Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's convinient, but doesn't mirror the truth. McCain has always been expected to out-perform Obama in the debates. Any perceived Obama win in any of the three debates will hurt McCain.

FWIW.....I don't think McCain needs a whole lot of preparation time for the debate. By this point, his policy opinions are not a surprise to anyone. Obama is the more inexperienced politician and will need more prep for the debate. That should be a surprise to no one.

I don't know, inexperienced politicians seem to do better in these debates (Kennedy/Nixon, Reagan/Carter, Clinton/Bush, Bush/Gore)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Obama has higher expectations to meet in debates « - Blogs from CNN.com

That's mostly based on the perception that the public in general has from the rehearsed/scripted speeches that Obama and McCain have given. That's the only thing that a lot of people have seen of the candidates as they don't follow the day-to-day changes. Anyone who has watched Obama in his appearances know that he does extremely well in scripted speeches, while he tends to stutter quite a bit and require 'thought time' for lack of a better phrase when he's not working with a script. McCain is the exact opposite. McCain's presentation is terrible in scripted speeches, but he's very convincing as a candidate when discussing issues without a script.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I don't know, inexperienced politicians seem to do better in these debates (Kennedy/Nixon, Reagan/Carter, Clinton/Bush, Bush/Gore)

Obama didn't fare that well against Clinton head-to-head. McCain is considered a slightly stronger debater than her.

It's all subjective in the end. But if the perception is that Obama should win the debates at this point, it's likely going to end well for McCain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I must have misunderstood you. When you said

you actually meant

Sorry.

LOL.....do we now have to express that a post is our opinion in a political discussion thread?

I feel like I'm writing a bailout bill for Congress.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's all subjective in the end. But if the perception is that Obama should win the debates at this point, it's likely going to end well for McCain.

If I am McCain, I am still a tad worried about the "TV effect". Having a handsome, young Obama on the same stage with an older, not so handsome McCain. Younger/hipper candidate (when there is one), usually seem to pull these off well (Clinton/Kennedy) over the older/stuffy candidates (Nixon/Bush Sr). Democrats are going to vote for Obama, Republicans are going to vote McCain, but who are the independates going to vote for? What will decide their vote? We can only hope it is on the issues, but I am not that confident in the American voters.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

LOL.....do we now have to express that a post is our opinion in a political discussion thread?

I feel like I'm writing a bailout bill for Congress.

Are you suspending your posting on this forum to work on the bailout bill?

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I have to disagree with Mizzou. Right now, most people expect Obama to wipe the floor with McCain, mostly because they believe that stump speaking can be equivalent to debating style. They don't realize that McCain is actually very good in debates (it's one of the main reasons his campaign in the primaries went from just about done to nominee).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's mostly based on the perception that the public in general has from the rehearsed/scripted speeches that Obama and McCain have given. That's the only thing that a lot of people have seen of the candidates as they don't follow the day-to-day changes.

This statement and the previous one I said "What?!" to are in complete and udder contrast. and I do mean milky.

[timmynausea]

I actually think McCain can be a good debater, but he can also get flustered easily. He had some ugly moments with Romney where it was really bitter and personal. That said, he's certainly a much better debater than he is on the stump. I don't expect him to have any problems tonight in terms of losing control of his emotions, either.

His main issue in the debates may be that he is roughly 5'6" and 70 some years old.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

This statement and the previous one I said "What?!" to are in complete and udder contrast.

You're right. I didn't phrase the first post well at all. There's a big difference between public perception and the perception of those who follow the race closely. I should have been more specific. The debate tonight should be a lot of fun to watch.

New Rasmussen Daily poll discussed the move towards Obama in the polls over the past week or so.

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

[fantom1979]

Obama is taking the South baby!!!!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I don't know, inexperienced politicians seem to do better in these debates (Kennedy/Nixon, Reagan/Carter, Clinton/Bush, Bush/Gore)

I would change it to politicians with low expectations seem to do better in these debates.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

If I am McCain, I am still a tad worried about the "TV effect". Having a handsome, young Obama on the same stage with an older, not so handsome McCain. Younger/hipper candidate (when there is one), usually seem to pull these off well (Clinton/Kennedy) over the older/stuffy candidates (Nixon/Bush Sr). Democrats are going to vote for Obama, Republicans are going to vote McCain, but who are the independates going to vote for? What will decide their vote? We can only hope it is on the issues, but I am not that confident in the American voters.

I would say that in this climate, the elder, statesman McCain may show more stability than the young and fresh Obama. So I don't know that this is true tonight.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Even more information from the American Spectator regarding yesterday's meeting. According to an Obama campaign source, someone gave Obama the bill option suggested by the House Republicans and told him that it was the compromise bill when it was not. So Obama launched into a big speech about how he opposed the bill and then Paulson agreed with him. The rest of the group that agreed on the compromise was wondering why the hell Obama opposed the compromise bill when he was in fact voicing his disapproval for the House Republican bill that he was told was the compromise. The House Republicans felt like the meeting was a big setup to make them look bad thanks to the Obama snafu and the whole meeting fell into chaos. The ironic part is had Obama been in Washington to work on the bill and known what was going on rather than relying on material given to him, we'd likely already have a compromise bill signed. Instead, everyone is finger-pointing to the Nth degree.

Ah, politics.

[cartman]

I'm also curious as to why McCain was against the compromise bill, since it met all of the criteria he had laid out earlier in the week for a plan to be acceptable.

[NoMyths]

Palin in one of her three interviews explaining her foreign policy experience (with a bonus commercial for a bad TV show):


Watch CBS Videos Online

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

McCain's presentation is terrible in scripted speeches

Agree.

but he's very convincing as a candidate when discussing issues without a script.

Except for those times when you realize he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about ... which would be any of the several McCain appearances on Hannity's radio show I've had the misfortune of suffering through. He sounds convincing (not to mention convinced) but only if you aren't familiar with the subject matter yourself. Hearing him speak on matters relating to the FCC and media ownership is downright painful for anyone who knows the subject and I've had similar reactions to him on other topics as well.

This has the makings of Kennedy/Nixon, with the added potential for disaster of McCain making one or more definitive statements that are later shown to be flat out wrong.

Happily, it'll be easy for me to miss the entire thing, as I'll be at a high school football game tonight.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I would change it to politicians with low expectations seem to do better in these debates.

I'd change it to, better debaters tend to do better in these debates.

With a sample size that small it's not predictive for Obama.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I would say that in this climate, the elder, statesman McCain may show more stability than the young and fresh Obama. So I don't know that this is true tonight.

Have you paid even the slightest attention to McCain's erratic fly boy stunts over the past few weeks. Stability hasn't been his strong suit.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Even more information from the American Spectator regarding yesterday's meeting. According to an Obama campaign source, someone gave Obama the bill option suggested by the House Republicans and told him that it was the compromise bill when it was not. So Obama launched into a big speech about how he opposed the bill and then Paulson agreed with him. The rest of the group that agreed on the compromise was wondering why the hell Obama opposed the compromise bill when he was in fact voicing his disapproval for the House Republican bill that he was told was the compromise. The House Republicans felt like the meeting was a big setup to make them look bad thanks to the Obama snafu and the whole meeting fell into chaos. The ironic part is had Obama been in Washington to work on the bill and known what was going on rather than relying on material given to him, we'd likely already have a compromise bill signed. Instead, everyone is finger-pointing to the Nth degree.

Ah, politics.

No, he didn't mistake it for the compromise bill. The story is pretty thinnly sourced, but even if 100% true it isn't as you described it. This is what the AmSpec blog says.

When Sen. Barack Obama was given the floor to speak during White House negotiations, according to White House aides, he did so raising concerns about a House Republican alternative to the Paulson/Bernanke $700 billion bailout. But those concerns weren't necessarily his, as he was not aware of the GOP plan before reviewing notes provided him by Paulson loyalists in Treasury prior to entering the meeting.

According to an Obama campaign source, the notes were passed to Obama via senior aides traveling with him, who had been emailed the document via a current Goldman Sachs employee and Wall Street fundraiser for the Obama campaign. "It was made clear that the memo was from ‘friends' and was reliable," says the campaign source.

The memo allowed Obama and his fellow Democrats to box in Republican attendees and essentially took what President Bush had billed as a negotiating meeting off the rails.

"Paulson and his team have not acted in good faith for this President or the administration for which they serve," says a House Republican leader who was not present at the White House meeting, but who instead is part of the team hammering out the House GOP alternative. "We keep hearing about how Secretary Paulson is working with Democrats on this or that, yet he never seems to consider working with the party that essentially hired him. Perhaps he's auditioning for a Democratic administration job. Our proposal didn't just spring forth fully formed; we've been working on this for several days, and Treasury staff has known about it."

[Flasch186]

And back to Troopergate for a nice diversion:
Alaska lawmakers: McCain campaign interfering in Palin probe - CNN.com

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Lawmakers investigating Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner accused the McCain-Palin campaign on Thursday of stonewalling the probe by helping witnesses refuse to comply with subpoenas.
Investigators want to know if Gov. Sarah Palin fired a state employee for improper reasons.

A state Senate committee subpoenaed Palin's husband, several top aides and other advisers earlier this month, but none of those served with demands for testimony appeared before the panel when it met last week.

The panel is scheduled to meet again Friday. A member of the committee said Thursday that he expects more no-shows.

In court filings, lawyers for Hollis French, the Democratic state senator overseeing the probe, and Stephen Branchflower, the attorney hired to conduct it, say Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign has moved "on many fronts" to kill the investigation since Palin became the Republican vice presidential nominee.

"Indeed, recent events demonstrate that witnesses or participants who want to stonewall Mr. Branchflower's fact-finding inquiry can count on plenty of assistance from lawyers and McCain campaign operatives," the filings state.

The filings came in response to lawsuits that Palin's allies filed last week seeking to stop the probe. The suits name as defendants the Alaska Legislative Council, the Republican-dominated committee that authorized the investigation in July, and its chairman, Democratic state Sen. Kim Elton.

The response calls the suits "clearly meritless" and "political, not legal" documents.

The McCain campaign has said that Palin will cooperate with a state Personnel Board investigation instead of the legislative probe, which the campaign has described as being "tainted" with partisan politics.

"Since Gov. Palin was named the Republican [vice] presidential nominee, it comes as little surprise that the Obama supporters leading the legislative investigation would attempt to use the proceedings to the political advantage of their candidate," said Taylor Griffin, a McCain-Palin campaign spokesman.

"All Gov. Palin is asking for is a fair and impartial review of the facts outside of the taint of partisan politics," Griffin said. "That's why she's cooperating with the Personnel Board."

Earlier this week, Democratic state Rep. Les Gara asked the state police to investigate whether state laws against witness tampering have been violated. Gara did not level allegations against a specific person, but said Republican operatives had been sent to Alaska to undermine the legislative probe.

"I think probably the McCain folks think this was just politics," Gara said Thursday. But he added, "All we know is they want to stop the investigation and suddenly the witnesses aren't talking. That's indisputable."

Ex-Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan says he was sacked in July after he refused to fire the governor's ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper who was involved in an acrimonious divorce from Palin's sister.

Palin has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that Monegan was fired for insubordination after he continued to press for funding for projects the governor opposed.

Palin initially agreed to cooperate with the legislative probe and have her staff testify. But since she became McCain's running mate, she and her advisers have argued that the state Personnel Board is the proper agency to investigate.

Campaign aides have repeatedly attacked French for a September 2 interview in which he said the investigation could lead to an "October surprise" for the GOP ticket. The aides have called the probe "a politicized kangaroo court."

French's committee issued the subpoenas September 12. State Sen. Bill Wielechowski, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said none of the seven people ordered to testify since last week have filed requests to quash the subpoenas with a state court -- but he did not expect them to show for Friday's hearing.

"They should all be there, or they're breaking the law," Wielechowski, a Democrat, said.

The full Senate would have to vote on any sanctions against witnesses who refuse to appear. It does not convene again until January.

Palin's husband, Todd, was among the people who refused to appear last week. The couple's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, filed papers arguing the Legislature had no authority to investigate Monegan's firing, and that state law prevents ethics investigations of candidates for state office. The vice presidency is a federal office, however.

The legislative inquiry is scheduled to be completed by October 10. There is no deadline for the investigator hired by the Personnel Board to look into Monegan's firing.

On Tuesday, a Palin spokeswoman said the Personnel Board's investigator has requested confidentiality. The spokeswoman indicated the campaign would no longer answer questions about the probe.

Monegan has vehemently denied charges of insubordination and has told CNN he was a "team player" who never did anything without approval.

[flere-imsaho]

This is the most exciting presidential election since 1992 (which was exciting because of Perot and Bush's self-destruction).

[NoMyths]

Palin on the Wall Street bailout and job creation:

[Fidatelo]

Is she just spitting out a stream of random talking points? That is terrible. My God.

[sterlingice]

She's like a talking train wreck

SI

[NoMyths]

And yet she could be the president of our country if things go poorly.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

And yet she could be the president of our country if things go poorly.

Haha, good luck with that!

*hides in his igloo*

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Is she just spitting out a stream of random talking points?

i really think that's what it is. she just is not a competent interviewee.

i really hope these videos get decent circulation - people need to see who they are voting for. More than that, McCain's selection of her really calls into question his judgement. Because while it may have been best to win the election (as some have pointed out), it would be horrible if she ended up needing to do anything at all important, or represent the U.S. at all.

And if McCain is so focused on winning that he'd pick someone unqualified because it gives him a better chance to win, in effect saying "to hell with the consequences," that's not very patriotic of him.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Haha, good luck with that!

*hides in his igloo*

dude - swear to god - i'll move up there.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

dude - swear to god - i'll move up there.

You might change your mind come January.

* throws log on the fire *

[SirFozzie]

It's really strange.. now, admittedly, I'm biased to dismiss her (I was leaning towards voting Obama already, for the tack back to the right wing that McCain had done, I was a lot happier with him as a Moderate.. for him to tack on a right-winger's right-winger just made it very hard for him to get my vote).. but for the excitement she obviously generates in her base, the more she talks, the more this is looking like Dan Quayle redux.. how does she spell potato?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i really think that's what it is. she just is not a competent interviewee.

I think it comes down to this: like a lot of normal people, she doesn't know the answer to that question. But unlike a normal person, she is in a position where she can't admit it. After I listened to it I thought to myself "how would I answer that question if I had to say something aside from 'I don't know, good question Katie!'?" I sort of started off speaking in my mind, changed my mind part way through, paused... and then realised that I was doing exactly what she did, except that I didn't start randomly throwing out phrases people had been drilling into me.

To summarize, I guess on the one hand I feel bad for her, because if it was me, I'd be looking just as stupid. But on the other hand, I've never really considered myself fit to lead a country either. She's just in over her head.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it would be horrible if she ended up needing to do anything at all important, or represent the U.S. at all

And in spite of that, a drunk version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers is infinitely preferrable to Obama.

[Flasch186]

That's simply a lie Jon.

[timmynausea]

From a purely political stand point, the appeal to the drinking and acid dropping voters could actually prove a wise move. It could also work as entertainment - I, for one, would love to see Sarah Palin answer that question on acid. I think she actually did pretty well for being drunk in the Couric interview.

McCain already has the alzheimers vote locked down, though, and let's face it - those guys are not the most reliable voters.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

That's simply a lie Jon.

As silly as it reads, I don't think a person's opinion can be a "lie". Are you able to see inside Jon's brain and see that he wouldn't really prefer "a drunk version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers", but he would prefer "a somewhat sober version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers"?

A person's opinion can be in poor taste, uninformed or even ridiculous, but I don't know how an opinion can be a "lie".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

but for the excitement she obviously generates in her base, the more she talks, the more this is looking like Dan Quayle redux.. how does she spell potato?

And what exactly did the candidate who picked Quayle fare in his election? I'm not sure you'd be smiling if McCain becomes Bush 41 to Obama's Dukakis.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think it comes down to this: like a lot of normal people, she doesn't know the answer to that question. But unlike a normal person, she is in a position where she can't admit it. After I listened to it I thought to myself "how would I answer that question if I had to say something aside from 'I don't know, good question Katie!'?" I sort of started off speaking in my mind, changed my mind part way through, paused... and then realised that I was doing exactly what she did, except that I didn't start randomly throwing out phrases people had been drilling into me.

To summarize, I guess on the one hand I feel bad for her, because if it was me, I'd be looking just as stupid. But on the other hand, I've never really considered myself fit to lead a country either. She's just in over her head.

every politician does this - control the interview. if you don't know the answer, phase in an answer to something you do know/have rehearsed. if you think someone is gonna start talking from the top of their head in a live interview you're silly. all a politician does is think about how they're gonna segway their answer into a talking point/message they want to give out. unfortunately for Palin that must not be her strongpoint. what *is* her strongpoint is obviously blowjobs, and she must've given McCain one muthafucka of a blowjob to seal the VP nomination.

you see, i used this post as a way to segway into something i really want to talk about - Palin giving head. the whole first part of my post was just a setup to the point i wanted to make. i could so totally make an excellent politician.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

As silly as it reads, I don't think a person's opinion can be a "lie". Are you able to see inside Jon's brain and see that he wouldn't really prefer "a drunk version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers", but he would prefer "a somewhat sober version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers"?

A person's opinion can be in poor taste, uninformed or even ridiculous, but I don't know how an opinion can be a "lie".

`eh, youre right. For Jon it may be spot on and if were using the Sports Entertainment analogies id actually agree with him.

[kaosfere]

Originally Posted by Arles

A person's opinion can be in poor taste, uninformed or even ridiculous, but I don't know how an opinion can be a "lie".

Exactly. And I can always find respect for someone who is willing to put bullshit rationalizations aside and simply say, "I think that the Loyal Opposition is a monster, and for that reason alone I will not vote for him."

Like me: However much of a classical conservative I may be when it comes to economic matters -- and not even entering the debate about how little neocons resemble classical conservatives on any matter -- I am even more of a social liberal, and, barring mitigating circumstances, I will almost never be willing to vote for a party with a significant core of policy based on iron age thought and a desire to return to theocratic rule.

Tell me you won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim terrorist sympathizer and I will call you out for the ignorant fool you are. Tell me it's simply because you believe that what he actually supports is simply wrong, and Palin on her worst day would be infinitely better for that reason alone, and I won't argue with you. I may be convinced, internally, that you are sadly mistaken, but there is no useful way to argue with core principles.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I personally believe the U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh...people out there in our nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and...I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., err, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kaosfere

I may be convinced, internally, that you are sadly mistaken, but there is no useful way to argue with core principles.

I think I'll quote this one for a brief addendum to my sidebar, because I thought you made a pretty good post. (Hey, I had to pick one for some reason, might as well be that reason )

And along with the core principles involved, I perceive at least one other difference between Palin & Obama. While I believe both would be incredibly even unbelievably out of their depth as C-in-C / POTUS, I think deep down she knows she is while I believe he hasn't the slightest inkling.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

That's simply a lie Jon.

You keep using that word. I don't think means what you think it means.

[SirFozzie]

Heh. Wonder if Jon would be upset about the sloppiness of the latest McCain ad, released today.. (here's a free hint, boyos... release statements/ad saying you won the debate.... AFTER THE DEBATE, duh!)

(removed the image cuz it broke the thread)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...l?nav=rss_blog

They've already released two versions of the ad, the 2nd one has a statement from McCain's campaign manager "McCain won the debate-- hands down."

Nothing like declaring victory before it even starts, huh?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Heh. Wonder if Jon would be upset about the sloppiness of the latest McCain ad, released today.. (here's a free hint, boyos... release statements/ad saying you won the debate.... AFTER THE DEBATE, duh!)

(removed the image cuz it broke the thread)

McCain Wins Debate - The Fix

They've already released two versions of the ad, the 2nd one has a statement from McCain's campaign manager "McCain won the debate-- hands down."

Nothing like declaring victory before it even starts, huh?

Well, to be fair, there's poor children in 3rd world countries all over the world wearing "2008 Super Bowl Champion Patriots" shirts.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, to be fair, there's poor children in 3rd world countries all over the world wearing "2008 Super Bowl Champion Patriots" shirts.

I hate you. (stupid Giants)..

yes, but that's because there's physical lead time in making Physical items. online, it's just "Do not show this ad before 10:00 PM EDT Friday".

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, to be fair, there's poor children in 3rd world countries all over the world wearing "2008 Super Bowl Champion Patriots" shirts.

My understanding is, they've stopped doing that. Now they just destroy the shirts.

[Young Drachma]

Everyone calls Barry professorial, but I'd totally take a class with him. I think it'd be interesting.

[Galaxy]

I always been curious, why are they having a debate on a Friday night?

[Easy Mac]

Oooh, McCain made his Bear/paternity joke... that never gets old.

As to a debate on Friday... I don't know about you, but I enjoy having sex with Jim Lerher in the background.