Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Sep 27, 2008.
A look at various reviews:
I watched a little bit of the last part of this debate, and I cannot for the life of me figure out the infatuation with Obama. What I saw was a guy with talking points with little understanding. As the commentators pointed out afterwards, McCain embarrassed him on foreign policy and Obama looked like he had listened to a few people and just kept repeating what they were saying. He stumbled a lot, which is bad for someone whose big key is that he is a good speaker.
McCain is a horrible speaker, but at least he has a clue a foreign policy.
Someone tell me ... What is the infatuation with Obama?
Foreign policy is McCain's strong point. He did not come across nearly so well on the economy. I have read a number of sources this morning on the debate and have decided that overall it was a draw. Neither landed a knockout punch. I am not sure that overall either even has a bloody nose.
I believe with many people McCain has two big problems:
1. Close ties to Bush which hurts him concerning
Iraq and Afghanistan
The financial mess we are in now
2.Palin as his VP
Perhaps a 3rd area that hurts McCain is the frustration that many people feel over the numerous 'family values' Republicians who have gotten into ethical and moral problems.
You are right. McCain is not a good speaker. We live in a media age and that is important to many people. I am not saying this is smart on the part of these people, but it is there and has to be recognized.
The "draw" seems to be the conclusion of most people that I saw after it was over. McCain was stronger on the foreign policy and Obama on the economy (though I didn't see the first part since I was sitting around a fire with my family ... which was actually worthwhile as opposed to this debate).
I still think Palin helps him with the people it was intended to help him with, though I don't think it was the best choice.
On the speaking think, remember Bush. Gore was a very good speaker, but he lost. I think there is something to the lack of polish that seems more authentic. But we do live in a media age.
I thought Obama's callling McCain "John" was tacky. It seemed like a young adult trying to act like he was on a par with someone way past him. It wouldn't have stuck out at all had he called him Senator McCain, but "John" was just like a red flag drawing attention to it, IMO. I think he would have come across much better by callling him "Senator McCain." It's one thing for Biden to do it (though I thought that was tacky to). Biden and McCain are from the same generation and have been friends longer than Obama has been out of school, I think.
My guess is that people who were predisposed to Obama will think he won. People predisposed to McCain will think he won. And the rest will say it was pretty much a draw, with no one really gaining anything. I didn't see the whole thing, but I thought on foreign policy, McCain stood out. I heard the first part was the opposite.
I heard the first 15 minutes on the radio and watched the rest on the tube. Here is my take:
On the current financial crisis, both avoided talking about it. Both said we need to cut spending, but both are supporting spending 700 BILLION on a bailout while cutting taxes (differing tax plans for each). Neither has assimilated the consequences of this bailout on the government's financial future. I suspect no one in the world has. Whichever man is elected will find himself in a severe financial strait jacket and will have to forego his promises of spending more money on anything.
On foreign policy, McCain dealt with two issues very effectively. He held Obama's feet to the fire on his twice-repeated statement that he would negotiate with leaders of rogue nations with no preconditions and he held Obama's feet to the fire on his opposition to the surge. Then, in his conclusion, he took those two issues and used them as illustrations to show that Obama is a man who makes obvious mistakes and is then to proud to admit them or correct them...and here is the kicker...just like George W. Bush. I thought this linkage by McCain of Obama to Bush was positively a brilliant piece of rhetoric and a great close.
A Debate On Iraq Benefits Obama
"It was not until almost half way into the debate that Lehrer actually asked the "Iraq" question.
Then, finally, the candidates diverged.
Recalling his own opposition to the war, Obama rapped McCain for getting everything about the run-up to the war wrong.
"At the time when the war started, you said it was quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were," said Obama.
"You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong."
McCain said Obama is getting it wrong now. "Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq," announced McCain.
"That's not true, that's not true," countered Obama.
Repeatedly, the candidates clashed.
And they clearly did disagree.
John McCain debated as the man who wanted this war six years ago and who wants it to continue even now.
Barack Obama debated as the man who won the Democratic nomination in large part because he had the wisdom to oppose launching an unnecessary preemptive war, and who scored points throughout the primary fight by promising to renew America's commitment to diplomacy.
The two men were speaking to a country that is rightly worried about a stumbling economy.
But the country worries, as well, about foreign-policy stumbles.
And the invasion and occupation of Iraq remains the worst of those stumbles in recent American history.
There will be plenty of spin about what was said in the first presidential debate.
But the focus on the war in Iraq, a war that most Americans think was a mistake and want to see finished, means that -- while the night saw no knockout blows -- it was Obama who got the debate he wanted and needed."
- rest at www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/365105
I'm very Sorry but I can't believe you said McCain didn't come across as well on the Economy!! At least he DID say something he would do to help fix the problem. Obama said NOTHING as usual. Just a BUNCH of Mumbo Jumbo. Not ONE thing he would or COULD do.
I think that Senator McCain did better on the economy portion of the debate than he was expected to do by the analysts. Likewise, I think that Senator Obama did better on the foreign policy portion of the debate than he was expected to do by the analysts.
First debate: Obama dominated on foreign policy, needs to punch more on the economy
Of course the liberal rag, Huffington Post, would believe Obama won. No surprise there.
Obama was disrespectful to John McCain.
Baloney. McCain would not even look at Barack Obama.
John McCain is unfit temperamentally to be the leader of the United States executive branch.
Calling a guy thirty years your senior by his first name is disrespectful.
He looked at him. I saw it. He didn't look at him often, but why did he need to?
Perhaps, but nothing last night showed that. This sounds like more sour grapes from you.
Yes, it did.
Ken, how did the debate show that John McCain is unfit temperamentally to be the leader of the United States executive branch?
Then show how. Your assertions are increasingly worthless. If you make an assertion like that, it is incumbent on you to offer support.
What I saw was this: Obama was very uninformed and naive about foreign policy (which was what I suspected all along based on his comments). If he understands foreign policy then he should demonstrate that.
McCain had a better grasp on foreign policy and, while not as good a speaker, handled himself reasonably well. I saw nothing at all that was intemperate about him. He did better than I would do. It is hard to stand there and listen to the kind of nonsense that Obama was spewing.
I think Obama's great weakness is continuing to be seen in his lack of judgment. He demonstrated a lack of understanding and judgment in his opposition to the surge. He demonstrating a lack of understanding and judgment in demanding a time line. He demonstrated a lack of understanding and judgment in selecting Biden. He continues to demonstrate that with the people he is surrounding himself with who are trying to teach him foreign policy on the fly. IMO, America doesn't have time for someone to learn international relations on the job.
He refused to even acknowledge his fellow competitor was there, wouldn't even look at him or address him directly. He seemed to have a disdainful smirk on his face during a lot of the debate.
The part I saw, he looked at him quite often, though not as Often as Obama looked at McCain. He directed comments to him, responded to what he said, and shook his hand afterwards, all things which show that your assertion that "he refused to acknowledge his fellow competitor was there" is simply wrong.
Ken, if you are going to make assertions, don't make them about things that are so easily disproven at this. All one needs to do is watch a couple of minutes of this debate and we can see that you are not accurately representing the facts.
Senator McCain did not call him by his first name even once. He referred to him as Senator Obama or Mr. Obama. For Obama to keep calling Senator McCain by his first name, showed disrespect and arrogance. I emailed the RNC and told them John McCain should have been calling his opponent by his first name, as well, "Barack." The public needs to hear "Barack" mentioned over and over again in the debate for several reasons. (which I won't go into here)
I also noticed (and so did other people I talked to), how much Obama stuttered. He also looked angry several times and then smirked to try to cover it up. Also as a viewer, I feel condescended to when a speaker keeps saying "look" every other sentence. It might be a habit for him to say that when speaking, but it is condescending to the audience. Maybe I don't want to "look." (At least he didn't steeple, though, I'll give him that). Obama's arrogance and lack of experience clearly showed through last night. McCain was most definitely the winner, in all areas, especially projection as a leader.
I agree with your assessment of the debate. After Obama's statements for keeping the debate I expected him to exploit McCain's relationship to Bush, why this problem wasn't caught earlier on the conservative watch, McCain' proposal this week on the hill to give further corporate tax cuts and McCain's votes which made the CEO's richer and sent our jobs overseas. Obama did well on the economy but he missed his opportunity to seal the deal with a lot of the undecided voters. His best card was to drop this entire situation in McCain's lap then say, "that's why I will have to support this proposal, not because I believe it's the right thing to do but I believe it's the only thing we can do now that the republican's have gotten us into this mess. But rest assured I am in constant communication with the democratic leadership and the treasury secretary and will not support this bailout of there is one chance we can find an alternative".
IOW, the biggest committal/non-committal in the world...
I agree on the preconditions. Obama tried to split hairs with the word "preparation" but McCain was having none of that. Obama had a good counter on the surge when he said, "you make like the war just started in 2007..." I think he made an opening for a two pronged weakness that McCain didn't want to enter.
1. Let's look at the complete war since 2003 and not just ne surge
2. The surge worked more on camera than it actually is on the ground. When the surge was presented as victorious, Iraqi's provided 40% security and we provided 60%. We have had to increase our effort since the Iraqi's weren't as prepared as we hoped.
However, the delicate nature of these exploits border closely on not presenting our men and women in the admirable patriotic light they deserve. Perhaps that why he didn't go there...
Yes, I am.