Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread  (Read 8259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2008, 02:45:56 AM »

Wow South Koreans are 3 inches taller than North Koreans? If true, I did learn something from the debate!
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2008, 02:46:49 AM »

WN,
There is a NYT article on racism that I posted in Etc. Have a look.
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2008, 02:50:23 AM »

I think everyone is in for a surprise.. do not underestimate McCain
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2008, 03:05:37 AM »

Who does that? You saw how awful Bush was in the debates and he still won.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,029
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2008, 03:08:11 AM »

I think everyone is in for a surprise.. do not underestimate McCain
As we discussed briefly when we met in India McCain will pull this off no matter what in the end thanks to his fairer skin but not due to the content within.

After tonight's debate it is clear to me that Obama is the right candidate to lead U.S. currently based on the simple fact that it needs a new direction and he provides them that in comparision to McCain who in many ways is a carbon copy of Bush.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 12:14:14 PM by ramshorns »
Logged

Shukla

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 874
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2008, 03:24:15 AM »

I must have watched another debate. McCain came across as petty to me who reverted to one-line smart comments whenever he ran out of policy points to talk about. Obama clearly owned this one on economy highlighting how small in context McCain's biggest economic platform of earmark cuts (only 18bn) was in regards to bigger issues facing the economy.


Logged

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2008, 04:59:29 AM »

man, i hope snl does a lot of skits on "i oppose pork barrel" stuff like they did with gore and "lock box"

as pat buchanan (!) said, bush lost every single debate he's ever been in but he came president...
Logged

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2008, 05:01:18 AM »

I think everyone is in for a surprise.. do not underestimate McCain
what was the surprise? there was nothing surprising about mccain in this debate--he's a senator with 35 years of experience. he did exactly what was expected of him. he's been trying to project himself as more socialist than obama lately and that trend continued. obama isnt a great debator; he's not bad, either--just mediocre. we all knew this and all in all everything was expected.
Logged

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2008, 05:11:39 AM »

think progress:

McCain has already used the joke that he wasn't "elected Miss Congeniality in the Senate" twice during this debate. Ironically, Sarah Palin was Miss Congeniality.

Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #49 on: September 27, 2008, 05:16:23 AM »

Grading the First Presidential Debate
 
By MARK HALPERIN / OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI


JOHN MCCAIN

Substance: His arguments were hard to follow at the beginning, but he found his voice as the debate progressed, although he never seemed fully in control of his message. He had plenty to say about the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia, but often bogged down his own answers when trying to unfurl quips and soundbites. Stuck with bumper sticker slogans on the economy, and while he got a bit more detailed on foreign policy, he stayed at his usual level of abstraction. If he truly knows more about the world than Obama, he didn't show it in this debate.


Grade: B-


Style: Cluttered, jumpy, and often muddled. Frequent coughing early on helped neither his arguments nor his image. Jokes about being deaf and anecdotes about Normandy and George Shultz seemed ill-advised - even his pen was old. His presentation was further hindered by his wandering discussion of the differing heights of North and South Koreans and his angry assertion about how well he knows Henry Kissinger. Fell into the classic politician's trap of inserting familiar stump speech applause lines into debate responses - which only works if done with enthusiasm and clarity (and if received by applause - a big No-No in Lehrer's auditorium, which the audience obeyed seriously and silently). Keenly aware of the grand, grave occasion, McCain wavered between respectful and domineering, and ended up awkward and edgy.


Grade: C-


Offense: Emphasized his bread and butter issues of taxes and spending, and hit Obama on his failure to visit Iraq and his expressed willingness to meet with dictators. But while mocking his opponent on a few occasions, which reflected his acute disrespect for Obama, he did so in an insufficiently sharp and detailed manner - and unevenly worked elements of his rival's record into his attacks. Still he was utterly confident about his own experience, knowledge, and policies, even when tripped by his own tongue and distracted by the strains of debate practice. The main problem: Obama's obvious preparation and sharp answers contradicted McCain's frequent claims that the Democrat was uninformed and "didn't understand" key issues.


Grade: C+


Defense: He managed to ignore most of Obama's jibes, but was eventually baited into giving an extended answer about his policy differences with President Bush, after his opponent repeatedly mentioned McCain's regular support of Bush's budgets. Was visibly riled when clashing with Obama over a variety of issues, including Iraq, sanctions, and spending. He also chose to boast about Sarah Palin (although not by name) as his maverick partner, who, after her shaky week, may no longer be his ace in the hole.


Grade: B-


Overall: McCain was McCain - evocative, intense, and at times emotional, but also vague, elliptical, and atonal. Failed to deliver his "country first versus Obama first" message cleanly, even when offered several opportunities. Surprisingly, did not talk much about "change," virtually ceding the dominant issue of the race.


Overall grade: B-



BARACK OBAMA


Substance: Quite manifestly immersed in the past, present, and future details of policy, and eager to express his views, which have been expanded, honed, and solidified during the last 18 months of hard campaigning. Still, he did avoid the nitty-gritty details of policy positions in favor of broad principles and references to working Americans, thereby not presenting the kind of specifics that some voters are waiting to hear from him.


Grade: B+


Style: Polished, confident, focused. Fully prepared, and able to convey a real depth of knowledge on nearly every issue. He was unhurried, and rarely lost his train of thought even when the debate wended and winded - and uttered far fewer of his trademark, distracting, "ums." At times, however, Obama revealed the level of his preparation by faltering over a rehearsed answer. He seemed to deliberately focus on the moderator and the home audience, with McCain as an afterthought - except when on the attack. Chose to avoid humor, for the most part, in favor of a stern demeanor, and in the process, came off as cool as a cucumber.


Grade: A


Offense: Linking McCain to Bush in his very first answer, he kept it up as his primary line of attack. Forcefully hit McCain for his early support of the Iraq War. Though he never drew blood, he did keep McCain a bit off balance, often with clever references to McCain's recent statements.

Grade: B

Defense: Had a reasonable answer for every charge that came his way - with little anger, bluster, or anxiety. Often interrupting McCain attacks with swift explanations and comebacks, he managed to spin accusations of being liberal as evidence of his relentless opposition to George Bush (in replies that were clearly planned). Offered a rather clumsy alternative to McCain's well-known, moving story of wearing the bracelet of a soldier lost in Iraq (a gift from the soldier's mother), with a story about a bracelet of his own. Fearless, without condescension, he attempted the gracious move of agreeing with or complimenting a McCain position, occasionally to his own detriment.

Grade: A-

Overall: Went for a solid, consistent performance to introduce himself to the country. He did not seem nervous, tentative, or intimidated by the event, and avoided mistakes from his weak debate performances during nomination season (a professorial tone and long winded answers). Standing comfortably on the stage with his rival, he showed he belonged - evocative of Reagan, circa 1980. He was so confident by the end that he reminded his biggest audience yet that his father was from Kenya. Two more performances like that and he will be very tough to beat on Election Day.

Overall grade: A-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/gradingthefirstpresidentialdebate;_ylt=Aprq.wfxod9bO_q1ZTFFLJRh24cA
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,029
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #50 on: September 27, 2008, 05:22:28 AM »

Grading the First Presidential Debate
 
By MARK HALPERIN / OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI


JOHN MCCAIN

Substance: His arguments were hard to follow at the beginning, but he found his voice as the debate progressed, although he never seemed fully in control of his message. He had plenty to say about the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia, but often bogged down his own answers when trying to unfurl quips and soundbites. Stuck with bumper sticker slogans on the economy, and while he got a bit more detailed on foreign policy, he stayed at his usual level of abstraction. If he truly knows more about the world than Obama, he didn't show it in this debate.


Grade: B-


Style: Cluttered, jumpy, and often muddled. Frequent coughing early on helped neither his arguments nor his image. Jokes about being deaf and anecdotes about Normandy and George Shultz seemed ill-advised - even his pen was old. His presentation was further hindered by his wandering discussion of the differing heights of North and South Koreans and his angry assertion about how well he knows Henry Kissinger. Fell into the classic politician's trap of inserting familiar stump speech applause lines into debate responses - which only works if done with enthusiasm and clarity (and if received by applause - a big No-No in Lehrer's auditorium, which the audience obeyed seriously and silently). Keenly aware of the grand, grave occasion, McCain wavered between respectful and domineering, and ended up awkward and edgy.


Grade: C-


Offense: Emphasized his bread and butter issues of taxes and spending, and hit Obama on his failure to visit Iraq and his expressed willingness to meet with dictators. But while mocking his opponent on a few occasions, which reflected his acute disrespect for Obama, he did so in an insufficiently sharp and detailed manner - and unevenly worked elements of his rival's record into his attacks. Still he was utterly confident about his own experience, knowledge, and policies, even when tripped by his own tongue and distracted by the strains of debate practice. The main problem: Obama's obvious preparation and sharp answers contradicted McCain's frequent claims that the Democrat was uninformed and "didn't understand" key issues.


Grade: C+


Defense: He managed to ignore most of Obama's jibes, but was eventually baited into giving an extended answer about his policy differences with President Bush, after his opponent repeatedly mentioned McCain's regular support of Bush's budgets. Was visibly riled when clashing with Obama over a variety of issues, including Iraq, sanctions, and spending. He also chose to boast about Sarah Palin (although not by name) as his maverick partner, who, after her shaky week, may no longer be his ace in the hole.


Grade: B-


Overall: McCain was McCain - evocative, intense, and at times emotional, but also vague, elliptical, and atonal. Failed to deliver his "country first versus Obama first" message cleanly, even when offered several opportunities. Surprisingly, did not talk much about "change," virtually ceding the dominant issue of the race.


Overall grade: B-



BARACK OBAMA


Substance: Quite manifestly immersed in the past, present, and future details of policy, and eager to express his views, which have been expanded, honed, and solidified during the last 18 months of hard campaigning. Still, he did avoid the nitty-gritty details of policy positions in favor of broad principles and references to working Americans, thereby not presenting the kind of specifics that some voters are waiting to hear from him.


Grade: B+


Style: Polished, confident, focused. Fully prepared, and able to convey a real depth of knowledge on nearly every issue. He was unhurried, and rarely lost his train of thought even when the debate wended and winded - and uttered far fewer of his trademark, distracting, "ums." At times, however, Obama revealed the level of his preparation by faltering over a rehearsed answer. He seemed to deliberately focus on the moderator and the home audience, with McCain as an afterthought - except when on the attack. Chose to avoid humor, for the most part, in favor of a stern demeanor, and in the process, came off as cool as a cucumber.


Grade: A


Offense: Linking McCain to Bush in his very first answer, he kept it up as his primary line of attack. Forcefully hit McCain for his early support of the Iraq War. Though he never drew blood, he did keep McCain a bit off balance, often with clever references to McCain's recent statements.

Grade: B

Defense: Had a reasonable answer for every charge that came his way - with little anger, bluster, or anxiety. Often interrupting McCain attacks with swift explanations and comebacks, he managed to spin accusations of being liberal as evidence of his relentless opposition to George Bush (in replies that were clearly planned). Offered a rather clumsy alternative to McCain's well-known, moving story of wearing the bracelet of a soldier lost in Iraq (a gift from the soldier's mother), with a story about a bracelet of his own. Fearless, without condescension, he attempted the gracious move of agreeing with or complimenting a McCain position, occasionally to his own detriment.

Grade: A-

Overall: Went for a solid, consistent performance to introduce himself to the country. He did not seem nervous, tentative, or intimidated by the event, and avoided mistakes from his weak debate performances during nomination season (a professorial tone and long winded answers). Standing comfortably on the stage with his rival, he showed he belonged - evocative of Reagan, circa 1980. He was so confident by the end that he reminded his biggest audience yet that his father was from Kenya. Two more performances like that and he will be very tough to beat on Election Day.

Overall grade: A-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/gradingthefirstpresidentialdebate;_ylt=Aprq.wfxod9bO_q1ZTFFLJRh24cA
I was not able to watch the debate in its entriety.  But in the last 30 min or so I watched on FOX towards the end it seemed Obama was a clear winner and got across his message better.

Even Wallace one of the analysts on FOX said that Obama had the edge if one were to grade this objectively and he did admit that he is a McCain supporter.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 05:24:23 AM by ramshorns »
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #51 on: September 27, 2008, 05:33:27 AM »

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

 MCCAIN
 
 66% 116,813
 OBAMA
 
 31% 55,229
 NEITHER
 
 2% 3,960

Total Votes: 176,002

---

As I said, everyone will spin the debate as per their angle.. the key is how it played in the purple counties of west appalachia and CO, NV and NM.
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2008, 05:44:51 AM »

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

 MCCAIN
 
 66% 116,813
 OBAMA
 
 31% 55,229
 NEITHER
 
 2% 3,960

Total Votes: 176,002

---

As I said, everyone will spin the debate as per their angle.. the key is how it played in the purple counties of west appalachia and CO, NV and NM.

drudge?! aap thik to ho na?

any polls asking ppl to vote directly is totally unreliable...fox is polling that 80% say mccain won while h**** spews off bs. means nothing. only people who hate hannity, like me, and bush fans are watching analysis at fox.

the polls that come out on sunday/monday will give an indication of how the country saw it. the faithfuls voting in these polls are not voting on who won, but for their own candidate....focus group polls are more effective because they samepl carefully chosen independents. obama has won the cbs one...havent seen any other yet
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #53 on: September 27, 2008, 05:48:16 AM »

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

 MCCAIN
 
 66% 116,813
 OBAMA
 
 31% 55,229
 NEITHER
 
 2% 3,960

Total Votes: 176,002

---

As I said, everyone will spin the debate as per their angle.. the key is how it played in the purple counties of west appalachia and CO, NV and NM.

drudge?! aap thik to ho na?

any polls asking ppl to vote directly is totally unreliable...fox is polling that 80% say mccain won while h**** spews off bs. means nothing. only people who hate hannity, like me, and bush fans are watching analysis at fox.

the polls that come out on sunday/monday will give an indication of how the country saw it. the faithfuls voting in these polls are not voting on who won, but for their own candidate....focus group polls are more effective because they samepl carefully chosen independents. obama has won the cbs one...havent seen any other yet
I think you are missing my point.. I agree it is too soon to evaluate and matter of fact, our evaluation doesnt matter (it is the battleground counties and states that matter)...and we can all post partisan polls/grading here to illustrate one point or another.. they dont matter. That is the reason i posted Drudge poll - as right wing as it gets.. just like Halperin's grading - as left wing as it gets.
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #54 on: September 27, 2008, 05:53:12 AM »

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

 MCCAIN
 
 66% 116,813
 OBAMA
 
 31% 55,229
 NEITHER
 
 2% 3,960

Total Votes: 176,002

---

As I said, everyone will spin the debate as per their angle.. the key is how it played in the purple counties of west appalachia and CO, NV and NM.

drudge?! aap thik to ho na?

any polls asking ppl to vote directly is totally unreliable...fox is polling that 80% say mccain won while h**** spews off bs. means nothing. only people who hate hannity, like me, and bush fans are watching analysis at fox.

the polls that come out on sunday/monday will give an indication of how the country saw it. the faithfuls voting in these polls are not voting on who won, but for their own candidate....focus group polls are more effective because they samepl carefully chosen independents. obama has won the cbs one...havent seen any other yet
I think you are missing my point.. I agree it is too soon to evaluate and matter of fact, our evaluation doesnt matter (it is the battleground counties and states that matter)...and we can all post partisan polls/grading here to illustrate one point or another.. they dont matter. That is the reason i posted Drudge poll - as right wing as it gets.. just like Halperin's grading - as left wing as it gets.

polls vs. articles are different...any poll at kos will show obama win heavily.

articles will be biased too but will have more substance

national polls on monday will be informative...and also, focus group of independants that'll trickle in tomorrow will be a good indicator
Logged

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #55 on: September 27, 2008, 06:12:54 AM »

I think everyone is in for a surprise.. do not underestimate McCain
As we discussed briefly when we met in India McCain will pull this off no matter what in the end thanks to his fairer skin but not due to the content within.

After tonight's debate it is clear to me that Obama is the right candidate to lead U.S. currently based on the simple fact that it needs a new direction and he provides them that in comparision to McCain who in many ways is a corbon copy of Bush.

I completely agree with you Rams. It will happen, unless the 'silent white majority' down South decide that Obama is simply just too Carbon.
Logged

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #56 on: September 27, 2008, 06:59:42 AM »

The way I think it:

1. Obama could not go too much on the offensive. There were several clear openings, but he had to remember two things, one, that the wind is with him now and the idea is not to make any rash mistakes, and two, that the (white) public should not have a chance to see him as the archetypal 'angry nigger'. Grades for balancing act: A

2. Obama was supposed to lose this debate (on foreign policy) by a wide margin. The fact that most pundits (including Charles Krauthammer) call it a draw is a victory for him (Charlie said so himself). After all, he could not have managed McCain's volume of anecdotes collected over 26 years in public service. Obama did well by spilling out facts and figures (while McCain got the name of the Pakistani president wrong) that demonstrated one simple fact: that he knew the turf. He also did very well by stressing on the 21st century aspect, while M. invoked Reagan. Obama understands that the revolutionary voter registration drive he has initiated at the grass roots level are cell phone carrying young people who do not show up in the polls, but know what he is getting at. Simply put, Obama's task, in this losing debate against the old patriarch who has probably dined with Breznev and has stories to tell, was to just display gravitas and hold his own. He did that. He also appeared sombre, serious, and presidential (thereby humorless to some), ideal stance against an opponent who thinks he is like Britney Spears. Grade: B+

3. McCain smirked once too often when Obama spoke. It was clearly racist and patronizing. He also never made eye contact with his opponent. It seems Obama, with his 'cool' can eventually get under the white man's skin and flare the famous temper. Ergo, before the second debate, Obama should hire Ganguly as a consultant and also issue preemptive payment to Steve Waugh to stay out of this whole thing. If that happens, next time we will see Obama appearing five minutes late for a debate preceding a toss up election. It will work. Grade for M's behavior: C-

4. McCain I think lost quite a few of the silent independents (especially white women voters) when he kept on talking about how he would cut back spending, keep taxes low on all fronts, but would not compromise on the defense budget. He actually kept on talking about the defense budget and how it was too expensive to build a submarine etc. This was when both candidates were asked what they would prioritize on after the 700 billion bail out). Obama I think wisely answered that one in platitudes. McCaine grassed it. For that, he will get a 'yeeaah' from a bunch of rednecks who would have voted for him anyways, but he will lose a couple of people who want subs, of a different kind. Grade: C

My biases are clear. More tomorrow morning.
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #57 on: September 27, 2008, 07:38:47 AM »

OKAY.... here we go.. let's get some "balance" in this debate on debate ;D
--
Fight Night!
Scoring Obama-McCain, round by round.
by Jonathan V. Last
09/26/2008 11:50:00 PM


Round 1: Where do you stand on the Paulson bailout plan?
Obama says that Main Street was suffering long before Wall Street and that we have to move swiftly and wisely. Also, he says that he's put forward proposals to make this plan work better, most importantly to make sure we bail out the deadbeats who are being foreclosed on, too, and not just the Richie Riches at Lehman. Oh, and by the way and Bush and McCain caused this whole thing.

McCain opens by saying that he wishes Ted Kennedy all the best, signaling that he believes Sarah Palin has brought the GOP base onboard for good. He then points to the bipartisan nature of the modified Paulson package. And says that this is only the end of the beginning of the financial crisis. Neither guy answered the question, prompting Lehrer to re-ask.

On redirect, Obama says he can't say whether he's for it or not because he hasn't seen the details. But that it's important to remember that he warned of the crisis two years ago. Which kind of leaves one wondering why, if he knew that the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" was coming down the pike, all he did was write a letter to Paulson instead of acting to head it off.

McCain says that he is going to vote for the bailout and then talks about how important it is to hold people accountable for their actions. This is a close one since neither guy conveys any deep understanding of the situation or insight into the solution.
Round to Obama

Round 2: Are there fundamental difference between your two approaches to the crisis?
McCain goes right after spending, hitting his reform theme and blaming Republicans for their earmarks, out of control spending, and scandals. It's like he's daring Obama to be harder on the GOP than he is.

Obama says that earmarks are bad--though not as bad as "the special interests"! But Obama maintains that McCain's tax cuts for evil corporations and the rich are a worse source of waste than earmarks. Standing traditional supply-side economics on its head, Obama says he wants to grow the economy from the "bottom up."

The two then go back and forth on McCain's business tax cuts, culminating in McCain pointing that the U.S. business tax is 35 percent, Ireland's is 11 percent, and that lowering business taxes is one of the ways you keep businesses in America and create jobs. When Obama challenges this, he says that all of the "loopholes" actually make business taxes too low--suggesting that he'd like to make the U.S. less hospitable to businesses. Then McCain hits Obama for talking and not doing. Obama looks peevish.
Round to McCain

Round 3: As president, what will you give up to pay for the $700 billion bailout?
Obama says, quite nonsensically, that he's going to give up foreign oil by turning to wind, solar, and alternative fuels. He then goes on to talk about all the other things he is going to spend money on. If you were at all concerned that Obama's "no new taxes" pledge might not be written in stone, he isn't setting your mind at ease.

McCain says that we have to get spending under control and that he'd examine every agency of the government. Then, just throw an elbow at Iowa voters, he says that the first thing he'd do is cut the ethanol subsidy. Also, in an attempt to drive Michael Goldfarb from his staff, he singles out the DDX program in a long list of government waste that he'd go after.

When asked again what he would give up, Obama ducks the question, saying, again, that he will invest in ending our dependence on foreign oil. Not to pick nits but technically, that's new spending. Lehrer seems perturbed.

McCain then goes on the offensive saying we ought to consider a spending freeze (minus defense, entitlements, and veterans affairs). Thinking he has an opening, Obama pounces, saying that he wouldn't endorse a spending freeze because there are lots of under-funded programs that need more money from the federal government. It's not clear how this is helping reassure people that he won't raise their taxes.
Round to McCain

Round 4: What are the lessons of Iraq?
McCain says that you need to be mindful that strategies can fail and that flexibility is important. He says that we're winning in Iraq and that we will come home with victory and honor and a newly-minted ally in the region. He gives Gen. Petraeus and the troops all the credit.

Obama says that this is a fundamental difference between the two men because six years ago he stood up the salons of Hyde Park and bravely opposed the war. He then paints a picture of American defeat around the globe and claims that al Qaeda is stronger than it's been at any time since 2001. For whatever it's worth, this last assertion is counter to recent analysis of al Qaeda's strength. It betrays a staggering ignorance on Obama's part; his position deteriorates from there.
Round to McCain

Round 5: About that Afghanistan . . .
Obama says we need more troops in Afghanistan, which is why we need to pull out of Iraq and get tough with Pakistan.

McCain says that he regrets the mistake we made by neglecting the Afghanis after they drove the Soviets out, allowing the Taliban to take hold. He then paints Obama as reckless for wanting to cut off aid to a tottering nuclear power. The knowledge gap is beginning to show and it gets worse when Obama mangles pre-Musharraf Pakistani history.

As the exchange goes on it becomes clear that these guys like each other about as much as Ali and Foreman did.
Round to McCain

Round 6: How big a threat is Iran?
McCain says that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel and a strategic threat to the stability of the region. He notes that Russia is blocking action at the U.N. and touts a "League of Democracies" which could implement serious and tough sanctions on Iran. But "have no doubt," he's ready to throw down. He gallantly doesn't mention that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to prefer Obama.

Obama says that we need Russia and China to help with sanction. But the real thing we need with Iran is--hold on to your seats--tough, direct diplomacy!

McCain hits Obama for pledging to talk with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Obama should just take his lumps here--this is the cost of winning the Democratic nomination. But instead he tries to weasel out of it, saying that he'll "sit down with anybody" but that there have to be "preparation." Then he tries to get cute by saying that Ahmadinejad may not be the most important person in Iran. It's a weird pride that keeps Obama committed to a losing position when he should just find different ground to fight on. You'll notice, by the way, that whenever he loses his way, he blurts out "President Bush."

McCain says that his opponent's views aren't "just naive, but dangerous." Obama isn't doing anything to dispel this notion.
Round to McCain

Round 7: Russia. Competitor? Enemy? Partner? Discuss.
Obama says that the evidence of recent weeks says we need to reevaluate our relationship with Russia and that we should start expanding NATO immediately. But that we can't return to a Cold War posture.

McCain says that Obama's first reaction to the Russia-Georgia conflict was to urge both sides to show restraint, evincing further "naiveté." It's pretty rough, particularly when he starts talking about the specifics of South Ossetia.
Round to McCain

Round 8: What is the likelihood of another 9/11?
McCain says it's "much less than it was the day after 9/11" and that we are a safer nation, even though we are not safe. He talks about how he pushed for the creation of the 9/11 Commission against the wishes of President Bush and how he worked with Democrats to pass most of the Commission's recommendations. Most gratifyingly, he talks about how important it is to bolster American intelligence capabilities, particularly in the area of HUMINT.

Obama says that we are safer in some ways, but still have a long way to go. He smartly points out that we have yet to harden transportation points (excluding airports), chemical facilities, and other attractive targets. He also talks about the need to focus on nuclear proliferation, in order to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. This is the most comfortable and commanding he's been all night.

McCain goes back to Obama's desire to withdrawal from Iraq, saying that Obama doesn't realize how interconnected Iraq is to the wider terrorist threat. Obama responds that Iraq is a huge disaster and hindrance to everything America needs to do in the world.

Then McCain throws down the gauntlet with what I suspect will be the only line people take away from the night: "There are some advantages to experience and knowledge and judgment. And I honestly don't believe that Sen. Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas."

Then he takes another big swing: "You know we've seen this stubbornness before in this administration, to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge shows to me that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that. . . . I don't think I need any on-the-job training."

This round is a Rorschach. If you love Obama, he acquitted himself well. If you have questions about Obama, you found McCain's assault devastating. The big question is how undecideds will see this last exchange.
Round to McCain

My scorecard says that McCain won the night 7-1, which frankly surprises me. On paper that looks like a rout, but McCain didn't seem that dominant as it was happening. Certainly there was nothing in the debate that Obama will worry about as having been a big blow. I saw McCain winning the debate pretty handily, but I doubt he scored any larger strategic victory.

Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,029
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #58 on: September 27, 2008, 11:57:07 AM »

I think everyone is in for a surprise.. do not underestimate McCain
As we discussed briefly when we met in India McCain will pull this off no matter what in the end thanks to his fairer skin but not due to the content within.

After tonight's debate it is clear to me that Obama is the right candidate to lead U.S. currently based on the simple fact that it needs a new direction and he provides them that in comparision to McCain who in many ways is a corbon copy of Bush.

I completely agree with you Rams. It will happen, unless the 'silent white majority' down South decide that Obama is simply just too Carbon.
[god]
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #59 on: September 27, 2008, 12:06:18 PM »

OKAY.... here we go.. let's get some "balance" in this debate on debate ;D

.....

Each point could be refuted but WN, in some sense I agree with you -- it is less about correctness and more about whether (how much) the base is buying this spin.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,029
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #60 on: September 27, 2008, 12:09:54 PM »

The way I think it:

1. Obama could not go too much on the offensive. There were several clear openings, but he had to remember two things, one, that the wind is with him now and the idea is not to make any rash mistakes, and two, that the (white) public should not have a chance to see him as the archetypal 'angry nigger'. Grades for balancing act: A

2. Obama was supposed to lose this debate (on foreign policy) by a wide margin. The fact that most pundits (including Charles Krauthammer) call it a draw is a victory for him (Charlie said so himself). After all, he could not have managed McCain's volume of anecdotes collected over 26 years in public service. Obama did well by spilling out facts and figures (while McCain got the name of the Pakistani president wrong) that demonstrated one simple fact: that he knew the turf. He also did very well by stressing on the 21st century aspect, while M. invoked Reagan. Obama understands that the revolutionary voter registration drive he has initiated at the grass roots level are cell phone carrying young people who do not show up in the polls, but know what he is getting at. Simply put, Obama's task, in this losing debate against the old patriarch who has probably dined with Breznev and has stories to tell, was to just display gravitas and hold his own. He did that. He also appeared sombre, serious, and presidential (thereby humorless to some), ideal stance against an opponent who thinks he is like Britney Spears. Grade: B+

3. McCain smirked once too often when Obama spoke. It was clearly racist and patronizing. He also never made eye contact with his opponent. It seems Obama, with his 'cool' can eventually get under the white man's skin and flare the famous temper. Ergo, before the second debate, Obama should hire Ganguly as a consultant and also issue preemptive payment to Steve Waugh to stay out of this whole thing. If that happens, next time we will see Obama appearing five minutes late for a debate preceding a toss up election. It will work. Grade for M's behavior: C-

4. McCain I think lost quite a few of the silent independents (especially white women voters) when he kept on talking about how he would cut back spending, keep taxes low on all fronts, but would not compromise on the defense budget. He actually kept on talking about the defense budget and how it was too expensive to build a submarine etc. This was when both candidates were asked what they would prioritize on after the 700 billion bail out). Obama I think wisely answered that one in platitudes. McCaine grassed it. For that, he will get a 'yeeaah' from a bunch of rednecks who would have voted for him anyways, but he will lose a couple of people who want subs, of a different kind. Grade: C

My biases are clear. More tomorrow morning.
After reading various media outlets on last night's debate this little analysis from CLR is as good as it gets.   

CLR you should consider writing such things ofcourse in your area of expertise and just send it to yahoo.com and msn.com's of the world and I feel they would be a easy sell.
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #61 on: September 27, 2008, 02:19:05 PM »

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/27/opinion/polls/main4482119.shtml

CBS Poll: Obama Boosted Most By Debate
Uncommitted Voters Give Edge To Obama On Economy, McCain On Iraq


(CBS) The first presidential debate helped uncommitted voters learn about the candidates - and it appears that Democrat Barack Obama benefited the most, according to a CBS News/Knowledge Networks poll taken immediately following the debate.

Uncommitted voters said Obama won the debate against Republican John McCain, and more of those voters improved their opinion of the Democrat. But while 66 percent think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy, 56 percent think McCain would do so about Iraq.

Immediately after the debate, CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of nearly 500 debate watchers assembled by Knowledge Networks who were "uncommitted voters" - voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who say they could still change their minds. Thirty-nine percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said Obama won the debate. Twenty-four percent said McCain won, and another 37 percent thought it was a tie.

Nearly half of those uncommitted voters who watched the debate said that their image of Obama changed for the better as a result. Just eight percent say their opinion of Obama got worse, and 46 percent reported no change in their opinions.

McCain saw less improvement in his image. Thirty-two percent have improved their image of McCain as a result of the debate, but 21 percent said their views of him are now worse than before.

Why did voters' image of Obama improve? Many volunteered that they were impressed by his poise and knowledge about the issues, that he was more knowledgeable about the issues than they thought previously. When it came to McCain, those same voters said he "didn’t control himself well under pressure," that he was "angry and bad-tempered," and that he "talked too much about the past."

On the other hand, voters who thought McCain won the debate felt he showed more experience and understanding of the issues - particularly foreign policy. Many felt he exceeded their expectations in how he presented himself tonight, saying he was a "better debater" and a "skilled speaker."

Although much of this debate addressed foreign policy issues, the candidates talked about the economy for about 30 minutes - which is after all what voters say is their most important concern. Uncommitted debate watchers saw Obama as the clear winner on handling the economy; 66 percent felt he would make the right decisions about the economy, while 42 percent felt McCain would do so.

But when it came to the war in Iraq, McCain was the stronger candidate. Before the debate, 44 percent said that McCain would make the right decisions about the war; that rose to 56 percent after the debate. Fewer thought Obama would make the right decisions on Iraq.

Both candidates made some gains in presenting their respective visions for the country. Sixty-five percent said that Obama made it clear what he would do as president; 64 percent said that of his rival, McCain.

In national polls of registered voters overall, one of McCain's strengths has been the perception that he is ready for the presidency, while Obama's has been the perception that he is empathetic to voters' needs. Uncommitted voters who watched the debate share those perceptions.

But while eight in 10 uncommitted voters who watched the debate think McCain is prepared to be president, six in 10 now think Obama is prepared as well - a significant improvement from his standing among these same voters before the debate. The percentage of watchers who think Obama understands their needs and problems has also increased by 21 points, while a majority still say McCain does not.

Uncommitted voters include those who say they have a preference, but also say they could still change their minds. Before the debate, 36 percent favored Obama and 34 percent favored McCain. Obama now leads by 12 points among uncommitted debate watchers - 41 percent to 29 percent -- in their choice for president in November. But nearly three in 10 remain undecided, and most of those with a choice now say their minds could still change.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete poll is at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate1.pdf
Logged

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #62 on: September 27, 2008, 03:45:05 PM »

lol...fox news focus group has obama winning too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wup4nsIWe8A
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #63 on: September 27, 2008, 05:12:08 PM »

Not directly relevant to the thread, but did not want to start another NC thread

http://sefora.org/2008/09/25/61-nobel-laureates-in-science-endorse-obama/

61 Nobel Laureates in Science Endorse Obama
A group of 61 Nobel Laureates have gotten together to endorse Barack Obama for President. Their letter and the signatories are below. This is the largest number of Nobel Laureates to ever endorse a candidate for office, more than endorsed either Gore or Kerry. (Kerry had 48 total.) That is a remarkable statement. Here is the link to the original letter of endorsement.

An Open Letter to the American People

This year’s presidential election is among the most significant in our nation’s history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.

We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support.  The government’s scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

We have watched Senator Obama’s approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation’s competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world’s leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.

Signed,


Alexei Abrikosov
 Physics
 2003
 
 Roger Guillemin
 Medicine
 1977
 
Peter Agre
 Chemistry
 2003
 
 John L. Hall
 Physics
 2005
 
Sidney Altman
 Chemistry
 1989
 
 Leland H. Hartwell
 Medicine
 2001
 
Philip W. Anderson
 Physics
 1977
 
 Dudley Herschbach
 Chemistry
 1986
 
Richard Axel
 Medicine
 2004
 
 Roald Hoffmann
 Chemistry
 1981
 
David Baltimore
 Medicine
 1975
 
 H. Robert Horvitz
 Medicine
 2002
 
Baruj Benacerraf
 Medicine
 1980
 
 Louis Ignarro
 Medicine
 1998
 
Paul Berg
 Chemistry
 1980
 
 Eric R. Kandel
 Medicine
 2000
 
J. Michael Bishop
 Medicine
 1989
 
 Walter Kohn
 Chemistry
 1998
 
N. Bloembergen
 Physics
 1981
 
 Roger Kornberg
 Chemistry
 2006
 
Michael S. Brown
 Medicine
 1985
 
 Leon M. Lederman
 Physics
 1988
 
Linda B. Buck
 Medicine
 2004
 
 Craig C. Mello
 Medicine
 2006
 
Mario R. Capecchi
 Medicine
 2007
 
 Marshall Nirenberg
 Medicine
 1968
 
Stanley Cohen
 Medicine
 1986
 
 Douglas D. Osheroff
 Physics
 1996
 
Leon Cooper
 Physics
 1972
 
 Stanley B. Prusiner
 Medicine
 1997
 
James W. Cronin
 Physics
 1980
 
 Norman F. Ramsey
 Physics
 1989
 
Robert F. Curl
 Chemistry
 1996
 
 Robert Richardson
 Physics
 1996
 
Johann Diesenhofer
 Chemistry
 1988
 
 Burton Richter
 Physics
 1976
 
John B. Fenn
 Chemistry
 2002
 
 Sherwood Rowland
 Chemistry
 1995
 
Edmond H. Fischer
 Medicine
 1992
 
 Oliver Smithies
 Medicine
 2007
 
Val Fitch
 Physics
 1980
 
 Richard R Schrock
 Chemistry
 2005
 
Jerome I. Friedman
 Physics
 1990
 
 Joseph H. Taylor Jr.
 Physics
 1993
 
Riccardo Giacconi
 Physics
 2002
 
 E. Donnall Thomas
 Medicine
 1990
 
Walter Gilbert
 Chemistry
 1980
 
 Charles H. Townes
 Physics
 1964
 
Alfred G. Gilman
 Medicine
 1994
 
 Daniel C.Tsui
 Physics
 1998
 
Donald A. Glaser
 Physics
 1960
 
 Harold Varmus
 Medicine
 1989
 
Sheldon L. Glashow
 Physics
 1979
 
 James D. Watson
 Medicine
 1962
 
Joseph Goldstein
 Medicine
 1985
 
 Eric Wieschaus
 Medicine
 1995
 
Paul Greengard
 Medicine
 2000
 
 Frank Wilczek
 Physics
 2004
 
David Gross
 Physics
 2004
 
 Robert W. Wilson
 Physics
 1978
 
Robert H. Grubbs
 Chemistry
 2005
 

The views expressed in this letter represent those of the signers acting as individual citizens.  They do not necessarily represent the views of the institutions with which they are affiliated. The Medicine award is for “Physiology or Medicine.”

« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 06:16:02 PM by prfsr »
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #64 on: September 27, 2008, 05:19:02 PM »

Now wait for WN to provide the list of 500 Wall Street and corporate CEO's backing McCain. :P

Markets rule prfsr, even the ones crumbling and in need of communist bailouts --  when will you learn that ?  ;D
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #65 on: September 27, 2008, 05:26:15 PM »

Now wait for WN to provide the list of 500 Wall Street and corporate CEO's backing McCain. :P

Markets rule prfsr, even the ones crumbling and in need of communist bailouts --  when will you learn that ?  ;D

 ;D

It was amazing to actually scroll through these names.

Aside: Roger Kornberg is the son of Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg - the latter passed away in 07, otherwise there would very likely be one more signature on this list.

Logged

vincent

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,445
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #66 on: September 27, 2008, 05:28:37 PM »

As an outsider watching the debate I thought Obama was clearly the winner. As CLR points out, McCain irritated me with the smirk on his face every time Obama was speaking to suggest "this idiot does not know what he is talking about". McCain is focussing too much on "success of the surge in Iraq" and his own experiences as POW. There is no clear strategy on what he will change from the current strategy of Bush Administration which he a part of.
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2008, 05:34:48 PM »

As an outsider watching the debate I thought Obama was clearly the winner. As CLR points out, McCain irritated me with the smirk on his face every time Obama was speaking to suggest "this idiot does not know what he is talking about". McCain is focussing too much on "success of the surge in Iraq" and his own experiences as POW. There is no clear strategy on what he will change from the current strategy of Bush Administration which he a part of.

I completely agree about the body language - the smirks, scowls and the refusal to even look Obama in the eye. It looked very poor to me. Whether it was the famous temper flaring or racism is hard to say but either way it looked like he was irritated he had to do this. If this is how he would talk to world leaders that do not agree with him, we are not going anywhere diplomatically.
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2008, 05:45:14 PM »

Wash. Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/27/AR2008092700037.html?hpid=topnews

McCain's High Horse Meets Obama's High-Mindedness

By Tom Shales
Saturday, September 27, 2008; Page C01

John McCain wore the more presidential tie -- that much can be said for him -- but Barack Obama displayed the more presidential temperament, or the kind of demeanor people presumably would want in a president, when the two candidates met at the University of Mississippi last night for their first debate of the campaign.

Both men seemed well equipped in terms of facts and figures -- especially, as one would expect, dollar figures -- and neither made an outrageous blunder, although McCain did misidentify the new president of Pakistan. More critically, he came across as condescending and even rude to his opponent, a bit of bad behavior especially evident because Obama may have overdone the fair-minded bit in many of his remarks and answers.

Imperiously enough, McCain -- who had threatened not to show up for the debate because of America's financial crisis -- seemed determined to avoid even looking at Obama as the debate went on, although they did shake hands at the beginning and end. Many of McCain's answers were preceded with belittling references to Obama as if he were talking to a college freshman way out of his depth: "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy," was one typical remark.

Obama supporters must have been displeased, then, to hear their candidate keep agreeing with McCain, a case perhaps of sportsmanlike conduct run amok. Doesn't Obama want to win?

On the matter of congressional earmarks and wasteful spending, Obama began one answer with, "Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right . . ." and later, on an issue related to the Iraq war: "Senator McCain is absolutely right . . ." etc., etc.

After all the nice-guy stuff from Obama, which may have reached self-defeating levels, it's perhaps not surprising that the most, perhaps only, electrifying moment of the debate was when he finally told McCain he was wrong -- three times in quick and effective succession. This was during debate about the origins of the war in Iraq. "You were wrong" about saying the war would be quick and easy, Obama charged, his voice rising. "You were wrong" about finding weapons of mass destruction, he continued. And there was one more "you were wrong" for good measure.

Obama was showing something that his personal appearances have too often lacked: passion. There was strong conviction behind his words, whether one agreed with them or not, and a welcome assertiveness. "You were wrong" was an effectively simple declarative sentence, not bogged down in qualifiers the way some of his sentences tend to be. "We've got to look at bringing that war to a close," he said of Iraq; why not just, "We've got to end that war"?

Although Obama was "crisper" than usual, as one commentator noted after the debate, he still may not have been crisp enough. His oratorical skills when giving speeches in vast venues have been amply demonstrated. But in debates and conversations, when he ad-libs, he sometimes seems to be weighing his answers almost too carefully, defusing his own remarks by diffusing them.

Democrat Paul Begala, one of CNN's army of pundits, criticized both candidates for the way they handled questions on the economy. The whole debate was supposed to deal with foreign policy, but as the economy shuddered and crumbled during the week, it was wisely decided to devote about a third of the debate to that crisis. But as Begala said, a stranger to this planet tuning in the debate wouldn't have known from the candidates' answers and attitudes that America is in the midst of what has been called the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.

Instead their answers were on the theoretical side, with no real sense of urgency. The folks out there in television land, losing their homes to foreclosure or seeing their retirement nest eggs obliterated, deserved more thoughtful and heartfelt answers.

The debate was moderated by public television's Jim Lehrer, who did a very accomplished job, willing to interrupt or challenge the candidates when they danced around an issue rather than addressing it. His first question was "Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan" now being debated in Washington. Both candidates merely reiterated economic policies from past speeches, with McCain preceding his response with a self-serving salute to Ted Kennedy, who was hospitalized earlier in the day.

Obama began his response with the usual bromide about America being "at a defining moment in our history." Yes yes, but how will we pay the mortgage when the interest rate goes up for the umpteenth time next month?

Lehrer took control. After the meandering palaver from the two men he said pointedly, "Let's go back to my question" and repeated it.

Since all three networks had access to the same basic pool video, some networks tried to dress up the picture with identifying decoration. NBC and CNN both had annoying animated graphics in the lower right-hand corners of the screen, just the thing for people who want to watch letters dance or globes spin around, distracting to everyone else. CNN had mercifully ditched its ticker-tape of fun facts, but replaced it with a chart that supposedly showed reactions from a sample group to the candidates' performances. The chart was hard to read and essentially useless.

CBS armed a test group of viewer-voters with "joy sticks" to measure their responses to various moments of the debate, but this gimmick also proved to be of little help. A CBS reporter interviewed one man sitting in the room; the man said he thought McCain looked "stressed." And that was that. The research measurement was done by Nielsen Media Research, it was pointed out, the same people who rate television shows. That raised the discomforting specter of equating presidential candidates with sitcoms, soap operas and reality junk.

This was reality -- the realest kind of reality -- and the debate was, for the most part, encouragingly civilized and not flawed with frivolous name-calling. As NBC's able Chuck Todd put it, "no lipstick on a pig" nonsense. If McCain had been more civil, and Obama were more combative and fervent, it would have been better still.


Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #69 on: September 27, 2008, 05:50:05 PM »

Now wait for WN to provide the list of 500 Wall Street and corporate CEO's backing McCain. :P
aap bulaye aur hum na aaye.. aise to haalaat nahin!!

300 economists who support McCain. (Now start ripping each of them apart.. this will be the longest thread in the DG)

From www.johnmccain.com

--
Burton Abrams, University of Delaware
James D. Adams, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Douglas K. Adie, Ohio University
Richard Agnello, University of Delaware
William Albrecht, University of Iowa
Constantine Alexandrakis, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth
William Alpert, University of Connecticut
Wayne Angell, Former Fed Governor
Fernando E. Alvarez, University of Chicago
Geoffrey T. Andron, Austin Community College
George R. Averitt, Purdue University North Central
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Howard Beales, George W ashington University
Stacie E. Beck, University of Delaware
Gary Becker, University of Chicago
Donald Bellante, University of South Florida
Daniel K. Benjamin, Clemson University
John J. Bethune, Barton CollegeSanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado
Andrew G. Biggs, American Enterprise Institute
Robert G. Bise, Orange Coast College
Michael K. Block, University of Arizona
Donald Booth, Chapman University
Karl J. Borden, University of Nebraska
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
George H. Borts, Brown University
Mich ael Boskin, Stanford University
Daniel P. Brandt III, Washington, D.C.
Ike Brannon, Department of the Treasury
David P. Brown, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jeff Brown, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Joseph Brusuelas, Merk Investments
Phillip J. Bryson, Brigham Young University
Andrzej Brzeski, University of California, Davis
James Buchanan, George Mason University
Todd Buchholz, Two Oceans Management
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Richard V. Burkhauser, Cornell University
James B. Burnham, Duquesne University
Andr ew B. Busch, BMO Capital Markets
James L. Butkiewicz, University of Delaware
Mark Calabria, United States Senate
James Carter, Vienna, VA
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Barry R. Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago
Bhagwan Chowdhry, UCLA
Richard Clarida, Columbia University
Candice Clark, Economic consultant
Kenneth W. Clarkson, University of Miami
Warren Coats, IMF, retired
John Cogan, Hoover Institution
Boyd D. Collier, Tarleton State University
Michael Connolly, University of Miami
Kathleen B. Cooper, Southern Methodist University
Joshua Coval, Harvard University
Ted Covey, McLean, Virginia
Nicole Crain, Lafayette College
W. Mark Crain, Lafayette College
Dan Crippen, Former CBO Director
Thomas D. Crocker, University of Wyoming
Robert L. Crouch, University of California, Santa Barbara
Mario J. Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Ward S. Curran, Trinity College
Coldwell Daniel III, The University of Memphis
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
Steven Davis, University of Chicago
Clarence R. Deitsch, Ball State University
Richard DeKaser, National City Corporation
Stephen J. Dempsey, University of Vermont
Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute
David B.H. Denoon, New York University
William G. Dewald, Ohio State University
Arthur M. Diamond Jr., University of Nebraska at Omaha
John Diamond, Rice University
David L. Dickinson, Appalachian State University
Francis X. Diebold, University of Pennsylvania
Jeffrey H. Dorfman, University of Georgia
Thomas J. Duesterberg, Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI
Parnell Duverger, Broward Community College
Isaac Ehrlich, SUNY at Buffalo
Martin Eichenbaum, Northwestern University
Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Criterion Economics
Michael A. Ellis, Kent State University
Joachim G. Elterich, University of Delaware
Kenneth Elzinga, University of Virginia
Stephen J. Entin, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
T.W. Epps, University of Virginia
Michael G. Erickson, The College of Idaho
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Dino Falaschetti, Hoover Institution
Frank Falero Jr., California State University
Susan K. Feigenbaum, University of Missouri, St. Louis
Martin Feldstei n, Harvard University
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Arthur A "Trey" Fleisher III, Metro State College of Denver
James Forcier, University of San Francisco
William F. Ford, Middle Tenn. State U.
Michele Fratianni, Indiana University
Luke Froeb, Vanderbilt University
Kenneth C. Froewiss, NYU Stern School of Business
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute
Timothy S. Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
Lowell Gallaway, Ohio University
B Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
Dave Garthoff, The University of Akron
Ilhan K. Geckil, Anderson Economic Group
Rick Geddes, Cornell University
Joseph A. Giacalone, St. John's University
Adam Gifford, California State University, Northridge
David Gillette, Truman State University
Micha Gisser, University of New Mexico
Amy Jocelyn Glass, Texas A&M University
Charles J. Goetz, The University of Virginia
Claudio Gonzalez-Vega, The Ohio State University
Lawrence Goodman, Bergen City, NJ
Barry K. Goodwin, North Carolina State University
Eric S. Graber, Independent Economist
Douglas H. Graham, The Ohio State University
J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina Wilmington
Phil Gramm, Former U.S. Senator
Teresa Beckham Gramm, Rhodes College
Wendy Lee Gramm
William B. Green, Sam Houston State University
Kenneth Greene, Binghamton University
Paul Gregory, University of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Gary Hansen, UCLA
Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institution
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
James E. Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute
Joel W. Hay, University of Southern California
Jared E. Hazleton, Texecon: A Texas Economic Consulting Firm
Charles E. Hegji, Auburn University Montgomery
Robert H. Heidt, Indiana University School of Law
Harold M. Hochman, CUNY Graduate Center and Lafayette College
Robert J. Hodrick, Columbia Business School
Stuart G. Hoffman, The PNC Financial Services Group
Arlene Holen, Washington, D.C.
Mac R. Holmes, Troy University
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, John McCain 2008
C. Thomas Howard, University of Denver
E. Philip Howrey, University of Michigan
Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University
James L. Huffman, Lewis & Clark Law School
J. Christopher Hughen, University of Denver
E. Kingdon Hurlock, Calvert Investment Counsel
Stephen L. Jackstadt, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Joseph M. Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
Sherry L Jarrell, Wake Forest University
Michael C. Jensen, Harvard Business School
Dennis A. Johnson, University of South Dakota
Shane A. Johnson, Texas A&M University
Richard Just, University of Maryland
Tim Kane, Washington, D.C.
Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business
Alexander Katkov, Johnson and Wales University
Melissa Kearney, University of Maryland
Joe Kennedy, Arlington, Virginia
Lawrence W. Kenny, University of Florida
Calvin A. Kent, Marshall University
E. Han Kim, University of Michigan
Robert G. King, Boston University
Paul R. Koch, Olivet Nazarene University
Meir Kohn, Dartmouth College
James W. Kolari, Texas A&M University
Roger C. Kormendi, Kormendi/Gardner Partners
Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University
Deepak Lal, University of Cal ifornia, Los Angeles
Douglas Lamdin, The University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Daniel L Landau, University of Connecticut
Richard La Near, Missouri Southern State University
Nicholas A. Lash, Loyola University
Don R. Leet, California State University, Fresno
Norman B. Lefton, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
Thomas M. Lenard, Technology Policy Institute
Noreen E. Lephardt, Marquette University
Adam Lerrick, Carnegie Mellon University and the American Enterprise Institute
Philip I. Levy, American Enterprise Institute
W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
Andrew Light, Liberty University
Jane Lillydahl, University of Colorado at Boulder
Zheng Liu, Emory University
Luis Locay, University of Miami
John R. Lott Jr., University of Maryland
Lawrence W. Lovik, Alabama Policy Institute
Robert Lucas, University of Chicago
John Lunn, Hope College
R. Ashley Lyman, University of Idaho
Paul W. MacAvoy, Yale School of Management
Glenn MacDonald, Washington University in St. Louis
John Makin, American Enterprise Institute
Burton Malkiel, Princeton University
David Malpass, Encima Global LLC
Michael Marlow, California Polytechnic State University
Donald J. Marshall, Consulting Engineer and Economist
Aparna Mathur, American Enterprise Institute
Timothy Matthews, Kennesaw State University
John Matsusaka, University of Southern California
Bennett McCallum, Carnegie Mellon University
Paul W. McCracken, University of Michigan
Martin C. McGuire, University of California-Irvine
W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
Roger Meiners, University of Texas - Arlington
Will Melick, Kenyon College
Allan Meltzer, Ca rnegie Mellon University
John Merrifield, University of Texas at San Antonio
Paul Merski, Independent Community Bankers of America
Jim Mietus, Great Falls, VA
Todd Milbourn, Washington University in St. Louis
Geoffrey P. Miller, New York University Law School
James Miller, George Mason University and The Hoover Institution
William C. Miller, Pioneer Analytics LLC
David E. Mills, University of Virginia
Velma Montoya, National Council of Hispanic Women
Michael Moore, George Washington University
Charles Britt Moss, University of Florida
Robert Mundell, Columbia University
Tim Muris, George Mason University
David B. Mustard, University of Georgia
Richard F. Muth, Emory University
Anthony N. Negbenebor, Gardner-Webb University
Charles Nelson, University of Washington
Robert J. Newman, Louisiana State University
Michael P. Niemira, International Council of Shopping Centers
Tom O'Brien, University of Connecticut
Lee E. Ohanian, UCLA
June O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY
Steve Parente, University of Minnesota
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Douglas Patterson, Virginia Tech
Tim Perri, Appalachian State University
Mark J. Perry, University of Michigan-Flint
Tomas Philipson, University of Chicago
William Poole, University of Delaware
Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business School
Barry Poulson, University of Colorado Boulder
James Prieger, Pepperdine University
R. David Ranson, H. C. Wainwrigth & Co. Economics Inc.
Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
Martin A. Regalia, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Barrie Richardson, Centenary College
Christine P. Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Aldona Robbins, Fiscal Associates
Gary Robbins, Fiscal Associates
Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University
Richard Roll, UCLA
Harvey Rosen, Princeton University
Larry L. Ross, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
Timothy P. Roth, The University of Texas at El Paso
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Paul H. Rubin, Emory University
Roy Ruffin, University of Houston
Gary J. Santoni, Ball State University
T.R. Saving, Texas A&M University
Mike Schuyler, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
Anna Schwartz, National B ureau of Economic Research
Loren C. Scott, Louisiana State University
Robert Haney Scott, California State University, Chico
Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
Richard Selden, University of Virginia
John Semmens, Laissez Faire Institute
Sol S. Shalit, University of Wisconsin
Alan Shapiro, University of Southern California
Judy Shelton
William F. Shughart II, The University of Mississippi
George Shultz, Hoover Institution
Jerome Siebert, University of California, Berkeley
John Silvia, Wachovia
Chuck Skipton, University of Tampa
Scott B. Smart, Indiana University
Amy Smith, Former OMB Chief Economist
James F. Smith, The University of North Carolina
Vernon Smith, Chapman University
Sean M. Snaith, University of Central Florida
Douglas Southgate, Ohio State University
Frank Spreng, McKendree University
Beryl W. Sprinkel, Retired
Stan Spurlock, Mississippi State University
George J. Staller, Cornell University
Craig A. Stephenson, Babson College
Houston Stokes, University of Illinois at Chicago
Courtenay C. Stone, Ball State University
Scott Sumner , Bentley College
James Sweeney, Stanford University
Richard Sweeney, Georgetown University
Robert Tamura, Clemson University
Clifford Tan, Stanford Center for International Development
John A. Tatom, Indiana State University
John Taylor, Stanford University
Paul Taylor, Vienna, VA
Teresa Tharp, Valencia Community College
Clifford F. Thies, Shenandoah University
Henry Thompson, Auburn University
Walter N. Thurman, North Carolina State University
Jerry G. Thursby, Georgia Institute of Technology
Robert D Tollison, Clemson University
William N. Trumbull, West Virginia University
Kamal Upadhyaya, University of New Haven
Charles W. Upton, Kent State University
Peter J Van Blokland, University of Florida
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard Vedder, American Enterprise Institute
George J. Viksnins, Georgetown University
J. Antonio Villamil, The Washington Economics Group
Richard E. Wagner, George Mason University
William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis
Marc D. Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
Finis We lch, Texas A&M University
James B. Whitaker, Centreville, VA
John Wicks, University of Montana
Wayne H. Winegarden, Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
DeVo L. Yoho, Ball State University
Nancy A. Yonge, Smith Center for Private Enterprise
Paul J. Zak, Claremont Graduate University
Mokhlis Y. Zaki, Northern Michigan University
Mark Zandi, Malvern, PA
Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago
Kate Zhou, University of Hawaii
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Benjamin Zycher, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research


Quote
Markets rule prfsr, even the ones crumbling and in need of communist bailouts --  when will you learn that ?  ;D
YES.. and communism rules .. we all envy the prosperity in Cuba, N Korea

--
Great.. good to see that we have fallen to exactly what is wrong in the debating atmosphere and public conversation in this country .. first label each other based on either one's stated or perceived affiliations/leanings.. then associate them to the extreme of that side while taking the other extreme yourself.. then get into a "debate" by shouting at each other while finding all the material (print, audio, video - and there is plenty available these days) to support one's argument..

while doing all this - no one wants to think through issues, no one wants to listen (let alone understand) to each other, no one wants to solve the real problems. It is all about slogans and ideologies - Free markets are evil, Government is not the solution it is the problem...

The sad and most disturbing reality is that the current generation thinks that this is the real world and ironically, they are the least equipped/trained/skilled in discerning fact from fiction.

You watch either Fox or MSNBC, you read either Kos or Drudge, you follow either WSJ or NYT... and there is plenty out there to create one's own cocooned world that suits one's ideology. A world where all facts are opinions and everything can be spun to suit your perceptions and viewpoints .

God bless us all!
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #70 on: September 27, 2008, 05:51:26 PM »

LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-debate27-2008sep27,0,6527311.story


A too-close-to-call debate
The first presidential debate was gaffe-free and saw both McCain and Obama score points.
September 27, 2008


In a debate that both candidates could ill-afford to lose Friday night, neither did. John McCain proved he was resolute and tough; Barack Obama demonstrated that he was smart and polished. And in this case, a tie could be said to favor either. Polls before the event showed that most voters believed Obama would win, so he may have fallen most short of expectations. But Friday's topic was foreign policy, where McCain enjoys his strongest credentials. Fighting to a draw in his favored area may suggest that he came up short, especially after a week in which he slipped in the polls and struggled to regain his footing.

On Iraq, the evening's central question, Obama can rightly claim the wisdom to have opposed the war from the start, and to have urged greater attention to Afghanistan at a time when America's commitment to Iraq robbed that conflict of needed resources and attention. And yet, McCain scored points by pointing out his politically dangerous decision to support the "surge," which has resulted in solid military progress. Similarly, Obama explained his view of constructive engagement with Iran; McCain warned of that regime's ominous potential.


If they traded points on substance, the two men clashed more viscerally on style and on their approaches to one another. Indeed, for all the talk of race and gender in this year's historic campaign, Friday's much-anticipated contest was more vividly a contest of generations. It was a debate, mostly civil though occasionally cranky, between a tough old man and a polished young one. McCain revealed more of himself in that arena, wincing and grimacing during the split-screen shots while Obama was speaking.

That dynamic threaded its way through the emotional highlights of the event. Time and again, McCain, who is 72 and would be the oldest man ever elected to a first term, condescended to Obama, who is 47 and one of the youngest ever to win his party's nomination. "He doesn't understand," McCain said repeatedly. Discussing Obama's willingness to engage in talks with Iran without preconditions, McCain said: "It isn't just naive. It's dangerous."

Obama declined to be belittled. Although McCain refused to address him directly -- despite encouragement from moderator Jim Lehrer -- Obama looked at and spoke to McCain. Obama often credited McCain on issues -- a grace that was not reciprocated -- but he did not accept the role of junior candidate.


Friday's debate was the first of three, not including next week's contest between the vice presidential candidates. As such, it is an opener, not a closer, and it felt like it. The debate did not saddle either candidate with a gaffe, much less eliminate one from contention. It showed that John McCain is clear-eyed about the threats to America, and that Barack Obama has the capacity to lead.
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #71 on: September 27, 2008, 05:51:59 PM »

As an outsider watching the debate I thought Obama was clearly the winner. As CLR points out, McCain irritated me with the smirk on his face every time Obama was speaking to suggest "this idiot does not know what he is talking about". McCain is focussing too much on "success of the surge in Iraq" and his own experiences as POW. There is no clear strategy on what he will change from the current strategy of Bush Administration which he a part of.

I completely agree about the body language - the smirks, scowls and the refusal to even look Obama in the eye. It looked very poor to me. Whether it was the famous temper flaring or racism is hard to say but either way it looked like he was irritated he had to do this. If this is how he would talk to world leaders that do not agree with him, we are not going anywhere diplomatically.
..and what about the RUDE Obama who kept cutting into McCain's statements.. and started talking over him. I think Obama was clearly irritated because he was out of his depth ;D ;D
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #72 on: September 27, 2008, 06:13:15 PM »

Now wait for WN to provide the list of 500 Wall Street and corporate CEO's backing McCain. :P
aap bulaye aur hum na aaye.. aise to haalaat nahin!!

300 economists who support McCain. (Now start ripping each of them apart.. this will be the longest thread in the DG)

From www.johnmccain.com


Sir,
If you are going to link something, please do it properly  ;)

Here it is
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/c90681b9-5dfe-4de4-8057-ceedb30c228d.htm

Economists' Statement on John McCain's Jobs for America Economic Plan


ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released a statement signed by over 300 professional economists in support of John McCain's Jobs for America economic plan. The list includes Nobel Prize winners, business economists with experience in the private sector, policy economists with experience in government and academic economists from major universities and state and community colleges.

 Those signing the statement include Nobel Prize winners in Economics (Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell and Vernon Smith), former Presidents of the American Economic Association (Gary Becker, Martin Feldstein, Anne Krueger and Robert Lucas), economists who have served in the U.S. Treasury as Secretary or Under Secretaries (George Shultz, Beryl Sprinkel and John Taylor), former Chairs and other Members of the President's Council of Economic Advisers (Michael Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Glenn Hubbard, Paul MacAvoy, Burton Malkiel, Paul McCracken, William Poole, Harvey Rosen, Beryl Sprinkel, John Taylor and Murray Weidenbaum), former OMB Directors and other officials (John Cogan, James Miller, George Shultz and Amy Smith), former CBO Directors (Dan Crippen, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and June O'Neill), former Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Wendy Gramm), former Chairs of the Federal Trade Commission (James Miller and T im Muris) and economists who have served as Under Secretary of Commerce (Kathleen Cooper and Tony Villamil).

Economists' Statement:

We enthusiastically support John McCain's economic plan. It is a comprehensive, pro-growth, reform agenda. The reform focuses on the real economic problems Americans face today and will face in the future. And it builds on the core economic principles that have made America great.

His plan would control government spending by vetoing every bill with earmarks, implementing a constitutionally valid line-item veto, pausing non-military discretionary government spending programs for one year to stop their explosive growth and place accountability on federal government agencies.

His plan would keep taxes from rising, because higher tax rates are exactly the wrong policy to restore economic growth, especially at this time.

His plan would reduce tax rates by cutting the tax that corporations pay to 25 percent in line with other countries, by completely phasing out the alternative minimum tax, by increasing the exemption for dependents, by permitting the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology, and by making permanent a reformed tax credit for R&D.

His plan would also create a new and much simpler tax system and give Americans a free choice of whether to pay taxes under that simple system or the current complex and burdensome income tax.

His plan would open new markets for American goods and services and thereby create additional jobs for Americans by supporting good free trade agreements, such as the one with Colombia, and working with leaders around the world to avoid isolationism and protectionism. His plan would also reform education, retraining, and other assistance programs so they better help those displaced by trade and other changes in the economy. His plan addresses problems in the financial markets and housing markets by calling for increased transparency and accountability, by targeted assistance to deserving homeowners to refinance their mortgages, and by opposing so-called reform plans which would raise the costs of home-ownership in the future.

The above actions, as well as plans to address entitlement programs -- especially Social Security, Medicare and other government health care programs -- and his regulatory reforms -- especially in the area of health care -- constitute a broad and powerful economic agenda. Because of John McCain's experience working with the American people in all walks of life, with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and with leaders around the world, we are optimistic that these plans will become a reality and will create jobs and restore confidence and strong economic growth.

Logged

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #73 on: September 27, 2008, 06:26:07 PM »

john mccain has an economic plan?! did i miss it?
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #74 on: September 27, 2008, 06:29:36 PM »

Now wait for WN to provide the list of 500 Wall Street and corporate CEO's backing McCain. :P
aap bulaye aur hum na aaye.. aise to haalaat nahin!!

300 economists who support McCain. (Now start ripping each of them apart.. this will be the longest thread in the DG)

Why this defensiveness? Do you really mind if this becomes the longest thread?

Quote
Quote
Markets rule prfsr, even the ones crumbling and in need of communist bailouts --  when will you learn that ?  ;D
YES.. and communism rules .. we all envy the prosperity in Cuba, N Korea

--
Great.. good to see that we have fallen to exactly what is wrong in the debating atmosphere and public conversation in this country .. first label each other based on either one's stated or perceived affiliations/leanings.. then associate them to the extreme of that side while taking the other extreme yourself.. then get into a "debate" by shouting at each other while finding all the material (print, audio, video - and there is plenty available these days) to support one's argument..

while doing all this - no one wants to think through issues, no one wants to listen (let alone understand) to each other, no one wants to solve the real problems. It is all about slogans and ideologies - Free markets are evil, Government is not the solution it is the problem...

The sad and most disturbing reality is that the current generation thinks that this is the real world and ironically, they are the least equipped/trained/skilled in discerning fact from fiction.

You watch either Fox or MSNBC, you read either Kos or Drudge, you follow either WSJ or NYT... and there is plenty out there to create one's own cocooned world that suits one's ideology. A world where all facts are opinions and everything can be spun to suit your perceptions and viewpoints .

God bless us all!

Is this a casual rant or are these deep issues you want to discuss? I am happy to discuss if you wish. I do read WSJ and NYT (neither everyday) and listen to Rush and Ed Schulz, Savage and Stephanie Miller, Beck and Randi Rhodes (which is to say I flip channels a lot :))

So I am a little confused who this is directed at. Perhaps you wish to clarify?
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #75 on: September 27, 2008, 06:30:15 PM »

Now wait for WN to provide the list of 500 Wall Street and corporate CEO's backing McCain. :P
aap bulaye aur hum na aaye.. aise to haalaat nahin!!

300 economists who support McCain. (Now start ripping each of them apart.. this will be the longest thread in the DG)

From www.johnmccain.com


Sir,
If you are going to link something, please do it properly  ;)


As usual ... you missed the larger point of my post. (let me spell it out - that list is irrelevant!!)
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24,294
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #76 on: September 27, 2008, 06:30:40 PM »

john mccain has an economic plan?!
just like Obama ;D
Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,755
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #78 on: September 27, 2008, 06:32:53 PM »

Now wait for WN to provide the list of 500 Wall Street and corporate CEO's backing McCain. :P
aap bulaye aur hum na aaye.. aise to haalaat nahin!!

300 economists who support McCain. (Now start ripping each of them apart.. this will be the longest thread in the DG)

From www.johnmccain.com


Sir,
If you are going to link something, please do it properly  ;)


As usual ... you missed the larger point of my post. (let me spell it out - that list is irrelevant!!)

Why? You think these 300 professors and other economists are not to be taken seriously?
Logged

dextrous

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16,763
Re: 1st presidential debate.. discussion thread
« Reply #79 on: September 27, 2008, 06:41:11 PM »

Now wait for WN to provide the list of 500 Wall Street and corporate CEO's backing McCain. :P
aap bulaye aur hum na aaye.. aise to haalaat nahin!!

300 economists who support McCain. (Now start ripping each of them apart.. this will be the longest thread in the DG)

From www.johnmccain.com


Sir,
If you are going to link something, please do it properly  ;)


As usual ... you missed the larger point of my post. (let me spell it out - that list is irrelevant!!)

WN,,,i'm really confused as to who you're supporting right now...you post drudge's site poll...instead of going by focus groups conducted by CBS, Fox, Time, CNN, etc. all of which showed Obama with an advantage over McCain after the debate. every major pundit has questioned mccain's lack of eye contact and you try to play it off as something dailykos invented. you seriously think mccain/palin are more knowledgable/better/equal candidates than obama/biden? i suppose theres always nader!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up