DescentBB

The first thirty minutes of the debate focused on homeland security, which by definition includes the issue of the bailout and the economy (one of Obama's strengths). The following sixty minutes focused on foreign affairs (McCain's strength). What are your thoughts on the debate? What were Obama's strengths and weaknesses? McCain's? Who won in your opinion and why?

I think McCain was at his best in this debate. He did a good job earning points with voters when the opportunities arose, and his speaking skills were overall satisfactory (not the case in the past). He commanded a strong knowledge of foreign facts (with the exception of a few minor mistakes, such as the name of the leader for Iran... Ahmadinejad or something). Overall, McCain did as well as I could have imagined.

McCain's biggest weakness, in my opinion, was his tone/demeanor/snearing/character/lack-of-respect4Obama. He should have looked Obama in the face for more than a slight glance. His other weakness is his stance on issues, which I think he made clear as aligned with our current president George Bush. Most people recognize that we need change. Afterall, the McCain camp even admitted this election is about change. John McCain did not deliver to me the message that he would change policy enough to significantly improve the problems of our nation. McCain did not provide the evidence in the debate that he would be a wise leader as president. John McCain, know that your body language communicated to me at least as much as your voice!

Obama showed a strong command over not only our homeland security issues, but also on foreign policy issues. His quick, confident answers and fluency in foreign affairs gave evidence that despite his lack in experience, he is well versed in knowledge of foreign affairs at least as much as McCain. Any statement that Obama is not ready to be president or that he \"doesn't understand, doesn't get it, etc\" is totally invalidated in my mind. Did I mention that he was relaxed during the debate? It seemed like he actually enjoyed it. His body language was one of a leader I would absolutely love to see in the presidency.

Obama's biggest weakness in the debate, in my opinion, is one of his biggest strengths to me. His weakness was his unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities to hit on McCain's record and misstatements. I appreciate Obama staying positive and instead focusing on what he will do to fix the issues. It exemplifies how he will act in the office both at home and when sitting face to face with foreign leaders across the world.

In my mind, Obama clearly won this debate. The polls I've seen confirm that it wasn't even close. I think this debate will contribute to help Obama win the presidential election.

McCain's biggest weakness, in my opinion, was his tone/demeanor/snearing/character/lack-of-respect4Obama.

That bothered me throughout the entire debate. He never once looked at Obama even when speaking directly to him which, to me, shows a lack of confidence and respect. I feel he will treat the rest of us the same way.

Overall, from what I heard in the debate, I think McCain will easily get us into another military conflict sparing no soldier doing it. The fact that he has Palin (another maverick) just fortifies that for me. Just my opinion....

Bee

Nice spin JF…

Well I know who didn’t win…that was me, because that was the most boring debate I ever saw…*yawn*

If that is what debating issues is all about, then back to mudslinging and character defaming please.

I have to give it to McCain for the only bright spot, where he mentioned building 50 or so Nuclear Power Plants.

Yeah, McCains attitude and demeanor during the debate did not inspire any confidence in his ability to meet world leaders at a table and work out anything. We have had 8 years of \"Cowboy Diplomacy\" under GWB already, it doesn't work. No world leader is going to really listen to some jerk that just says \"well I think you just don't get it\" and then rambles on his own train not even trying to meet or address an argument.

If that is supposed to be a foreign policy strong point... god help us.

Since I keep hearing about what a smart guy Obama is, I was expecting to hear some of that displayed - I didn't. McCain pretty much controlled the tempo of the debate. When Obama wasn't agreeing with McCain (I agree with John ..., John's right ...., etc.), he wasn't saying anything to make me think he was anyone special; he was, at best, any average member of the Senate. McCain was specific about where he's been, who he's met; Obama talked in generalities. On foreign policy McCain was the clear winner; Obama didn't give me any confidence that he could best McCain in the foreign policy arena, and, for a smart guy, he should have known that this was his chance to do so.

Bee wrote:Overall, from what I heard in the debate, I think McCain will easily get us into another military conflict sparing no soldier doing it.

Well, we're all entitled to our opinion, but I just don't see where the Obama fans come up with this one. McCain stated flat-out, in his acceptance speech, "I hate war". I know Obama wishes he was running against George Bush, and the Bush record,; then he would be on comfortable election ground, like when he ran against the hastily enlisted Alan Keyes to win his Illinois Senate seat. It bothers me that Obama doesn't seem to know the lessons of military history. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to have an academic debate on whether we should have ever gotten into the Iraq war, but the simple fact of the matter is it's too late - we're already there. The question is, what are you gonna do NOW. That's what the next president has to deal with, and Obama's rhetoric and record on dealing with the aftermath of this situation do not give me confidence.

I know that McCain SAYS he hates war, but I keep reading about how he's angry that the U.S. didn't win the Vietnam war and that we could have won it if we had just thrown enough bombs on the VC. He may hate war, but he sure wants to finish one when he doesn't think we're winning at the moment, no matter the cost.

Give Obama a break. he's a Midwestern boy with Midwestern politeness values. I think that he held his own against an angry, aggressive McCain, who wouldn't even look him in the eye. I didn't see McCain give us any of his plans to fix things either. Other than the cut the earmarks BS, which is a SMALL chunk of the overall government budget, he wasn't able to say whether he would cut military spending to help the budget either. He also didn't say, in any detail, HOW he is going to regulate the markets to fix the mess we're in.

I think after listening to George Bush for 8 years hearing a speaker who is so articulate and charismatic as Obama is like breathing in a cool breath of fresh air. It's bordering on a tranquilizer effect, very calming and comforting.
When he sticks to generalities and monday morning quarterbacking he is very good.
His details are sometimes weak and he gets downright Clintonesque when he gets confronted with his own votes and positions that he doesn't want to own up to. It makes me want to slap him.

I wish I could trust him to execute his positions as he laid them out last night because I'd take a chance on him but the problem is he promises more than he can deliver. He depends on cutting enough waste to cover his massive increase in spending and it will never happen!
His answer, for example, on what would he give up in the wake of the 700 billion dollar bailout when addressing McCains offer of a spending freeze on most items was on it's face very resonable to an average citizen. He said McCains freeze was using a hatchet where a scalpel is needed. Well sure it would be nice if, as President, he could just wave his wand and execute that kind of selective adjustment but as President he can't! He would run up against his own party as well as the other party and ultimately end up having to pull a Clinton excuse session where he would do his equivalent of Clinton's biting his lower lip, staring into the camera with puppy dog eyes and tell us how hard he 'worked day and night to get those tax cuts he promised but it just wouldn't work...\"

A freeze would be easier to get accomplished because it is a simple temporary measure, and most importantly a singular act, that a President could go right over the congress's head and talk to the public creating enough support in the wake of economic panic to make the congress execute the measure.
Basically Obama's answer exposes a naive fantasy that requires a line item veto like power that can retroactively go back and wipe out legislation that already passed!! If he's really got that kind of mojo then by all means lets elect him!

So who won?
I guess Obama didn't lose any ground with his supporters considering the expectations were low for him but McCain showed to be a more experienced and comfortable representative of American foreign policy...problem there is almost everyone already knew that so it may not win him any new support with the exception of some older women and any jewish voters who might have been on the fence.

So I'd expect a draw in the polls with Obama being the one who comes away with more bruises on him but maybe more momentum for the rematch.

tunnelcat wrote:I know that McCain SAYS he hates war, but I keep reading about how he's angry that the U.S. didn't win the Vietnam war and that we could have won it if we had just thrown enough bombs on the VC. He may hate war, but he sure wants to finish one when he doesn't think we're winning at the moment, no matter the cost.

Give Obama a break. he's a Midwestern boy with Midwestern politeness values. I think that he held his own against an angry, aggressive McCain, who wouldn't even look him in the eye. I didn't see McCain give us any of his plans to fix things either. Other than the cut the earmarks BS, which is a SMALL chunk of the overall government budget, he wasn't able to say whether he would cut military spending to help the budget either. He also didn't say, in any detail, HOW he is going to regulate the markets to fix the mess we're in.

*McCain has done more to put to rest the VietNam war than any one so you're way off trying to assign anger to him there.
My guess is you get your talking points from the Daily KOS or the Democrat Underground Message Board

*Earmarks are a GIANT part of the budget and eliminating them would not only free up a GIANT part of the budget but it would seriously reform a lot of corrupt backdoor dealings. The best part about taking on earmarks is it's a single enemy that can be explained easily to the average voter with tons of outrageous examples to show them and no one will come to the rescue of a bridge to nowhere.

*Regulation is either good or bad.
Regulation is not a magical universal solution for a problem. As often as not it's a backdoor for politicians to line their bank accounts and campaign fund. Often it is a new problem being added to the mix.
It is bad regulation that threw the gas on the fire that we call a mortgage crises today! Barney Frank, one of the democrats who Obama's team supports to craft the bailout is the one who a few years ago rejected the notion that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in trouble! He rejected regulation to open the books up for investigation!! Do you know why? Because his fellow stooges were getting hundreds of millions of dollars from them!!

Will, I've got to go look for the long statement McCain made right after he was released from Hanoi. It was very revealing about his thoughts concerning the war at the time. I have the link somewhere, but I've got to find it for you later. I've got more roof cleaning do do at the moment. I'll post it later if you want.

tunnelcat wrote:I know that McCain SAYS he hates war, but I keep reading about how he's angry that the U.S. didn't win the Vietnam war and that we could have won it if we had just thrown enough bombs on the VC. He may hate war, but he sure wants to finish one when he doesn't think we're winning at the moment, no matter the cost.

This is simply incoherent. Maybe you should be reading something other than The Nation and The Daily Kos. Please tell me where, oh where, did McCain say he thought we weren't winning in Iraq, when he stated clear as day that with the surge strategy and Petraeus' generalship that we were now winning in Iraq. Not to mention that the cost of failure and defeat would be higher than the cost of going for victory now.

There's no doubt that Obama is a smooth talker. Heck, if you could take John McCain's guts and knowledge, and stick them inside Barack Obama's body, I'd certainly consider voting for him.

But we don't have that, do we?

John McCain's been in combat, been shot at, been a POW and been tortured. He's not a pretty as Obama, but I trust him to have a better understanding of what going to war means.

Give Obama a break. he's a Midwestern boy with Midwestern politeness values.

Midwestern politeness values?? You haven't been around Chicago politics much, have you?

Obama was born in Hawai'i in 1961 and lived there til 1967, when he went to Indonesia with his mother and step-father, returning to the US about 1971. Then he graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law.

Not exactly Harry Truman, who did have midwestern roots.

tunnelcat wrote:Will, I've got to go look for the long statement McCain made right after he was released from Hanoi. It was very revealing about his thoughts concerning the war at the time. I have the link somewhere, but I've got to find it for you later. I've got more roof cleaning do do at the moment. I'll post it later if you want.

You have to be the most willfully ignorant person I've ever listened too!

Try this for logic:

Immediately after being released from five years of brutal torture he has animosity toward his captors and their regime. Not too hard to understand...I certainly can't blame him for that.

After becoming a congressman he puts country before his own personal feelings and works for years to use diplomatic means to bring home any POW's or their bodies and pushes for normalization of diplomatic relations with Vietnam.
For doing that he was hated by many Viet Nam vets for doing what they thought was helping the enemy hide their fallen brothers still kept in prison camps.

So his action speak volumes of his honor and character but not of hate.

But I guess since you have never paid any attention to the reality of the debate this won't make you understand how stupid it is for you to parrot those inane hate mongering left wing talking points you keep spewing.

With supporters like you Obama needs no enemies because in spite of his good qualities people will be inclined to vote against the moron faction that flock to him out of pure survival instinct!

I haven't seen the whole thing yet, but I did catch the debate segment about having Presidential talks with Iran and so forth without preconditions. McCain definitely took that one. He showed sound judgment, and Obama just couldn't appreciate it. I found it very enlightening, and I have a new respect for McCain, at least in that area.

What I find humorous is the Democrats keep clamoring for debates about the issues, then when they get one and their guy comes up short, they fall back to personality.

I’ve been thinking about the debate for most of the day now, at work, and the more I think about it, the more I think McCain won hands down.

The doddering old man…too bad, no such luck.

Obama spent way too much time trying to pin McCain to Bush, only problem was, McCain had way too many chances to point out the differences, Obama used vague percentages of votes against actual itemized differences…so that’s a failed goal.

The healthcare issue…Obama is just wrong on that one.

Obama…Pakastan…wrong, Iraq…wrong, Iran…wrong, Georgia…wrong etc.

And even on the economy, where Obama was supposed to be strong, I think he came off weak, he has a Law Degree…wow how is that supposed to help there.

And I don’t even see this “intelligent” thing, he doesn’t impress me the way a Buckley Jr or Kissinger does. He’s a good orator, but all spit and polish as far as I’m concerned, nothing on the ad lib.

So I see it like this…

Style…Obama
Content…McCain
Crap and lies…Draw
Tiebreaker…McCain…for having the only idea in the debate. (that I liked)

But I do wish McCain would have pointed at Obama just once and said “Stop the campaigning, this is a debate, and your opponant is over here, not in the White House”.

At least one sound bite…

Spidey wrote:...But I do wish McCain would have pointed at Obama just once and said “Stop the campaigning, this is a debate, and your opponant is over here, not in the White House”.

At least one sound bite…

Point? He wouldn't even look at Obama which I find absolutely insulting. With that, he came across as a bitter old man without any class. A marked difference from the person standing next to him.

This is the first presidential debate I ever watched so maybe I don't know what to look for but how a person comes across can mean just as much as what he has to say.

VOTE OBAMA.

Bee

Your being a little harsh, there is a lot I could have said about Obama’s demeanor, which I find arrogant.

But hey, vote personality…I don’t really care.

Spidey wrote:Your being a little harsh, there is a lot I could have said about Obama’s demeanor, which I find arrogant.

But hey, vote personality…I don’t really care.

It's not just personality and you know that but it does count. Look at Bush and Cheney's arrogance and you will see that it's part of the problem of why other countries hate us. I see the same arrogance in McCain for not making eye contact with his opponent and for his comments on Iran and North Korea.

I really believe McCain will get us into another conflict with that arrogance.

Bee

I look at this thread, and all the spin I’ve been hearing, and I just see it as the classic fallback tactic, he didn’t win on the issues…so let’s call McCain the bitter old man, and tout Obamas’s charm.

Spidey wrote:I look at this thread, and all the spin I’ve been hearing, and I just see it as the classic fallback tactic, he didn’t win on the issues…so let’s call McCain the bitter old man, and tout Obamas’s charm.

Since neither candidate gave me any real answers, and since I know the real reason McCain picked Palan, bitter old man seems to fit.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

Spidey wrote:I look at this thread, and all the spin I’ve been hearing, and I just see it as the classic fallback tactic, he didn’t win on the issues…so let’s call McCain the bitter old man, and tout Obamas’s charm.

Since neither candidate gave me any real answers, and since I know the real reason McCain picked Palan, bitter old man seems to fit.

Bee

Classic.

I thought it was a tad boring of a debate. I thought McCain looked like he knew more, and he looked very comfortable with the subject, and overall I would give the debate to him by the slimist of margins.

I did think Obama baiting McCain into a \"Dammit I know Henry Kissinger better then you do, I've known him for 30 years and he is one of my advisors!\" was absoloutely brillient.

I can't think of many names who spell out \"politics of the past\" better then his. No doubt Obama knew he wasn't making the strongest of claims, but getting McCain to allign himself so clearly and definitely with Kissinger--and to have McCain do it in a defensive manor--was a huge plus for Obama.

Putting your arm around Kissinger is not the way to become the change candidate, and its not the way to disassociate yourself from the politics of the past.

I don't think he's too concerned with being associated with Kissinger and if their advisers are an indication of their inclination to bring change then perhaps Obama should dump the ex Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac execs who have been working for him....

First debate is all about the general public, not political junkies who would know the names of the ex F&F execs.

Kissinger is a highly recognizable \"old school politics,\" name. It's like when Hillary would stand on the stage with Madeleine Albright and all the old school democratic figures. The image of \"the way things were, and the way things will be\" was more powerful then any \"change\" speech Obama could give.

Goob, I have to disagree. PC or not in with the politically \"in\" crowd, quite frankly, we're going to need Kissinger with his backbone and clout to deal with the foreign political area in the next 4 years. It's lookin none too pretty. And neither candidate has what it takes to do it effectively. McCain has the XP but I doubt he'll handle the re-ignition of the Cold War well.

I'd be more concerned with my opponent being able to say:

\"His advisers are the ones who took 100 million dollar bonuses while they destroyed Fannie and Freddie which is part of the current 700 billion dollar disaster all over the news and is why the stock markets just crashed...and why you can't get a loan...and why your boss just closed the doors to your job......\"

versus

\"His adviser is the guy that used to advise other republican Presidents...\"

Kissinger does not = Cheney
Raines and Johnson do = criminals

The only up side in this for Obama is McCain doesn't have the tenancy to twist the knife so he may never paint the picture when given the opportunity..like in that debate, he had some openings and let his honorable nature get in the way.

As to advisers, are they referring to Kissinger in this:

“One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power.” He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that “If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late.” He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming that “He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation.”

Oh, wait...it was Biden.... who was chosen by Obama to give him foreign policy credentials! Change we need?

Supported an Invasion Before Bush

Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration’s lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of “weapons of mass destruction” years before President George W. Bush even came to office.

As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the elimination of Iraq’s WMD threat, Biden – in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war – insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, “As long as Saddam’s at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction.”

Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, “The only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone,” telling the Marine veteran “it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down.”

Change indeed! The king is dead, long live the new king.

You think Palin is being brought up to speed on this?

I like how everyone thinks their candidate won the debate, which means there is no winner. There is a winner when Will Robinson stands up and says \"Okay, Obama is for sure the better candidate\" or Bee goes \"McCain is fit to lead the country\".

I haven't watched it, but I bet my opinion will be \"Obama definately kicked McCain's ass on every issue!\", because I tend to agree with Obama on more crap than McCain...

Dakatsu wrote:I like how everyone thinks their candidate won the debate, which means there is no winner. There is a winner when Will Robinson stands up and says "Okay, Obama is for sure the better candidate" or Bee goes "McCain is fit to lead the country".

I haven't watched it, but I bet my opinion will be "Obama definately kicked McCain's ass on every issue!", because I tend to agree with Obama on more crap than McCain...

That's easy to say for me because Obama is a better candidate...I just don't know if he's the better man for the job of President

Will Robinson wrote:

QFT

That's just Will showing us that he knows what dark matter is.

Duper wrote:That's just Will showing us that he knows what dark matter is.

i just lol'd

Dakatsu wrote:I like how everyone thinks their candidate won the debate, which means there is no winner. There is a winner when Will Robinson stands up and says "Okay, Obama is for sure the better candidate" or Bee goes "McCain is fit to lead the country".

I haven't watched it, but I bet my opinion will be "Obama definately kicked McCain's ass on every issue!", because I tend to agree with Obama on more crap than McCain...

There was a debate? All I saw was "John is right." about a 100 times. Complete snore fest.

Will Robinson wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:I like how everyone thinks their candidate won the debate, which means there is no winner. There is a winner when Will Robinson stands up and says "Okay, Obama is for sure the better candidate" or Bee goes "McCain is fit to lead the country".

I haven't watched it, but I bet my opinion will be "Obama definately kicked McCain's ass on every issue!", because I tend to agree with Obama on more crap than McCain...

That's easy to say for me because Obama is a better candidate...I just don't know if he's the better man for the job of President

If all Obama has to beat is the past 8 years under Bush, then perhaps he will succeed. I suspect McCain would do better than Bush. If not, we'll know cause I'll be emigrating...

I thought the body language was hot. Obama treated Mcain as an old geriatric patient - with respect, But, in the get the ★■◆● out of my way old man sorta way.

Unfortunately, for the human race, the democrats have won.

I find it Ironic that Obama is not running against McCain, he's campaigning against George Bush WTF?!?!?!? last I looked Bush wasn't running for president. McCain should have mentioned that during the debate.

I'll address that \"McCain not looking at Obama\" issue- In that forum, there are really three choices of who to look at- 1. the camera 2. the moderator 3. the opponent. So, it's not as simple as McCain looked at random stuff instead of Obama... McCain looked at the moderator instead of Obama or the camera, for the most part. A quick search (link reveals that proper debate etiquette is to address yourself to the audience or judge, not the person you're debating with. So, \"incredibly insulting\" could just as well be interpreted as \"where you're supposed to be looking.\" I youtube'd some previous presidential debates, and everything I saw was the speaker addressing the audience and/or moderator, not the other debaters.

Sorry Bet, but it'll take more than McCain following the debate etiquette rules to pin disrespect or spite for Obama on him. From what I can tell, it was Obama that was breaking the rules.

I will say that he (McCain) seemed to harp on the \"Obama just doesn't get it\" idea even when Obama demonstrated that he had at least some clue. It was funny, on the foreign policy stuff, it seemed like they both had about the same position (in the middle of the spectrum) and kept on trying to characterize each other as being at one end or the other of the spectrum.

snoopy wrote:..Sorry Bet, but it'll take more than McCain following the debate etiquette rules to pin disrespect or spite for Obama on him. From what I can tell, it was Obama that was breaking the rules.

Hi Snoopy, I wish I could say you're right but you're not. Several times during the debate the moderator tried to get the two to talk directly to each other. (look up the transcript) Here are just a few lines not in any specific order..

LEHRER: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?

LEHRER: I'm just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I'm going to try.

LEHRER: So, Senator McCain, do you agree with what Senator Obama just said? And, if you don't, tell him what you disagree with.

LEHRER: Say it directly to him.

Obama looked at McCain througout the debate but it was not done in return and that is a huge snub in my book.

John McCain is just another Bush and will continue the Bush whitehouse for another four years. Do people really want that?

Bee

O well, maybe next time Obama will try to debate against McCain instead of Bush…

With all the contempt the Democrats show towards him, it’s a small wonder McCain even bothered to show up.

This election reminds me a lot of Bush vs. Clinton, the Democrats playing like they were the Knights in shining armor, riding in on their white stallions to save everyone.

Bee, I don't know if you are aware of what's supposed to go on in debate. There are a number of formats and strict guild lines. Snoop has the right call here. In debate, you don't have to look at them to address them, or \"say something to them\".

honestly. Most of what I've read post-debate has been shallow and whining about how \"we didn't get what we wanted out of this debate\".

Remember that when Presidents make promises or president wannabes, they have to get their ideas through both the Senate and the House. ... good luck. If they do, it won't be quick unless it's an immediate disaster relief package. (save the whole bank snafu)

Incidentally, my wife ranked in the top 5 nationally in debate and judged for a couple of years. (consequently, I don't win many arguments around the house. ) If she could see to type, she could give you a \"proper\" run down on how it went.

John McCain is just another Bush and will continue the Bush whitehouse for another four years. Do people really want that?

LOL you really bought the left wing dogma hook line and sinker didn't you. try some independent thinking Bee. Bush is not running for re-election. get over it

Bet51987 wrote:John McCain is just another Bush and will continue the Bush whitehouse for another four years. Do people really want that?

Apparently so