Reply With Quote
As an independent i can tell you for sure that being arrogant as the guy ^ put it really doesn't resonate among us.
It was condescending, but I also think it will work better for McCain than it did for Gore. With Bush and Gore, both were perceived to be on a pretty level playing field, so for one of them to act like the other one didn't belong there didn't make a lot of sense.
With Obama, that's a key obstacle he has to face... Whether he's qualified for this race. McCain's cold shoulder suggested Obama didn't even belng on the same stage with him. That's not going to work on independents who feel confident in Obama's qualifications for President but it could have some effect on those independents who have some hesitation about voting for someone with Obama's tenure in Washington.
We'll see.
As an independent i can tell you for sure that being arrogant as the guy ^ put it really doesn't resonate among us.
I wasn't too impressed with either one. I think overall McCain won ... but this was on his battleground so he had to win to keep the race compe ive. McCain came off condescending when he avoided talking or looking at Obama. But I thought Obama gained some condescending points for calling him "John" instead of Senator McCain for most of the first half of the debate.
I don't think I'll get many to agree but I think W would wipe the floor with either of them in a debate. W has that folksy, everyman debate quality about him that is almost unbeatable in a presidential debate. With McCain you can tell he's a career politician and you can tell Obama is a lawyer. Put W against either one and he'd stumble, mumble and awkward laugh his way to a debate win.
From what I can see, maybe I'm wrong, I thought Obama came off better.
I guess I'm in the minority in that camp.
If W didn't have all the baggage with him? I agree, W was a freaking debating master. Unreal with how kinda dumb he is too.
It's unreal how kinda dumb you are for asserting that W was even remotely competent as a debater. You are a Texan though......go figure.
The best debater I've ever seen is Bill Clinton. Watch and learn.
it....RON PAUL is the answer pplzQ!
Perot came off best in that first video.
Perot before he dropped out then got back in was NOT bad.
Still a whacko though.
Lose the head at ude please.
i haven't decided who to vote for yet...
i really liked alot of what barrack had to say...i just don't believe him yet though...
john, i believe him, and i have faith in his experience...but i could see barrack's point much more clearly on things...
i liked obama saying we're going to take care of business in pakistan...
anyhow, it came off as roses vs reality to me...
i look forward to the next debate...
i'll completely dismiss the vp debate as i only care about palin's rear view and i don't give a about vp's...
God willing...may the best man for the country win...
This debate was a total draw. Not one undecided voter has now decided because of it, i dont care what you see on tv. McCain fleshed out his hard hitting points better than Barack, if only because Barack has no ability to talk in a natural free-flowing cadence, but has still yet to shake off his way of talking that makes every person slightly to the right view him as a total blubbering idiot. Barack, on the other hand, did try to pull a Mr. Republican by mentioning Al Qaeda almost as many times as McCain mentioned Reagan (you ing pieces of , yes you reading this, read some history, you ing pieces of ), but i think it fell short because of his inability to talk smoothly.
I say if it was not a draw, McCain won verrrrrry slightly, but won is actually a bad word to use, i'd say McCain had a slight edge. However, this was supposed to be a debate that McCain would chodebload Barack at, being so incredibly old and experienced. Now we will move onto the good stuff, and Barack should do much better.
I think Jim Lerher was an awesome moderator, but I felt sorry for him because he was so excited he seemed to actually think he'd be able to make the candidates answer a question directly. I live have listened to Jim's show on KERA many times, he's an awesome journalist, IMO, and it was cool to see him work the debate. He was definitely the best moderator I've seen this entire cycle of elections. Not like those ass bas s on CNN, etc.
Party on, Wayne.
Read a ing book, the president of Iran says those things, and he is a figurehead that is working his own public for votes. Barack touched on this, but I am led to believe Alex Jones is right when I see McCain working all the generic Republican Talking Points and Barack chooses to reply to him within the paradigm we are all familiar with.
Barack had like FIVE opportunities to crush McCain, but he did not.
How you ask? By looking him in the eye and asking him, "Senator McCain, do you truly believe that the military victories alone will qualify the Iraq situation as a victory?"
Because it does not. Patreus himself ing said this. This was the most obvious ing thing Barack could have said right from the start of their bull exchange about Iraq. But Barack did not even come close to saying this.
McCain was the only one who mentioned Iraq as being a future "reliable ally" and that is complete and total bull 2002 style neocon tactics. Barack did not even tippy toe and confront this bull .
When I try to be a caring voter in my system, I try to convince myself that there is a fundamental difference between democrat and republican. I try to convince myself that people, who have been shouting that these two candidates are different arms of the same beast (like Alex Jones) are total tin foil hat wearing bags. But what did we see tonight?
I have never been more convinced that this is the case. The entire ebb and flow of the conversation was within the Republican paradigm of political situation abroad, and the fact that Barack only challenged him within this paradigm and repeatedly failed to challenge him on the obvious shortcomings of his views leads me to believe that this entire election is rigged for McCain.
Before any of you on the right or the left start lynching me, ANSWER ME THIS:
Why did Barack not mention political victory in Iraq as being the true benchmark for success? Why???? This is something a ing third grader could understand if they have been following the situation, but it was non existent in this debate.
I have never been more dissatisfied with direction my country is heading in, and I am sure many more are feeling the way I am.
I totally agree, but only because of the way they talk. McCain is vanilla, Obama talks in ing chunks like he's recalling what he's supposed to say, and W sounds like that idiot down the street that you watch a football game with sometimes.
Wow yeah. He would have pwnt McCain off the stage with a statement like that. Seriously.
I'm not being sarcastic this post.
Everyone says it was McCain's battleground but he had to deal with being tied to the Bush Admin and supporting the Iraq War.
Being tied to the Bush Admin is a huge obstacle to work around.
That's what Obama did that was successful in this debate: tied McCain to Bush every single chance he got. I was surprised McCain went ahead and threw W under the bus.
The table is set for McCain to separate himself from the Bush admin completely though...
Couldn't disagree more...I don't think I'll get many to agree but I think W would wipe the floor with either of them in a debate. W has that folksy, everyman debate quality about him that is almost unbeatable in a presidential debate.
#1. IIRC the polls also showed W lost every debate against Kerry.
#2. W is extremely unlikeable IMO...what he does well is play on stereotypes to make liberals looks like pussies.
With McCain you can tell he's a career politician and you can tell Obama is a lawyer. Put W against either one and he'd stumble, mumble and awkward laugh his way to a debate win.
I don't think so...I think W would lose a debate against any Presidential Candidate in history other than an overconfident Al Gore.
It's all ing nonsense, neither McCain nor Obama directly said yes or no about supporting that bull bailout bill, and Jim asked them directly 3 times in a row. I felt sorry for Jim, but at least he tried.
I'm not that smart, never pretended to be, and there are voters, especially on this forum that are smarter than me...so honestly, WHAT THE are we supposed to believe after this debate other than either
a) Obama's advisors are so ing stupid or cowardly they advise him not to counter McCain's hackneyed republican talking points with an obvious truth
or
b) This is a big ing charade.
I was so pissed after watching this abortion
Apply Ockham's razor....iare there less barriers to believing that EVERY EDUCATED DAesque democract advising Obama, would all simultaneously agree to tell him not to use the obvious counter to "Military victory = victory" or is it easier to believe that these people are educated, and chose to tell Obama not to use this line of counterattack.
QUESTION.
Actually, McCain pretty much answered yes(although he did it quietly) while Obama never directly answered the question IIRC....he talked about his plan.
I could actually care less, I'm more concerned with this obvious hole in the debate about Iraq, that CNN, FNC, MSNBC, et. al, are refusing to talk about.
According to CNN and CBS News, undecideds think Obama won. Only audience that matters.
This is a bull election. Now I am only pissed off that that loose Palin is actually going to be our president if McCain kicks the bucket. I know I've joked about this before, but I am serious now. We really are ed if McCain dies. Now, as an American, my entire concern is that McCain does not die while he is in office.
I completely disagree, but then again I would never want an average man to run the nation.
Then there are a bunch of stupid undecideds out there...Obama didn't know . Half the time he copied McCain's answer and the other times McCain showed a much more detailed insight into what is actually going on in Iraq, Afhganistan and Pakistan, not to mention Georgia...and exposed Obama as pretending to be an expert on places he's never actually been.
@#%#$ I never realized how easily Americans can be suckered by a slick talking laywer that never actually answers any damn questions.
PS: Anyone that think Achmajenna asshole can be negotiated with is an idiot....I don't give a if this guy agrees to every Pre-condition you want...he'll be lying. This dude is Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Castro...
Any attempt to at a civil discourse with this guy is going to be taken as a sign of weakness and fear.
Could you have negotiated with Hitler?
No...
This guy is further gone than Hitler ever was.
Ahmanijedad is not the supreme ruler of Iran...Khamanei is. Obama made that point very well.
If you think Obama or McCain is going into this debate trying to actually "win" the debate you're a fool. That's not the point of these debates anymore. It's all about shoring up your weaknesses amongst the voters you are seeking to get. For Obama this was about him looking Presidential and less of a risk to Independent voters. That's why he didn't make so much of an effort to dismantle McCain in this debate.
He certainly could have though if he chose to.
They couldn't pay me to write a more re ed analysis.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
