Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Toddzilla]

I think it was a decent showing for both sides.

For all the spin that Obama isn't a good debater, my expectations of him were pretty high and he didn't seem to be as "on" as he is during a straight speech.

For all the spin that McCain is a master debater (snicker), my expectations of him were pretty low, but he did a very good job IMO.

While my overall impressions were that the debate last night was pretty much as wash, John McCain impressed me as the person who would make the better legislator, Barack Obama impressed me as the person who would make the better chief executive.

[rowech]

Staunch Republican here...Obama won...plain as day. You can not overestimate what I call "calm command". 80-85% of the people have already made up their mind. If I'm a trully neutral voter watching that last night, there's no way I wouldn't go with Obama after that viewing.

I think McCain has a strong dislike for Obama and that's why he doesn't look at him. Plain and simple, he doesn't like him, doesn't trust him, and doesn't want to see him be president. I'm sure he also feels as any multi-term senator would having to debate a "kid" who has barely seen the senate floor compared to McCain.

I must say, I'm not a huge fan of McCain but the thought of Obama being president, with a democratic congress, scares me to no end. America will take its first massive strides to becoming a socialist nation. (not that it's not taking small strides already)

[Flasch186]

Side bar, Free Market Capitalism works until it doesnt. than the shit hits the fan. I love seeing the new Republican 'bailout' talk where they defend the new plan they have as being based in Capitalism. Here's an education for ya lady...if you want free market capitalism, pass nothing this weekend or next week, and see what's left in a month when the 'market' fixes itself. That'll teach ya.

[Arles]

Hmm, I thought the reason that McCain didn't look at Obama directly on is that it would be viewed as too aggressive. I have to think if McCain stared down Obama at every argument, there would be a ton of people bringing intimidation (even some bringing up race). While I can see why McCain got dinged a bit for not looking Obama in the eye on every argument, I think he had to be real careful here and it was better to be on the side of talking directly to the "American people" (ie camera) than looking like a bully against Obama.

I also take a completely different approach to these debates. IMO, Obama needed to do very well on foreign policy (just like McCain needs to do real well on the economy). These are the areas that people who are undecided aren't comfortable with and each candidate needs to better than expectation to show they can handle it. I don't think anyone who was uncomfortable with Obama dealing with Foreign Policy feels any better about that after the debate.

Same goes for McCain in the economic debate. If he just goes out there on the defensive and simply blocks Obama's shots, he won't convince undecideds that he can handle the economy. The elephant in the room may be the fact that foreign policy may not be that important to people in this election with the uncertainty around the economy. So, even if McCain had a knockout (and I would say it's closer to a win via the scorecard), I really think this climate is helping Obama and he's still in the catbird seat looking forward.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't think anyone who was uncomfortable with Obama dealing with Foreign Policy feels any better about that after the debate.

Well apparently more than one poll this morning is saying that not only am I wrong that McCain won last night, but that youre wrong about the fence sitters especially. It's ok to be wrong.

Same goes for McCain in the economic debate. If he just goes out there on the defensive and simply blocks Obama's shots, he won't convince undecideds that he can handle the economy. The elephant in the room may be the fact that foreign policy may not be that important to people in this election with the uncertainty around the economy. So, even if McCain had a knockout (and I would say it's closer to a win via the scorecard), I really think this climate is helping Obama and he's still in the catbird seat looking forward.

Well the only thing ill say is I was confused about the 'freeze' comment but got that cleared up. I wonder if other people were confused by it and wont get it cleared up. shrug.

[gstelmack]

From my wife, an undecided voter who watched the debate last night:

Obama had better priorities, but his plans (what few he'd discuss beyond "I have a plan") didn't feel like the right way to accomplish them.

McCain is MUCH better for our national security than Obama.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

ooooh crap, I hope thats not true. Eisenhower's second letter never mentioned resigning which McCain said it did as a pivotal point of his story about accountability.

Eisenhower's second speech, noted here amongst others, simply said:

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."

I believe Eisenhower probably expected to be asked to resign if D-Day failed, but this was not, technically, a resignation at this time.

However, Eisenhower took accountability, which I think was McCain's point. The fact that McCain got some of the details wrong is small potatoes given the outright lies elsewhere in his campaign.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I really do not know what will happen at that debate. Conventional wisdom suggests the Biden should dominate, but the expectations for Palin are now so low that she almost can not help but exceed them.

I already had the previous post open in another tab to make this exact point.

The problem with Dems getting giddy over the Palin-Biden debate is that her expectations are in the crapper as it is. If she does well, or even ok, the McCain camp should just let that go as her meeting America and then never let her out except on the stump the rest of the election.

SI

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Eisenhower's second speech, noted here amongst others, simply said:

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."

I believe Eisenhower probably expected to be asked to resign if D-Day failed, but this was not, technically, a resignation at this time.

However, Eisenhower took accountability, which I think was McCain's point. The fact that McCain got some of the details wrong is small potatoes given the outright lies elsewhere in his campaign.

Flasch should also point out the out-right lie in Obama's answers. He said that he never said he'd meet with the president of Iran without pre-conditions, but that is exactly what he said a year ago. Even his camp admitted it was a mistake at the time (that there would have lower level talks first). He then said Kissinger agreed with Obama's stance of President level talks, which is false. Kissinger clearly stated he was Secretary of State level talks.

I personally don't think either of these (McCain's or Obama's) "mistakes" or "spins" are a big deal, but they both were completely false.

[sterlingice]

Speaking of managing expectations, the Obama camp did a really good job managing them coming into the debate. For the most part, there wasn't much chatter for the last few weeks but I heard whispers about how Obama is a better speaker, would win, etc. But then the last couple of days, this whole "Foreign policy is McCain's strong point" meme came up and it changed the dynamic so that a tie (which, for all intents and purposes it was- GOP thinks their guy won, Dems are split but the polls show a slight Obama win) goes to Obama and nothing really changes.

SI

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I already had the previous post open in another tab to make this exact point.

The problem with Dems getting giddy over the Palin-Biden debate is that her expectations are in the crapper as it is. If she does well, or even ok, the McCain camp should just let that go as her meeting America and then never let her out except on the stump the rest of the election.

SI

Sure. If she doesn't completely scrub it, it will be a win. A worst-case senario for the Dems is she's bad, but not that bad. If the press then plays up how awefull they thought she was (and they will, because they are very angry about lack of access), it will probably play right to the "picking on her" idea. It will make her a even more sympathetic figure ("Look at liberal media attacking one of us!").

[Buccaneer]

Flasch should also point out the out-right lie in Obama's answers.

Thanks for the laugh on a Saturday morning.

[Jas_lov]

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

These numbers aren't good for McCain among undecideds. Obama prepared to be President jumped from 44 pre debate to 60 post debate. Which candidate understands your needs is 79% Obama and 41% McCain post debate. McCain has an 8 point lead on who would do better in Iraq, but Obama has a 24 point lead on the economy.

Rasmussen has Obama increasing his lead to 50-44. The first day the rolling average will count all post debate polling is Tuesday.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by rowech

I must say, I'm not a huge fan of McCain but the thought of Obama being president, with a democratic congress, scares me to no end.

There will be a small percentage of voters who cast their ballot for McCain based solely on this. It's a given that the democrats will retain (and almost surely increase) their majority in the house and senate. The thought of Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi controlling all of the executive and legislative branches of government will be enough to win McCain some votes, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The thought of Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi controlling all of the executive and legislative branches of government will be enough to win McCain some votes, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Flasch should also point out the out-right lie in Obama's answers. He said that he never said he'd meet with the president of Iran without pre-conditions, but that is exactly what he said a year ago. Even his camp admitted it was a mistake at the time (that there would have lower level talks first). He then said Kissinger agreed with Obama's stance of President level talks, which is false. Kissinger clearly stated he was Secretary of State level talks.

I personally don't think either of these (McCain's or Obama's) "mistakes" or "spins" are a big deal, but they both were completely false.

I think that they ALL are. I didnt know the Kissinger statement was wrong or a lie, until you just said it....so that is not a good thing and Obama should release a qualification today IMO. Obama, already stated his clarification of the Iran thing so McCain bringing it up as if it wasn't qualified is disingenuous.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

if you want free market capitalism, pass nothing this weekend or next week, and see what's left in a month when the 'market' fixes itself.

Actually, I'm starting to think that might be the best thing that could happen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The thought of Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi controlling all of the executive and legislative branches of government will be enough to win McCain some votes, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

Then we'll get what we deserve for failing to prevent it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then we'll get what we deserve for failing to prevent it.

Just as we did when we voted in GWB twice.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, I'm starting to think that might be the best thing that could happen.

And Im starting to think that people who think that way dont realize how 'bad' 'bad' really is.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Just as we did when we voted in GWB twice.

So why encourage a repeat of a one-party government?

[sabotai]

Canada sure is looking nice these days. And I like the snow!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

And Im starting to think that people who think that way dont realize how 'bad' 'bad' really is.

{shrug}

The more I see the more I lean toward believing that the actual impact of not bailing out this incompetence is being overstated by a staggering exponent. Next thing I expect them to tell us is that if the gazillion dollars isn't approved five minutes ago then we'll see cats & dogs living together.

And to cut right down to it, it's starting to smell more & more like a set of rich politicians (on both sides of the aisle) looking to save the bacon of some incredibly rich cronies who fucked up royally.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think that they ALL are. I didnt know the Kissinger statement was wrong or a lie, until you just said it....so that is not a good thing and Obama should release a qualification today IMO. Obama, already stated his clarification of the Iran thing so McCain bringing it up as if it wasn't qualified is disingenuous.

All? You need to take a deep breath. Sometimes, these things are honest mistakes (as when Obama agree to unqualified talks with Iran in the Dem debate. I don't think he complete understood what he was agreeing to at that point). It could be that McCain thought there was a resignation offered, but wasn't, and could be that Obama thought Kissinger said Presidential level talks when he said SOS level (which he clearly did).

If you expect perfection from everyone, you are always going to be disappointed.

[astrosfan64]

I still can't stand either VP. I really dislike Palin.

I thought Obama and McCain did really well. I actually feel pretty good about either choice right now. I don't think I ever felt that way. I agreed with both of them on some issues.

I think for the first time in a while, either choice might not be so bad.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I still can't stand either VP. I really dislike Palin.

I thought Obama and McCain did really well. I actually feel pretty good about either choice right now. I don't think I ever felt that way. I agreed with both of them on some issues.

I think for the first time in a while, either choice might not be so bad.

I'm with you. I'm not scared of McCain (esp. since he'll be dealing with a Dem congress), but I would prefer Obama for a number of reasons. I wish we had McCain of 2000, and not Neo-Con McCain of the last 8 years.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

ooooh crap, I hope thats not true. Eisenhower's second letter never mentioned resigning which McCain said it did as a pivotal point of his story about accountability.

Fact check for reference.

"Our landings...have failed...and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attached to the attempt it is mine alone."
-General Eisenhower
The Victors, Stephen Ambrose, Page 74

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Fact check for reference.

"Our landings...have failed...and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attached to the attempt it is mine alone."
-General Eisenhower
The Victors, Stephen Ambrose, Page 74

exactly, thanks. He didnt say anything about resigning. FDR also didnt go on TV during the Depression. Small misses but still irritates me because they'll (both sides) not go on TV or put out in statements regarding corrections. Maybe I'm too much of a stickler, I get it, but it still chafes. Same thing Obama's Kissinger rhetoric. He should come out and release a statement clarifying.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Rasmussen has Obama increasing his lead to 50-44. The first day the rolling average will count all post debate polling is Tuesday.

Rasmussen came on the news today and stated that poll is a 3-day tracking poll and all answers were made prior to the debates. He thinks that Tuesday's poll will completely reflect any changes from the debates.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

exactly, thanks. He didnt say anything about resigning.

So you are suggesting Eisenhower was holding out hope for a firing instead of resigning after publishing such a letter?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I still can't stand either VP. I really dislike Palin.

I thought Obama and McCain did really well. I actually feel pretty good about either choice right now. I don't think I ever felt that way. I agreed with both of them on some issues.

I think for the first time in a while, either choice might not be so bad.

I'm beginning to enter this camp as well. I think Obama is much more pragmatic than people (esp on the right) give him credit for. He's pretty much thrown out the left of his party on delaying the tax increase, extending the time in Iraq, going pro-clean coal and nuclear and even considering drilling. His health care plan will never pass the house and a lot of his education reforms will get watered down.

I see a lot of Bill Clinton in him and think that he would be OK. I would prefer McCain/Palin, but I can't really think of one substantive area where the country will be much different if the other was in power. I think McCain will handle some of the Iran/North Korea/Russia things a little better and that Obama will be more focused on economic issues. I don't think either will change a thing in Iraq (we'll leave in 2-3 years under both) and both will do a solid job on Afghanistan.

I wasn't real thrilled with Gore or Kerry for many reasons, but I think it's different with Obama. I started out not liking a lot of his policies, but the more time passes, the more he's kind of inching over to my perspective on some issues. So, I'm a little with Grant Dawg and Astro in that I think we will be fine either way.

Now, I will still take the conservative (esp fiscal) stance in this thread and be pro-McCain - don't get me wrong. But I have no dread or fear of the opposing candidate winning.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Arles

He's pretty much thrown out the left of his party on delaying the tax increase, extending the time in Iraq, going pro-clean coal and nuclear and even considering drilling. His health care plan will never pass the house and a lot of his education reforms will get watered down.

A lot of it will depend upon Congress asserting its influence on a new president whose ties helped propelled him to office. Obama will be able to dictate some bills but he will also have to go along with bills that will be given to him by Congress. He is not going to veto anything that may contradict any of the views stated above. But in the end, we'll still be ok regardless of who is president, we always have been throughout our (once we got the Civil War thing out of the way).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So you are suggesting Eisenhower was holding out hope for a firing instead of resigning after publishing such a letter?

you cant know what he intended, perhaps neither, unless he says it outright, just like people cant intend to know what Palin meant by her speeches about "Gods war." You cant use assumption to provide an out on one side and then use assumption to argue against the other. Set a precedent and stick to it (and I know it wasnt you but others in this thread argued that you cant say she meant one thing or another when she said that because she meant something else).

[Maple Leafs]

McCain is a fighter on the ropes. He didn't win the round but he didn't get KO'ed either. It's been a tough week for him, so living to fight another day isn't the worst outcome in the world.

Re: Palin, at first I was also thinking that if she managed to stay upright and not urinate on the moderator, her performance would exceed expectations. But then again, we thought that about the Couric interview too. Anything could happen in that one. All we know is that the Republicans try to frame any attack Biden makes as sexism, and it will work for a lot of voters.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So why encourage a repeat of a one-party government?

We already have one party government!!!!!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug}

The more I see the more I lean toward believing that the actual impact of not bailing out this incompetence is being overstated by a staggering exponent. Next thing I expect them to tell us is that if the gazillion dollars isn't approved five minutes ago then we'll see cats & dogs living together.

And to cut right down to it, it's starting to smell more & more like a set of rich politicians (on both sides of the aisle) looking to save the bacon of some incredibly rich cronies who fucked up royally.

I'm wondering if this theoretical $250B bailout isn't just a pile of crap, too. It's not like Paulson and Bernake haven't known about this for a few months. So, they probably have been coming up with this plan for a while. They shot for the moon with "$700B and blank check" and I bet "$250B and minor congressional checks and balances" looks just fine as a fallback point.

It's something to the effect of
"I want a billion dollars for this piece of lint"
"It must be worth something, how about a million"
"Great! (heh, I just sold a piece of lint for a million dollars)"
"Great! (heh, I just bought something for a billion dollars for a million)"

Again, after reading about the way Sweden dealt with an almost identical situation tells me we should something very similar.

Also, as an aside for the economics debate, McCain's going to have to go stronger on something more than earmarks. Next to $700B, $16B is such a minuscule amount, we're starting to get desensitized to numbers that "small".

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Set a precedent and stick to it (and I know it wasnt you but others in this thread argued that you cant say she meant one thing or another when she said that because she meant something else).

Don't sweat it, scolding me for something I didn't say is okay. I'm fairly predictable.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm wondering if this theoretical $250B bailout isn't just a pile of crap, too.

The problem with Republicans and Democrats joining hands is that now nobody can believe anybody.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Don't sweat it, scolding me for something I didn't say is okay. I'm fairly predictable.

I definitely dont view anything I say as scolding but perhaps that word means something less harsh than I think it means.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I definitely dont view anything I say as scolding but perhaps that word means something less harsh than I think it means.

I should've added a smiley to my post.

[Arles]

This is pretty chilling:

St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can't even begin to describe how wrong this agenda is.

It's one thing if they want to keep the campaign fair for both sides, but they clearly only want to enforce the issue for the Obama Camp.

KMOV has a video report on the Obama "Truth Squads".

St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.

KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

[ISiddiqui]

Say wha? They realize that Obama is a public figure and thus whatever false statement must be proven to be made maliciously, right?

Or.. they just don't care about the 1st Amendment (which could be the case).

[Arles]

Yeah, I can't imagine this going over well if it were two prosecutors in Mississippi doing the same regarding McCain. You would think the ACLU would come out against it. Yet, there's nothing on their site and no PRs on it. But, I guess civil liberties are only worth protecting when they involve people they agree with using the first amendment.

[ISiddiqui]

The story came out Friday... give 'em time.

[ISiddiqui]

After all:

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it successfully obtained a court order dismissing a libel suit filed against the Piscataway Republican Organization and its recent slate of candidates for township offices. The lawsuit against the Republicans was filed by the Piscataway Democratic Organization and centered on language used on campaign billboards and fliers.

"Free political speech is a founding American belief," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "The way to fight speech that you don't like or don't think is accurate is to speak out yourself, not to silence or suppress what others say."

During the November 2004 elections, the Piscataway Republican Organization erected a billboard stating: "Bribery. Corruption. Indictment. Had Enough?" with a picture of a broom. The sign then urged viewers to vote for the Republican slate for township mayor and council.

The Democratic incumbents asked that the signs be removed. The Republicans refused. The Democrats then filed suit for libel, claiming that the sign implied that they, as individuals, were guilty of bribery and corruption. Although the entire Piscataway Democratic slate of candidates won in the November elections, they refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, Judge Yolanda Ciccone granted the ACLU of New Jersey's motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the fact that the ad contained protected, non-libelous speech. The ACLU of New Jersey's brief explained that the ad was political rhetoric, and did not direct allegations at a particular individual; rather, it was impersonal criticism of a government administration.

"Political discourse should be uninhibited and this was political speech in its most basic form," said Frank Corrado of Barry Corrado Grassi & Gibson, the ACLU of New Jersey's cooperating attorney in the case. "The candidates had the right to comment on the political climate as they saw it and to ask voters to remove the incumbents to change the status quo."

The case is Piscataway Democratic Organization, et al. v. Piscataway Republican Organization, et al. It was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The story came out Friday... give 'em time.

+1

I'm pretty sure they don't work weekends.

Arles - are you going to eat your words when the ACLU does step up in this case? Or are you going to try to spin it like they stepped up reluctantly because of some pressure or whatever?

[Arles]

I will give the ACLU a ton of credit if they come out against this action in St. Louis. Here's hoping we hear from them early next week.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is pretty chilling:



http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

Well, I do hate 527's so perhaps they do deserve to be burned, on both sides. However, this is ridiculous.

[BrianD]

St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can't even begin to describe how wrong this agenda is.

It's one thing if they want to keep the campaign fair for both sides, but they clearly only want to enforce the issue for the Obama Camp.

KMOV has a video report on the Obama "Truth Squads".

St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.

KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

Nice.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is pretty chilling:



http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

The video had nothing about libel charges. Is there a source for that?