|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Sept 26, 2008 13:59:52 GMT -5
There's an effort to elect an unknown random person as President... watch this online video about the surprising new nominee: SEE HERE!Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Sept 27, 2008 9:31:09 GMT -5
So: The Debate.
How bad is it, when all Pat Buchanan can talk about is McCain not looking at Obama once?
Julia, and why would he do something so noticible?
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Sept 27, 2008 10:13:29 GMT -5
So: The Debate. How bad is it, when all Pat Buchanan can talk about is McCain not looking at Obama once? Julia, and why would he do something so noticible? Yeah. That was really weird. Showed either lack of respect, or lack of confidence. Both bad.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Sept 27, 2008 10:35:54 GMT -5
So: The Debate. How bad is it, when all Pat Buchanan can talk about is McCain not looking at Obama once? Julia, and why would he do something so noticible? Yeah. That was really weird. Showed either lack of respect, or lack of confidence. Both bad. When his biggest polling negatives are that he's unlikable and petty, it's the sort of things he should have been wary of. I can see why he plays craps and not poker. Julia, there's being honest, and then there's allowing your bad angel to take over
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 27, 2008 10:39:45 GMT -5
And if you poll actual voters (not pundits), Obama ran away with the debate:
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 27, 2008 10:41:35 GMT -5
Also, on "disrespect"? From Salon's War Room:
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 27, 2008 10:46:21 GMT -5
My brother missed the debates and asked for a recap. So this is what I sent: Sue's response: Attempting to leave bias aside: They both did alright. First: neither made any huge misteps or faux paus (?). McCain tripped over 1 or 2 foreign names (which a few folks made a big deal of since he claims to be such a foreign policy expert, but was really a minor, human thing. Obama had a few minor stutters. Things of note: Obama said (several times, in fact): "John, you are right." I understand McCain's camp has already put out a commercial of him repeating that. Jim Lehrer (the moderator) tried at the start to get them to address one another, confront, ask questions, direct comments directly to each other. Neither was great at that, but Obama made the effort a few times. On the other hand, McCain NEVER once looked at Obama, only addressed him as Senator Obama and said (repeatedly): "Senator, you don't understand." Some pundits thought McCain scored by underscoring Obama's naivete and inexperience and Obama gave something away by the "John you are right." Others thought McCain looked crabby and peeved (and old, as in "you, young whippersnapper!") while Obama looked calm, cool, above the fray---enough of a statesman to be "big enough" to be bi-partison and conciliatory when there was a point of agreement. First 45 minutes was economic stuff and both did a lot of dodging and weaving to avoid saying whehter they would vote for the bailout or not. 2nd 45 minutes was foreign policy. Some sparring over the war and the surge. Obama was pretty forceful and held his own. Told McCain he was WRONG about some things; McCain gave his condescending little laugh/smile. Summary: Obama was much better about giving short, to the point answers than I've previously seen him. I think he was also better about responding to McCain's comments while McCain seemed to ignore Obama and stick more to prescripted responses. McCain didn't lose his temper or have a "senior moment." They did a semi-decent job of rephrasing enough stuff so that it didn't all sound like pre-digested, oft repeated, campaign slogan sound bites (even if a fair amount of the content was). I think both sides were probably happy that their man did a decent job and didn't screw up. I'd personally give it to Obama on "style" points just because he seemed relaxed, calm and "in charge" and was able to project "I can be commander in chief." I'd also give it to him on substance, but primarily because I already agree more with his positions. But nobody "ran away" with it. One major point of pundits afterwards was that McCain didn't "win" because he's behind in the polls and having the debate be essentially a "draw" was a non-win for him because he needed the win-win more. (does that make sense?) Perhaps most interesing head to head (Obama faced McCain, McCain continued to speak to Jim Lehrer) was Obama saying that Kissinger and 5 other Sec's of State agreed with him that the pres. should talk to non-friendly heads of state with pre-conditions (although he did moderate that phrase from previous incarnations but pointing out that "no pre-conditions" never meant "without preparations."). McCain disagreed. During the post debate pundit fact-checking they showed tape of Kissinger essentially saying what Obama claimed, but then 10 minutes later they read an email from Henry essentially backing McCain up----so that one was hard to pin down. That's my wrap-up. Fascinated now to watch Thursdays debate. Hoping Biden will just control himself and keep from comitting any major gaffes, while he stands back and let's SP shoot herself in the foot. Really feel kind of sorry for her having seen recent interviews. Wasn't really fair of McCain to thrust her into the position she's in and set her up for the kind of (legit) criticism she's been enduring. [Speaking of being patronizing] I think that's a good tack for the Dems to take when asked about SP: "It's clear she's trying really hard and has potential, but it's a shame she's been thrust so pre-maturely into a position she clearly is unprepared for. We feel sympathy for her and the fact that she's being "used" as a political pawn."
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 27, 2008 12:15:52 GMT -5
Video of McCain saying "horsesh*t" is now up and available on YouTube.... www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/27/1216/62905?detail=fSeriously, people, do we really want a man who can't refrain from using profanity in front of a microphone and a national television audience as the leader of the free world? I mean, it's not about the profanity...it's about the inability to control his impulses. Unstable.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Sept 27, 2008 18:35:23 GMT -5
Haven't watched the debate yet. Tomorrow, maybe. But here is a rundown of what I assume are all the major points of contention that were brought up. Seems to be a good reference.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Sept 28, 2008 11:12:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Sept 28, 2008 16:14:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Sept 29, 2008 10:51:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Sept 29, 2008 11:34:24 GMT -5
Watched the debate, and it seemed to me like the candidates were all over the place, particularly about the economic crisis. But I thought that in general, Obama was most on point, linking the issue on hand with his talking points and making an effort to clarify disagreements and point out misinformation. McCain seemed very stiff and static and seemed like he was reciting lines rather than participating in a conversation. All in all, McCain came across as very out of touch.
Case in point: McCain bringing up earmarks. It's a key issue for McCain and that's great, but it's not the root of the current economic crisis so it was almost irrelevant to bring it up.
On the subject of McCain voting with Bush 95 percent of the time, I wish that McCain would delve specifically into what legislation they agree on and on which ones they differed. And with voting records in general, whether a legislator votes yay or nay doesn't tell the whole story; why they voted the way they did is important because with any bill, there are any number of reasons for voting for or against it. The singleminded focus just on the yays and nays bugs me (every campaign I've ever paid attention to has done this).
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 29, 2008 12:29:27 GMT -5
Watched the debate, and it seemed to me like the candidates were all over the place, particularly about the economic crisis. But I thought that in general, Obama was most on point, linking the issue on hand with his talking points and making an effort to clarify disagreements and point out misinformation. McCain seemed very stiff and static and seemed like he was reciting lines rather than participating in a conversation. All in all, McCain came across as very out of touch. Case in point: McCain bringing up earmarks. It's a key issue for McCain and that's great, but it's not the root of the current economic crisis so it was almost irrelevant to bring it up. On the subject of McCain voting with Bush 95 percent of the time, I wish that McCain would delve specifically into what legislation they agree on and on which ones they differed. And with voting records in general, whether a legislator votes yay or nay doesn't tell the whole story; why they voted the way they did is important because with any bill, there are any number of reasons for voting for or against it. The singleminded focus just on the yays and nays bugs me (every campaign I've ever paid attention to has done this). Overall, I felt Obama did better than I expected (FAR less lecturing than usual, and more conversational), and McCain did significantly worse than he needed to. Obama needed only to hold ground, and McCain needed to win. I'd say it was a draw, on the actual issues. (In the sense of how they explained themselves, not in the sense of who I agree with.) But in other ways, McCain just totally screwed up. He came across as unstable due to the previous 48 hours, and he did nothing to "fix" that during the debate. His demeanor was arrogant and dismissive, and, frankly, his constant riff about "Senator Obama just doesn't understand," didn't hit the note they were hoping for. I think that's because Obama's greatest negative at this point is "elitism". Basically, he's too smart. Meaning that trying to portray him as uninformed just doesn't work. And the "experience" thing is out the window at this point. It's even possible McCain's experience (Keating Five, anyone?) is working against him at this point. Meanwhile, Obama looked calm, serious, and, well, Presidential. Yes, he's concerned. No, he's not going to panic and run back to Washington and throw a monkey wrench into the deal they're already working on. The earmarks thing is kind of stupid, because poll after poll shows that most Americans just don't care about earmarks, not when the friggin' economy is collapsing. I agree, it was totally off topic. At any rate, the post-debate polls show Obama the clear winner in the eyes of undecideds, by double digits, because he seems to care more about the middle-class voter instead of the wealthy whose stock portfolios are in the crapper. He's pulling away in the polls (national tracking polls all have him up by 5 or more today), and fivethirtyeight.com has a lot about momentum and inertia. Basically, Obama has to actively screw up (or there has to be a gigantic Bradley Effect) in order to lose ground at this point. McCain may have lost his chance to make up ground - voters don't shift much after Labor Day.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 29, 2008 13:56:33 GMT -5
Whoa. The bailout bill failed.
|
|