NationStates Jolt Archive

DRINKING GAME
Every time McCain says "I know how to do X", take a drink.

Take two every time he said "what Barack doesn't seem to understand is X".

Drunk!

Funny thing, CNN won't let me watch videos. I need to have acrobat viewer 8.0 or higher. Apparently they use a different sort of math than I do because 9 isn't high enough.

CNN uses Kansas math.

Omg, waste him on nuclear energy you jackass. The amount of money that the government spends subsidizing nuclear energy is ridiculous. Even with those subsidies, nuclear energy is one of the highest cost energy sources.
It is?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/US_ElectProduction_Costs.jpg

Not.

Someone mentioned the blinking thing earlier. They said he blinked more when he lied.

They both seemed to blink a lot. But with Obama, it seemed he blinked more when McCain was talking.

As far as overall performance, I think I'd give this one to Obama (admitting, of course, that I'm biased in his favor anyways). McCain seemed rather condescending - not only to Obama, but to anyone who disagrees with him. Disagreement with him apparently equates to "not understanding' the situation.

And pie is complicit?

If pie is involved, it has so far managed to maintain plausible deniability. *nod*

Do you have CSpan? They are reairing it again on the station.

I can see if Cspan is offering it online. I don't have cable and where I live I don't even get ABC well on an antenna.

They both seemed to blink a lot. But with Obama, it seemed he blinked more when McCain was talking.

Well, they were probably under some pretty bright lights. That could explain it.

"You don't say that out loud" ?!! So what, you just do it and apologize later?

o/ "you don't muddle through Afghanistan"

"League of Democracies"

"Ohs Noes! Iran has just gotten nuclear weapons! Whats we gonna do!"

"Have no fear, the LEAGUE of DEMOCRACIES is here!"

He's afraid Israel will start questioning who they are and listen to Emo music.

i liked the comment about 'not talking to people isn't punishing them'.

"I mean SPAIN! Spain is a NATO ally. If we can't meet with our friends" . . .

Fucking fantastic. What a weak comeback "I won't set the white house visitor's schedual . . ."

Through this entire thing, McCain has repeated "Obama doesn't understand" and then he goes on to repeat Bush's same shallow, childish attitude towards foreign policy. Ironic.

Fast. It's clearly becoming a problem. It's just rambling at times. "John, is that even addressing the issue anymore?"

I'm tired of the "I know..." I swear the guy is just trying to BS his resume and hoping no one will notice that he's had 26 years to address most of these issues.

"We've seen this stubbornness before"???

Is he fucking kidding us?

Yeah, we HAVE seen, haven't we?

MCain seems to be a one trick pony "he doesn't understand". Then why is he wiping the floor with you?

Having caught up on the entire thread now, the above is various shit I liked/thought was true.

I apologize for the semi-spam nature of this post, but it could have been worse, I could have written one of my long rambling answers after every quote. ;)

In the preliminary comments, Lehrer said foreign policy includes the "global financial crisis" and assured the audience that the questions have been kept secret. In spite of this, both candidates seemed reasonably well prepared for most of the foreign policy questions. It was a very substantive debate. I have a lot of details to go through, so if you'd like my general reaction, skip to the last paragraph.

Obama's main theme: Large scale vision, with strategy on the level of statesmanship rather than generalship. In support of this, he pointed out the numerous times he has brought up his concerns, such as on the issue of banking regulation and entering Iraq. He linked together all the questions coherently; there wasn't a single item that he talked about that wasn't tied into the whole of his answer. In many cases, he understated his case (as in the cost of the Iraq war), and didn't call McCain on some egregious errors (such as his recent support of torture, and his lack of support for bills improving veteran's benefits, etc). We still heard "That's just not true, John" and "You're wrong" a fair number of times.

For McCain, the personal trauma of coming back from Vietnam in "defeat and dishonor" (his phrase) was the most central theme of his treatment of Iraq. He worked very hard to try to paint Obama as out of touch and part of the Washington establishment; for someone who's been in DC for several decades, he did a pretty good job. His pronunciation was spotty. This was especially visible compared to Obama's meticulously perfect pronunciation of every word and name as if he were a native speaker of the language in question. McCain's strategy was to emphasize the personal level, and focus on details tightly. He passed up the opportunity to connect the issues on a larger scale. He also pulled the very clever trick of mentioning the House Republicans' alternate plan, but not actually endorsing it, something that he pulled during the negotiations.

Lehrer pushed the economy item hard, pressing both candidates for their opinions on the financial crisis and how they would affect his plans. He also pushed hard for candidates to directly address each other - something which Obama did increasingly as the debate passed on, but which McCain did not do very much, preferring to look away from Obama and stick to the third person, in some cases talking over the moderator and/or Obama.

Lehrer pushed them both on the financial plan; neither candidate would commit to saying they'd vote yes or not. Both dodged the question of whether or not they'd vote for the bailout.

Obama had the first turn. He hit hard against trickle-down economics, and he had a laundry list of items in his platform that could be delayed by the cash flow problems caused by throwing out a huge bailout. This started with the energy plan. He also talked about existing programs that he felt could be cut, such as a $15 bn ticket item he described as a "handout" to private insurers in the Medicare program.

McCain opened up, interestingly, by saying Ted Kennedy was in the hospital, which seemed a curious opening. Both talked about Main St. vs Wall St., and talked about transparency. He admitted, after Obama pushed him on his "fundamentals are strong" comment, that "we have a fundamental problem" regarding the economy - a nice flip-flop that will probably get pasted together on YouTube and perhaps in TV ads. He suggested freezing all non-defense related spending, and eliminating earmarks.

He endorsed fixed-cost contracts - at which point we heard the very interesting line "We fixed it and people ended up in federal prison," referring to this episode: http://www.newsweek.com/id/142658

Obama really hit the notion of thinking for the long term regarding the economy; he talked about the general question of regulation deregulation. He made the very keen point that many people were hurting *before* the current mortgage crisis, and that this problem was created by deregulation.

The two candidates actually agreed with each other on many points regarding Iran and Russia. However, there were some (fairly narrow) disagreements and curious points.

McCain talked about a "league of democracies," apparently completely overlooking the fact that Iran actually is a democratic nation with elections and an opposition (albeit a theocratic nation that doesn't look to be separating church and state anytime soon). Obama further made the bold step of defining Russia as "not a democracy." McCain also said Iran is in Iraq, something Obama did not say; he also mentioned Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Obama made a clever (but subtle) pun on "Iran-ically," and then proceeded to say that we need to *talk* with our opponents, and hammered home that not talking doesn't work.

Both shared the mistake of calling the Iranian group the "Republican Guard" instead of the "Revolutionary guard. " McCain actually started backtracking and apparently contradicting himself when he then said that talking was OK everywhere but the presidential level to recover from Obama's assault on the policy of *not* talking.

On Russia, the main difference was that Obama tied in the issue to US energy consumption enabling Russia's petro-dollar economy, and said he forewarned the administration that Russian peacekeepers should be replaced in Georgia. McCain emphasized the fact that Russia gained control of the pipeline in Georgia, giving him his most insightful line of the debate.

When they moved to whether or not another 9/11 could happen again, McCain cited his opposition to torture (something that practically evaporated later in the Bush administration). Rather than calling him on waterboarding, Obama praised McCain's record against torture, and then turned to emphasize that diplomacy (and concentrating on Afghanistan) is how we can defeat terror, and that the war in Iraq weakens our ability to fight Al-Qaeda.

I was on the whole very impressed with this debate; this was, in my opinion, much better than what we saw in 2004. McCain put up a stronger performance than I expected, although my expectations were fairly low. He did make a number of factual errors - I think more than Obama.

For example, Waziristan has been ruled by *many* empires pretty effectively since Alexander the Great, including the two largest - the Mongols and the British, and the Mughals in between. It's also rebelled effectively, of course, but McCain saying that it hadn't been *ruled* since the time of the Macedonian Empire was a very bad call. Especially since that was pretty much where Alexander's conquest *stopped* - the India campaign didn't go very well when he crossed past Waziristan.

Obama did not make any major mistakes. He came off as the more mature candidate. I was amazed to see in this debate the image of a patient Obama-father faced with a petulant McCain-teenager yelling "You just don't understand!" Of course, McCain phrased that in the third person, but that was my lasting impression of the dynamic of the debate.

It is?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/

Not.

Well of course they are going to say it's cheaper......

fucking up the name of a world leader. Way to sound connected John!
Bush did that and got elected for 4 more years.

* Every time Obama strings together at least three fuzzy, liberal platitudes, cue up the episode of The West Wing where Mrs. Landingham dies.

Hey, now, that's taking it too far. You don't dis the first two seasons of The West Wing. And they played "Brothers in Arms" in that episode, that's just made of win.

So does it matter that mccain never used the words "middle class?"

:In the preliminary comments, Lehrer said foreign policy includes the "global financial crisis" and assured the audience that the questions have been kept secret. In spite of this, both candidates seemed reasonably well prepared for most of the foreign policy questions. It was a very substantive debate. I have a lot of details to go through, so if you'd like my general reaction, skip to the last paragraph.

Obama's main theme: Large scale vision, with strategy on the level of statesmanship rather than generalship. In support of this, he pointed out the numerous times he has brought up his concerns, such as on the issue of banking regulation and entering Iraq. He linked together all the questions coherently; there wasn't a single item that he talked about that wasn't tied into the whole of his answer. In many cases, he understated his case (as in the cost of the Iraq war), and didn't call McCain on some egregious errors (such as his recent support of torture, and his lack of support for bills improving veteran's benefits, etc). We still heard "That's just not true, John" and "You're wrong" a fair number of times.

For McCain, the personal trauma of coming back from Vietnam in "defeat and dishonor" (his phrase) was the most central theme of his treatment of Iraq. He worked very hard to try to paint Obama as out of touch and part of the Washington establishment; for someone who's been in DC for several decades, he did a pretty good job. His pronunciation was spotty. This was especially visible compared to Obama's meticulously perfect pronunciation of every word and name as if he were a native speaker of the language in question. McCain's strategy was to emphasize the personal level, and focus on details tightly. He passed up the opportunity to connect the issues on a larger scale. He also pulled the very clever trick of mentioning the House Republicans' alternate plan, but not actually endorsing it, something that he pulled during the negotiations.

Lehrer pushed the economy item hard, pressing both candidates for their opinions on the financial crisis and how they would affect his plans. He also pushed hard for candidates to directly address each other - something which Obama did increasingly as the debate passed on, but which McCain did not do very much, preferring to look away from Obama and stick to the third person, in some cases talking over the moderator and/or Obama.

Lehrer pushed them both on the financial plan; neither candidate would commit to saying they'd vote yes or not. Both dodged the question of whether or not they'd vote for the bailout.

Obama had the first turn. He hit hard against trickle-down economics, and he had a laundry list of items in his platform that could be delayed by the cash flow problems caused by throwing out a huge bailout. This started with the energy plan. He also talked about existing programs that he felt could be cut, such as a $15 bn ticket item he described as a "handout" to private insurers in the Medicare program.

McCain opened up, interestingly, by saying Ted Kennedy was in the hospital, which seemed a curious opening. Both talked about Main St. vs Wall St., and talked about transparency. He admitted, after Obama pushed him on his "fundamentals are strong" comment, that "we have a fundamental problem" regarding the economy - a nice flip-flop that will probably get pasted together on YouTube and perhaps in TV ads. He suggested freezing all non-defense related spending, and eliminating earmarks.

He endorsed fixed-cost contracts - at which point we heard the very interesting line "We fixed it and people ended up in federal prison," referring to this episode: http://www.newsweek.com/id/142658

Obama really hit the notion of thinking for the long term regarding the economy; he talked about the general question of regulation deregulation. He made the very keen point that many people were hurting *before* the current mortgage crisis, and that this problem was created by deregulation.

The two candidates actually agreed with each other on many points regarding Iran and Russia. However, there were some (fairly narrow) disagreements and curious points.

McCain talked about a "league of democracies," apparently completely overlooking the fact that Iran actually is a democratic nation with elections and an opposition (albeit a theocratic nation that doesn't look to be separating church and state anytime soon). Obama further made the bold step of defining Russia as "not a democracy." McCain also said Iran is in Iraq, something Obama did not say; he also mentioned Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Obama made a clever (but subtle) pun on "Iran-ically," and then proceeded to say that we need to *talk* with our opponents, and hammered home that not talking doesn't work.

Both shared the mistake of calling the Iranian group the "Republican Guard" instead of the "Revolutionary guard. " McCain actually started backtracking and apparently contradicting himself when he then said that talking was OK everywhere but the presidential level to recover from Obama's assault on the policy of *not* talking.

On Russia, the main difference was that Obama tied in the issue to US energy consumption enabling Russia's petro-dollar economy, and said he forewarned the administration that Russian peacekeepers should be replaced in Georgia. McCain emphasized the fact that Russia gained control of the pipeline in Georgia, giving him his most insightful line of the debate.

When they moved to whether or not another 9/11 could happen again, McCain cited his opposition to torture (something that practically evaporated later in the Bush administration). Rather than calling him on waterboarding, Obama praised McCain's record against torture, and then turned to emphasize that diplomacy (and concentrating on Afghanistan) is how we can defeat terror, and that the war in Iraq weakens our ability to fight Al-Qaeda.

I was on the whole very impressed with this debate; this was, in my opinion, much better than what we saw in 2004. McCain put up a stronger performance than I expected, although my expectations were fairly low. He did make a number of factual errors - I think more than Obama.

For example, Waziristan has been ruled by *many* empires pretty effectively since Alexander the Great, including the two largest - the Mongols and the British, and the Mughals in between. It's also rebelled effectively, of course, but McCain saying that it hadn't been *ruled* since the time of the Macedonian Empire was a very bad call. Especially since that was pretty much where Alexander's conquest *stopped* - the India campaign didn't go very well when he crossed past Waziristan.

Obama did not make any major mistakes. He came off as the more mature candidate. I was amazed to see in this debate the image of a patient Obama-father faced with a petulant McCain-teenager yelling "You just don't understand!" Of course, McCain phrased that in the third person, but that was my lasting impression of the dynamic of the debate.

Jeez, get a blog already.


JUST KIDDING!!! I find your comments interesting and thought-provoking. I think I generally agree with your assessment.

It is?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/US_ElectProduction_Costs.jpg

Not.
Hm, a pro-nuclear website has nuclear energy as low cost! And an absurdly low cost at that! How unexpected!
Not.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8813
The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration has concluded that there isn't much difference between the cost of new power plants using wind and other traditional fuels, such as nuclear, coal and natural gas, if you take into account a broad array of expenses. A plant entering service in 2015, the administration said in a 2006 report, could make electricity from wind for 5.58 cents a kilowatt hour -- versus 5.25 cents for natural gas, 5.31 cents for coal and 5.93 cents for nuclear. The report didn't quantify the differing environmental impacts.

So does it matter that mccain never used the words "middle class?"

It shouldn't. Not everyone likes to hear a candidate promoting the interest of one class of people over another, even if 80% (or some similarly high number) of Americans consider themselves "middle class."

So does it matter that mccain never used the words "middle class?"
Yes, I believe so, Forrest. If you look at the rubric, it mentions that McCain would have received 5 bonus points were he to successfully use the term "Middle Class" in a sentence. And, in this first debate, McCain needed all the bonus points he could get.

In the preliminary comments, Lehrer said foreign policy includes the "global financial crisis" and assured the audience that the questions have been kept secret. In spite of this, both candidates seemed reasonably well prepared for most of the foreign policy questions. It was a very substantive debate. I have a lot of details to go through, so if you'd like my general reaction, skip to the last paragraph.

Obama's main theme: Large scale vision, with strategy on the level of statesmanship rather than generalship. In support of this, he pointed out the numerous times he has brought up his concerns, such as on the issue of banking regulation and entering Iraq. He linked together all the questions coherently; there wasn't a single item that he talked about that wasn't tied into the whole of his answer. In many cases, he understated his case (as in the cost of the Iraq war), and didn't call McCain on some egregious errors (such as his recent support of torture, and his lack of support for bills improving veteran's benefits, etc). We still heard "That's just not true, John" and "You're wrong" a fair number of times.

For McCain, the personal trauma of coming back from Vietnam in "defeat and dishonor" (his phrase) was the most central theme of his treatment of Iraq. He worked very hard to try to paint Obama as out of touch and part of the Washington establishment; for someone who's been in DC for several decades, he did a pretty good job. His pronunciation was spotty. This was especially visible compared to Obama's meticulously perfect pronunciation of every word and name as if he were a native speaker of the language in question. McCain's strategy was to emphasize the personal level, and focus on details tightly. He passed up the opportunity to connect the issues on a larger scale. He also pulled the very clever trick of mentioning the House Republicans' alternate plan, but not actually endorsing it, something that he pulled during the negotiations.

Lehrer pushed the economy item hard, pressing both candidates for their opinions on the financial crisis and how they would affect his plans. He also pushed hard for candidates to directly address each other - something which Obama did increasingly as the debate passed on, but which McCain did not do very much, preferring to look away from Obama and stick to the third person, in some cases talking over the moderator and/or Obama.

Lehrer pushed them both on the financial plan; neither candidate would commit to saying they'd vote yes or not. Both dodged the question of whether or not they'd vote for the bailout.

Obama had the first turn. He hit hard against trickle-down economics, and he had a laundry list of items in his platform that could be delayed by the cash flow problems caused by throwing out a huge bailout. This started with the energy plan. He also talked about existing programs that he felt could be cut, such as a $15 bn ticket item he described as a "handout" to private insurers in the Medicare program.

McCain opened up, interestingly, by saying Ted Kennedy was in the hospital, which seemed a curious opening. Both talked about Main St. vs Wall St., and talked about transparency. He admitted, after Obama pushed him on his "fundamentals are strong" comment, that "we have a fundamental problem" regarding the economy - a nice flip-flop that will probably get pasted together on YouTube and perhaps in TV ads. He suggested freezing all non-defense related spending, and eliminating earmarks.

He endorsed fixed-cost contracts - at which point we heard the very interesting line "We fixed it and people ended up in federal prison," referring to this episode: http://www.newsweek.com/id/142658

Obama really hit the notion of thinking for the long term regarding the economy; he talked about the general question of regulation deregulation. He made the very keen point that many people were hurting *before* the current mortgage crisis, and that this problem was created by deregulation.

The two candidates actually agreed with each other on many points regarding Iran and Russia. However, there were some (fairly narrow) disagreements and curious points.

McCain talked about a "league of democracies," apparently completely overlooking the fact that Iran actually is a democratic nation with elections and an opposition (albeit a theocratic nation that doesn't look to be separating church and state anytime soon). Obama further made the bold step of defining Russia as "not a democracy." McCain also said Iran is in Iraq, something Obama did not say; he also mentioned Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Obama made a clever (but subtle) pun on "Iran-ically," and then proceeded to say that we need to *talk* with our opponents, and hammered home that not talking doesn't work.

Both shared the mistake of calling the Iranian group the "Republican Guard" instead of the "Revolutionary guard. " McCain actually started backtracking and apparently contradicting himself when he then said that talking was OK everywhere but the presidential level to recover from Obama's assault on the policy of *not* talking.

On Russia, the main difference was that Obama tied in the issue to US energy consumption enabling Russia's petro-dollar economy, and said he forewarned the administration that Russian peacekeepers should be replaced in Georgia. McCain emphasized the fact that Russia gained control of the pipeline in Georgia, giving him his most insightful line of the debate.

When they moved to whether or not another 9/11 could happen again, McCain cited his opposition to torture (something that practically evaporated later in the Bush administration). Rather than calling him on waterboarding, Obama praised McCain's record against torture, and then turned to emphasize that diplomacy (and concentrating on Afghanistan) is how we can defeat terror, and that the war in Iraq weakens our ability to fight Al-Qaeda.

I was on the whole very impressed with this debate; this was, in my opinion, much better than what we saw in 2004. McCain put up a stronger performance than I expected, although my expectations were fairly low. He did make a number of factual errors - I think more than Obama.

For example, Waziristan has been ruled by *many* empires pretty effectively since Alexander the Great, including the two largest - the Mongols and the British, and the Mughals in between. It's also rebelled effectively, of course, but McCain saying that it hadn't been *ruled* since the time of the Macedonian Empire was a very bad call. Especially since that was pretty much where Alexander's conquest *stopped* - the India campaign didn't go very well when he crossed past Waziristan.

Obama did not make any major mistakes. He came off as the more mature candidate. I was amazed to see in this debate the image of a patient Obama-father faced with a petulant McCain-teenager yelling "You just don't understand!" Of course, McCain phrased that in the third person, but that was my lasting impression of the dynamic of the debate.

Well that was a much more informative analysis than mine. Fantastic job there.

<excellent summation>
Very nice. Thank you. :D

I agree about the general effect of a mature Obama faced with a temperamental, borderline tantrumy McCain. Of the "image" results of the debate, that struck me very much.

Also, I was worried that Obama would not be able to handle the time limits of the debate rules, but I thought he did very well at expressing himself without causing people's eyes to glaze over from too much explanation.

I could see how McCain scored points in the foreign policy section. Even though I thought almost everything he said was BS, he said it like the McCain of old, the war hero who makes Americans think about how much Eisenhower made them like to put military guys in charge of stuff -- though they tend to forget that the big difference between McCain and Ike is that Ike pulled off Normandy, while McCain's career is based on the years he spent in a box in a swamp.

One thing that I regretted was that Obama did not slam McCain even more on his background/resume. McCain has been claiming he is a change from Bush, but he debated entirely on his own past, which is hardly opposed to Bush overall. I kept hearing about all the stuff McCain did for us in the past, and then I looked at the present, and I was not impressed by McCain's accomplishments. I wish Obama had highlighted that weakness more. If he had, maybe McCain could have come to regret bringing up that Eisenhower and that story about willingness to face accountability, because I'd just love to talk to McCain about accountability -- on a lot of issues.

ABC must have been playing the drinking game where they took a shot every time McCain said he knows how to do something.
I know I did, and now my eyes don't seem capable of pointing at quite the same place as each other.

Not the first time we've had someone like that in politics. It was once pointed out to me that, during the 9/11 commission, Condi started shaking her head every time she mentioned the administration not having any warning. I don't know if that's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. Lots of people have some physiological reaction when they lie. Of course, it's not consistent between people, which is why polygraph tests are useless.

That's actually not true--the polygraph tests, I mean. They don't test for specific actions such as headshaking in so much as they test blood pressure, heartbeat, sweating, and other uncontrollable reactions.

Polygraph testing is extremely reliable, in fact, and is very consistent as well. Nothing will ever be perfect, but it is much more accurate than you are portraying it as.

Hm, a pro-nuclear website has nuclear energy as low cost! And an absurdly low cost at that! How unexpected!
Not.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8813I'm sorry, but I don't see where in the link you provide that it says Nuclear Energy has a "high" cost. Could you point that out for me? From what I see it contends that wind, solar, biomass, etc. are good, "cheap" and valid methods of energy production, but I don't see where it says Nuclear is any more costly or a worse choice. I definitely don't see it how refutes the info. CanuckHeaven posted. Please educate me.

I agree about the general effect of a mature Obama faced with a temperamental, borderline tantrumy McCain. Of the "image" results of the debate, that struck me very much.

Maybe it's the actual age difference, but it struck me less as McCain being the teenager than as him being the old man resisting any challenge to what he thinks he knows. I could imagine him saying something like, "Well that's not how I learned it in school!"

Also, I was worried that Obama would not be able to handle the time limits of the debate rules, but I thought he did very well at expressing himself without causing people's eyes to glaze over from too much explanation.

Indeed. And, while they both wandered off-topic at times, I think Obama did a better job of staying on it.

One thing that I regretted was that Obama did not slam McCain even more on his background/resume. McCain has been claiming he is a change from Bush, but he debated entirely on his own past, which is hardly opposed to Bush overall. I kept hearing about all the stuff McCain did for us in the past, and then I looked at the present, and I was not impressed by McCain's accomplishments. I wish Obama had highlighted that weakness more. If he had, maybe McCain could have come to regret bringing up that Eisenhower and that story about willingness to face accountability, because I'd just love to talk to McCain about accountability -- on a lot of issues.

I think Obama could have been on the offensive more in general. I think he did a good job of getting his own views and plans across and played well in defense. But actual offense against McCain could have been stronger.

That's actually not true--the polygraph tests, I mean. They don't test for specific actions such as headshaking in so much as they test blood pressure, heartbeat, sweating, and other uncontrollable reactions.

...all of which can be caused by things other than lying.

I saw a lecture by a forensics expert once. One of the specific incidents he talked about was a case in which a priest (who, as it turns out, looked incredibly similar to the actual criminal) failed a polygraph test about a crime he didn't commit. His blood pressure, etc. did react in much the same way as lying, but not because he was being dishonest. It was because the questions made him believe that someone had been seriously harmed, and that made him upset.

In the end, all a polygraph test measures is emotional reaction. That reaction may or may not be due to dishonesty.

Polygraph testing is extremely reliable, in fact, and is very consistent as well. Nothing will ever be perfect, but it is much more accurate than you are portraying it as.

It's inaccuracies are troubling enough that it can't actually be used as evidence agaisnt someone in a criminal case.

Polygraph testing is extremely reliable, in fact, and is very consistent as well. Nothing will ever be perfect, but it is much more accurate than you are portraying it as.

I don't want to get into a side debate, but there are good reasons why polygraph testing generally isn't admissible in court -- the biggest being a lack of reliability.

...all of which can be caused by things other than lying.

I saw a lecture by a forensics expert once. One of the specific incidents he talked about was a case in which a priest (who, as it turns out, looked incredibly similar to the actual criminal) failed a polygraph test about a crime he didn't commit. His blood pressure, etc. did react in much the same way as lying, but not because he was being dishonest. It was because the questions made him believe that someone had been seriously harmed, and that made him upset.

In the end, all a polygraph test measures is emotional reaction. That reaction may or may not be due to dishonesty.



It's inaccuracies are troubling enough that it can't actually be used as evidence agaisnt someone in a criminal case.

Good points. It's still more reliable than he was suggesting, however. He was suggesting it wasn't reliable at all, whereas it is rather reliable overall. (And now I'm moving the goalposts. :( )

I am willing to bet that John McCain's statement about not being chosen for Miss Congenality will be used in an Obama ad.

*sighs* Sound Bites, the real blood sport in elections.

That's actually not true--the polygraph tests, I mean. They don't test for specific actions such as headshaking in so much as they test blood pressure, heartbeat, sweating, and other uncontrollable reactions.

Polygraph testing is extremely reliable, in fact, and is very consistent as well. Nothing will ever be perfect, but it is much more accurate than you are portraying it as.

No it isn't. Since the test doesn't actually measure whether you are lying but whether you are nervous, it has way more false positives than it should because just taking a polygraph test at all will make most people nervous.

I admit my errors in regards to polygraph testing. It's a good thing we're not having a debate right now, or else I'd have sunk.

Hm, a pro-nuclear website has nuclear energy as low cost! And an absurdly low cost at that! How unexpected!
Not.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8813
How about this one then?

Official energy statistics from the US Government.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/aeo.gif

No it isn't. Since the test doesn't actually measure whether you are lying but whether you are nervous, it has way more false positives than it should because just taking a polygraph test at all will make most people nervous.

That's why they ask baseline questions, to factor that out.

How about this one then?

Official energy statistics from the US Government.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/aeo.gif
To be fair, while I very much like nuclear power, the worst costs relative to other power sources are in construction and long term waste disposal/reprocessing rather than actual operation.

It is something we should substantially increase.

In the preliminary comments, Lehrer said foreign policy includes the "global financial crisis" and assured the audience that the questions have been kept secret. In spite of this, both candidates seemed reasonably well prepared for most of the foreign policy questions. It was a very substantive debate. I have a lot of details to go through, so if you'd like my general reaction, skip to the last paragraph.

Obama's main theme: Large scale vision, with strategy on the level of statesmanship rather than generalship. In support of this, he pointed out the numerous times he has brought up his concerns, such as on the issue of banking regulation and entering Iraq. He linked together all the questions coherently; there wasn't a single item that he talked about that wasn't tied into the whole of his answer. In many cases, he understated his case (as in the cost of the Iraq war), and didn't call McCain on some egregious errors (such as his recent support of torture, and his lack of support for bills improving veteran's benefits, etc). We still heard "That's just not true, John" and "You're wrong" a fair number of times.

For McCain, the personal trauma of coming back from Vietnam in "defeat and dishonor" (his phrase) was the most central theme of his treatment of Iraq. He worked very hard to try to paint Obama as out of touch and part of the Washington establishment; for someone who's been in DC for several decades, he did a pretty good job. His pronunciation was spotty. This was especially visible compared to Obama's meticulously perfect pronunciation of every word and name as if he were a native speaker of the language in question. McCain's strategy was to emphasize the personal level, and focus on details tightly. He passed up the opportunity to connect the issues on a larger scale. He also pulled the very clever trick of mentioning the House Republicans' alternate plan, but not actually endorsing it, something that he pulled during the negotiations.

Lehrer pushed the economy item hard, pressing both candidates for their opinions on the financial crisis and how they would affect his plans. He also pushed hard for candidates to directly address each other - something which Obama did increasingly as the debate passed on, but which McCain did not do very much, preferring to look away from Obama and stick to the third person, in some cases talking over the moderator and/or Obama.

Lehrer pushed them both on the financial plan; neither candidate would commit to saying they'd vote yes or not. Both dodged the question of whether or not they'd vote for the bailout.

Obama had the first turn. He hit hard against trickle-down economics, and he had a laundry list of items in his platform that could be delayed by the cash flow problems caused by throwing out a huge bailout. This started with the energy plan. He also talked about existing programs that he felt could be cut, such as a $15 bn ticket item he described as a "handout" to private insurers in the Medicare program.

McCain opened up, interestingly, by saying Ted Kennedy was in the hospital, which seemed a curious opening. Both talked about Main St. vs Wall St., and talked about transparency. He admitted, after Obama pushed him on his "fundamentals are strong" comment, that "we have a fundamental problem" regarding the economy - a nice flip-flop that will probably get pasted together on YouTube and perhaps in TV ads. He suggested freezing all non-defense related spending, and eliminating earmarks.

He endorsed fixed-cost contracts - at which point we heard the very interesting line "We fixed it and people ended up in federal prison," referring to this episode: http://www.newsweek.com/id/142658

Obama really hit the notion of thinking for the long term regarding the economy; he talked about the general question of regulation deregulation. He made the very keen point that many people were hurting *before* the current mortgage crisis, and that this problem was created by deregulation.

The two candidates actually agreed with each other on many points regarding Iran and Russia. However, there were some (fairly narrow) disagreements and curious points.

McCain talked about a "league of democracies," apparently completely overlooking the fact that Iran actually is a democratic nation with elections and an opposition (albeit a theocratic nation that doesn't look to be separating church and state anytime soon). Obama further made the bold step of defining Russia as "not a democracy." McCain also said Iran is in Iraq, something Obama did not say; he also mentioned Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Obama made a clever (but subtle) pun on "Iran-ically," and then proceeded to say that we need to *talk* with our opponents, and hammered home that not talking doesn't work.

Both shared the mistake of calling the Iranian group the "Republican Guard" instead of the "Revolutionary guard. " McCain actually started backtracking and apparently contradicting himself when he then said that talking was OK everywhere but the presidential level to recover from Obama's assault on the policy of *not* talking.

On Russia, the main difference was that Obama tied in the issue to US energy consumption enabling Russia's petro-dollar economy, and said he forewarned the administration that Russian peacekeepers should be replaced in Georgia. McCain emphasized the fact that Russia gained control of the pipeline in Georgia, giving him his most insightful line of the debate.

When they moved to whether or not another 9/11 could happen again, McCain cited his opposition to torture (something that practically evaporated later in the Bush administration). Rather than calling him on waterboarding, Obama praised McCain's record against torture, and then turned to emphasize that diplomacy (and concentrating on Afghanistan) is how we can defeat terror, and that the war in Iraq weakens our ability to fight Al-Qaeda.

I was on the whole very impressed with this debate; this was, in my opinion, much better than what we saw in 2004. McCain put up a stronger performance than I expected, although my expectations were fairly low. He did make a number of factual errors - I think more than Obama.

For example, Waziristan has been ruled by *many* empires pretty effectively since Alexander the Great, including the two largest - the Mongols and the British, and the Mughals in between. It's also rebelled effectively, of course, but McCain saying that it hadn't been *ruled* since the time of the Macedonian Empire was a very bad call. Especially since that was pretty much where Alexander's conquest *stopped* - the India campaign didn't go very well when he crossed past Waziristan.

Obama did not make any major mistakes. He came off as the more mature candidate. I was amazed to see in this debate the image of a patient Obama-father faced with a petulant McCain-teenager yelling "You just don't understand!" Of course, McCain phrased that in the third person, but that was my lasting impression of the dynamic of the debate.

Awesome. Thanks for this.

what I mean by that is this. Polygraph tests test for a number of factors, movement, heart rate, sweating, motion, a lot of things. However a lot of those can be influenced by numerous other factors, stress, illness, worry, or just someone who sweats a lot. What they they do is ask questions they know the answer to "is your name john smith?" "do you live at 1234 oak road?" That way they establish what the person is like under truthful conditions.

Polygraph tests don't so much test IF you have a response, but HOW your response changes to various questions, versus questions they knew you were telling the truth on.

Since nobody answered earlier.

Didn't mccain mention Ireland having low corporate taxes when railing about how high the corporate taxes are in this country?

Isn't Ireland in the middle of a big recession?

Since nobody answered earlier.

Didn't mccain mention Ireland having low corporate taxes when railing about how high the corporate taxes are in this country?

Isn't Ireland in the middle of a big recession?

Yes, and yes.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9uch9QDg5jtnuh1jLjatAYpER6A

Yes, and yes.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9uch9QDg5jtnuh1jLjatAYpER6A

Thank you! :)

Yes, and yes.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9uch9QDg5jtnuh1jLjatAYpER6A
The WSJ was recently pushing an ALEC (basically "Reaganomics faithful legislators" think tank) study that cited Ireland as having an "economic miracle" following the slashing of Irish corporate taxes.

So the meme about the Irish "economic miracle" is what's been getting air time in American conservative circles. Make of that what you will.

To be fair, while I very much like nuclear power, the worst costs relative to other power sources are in construction and long term waste disposal/reprocessing rather than actual operation.

It is something we should substantially increase.


The ironic thing is I don't trust nuclear power. One I don't trust the US Governments in general to have safe power plants. With the whole idea that government shouldn't stick it's nose in business mentality scares me in regards to nuclear power. The potential for companies to cut corners when it comes to safety, is a real posibility.

Then there is the recycle and waste problem. Recyling is good, but it also creates weapons grade plutonium. That's not something we should have a lot of as a by product because it's possible to get in the wrong hands.

Waste, where to store it or what to do with it? I am a Nevadian and most of us don't want the waste in our state and can you blame us? The problem is the US Government owns a good chunk of our unowned lands, which are mostly desert. So it's a raw deal. A lot of us worry about transportation of it to Yucca mountain and the possiblity of leakage.

Nuclear power is just a really hard power source to deal with.

For what it's worth, Time magazine has rated the debate (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1845106,00.html) on four catagories, substance, style, offense and defense, and then an overall grade.

They are as follows (Obama/McCain):


Substance: B+ / B-

Style: A / C-

Offense: B / C+

Defense: A- / B-

As for the final score:


McCain was McCain — evocative, intense, and at times emotional, but also vague, elliptical, and atonal. Failed to deliver his "country first versus Obama first" message cleanly, even when offered several opportunities. Surprisingly, did not talk much about "change," virtually ceding the dominant issue of the race.

Overall grade: B-





Went for a solid, consistent performance to introduce himself to the country. He did not seem nervous, tentative, or intimidated by the event, and avoided mistakes from his weak debate performances during nomination season (a professorial tone and long winded answers). Standing comfortably on the stage with his rival, he showed he belonged — evocative of Reagan, circa 1980. He was so confident by the end that he reminded his biggest audience yet that his father was from Kenya. Two more performances like that and he will be very tough to beat on Election Day.

Overall grade: A-



So according to Time Magazine, the winner of tonight's debate was....Barak Obama.

Since nobody answered earlier.

Didn't mccain mention Ireland having low corporate taxes when railing about how high the corporate taxes are in this country?

Isn't Ireland in the middle of a big recession?


And Obama countered that the business in the US already have low taxes through loop holes in the tax codes.

The WSJ was recently pushing an ALEC (basically "Reaganomics faithful legislators" think tank) study that cited Ireland as having an "economic miracle" following the slashing of Irish corporate taxes.

So the meme about the Irish "economic miracle" is what's been getting air time in American conservative circles. Make of that what you will.

Yeah, I was just answering the questions. But Ireland's corporate tax rate has little to do with their current recession. Much more relevant would be their heavy investment in the USA's subprime mortgage Ponzi scheme.

The ironic thing is I don't trust nuclear power. One I don't trust the US Governments in general to have safe power plants. With the whole idea that government shouldn't stick it's nose in business mentality scares me in regards to nuclear power. The potential for companies to cut corners when it comes to safety, is a real posibility.

Then there is the recycle and waste problem. Recyling is good, but it also creates weapons grade plutonium. That's not something we should have a lot of as a by product because it's possible to get in the wrong hands.

Waste, where to store it or what to do with it? I am a Nevadian and most of us don't want the waste in our state and can you blame us? The problem is the US Government owns a good chunk of our unowned lands, which are mostly desert. So it's a raw deal. A lot of us worry about transportation of it to Yucca mountain and the possiblity of leakage.

Nuclear power is just a really hard power source to deal with.
I really like the French model. And we can take care of small amounts of weapons-grade plutonium. We've got a lot in warheads already, which aren't any less a security risk.

Once you do that, storage becomes a lot easier. I favor multiple small storage sites, personally, rather than large installations like Yucca. I much prefer the government than private power companies, come down to it; my major worry would be that Republicans are likely to privatize it as much as possible, much is it is yours.

Personally, I look at the country that relies the second most heavily on nuclear power - the Ukraine - and ask myself "Who, on Earth, has a better right to be worried about the potential hazards of nuclear power than the folks with Chernobyl sitting in their backyard?"

The carbon problem, to me, is much more worrisome than nuclear waste disposal. I know nobody wants nuclear waste in their backyard, but I would rather have it there than have the oceans turn into carbonic acid while the global temperature soars...

So according to Time Magazine, the winner of tonight's debate was....Barak Obama.

Speaking of misspelling names... :p

I don't favour McCain in any of these debates - it's obvious his public speaking skills are less than adequate. Somewhere below Nixon and above Quayle, perhaps? :D

Speaking of misspelling names... :p

shaddup I'm tired :p

shaddup I'm tired :p

You can sleep when you're dead. Now is the time for endless victory parties and pointless bragging, browbeating and analysis until the next debate! :p

Also, ditto on the tired part. Is it bad when just trying to straighten out your college schedule gives you a headache?

I really like the French model. And we can take care of small amounts of weapons-grade plutonium. We've got a lot in warheads already, which aren't any less a security risk.

Once you do that, storage becomes a lot easier. I favor multiple small storage sites, personally, rather than large installations like Yucca. I much prefer the government than private power companies, come down to it; my major worry would be that Republicans are likely to privatize it as much as possible, much is it is yours.

Personally, I look at the country that relies the second most heavily on nuclear power - the Ukraine - and ask myself "Who, on Earth, has a better right to be worried about the potential hazards of nuclear power than the folks with Chernobyl sitting in their backyard?"

The carbon problem, to me, is much more worrisome than nuclear waste disposal. I know nobody wants nuclear waste in their backyard, but I would rather have it there than have the oceans turn into carbonic acid while the global temperature soars...

I found this article (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-nuclear-option.html) interesting and informative.

My father happens to be recently retired from the Idaho National Laboratory. He believes the Next Generation Nuclear Plant and the Advanced Fast Reactor will be major breakthroughs toward nationwide nuclear power.

I guess I'm responding to CH here instead of that other thread, since it's now closed.

Shall I remind you of your own words?

Sort of. McCain did really well with the Russia question, but other than that Obama has seemed to win.

You too are guilty of unnecessary window dressing.

Remind away, CH, but I was speaking in regards to the instant polling CNN, CBS, and ABC were all performing that all showed the people reacting more favorably to Obama than McCain on virtually every issue up until that post in question. You, on the other hand, are referring to your own personal perceptions of the debate that not even FOX News is claiming.

I really like the French model. And we can take care of small amounts of weapons-grade plutonium. We've got a lot in warheads already, which aren't any less a security risk.

Once you do that, storage becomes a lot easier. I favor multiple small storage sites, personally, rather than large installations like Yucca. I much prefer the government than private power companies, come down to it; my major worry would be that Republicans are likely to privatize it as much as possible, much is it is yours.

Personally, I look at the country that relies the second most heavily on nuclear power - the Ukraine - and ask myself "Who, on Earth, has a better right to be worried about the potential hazards of nuclear power than the folks with Chernobyl sitting in their backyard?"

The carbon problem, to me, is much more worrisome than nuclear waste disposal. I know nobody wants nuclear waste in their backyard, but I would rather have it there than have the oceans turn into carbonic acid while the global temperature soars...


I agree I don't like the carbon problem either. But I am not a big fan of having a lot of nuclear weapons on hand.

But check these out on You Tube... but sadly America sucks down way too much oil and the oil corps would never let this happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YluZO9RuHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfjP4AMf4V0

I found this article (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-nuclear-option.html) interesting and informative.

My father happens to be recently retired from the Idaho National Laboratory. He believes the Next Generation Nuclear Plant and the Advanced Fast Reactor will be major breakthroughs toward nationwide nuclear power.

Without knowing fully these two terms, are either or both of these reactors breeder-type? They are, indeed, the next wave of reactors - the only problem, of course, is the heat they generate. Using an inert gas as a way to modulate temperature does sound promising.

However, I still love the current PWR reactors. You only need an enrichment of around 3% U-235 for an effective fuel pellet and weapons-grade uranium can be downblended to produce a good load more fuel.

Has anyone heard of any major progress in depleted waste uranium reprocessing lately? I know of its existence, just not if there's been any major strides lately.

I was talking with a friend just now about this...

Biden has a tendency to go off the rails, and it's why I always thought that Palin was going to do really well in the debate. Until I saw her interviews. She's...really...this is going to be bad...

I think that the VP debate should moderated by a juggling bear on a unicycle wearing a fezz...

I was talking with a friend just now about this...

Biden has a tendency to go off the rails, and it's why I always thought that Palin was going to do really well in the debate. Until I saw her interviews. She's...really...this is going to be bad...

I think that the VP debate should moderated by a juggling bear on a unicycle wearing a fezz...

"Tonight: Presidential Debate

Tomorrow: Vice-Presidential Yo Momma So Fat Contest"

:D

Without knowing fully these two terms, are either or both of these reactors breeder-type? They are, indeed, the next wave of reactors - the only problem, of course, is the heat they generate. Using an inert gas as a way to modulate temperature does sound promising.

However, I still love the current PWR reactors. You only need an enrichment of around 3% U-235 for an effective fuel pellet and weapons-grade uranium can be downblended to produce a good load more fuel.

It has been a while since I read the article and discussed it with my father, and my knowledge of nuclear physics through genetics gifts is limited. So I pretty much don't know what you are talking about.

Here may be more useful information re Next Generation Nuclear Plants:
http://www.nextgenerationnuclearplant.com/
http://www.ne.doe.gov/neri/neneriresearch.html
http://nuclear.inel.gov/deliverables/docs/ngnp-methods-dev-programc-04-02293.pdf (note: pdf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Nuclear_Plant

Here may be more useful information re Advanced Fast Reactors:
http://www.ne.anl.gov/research/ardt/afr/index.html
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2002/april/a1ap02.html

I think that the VP debate should moderated by a juggling bear on a unicycle wearing a fezz...

"Tonight: Presidential Debate

Tomorrow: Vice-Presidential Yo Momma So Fat Contest"

:D

Ok that made me laugh! :D

Without knowing fully these two terms, are either or both of these reactors breeder-type? They are, indeed, the next wave of reactors - the only problem, of course, is the heat they generate. Using an inert gas as a way to modulate temperature does sound promising.

Pebblebeds are pretty overrated according to the stuff I've seen. What is *awesome* are the Very High Temperature reactors. With them you can run sulfur-iodine cycle reactions or high temperature electrolysis and make hydrogen. Then do whatever you want with it.

I don't want to get into a side debate, but there are good reasons why polygraph testing generally isn't admissible in court -- the biggest being a lack of reliability.

And it doesn't work on sociopaths who feel no guilt/anxiety/fear under questioning. :/

(Although apparently it does work quite well for idiot stoners like my cousin, who had to take a polygraph when he tried to join the CHP and failed it despite being coached by a former officer.)

I was talking with a friend just now about this...

Biden has a tendency to go off the rails, and it's why I always thought that Palin was going to do really well in the debate. Until I saw her interviews. She's...really...this is going to be bad...

I think that the VP debate should moderated by a juggling bear on a unicycle wearing a fezz...

I can't wait for that carnage. I hope she doesn't wear anything too nice, 'cause they're gonna have to carry the remaining pieces of her home in a bag afterwards.

I guess I'm responding to CH here instead of that other thread, since it's now closed.

Remind away, CH, but I was speaking in regards to the instant polling CNN, CBS, and ABC were all performing that all showed the people reacting more favorably to Obama than McCain on virtually every issue up until that post in question. You, on the other hand, are referring to your own personal perceptions of the debate that not even FOX News is claiming.
Well, you see, I made my opinion by listening to the debate. I haven't checked the instant polling results, so I am not going to base my opinion on what the others thought of the debate. Obama did well, but McCain won. That is my honest opinion.

That is my honest opinion.

Ah! He invoked 'opinion', it's now irrefutable and unchallengeable! Its the debate version of 'dibs,' apparently...

Well, you see, I made my opinion by listening to the debate. I haven't checked the instant polling results, so I am not going to base my opinion on what the others thought of the debate. Obama did well, but McCain won. That is my honest opinion.

I won't question the honesty of your assessment, just the objectivity and the sanity.

Your credibility diminishes by the day.

I've been watching it again, clearly I'm somewhat of a masochist.

I think Barack Obama missed a couple of easy points, the first I've written before but I think there was a turning point on the nuclear issue, which is where Barack Obama became a little flustered.

Simply put, he should not have let John McCain ramble on like that, nor should the moderator have allowed it.

In fact, he should have called John McCain out as a liar, boldly.

He should have just said, 'Senator McCain, I'm sorry but you're lying, you lied before when you said I refused to admit the surge was working, right after I had just stated that it was working, and now you're simply lying again.

Please carry on.'

The moderator should also not have let John McCain run over his time like that, they'd both been reasonably equal up until then. Yet John McCain just seemed rude at that point, there was even the famous baring of teeth, not pretty.

Finally, I think John McCain's attitude, his stance, his refusal to look at Barack Obama, and his seeming rudeness, might work against him. Although I would never recommend saying 'I agree with my opponent's decision', which Barack Obama did repeatedly, I think it might actually have worked in contrast to John McCain's dismissive stance.

I watched the debate for an hour. McCain kept on saying "Barack Obama doesn't seem to understand" this and that. Neither side seemed to be winning.

I watched the debate for an hour. McCain kept on saying "Barack Obama doesn't seem to understand" this and that. Neither side seemed to be winning.

However that was just the first debate, I think Barack Obama can take a lot more learning out of it than John McCain, there's clear areas of improvement in terms of how he handles John McCain, I don't think it works the other way around.

I feel reasonably comfortable after that performance after having watched again, I think it certainly was a draw but I think Barack Obama can clearly improve.

EDIT: Love the avatar by the way, they're off to Mars, it's running that part in the papers right now, or is it the time machine?

Ah! He invoked 'opinion', it's now irrefutable and unchallengeable! Its the debate version of 'dibs,' apparently...

I won't question the honesty of your assessment, just the objectivity and the sanity.

Your credibility diminishes by the day.
Your comments amount to trolling. A guy cannot even have an opinion without being harassed. Sad to say the least.

Your comments amount to trolling. A guy cannot even have an opinion without being harassed. Sad to say the least.

People are more than allowed to have opinions. This thread and just about every other thread on this board is littered with them. People do little else, in fact, than express their opinions. However, it is with the understanding that their opinions will be challenged. They are prepared to back up and defend their opinions. When someone states, as you have, that an opinion is by its nature irrefutable, that opinion, like others, is actually up to challenge.

I have done little more than tease you (which, to be nitpicky, would be more like flaming than trolling, but I don't think it is either) on it because you have expressed no interest in defending or supporting your opinions so I'm not going to waste a great deal of effort dragging support out of you that you will not give. This is little more than a reminder that calling "opinion" is not like calling 'force field' in a game of tag. You have an opinion, but by stating it here it is open to challenge whether you think it's 'nice' or not.

I've been watching it again, clearly I'm somewhat of a masochist.

I think Barack Obama missed a couple of easy points, the first I've written before but I think there was a turning point on the nuclear issue, which is where Barack Obama became a little flustered.

Simply put, he should not have let John McCain ramble on like that, nor should the moderator have allowed it.

In fact, he should have called John McCain out as a liar, boldly.

He should have just said, 'Senator McCain, I'm sorry but you're lying, you lied before when you said I refused to admit the surge was working, right after I had just stated that it was working, and now you're simply lying again.

Please carry on.'

The moderator should also not have let John McCain run over his time like that, they'd both been reasonably equal up until then. Yet John McCain just seemed rude at that point, there was even the famous baring of teeth, not pretty.

Finally, I think John McCain's attitude, his stance, his refusal to look at Barack Obama, and his seeming rudeness, might work against him. Although I would never recommend saying 'I agree with my opponent's decision', which Barack Obama did repeatedly, I think it might actually have worked in contrast to John McCain's dismissive stance.

I agree, Obama could have done more. But he held up well against McCain considering. Frankly I believe that Obama will come from that Debate learning how to be a better debater. I felt there was a hint of weariness in McCain's voice nearng the end of the debate. He didn't sound like he was compleatly there, what I mean was the tonal quality didn't remain the same or constant like Obama's did. True, McCain had been 'working' late in Washington. But at the beginning he sounded ready and charged at the end his voice seemed to go onto a lower tone.

And I as extrely annoyed at the CNN showing Las Vegas and a bunch of people for McCain frevently saying MCcain had won, when all the commentators had basically agreed that Obama had won. Can we say denial here?

"Tonight: Presidential Debate

Tomorrow: Vice-Presidential Yo Momma So Fat Contest"

:D

To return the favor:

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5680/putinrearshisheadjpg122tq6.jpg

People are more than allowed to have opinions. This thread and just about every other thread on this board is littered with them. People do little else, in fact, than express their opinions. However, it is with the understanding that their opinions will be challenged. They are prepared to back up and defend their opinions. When someone states, as you have, that an opinion is by its nature irrefutable, that opinion, like others, is actually up to challenge.

I have done little more than tease you (which, to be nitpicky, would be more like flaming than trolling, but I don't think it is either) on it because you have expressed no interest in defending or supporting your opinions so I'm not going to waste a great deal of effort dragging support out of you that you will not give. This is little more than a reminder that calling "opinion" is not like calling 'force field' in a game of tag. You have an opinion, but by stating it here it is open to challenge whether you think it's 'nice' or not.
Your excuse for your "challenge" is weak, and therefore your "teasing" is superfluous baggage, that is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.

There was a debate. I gave an honest answer as to who I thought won. My response didn't please you therefore you felt that it was necessary to "tease" me, and throw out an analogy about some childhood game. Next time, just resist the urge.

However that was just the first debate, I think Barack Obama can take a lot more learning out of it than John McCain, there's clear areas of improvement in terms of how he handles John McCain, I don't think it works the other way around.

I feel reasonably comfortable after that performance after having watched again, I think it certainly was a draw but I think Barack Obama can clearly improve.
I think they can both improve. If McCain would just look Obama in the eye and tell him he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about McCain would be better. Obama did a great job of doing this to McCain. If Obama would just quit trying to be so "congenial" he'd be better, McCain trumped him on the "he has no clue" scoreboard because he was not as congenial as Obama.

Your comments amount to trolling. A guy cannot even have an opinion without being harassed. Sad to say the least.

You made comments you refuse to defend and when you've been called on comments like them in the past you've claimed opinions don't need support. If you didn't want that thrown back in your face you shouldn't have said it. The FACT is that in debate you're called to support your opinion and you can expect to be harrassed when your opinion isn't supported by evidence or worse is counter to the evidence. This is why you're constantly harrassed. If you think it's unfairly, then support your claims or attack theirs. The constant flopping for the refs is just a waste of everyone's time.

Your excuse for your "challenge" is weak, and therefore your "teasing" is superfluous baggage, that is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.

There was a debate. I gave an honest answer as to who I thought won. My response didn't please you therefore you felt that it was necessary to "tease" me, and throw out an analogy about some childhood game. Next time, just resist the urge.

Actually, in the other thread you stated it was a "fact". Incidentally, there is little to no support for this "fact". By most analysis, it was either a tie or leaned Obama. Almost every group that actually asked a relatively balanced audience of undecideds, Obama took it by a bit. This was a debate designed for a McCain victory, by all rights, as you pointed out. He's New England here. Even a close game is embarrassing when you're supposed to win a blowout.

The fact is that McCain did win....he was supposed to. Obama did okay but he certainly was displaying his lack of foreign policy experience.

You got called out because you fell back on your old standard of when you were asked to actually support your claims that it was just an opinion. And you're going to continue to get that until you figure out how to debate or stop showing up. People are going to ask you to support your claims and tease you when you offer up lame excuses for not doing so like "it's my opinion."

There are plenty of conservatives here. They don't generate the same response because of how you debate. This is about your claims and your willingness to support them. It's not about what you're saying at all. It's a debate forum. Offer some.

Your excuse for your "challenge" is weak, and therefore your "teasing" is superfluous baggage, that is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.

There was a debate. I gave an honest answer as to who I thought won. My response didn't please you therefore you felt that it was necessary to "tease" me, and throw out an analogy about some childhood game. Next time, just resist the urge.

I don't need an 'excuse' to challenge someone's assertion on a board focused largely on debate. Your failure to understand that fundamental point is at the core of your inability to grasp the principles of debate and what leads you to believe that you're some poor picked on innocent.

As already pointed out, you stated it was a fact that McCain won, when pressed you pulled the opinion card. You have already stated, and was discussed at length, that you don't believe opinions can be challenged, which flies in the face of just about everything that happens on this board and in debate in general. It is a comical notion and merits a comical response.

Your 'fact' lines up with only the most partisan assessments-it is up for challenge. "It's my opinion" is not a defense-this is something that your high school English teacher should have stressed to you early on when s/he told you it was redundant to include in your essays, "In my opinion..." Unless you credit the opinion to someone else, it is assumed to be the authors. It is also assumed that the author will support their opinion in their argument, which is what in fact makes it an argument. This remedial understanding is dismissed by you and so to compare it to a childhood game seems wholly appropriate as anything above that level would include those frankly basic elements.

Then there is the recycle and waste problem. Recyling is good, but it also creates weapons grade plutonium. That's not something we should have a lot of as a by product because it's possible to get in the wrong hands.

You say that as if there were RIGHT hands for weapons grade plutonium to be in.

Obama, much to my dismay, committed a fatal error tonight. He spoke from intellect rather than emotion. Kerry tried to do that, Dukakis tried to do that. It cost them the election, and it has just cost Obama the election. The American public does not want things explained to them, they want someone who can say "everything's alright" no matter what's going on and can pretend to be sincere about it. 56 years ago the Eisenhower campaign smeared Stevenson by calling him an "intellectual" (code at that time for "Communist"). Since then it has been an unforgiveable sin in American politics to be smart. People don't like smart people; it makes them feel insecure and defensive. People like politicians like our commander-in-chimp, who can pretend to be "just plain folks". McLame did that, and it just made him our next President.

So, setting aside old tattered discussions and Charlie Brown posts, I think an interesting question arises.

First, apparently there are some pundits who toss this in McCain's column, though I haven't seen them, but Nate Silver has- (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/why-voters-thought-obama-won.html)
It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.

Of course, he looks at everything through the lens of statistics-
My other annoyance with the punditry is that they seem to weight all segments of the debate equally. There were eight segments in this debate: bailout, economy, spending, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, terrorism. The pundit consensus seems to be that Obama won the segments on the bailout, the economy, and Iraq, drew the segment on Afghanistan, and lost the other four. So, McCain wins 4-3, right? Except that, voters don’t weight these issues anywhere near evenly. In Peter Hart’s recent poll for NBC, 43 percent of voters listed the economy or the financial crisis as their top priority, 12 percent Iraq, and 13 percent terrorism or other foreign policy issues. What happens if we give Obama two out of three economic voters (corresponding to the fact that he won two out of the three segments on the economy), and the Iraq voters, but give McCain all the “other foreign policy” voters?

Issue Priority Obama McCain
Economy 43 --> 29 14
Iraq 12 --> 12 0
Foreign Policy 13 --> 0 13
==========================================
Total 41 27
What happens?
By this measure, Obama “won” by 14 points, which almost exactly his margin in the CNN poll.

The post contains a break down of the gains and divisions of the instapolls, and obviously you're invited to read that and comment.

But I re-raise a question that has bopped about since McCain declared victory four hours before the debate began-what constitutes a win?

Is it an Oxford style-rhetorical win? Is this the win our opinionated friend and pundits have assigned? Is it the ability to gain a rhetorical advantage-this seems a largely subjective measure since very few people are schooled in how to judge such a nuanced measure. It would seem that then this would defer to the 'judges,' in this case punditry.

Is it sway? The amount that the debate moved undecided or movable voters one way or another? This is a debate for the presidency, so doesn't this ultimate measure really mean the most? This would mean that regardless of ones opinion, the winner is really determined by the numbers. While one may have wanted a candidate to win, it's all about the one who changed the most votes-almost empirical.

Is it a less formal judgment of expectation, form, and style? This seems again a bit subjective, but certainly can be argued in the details.

So what is it, what makes a win?

Simple. It's all about getting one closer to the Presidency. That's the point of the debates, to help the American people decide.

By that measure, unless McCain gets a bump from the debate, he is undeniably further from the Presidency, as every day he doesn't move ahead of Obama is a day wasted. By all evidence, McCain will not see a bump.

Obama, much to my dismay, committed a fatal error tonight. He spoke from intellect rather than emotion. Kerry tried to do that, Dukakis tried to do that. It cost them the election, and it has just cost Obama the election. The American public does not want things explained to them, they want someone who can say "everything's alright" no matter what's going on and can pretend to be sincere about it. 56 years ago the Eisenhower campaign smeared Stevenson by calling him an "intellectual" (code at that time for "Communist"). Since then it has been an unforgiveable sin in American politics to be smart. People don't like smart people; it makes them feel insecure and defensive. People like politicians like our commander-in-chimp, who can pretend to be "just plain folks". McLame did that, and it just made him our next President.
Really? I have to say that I didn't see that as much. He played a lot on the suffering of the average citizen, played a chip in the bracelet game, had a few 'think of the children' moments and didn't really have any 'lock box' moments that I can recall. Certainly McCain went for the heart strings more often, but at least judging by the little lines monitoring audience response the heart strings weren't working as well as Obama's sweeping "seriously, lets clean up energy" moments.

Simple. It's all about getting one closer to the Presidency. That's the point of the debates, to help the American people decide.

By that measure, unless McCain gets a bump from the debate, he is undeniably further from the Presidency, as every day he doesn't move ahead of Obama is a day wasted. By all evidence, McCain will not see a bump.
It seems the most obvious and direct measure. I guess then it would be how the people swayed by the debates make their assessment. While individually we might be able to admit McCain had won the debate if he clearly had, but honestly, Obama would almost have to have started vomiting baby parts to change our vote-we're familiar with him and McCain and his policies and our minds are more or less made up as other peoples opinions were set ahead of time. I wonder what measure those 'undecided' voters or fence voters that moved use to determine the win. I guess in that statistically Silver has it more or less pegged, though he relies on punditry to assign winners in the various segments.

Really? I have to say that I didn't see that as much. He played a lot on the suffering of the average citizen, played a chip in the bracelet game, had a few 'think of the children' moments and didn't really have any 'lock box' moments that I can recall. Certainly McCain went for the heart strings more often, but at least judging by the little lines monitoring audience response the heart strings weren't working as well as Obama's sweeping "seriously, lets clean up energy" moments.

I hope you're right, and I'm wrong -- but I wouldn't bet on it. Remember, you can never overestimate the stupidity of the public.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate1.pdf

Dude, that's a pounding by any measure. Among undecideds: 80% left the debate thinking Obama understands their needs. 60% said he was ready to be President. These are huge improvements. Going into the debate much lower in both categories. The levels of improvement for Obama on almost every front exceeded both expectations and McCain's improvements.

The worse bit was that about 8% thought worse of Obama afterwards. About 21% said the same about McCain. They cited his temper and his focus on the past.

Ouch.

Okay, since our opinionated friend is not prone to defending anything, I've found some of those pundits (alright, I just went to RCP...shut up, it's late) that say McCain won...like this cat from the Des Moines Registry.... (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8Post%3aec9d034f-e49d-4a39-9420-976a206ad4a6&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.desmoinesregister.com)
The Arizona senator was cool, informed and forceful in Friday’s first presidential debate of the general election campaign.


He repeatedly put Barack Obama on the defensive throughout the 90 minutes session. Obama did little to ease voter concerns that he’s experienced enough to handle foreign and defense policy. That was his number one task Friday night and he failed.


Instead he was often his old meandering self, unable to state a quick, forceful position. Polls taken in the coming days should show McCain holding on to his trump card in the race - the view that he’s better equipped to be commander in chief.


He condescendingly called Obama “naive” at a couple points in the debate, like an old master lecturing a young understudy. Obama never seemed able to attack back.
...
The crabby, grumbling, hotheaded McCain was nowhere to be seen. Instead we saw a calm, seasoned commander in chief . If you looked at your television and squinted slightly, you could better picture him addressing the country during a time of national crisis than Obama. Obama was often left flashing his smile and shaking his head at McCain.


McCain was expected to win on questions of foreign policy and national defense. That’s been his background. Where he routed Obama was on economic and spending questions as he repeatedly accusing Obama of using earmarks and wanting to spend too much.


When Obama tried his line about how McCain voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, McCain slapped back by ticking off a lit of issues where he has disagreed with Bush - like torture, conduct of the war in Iraq and federal spending and Guantanamo Bay. McCain never got rattled or flustered, he just constantly stayed focused on the attack.
Obviously, I disagree. McCain most certainly did get flustered, and I think his chuckles have been rightly compared to Gore's huffing and McCain was unable to address Obama or the cameras to create a demanding presence in his presentation. McCain's 'slam back' on the 90% was a red herring since Obama was talking about the economy and McCain came back, "But I'm against torture! I'm not Miss Congeniality!" (for the easily confused, this is not a direct quote, it is a rhetorical flourish paraphrasing) Uh...great, but that's not what Obama was talking about.

That's a monster url and I don't feel like going to tinyURL so if the link doesn't work you can find the story at Real Clear Politics...

Let me look for more-
This guy (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14005.html) seems to think repetition won the day-
While Barack Obama repeatedly tried to link McCain to the very unpopular George W. Bush, Bush’s name will not be on the ballot in November and McCain’s will.

And McCain not only found a central theme but hit on it repeatedly. Obama is inexperienced, naive, and just doesn’t understand things, McCain said.
...
McCain just pounded away on his central argument: Obama just didn’t “understand” how to deal with Pakistan; how dangerous it is to meet with foreign leaders without preconditions; how serious the Russian invasion of Georgia was; the price of failure in Iraq.

“He doesn’t understand, he doesn’t get it,” McCain said of Obama, also saying, “There is a little bit of naiveté here.”

It was as if McCain was paying Obama back for that moment in Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention when Obama said McCain would not serve America well, “not because John McCain doesn’t care; it’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.”
...
McCain seemed to be enjoying himself. He smiled a lot, mostly when Obama was talking, though his smile was really more like a smirk.
This is a little harder to argue with, because it's true that McCain did hammer that point over and over again. However, I would argue that that Obama's answers were the rebuke to that-the 'doesn't get it' line of attack requires aloof responses to really land, and even by this persons assessment that wasn't the case-
Both avoided their negative stereotypes: Obama did not seem aloof or condescending. McCain did not seem erratic or wild. You could imagine either one of them in the Oval Office, but only one is going to get there.

My opinion is biased, I admit, but to me, Barack Obama was the clear winner. While he wasn't sure of all the answers, he remained composed and thoughtful throughout the debate, having that vague "presidential" quality that's been noticeably absent the last eight years. He articulated well what he thought was most important for the country and also admitted that while it was clear what he wanted to get done, he was under no illusion that he'd be able to accomplish it all, given the current financial crisis, and that some things would have to be put on the back burner while more immediate concerns were dealt with.

McCain on the other hand seemed like a tired old man unable to cope with the fact that, in the last thirty years, the world has changed drastically. He got angry and noticeably flustered, which I don't want in my nation's head diplomat, and many of his ideas seemed even rather simplistic and, god forbid I say it, childish. The world's not such a dichotomy as it was in the cold war, if it was even then. Yet McCain holds to a cold war mentality that's just too simplistic to cope with the reality of global affairs. His proposed solutions to our current problems sounded blunt and rather silly, while Obama's ideas sounded well thought out and nuanced. And as someone else said, he kept harping about the past, whereas Obama was a vision of a bright future. And McCain blathered. Yes, that is the word. Blathering... it's the tired old guy way of ranting... it lacks the energy of a younger person... which would give it excitement. It's just a tangent leading to nowhere relevant in particular. To me, that is what really undermined McCain.


As for the VP candidate debate... while I would favor Biden, and in fact think he would tear Palin to shreds... she might actually be so dumb that it's just impossible to debate her. Everyone who's ever tried to engage a total fucktard in debate on this board knows what I mean. If your opponent is too stupid, your arguments simply whoosh over their head and they go on talking about whatever they were spouting bullshit about before, completely ignoring your well thought-out points. This is what I'm afraid will happen in the VP candidate debate.

Obama, much to my dismay, committed a fatal error tonight. He spoke from intellect rather than emotion. Kerry tried to do that, Dukakis tried to do that. It cost them the election, and it has just cost Obama the election. The American public does not want things explained to them, they want someone who can say "everything's alright" no matter what's going on and can pretend to be sincere about it. 56 years ago the Eisenhower campaign smeared Stevenson by calling him an "intellectual" (code at that time for "Communist"). Since then it has been an unforgiveable sin in American politics to be smart. People don't like smart people; it makes them feel insecure and defensive. People like politicians like our commander-in-chimp, who can pretend to be "just plain folks". McLame did that, and it just made him our next President.

Relax - People are already saying Obama did better in the debate, and he did use emotion, too - Believe me, I know.

y'all are looking at this wrong. the point of the debate, the WINNING of it is not by defeating your opponent or by scoring more points. you are trying to convince the audience that you are worth voting for.

obama had to show that he is the equal of john mccain even though he is 25 years younger and had 20 years less experience in washington. he had to show that he is not a pushover, that he is not the scary black man, that he is not some kind of wild-eyed liberal who will give the country over to the communists.

i think he did that. sure he left out some good zingers against mccain's record but there are plenty of other people who immediately filled those in--like biden in his post-debate "analysis"

mccain had to show that he is the equal to obama even though he is crazy old and getting a bit drifty. he had to show he is still tough, that he is sharp as a tack, that HE is the elder statesman who knows far more than obama because he had been in it so much longer.

he pretty much did that. even though he made me cringe with the sickening look on his face when he talked about his maverick runningmate. and he started making slurpy noises when he breathed. and his teeth whistled a couple times. but he remembered everyone's names and didnt dis any of our friends. he had trouble pronouncing some things--just like a regular guy would. he wasnt as tough as maybe he should have been but he also didnt lose his temper or make a major bizarre gaff.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

so they basically both stretched the facts a lot ;)

my opinion, from watching the entire debate was they both did a very good job, both had some very good points, and both seemed to represent their policies very well...
now to my admittedly untrained eye, it seemed senator obama was trying to play the bipartisan placator a lot, trying to complement senator mccain (did anyone else found the way he said john seem patronizing? his tone hit me as patronizing, but thats a minor nitpick) and on lots of things kinda digress a little to talk about stuff everyone wants (veterans funding etc.) While McCain got down and dirty more.

I thought both showed themselves to be capable, and obama gave me a little comfort that he can do some good if he's elected. Of course I still disagree with him on abortion, but bush really didn't do much about that either ;)

Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Obama did the better job in Friday night's debate, while 38 percent said John McCain did better.

Men were nearly evenly split between the two candidates, with 46 percent giving the win to McCain and 43 percent to Obama. But women voters tended to give Obama higher marks, with 59 percent calling him the night's winner, while just 31 percent said McCain won.

"It can be reasonably concluded, especially after accounting for the slight Democratic bias in the survey, that we witnessed a tie in Mississippi tonight," CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib said. "But given the direction of the campaign over the last couple of weeks, a tie translates to a win for Obama."

McCain apparently failed to get the "game changer" he needed to reverse his deficit in the polls, Silverleib said. Grade the candidates' performances in the debate

. . .

Debate report card: Who made the grade?
More than two-thirds of debate watchers agreed that both McCain and Obama would be able to handle the job of president if elected.

National security has been an issue where McCain has held an advantage, but his edge over Obama -- 49 percent to 45 percent -- on the question of which candidate would best handle terrorism is within the poll's 4.5 percent margin of error.

The economy, which has been Obama's terrain this cycle, dominated the first half of the debate. Debate watchers gave him a 21 percentage point edge -- 58 to 37 percent -- on the question of which candidate would do a better job handling the economy.

When, after a debate, if fully half of the american people look at you, someone who has served in Congress for decades, have made foreign policy your area of claimed expertise, and have been in the military, and decide your opponent, someone with significantly less experience, no military training, virtually no foreign policy credentials, a half your age black manwill do a better job of foreign policy and national security than you will, I don't care if it's "technically" a tie. You lost.

Turns out reading 39 pages of thread on NSG is actually almost as good as actually watching the debate. Good to know I won't have to stay up for them, then.

As for the VP candidate debate... while I would favor Biden, and in fact think he would tear Palin to shreds... she might actually be so dumb that it's just impossible to debate her. Everyone who's ever tried to engage a total fucktard in debate on this board knows what I mean. If your opponent is too stupid, your arguments simply whoosh over their head and they go on talking about whatever they were spouting bullshit about before, completely ignoring your well thought-out points. This is what I'm afraid will happen in the VP candidate debate.
:tongue: Although you probably just might be right. :(

When, after a debate, if fully half of the american people look at you, someone who has served in Congress for decades, have made foreign policy your area of claimed expertise, and have been in the military, and decide your opponent, someone with significantly less experience, no military training, virtually no foreign policy credentials, a half your age black man will do a better job of foreign policy and national security than you will, I don't care if it's "technically" a tie. You lost.

Don't forget "with a name that sounds like the ones of people who attacked the country, and who is attacked online as if he were one of them by the most relentless, stupid non-people".

You say that as if there were RIGHT hands for weapons grade plutonium to be in.

It's not a safe product though and it can cause problems, that's all I am saying. It makes items of warefare, and yes I am not a big fan of war. I am not saying we shouldn't have some weapons of war. But how much plutonium should we have on hand? It will eventually pile up if we rely heavily on Nuclear.

Obama, much to my dismay, committed a fatal error tonight. He spoke from intellect rather than emotion. Kerry tried to do that, Dukakis tried to do that. It cost them the election, and it has just cost Obama the election. The American public does not want things explained to them, they want someone who can say "everything's alright" no matter what's going on and can pretend to be sincere about it. 56 years ago the Eisenhower campaign smeared Stevenson by calling him an "intellectual" (code at that time for "Communist"). Since then it has been an unforgiveable sin in American politics to be smart. People don't like smart people; it makes them feel insecure and defensive. People like politicians like our commander-in-chimp, who can pretend to be "just plain folks". McLame did that, and it just made him our next President.

Except for the people who were in denial that MCCain won, all the commentators including the conservative Fox channel stated that Obama won. I am not saying Obama didn't have some issues speaking and debating, but McCain refused to look at Obama, his eyes twitched nervously when he spoke, and some said he had a very rude looking posture. I am actually surprized McCain held his cool, I've seen MCcain lose his cool before and it isn't pretty. I had hoped he would compleatly lose it. I wanted people to see the real stubborn hot head that he is. Too bad, maybe he will later. I still would love to see MCcain fly off the handle.

Except for the people who were in denial that MCCain won, all the commentators including the conservative Fox channel stated that Obama won. I am not saying Obama didn't have some issues speaking and debating, but McCain refused to look at Obama, his eyes twitched nervously when he spoke, and some said he had a very rude looking posture. I am actually surprized McCain held his cool, I've seen MCcain lose his cool before and it isn't pretty. I had hoped he would compleatly lose it. I wanted people to see the real stubborn hot head that he is. Too bad, maybe he will later. I still would love to see MCcain fly off the handle.

I've managed to find now a fair amount of commentators who think McCain won...well, again, 'find' is a bit euphemistic, they're all linked on Real Clear Politics.

Johnathan Last (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/619jbavg.asp) put it at 7 to 1, unsurprisingly the National Review (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWExYTI3MjJkMWVlZmE3N2ZhODNiYzQ3YTk5NzkxYWI=) says it's a win for McCain, Noam Scheiber (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/09/26/obama-s-emotional-deficit.aspx) agrees more or less with Mainiacs, Tom Bevan (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/2_cents_time.html) goes what seems to be the popular notion that Obama owned on economy and lost on foreign affairs, Mikey Kaus (http://www.slate.com/id/2200580/) seems to think it's a McCain win but not enough, and Ed Morrisey (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/debate-1-wrap-up/) believes that McCain flustered Obama and therefore won.

Now a lot of this is based a little too much on lowered expectations for McCain, almost "He didn't eat his tie, therefore he won!" I was initially going to go through each one, but I'm not going to. But they're out there, picking up the slack of opinionated posters. I would argue as Jocabia has that ultimately the victor is determined by swayed voters, but even then that just moves the determination of winner down a chain one link.

Except for the people who were in denial that MCCain won, all the commentators including the conservative Fox channel stated that Obama won. I am not saying Obama didn't have some issues speaking and debating, but McCain refused to look at Obama, his eyes twitched nervously when he spoke, and some said he had a very rude looking posture. I am actually surprized McCain held his cool, I've seen MCcain lose his cool before and it isn't pretty. I had hoped he would compleatly lose it. I wanted people to see the real stubborn hot head that he is. Too bad, maybe he will later. I still would love to see MCcain fly off the handle.

I would have liked to have seen Obama wipe that smirk off McCain's face. I just fear he didn't do it, or at least not forcefully enough.

I would have liked to have seen Obama wipe that smirk off McCain's face. I just fear he didn't do it, or at least not forcefully enough.
we all would have.

but if obama comes off as the angry black man he loses more than he wins.

so instead he came off as the kindly professor who is largely unflappable (although i think he looked a bit annoyed at one point with mccains patronizing him) and has a reasonable plan for every contingency.

thats not bad. and he still has 2 more debates to make mccain look incompetent in.

hey maineiacs, did you see that one of the anchors from channel 7 in bangor is getting a ration of shit for looking too much like sarah palin?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26876388/?GT1=43001

we all would have.

but if obama comes off as the angry black man he loses more than he wins.

this is a really really important point that people like us here are not good at recognizing all the time. obama has to walk a very difficult path in all of this, to an extent i have trouble fathoming.

this is a really really important point that people like us here are not good at recognizing all the time. obama has to walk a very difficult path in all of this, to an extent i have trouble fathoming.
yeah its the elephant in the room

those who arent concerned about such things are already on board. now he has to convince the ....racist leaners?... those who would vote for a black man if as long as he isnt scary or a tool of the black establishment like al sharpton.

the true racists are unreachable.

hey maineiacs, did you see that one of the anchors from channel 7 in bangor is getting a ration of shit for looking too much like sarah palin?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26876388/?GT1=43001

No, I hadn't seen that. In fact, I don't really know this woman. I don't really watch the local news; I stick to CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and CBC. I'll have to check that out though. My hope is that she's smarter than Palin.

Your comments amount to trolling. A guy cannot even have an opinion without being harassed. Sad to say the least.

Dishonest - you stated it as a fact, and made a careful of suggesting that your conclusion was reached by watching the debates, while everyone else must have derived their response from pundits. Which makes me wonder why all the pundits have managed something of a rare near-unity. Except you.

Don't act precious. You've not been 'harassed' for your opinion... you've just been taken to task for impeculiating EVERYONE who disagrees with you.

I've managed to find now a fair amount of commentators who think McCain won...well, again, 'find' is a bit euphemistic, they're all linked on Real Clear Politics.

Johnathan Last (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/619jbavg.asp) put it at 7 to 1, unsurprisingly the National Review (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWExYTI3MjJkMWVlZmE3N2ZhODNiYzQ3YTk5NzkxYWI=) says it's a win for McCain, Noam Scheiber (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/09/26/obama-s-emotional-deficit.aspx) agrees more or less with Mainiacs, Tom Bevan (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/2_cents_time.html) goes what seems to be the popular notion that Obama owned on economy and lost on foreign affairs, Mikey Kaus (http://www.slate.com/id/2200580/) seems to think it's a McCain win but not enough, and Ed Morrisey (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/debate-1-wrap-up/) believes that McCain flustered Obama and therefore won.

Now a lot of this is based a little too much on lowered expectations for McCain, almost "He didn't eat his tie, therefore he won!" I was initially going to go through each one, but I'm not going to. But they're out there, picking up the slack of opinionated posters. I would argue as Jocabia has that ultimately the victor is determined by swayed voters, but even then that just moves the determination of winner down a chain one link.

Now begins the spin....

I'd be totally bias in saying Obama won, but I believe he held his own against McCain very well. For a man that MCcain said didn't know much about foreign policy, Obama managed to speak very well on the subject, at least he did to me. I know I couldn't speak very well on the subject, so to hear Obama speak on foreign affairs and to have a degree of knowledge on them won me over on the concerns about his foreign affairs. And McCain's miltarism scares me. I am tired of the US Machine of War and MCcain's blatent Cold War stance gives me the willies.

How do y'all think this will play to people who haven't followed the campaigns? Sure, I think Obama held his own pretty well, but a) I'm hopelessly partisan and b) I've heard all the talking points before so their impact is different on me than on fresh ears.

Seemed like McCain was taking a page out of the Bush stylebook with hamfisted appeals to emotion. (The GI Bracelet, the whole "Let's not make Iraq another Vietnam," even the focus on earmarks vs. actual budgetary concerns falls in this category.) That comes across as patronizing and disingenuous to me, but again, see a) above, plus I feel I'm in the minority here. This, after all, is the country that digs American Idol and The Notebook and CSI:Miami. Hamfisted appeals to emotion are kind of our national thing.

Furthermore, did McCain's near-ditching of the debate work to lower audience's expectations? Did McCain, in effect, get points just for showing up?

I would have liked to have seen Obama wipe that smirk off McCain's face. I just fear he didn't do it, or at least not forcefully enough.

I think that smirk is a huge handicap for McCain. Maybe it's just me, but it reminds me way too much of Bush and his propensity for smirking through even the most somber of speeches.

Don't forget "with a name that sounds like the ones of people who attacked the country, and who is attacked online as if he were one of them by the most relentless, stupid non-people".

"When the American people think a secret Muslim terrorist with no experience could do a slightly better job than you, it's time to consider retirement."

How do y'all think this will play to people who haven't followed the campaigns? Sure, I think Obama held his own pretty well, but a) I'm hopelessly partisan and b) I've heard all the talking points before so their impact is different on me than on fresh ears.

Seemed like McCain was taking a page out of the Bush stylebook with hamfisted appeals to emotion. (The GI Bracelet, the whole "Let's not make Iraq another Vietnam," even the focus on earmarks vs. actual budgetary concerns falls in this category.) That comes across as patronizing and disingenuous to me, but again, see a) above, plus I feel I'm in the minority here. This, after all, is the country that digs American Idol and The Notebook and CSI:Miami. Hamfisted appeals to emotion are kind of our national thing.

Furthermore, did McCain's near-ditching of the debate work to lower audience's expectations? Did McCain, in effect, get points just for showing up?

I'm inclined to believe that McCain did get something of a bounce just from being there.

On the other hand, unless they've replaced Palin by Thursday (and unless she's just been being a HELL of an actress, so far), the Democrats can probably let Biden stay home, send a wet paper bag to the debates, and still stand a better than average chance.

No wonder McCain tried to get the debates scheduled the other way round.

yeah its the elephant in the room

those who arent concerned about such things are already on board. now he has to convince the ....racist leaners?... those who would vote for a black man if as long as he isnt scary or a tool of the black establishment like al sharpton.

the true racists are unreachable.

yeah - i wouldn't really want to go around calling them 'racist leaners', but significant swaths of the population have definitely taken onboard a whole host of cultural attitudes and beliefs that amount to a pervasive soft racism which obama has to avoid triggering while convincing them that he even could be president.

How do y'all think this will play to people who haven't followed the campaigns? Sure, I think Obama held his own pretty well, but a) I'm hopelessly partisan and b) I've heard all the talking points before so their impact is different on me than on fresh ears.

Seemed like McCain was taking a page out of the Bush stylebook with hamfisted appeals to emotion. (The GI Bracelet, the whole "Let's not make Iraq another Vietnam," even the focus on earmarks vs. actual budgetary concerns falls in this category.) That comes across as patronizing and disingenuous to me, but again, see a) above, plus I feel I'm in the minority here. This, after all, is the country that digs American Idol and The Notebook and CSI:Miami. Hamfisted appeals to emotion are kind of our national thing.

Furthermore, did McCain's near-ditching of the debate work to lower audience's expectations? Did McCain, in effect, get points just for showing up?
i think it depends on how creepy mccain looked to people.

i find him very creepy these days but, like you, im hopelessly partisan.

yeah - i wouldn't really want to go around calling them 'racist leaners', but significant swaths of the population have definitely taken onboard a whole host of cultural attitudes and beliefs that amount to a pervasive soft racism which obama has to avoid triggering while convincing them that he even could be president.

I'm wondering why a sub-sub-sub editorial in Time (online) is the only place I've seen any mention of the fact that the Klan had an organised presence at the debate, and were using it as a recruiting opportunity...

i think it depends on how creepy mccain looked to people.

i find him very creepy these days but, like you, im hopelessly partisan.

I agree, but I don't think it's just the partisan part of me that finds his smile creepy. It's not his fault, he just doesn't have a good smile. It looks like a rictus -- my immediate response is to think he's injured or uncomfortable.

I agree, but I don't think it's just the partisan part of me that finds his smile creepy. It's not his fault, he just doesn't have a good smile. It looks like a rictus -- my immediate response is to think he's injured or uncomfortable.
and the slurpy breathing, tooth whistle and lip licking didnt help either.

....On the other hand, unless they've replaced Palin by Thursday (and unless she's just been being a HELL of an actress, so far), the Democrats can probably let Biden stay home, send a wet paper bag to the debates, and still stand a better than average chance.

No wonder McCain tried to get the debates scheduled the other way round.

Forgive me if this has been posted already: Slate commentator Dahlia Lithwick makes some good points about how Joe Biden could potentially lose a debate against Palin, and what he should do to avoid that (http://www.slate.com/id/2199363/).

This was written back on 9/8 when the bloom was still on the rose of Alaska, but I think her points about not coming across as condescending still hold true:
Take a page from Campbell Brown's book and ask politely (and like you really want to know the answer and not just hear yourself say the question) what she learned while leading the Alaska National Guard into that war against Saskatchewan. But play to your strengths. Know stuff. Say it briefly. Don't accuse her of not knowing things. Just know more. An insanely successful college debate friend told me recently that the way he won against women was by always behaving like they were men.

Heh. McCain called him naive for admitting both sides were escalating the conflict in Georgia. Seriously, if that's not definitive of the differences between Obama and McCain, I don't know what is.

Obama sees the world in a more nuanced way, while McCain views the world in an old school, cold war, black-and-white, "with us or against us", Bush-like manner?

Indeed.

I also thought it odd when McCain talked about how he had been to Georgia, seen a poster of Putin, and knew "there would be a problem" (or something to that effect) with an invasion.

Oh, yeah, why didn't you frickin' do or say something to prevent what happened?
To be fair, nobody cared about the situation before the shit hit the fan. The Russian ambassador to the UN had tried to raise the the issue both inside and outside the UN building (to the press core) for months, but nobody wanted to discuss it.

Forgive me if this has been posted already: Slate commentator Dahlia Lithwick makes some good points about how Joe Biden could potentially lose a debate against Palin, and what he should do to avoid that (http://www.slate.com/id/2199363/).

This was written back on 9/8 when the bloom was still on the rose of Alaska, but I think her points about not coming across as condescending still hold true:
after watching last night's debate i think that biden should just make his answers and leave her to make her answers. her idiocy speaks for itself. no need to comment on it at all.

and, of course, he should avoid saying anything bizarre like fdr going on tv after the stock market crash of '29.

Obama sees the world in a more nuanced way, while McCain views the world in an old school, cold war, black-and-white, "with us or against us", Bush-like manner?

Indeed.


Agreed, whole heartedly. That's the biggest diffrence between McCain and Obama. I am tired of this 'We against the World' mentality. It will kill you quicker than dead.

after watching last night's debate i think that biden should just make his answers and leave her to make her answers. her idiocy speaks for itself. no need to comment on it at all.

and, of course, he should avoid saying anything bizarre like fdr going on tv after the stock market crash of '29.

In his defence.... millions of people went on tv after the stock market crash of '29.

Just depends how SOON after. If you leave that bit hazy...

In his defence.... millions of people went on tv after the stock market crash of '29.

Just depends how SOON after. If you leave that bit hazy...
i dont mind when joe goes a little nutz. he still knows everything that needs to be known about being vice president and president. his odd gaffs are funny.

To be fair, nobody cared about the situation before the shit hit the fan. The Russian ambassador to the UN had tried to raise the the issue both inside and outside the UN building (to the press core) for months, but nobody wanted to discuss it.

Then what is the point of McCain's alleged experience and knowledge if he doesn't use it to do anything good?

(I recognize you aren't defending McCain here, but that whole "I've been there" crap was really getting on my nerves.)

I've managed to find now a fair amount of commentators who think McCain won...well, again, 'find' is a bit euphemistic, they're all linked on Real Clear Politics.

Johnathan Last (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/619jbavg.asp) put it at 7 to 1, unsurprisingly the National Review (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWExYTI3MjJkMWVlZmE3N2ZhODNiYzQ3YTk5NzkxYWI=) says it's a win for McCain, Noam Scheiber (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/09/26/obama-s-emotional-deficit.aspx) agrees more or less with Mainiacs, Tom Bevan (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/2_cents_time.html) goes what seems to be the popular notion that Obama owned on economy and lost on foreign affairs, Mikey Kaus (http://www.slate.com/id/2200580/) seems to think it's a McCain win but not enough, and Ed Morrisey (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/debate-1-wrap-up/) believes that McCain flustered Obama and therefore won.

Now a lot of this is based a little too much on lowered expectations for McCain, almost "He didn't eat his tie, therefore he won!" I was initially going to go through each one, but I'm not going to. But they're out there, picking up the slack of opinionated posters. I would argue as Jocabia has that ultimately the victor is determined by swayed voters, but even then that just moves the determination of winner down a chain one link.

I'm trying to figure out if anyone in these forums thinks McCain won -- other than CH.

It seems like the answer is no.

I'm not suprised some hardcore pundits are saying that McCain won. They would say that even if McCain had eaten his tie.

STILL haven't seen it yet, been reaaaally busy today. Has it been tubed?

STILL haven't seen it yet, been reaaaally busy today. Has it been tubed?

You can find video and transcript here (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/video.transcript/), although I am sure it is all over the place.

I'm trying to figure out if anyone in these forums thinks McCain won -- other than CH.

It seems like the answer is no.

I'm not suprised some hardcore pundits are saying that McCain won. They would say that even if McCain had eaten his tie.

Well, last night, even on Fox - the only REAL advocate I could find was that Lindsey Graham guy, and he kind of scared me, to be honest. He was practically drooling.

McCain seems to have picked up a few pundit supporters... but ONLY a few, and they have seemed to be pretty hardcore.

As far as I can tell, the majority of non-partisan support definitely moved towards a vote in favour of Obama. And - a day on - it seems like that's the proportion that's growing.

You can find video and transcript here (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/video.transcript/), although I am sure it is all over the place.

Thanks.

Well, last night, even on Fox - the only REAL advocate I could find was that Lindsey Graham guy, and he kind of scared me, to be honest. He was practically drooling.

McCain seems to have picked up a few pundit supporters... but ONLY a few, and they have seemed to be pretty hardcore.

As far as I can tell, the majority of non-partisan support definitely moved towards a vote in favour of Obama. And - a day on - it seems like that's the proportion that's growing.

Senator Graham is currently national co-chairman of McCain's 2008 presidential bid. So, yeah, I think he'd say McCain won.

Kind of like how Kissinger is now amending his comments and saying he agrees with McCain. I'm shocked, shocked to find that a close friend and adviser of McCain would do that!

Senator Graham is currently national co-chairman of McCain's 2008 presidential bid. So, yeah, I think he'd say McCain won.

Kind of like how Kissinger is now amending his comments and saying he agrees with McCain. I'm shocked, shocked to find that a close friend and adviser of McCain would do that!

I understand it... on a level - they're his friends, and they want to be kind....

Okay - it wasn't a rout. McCain made some good points. He was very emotive. He moved some people - but is it really doing him any favours for his friends to tell him he won? Don't real friends tell you the truth, even when it hurts?

I've gone back over the points. I've looked at the soundbites. I've tried to score it on content and presentation. There's just no real measure by which McCain can honestly be said to have won that debate.

The best you could argue, is that he didn't get canned the way it looked (on Thursday) like he might.

Senator Graham is currently national co-chairman of McCain's 2008 presidential bid. So, yeah, I think he'd say McCain won.

Kind of like how Kissinger is now amending his comments and saying he agrees with McCain. I'm shocked, shocked to find that a close friend and adviser of McCain would do that!
Especially after McCain made such a big deal of saying during the debate that Kissinger would agree with him over Obama. :rolleyes:

I've been fairly mystified by the press/pundit response to the debate. It's true that only the hardcore rightwingers are declaring victory for McCain, but many others seem unwilling to call it for Obama. 24 hours later, and I'm still hearing from ABC/CBS/NBC and the wire services that it was a tie or there was no clear winner. That liberal bias in the media sure can be a pain.

I understand it... on a level - they're his friends, and they want to be kind....

Okay - it wasn't a rout. McCain made some good points. He was very emotive. He moved some people - but is it really doing him any favours for his friends to tell him he won? Don't real friends tell you the truth, even when it hurts?

I've gone back over the points. I've looked at the soundbites. I've tried to score it on content and presentation. There's just no real measure by which McCain can honestly be said to have won that debate.

The best you could argue, is that he didn't get canned the way it looked (on Thursday) like he might.

What McCain's friends may say to him in private just might not match what they say on national television. I know: I'm shocked, shocked again.

yes his friends have to lie to him.

he cant get off the roller coaster until nov 5th. there is no sense destroying his confidence. his handlers will prepare him differently for the next debate.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

so they basically both stretched the facts a lot ;)

my opinion, from watching the entire debate was they both did a very good job, both had some very good points, and both seemed to represent their policies very well...
now to my admittedly untrained eye, it seemed senator obama was trying to play the bipartisan placator a lot, trying to complement senator mccain (did anyone else found the way he said john seem patronizing? his tone hit me as patronizing, but thats a minor nitpick) and on lots of things kinda digress a little to talk about stuff everyone wants (veterans funding etc.) While McCain got down and dirty more.

I thought both showed themselves to be capable, and obama gave me a little comfort that he can do some good if he's elected. Of course I still disagree with him on abortion, but bush really didn't do much about that either ;)
Factcheck.org missed a few... Waziristan not ruled since Alexander the Great? Gimme a break. And a Moghul, and a Mongol, and...

Especially after McCain made such a big deal of saying during the debate that Kissinger would agree with him over Obama. :rolleyes:

Luckily there are such things as transcripts. :hail:

Dr. Kissinger Parses Dr. Kissinger (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/dr_kissinger_parses_dr_kissing.php)
27 Sep 2008 02:22 pm

A debater's trick: answering a charge that was not leveled.

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.

That was Dr. Henry Kissinger, interviewed (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/20/se.01.html) by CNN special correspondent Frank Sesno on the 20th of September.

Dr. Kissinger was referring to negotiations with Iran

Senso asks: negotiation "put at a very high level right out of the box?"

Kissinger:

Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to. Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

Last night, Sen. Barack Obama asserted that Kissinger endorsed talks with Iran without preconditions. Mr. Obama did not say that Kissinger hoped to begin those talks at a particular level -- although Kissinger, as you can see above, had specified one.

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.

Kissinger responded last night to an assertion that Obama had not made:

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

If Kissinger's views on Iran are "entirely compatible" with John McCain's -- an indirect invocation of the transitive principle -- and if Kissinger's September 20th interview with Frank Sesno accurately renders his views, then it seems as if there is very little daylight between Barack Obama and John McCain on how and when to negotiate with Iran.

After twice saying that he would meet with the leaders of rogue countries without preconditions, Obama a year ago took a step back and insisted on "preparation" and on beginning diplomacy below the level of the principles before the presidents could meet.

The only difference appears to be that McCain would insist that Iran do certain things before diplomacy commences, while Kissinger and Obama would NOT insist on any concessions.

Factcheck.org missed a few... Waziristan not ruled since Alexander the Great? Gimme a break. And a Moghul, and a Mongol, and...

How dare you criticize Factcheck.org! How dare you, sir! Have you no decency?

I'm not suprised some hardcore pundits are saying that McCain won. They would say that even if McCain had eaten his tie.

actually, they would mock democrats for ever thinking that tie-eating doesn't form a cornerstone of any good foreign policy.

Luckily there are such things as transcripts. :hail:
<snip for length>
Nice. :D So, apparently McCain doesn't know what his good friend and advisor's position actually is, just like he doesn't know when he is not really disagreeing with Obama.

actually, they would mock democrats for ever thinking that tie-eating doesn't form a cornerstone of any good foreign policy.
the fundamentals of the economy are strong. taste how yummy this tie is! thats what i meant by fundamentals, MY TIE.

I'm trying to figure out if anyone in these forums thinks McCain won -- other than CH.

It seems like the answer is no.

I'm not suprised some hardcore pundits are saying that McCain won. They would say that even if McCain had eaten his tie. I think no one here, save one you mentioned felt McCain came out ahead. I believe that to be an interesting sampling, and a bit shocking when compared to the pundits, but they are partisan hacks who themselves are sometimes closet republicans...it so often seems that the media can be so off base when taken into the general public reckoning of events. Mainstream media that is. So in this debate thread, I would agree Obama is the favorite for a win in the debate. Those early in the thread watching live are like a focus group. Fascinating....wonder how representative that could be.

After thinking it over, I realize that a tie for Obama is a win for Obama. And not for the obvious "he's in the lead, so McCain needs to win to get ahead, so since Obama stopped McCain from winning, he stays in the lead" sort of way.

There is a not insubstantial group of people out there, I estimate 3% to 6% of our potential voters (read, enough to change the outcome of the election) who think to themselves "gee, I really like Obama. I like his ideas, I like his ideals, I like what he stands for, I like that he wants to protect me, but this is a dangerous world, and while I think Obama would do a great job domestically, there are real threats out there, and maybe we need someone who knows how to work national security. I like Obama more than McCain, but maybe McCain knows how to keep us safer"

I think that represents a lot of voters. Those who would vote for Obama, but feel that McCain, if all shit hit the fan on an international level, would be better for protecting America. But what happened in this debate? It's a tie. People are saying they did equally well. So that person who is thinking that she really likes Obama, but thinks we'd be safer with mcCain? She just heard it's a tie. She just heard they BOTH were presidential. She just heard they BOTH did well. She just heard Obama did just as well as McCain on a debate regarding national security.

And she decided ot vote Obama.

Nice. :D So, apparently McCain doesn't know what his good friend and advisor's position actually is, just like he doesn't know when he is not really disagreeing with Obama.

I also like this little tidbit from that Kissinger interview, given McCain's saying this during the debate:

McCain: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint."

Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia.

Here's what McCain's good buddy and advisor said on September 20, 2008:

Kissinger: We have to face the fact that the first shot in Georgia was fired on the Georgian side. Now Russia reacted in an excessive manner. But we should not make the whole relationship depend on the pictures that you showed (ph).

OK all, in order to keep the forum from being spammed in 5 different threads about the debate in, now, just over half an hour, I'm creating this thread so we can keep live commentary going as the debate progresses. So I think we can keep the clutter down by keeping all debate related comments (who said what and when, was it good? was it bad? who won? who lost?) to here.

Which one brought up and favoured Hitler? I'd vote for other guys.

After thinking it over, I realize that a tie for Obama is a win for Obama. And not for the obvious "he's in the lead, so McCain needs to win to get ahead, so since Obama stopped McCain from winning, he stays in the lead" sort of way.

There is a not insubstantial group of people out there, I estimate 3% to 6% of our potential voters (read, enough to change the outcome of the election) who think to themselves "gee, I really like Obama. I like his ideas, I like his ideals, I like what he stands for, I like that he wants to protect me, but this is a dangerous world, and while I think Obama would do a great job domestically, there are real threats out there, and maybe we need someone who knows how to work national security. I like Obama more than McCain, but maybe McCain knows how to keep us safer"

I think that represents a lot of voters. Those who would vote for Obama, but feel that McCain, if all shit hit the fan on an international level, would be better for protecting America. But what happened in this debate? It's a tie. People are saying they did equally well. So that person who is thinking that she really likes Obama, but thinks we'd be safer with mcCain? She just heard it's a tie. She just heard they BOTH were presidential. She just heard they BOTH did well. She just heard Obama did just as well as McCain on a debate regarding national security.

And she decided ot vote Obama.

That does represent a lot of voters. Inspiring ending. What do you think of the potential for White Democrats who are racist somewhat and unsure of voting for an african american are of deciding to vote Obama, despite color? Think they may have an impact on the election and how the debate is viewed?

Which one brought up and favoured Hitler? I'd vote for other guys.

Well, McCain did clarify (twice IIRC) that he was against a second Holocaust.

That Obama guy didn't say "John's right about that" on that occasion.

:eek:

-snip-

I think what Obama needs to show most strength in right now though is the economy. He is already advantaged however, since McCain is part of the party who many voters see as at least partly responsible for the mess.

After thinking it over, I realize that a tie for Obama is a win for Obama. And not for the obvious "he's in the lead, so McCain needs to win to get ahead, so since Obama stopped McCain from winning, he stays in the lead" sort of way.

There is a not insubstantial group of people out there, I estimate 3% to 6% of our potential voters (read, enough to change the outcome of the election) who think to themselves "gee, I really like Obama. I like his ideas, I like his ideals, I like what he stands for, I like that he wants to protect me, but this is a dangerous world, and while I think Obama would do a great job domestically, there are real threats out there, and maybe we need someone who knows how to work national security. I like Obama more than McCain, but maybe McCain knows how to keep us safer"

I think that represents a lot of voters. Those who would vote for Obama, but feel that McCain, if all shit hit the fan on an international level, would be better for protecting America. But what happened in this debate? It's a tie. People are saying they did equally well. So that person who is thinking that she really likes Obama, but thinks we'd be safer with mcCain? She just heard it's a tie. She just heard they BOTH were presidential. She just heard they BOTH did well. She just heard Obama did just as well as McCain on a debate regarding national security.

And she decided ot vote Obama.

My roommate is out-of-town so I don't think she's seen the debate. I'll be very curious to hear her reaction.

She was strong for Hillary, but feels she should vote for McCain because of his experience. Interesting to see if her opinion waivers.

(And, yes, I think her position is completely irrational. We have largely made the topic of politics off-limits until after the election. ;))

That does represent a lot of voters. Inspiring ending. What do you think of the potential for White Democrats who are racist somewhat and unsure of voting for an african american are of deciding to vote Obama, despite color? Think they may have an impact on the election and how the debate is viewed?
i think the somewhat racists will be comforted by obama's calm strength. just as these people can work with blacks and can have dinner with their sister and her black boyfriend, they can end up voting for the man who has the best plan even if he is black.

I also like this little tidbit from that Kissinger interview, given McCain's saying this during the debate:

McCain: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint."

Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia.

Here's what McCain's good buddy and advisor said on September 20, 2008:

Kissinger: We have to face the fact that the first shot in Georgia was fired on the Georgian side. Now Russia reacted in an excessive manner. But we should not make the whole relationship depend on the pictures that you showed (ph).
:D:D

Earlier today, I suggested a possible betting pool to my mom. I said, "Okay, let's say Obama/Biden win the election and become the next Pres/VP. How long after the election will it be before Sarah Palin appears on 'Dancing With the Stars'?"

Now I have another one: How long before Kissinger goes to work for Obama?

:D:D

Earlier today, I suggested a possible betting pool to my mom. I said, "Okay, let's say Obama/Biden win the election and become the next Pres/VP. How long after the election will it be before Sarah Palin appears on 'Dancing With the Stars'?"

Now I have another one: How long before Kissinger goes to work for Obama?

National Security Advisor? How old is Dr. Kissinger, anyway?

National Security Advisor? How old is Dr. Kissinger, anyway?Old enough to have worked for Nixon. And, it is my hope, he won't for Obama. He is a rather shady figure (Kissinger).

National Security Advisor? How old is Dr. Kissinger, anyway?

I believe he is 85. Not a spring chicken like McCain.

But, regardless, these days I believe he is too busy being Dr. Henry Killinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Henry_Killinger#Recurring_and_minor_characters). :D

Old enough to have worked for Nixon. And, it is my hope, he won't for Obama. He is a rather shady figure (Kissinger).

More than "rather" shady. At least to some of us.

More than "rather" shady. At least to some of us.
Kissinger is the ultimate politician -- all the skill, all the intelligence, all the sociopathy, a monstrous human being in many, many ways. In ancient Rome he'd be deified.

I think the world would likely have been a better place if we hadn't had him, but we do have him, and he is definitely one enemy I would want to keep closer than my friends. So, if I was president, you bet Kissinger would be on my team. I wouldn't actually follow any of his advice, but at least he'd be neutralized by keeping him off anyone else's team.

I think no one here, save one you mentioned felt McCain came out ahead. I believe that to be an interesting sampling, and a bit shocking when compared to the pundits, but they are partisan hacks who themselves are sometimes closet republicans...it so often seems that the media can be so off base when taken into the general public reckoning of events. Mainstream media that is. So in this debate thread, I would agree Obama is the favorite for a win in the debate. Those early in the thread watching live are like a focus group. Fascinating....wonder how representative that could be.

To be fair - I think a lot of pundits and sources are starting to declare it a tie so they don't get accused of favouring either side.

I was just looking at the Yahoo/AFP news, which basically does exactly that - declares it a pretty much even match... "Commentators meanwhile coalesced behind the view that neither McCain 72, nor Obama, 47, landed a decisive blow in the debate at the University of Mississippi or committed a major gaffe, a verdict that benefits Obama given his slim lead in the polls. "

But if you look carefully, it also lists this: "An instant telephone poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp. after the debate scored a decisive win for Obama among 524 debate watchers. Asked who did the better job, 51 percent said Obama and 38 percent said McCain.

The Democrat had a yawning lead of 58-37 percent on handling the economy, and a narrower edge of 52-47 percent on the Iraq war, the pollsters said".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080927/ts_alt_afp/usvote_16;_ylt=Anx6.u_h5FYe0Ly1ZcLcVvHCw5R4


The main talking heads seem to be trying to absolve themselves of IMMEDIATE connection to it... whilst simultaneously pointing out that McCain got at least a BIT of a kicking.

Old enough to have worked for Nixon. And, it is my hope, he won't for Obama. He is a rather shady figure (Kissinger).

"Rather shady"? He FAVORED COUPS HERE!

Kissinger is the ultimate politician -- all the skill, all the intelligence, all the sociopathy, a monstrous human being in many, many ways. In ancient Rome he'd be deified.

I think the world would likely have been a better place if we hadn't had him, but we do have him, and he is definitely one enemy I would want to keep closer than my friends. So, if I was president, you bet Kissinger would be on my team. I wouldn't actually follow any of his advice, but at least he'd be neutralized by keeping him off anyone else's team.

There's another option, namely handing that monster over to some authorities that want to arrest him.

"Rather shady"? He FAVORED COUPS HERE!

Why do you hate freedom?

Why do you hate freedom?

I'm so glad you're being sarcastic. ;)

"Rather shady"? He FAVORED COUPS HERE!
just because he belongs in prison...

does that make him a BAD man?

just because he belongs in prison...

does that make him a BAD man?

Well...

"Rather shady"? He FAVORED COUPS HERE!

But mostly only in countries with brown or yellow people, so that's OK.

But mostly only in countries with brown or yellow people, so that's OK.

But I'm WHITE! ;)

(I feel so, so dirty for that sentence...)

I think what Obama needs to show most strength in right now though is the economy. He is already advantaged however, since McCain is part of the party who many voters see as at least partly responsible for the mess.

Neither one said anything amazing about the economy. Maybe it's because that's how they started, and they just needed time getting warmed up, but the only information I took away was McCain will veto earmarks and Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Both seemed to stick to their respective mantras, even when Jim Lehrer prodded them.

I'm so glad you're being sarcastic. ;)

He was bringing you freedom! And... democracy.

Mainly freedom.

Maybe Apple Pie.

Why do you hate it? Why do you hate apple pie. And the troops! You could have had democracy, pie, freedom AND the troops. Why do you hate the troops?

Why do you hate democracy pie?

He was bringing you freedom! And... democracy.

Mainly freedom.

Maybe Apple Pie.

Why do you hate it? Why do you hate apple pie. And the troops! You could have had democracy, pie, freedom AND the troops. Why do you hate the troops?

Why do you hate democracy pie?
it amazes me that you arent already a citizen. you are so supremely qualified.

But I'm WHITE! ;)

(I feel so, so dirty for that sentence...)

http://londonsburning.org/lyr_complete_lyrics_10.html:

As every cell in Chile will tell
The cries of the tortured men
Remember Allende, and the days before,
Before the army came
Please remember Victor Jara,
In the Santiago Stadium,
Es verdad - those Washington Bullets again

it amazes me that you arent already a citizen. you are so supremely qualified.

It was the 'democracy pie' that did it, wasn't it.... :(

Why do you hate democracy pie?

I don't hate it, I just fart a lot when I eat it. :p

http://londonsburning.org/lyr_complete_lyrics_10.html:

As every cell in Chile will tell
The cries of the tortured men
Remember Allende, and the days before,
Before the army came
Please remember Victor Jara,
In the Santiago Stadium,
Es verdad - those Washington Bullets again


Nice...

I don't hate it, I just fart a lot when I eat it. :p

Ahhh, that's what the 'murmuring of the proletariat' is....

Ahhh, that's what the 'murmuring of the proletariat' is....

Ouch...

Ouch...

Well, I'd heard the phrase before, but I never knew what it was... too much democracy pie, apparently.

Nice...

Ya gotta love the political songs by The Clash.

Washington Bullets (http://londonsburning.org/lyr_complete_lyrics_10.html#Washington) may be my favorite of theirs, although Charlie Don't Surf (http://londonsburning.org/lyr_complete_lyrics_02.html#CharlieDon) is pretty good.

There's another option, namely handing that monster over to some authorities that want to arrest him.
He's like a weapon of mass destruction. I don't trust anyone but me not to use him. I feel for your position, I do, but I think I'd feel safer with him neutralized under my control until he is dead.

I'm trying to figure out if anyone in these forums thinks McCain won -- other than CH.

It seems like the answer is no.
Of course no one else here thinks McCain won the debate. This is afterall Obamaland, where "The One" can do no wrong.

Here are some of the reasons why McCain won (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2E4MmYxZjMxMDgwMDI0NzJhMWM2NDY0ZjRmMWMxODU):

‘Senator McCain Is Absolutely Right…’

Barack Obama plays Mr. Nice Guy — and loses — in the first debate.

By Byron York

Oxford, Mississippi — A few minutes after the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama ended here on the campus of the University of Mississippi, I asked close McCain adviser Charlie Black whether Obama had performed as McCain’s debate team had anticipated.

“No, no,” Black said emphatically. “I never expected Sen. Obama to spend the entire debate on the defensive, and he did. He did.”

Maybe there was a tad of exaggeration in Black’s verdict, but there was some truth in it, too. Obama was smooth, unflappable, and just a little off balance for much of the evening. Worse for him, he seemed inexplicably eager to concede that McCain was right on issue after issue. A candidate determined to appear congenial might do that once, or even twice, but Obama did it eight times:

“I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…”

“He’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…”

“John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right…”

“John is right we have to make cuts…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families…”

“John — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…”

Add it all up, and Obama was undeniably, and surprisingly, deferential to a man who in the past Obama has said “doesn’t get it.” Moments after the debate ended, I asked David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, whether Obama had simply been too nice (not a question one often gets to ask in these situations). “The bottom line is, I don’t think the American people want us to disagree just for the sake of being disagreeable,” Axelrod told me. “I think he made a very strong case, absolutely.”

Well, you wouldn’t expect Axelrod to admit that his guy messed up. But here’s a prediction: The next time McCain and Obama meet in debate, on October 7 in Nashville, start a drinking game in which you take a big swig every time Obama says, “John is absolutely right.” I’ll bet you get to the end of the debate without ever lifting a glass.
I don't expect the denizens of Obamaland to "get it" either, but those points definitely show Obama's concession.

nationalreview.com

"but i'm not a republican!'

"Rather shady"? He FAVORED COUPS HERE!

Brazil, Chile... basically all over Latin America.

Brazil, Chile... basically all over Latin America.

Yeah, why I said it in the plural - "here" = Latin America.

Of course no one else here thinks McCain won the debate. This is afterall Obamaland, where "The One" can do no wrong.

Here are some of the reasons why McCain won (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2E4MmYxZjMxMDgwMDI0NzJhMWM2NDY0ZjRmMWMxODU):

‘Senator McCain Is Absolutely Right…’


I don't expect the denizens of Obamaland to "get it" either, but those points definitely show Obama's concession.

If you had actually watched the debate, you would have known that whenever Obama said "Sen. McCain is absolutely right" about something, it was preface to him explaining where he felt McCain was not telling the whole story, it was no concession. Or did you see the debate, and know very well what the context of those comments was and are now deliberately misrepresenting it in order to further your vendetta?

Yeah, why I said it in the plural - "here" = Latin America.

Sorry. Didn't catch that you meant it in the plural.

I don't expect the denizens of Obamaland to "get it" either, but those points definitely show Obama's concession.

"You're right, but ... " is a standard technique when you want to move your opponent (and your audience) in a particular direction towards a common goal.
"My opponent just doesn't get it!" is the cry of a petulant child who refuses to admit that there are shades of grey amongst the issues.

Your argument that agreement = concession fails on the basis of any reasonable debating tactics. There's also the matter of showing courtesy towards folks who might not share your views. Every time McCain said "Senator Obama just doesn't get it" about a point that I agreed with Obama, McCain is accusing me of ignorance on issues I have researched. Every time Obama said "I agree with Senator McCain" but then followed with his own differences, he allowed me to maintain respect for his positions while perhaps disagreeing with them.

If McCain went first and said "The sun rises in the east", would it have benefited Obama to say "McCain just doesn't get it" in rebuttal? Agreeing with obvious statements isn't concession, it's common sense. Building your defense around that choice of phrasing is ludicrous and grasping at straws.

OK all, in order to keep the forum from being spammed in 5 different threads about the debate in, now, just over half an hour, I'm creating this thread so we can keep live commentary going as the debate progresses. So I think we can keep the clutter down by keeping all debate related comments (who said what and when, was it good? was it bad? who won? who lost?) to here.

What debate?

Of course no one else here thinks McCain won the debate. This is afterall Obamaland, where "The One" can do no wrong.

Here are some of the reasons why McCain won (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2E4MmYxZjMxMDgwMDI0NzJhMWM2NDY0ZjRmMWMxODU):

‘Senator McCain Is Absolutely Right…’


I don't expect the denizens of Obamaland to "get it" either, but those points definitely show Obama's concession.

Concession? If it wasn't you I'd know this was a joke.

Luckily, it appears a majority of the public watching the debate lives in what you call Obamaland.

And relying on the National Review for analysis? Your ability to limbo continues to amaze me. (Not to mention the part you quote doesn't really support the conclusion that McCain won, only that Obama wasn't rabid.)

"You're right, but ... " is a standard technique when you want to move your opponent (and your audience) in a particular direction towards a common goal.
"My opponent just doesn't get it!" is the cry of a petulant child who refuses to admit that there are shades of grey amongst the issues.

Your argument that agreement = concession fails on the basis of any reasonable debating tactics. There's also the matter of showing courtesy towards folks who might not share your views. Every time McCain said "Senator Obama just doesn't get it" about a point that I agreed with Obama, McCain is accusing me of ignorance on issues I have researched. Every time Obama said "I agree with Senator McCain" but then followed with his own differences, he allowed me to maintain respect for his positions while perhaps disagreeing with them.

If McCain went first and said "The sun rises in the east", would it have benefited Obama to say "McCain just doesn't get it" in rebuttal? Agreeing with obvious statements isn't concession, it's common sense. Building your defense around that choice of phrasing is ludicrous and grasping at straws.

:hail::hail:

(And I'm not just sucking up to Mods. You succinctly but thoroughly explained CH's errors.)

And relying on the National Review for analysis? Your ability to limbo continues to amaze me. (Not to mention the part you quote doesn't really support the conclusion that McCain won, only that Obama wasn't rabid.)

What? Are you implying that someone who wrote a book entitled The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time. can't be trusted to be objective?

Without reading this thread, Im watching the debate now (I wasnt around last night but recorded it), and so far McCains enitre arguement seems to be "You young whipper snappers dont understand, but you will when youre older. Now get off my lawn."

Obama is cleaning his clock.

If you had actually watched the debate, you would have known that whenever Obama said "Sen. McCain is absolutely right" about something, it was preface to him explaining where he felt McCain was not telling the whole story, it was no concession. Or did you see the debate, and know very well what the context of those comments was and are now deliberately misrepresenting it in order to further your vendetta?

I doubt CH watched it.

What? Are you implying that someone who wrote a book entitled The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time. can't be trusted to be objective?

that reminds me, i really need to get me on the right-wing hack gravy train.

Of course no one else here thinks McCain won the debate. This is afterall Obamaland, where "The One" can do no wrong.

Here are some of the reasons why McCain won (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2E4MmYxZjMxMDgwMDI0NzJhMWM2NDY0ZjRmMWMxODU):

‘Senator McCain Is Absolutely Right…’


I don't expect the denizens of Obamaland to "get it" either, but those points definitely show Obama's concession.

Wow. You managed to find a clueless source.

Apparently, the person writing the article has never heard of the phrase 'damned with faint praise'. Apparently, the person writing the article is unaware that it is possible to accept someone's rpemise, and then reach an entirely different conclusion.

Obama could have been a little more offensive, but he didn't NEED to be. His comments about McCain 'being right' (usually - directly before he showed him why ONLY his opening premise was any good) showed him to be bipartisan, giving and - perhaps, most importantly - in control.

McCain looked scrappy in comparison, and his constant bleating of 'doesn't understand' (again - which usually preceded him being shown that Obama DOES understand) looked like he simply can't reach across aisles.

McCain looked good to people who want nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

McCain looked good to people who ONLY want a candidate that appeals to the Republican base - which is bad news, because he's supposed to be trying to distance himself from it.

And the other group he looked good to - McCain looked good to people that like Bush's 'diplomacy don't work so I won't even try it' coldwar crap.

Im mostly shocked that McCain had the gall to lie about Obama's views and his records when Obama is right fucking there to call him on it.

"You're right, but ... " is a standard technique when you want to move your opponent (and your audience) in a particular direction towards a common goal.
"My opponent just doesn't get it!" is the cry of a petulant child who refuses to admit that there are shades of grey amongst the issues.

Your argument that agreement = concession fails on the basis of any reasonable debating tactics. There's also the matter of showing courtesy towards folks who might not share your views. Every time McCain said "Senator Obama just doesn't get it" about a point that I agreed with Obama, McCain is accusing me of ignorance on issues I have researched. Every time Obama said "I agree with Senator McCain" but then followed with his own differences, he allowed me to maintain respect for his positions while perhaps disagreeing with them.

If McCain went first and said "The sun rises in the east", would it have benefited Obama to say "McCain just doesn't get it" in rebuttal? Agreeing with obvious statements isn't concession, it's common sense. Building your defense around that choice of phrasing is ludicrous and grasping at straws.

Very well said! Far better then I would have done! :)

Sorry. Didn't catch that you meant it in the plural.

It's okay, I am magnanimous enough to forgive you, son. Now go in peace.

*Makes magnanimous gesture. To the sound of a celestial choir. Like a soprano "ooooohh...".*

:p

Very well said! Far better then I would have done! :)

And no response, too. Must've stuck.

And no response, too. Must've stuck.

Don't worry, he'll be back later to declare victory.

"You're right, but ... " is a standard technique when you want to move your opponent (and your audience) in a particular direction towards a common goal.
"My opponent just doesn't get it!" is the cry of a petulant child who refuses to admit that there are shades of grey amongst the issues.

Your argument that agreement = concession fails on the basis of any reasonable debating tactics. There's also the matter of showing courtesy towards folks who might not share your views. Every time McCain said "Senator Obama just doesn't get it" about a point that I agreed with Obama, McCain is accusing me of ignorance on issues I have researched. Every time Obama said "I agree with Senator McCain" but then followed with his own differences, he allowed me to maintain respect for his positions while perhaps disagreeing with them.

If McCain went first and said "The sun rises in the east", would it have benefited Obama to say "McCain just doesn't get it" in rebuttal? Agreeing with obvious statements isn't concession, it's common sense. Building your defense around that choice of phrasing is ludicrous and grasping at straws.
With all due respect, I do believe that McCain's chants of "Senator Obama just doesn't get it", were probably designed as an answer to this Obama ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNIx0RStzr4).

With all due respect, I do believe that McCain's chants of "Senator Obama just doesn't get it", were probably designed as an answer to this Obama ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNIx0RStzr4).

Doubtful. It's a national debate and that ad doesn't play everywhere. First time I saw it.

Also consider the fact that mccain has been preaching experience and the fact Obama doesn't have it.

With all due respect, I do believe that McCain's chants of "Senator Obama just doesn't get it", were probably designed as an answer to this Obama ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNIx0RStzr4).

Which would be insane, because showboating to an audience isn't the purpose of the debate. Indeed - a large part of the debate... maybe the whole purpose - is to convince people who might not be up to speed on your campaign(s). And - I'm sure you noticed - the crowd wasn't exploding into ovations when zingers bounced around.

If that was his goal, it misfired badly, and he should have pulled his head back in after the first fail, rather than trying to hammer it in over and over.

interesting thoughts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frans-de-waal/nervous-old-male_b_129903.html) from frans de waal (the primatologist and author whose books all of you should read):

David Broder in the Washington Post of September 28, 2008, writes an opinion piece entitled "McCain as the Alpha Male."

Since the term "alpha male" comes out of primatology, and I have known many males who qualify, I feel like commenting on Broder's observation

"... an imbalance in the deference quotient between the younger man and the veteran senator -- an impression reinforced by Obama's frequent glances in McCain's direction and McCain's studied indifference to his rival."

Looking at the body language of the candidates, however, I did not come away with the same impression. A confident alpha male chimpanzee would never show studied indifference. I have seen such behavior only in males who were terrified of their challenger. Chimpanzees provoke higher-ups by making impressive displays in their vicinity, hooting loudly in their direction, and sometimes lobbing objects at them to see what happens. Will the other startle or will he return the challenge? It's a war of nerves.

A self-confident alpha male just approaches his challenger and sets him straight, either by attacking him or performing a spectacular display of his own. No avoidance of eye contact: he takes the bull by the horns.

It rather is the hesitant or fearful alpha male who avoids looking straight at the other, sidesteps him as if nothing happened, ducks when objects fly, and just hopes that the other will give up and go away. This may work, but also signals weakness. One day, the challenger will pick up courage and do something more drastic, such as hitting the old guy's back. If the latter still tries to ignore his challenger after this, he's toast.

I read the body language between McCain and Obama as that between a senior male being challenged by a remarkably confident junior one. The senior didn't know exactly what to do. He avoided eye contact and body orientation, probably realizing that a direct confrontation might not go his way.

If McCain was an alpha male, it was an incredibly insecure one.

Then what is the point of McCain's alleged experience and knowledge if he doesn't use it to do anything good?

(I recognize you aren't defending McCain here, but that whole "I've been there" crap was really getting on my nerves.)

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? If he actually used his experience and knowledge to try to warn anybody or create awareness, it would be points in his favour. If he saw the Georgia situation coming but did nothing, it's serious points against him.

And I don't know, but I never heard him say anything at all before the shit hit the fan, and I haven't seen any records showing that he ever spoke up.

So yeah. The whole Georgia thing seems to me to be an argument against a McCain-administration.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ seems to have Obama still in the lead after the debate. It'll be interesting to see how the map shapes up in a few days, as more post-debate polls come in.

From what I've seen of the debate, Obama seems to have won (even Fox conceids this), if only by a little. Those few chanting the "McBush won the debate" line seem to be in denial about what all the debate polls have said. Over the past few weeks, we have seen Obama do nothing but gain ground in republican territory since the GOP convention, and this makes them nervous. The post convention bounce has certainly died down. The last nail in the coffin for them will be conceiding that they lost the debate. The VP debate will be a good show for anyone planning to vote Obama on the 5th, but might be a bit sad for those planning to vote for McBush.

I must say, I have taken much joy in seeing Colorado and New Mexico turn blue, with Nevada, Florida, and of course, North Carolina, lose their redness over the past few weeks. Even the conservative predictions about the election put Obama in the lead. I don't know how people like CH can still insist that Obama is going to lose to McBush.

interesting thoughts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frans-de-waal/nervous-old-male_b_129903.html) from frans de waal (the primatologist and author whose books all of you should read):
Very nice. :D Supports my take on it, though I didn't think to put it into competitive male terms like the primatologist did. I just saw it as Obama coming across as way more in charge of himself and comfortable in the situation -- on the spot, in front of cameras and an audience, with no teleprompter, under hot lights, etc. -- than McCain.

The only interpersonal weakness I saw in Obama was in the middle of the Russia exchange, when McCain's temper started to get loose and he violated the rules of the debate by filibustering and talking over Obama, and Lehrer did nothing to rein him in, Obama seemed at a loss for how to react immediately -- like when a person is confronted by someone else's child throwing a tantrum.

But I got the impression that Obama was able to reestablish his cool fairly quickly. He seemed far better able than McCain to keep track of the debate, keep a sense of where he was in the conversation, while simultaneously observing McCain's behavior. I think if the debate had been 3 hours instead of 1.5 hours, we'd have seen Obama construct a way to take McCain apart on stage. Maybe in the next debate...

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? If he actually used his experience and knowledge to try to warn anybody or create awareness, it would be points in his favour. If he saw the Georgia situation coming but did nothing, it's serious points against him.

And I don't know, but I never heard him say anything at all before the shit hit the fan, and I haven't seen any records showing that he ever spoke up.

So yeah. The whole Georgia thing seems to me to be an argument against a McCain-administration.
Neither have I, though admittedly I do not follow the man's every word and move. However, one would think that if he was going to bring it up as evidence of his qualifications to be president, then if he had said anything to anyone (maybe privately, in a letter to Bush or to some diplomats or someone), he would have mentioned it when he brought it up during the debate. The Cassandra act only works if it's a matter of "I told them, but they wouldn't listen." It doesn't have quite the same effect when its just "Well, I knew that would happen. *nods and goes back to eating lunch or whatever*"

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ seems to have Obama still in the lead after the debate. It'll be interesting to see how the map shapes up in a few days, as more post-debate polls come in.

From what I've seen of the debate, Obama seems to have won (even Fox conceids this), if only by a little. Those few chanting the "McBush won the debate" line seem to be in denial about what all the debate polls have said. Over the past few weeks, we have seen Obama do nothing but gain ground in republican territory since the GOP convention, and this makes them nervous. The post convention bounce has certainly died down. The last nail in the coffin for them will be conceiding that they lost the debate. The VP debate will be a good show for anyone planning to vote Obama on the 5th, but might be a bit sad for those planning to vote for McBush.

I must say, I have taken much joy in seeing Colorado and New Mexico turn blue, with Nevada, Florida, and of course, North Carolina, lose their redness over the past few weeks. Even the conservative predictions about the election put Obama in the lead. I don't know how people like CH can still insist that Obama is going to lose to McBush.

To be fair, just for the heck of it, electoral-vote.com moves pretty slowly and very few of the states have been updated since the debate, and none of those polls would really reflect post debate movement until around Tuesday. State by state polls aren't done every day and so a lot of their state averages become stale. Granted, usually those are states where movement from blue to red aren't that likely and battled states are polled more often, but as a scoreboard electoral-vote.com has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Of course no one else here thinks McCain won the debate. This is afterall Obamaland, where "The One" can do no wrong.

Here are some of the reasons why McCain won (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2E4MmYxZjMxMDgwMDI0NzJhMWM2NDY0ZjRmMWMxODU):

‘Senator McCain Is Absolutely Right…’


I don't expect the denizens of Obamaland to "get it" either, but those points definitely show Obama's concession.

I love how rather than debate, honestly debate, you have to using logical fallacies like "well, my opponents don't agree with me, not because my arguments suck, but because they worship they guy they're arguing for."

Seriously, learn how to debate. Such tactics while quoting the National Review is simply an embarrassment to good debate. No one expects better from you at this point, but shouldn't you?

To be fair, just for the heck of it, electoral-vote.com moves pretty slowly and very few of the states have been updated since the debate, and none of those polls would really reflect post debate movement until around Tuesday. State by state polls aren't done every day and so a lot of their state averages become stale. Granted, usually those are states where movement from blue to red aren't that likely and battled states are polled more often, but as a scoreboard electoral-vote.com has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Ah, the fun of intellectual honesty. Dude, someone needs to teach you how to worship someone. You clearly want to inject reason and understanding into debate. What the hell is that for?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx


50% to 42%.


Owned.

As for who "won", my mom put it best. They both did well, but because it was on foreign policy, McCain's claimed strong suit, and he barely managed to hold his own, Obama won.

Neither have I, though admittedly I do not follow the man's every word and move. However, one would think that if he was going to bring it up as evidence of his qualifications to be president, then if he had said anything to anyone (maybe privately, in a letter to Bush or to some diplomats or someone), he would have mentioned it when he brought it up during the debate. The Cassandra act only works if it's a matter of "I told them, but they wouldn't listen." It doesn't have quite the same effect when its just "Well, I knew that would happen. *nods and goes back to eating lunch or whatever*"

*Is in agreement*

Does McCain sound sick to anyone else? He sounds like he's got a cold or something.That's fundie and Bush campaign bukkake leftovers. Naturally congestive and retentive.

McCain is trudging right on when he talks, even through his own jokes. It seems like he has practiced this and is trying not to forget. How do you make a joke and then steamroll it?Typical republican approach, like that "antidote" they were going to present for The Daily Show.
*retch*

Use the word LIBERAL if you want to scare people.Yeah, boogedy-boogedy.
:rolleyes:

I love how rather than debate, honestly debate, you have to using logical fallacies like "well, my opponents don't agree with me, not because my arguments suck, but because they worship they guy they're arguing for."

Seriously, learn how to debate. Such tactics while quoting the National Review is simply an embarrassment to good debate. No one expects better from you at this point, but shouldn't you?
Back to the dustbin with you my friend. :( As I have stated before, and as the above evidence indicates, you would rather pontificate than debate.

Back to the dustbin with you my friend. :( As I have stated before, and as the above evidence indicates, you would rather pontificate than debate.

And your point above furthers the debate how exactly?

Physician, heal thyself.

Back to the dustbin with you my friend. :( As I have stated before, and as the above evidence indicates, you would rather pontificate than debate.

Let's look at what I was replying to.

Of course no one else here thinks McCain won the debate. This is afterall Obamaland, where "The One" can do no wrong.

Here are some of the reasons why McCain won (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2E4MmYxZjMxMDgwMDI0NzJhMWM2NDY0ZjRmMWMxODU):

‘Senator McCain Is Absolutely Right…’


I don't expect the denizens of Obamaland to "get it" either, but those points definitely show Obama's concession.


You quote the national review, a source you would NEVER accept if you weren't so rabidly anti-Obama. You've pointed out that such biased sources aren't reliable particularly for something entirely subjective before. You would be making the same point about it being an absurd source if we were discussing anything else. Of course, this inconsistency is going to be laughed at and dismissed. McCain's campaign said he won even before the debate happened. Perhaps we should accept their press release as evidence as well, huh? Or perhaps we could instead ignore them and look at more unbiased sources like the actual undecideds who sat in various groups for various networks? Yeah, I know, why would you want to actually look at real evidence when we can listen to an editorial from conservatives on whether they thought their candidate was good.

Additionally, I pointed out your fallacies. You don't like it, don't make them. Good debate REQUIRES that I point out your fallacies. That is debate.

For someone who suggests that the reason people disagree is because they're crazy or "don't get it", you certainly don't seem to make an effort to actually show you expect better from yourself. If pointing out the value of debate and its rules to you gets me put on ignore, then ignore away. It hasn't and will not stop my from destroying your points and demonstrating the obvious bias or misunderstanding in what little evidence you provide.

interesting thoughts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frans-de-waal/nervous-old-male_b_129903.html) from frans de waal (the primatologist and author whose books all of you should read):

Omg. Quoting de Waal. Who gave you the handout on "One easy to step to getting in Ryadn's pants"?

Omg. Quoting de Waal. Who gave you the handout on "One easy to step to getting in Ryadn's pants"?

I thought that step was called "tequila"

I thought that step was called "tequila"

Gin is the true panty peeler.

Ryadn hun, we miss you back home.

Omg. Quoting de Waal. Who gave you the handout on "One easy to step to getting in Ryadn's pants"?

Dammit, there's a handout? I thought it was a flier for a crappy band...I really should read what people hand out...

I thought that step was called "tequila"

No, that's from "How to get Ryadn to throw up on your shoes."

Gin is the true panty peeler.

Ryadn hun, we miss you back home.

I would argue, because I hate gin with a passion, but gin was actually instrumental in hooking up with the ex. Guilty as charged.

Sorry I haven't called more, I've been so busy. Now I'm a big sicky sickerton... if I come home will you baby me and make me a big pot of stew?

Dammit, there's a handout? I thought it was a flier for a crappy band...I really should read what people hand out...

Usually it is a flier for a crappy band, when it's not a flier from Jews for Jesus.

Sorry I haven't called more, I've been so busy. Now I'm a big sicky sickerton... if I come home will you baby me and make me a big pot of stew?
It's okay, we've all been busy, but yes, if you come home, I'll rub your feet and anything else you might want manipulated by my soft hands...and a big pot of stew is definitely within reach.

Usually it is a flier for a crappy band, when it's not a flier from Jews for Jesus.

oh don't get me started on THAT particular walking oxymoron.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx


50% to 42%.


Owned.

As for who "won", my mom put it best. They both did well, but because it was on foreign policy, McCain's claimed strong suit, and he barely managed to hold his own, Obama won.

Indeed. Ultimately, even while pundits and analysts are very knowledgeable on the subject, the polls say who truly won. This one went to Obama.

To be fair, just for the heck of it, electoral-vote.com moves pretty slowly and very few of the states have been updated since the debate, and none of those polls would really reflect post debate movement until around Tuesday. State by state polls aren't done every day and so a lot of their state averages become stale. Granted, usually those are states where movement from blue to red aren't that likely and battled states are polled more often, but as a scoreboard electoral-vote.com has to be taken with a grain of salt.

When I cited electoral-vote.com, I was saying how it would be interesting to see how that site unfolds over the week as the polls are updated. I was also citing it on how it shows Obama to have taken a nice lead over the past few weeks, where it, at one time, showed McBush ahead of Obama.

However, every poll website I've seen so far has Obama in front, and has done for a while. Including the gallup poll, which has already been posted. I just posted electoral-vote because I've been following it the closest. In fact, of the three polling websites I follow, electoral-vote has Obama with the lowest score.

To be fair, just for the heck of it, electoral-vote.com moves pretty slowly and very few of the states have been updated since the debate, and none of those polls would really reflect post debate movement until around Tuesday. State by state polls aren't done every day and so a lot of their state averages become stale. Granted, usually those are states where movement from blue to red aren't that likely and battled states are polled more often, but as a scoreboard electoral-vote.com has to be taken with a grain of salt.

another of the 5 million reasons to like 538 - their demographic-based trend adjustments to deal with the uneven and time-dependent nature of polling

Omg. Quoting de Waal. Who gave you the handout on "One easy to step to getting in Ryadn's pants"?

i just intuitively know such things; no handout required

another of the 5 million reasons to like 538 - their demographic-based trend adjustments to deal with the uneven and time-dependent nature of polling

But 538 gives Obama a higher projection for win than any other site I've seen so far. Oncemore, in the spirit of non-partisanness, I used electoral-vote, because it gives Obama a smaller margin for victory than the other sites I've seen. Still, 538 seems right on the ball. I just don't want to be accused of selecting only sites that predict an Obama victory, and have done from day 1.

But 538 gives Obama a higher projection for win than any other site I've seen so far. Oncemore, in the spirit of non-partisanness, I used electoral-vote, because it gives Obama a smaller margin for victory than the other sites I've seen. Still, 538 seems right on the ball. I just don't want to be accused of selecting only sites that predict an Obama victory, and have done from day 1.

well, choosing to highlight 538 because it shows good odds on an obama win would be partisan. but their methodology is impartial and seems a lot better grounded in that it gives weights to pollster histories and sample size and recentness, which leaves it much less open to the random swings that e-v gets when new polling data arrives

well, choosing to highlight 538 because it shows good odds on an obama win would be partisan. but their methodology is impartial and seems a lot better grounded in that it gives weights to pollster histories and sample size and recentness, which leaves it much less open to the random swings that e-v gets when new polling data arrives

I do appreciate (and was fully aware of) the irony of attempting to seem non-partisan choice by making a partisan choice. Again, 538's numbers are pretty damn good and non-partisan.

Gin is the true panty peeler.

Ryadn hun, we miss you back home.
And me with a 1.75L of Bombay Sapphire sitting unused in my cabinet. Remind me to start dosing my visitors with it.

That article was a nice read, though. Anyway, back on topic:

I started following electoral-vote last presidential election cycle. It does have simplicity as a virtue. 538 looks very nice, but sometimes I wonder if it isn't a little too complex.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110779/Debate-Watchers-Give-Obama-Edge-Over-McCain.aspx


America has spoken, and Obama won the debate hands down. Guiliani can go on Hannity and Colmes and spout his BS all he wants, but the numbers dont lie.

Oh, and fun fact:

Although the debate was supposed to deal with foreign policy, the first portion of the questions asked by moderator Jim Lehrer focused on the economy and the financial bailout plan being negotiated by Congress. This economic focus appears to have been positive for Obama; debate watchers ended up with more confidence in Obama's ability to deal with the economic problems facing the country, rather than less confidence as a result of the debate. By contrast, 37% of debate watchers said that the debate gave them less confidence in John McCain on economic matters rather than more.

Omg. Quoting de Waal. Who gave you the handout on "One easy to step to getting in Ryadn's pants"?*wink*