable view, 26% watched and gave an unfavorable view, and 52% did not watch the interview. I would say that 50% interest is usually applicable to most things political in this country. :shrug:btw: My wife, a stauch McCainite, thought it was a push also.You must have some nice yet spirited discussions with your wife. That being said -- have you ever proffered a rebuttal of "Hogwash!" to your wife? :)

Generally (with the exception of Nixon) you only get one shot at the presidency.

This is Obama's shot.

That being said -- have you ever proffered a rebuttal of "Hogwash!" to your wife? :)

Sometimes that's not only the best but the only response to give to rank partisans. :)

Not to knock anyone - who do you believe JasonF thinks won the debate? How about bhk?

What was McCain a hero for again? For surviving torture? Or for fighting in a war which was wrong? It's 2008 - I thought everybody, including Republicans, can acknowledge that the Vietnam War was wrong? Are we supposed to feel bad for soldiers who do whatever their evil leaders command them to do? The US Soldiers followed the orders of commanders during Vietnam War, but so did nazi soldiers. "I just followed ze orderz! ya!" Calling McCain a hero is the equivalent of Germany calling a surviving nazi soldier a hero since he served in WW2...So does the term "war hero" now mean anyone who serves in a war, regardless of what side they are on?

Whether or not you agree with Veitnam or McCain, the fact stands that he is a war hero. There is zero doubt about that for me.

However, that does not automatically qualify him to run this country. He harps and harps on that fact more than Gulliani did about 9/11. Seriously, McCain is to be admired for his service to this country in Veitnam. Whatever medals and accolades came his way as a result, I am sure they were well deserved, as they were well deserved for the many number of soldiers who were in that exact same situation.

And that's my point: he's not alone in this. There are so many other people who were in the exact same situation, including other politicians. That does not make for the #1 qualification to be president of the United States, however.

Let me ask this:

Do you think Obama would be a better candidate for president 8 years from now?

I'd say yes.

I thought Obama showed he had much more room for growth last night. McCain knows far more about foreign policy. Obama pulled the Biden card out last night as if to say "I don't need to know all this stuff I've got Biden." I'd rather have the president be the expert. I think Obama could do well 8-12 years from now.

The bottom line for me with Democrats and how they handle foreign policy is that Obama would bring in the generals and military leaders and devise a plan. So for me Obama having a clear plan all by himself is not not important to me, or all that relevant. Bush apparently had a clear plan, and look where it got us. So the surge worked. The point is we should have never been put in a situation where the surge was needed in the first place. And if a Democrat was in charge during the last 8 years, the military leaders would have advised Gore against going to Iraq and it would have NEVER happened. Because Gore would have listened to them, instead of doing as Bush did and going ahead and forcing his strategy for the war on us.

So if Obama is a little green in that area of politics, I am not worried at all. He's not going to do that all on his own.

Generally (with the exception of Nixon) you only get one shot at the presidency.

This is Obama's shot.


Timing is everything.

I thought he came off as a candidate who could be very good as president - someday.

This HAS to be the most IDIOTIC post I have EVER read in any forum on the web!Yet he managed to spell all his words correctly, and didn't insult anyone while doing it.

Dude what are you thirteen? Read a fucking book and get a clue.

No wonder our country his in a heep of shit.Somehow I doubt that's the reason.

Sometimes that's not only the best but the only response to give to rank partisans. :)

Not to knock anyone - who do you believe JasonF thinks won the debate? See post #24 (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/8966622-post24.html).

Let me ask this:

Do you think Obama would be a better candidate for president 8 years from now?

I'd say yes.

I thought Obama showed he had much more room for growth last night. McCain knows far more about foreign policy. Obama pulled the Biden card out last night as if to say "I don't need to know all this stuff I've got Biden." I'd rather have the president be the expert. I think Obama could do well 8-12 years from now.

He might have more experience, but McCain might not make it 8 years ( or even 4 for that matter). If that were the case, then what are we left with?

See post #24 (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/8966622-post24.html).

Hmm! I hadn't read the previous posts. I'm surprised. However, is his conclusion that Obama won because...................correct? I thought the expectation game was important. Wasn't Obama expected to 'win' the debate. His expectations were higher. If he failed to meet those expectations, one could argue that he actually lost.

He might have more experience, but McCain might not make it 8 years ( or even 4 for that matter). If that were the case, then what are we left with?

http://images.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?load=blank,blank:119_F.jpg|load=L0,http://images.cafepress.com/image/30009408_400x400.png||scale=L0,405,405,White|compose=blank,L0,Add,89,81|load=mask,blank:119_F_mask.j pg|compose=blank,mask,Mask,0,0|cp=result,blank|scale=result,0,480,White|compression=95|

Hmm! I hadn't read the previous posts. I'm surprised. However, is his conclusion that Obama won because...................correct? I thought the expectation game was important. Wasn't Obama expected to 'win' the debate. His expectations were higher. If he failed to meet those expectations, one could argue that he actually lost.I think that, since this "debate" was supposed to be about foreign policy, McCain was expected to win.

Wasn't Obama expected to 'win' the debate.

Not at all. Debating was never seen as his strong point, and McCain was supposed to be the expert on foreign policy, giving him an easy win.

Even a tie is a loss for McCain.

I think that, since this "debate" was supposed to be about foreign policy, McCain was expected to win.

And almost half of it wasn't on that topic, so :shrug:.

I really can't believe people are arguing this winning vs. losing (or that there is a perceived underdog and if it ended in a tie, he still covered the spread), like it's translatable to football scoring. I guess people need something to argue about. The only way it could be translatable is if one candidate said something remarkably stupid (that even carbon blobs can pick up on), turning it into a 3 TD blowout. Given the format, and how close to the vest presidential campaigns are in general, that's rarely going to happen.

I beg to differ with wendersfan & scc15.

I think clearly the expectation game was that Obama would all but mop the floor with McCain.

I do believe that the expectation is McCain would do better at the town forum type than the type that was held last evening.

Not at all. Debating was never seen as his strong point, and McCain was supposed to be the expert on foreign policy, giving him an easy win.

Even a tie is a loss for McCain.

:lol: You're supposed to play down expectations for your guy before the debate. It works better that way.

My DVDTalk friends assured me Obama would wipe the floor with McCain. :sad:

I believe the expectation game plays a major part in a bunch of things - including gambling (the spread - or odds at the track). ;)

I guess people need something to argue about.
I disagree.

He might have more experience, but McCain might not make it 8 years ( or even 4 for that matter). If that were the case, then what are we left with?

This is the quandary.

The impression I'm getting is that most normal people, i.e., not any of us, had very low expectations for Obama going into the debate, hence the (bizarre to me) <a href = "http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html">polling results last night that indicated Obama won handily</a>.

What was McCain a hero for again? For surviving torture? Or for fighting in a war which was wrong?...So does the term "war hero" now mean anyone who serves in a war, regardless of what side they are on?I'm far from being a McCain supporter, but I think you should know that McCain had several opportunities to be released from captivity years before he actually was, but opted to stay in order for other American POWs to be released instead of himself.

Not to knock anyone - who do you believe JasonF thinks won the debate? How about bhk?
If you have to ask then you must be new here. ;)

<a href = "http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/27/why-voters-thought-obama-won-and-why-the-pundits-didn-t-get-it.aspx">Why Voters Thought Obama Won</a>

:shrug:

http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gif

exactly.

I think that polls indicated Ron Paul won every Republican debate. ;)

I found it interesting that all of McCain's references to his foreign policy "experience" had to do with wars and military action. No diplomacy. No negotiations.

His mention of overseas visits is starting to sound like Palin's "I can see Russia from my kitchen window" comments.

The impression I'm getting is that most normal people, i.e., not any of us, had very low expectations for Obama going into the debate, hence the (bizarre to me) <a href = "http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html">polling results last night that indicated Obama won handily</a>.


Considering that most people think he's a great speaker and that most people really don't distinguish btwn speechifying and debating, I'd disagree.

I found it interesting that all of McCain's references to his foreign policy "experience" had to do with wars and military action. No diplomacy. No negotiations.



Because to many folks, particularly those of his party, good foreign policy = being a hawk.

I found it interesting that all of McCain's references to his foreign policy "experience" had to do with wars and military action. No diplomacy. No negotiations.

His mention of overseas visits is starting to sound like Palin's "I can see Russia from my kitchen window" comments.

Since I didn't see the debates, what was Obama's reference(s) to his foregn policy experience? ;)

I found it interesting that all of McCain's references to his foreign policy "experience" had to do with wars and military action. No diplomacy. No negotiations.

His mention of overseas visits is starting to sound like Palin's "I can see Russia from my kitchen window" comments.

Well, since Obama can't see Russia from his kitchen window, clearly, this shows that Palin has more foreign policy experience.

Obama addressed his weakness by his VP choice, McCain...not so much.

What has this country come to when an election is decided by who looked at who during a debate? Are we having staring contests to win wars or debates these days and I missed it? People can come off very ignorant by saying 'my decision was made by who looked more presidential' or 'he looked at him more than he looked at the other guy'. Are Americans this ignorant? (I think I know the answer...)

Obama = Socialism and McCain = Status Quo. Why does not liking the last president and his policies all of the sudden mean we need to turn to socialism? When did the country decide it's time to be like France? Did I miss something? Do people know why America is great? It's not because we have a European government, that's for sure...

Lastly, I'm stunned by the person who compared our vietnam vets to nazis. Do mods still ban people here? My uncle was drafted to go into Vietnam when he was 18 years old. He knew nothing from nothing. He was just a dumb farm boy from PA. What he went through in Vietnam destroyed his soul and he was not responsible for the draft or the war. He was doing his American duty to defend the country and it's interests and didn't know any better. To think that he would have had some choice in the matter is ridiculous. To call people like my Uncle a nazi is beyond the pale. Read a book and don't compare American soldiers in Vietnam to Nazis. Vietnam was a ridiculous proxy war against Russia's spread of communism. It was not a bid to take over the world, ethnic cleanse, or whatever else the Nazi's were doing. Jeez, some people...

Well, since Obama can't see Russia from his kitchen window, clearly, this shows that Palin has more foreign policy experience.

Obama addressed his weakness by his VP choice, McCain...not so much.

But Obama will be the President and Biden will be the VP. I'm glad the republicans have the ticket straight, because the Democrats do not. That very choice is admission that he knows nothing about foreign policy.

But Obama will be the President and Biden will be the VP. I'm glad the republicans have the ticket straight, because the Democrats do not. That very choice is admission that he knows nothing about foreign policy.
And by your measure, 1/2 of the country (more or less) has it wrong too because they support that Democratic ticket.

McCain is my senator. He has done a poor job of addressing the concerns of this state, he will do a poor job addressing the concerns of the nation.

If foreign policy was the determining issue for the voters - clearly Obama wouldn't have been the Democratic nominee.

I don't know about the Repubs. Was there a candidate who had real hands-on foreign policy exprience?

If foreign policy was the determining issue for the voters - clearly Obama wouldn't have been the Democratic nominee.



I disagree. To most Democrat voters, foreign policy came down to the Iraq War.

But which candidate in the Democratic Primary was not opposed to the Iraq War?

But which candidate in the Democratic Primary was not opposed to the Iraq War?

That's the point. Obama was opposed to the war. Hillary supported the war, and so did all the other Senators running (and Richardson I believe). No, he wasn't in the Senate to vote that way, but I don't think the voters cared about that fact.

Obama did a decent job, but I don't think he fought back enough at some points that McCain offered. As well, he should have known that saying "McCain's right about..." so many times will bite him in the ass. I liked how he at least attempted to engage McCain.

I disagree. He is playing Senator McCain, and Senator McCain took the bait. The McCain campaign has a new ad out that uses debate clips to say, in effect "Barack Obama agrees with me -- that means he's not ready to lead." I think that is a potentially devastating mistake.

Let's leave aside the fact that Senator McCain is trying to slice something awfully thin in a thirty-second spot -- you have to distinguish between the substance of Senator McCain's views (presumably, the McCain campaign doesn't want voters thinking that agreement with Senator McCain's views is a bad thing) and the idea that Senator Obama is coming to these views as a follower, not a leader.

But what is one of the key issues of this campaign? Changing the tone in Washington, getting rid of the rancor, and bipartisanship. Both candidates won their parties' nominations in large parts because they were seen as people who can work with the other party to get problems solced in Washington. And Senator McCain just took a swipe at that. Senator McCain had that great line about "how can you reach across the aisle from that far to the left?" Well, how can you reach across the aisle if you are not willing to concede that sometimes your political opponent gets things right?

I found it interesting that all of McCain's references to his foreign policy "experience" had to do with wars and military action. No diplomacy. No negotiations.

Did you get up and go to the bathroom when he was talking about how he has met with world leaders many times and worked out deals and compromises with them? It was when he was talking about the whole "pre-conditions" thing.

He also talked about how he voted down going to war several times in favor of negotiation.

To hear.. one has only to listen ;)

I wonder how Jews will vote. I know many who are undecided. It seemed like McCain went after their votes in the debate.

I disagree. He is playing Senator McCain, and Senator McCain took the bait. The McCain campaign has a new ad out that uses debate clips to say, in effect "Barack Obama agrees with me -- that means he's not ready to lead." I think that is a potentially devastating mistake.

Let's leave aside the fact that Senator McCain is trying to slice something awfully thin in a thirty-second spot -- you have to distinguish between the substance of Senator McCain's views (presumably, the McCain campaign doesn't want voters thinking that agreement with Senator McCain's views is a bad thing) and the idea that Senator Obama is coming to these views as a follower, not a leader.

But what is one of the key issues of this campaign? Changing the tone in Washington, getting rid of the rancor, and bipartisanship. Both candidates won their parties' nominations in large parts because they were seen as people who can work with the other party to get problems solced in Washington. And Senator McCain just took a swipe at that. Senator McCain had that great line about "how can you reach across the aisle from that far to the left?" Well, how can you reach across the aisle if you are not willing to concede that sometimes your political opponent gets things right?

I think that point is too subtle for most to get.

But I can see McCain saying, "Senator Obama says that he agrees with me... but I've admitted that I was wrong about illegal immigration, campaign finance reform, and the economy. If Senator Obama agrees with someone who has been wrong on numerous occasions then that shows just how poor his judgment is and why he is not ready to be president."


Did you get up and go to the bathroom when he was talking about how he has met with world leaders many times and worked out deals and compromises with them? It was when he was talking about the whole "pre-conditions" thing.

He also talked about how he voted down going to war several times in favor of negotiation.

To hear.. one has only to listen ;)
If he said such things in the debate, they are not as direct as you are characterizing them. Yes, he talked about meeting with world leaders... but as a Senator how exactly did he work out deals and compromises? I didn't hear THAT part.

Obama addressed his weakness by his VP choice, McCain...not so much.

Unless McCain sees it as a weakness that he doesn't have a vagina.

What has this country come to when an election is decided by who looked at who during a debate?
I couldn't even bring myself to read the rest of your post after seeing this as your opening line.

You don't think the ability to make eye contact is important?

Try having two people go into a job interview...one manages to make eye contact with the person conducting the interview, the other one fails to look the interviewer in the eye at all, or hardly at all.

Which one do you think will have the better chance of getting the job?

Which one do you think is more trustworthy?

Body language says A LOT not only in this country but in the WORLD. Even animals use it.

And you wonder why people would call McCain out on this topic?

Freaking monkeys know the value of making eye contact. Primal animals in the wild know what eye contact means.

And you really are wondering about this? REALLY???

And perhaps this isn't the primary factor going to help make up people's minds regarding who they are going to vote for, but it still says a lot.

Recommended reading for McCain:
http://www.kingstone.com.tw/english/images/Product/047/0470045221.jpg

Has anyone done a handwriting analysis on the two candidates? I'd like to hear about that before I make my choice.

I couldn't even bring myself to read the rest of your post after seeing this as your opening line.

You don't think the ability to make eye contact is important?

Try having two people go into a job interview...one manages to make eye contact with the person conducting the interview, the other one fails to look the interviewer in the eye at all, or hardly at all.

Which one do you think will have the better chance of getting the job?

Which one do you think is more trustworthy?

Body language says A LOT not only in this country but in the WORLD. Even animals use it.

And you wonder why people would call McCain out on this topic?

Freaking monkeys know the value of making eye contact. Primal animals in the wild know what eye contact means.

And you really are wondering about this? REALLY???

And perhaps this isn't the primary factor going to help make up people's minds regarding who they are going to vote for, but it still says a lot.

Agreed. I don't think anyone learned anything new about where Obama or McCain stand on the issues last night. Aside from those who pay no attention to the race outside of the debates, that is not what they are about. It is a forum where people can see these two potential candidates and evaluate how well they can defend their positions when confronted, and how they go about doing so. McCain came off as smug and a bit of an asshole. He didn't look professional or respectful. I think Obama was much better in this respect. He was often listening to what McCain said, taking notes, and waiting to respond. It's a small part of what someone should be looking for in a candidate, but shouldn't be disregarded.

How many of you watched on C-SPAN versus some other channel? It had both candidates side-by-side the entire time whereas CNN and others had alternate angles. All this to say... did everyone else not see McCain <em>glaring</em> at the camera repeatedly? Furrowing his brows, squinting his eyes, and grimacing... my girlfriend and I were laughing about how bizarre it was. You might think he was reacting to things Obama was saying, but many times it seemed to be for no reason. I don't know if the lights were too bright or what, but McCain already looks a bit ghoulish, and it didn't help things. Of course, as others have said, he also refused to acknowledge Obama's existence. Finally he came across as arrogant and condescending (his endless smirks), as if he wanted to appear like he was chiding a child ("Senator Obama just doesn't understand...").

Everyone knew what they were going to say, but as far as appearance and demeanor are concerned I thought Obama was the clear winner in that category.

How many of you watched on C-SPAN versus some other channel? It had both candidates side-by-side the entire time whereas CNN and others had alternate angles...I wish I would've known then I would've Tivoed C-span instead of CNN. There were a bunch of time when one candidate would say something and I really wanted to see the response in the other candidate's expression/body-language, but the camera just stayed on the one candidate. Yeah, non-verbal reactions are huge windows into a person's psyche, and to pretend they don't matter is saying you understand little to nothing about human behavior and interaction.

Hmm! I hadn't read the previous posts. I'm surprised. However, is his conclusion that Obama won because...................correct? I thought the expectation game was important. Wasn't Obama expected to 'win' the debate. His expectations were higher. If he failed to meet those expectations, one could argue that he actually lost.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Senator Obama was expected to win. The conventional wisdom is that during the respective primaries, debates were Senator McCain's strength and Senator Obama's weakness. Couple that with the fact that this was the foreign policy debate and if anyone was favored, it was Senator McCain.

A narrative is starting to coalesce to the effect that it was a push on substance but that Senator McCain came off as the king of the assholes, which is A-OK with this Obama supporter.

Has anyone done a handwriting analysis on the two candidates? I'd like to hear about that before I make my choice.
McCain showed us his Veto Pen - although that probably isn't the pen he'd really use for vetoes, like he explained. But he had a pen and that means he was prepared to have his handwriting analyzed! Where was Obama's pen? Huh? Where?!

I'd give a small edge to McCain also. How many times did Obama say " you're absolutely right John" I couldn't count them all. That crack about Obama's seal was priceless.

Generally (with the exception of Nixon) you only get one shot at the presidency.

This is Obama's shot.

Nixon is the only exception?

I think not. You need to check yourself. ;)

How about McCain? Reagan? Bush? The latter two only won as repeats, if McCain does he'll be the the third in recent history.

It's the Democrats who have a "you had your shot and you blew it you bum!" attitude on these things. But even there you have exceptions like Adlai Stevenson.

I can't remember a comprehensive list right now, but saying Nixon was 'it' is way off.

I think he meant you get 1 shot once you win a nomination.

I disagree. He is playing Senator McCain, and Senator McCain took the bait. The McCain campaign has a new ad out that uses debate clips to say, in effect "Barack Obama agrees with me -- that means he's not ready to lead." I think that is a potentially devastating mistake.

Let's leave aside the fact that Senator McCain is trying to slice something awfully thin in a thirty-second spot -- you have to distinguish between the substance of Senator McCain's views (presumably, the McCain campaign doesn't want voters thinking that agreement with Senator McCain's views is a bad thing) and the idea that Senator Obama is coming to these views as a follower, not a leader.

But what is one of the key issues of this campaign? Changing the tone in Washington, getting rid of the rancor, and bipartisanship. Both candidates won their parties' nominations in large parts because they were seen as people who can work with the other party to get problems solced in Washington. And Senator McCain just took a swipe at that. Senator McCain had that great line about "how can you reach across the aisle from that far to the left?" Well, how can you reach across the aisle if you are not willing to concede that sometimes your political opponent gets things right?

I think that point is too subtle for most to get.

As it stands now, I agree with you. Senator Obama is going to have to bring it out with some sort of ad or statement in a debate to the effect of "I'm not afraid to tell my opponents when they are right, and I am not afraid to tell my opponents when they are wrong. We're not going to waste time in Washington by arguing over the things we agree on; we're going to spend our time in Washington fixing the things that the Republicans have gotten wrong."

But you're right -- if Senator Obama doesn't do that follow-up, most people will not see it this way.

But I can see McCain saying, "Senator Obama says that he agrees with me... but I've admitted that I was wrong about illegal immigration, campaign finance reform, and the economy. If Senator Obama agrees with someone who has been wrong on numerous occasions then that shows just how poor his judgment is and why he is not ready to be president."

:lol: "Barack Obama agrees with John McCain, but John McCain is wrong and dangerous for America! Don't vote for the guy who agreed with John McCain. I'm John McCain and I approve this message."

I'd give a small edge to McCain also. How many times did Obama say " you're absolutely right John" I couldn't count them all. That crack about Obama's seal was priceless.

the jab about reaching so far to the left was pretty funny too.

Has anyone done a handwriting analysis on the two candidates? I'd like to hear about that before I make my choice.<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWtA3YSj-hY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWtA3YSj-hY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Barack Obama and John McCain Handwriting Analysis - NSFW :lol:So if the experts are right, Clinton really is smart and tough and stays until the last dog dies, Obama is an engaging bridge-builder, and McCain takes charge, and does it his way.

Case closed? Hardly: “Handwriting tells a lot of important things, but it doesn’t tell everything,” Lowe cautioned. “People are too complex.”http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/13/nation/na-handwriting13

A Magic Eight Ball would probably be more helpful. :sad:

As it stands now, I agree with you. Senator Obama is going to have to bring it out with some sort of ad or statement in a debate to the effect of "I'm not afraid to tell my opponents when they are right, and I am not afraid to tell my opponents when they are wrong. We're not going to waste time in Washington by arguing over the things we agree on; we're going to spend our time in Washington fixing the things that the Republicans have gotten wrong."

But you're right -- if Senator Obama doesn't do that follow-up, most people will not see it this way.

yes, that would be a good ad to combat the "i agree with john" ad.

:lol: "Barack Obama agrees with John McCain, but John McCain is wrong and dangerous for America! Don't vote for the guy who agreed with John McCain. I'm John McCain and I approve this message."

:lol:

I think he meant you get 1 shot once you win a nomination.

Even with that disclaimer.

It still isn't only Nixon.

I found it interesting that all of McCain's references to his foreign policy "experience" had to do with wars and military action. No diplomacy. No negotiations.

His mention of overseas visits is starting to sound like Palin's "I can see Russia from my kitchen window" comments.Quoted for truth.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWtA3YSj-hY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWtA3YSj-hY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Barack Obama and John McCain Handwriting Analysis - NSFW :lol:http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/13/nation/na-handwriting13

A Magic Eight Ball would probably be more helpful. :sad:

I cannot get that video to play at all. It will start to play for a second, with no sound, then freeze up. The red bar shows it has downloaded, but it will not play.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Senator Obama was expected to win. The conventional wisdom is that during the respective primaries, debates were Senator McCain's strength and Senator Obama's weakness. Couple that with the fact that this was the foreign policy debate and if anyone was favored, it was Senator McCain.
I don't know what the pundits are saying, but I've heard a few regular people spin McCain's attempt to move/pull out of the debate as "he's afraid to debate Obama", so maybe that's where it comes from.

Even with that disclaimer.

It still isn't only Nixon.

In the last 50 years it is. I think in today's day and age, once you become a loser on the biggest stage, it would be extremely hard to shake that image.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWtA3YSj-hY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWtA3YSj-hY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Barack Obama and John McCain Handwriting Analysis - NSFW :lol:http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/13/nation/na-handwriting13

A Magic Eight Ball would probably be more helpful. :sad:

rotfl not useful at all, but that was great!

The impression I'm getting is that most normal people, i.e., not any of us, had very low expectations for Obama going into the debate, hence the (bizarre to me) <a href = "http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html">polling results last night that indicated Obama won handily</a>.
Ted the N00b here: Why is it bizarre to you? In the famous Kennedy/Nixon debate, those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won, those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won, and that was a big factor in Kennedy's eventual election.

I gather that even with the network camerawork pretending that the candidates were the same height, Obama had the overwhelming body language advantage.

If foreign policy was the determining issue for the voters - clearly Obama wouldn't have been the Democratic nominee.
Sorry, but were you paying ANY attention to the Democratic primaries? Obama would have lost hands down to Clinton if it wasn't for foreign policy. Clinton's support for the Iraq war, unwillingness to admit she made a mistake and her Yes vote on the ambiguous anti-Iran resolution (that came shortly before the CIA reported that Iran had shut down their nuclear weapons program years earlier) is what sunk her candidacy. Many natural Clinton voters (me included) voted for Obama due to his consistent Iraq war opposition and unwillingness to walk into an even bigger trap in Iran. Obama beat Clinton with regular Democratic primary voters almost exclusively on foreign policy. Their domestic policy platform were pretty much identical in any case.

1 hour, 13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A pair of one-night polls gave Barack Obama a clear edge over John McCain in their first presidential debate.
ADVERTISEMENT

Fifty-one percent said Obama, the Democrat, did a better job in Friday night's faceoff while 38 percent preferred the Republican McCain, according to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. survey of adults.

Obama was widely considered more intelligent, likable and in touch with peoples' problems, and by modest margins was seen as the stronger leader and more sincere. Most said it was McCain who spent more time attacking his opponent.

About six in 10 said each did a better job than expected. Seven in 10 said each seemed capable of being president.

In a CBS News poll of people not committed to a candidate, 39 percent said Obama won the debate, 24 percent said McCain and 37 percent called it a tie. Twice as many said Obama understands their needs than said so about McCain.

Seventy-eight percent said McCain is prepared to be president, about the same proportion of uncommitted voters as said so before the debate. Sixty percent said Obama is ready — a lower score than McCain, but a solid 16-percentage-point improvement from before the debate.

In another Obama advantage in the CBS poll, far more said their image of him had improved as a result of the debate than said it had worsened. More also said their view of McCain had gotten better rather than worse, but by a modest margin.

The CNN poll involved telephone interviews with 524 adults who watched the debate and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. The CBS survey involved online interviews with 483 uncommitted voters who saw the debate and had an error margin of plus or minus 4 points. It was conducted by Knowledge Networks, which initially selected the respondents by telephone.

Both polls were conducted Friday night.

Polls conducted on one night can be less reliable than surveys conducted over several nights because they only include the views of people available that particular evening.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080927/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debate_polls;_ylt=AvLEo.nX9xG.35aV1CJe89Os0NUE

I thought it was great how Henry Kissinger immediately disputed a claim Obuma made about him. I think McCain won by a wider margin on foreign affairs than Obama did on the economy. It would be interesting to see a national poll on who won the debate.

Nixon is the only exception?

I think not. You need to check yourself. ;)

How about McCain? Reagan? Bush? The latter two only won as repeats, if McCain does he'll be the the third in recent history.
Were talking about party nominees (who lose a general) running again, not people who lost in the primaries. And indeed Nixon is the last such example. Stevenson lost twice, so that's not much of an argument. And I may be wrong, but is there anyone besides Nixon in the entire 20th century who was elected president having first lost a general election?

This election is Obama's chance. I seriously doubt he would get another if he loses. Look at it this way -- this is a totally Democratic year -- the economy is cratering with the Republicans in power. If the Democratic nominee loses he was clearly not a good candidate.

I think Nixon is the only one.

Stevenson basically got a 2nd chance because he was a sacrificial lamb in '56. No Democrat had a chance of beating Ike.

I thought it was great how Henry Kissinger immediately disputed a claim Obuma made about him. I think McCain won by a wider margin on foreign affairs than Obama did on the economy. It would be interesting to see a national poll on who won the debate.
Every national poll so far has Obama winning by a large margin.

I thought it was great how Henry Kissinger immediately disputed a claim Obuma made about him.Which is complete bullshit, because he's now totally contradicting himself just to save face for McCain:

E6gziWq38D4

How does that clip contradict what he claims is his position?

How does that clip contradict what he claims is his position?

You have to view it through the lens of blind partisan political zealotry, then it all makes sense.

Apparently Obama knows what Kissinger thinks even better than Kissinger does, if you have that 'special' viewing lens working.

Obama was painfully wrong on that. This stuff is just an example of how far rationalization and denial can carry you if you are a political zealot.

It works both ways of course, this is just a particularly egregious example of it.

McCain lost on so many levels, but he instantly lost when he told that "let us win" story that he loves to tell. Where Obama gave concise, direct answers, McCain tippy-toed around most questions with pointless anecdotes, and blatant lies. If lying is winning, McCain won.

I also love McCain's case against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who just yesterday spoke at the UN General Assembly. Did he talk about wiping Israel off the face of the earth? No?

Senator Obama said we should meet with Iran, without preconditions.

The Iraq Study Group report said we should meet with Iran, without preconditions.

Secretary Kissinger (along with Secretaries Baker, Powell, Christopher, and Albright) agreed with that idea.

the jab about reaching so far to the left was pretty funny too.

My smart-ass comeback to that would have been:

"Yeah, and it's hard to reach across the aisle when you're busy giving Bush a reach-around".

Good thing I am not in politics. :lol:

Has there has ever been top level negoitations with a potential enemy(ies) without precondititions?

You don't jump immediately to head of state negotiating with head of state. Groundwork (preconditions) precedes that.

I thought this was explained very well by Sec. of State Rice a couple of days ago.

You have to view it through the lens of blind partisan political zealotry, then it all makes sense.

Apparently Obama knows what Kissinger thinks even better than Kissinger does, if you have that 'special' viewing lens working.

Obama was painfully wrong on that. This stuff is just an example of how far rationalization and denial can carry you if you are a political zealot.

It works both ways of course, this is just a particularly egregious example of it.Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? Really?

Here's the direct quote:

Baker: "There's every incentive on their part to help us [...] if we're willing to approach them without preconditions [...] what do you lose by giving it a shot?"

Moderator: "Does anyone disagree with that?"

Kissinger: "I agree with him, that one has to talk to adversaries. But one should not treat it as a psychiatric problem..."
And he goes on to say that "we have to find a mode of negotiation, because if things get tougher we have to tell the American people that we have done everything we can to explore a peaceful resolution."

Who's the zealot here?

Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? Really?


No.

I wasn't kidding.

Wow you're right, I guess I was blinded and deafened by my zealotry and misheard Kissinger, just assuming that he said that we have to explore every resolution including talking to our adversaries. I guess what he really meant is McCain's plan of ignoring our adversaries, since it's working out so well... -ohbfrank-

Wow you're right, I guess I was blinded and deafened by my zealotry and misheard Kissinger, just assuming that he said that we have to explore every resolution including talking to our adversaries. I guess what he really meant is McCain's plan of ignoring our adversaries, since it's working out so well... -ohbfrank-

Exactly.

Well then why don't you go ahead and tell me what Kissinger's statements mean when looked through the lens of your own zealotry?

How the hell can anyone think Obama won that debate? LOL. Clearly a beneficiary of low expectations.

I cannot wait until November when Obama loses the election, and all the liberals are screaming bloody murder and pulling out all the conspiracy theories to explain how they somehow missed another layup.

No.

I wasn't kidding.



Ah. Not kidding. You're simply wrong, then. Listen to Kissinger own words.

How the hell can anyone think Obama won that debate? LOL. Clearly a beneficiary of low expectations.

I cannot wait until November when Obama loses the election, and all the liberals are screaming bloody murder and pulling out all the conspiracy theories to explain how they somehow missed another layup.


Must be the jews. They control everything.

You watch CNN, you get polls telling us that Obama won the debate, you watch FOX News, you get polls telling us that McCain won the debate.

Unfortunately, most of these polls mean nothing because it's going to be the specific handful of battleground states that makes or breaks the election for either candidate.

I can't clearly choose an obvious winner. I do have some observations, FWIW.

When McCain made the remark about reaching so far from the left, Obama missed an opportunity. He should have pointed out that he attempted to reach across that aisle several times that very evening by agreeing with McCain and it was McCain that was resistant. Finding common ground is an essential ability.

McCain's handlers needed to loosen up on their fear of his temper and at least allow him to have some passion. I think his trying to control it was partly responsible for the lack of eye contact. They should also have steered him away from some of the same old tired stories and jokes. You can repeat them from town to town but not in more than one national forum.

McCain should have explained better that he went to Washington to get Wall Street to pay for its own mistakes instead of the taxpayers, unlike Obama and the Democrats.

Obama should have countered the 'bombing' Pakistan accusation with a reference to McCain's promise to follow Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell. Apparently only if those gates aren't in Pakistan.

I can't clearly choose an obvious winner. I do have some observations, FWIW.

When McCain made the remark about reaching so far from the left, Obama missed an opportunity. He should have pointed out that he attempted to reach across that aisle several times that very evening by agreeing with McCain and it was McCain that was resistant. Finding common ground is an essential ability.

McCain's handlers needed to loosen up on their fear of his temper and at least allow him to have some passion. I think his trying to control it was partly responsible for the lack of eye contact. They should also have steered him away from some of the same old tired stories and jokes. You can repeat them from town to town but not in more than one national forum.

McCain should have explained better that he went to Washington to get Wall Street to pay for its own mistakes instead of the taxpayers, unlike Obama and the Democrats.

Obama should have countered the 'bombing' Pakistan accusation with a reference to McCain's promise to follow Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell. Apparently only if those gates aren't in Pakistan.


He would get roasted for stealing a Daily Show joke.

Besides I like what he did say, we can't talk about Pakistan. But we can be gleeful about bombing Iran we made a song.

He did eventually address the liberal thing by saying he votes that way to oppose Bush, unlike McCain. It was an alright comebacl

He would get roasted for stealing a Daily Show joke.

I didn't know it was already used on that show. :blush:

If there was a poll option for tie I would have voted for it on the points made by the candidates. Considering this was supposed to be McCain’s specialty I know some will consider a tie a loss but I’ll give him the tie anyways.

Now taking everything that has happened this week into account, McCain lost the week just by showing up.

McCain pulled a real political blunder this week with his grandstanding “I will suspend my campaign” tactic. Everyone recognized that he wasn’t putting “country first” but rather desperately trying to jumpstart his campaign. It was a Hail Mary play to try to project himself as a leader and Obama a follower. Thankfully Obama didn’t take the bait and stated right away that he would continue as planned and show up for the debate.


So what happens in the end, no bailout plan is done and McCain still shows up. Now he appears to be weak since he let Obama set the tone.

So what happens in the end, no bailout plan is done and McCain still shows up. Now he appears to be weak since he let Obama set the tone.

If he had gone to Washington but not suggested the postponement of the debate it would have been better. I do think the politics as usual campaigning from sitting US Senators is rather inappropriate during such a crisis. They do still have responsibilities in DC. He should have expanded some on his reasoning at the debate though it would invite criticism from Obama.

The whole debate:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F-nNIEduEOw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F-nNIEduEOw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Has there has ever been top level negoitations with a potential enemy(ies) without precondititions?

You don't jump immediately to head of state negotiating with head of state. Groundwork (preconditions) precedes that.

I thought this was explained very well by Sec. of State Rice a couple of days ago.

for clarification, this is an excerpt of what Obama said on the matter:



OBAMA: So let's talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe.

And I'm glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.

Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

Now, understand what this means "without preconditions." It doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don't do what we've been doing, which is to say, "Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won't have direct contacts with you."

There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.



Whole transcript can be found here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/index.html

Yeah, everyone's hung up on this whole "preconditions" thing, which is just bullshit semantics. Obviously, if they make some outrageous demand, you're just not gonna meet. The point is to open up a dialog - but leave it to political spin to make a mockery of it.

Yeah, everyone's hung up on this whole "preconditions" thing, which is just bullshit semantics. Obviously, if they make some outrageous demand, you're just not gonna meet. The point is to open up a dialog - but leave it to political spin to make a mockery of it.

I'd consider the intention of wiping out Israel, denying the holocaust and looking towards the collapse of the United States to be pretty outrageous.

for clarification, this is an excerpt of what Obama said on the matter:



Whole transcript can be found here:

Is groundwork to establish what is to be discussed a precondition?

I believe it is.

The Bush administration, I'm reasonably certain, doesn't mean that before you talk the other side has to agree with exactly what we say.........................

Obviously Obama is playing politics for the ear of the American public who are not too keen on the affairs of state & the world. There's nothing wrong with that. It probably does little harm. I think the folks on a political forum should at least understand that.

btw: Don't you believe we've talked to Iran (at the lower levels - I don't know how low) during this period?

I remember the public's surprise when Nixon went to China. Of course months & months of negoitations preceeded that visit that the American public seemed to be unaware of.

I'd consider the intention of wiping out Israel, denying the holocaust and looking towards the collapse of the United States to be pretty outrageous.

Are these official positions of the Iranian government, or the ravings of an attention whore and a fanatic?

Is the public rhetoric you hear coming from the Bush administration the official position of the U.S. government?

Yeah, everyone's hung up on this whole "preconditions" thing, which is just bullshit semantics. Obviously, if they make some outrageous demand, you're just not gonna meet. The point is to open up a dialog - but leave it to political spin to make a mockery of it.

So the elected leaders of all of the United States western allies are using spin to make a mockery of it?


And I do find it amusing how many continue to downplay the importance of Iran's president. He most certainly is no mere figurehead, especially with his allies on the Council.

Is groundwork to establish what is to be discussed a precondition?

I believe it is.



I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics. My response was in response to your response showing in essence that Obama is essentially agreeing with your previous statement. For reference, this was your original statement, along with what Obama said in the debate.

Has there has ever been top level negoitations with a potential enemy(ies) without precondititions?

You don't jump immediately to head of state negotiating with head of state. Groundwork (preconditions) precedes that.

I thought this was explained very well by Sec. of State Rice a couple of days ago.


OBAMA:
There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.

And I do find it amusing how many continue to downplay the importance of Iran's president. He most certainly is no mere figurehead, especially with his allies on the Council.He absolutely is a figurehead - actually, more of a puppet. It's the mullahs that are in charge, not that they're any less crazy, but their "president" is just a big loud mouth with little actual power. Trust me on this.

He absolutely is a figurehead - actually, more of a puppet. It's the mullahs that are in charge, not that they're any less crazy, but their "president" is just a big loud mouth with little actual power. Trust me on this.I think slop is an Iranian mullah.

I think slop is an Iranian mullet.
:confused:
http://media.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/Mullet%20terrorist.jpg

Mod note: Please read our rule about "fixing" posts in this forum - http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/448146-please-read-before-posting-political-forum.html

The rules:
- No "fixing" posts: This means when someone posts an opinion or point of view you're not allowed to edit or add a couple of words in the quoted portion and write "fixed" after it. This is done in order to limit misrepresentation, and since in most cases its use seems to be done in a manner that is tantamount to a threadcrap or personal attack, "fixed" posts are not allowed in the Political Forum. Such posts will simply be deleted by the moderators and continued abuse may lead to further action. The proper response is to quote the original post exactly and then make your comments outside of the quoted portion.

I couldn't even bring myself to read the rest of your post after seeing this as your opening line.

You don't think the ability to make eye contact is important?

Try having two people go into a job interview...one manages to make eye contact with the person conducting the interview, the other one fails to look the interviewer in the eye at all, or hardly at all.

Which one do you think will have the better chance of getting the job?

Which one do you think is more trustworthy?

Body language says A LOT not only in this country but in the WORLD. Even animals use it.

And you wonder why people would call McCain out on this topic?

Freaking monkeys know the value of making eye contact. Primal animals in the wild know what eye contact means.

And you really are wondering about this? REALLY???

And perhaps this isn't the primary factor going to help make up people's minds regarding who they are going to vote for, but it still says a lot.

Recommended reading for McCain:
http://www.kingstone.com.tw/english/images/Product/047/0470045221.jpg

Utter insanity. McCain was talking to the American people, as was Obama before Lehrer's ridiculous - 'look at each other!' exclamation.

What 'negotiation' was being had here? What interview? Last I checked it was the American people interviewing McCain, not Obama. Therefore, he was looking into our eyes, not Obama's.

The sheer fact is that this point should be less than
.000001% relevancy to the decision being made by Americans and I actually heard some 'undecided' voters say that this was now the main reason they would vote for Obama. That is sheer INSANITY.

Which one do I think is more trustworthy? Who do I think will win? That'd be John McCain - he has fought for this country, he has served in the senate, he is somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum and I believe what he says.

Obama is a lawyer, a race baiter from a 'hate whitey' church, and above all a POLITICIAN who has never done a damn thing for this country except propose San Francisco values through the supreme court and socialistic spending and economic policies to make our country more like his beloved Europe that he cow-tows to. There's your answer. It's no wonder McCain can't look him straight in the eye, I can barely stomach the man on TV, much less in person.

So you can eat your book.

teehee. McCain "somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum"

(speaking of books...)

http://media.us.macmillan.com/jackets/Tilted/9780230608054.jpg

He absolutely is a figurehead - actually, more of a puppet. It's the mullahs that are in charge, not that they're any less crazy, but their "president" is just a big loud mouth with little actual power. Trust me on this.

He doesn't have the ultimate power - and neither did Kruschev - but he's much more than just a figurehead.

Granted - much of his rhetoric is meant for 'home consumption.'

Trust me on this. ;)

teehee. McCain "somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum"

(speaking of books...)

http://media.us.macmillan.com/jackets/Tilted/9780230608054.jpg

Given his history of bipartisanship and working with democrats I'd say he's closer to the middle than Obama (or Bush) is. I'd say Obama is to the left what George Bush is to the right. McCain is not in that boat.

teehee. McCain "somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum"

(speaking of books...)

http://media.us.macmillan.com/jackets/Tilted/9780230608054.jpg

- since you like books - here is some more.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516O1q7zXGL._SL210_.jpg http://idiotsforobama.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/fleeced.175143632_std.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518RvzD1MOL._SL210_.jpg :rimshot:

Obama is a lawyer, a race baiter from a 'hate whitey' church, and above all a POLITICIAN who has never done a damn thing for this country except propose San Francisco values through the supreme court and socialistic spending and economic policies to make our country more like his beloved Europe that he cow-tows to. There's your answer. It's no wonder McCain can't look him straight in the eye, I can barely stomach the man on TV, much less in person.

Wow. The right wing members are going off the deep end this week! :lol:

Well then why don't you go ahead and tell me what Kissinger's statements mean when looked through the lens of your own zealotry?
You're using my material here. ;)
Ah. Not kidding. You're simply wrong, then. Listen to Kissinger own words.
It's astounding how easily people lose track of the topic. The subject and object of a debate.

Obama is a candidate for President. He said "I" would meet with anyone without preconditions. Since apparently I have to spell this out, that "I' means "I as President" because if he loses the Presidential race, he isn't going to be meeting ANYONE right? Obama was saying "I as President" would meet with anyone without preconditions. The debate that week in the press was about "should a President meet with people?" The nation knew what he meant. The debate in this and other threads has revolved around WHY a Presidential meeting with terrorists is wrong. That simple point is clear. Have I sufficiently covered that? The context of Obama's statement was about a President meeting with Iran, for example, without preconditions. Obama obviously thought he was being a 'maverick' there and the people would gobble it up. It didn't go over so well, and came across as naive.

Now as to Kissinger. He has a history in the US government. If all you know about him is a short sound bite I suppose you could 'buy' that he thought Preside