An open thread.
Who won?
« Kissinger On Obama | Main | Thresholds Crossed In Oxford » The Debate: Your Thoughts26 Sep 2008 11:36 pm TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference The Debate: Your Thoughts:
» Even Obama Is Coming Around…. from View From The Ridge
» Panama John McCain’s Psychic Abilities Failed Him — Apparently He Did NOT Win The Debate Against Barry Obama After All from THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™ Comments (172)
Mccain was condescending. He kept on saying that weired like 'Senator Obama does not understand' when Obama showed many times how McCain's judgement was wrong. 
Obama won where it mattered and held his own otherwise. McCain does not look anywhere different from Bush.
McCain looked stuborn and like a "I know it all" type old grandpa.
It was a tie. George Will just said a tie goes to Obama. Probably right. This was the debate that we hoped would be the tone of the overall campaign when we found out it was Obama vs. McCain. I loved it.
A real wash on McCain's home court. I do want to give a shout out, however, to Hillary Clinton for giving Obama a real opportunity to sharpen his debate skills in the past year. Looking forward to Round II.
Obama handily won with his down to earth approach. And McCain not even once said anything about Bin Laden. McCain also called president of Pakistan with wrong name.
Obama clearly won the debate. Not only on substance - his answers were at least grounded in a rational world view - he also won on the style issue. McCain throughout the debate was chuckling and smiling. Everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - at the debate party I attended kept screaming at the scream "What's so funny about our retirement funds going down the tube?" I think McCain's contempt was on stage the entire debate. I think he will reap the rewards of that strategy - namely, that independents will lean Obama and he'll shore up his base. In this instance, his debate strategy was pure Rove.
Tie. I would agree that that's a win for Obama except that maybe it changes the narrative from "McCain's bad week" to "close race."
Gallup: Americans Favor Meeting With U.S. Enemies Gallup has a survey showing that a strong majority of Democrats and Independents and almost half of Republicans would support a presidential-level meeting with nations unfriendly to U.S. interests. Dems: 79% in favor, 19% opposed Asked if a POTUS should meet with Iranian leaders, six of 10 (59%) were supportive. Here's the party divide on the Iran question: Dems: 71% in favor, 26% opposed The poll surveyed 1,013 Americans nationally during summer.
McCain did better than I expected, but came across as a grandfatherly candidate not quite happy with a young man trying to upstage him. McCain reminded me of some old Professors I had in graduate school who would never accept that the time has passed them by. Obama was not very impressive, but held well against the condescension dripping from McCain's body language, voice, and assertions.
Obama wins with this zinger to McCain.. "You were wrong" Obama: So John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the "surge," the war started in 2003. At the time, when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said you knew where the weapons of mass destruction were -- and you were wrong. You said we were going to be greeted as liberators -- you were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shi'a and Sunni, and you were wrong. ...if the question is, who is best equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment
I think that if this hadn't been televised the polls for McCain would have been higher. It was his area of "expertise" but Obama remained composed while being attacked for inexperience. McCain's body language was something else.
Obama passed the presidential threshold in this debate. Since nothing especially memorable happened tonight, that will be the lasting fact of this debate. Next debate -- Biden/Palin!
Tie, which means Obama won.
McCain was terribly rude to Obama. His refusal to look at him was really unnerving. I think many people will be turned off by his utter contempt for such a great competitor. The only thing I can remember about this debate is that McCain was a COWARD AND wouldn't acknowledge Obama. His body language was terrible and disrespectful. It's basically a draw w/ the edge to Obama because of his ability to look so commanding and presidential. He far exceeded my expectations.
Close. Maybe a toss up. Obama got the more memorable shots in, and Mcain did seem condescending, but, I think that may play well with some of the audience. Most notably though, this debate was really McCain's ast real shot to make Obama seem unready, and he didnt.
First of all, thank you Hillary Clinton. Compare this performance to some of the ones that occured in the primaries and i think we can all see that Obama has improved. He was direct and authoritative. McCain is strong but he seemed mad. On the issues id call the first half for Obama and the second half for McCain. What bugged me however, was how McCain wouldnt even look at Obama.... disrespectful and you can almost sense a bit of contempt and hatred there.
Close enough to a tie to call it that, scored in a vacuum (hold on to your scorecard very tightly). But in context: Not the game-changer that McCain needed after the damage his ticket has done to itself the last 10 days. And for Obama, a tie on his ostensibly weakest subject is the same as a win. He passed (for the Nth time), the "commander-in-chief threshold" we keep hearing about. On an unrelated note: Tom Brokaw REALLY likes McCain, and is REALLY queasy about Obama.
It's tough to say how the financial debate will go over for voters. That could be the most important aspect of tonight's discusssion. It's also difficult to project how McCain's consistent line of Obama "not understanding the world" will go over. It could be seen as condescending or it could perpetuate the belief Obama doesn't have what it takes. I agree with the sentiment that Obama wins in a way because McCain needed a clear cut win - and didn't get it.
McCain seemed snide and condescending. Small and petty. Obama seemed knowlefgeable, confident, strong and gracious. Both had areas where they could have succeeded better- but overall, I think Obama came out better. He truly seemed strong and presidential.
Obama won in two ways. 1) Both debated well, but McCain needed to win, so Obama won by virtue of holding his own. 2) Body language and tone-wise, Obama clearly won.
McCain lost, but Obama did not win in a slam-dunk way. McCain, to me, looked condescending and a little too "I don't have time for this guy." But Obama did not do himself the favors of slamming McCain's hypocrisy on Palin's earmarks. Obama did what he needed to do-- look presidential and not yield. The one time he directly addressed McCain- about going to war in Iraq, he combated any advantage that McCain would have picked up discussing the surge.
McCain had no flag pin while Obama wore one.
McCain has been behaving so oddly of late--the Palin pick, the campaign suspension--that I was half expecting him collapse completely, like Bush did in the first debate with Kerry. That didn't happen: on foreign policy especially, he gave some fine, cogent, forceful, informed responses. This guy would be better than Bush! But Obama also gave the best debate performance I've seen him give. I'd even say he beat McCain on his strong suit, foreign policy.
"Gold Star for Robot Boy"! G-B-V!! G-B-V!!
This debate will be like the Al Gore "Sigh" debate. It will be scored as "even" until folks keep mentioning Sen. Obama's rudeness - The interruptions were constant, and Sen. Obama called McCain's statements "Not True". In other words, he was calling Sen. McCain a liar. Not a smart tactic (or was it a not smart strategy?)!
McCain did better than expected on the economic issues, and Obama was probably a little too deferential in the face of the contempt McCain clearly has for him and his positions. Obama touched on a connection that he needs to HAMMER home for the next five weeks - that getting our energy technologies ramped up to allow us to devalue oil IS a serious national security issue. McCain's snarkiness doesn't wear well, but it's a shame that Obama wasn't more upbeat, more energetically enthusiastic about turning the page on the last eight years of failure. He was calm and collected, which was fine, but uninspiring. The folks are looking for someone who can make them feel that they can move past this and that it's gonna be fine. He needs to find the optimism he owned last February and get it back.
Obama. Cool, reasoned, Presidential, while McCain was testy, condescending and he seemed to be trying hard to hit "talking points" clumsily and obviously.
This debate was a tie. But it was by far Obama's best debate performance ever, and since this was supposed to be McCain's strong ground, an tie is an Obama win.
Henry Kissinger: U.S. should negotiate with Iran "without conditions" and that the next President should begin such negotiations.
Ronald Reagan won - both candidates were doing their best impression of the Gipper, one the old, 'crazy' cold warrior, the other the telegenic hopemonger.
Split decision for Obama. McCain wasted time hammering Obama on earmarks and the surge in Iraq, neither of which anyone cares much about now, and he missed an opportunity to hammer Obama on his connections with former Fannie Mae CEOs and the money he collected from Fannie and Freddie lobbyists.
I thought it was pretty much a draw. I was disappointed that Obama wasn't stronger about the decline of our international prestige over the last eight years (and by implication his unique ability to correct that), and that he didn't match McCain on any kind of commitment to cut runaway federal spending (what a great way that would have been to outflank McCain to the right). I also hate that both candidates seem more interested in poking the Russians in the eye than in preserving US interests, which might not always line up with those of countries like Latvia and Georgia (we seem to be forgetting the history of Germany’s perceived humiliation after World War One). Nevertheless, it was McCain that had more that he needed to accomplish tonight, like explaining what the hell he’s been doing the past two days, and delivering any kind of strong blow to Obama on foreign policy. This was like the home team in hockey getting only a draw, when they need a win to reach the playoffs. Obama should be happy to have played it safe and held his own. Beyond that, it’s been amply obvious to me for some time that I don’t see things the way the great American electorate sees them, so probably 90% of the population will perceive this totally differently. Props to the audience for being so well behaved, and to Jim Lehrer for actually asking some substantive questions.
Obama without a doubt. McCain said he would freeze all government spending except for defense. That is just more of the same old McCain hitting the panic button. We need a leader with vision not an old man full of fear. Obama was reasoned and reasonable. I liked his comment about using a scalpel rather than an axe.
i think it's mostly a draw. whether that circumstantially benefits one candidate or another is not for me to decide. everything people said about obama's crummy debate performances previous is washed away, he did a great job. mccain was a bit repetitive and harped on a few things too much, but in general the two were gaffe-free.
So why does McCain hold Obama in contempt?
Obama. He can do better than he did. He missed some obvious opportunities and he focused too much on McCain at times when he should have been speaking more broadly. But at some point here the narrative is going to switch to McCain not even being able to look at Obama. How can he work in a bipartisan manner if he can't even look at the guy on the other side? McCain is going to need to work past his contempt for Obama or he'll just keep shedding independents. "In other words, he was calling Sen. McCain a liar." Or mistaken, which is really no different than McCain constantly telling Obama "you just don't understand". I think if you already have a preference you'll see in favor of your guy, but the independents on the dial pretty much always knocked McCain down when he did that and only a few times punished Obama for interrupting or saying "That's not true." And its independents that need to be won over here. Obama seemed to score points with voters by volunteering to answer first pretty much every time.
If Sen. Obama cannot carry this blogs comments by a 9-1 margin, he really lost!
It was actually a debate on issues with some real content. That helped them both establish what they wanted to accomplish: 1) Obama, I'm no fool, I get many issues right and I look like I am Presidential material; 2) McCain, I've been around for a generation and paid attention and I'm not senile. Obama could have done better on his succinctness, but McCain could have done better not repeating the same points over and over. All in all, a tie, which helps maintain the status quo.
McCain was condescending and rude to Obama throughout, as though he thought he was superior to the uppity new guy. Didn't look good.
I believe that both men held their own ground in this debate. There was only one true zinger when Obama spoke directly to McCain on Iraq (the 4 "wrongs") where McCain became a little unglued. Overall it was a tie with no knockout. But a tie for Obama in his weakest area is a win. On CNN the idependents favored Obama more (to me at least) that yellow line seemed pretty consistant with the blue one (Dems). So by default slight win to Obama.
If McCain deals with foreign leaders the same way he debated tonight, he'll never see their soul because he'd never look into their eyes! He might as well have phoned it in the way he stubbornly refused to look his enemy in the eye. He actually came across as afraid...
Well, roll out the astroturf! McCain condescending? Check. A tie is a win for Obama? Check. Both did OK, but McCain was far more solid on foreign policy and experience. Ultimately, though, viewers are still digesting what they saw. Give it 24 hours and we'll see what the consensus is.
Based on crispness of answers, seriousness of purpose and breadth of vision, Obama won. McCain played three notes - spending cuts, Iraq as the center of the war on terror, and the crank ("you don't understand" as naseum).
From wikipedia: McCain's unwillingness or inability to change course once caused him to fly his aircraft into some power lines, thus destroying the multi-million dollar craft. Luckily, he escaped unharmed. "John McCain's pre-combat duty began when he was commissioned an ensign, and started two and a half years of training as a naval aviator at Pensacola. There he also earned a reputation as a party man. Graduating from flight school in 1960, he became a naval pilot of attack aircraft. McCain was then stationed in A-1 Skyraider squadrons on the aircraft carriers USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise, in the Caribbean Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea. He survived two airplane crashes and a collision with power lines."
We're judging who won in terms of who lied the least - so far, being through 3 of the 20 possibly lies, McCain has one verified lie and Obama has none.
Obama won. McCain seemed very old...most of his references just died with anyone under 35. McCain also seemed very uncomfortable and would not look at Obama...at times it looked like he had a crick in his neck. McCain was also "a little loose with the truth". McCain will not get any momentum out of this..and he needs it.
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't): 1. McCain wants to "privatize" Social Security. 2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi." 3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban. 4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned." McCain is opposed to modern family planning methods and is for abstinence only education. 5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill. 6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations. 7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." 8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates. 9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult." 10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year. He supports off-shore oil drilling.
What's the phrase? I have no dog in this hunt/horse in this race. I've decided to protest vote for a third party as I deeply, viscerally dislike both of these candidates and PoliSci research tells me my vote is worthless anyway (here come the attacks from both sides!). I think McCain took this in a walk. I only tuned in because I thought there was a good chance for some serious laughs and guffaws. There was no way McCain could be prepared. However, I thought he was nearing a TKO during the first half. Then, there was a moment on the Iran question (right when the question was asked) when the momentum swung, and Obama proceeded to gain ground on the Iran/Russia segment. But McCain finished strong and I think he wins convincingly on points. Of course, the post-debate spin I saw was strongly pro-Obama (George Will said Obama won! Given his WaPo editorial, it appears he's in the Andrew Sullivan "I've cast my lost with-Obama/against-McCain so that's how I will interpret everything from here on out mode). So I'm guessing we see a stop to the McClain slide and an equilibrium of a 2-4% Obama lead, until Thursday.
McCain's demeanor was horrible. He came off as condescending jerk. He did not look at Barack Obama even once.
I thought McCain's foreign policy answers were generally presented slightly better, though I disagreed with the substance of them. On everything else I thought Obama weas superior. And McCain's petty demeanor - "What you don't understand" - came across as a real dick. Not even so much that this is the guy who chose as his veep someone who claims that seeing Russia is foreign policy experience. But much more this is a guy who gives no indication, absolutely zero, that he will be able to sit down and negotiaste with other leaders who simply won't roll when he barks. Of course he won't negotiate with Chavez or Ahmadinejad - his view of negotiation is that he tells them what to do. Reagan, much as I didn't like him, knew when to walk away from the table and when to sit down and try to work out a deal. McCain just seems totally temperamentally unsuited to be President. He'd maybe be a good general in an era when generals didn't need any political skills.
In my worst dream I could never think of anyone wasting their vote on Obama. John McCain will one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had. He has been great for Arizona and he will be great for the United States.
Both performed strongly, but McCain needed to be better than Obama, and I don't think he was. Obama held his own on foreign policy, even in the face of McCain's insulting "Obama doesn't get it" and "Obama is naive" comments. The body language was very interesting. McCain's refusal to look Obama in the eye spoke volumes to me, while Obama looked him squarely, in a cool manner. It's been noted that McCain didn't wear a flag pin on his lapel - no one will dare accuse him of not being patriotic.
Tie. Obama held his own and passed the C-in-C test, which is what will matter in the long run. McCain did very well also, which will arrest his skid in the short term. Thumbs up to the format and the moderator.
McCain was: condescending angry condescending angry condescending angry condescending angry condescending angry condescending angry condescending angry condescending angry condescending angry condescending angry condescending angry McCain used 'he does not understand line' some 27 times.
Obama clearly won. He demonstrated knowledge, wisdom, and was presidential. McCain seemed petty, snarky, and uncomfortable. Why wouldn't he look Obama (or us) in the eye?
I think when we look back on this debate (and I supsect the others as well) we will say McCain came off a lot like Nixon in his debate against Kennedy: Old, angry, out of touch, not right on foreign policy.
I'm not understanding the "Obama was rude for interrupting" meme. Lehrer was practically ordering them to interrupt each other the entire time. IMO, there wasn't noticeable either way. Neither guy was demonstrably out of line, though McCain's disdain (or more) for Obama wasn't hidden very well. I didn't notice McCain's inability to make eye contact until the final handshake. Turning away there WAS rude, but who cares?
CNN poll of 558 voters done after the debate: Who won the debate: Obama: 52 Obama: 54
Obama: 55
Thank god for TEE VEE. I heard it on the radio on the way home and it sounded like Obama was going to be judged the loser - but watching the footage since I've been home and what a difference! McCain looked irritable and had zero stage presence, even during those LONG stories. Obama's campaign clearly managed expectations very well so this IS being called a tie. Tie goes to Obama.
"I got a bracelet too!!!" I do, I do...!!! And I agree with John McCain too :)
Obama missed some real opportunities to hit McCain, although he landed some real punches too. He should have thanked McCain for being there to start with and should have retorted on the earmarks debate that McCain's running mate requested earmarks for studying the mating habits of crabs and harbor seals (in reference to McCains bear earmarks comment). Another place where he could have hit McCain would have been something like this: Now, regardless Obama won the debate simply because he more than held his own against McCain on the foreign policy debate. The whole "Sen. Obama doesnt understand" line doesnt work when the Senator is given 5 minutes to detail his strong understanding of foreign policy. to his credit, McCain had some real zingers, especially on the meeting with Iran's president. I think it demonstrated the difference between the two - one is a cold war era war hero, the other is a modern intellectual/progressive. McCain also loses points with his facial expressions and demeanor, the sneering and visible contempt for Obama was borderline weird/scary and might not sit well with people who were watching closely. All in all, a great night for Obama.
"So why does McCain hold Obama in contempt?" I think Obama hasn't paid his dues in McCain's eyes. He wasn't a POW. He didn't have to marry a rich beer heiress to get into the Senate. He didn't have to suck up to Charles Keating. Obama got there by being smart, and McCain hates that guy - always has. That guy was the ROTC grad that started as 2nd lieutenant and never had to eject from a shot-up plane. I think McCain also holds a lot of Democrats in contempt for selecting Obama over Hillary and Biden and Richardson - people that he thinks have earned it more.
OBAMA all the way... he clearly held his own on McCain's home turf. He appeared confident, presidential and collected. McCain appeared rude, dismissive, and angry.
LOL .....I can't believe these comments. McCain was rude? Obama interrupted McCain more times than I could count. Every time McCain got Obama flustered Obama started stuttering and it was quite clear that Obama was spitting out memorized factoids. Obama got a few shots in but for the most part he rambled around and was bland and boring.
I can only think the talking heads didn't watch the debate but just listened to it. Jen is right. The soundtrack effect was a wash, a tie, if anything emphasizing that McCain was on top form although Obama did not let himself get pushed around. The visual effect, totally different. Obama looked like the real president tonight, sounded liked it, acted like it. What was really striking was the way Obama's talking and visuals complemented one another. Notably, the instant polls, whether scientific or Freep-able, are almost all showing Obama winning hands down. Key is for the Obama people to keep up the spin on this in the coming days. Gore "won" hands down too with average Joe voter, but the spinners sure screwed that up for him within 72 hours.
If those CNN numbers are right, it just shows how out of touch this Boulder "hippie" is...interesting...
McCain is a small man. Small minded, I mean. He's a dick.
Interesting how Kissinger's statement is being parsed: Sully: "Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says the United States should begin direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program. Kissinger, speaking Monday at George Washington University along with four other former U.S. State Department secretaries, said the next president should initiate high-level discussions with Iran "without conditions," ABC News reported." Ambinder: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality." So, the distinction is 'high-level' vs 'at the Presidential level'. That's some pretty fine parsing, IMO. Maybe the moderator needs to be extra clear in the future when he asks about 'your administration' whether he means the president personally and exclusively or the White House as a whole.
According to Fox News Frank Luntz focus group Barack Obama won the debate. Most people in the focus group thought he was more caring especially the women.
Washington Post fact check shows that McCain lied: McCain seriously misstated his vote concerning the marines in Lebanon. He said that when he went into Congress in 1983, he voted against deploying them in Beirut. The Marines went in Lebanon in 1982, before McCain came to Congress. The vote came up a year into their deployment, when the Marines had already suffered 54 casualties. What McCain voted against was a measure to invoke the War Powers Act and to authorize the deployment of U.S. Marines in Lebanon for an additional 18 months. The measure passed 270-161, with 26 other Republicans (including McCain) and 134 Democrats voting against it.
All of the polls and focus groups show Obama winning tonight by a sizable margin. I'm a bit surprised by this because I thought it was close to a draw.
Mental (Bloggal?) note: don't keep hitting refresh when you've just commented...
Obama won it, but not by knock-out. The polls are already showing that most people thought Obama took it, probably because any time this race has focused on the issues, McCain loses. I'd guess that is why he wanted out of this debate. He is not where the country is at on the issues. The base of the GOP just isn't big enough anymore.
From Politico ... A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin's uneven -- and sometimes downright awkward -- performances in her limited media appearances. Conservative columnists Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing on the conservative National Review, says "that's not a crazy suggestion" and that "something's gotta change." Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin's recent CBS appearance isn't disqualifying but is certainly alarming. "You can't continue to have interviews like that and not take on water."
In response to this: It could also end up like the "sigh" debate until people point out McCain's condescension and the number of times he said, "he doesn't understand."
Obama won the debate and McCain lost his stongest forte.
Obama won the debate. I thought McCain came across as mean and snarly. Remember the 2000 debate where al gore's sighs came back to bite him.
Obama won, hands down. Yes, McCain has long experience, knows world leaders & hot spots, etc. But- he kept regurgitating tired old stuff- both long-discredited "zingers" (like the $42K tax raise lie) and ancient history (Eisenhower, Reagan, Alexander the frickin' Great??). He was bizarrely fixated on earmarks (important, but not that important), the Surge (tm), "victory" (never defined it). He didn't or couldn't directly interact with Obama. He's lame, tired, stilted. Enough! Obama will make a great President.
I want a count of how many times each candidate got to have the last word. McCain just kept taking it over and over again and Lehrer would let him have it. Not fair.
Obama is too much of a gentleman but McCain is just a big liar and was a total disgrace. I'm ashamed of McCain.
It would be more fun commenting here if you people actually wrote your own reactions instead of lib talking points. 1. Obama has been peddling the McCain/temperament line, and some of you cc'd it here, yawn. Yes, you were expecting temper, didn't get it, unable to change your robotic talking points...boring. 2. McCain was good on economy, Obama was OK on foreign policy. This has caused various bots to overheat & flame out as they try to deal. 3. Good debate. As a McCain supporter I appreciate the fact that Obama is kind of a thoughtful guy who tries to deal with issues that are way, way above his pay grade, ie anything dealing with national security. 4. Kissinger has put out a statement saying his position vis a vis Iran talks is what McCain said. Obama making stuff up again. 5. Contrary to what you seem to think here, McCain didn't need a game changer. Neither of these guys is much of a debater, but McCain will get the job done by Nov 4. 6. Looking forward to the VP debate.
Obama clearly won this debate. Though McCain did much better than I thought he would, Obama intelligently and steadily shot down all of McCain's bluster with facts and specifics. He had a sense of humor and at the same time, intensity that really showed me Obama is the president I can be proud of. What bothered me the most, however, was the unsettling prejudicial despise and contempt toward Obama. McCain did not ever look at Obama - he was dismissive and disrespectful. I really hope that contempt and condescension toward Obama is not what it appeared to be...
Marc, you say big policy news is McCain's "spending freeze"... After this week, I'm not sure McCain would be competent to "suspend" anything.
that didn't look like barack obama who showed up. There was a clear distinction on wisedom and experience... Barack looked out of his league. it was a disappointing night for Obama... i hope he can come back, but that was frustrating.
So...
Answers from both candidates were vague, with numerous buzz words and catch phrases ("I'll reach across the aisle" and "in a bipartisan fashion"), to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling they knew what the hell they were talking about. There were NO "specifics". Nothing that could be used to measure the performance of each candidate, if elected. No way to say, "he didn't live up to his word". All in all, just like most "debates", the winner will be perceived as the one who had the best sounding canned and rehearsed soundbites, regardless of whether or not there was any content.
That's all I can say.
Every time McCain came up with his "Senator Obama doesn't understand" line, Obama responded with a detailed and nuanced understanding the the question at hand. Obama called McCain a liar - he just didn't say that as crudely, and as rudely, as McCain called him ignorant. Which one would you suspect would be a better negotiator? Obama, of course. People understand graciousness is not weakness. Stubborn dog-headedness added to capricious instability is McCain's MO. Which candidate laughed? He was the winner.
I guess you would call me socially liberal, economoically middle of the road, and same on foreign policy. One of the reasons I like this blog is that I think Mr. Ambinder plays it pretty straight, non-partisan. So... By about the 20th time Johm McCain said that Obama "didn't understand" something, he completely lost me. I think a reasonable person could disagree with Obama on the issues, but whatever you think of his positions, it's clear he has a strong, sophisticated, nuanced understanding of them, and that his foreign policy worldview is grown-up and fully formed. So either McCain wasn't listening or Obama was too sophisiticated for him or -- more likely -- he'd been trained by his handlers to use the "doesn't understand" line over and over. It was condascending, and irritating, and out of synch with reality and frankly I thought it was beneath him. I thought it was pretty much a tie on the substance, but Obama sounded more -- there has to be a better word than this, but -- presidential.
I won! I won! What did I win?
McCain needed a home run and he didn't get it -- not even close. Obama takes the night.
Well, I'm "in the tank" for Obama, and I'm a worrier. So when the debate was over, I was happy and not worried, indicating Obama sure didn't lose. McCain's already lost me. I can't judge other than that because I know I have such a strong bias. My favorite moment was when Obama reminded us that McCain doesn't even want to talk with the President of Spain! My least favorite moment was when Obama failed to mention that the Iraqi's themselves want us to set a timeline for withdrawal. I can't believe McCain did as well arguing for staying without a timeline--it should have been a slam dunk.
I watched on my laptop on PBS so I didn't see any split screen action or close ups of McCain's body language and I still thought Obama won. He was tall, loose and congenial yet strong. His talking points were more sophisticated and struck home more. I also thought the order of the questioning favored Obama more. For example, on the Georgia issue, Obama preempted all of McCain's points. McCain had a very bad case of cotton mouth, also, which left him less than smooth.
This was a very close one. McCain seemed very old and tired for about the first half hour or so. That's not what you want to project, if your age and stamina are a concern. Neither one of them actually wanted to say which parts of their plans they'd cut, though Obama gave a slightly better reason than McCain for not saying anything in particular. In general ... a draw. But that's bad news for McCain, since foreign policy is supposed to be his strong suit.
CNN's John King seems to have drunk the Kool-Aid. What's this bit about McCain riding into DC to change the Bush-Pualson bailout plan? THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP ALREADY DID THAT WHEN MCCAIN MUCKED IT UP!!!! Sort of reminds me of John King's bride (Dana Bash) asking Senator Kennedy, "with all due respect, Senator" if Gitmo is closed, would [Senator Kennedy] agree to the detainees being transferred to Hyannis? It will be a miracle if Obama can overcome the stupidity of the MSM.
McCain won, but he needed to win by a lot more: http://theenlighteneddespot.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/pyrrhic-tie/
Obama clearly won. McCain had to rely on catchphrases and references to Ronald Reagan. Obama offered fresh ideas, showed gravitas, and overall acted presidential. McCain acted like that guy who is still living out his high school glory days 25 years after graduation.
Well, as a Senator McCain supporter I felt both men did alright. Neither man is good a debating. Senator Obama did however get frustrated and stuttered several times. All of his responses were well rehearsed and he seemed like a robot repeating himself whenever he got frustrated. Senator McCain is not a Ronald Reagan a smooth talker with action. Senator McCain is a man with action. He has the experience and stability that we need right now. Senator Obama has shown with his past jobs that he is never satisfied with his position. He is always looking for another position while not completely applying himself to the position that he is currently in. The only reason he went to Washington this week is because Senator beat him at the punch.
dear gamechanger, Good look with that vp debate, you'll need it.
Advantage Obama. Given the stakes for McCain, probably fatal for his campaign.
McSame was all heat and no light. Very scary body language, temper barely controlled. After this week's theatrics, he needed to reassure people he isn't a blundering ox in a china shop, and he clearly failed to do so. Meanwhile, Obama brilliantly keyed his performance not to please his base by pummeling McSame, but to sway independent voters. He was articulate, engaged, authoritative, and a gentleman. Obama in a knockout.
I was disappointed in Obama. So much low-hanging fruit left unpicked. And apparently no appreciation for the concept of "zinger." Still, hard to call him an idiot or a radical. McCain just looks like he hates life and Obama and the necessity of debating. Pure Coriolanus. Not a good vibe there. You shouldn't *start* your presidency all tensed up like that. Basically a tie, and as has been said before, a tie goes to Obama.
The reason Obama didn't want to go to Washington re: the financial crisis, is that he was trying on suits and ties in his hotel room in St.Petersburg; you know you don't need substance; just make sure you "look good". I could not believe how rude he was! Obama kept interrupting McCain, murmuring under his breath, like the 3rd grade brat, and smirking. It was a presidential debate, not his family's hut in Kenya!
As I was focusing on the language, I really didn't notice the body lanaguage at all. After reviewing a clip (McCain thinks the war started in 2007), you really can get a strong whiff of McCain's weird inability/unwillingness to look Obama in the eye. He seemed dripping of contempt or anger. Maybe independents have picked up on this which is driving early positive fb for Obama. Nice to see the polls tomorrow...
Obama. Rational, calm, detailed, and actually respectful of a person who has utter contempt for him. McCain. multiple cheap panders. of course, the best lines... "John, I have a bracelet too..." and "For someone who says he wants to bomb iran..." And let's remember the ethnic cleansing seems to be more the cause of calming iraqi violence, so the one note samba of the surge comes up short. When mccain mentions georgia and ukraine and getting them into nato, he has a foreign policy advisor, randy schuenemann, who toured with sarah palin this week. schuenemann's company, orion services, has been paid to lobby on behalf of georgia and ukraine for the purpose of getting them into nato.
Obama won for the reasons already mentioned. Foreign policy and the debate format played to McCain's strengths rather than Obama's and Obama did better than McCain in the discussion of the economy, held his own on foreign policy and pointed out a few of McCain's weaknesses. I thought he could have pointed out a few more. Didn't Petraeus say a week or two ago that there really won't be an endpoint in Iraq where we'd able to wave a flag, cheer and do a big victory dance. I thought I'd read something to that effect, and I was hoping Obama would bring up the ludicrousness of McCain's whole "victory" myth. He also let McCain get in the last word a few times, like on nuclear energy. Still, in the end, Obama looked and sounded more presidential, honest and authentic to me, and much less disrespectful and condescending. There were no major gaffes for either candidate, however. In the end I was left wondering how the whole "naive" thing will play out as people really think about that. If McCain is so dismissive of Obama as inexperienced and naive, how in the heck does he explain his Palin pick? It's so incredible, you know? I thought that whole "Senator Obama doesn't understand" thing really shined a light on McCain's hypocrisy and lack of judgment when it came to his own decisions.
Big Obama supporter here, didn't watch the debate. From what it sounds like, it was a tie, or Obama took it on points because McCain is a mean old bastard who couldn't even look his opponent in the eye? Man, that's weak. Glad I didn't have to sit through it. Debates are fricking boring and meaningful only in-so-much as one candidate makes a gaffe. Sounds like it will be almost 100% irrelevant to the eventual vote.
As I rule, I avoid commenting on others' posts, but I couldn't resist Ms. Dunworth's effort: "It was a presidential debate, not his family's hut in Kenya!" One, does Sen. Obama have a second home, i.e., a hut, in Kenya? What is your source? Two, if he does, are you suggesting that he should be ashamed of either Kenya or its huts? In sum, you sound like a racist without the sense to realize it. Good luck, R
My fellow Americans we are in some serious trouble.
Most pathetic line of the night: Obama: " I have a bracelet too" Yet he had no idea of the kids name. That was cringe worthy. Ouch.
Wow Diane, that's some real astute analysis about the debate - Obama trying on suits and ties and murmuring like he was in his family's hut in Kenya. Uh, yeah. I think you may have watched too much of Palin and are picking up her garbled and incoherent way of talking.
There are at least two opportunities that Obama had tonight to make what would've at least plausibly been highlight-reel statements: 1) In response to McCain's earmark-related answer to Lehrer's question about the economy: "Here's a point where Senator McCain and I fundamentally agree, but the reality is that earmarks constitute only a fraction of the budget. Reform is good policy, but mostly it's distraction politics. What I want to know, John, is why you are unable or unwilling to engage on the larger issues more broadly affecting the economy. 2) And this one will almost certainly arise again. When McCain's shouting Obama down when he's trying to make his points: calmly but forcefully retake control and say, "Don't have a tantrum, John. As I was saying..." They both play right into negative ideas about McCain (that he's not well versed on economics and that he's a hothead, respectively) that are right below, if not at, the surface of the media narrative. I think the media would pick up on and run with both.
I wonder how McCain not looking at Obama will play in Virginia and North Carolina. The South puts a lot of emphasis on graciousness and being polite. I think McCain's behavior will play worse there. One of the reasons Governor Ann Richards beat Clayton Williams is because of a moment when Williams made a production out of refusing to shake her hand. That just doesn't play well in Texas or the rest of the South.
I'm a McCain supporter. I say, Lehrer won. His open-answer questions were very fair, I thought.
McCain could've done well by showing grace, gravitas, and nuance, but he chose to repeat his talking points with a strangely insecure mixture of name and place dropping and bottomless contempt for Obama. He mangled Zardari's name and missed the significance of the Putin poster in Georgia.
1. Lehrer did a decent job, especially under the circumstances. 2. McCain did not need to win, he needed not to lose, given his decline over the past few weeks. He didn't lose, in fact he did quite well. 3. "I agree with Sen. McCain" is probably not the line Obama wants to be the most memorable from this debate, but it is. 4. "Condescending" is the new "temperamental/bad-tempered" for the obama bots, I see. Good luck with that. Yes, the Southern voters are going to turn against McCain because he was rude to Obama. You people are really something. 5. It's all tied up again. Both/neither of these guys could be president, according to the American people. I like it!
Who gives a crap about Southern voters? Obama can win without taking a single state south of Maryland. This performance is certainly going to endear him to voters in CO and NM. As long as he can hang on to NH, he's got 270 right there.
Look at the body language-- where McCain wouldn't even look at Obama. Look who's lashing out. Look at the drama of the last few days and the reactions to the financial campaigns. Look at the way the Obama campaign reacted to the Palin bounce. The dominant impression Obama is attempting to cultivate is that the man is totally unflappable. The debate seemed to underline this. I would have liked to have seen him rip McCain's spleen out at a number of points (the man who wrote a law exempting intelligence agencies from restrictions on torture claims to oppose the practice? The foreign policy 'expert' claims Pakistan was a "failed state"?)-- but he didn't. For better or worse, the man is a damned rock.
In Cricket terms - A Draw. McCain seemed kinda pissed off but was passionate and delivered his lines well. Obama did better than any other debates during the primaries but he can still do a lot better.
I favor McCain (or I would've if not for Palin), but I thought Obama won quite handily. He won the debatelet on taxes, he won the debatelet on spending, he won on Iraq, he won on talking to Iran - towards the end McCain was probably tying Obama on most of the questions, but everybody already knew he's informed on Russia and whatnot.
Why did McCain never look at Barack Obama? There's something uncomfortable about that. It raises a character/trust issue. If as Rick Davis says this boils down to personality, Obama won. We all know Obama wins on the issues so Obama won hands down.
Obama won. That is what the polls are showing (CNN, CBS, and focus groups galore). But I think of it this way. The central question keeping McCain afloat in an otherwise bad year for Republicans was voters doubts about whether Obama was "experienced" enough to handle the job as President, especially when it came to foreign policy. That Obama was able to stand on the same stage as McCain and hold his own on the one topic that is most embelmatic of his core perceived weakness should tell you where this election is headed.
Substantively, I thought both did well. However, let's not forget that McCain is the one down and he needed a game-changer, and he certainly did not get a game changer. I thought one thing that turned me off (and a lot of other individuals watching was McCain's snarky attitude. He came out as an angry man trying to score political points. He couldn't answer a question without somehow attacking Obama.
Obama won but he also left the most out there. McCain hit Obama with his best punches, and no knock outs. Obama kept it even and was smooth and cool and charming. McCain was demeaning and bizarre in that he wouldn't look at Obama. No wonder McCain doesnt want to have meetings without preconditions, he barely can stand to be in the same room with American Senators.
How will Andrew Sullivan kill himself if Obama loses? My friends and I have a running wager on this. I'm guessing he'll pull a Bud Dwyer on Real Time with Bill Maher, after which Bill will make a wry comment about gun control.
McCain v. Obama was Nixon v. Kennedy redux. My wife and I were driving for almost the entire debate, so we listened to it on NPR. And we both agreed -- not bad for Obama, but McCain won decisively. Then I watched it later and wow, were we ever wrong. McCain came across like grumpy old Mr. Wilson trying to chase Dennis off his lawn with a hatchet. So I heard one debate and saw another. Since TV trumps radio, I now think Obama won.
I'm hopelessly in the tank for Obama (hey, I live in San Francisco, it goes with the territory) and thoroughly pissed at McCain after the way he exploited the bailout crisis for political gain, but I came out of the debate feeling like it was a tie. After seeing a lot of Bill Clinton on TV in the last few weeks, I've been reminded how much I miss his gift for wrapping complex ideas up in flavorful little nuggets of information. For all his intelligence, Obama lacks that ability. And, while I devoutly disagree with his actual policies (McCain is completely insane and / or determined to provoke a war with Russia if he thinks he can bring Georgia or Ukraine into NATO), I think that McCain sounded very assured most of the time when he discussed foreign policy (that crack about Pakistan being a failed state was a real head-scratcher to this Economist reader, though). The one thing I could not abide, like a lot of people here, was McCain's barely controlled temper. I think I would have been relieved, in a way, if McCain had just flipped out and taken Obama on directly, but the cut-direct, slow burn silent treatment he had going on was nervewracking and off-putting for me. It was like watching my parents fight. It struck most of the people I was watching the debate with the same way. It really made McCain look small. And the constant torrent of condescension seemed both hyperbolically off-base and gratuitous. But I was never going to vote for McCain anyway, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I agree with the seeming consensus that a tie was as good as a win for Obama. I hope he loosens up a little, because as much as McCain bugged me, Obama didn't give me a whole lot to cheer over.
I'm "in the tank" for Obama, but I'm mystified as to why he can't muster a better retort for McCain's proclamations of success regarding the surge in Iraq. How about: "What I think Mr. McCain doesn't understand is that ANY strategic change was likely to yield a better result than the profoundly boneheaded and disastrous idea to invade that Senator McCain initially endorsed. Frankly, I don't think going from sheer chaos and horrifyingly brutal violence to just chaos and violence is 'victory'. Tell me, Senator McCain, how do you plan to deal with the 4 million displaced Iraqis that your policies created? Tell me, Senator McCain, how do you plan to deal with a country that is fractured along sectarian and ethnic lines beyond belief? Tell me, Senator McCain, do you really believe that a country that has only known political instability and violence for a century, and where everyone has been witness to gruesome acts of violence, will suddenly reconcile and come together in the spirit of democracy and freedom? Do you believe that this Iraq will be our allies in a region that holds a large percentage of our national debt in their coffers, that furtively promotes fascist religious ideologies throughout the world, that is hopelessly hamstrung by the Israel-Palestine conflict, and that is dominated by governments (which, incidentally, our national interests support) who mercilessly repress their people? Are you so naive as to believe that our action in Iraq, even with the striking success of the surge (this part said in a mocking tone), actually increased our political currency in the Arab-Islamic World? The truth is, Senator McCain, is that there are limits to the degree to which we can foist our wishes for political progress on the rest of the world, and while your desire to deem the incredible and touching sacrifice of our service men and women a 'victory' is completely understandable, it is fundamentally out of touch with reality or any recognizable definition of the words success and victory." or more simply put:
The reality of tonight’s debate is grounded in racial politics. Of course Senator Obama had to play it cool. He could easily have jabbed in a few more “zingers” and slapped McCain around more, but that would have simply pleased people who are already going to vote for him. This debate (like all) is about swing voters. Democrats like to think of themselves as the egalitarian, high-minded party, but the truth is there are a whole lot of Democrats who vote blue because of the labor movement not the civil rights movement.
McCain called Obama naive, and, unfortunately, there is some truth to that. McCain has the experience and wisdom to know that there are people not to be trusted. Reagan knew this well. One of the things I like about Obama is his idealism; however, its also something that I like least. I like Obama and believe he would probably be more of FDR-type President ... if we needed that. Obama is way too liberal for USA, too ideologically Socialistic, which the Liberal media has helped him hide. People, do your own homework, and do not trust MSM.
Postscript. Did anyone else notice how many times in the debate Sen. Obama addressed Sen. McCain as "John", without Sen. McCain reciprocating? My suspicion is that this might be a subtle form of condescension. Might seem picayune, but its seems a bit disrespectful and perhaps manipulative.
PJ, I noticed the exact same thing with the names, and could immediately see how people of a certain generation would view it as disrespecful. I think it's just be a generational thing. People in their 20's and 30's tend to be informal that way in every setting I've been in. As for the debates, seems like pundits once again underestimated the number of people who had been paying little attention and are going to make their decisions based on body language, tone, etc. Obama seems to have won this group, which broke for Bush in 2004, pretty significanly.
Obama won decisively. Statesmanlike in his replies. Articulate and confident. I agree with most of the other posts that John McCain was condescending and very rude not to have eye contact. One point that I keep mentioning in Blogs and that is Obama' diplomatic views in dealing with world leaders whether or not they are allies with the United States. I for one, like Obama, would definitely prefer talk than confrontation. The world can only become a more stable and peaceful place. This in turn will bring the United States back to a country of honour and glory it once had on the world stage. We are living in the 21st century and that calls for new ideas and a progressive attitude. I am afraid that McCain seemed to still be living in the past. The past is well gone and we should be looking into the future. I have no doubt whatsoever that Obama will make a fantastic president and despite the problems of today if Obama is elected in November America will over the next 4 years become a country that everyone can be proud of both internationally and domestically.
"It was a tie. George Will just said a tie goes to Obama. Probably right." TR: I might agree to that. McCain did not have a Bush 2004 type meltdown. I didn't think either of them did well explaining how they can pay for more spending or tax cuts now. They were both right and wrong on some foreign issues. If McCain made an error it was talking too much about stuff from over 20 years ago. I think McCain sees Obama as way too young and new to be President. It is unusual for a first-term Senator to become President so he was trying to emphasize his greater experience. Also maybe indicate he's a Republican of the Pre-Bush era that just happens to agree with Bush in so much as any pre-Bush Republican might. The problem is it ended up emphasizing his age, which is good for people like me but bad in a youth-obsessed culture. (Hence some statements here are partly based on "icky, an old guy who actually sees value in being an old guy.") This is also bad because there's not much reason to think people long for a new Dole or Bush Sr. or Reagan for that matter. "McCain came across like grumpy old Mr. Wilson trying to chase Dennis off his lawn with a hatchet." TR: For me that's exactly what I want. We've had two youngish two-term Presidents and they were both idiots in their own way. I want an old guy who can deal, amuse, and scare. Alas McCain is no Eisenhower, as Eisenhower's descendants note, but I suppose he's the best I'll do this election. BTW: I'm 31 years old, but a unique 31 I suppose. The people in my life who really screwed me over were mostly young while the people who've saved my life were mostly 20-30 years older than I
Obama did not lose the debate. Therefore, he won it.
McCain won by a knockout! There was no debate. Obama trying to act like he knew something which he did not. Obama showing disrespect for McCain by calling him John all through the debates. McCain always the gentleman calling Him Senator. The knowledge gap was amazing. McCain showed he has a much better grip on the world situations. Obama offered nothing but classroom rhetoric. He is very deficient in understanding how to deal with other nations. You would have to be blind not to see the difference in this debate. My vote goes for McCain.
Was the title of this thread...who won the debate in a parallel universe? LOL! Lying to yourselves in an echo chamber will not change the fact that Obama clearly did not belong on the same stage as McCain. I have a bracelet too? Jeez...at least remember the guy's name if you want to play along...
"Actions Speak Louder Than Words". Also, who you associate yourself with as well as who you chose as a Mentor speaks volumes, as this becomes the backbone of that individual. Never trust a "scripted" individual. You really need to research your candidate, and not trust the networks as they are truly biased. For all of you who didn't do your homework and use Clifnotes... McCain is right - "Obama doesn't get it".
I thought both candidates were well prepared. What struck me was the number of times Obama interrupted a McCain answer. I know that McCain also did this a few times. How the interruptions started I don't know as I missed the start of the debate. But, I thought the interruptions showed Obama as being too forceful, trying too hard, and contributed to an uncivil tone. The debate does help define the candidates' differences and will be valuable to the undecided. Also, on a number of issues they appeared to be in substantial agreement.
Obama clearly won this debate. He was clear, concise, and convincing. This was supposed to be John McCain's turf - the location and topic of the debate were squarely in McCain's favor, but he didn't take full advantage of that. On top of that, he appeared to be condescending and his refusal to make eye contact was simply rude.
"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality," Kissinger said
McCain did better than I expected, which is to say, held his own in many ways. I agree the likely winner is Obama, however, because this was the foreign policy debate. For those still voting on foreign policy first (yes, there are still millions of us!), Obama will have won over some undecideds who liked him in theory but wanted to see and hear him in a debate before deciding if they are comfortable with him, given his relative youth and time in government. Even though McCain's best was when he highlighted his experience, and despite his many attacks designed to increase voter discomfort with Obama's experience, I think undecideds saw an Obama who could deal with Putin, Iran, North Korea, etc, not one who would screw up, and a man who was focussed on the war on terror and nailing Al Qaida. For many, after the last 8 years of failure both internationally and at home, that's all they were waiting for. Don't know if McCain did more than rally those who already support him. Question---how is it determined who speaks last on an issue before moving on? Seems like McCain got almost all of his best licks in 'right before the bell' when Obama had no opportunity to respond.
Anytime someone argues that it was a draw...it usually means that their guy (Obama) lost and they want to make themselves feel better in some way. Check it out...the libs are trying to call it a draw. Hey, if you can't argue a "win" with a straight face...at least argue a "draw" and stick to your story.
The debate will be remembered for 2 things: 1. Obama's "I have a bracelet too" gaffe...then forgetting the soldier's name. 2. Misquoting Kissinger...Kissinger has already slammed him for it.
hunter , All post debate polls are showing an Obama win. Next up Palin.
I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this in the debate coverage, but it's something that should hit everyone on a personal level, demonstrating what a insincere person Obama really is. Michelle Malkin also mentioned the same debate incident on her blogg, as did Mary Katharine Ham in a post at the Weekly Standard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r_jTgGeVU4 His answer was arrogant, completely lacking in sincerity and his gesture embarrassing...showing him to be the programed candidate he is.
In many ways, I felt the debate was a tie, but the one take away I had was that McCain seems very focused on the past - his past accomplishments, past votes, past conflicts. He seems totally focused on victory in Iraq (whatever that means) and can't seem to look outside that lens. While I haven't seen foreign policy as Obama's strong suit (that's one reason he picked Biden), I was struck last night by what seemed to be his broader strategic vision - an understanding that our national security includes energy independence, rebuilding our alliances, etc. To me, his approach seems more appropriate to the realistic challenges we face going forward.
Any man who even after knowing what it takes to win a war the US is engaged in (ie. in the this case finally acknowledging that the surge worked in Iraq) and STILL WOULD OPPOSE that action, (i.e. - choose to allow the US to lose that war) IS NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES. There is no greater responsibility the President has, and Barak Obama completely fails to recognize that responsibility. This country doesn't deserve to lose a war, simply because it is politically fashionable for him to claim to have been opposed to it at its begining.
It was clear that Obama was more relaxed and definitive about his plans for the future of this country. He laid out his formula for a short-term solution to the economic crisis, and made clear his desire to resurrect our nation's reputation abroad and how he would go about it. McCain was clearly uncomfortable, and badly bumbled the economics portion of the debate. He also kept repeating gross inaccuracies about Obama's positions, at least according to FactCheck.com [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html]. McCain's disrespect in not looking directly at Obama, coupled with his righteous, condescending attitude in responding, were ample evidence that McCain is not the person I'd like to see in any kind of negotiation, foreign or domestic. It was a clear win for Obama from my perspective.
McCain clearly won the debate. His experience makes such encounters effortless for him. McCain has history; Obama seems to have only a memorized speech from which to draw responses on a variety of questions.
Well, the obvious winner was Lehrer, who asked good questions, kept things on track and generally ran a tight ship. Stylistically, Obama won by a mile. He engaged McCain, looked calm and comfortable, and remained focused, while McCain came close to ranting a few times. There were a couple of points where McCain visibly bordered on losing his temper, which does not play well. On substance, Obama clearly won the major issue: the economy, and that really is the thing to take away from the debate, especially because the latter half became quite tedious and will have caused people to switch off or think about other matters. On foreign policy, McCain tried the line about Obama not understanding far too often, and it sounded stale and arrogant. Probably a draw on foreign policy, which is something of a loss for McCain in real terms.
jb writes: "Obama's "I have a bracelet too" gaffe...then forgetting the soldier's name." This attempt at a gotcha by conservatives is especially ridiculous. I'm seeing it all over the intertubes, but anyone who watched the debate recalls that Obama SAID THE SOLDIER'S NAME. McCain has told his bracelet story a thousand times, so he shouldn't be surprised that Obama had a ready answer for it.
If folk weren't so enthralled by McCain's POW experience (he wasn't the only POW, nor was he the only one who suffered), then they would see that Senator Obama was the clear winner. Unfortunately, the press wants someone entertaining, who tells a good story. McCain's POW story make all of his policy flaws and inconsistencies forgivable. Even if the policies he champions lead to billions of dollars on the backs of taxpayers.
They both cleared their hurdles--Obama didn't sound longwinded, and McCain didn't sound confused. Ergo if you were already decided, you saw nothing to tip you one way or the other. No one got in a devastating blow, and no one made a devastating flub. (The bracelet thing sounded like Obama correcting himself from soldier to soldier's mother, and as for "agreeing with John McCain" on some issues, does McCain NOT agree with Obama on those issues? It's a really silly point to try and make, and I don't think it's going to get the traction they hope.) I didn't know how undecideds would view this, but evidently the polls are going for Obama. I'd suggest 2 things: McCain's condescension, which I could hear over the radio with the repeated "Obama just doesn't understand" and which Fallows observed in McCain's refusal to look at Obama, which is just weird. And Nate Silver's argument that Obama did better on the 2 issues that matter most to undecideds, the economy and Iraq.
Obama won it, but he could have put it away, by pointing that McCain's love of vets is contradicted by his vote against the most recent GI Bill of Rights. I understand why you don't want to frighten an already frightened American public while Congress is still debating the bailout, but the most recent unemployment figures just came up and they came out on the Republican watch. Best moments the give and take on Iraq. I wish Lehrer had discussed that the Iraqi PM had sounded, for him, a much less bellicose note at the UN. A lot of commentators, as opposed to viewers are callings this a tie, if so, advantagous Obama, who was ahead.
Go sit on a peg and turn, Ambinder, you irresponsible hack.
McCain = EPIC FAIL:!!! Fuck you, Republicans. Bow down before a Black Man, you racist pieces of shit.
To augment MoeLarryAndJesus's point about the bracelet, Obama's stutter was because he started to say the soldiers name without stating that the bracelet had been given to him by the mother.
I congratulate all of you who focused so earnestly on the issues, but I believe the debate will ultimately be settled on squishier subjects like demeanor, anger management, body language and questions of age -- all part of the ultimate question of leadership ability. McCain's all-of-the-above were creepy and exposed his demons for all to see. Weird grimaces when he smiles, smiles when clearly he is fuming mad, a folding-in and crouching that appeared visceral in its defensiveness. Most riveting, throughout, was the awareness that he was constantly grumbling! Whenever Obama was talking straight to the camera, McCain was clearly audible off camera mumbling and complaining! To himself! Isn't that creepy? Doesn't that sort of ruin it for the old guy? That he talks to himself when he gets angry and defensive?
We watched an archived copy on the Internet after the debate was over. FWIW I consider myself an independent and don't really have a great love for either candidate. McCain talked too much. His answers droned on and on. I was falling asleep while listening to him. His body language was also disturbing. He appeared angry at Obama. Why? Is he just a sore loser? Maybe that's why he tried to duck the debate. Obama for his part didn't say anything of great import. I thought he did OK, better than his previous performances, but he failed to put McCain on the spot when he had the chance and ended up seeming to mostly be in agreement with him. That was weird. I don't think McCain's performance erased his "very bad week". His non-suspended campaign antics left a sour taste in this voters mouth. And it certainly did nothing to erase the perception that Palin is dangerously under qualified which was so painfully apparent after her interview with Katie Couric. Frankly, my 5 year old is more qualified to be president. In summary the edge has to go to Obama simply because McCain needed a home run to erase the still fresh memory of his erratic campaign antics and amazingly bad judgment in choosing Palin. The VP debate is actually going to be more interesting than this debate was; at least in the form of a drinking game. Take a shot every time one of them says something stupid and you won't last through the first 15 minutes. Woo hoo!
Dear concerned citizens of America and Mass Media of the U.S.A. Yours sincerely, COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret] MD. PS: It is sad and unfortunate that Hon, Temperamental and angry Maverick McCain had a constant grin and disdain towards his debater.
There was no clear winner here... but there should have been. Obama could have buried McCain on several fronts by reminding the viewers of a few items: 1) McCain's deregulatory history, his cozy relationships with lobbyists, and Gramm's infamous "nation of whiners" quote (and his history with the Keating Five) - here he could have easily asked the "how can you trust John McCain with this economic crisis when he has failed to understand his core economic beliefs are what caused this crisis?", 2) painting McCain into a corner by re-emphasizing al-Maliki's desire for a timetable - "Surge or no surge - why are we still there if the Iraqis don't want us there? Are we occupiers or are they a sovereign nation?", 3) at some point he had to not let McCain run roughshod over him and talk over him as he rambles on. Obama had to be brave enough to say (with some emphasis): "I'm not going to let you stand there and LIE about my positions and not call you on it!" He can still address these in some of the later debates, but the door was open last night to really put McCain on the defensive. I think that's important because it gets McCain into an irrational rage. McCain just kept getting more and more aggressive after Obama deftly "out-braceleted" McCain, depriving McCain of his "I'm the only guy up here the troops trust" persona.
I'm a solid Obama supporter. But I thought McCain won (on the basis of getting more "jabs" in on Obama, certainly toward the end, which in a long debate like this without any breaks made one forget some of the earlier parts). I didn't even notice that McCain didn't look at Obama all night. (Perhaps, because I was actually listening to what they were saying.) But, apparently, the American spectator is more influced by perception than by seasoned argument swapping. Although I didn't see it at the time, I have to agree with the majority of the posts in this blog -- in short, Obama looked like he could take the infamous 3:00 a.m. phone call with calm and reassurance, while McCain looked like he'd be pissed off that anyone would question what he was going to do -- at that hour, or any other.
Dennis Reilly writes: "I didn't even notice that McCain didn't look at Obama all night. (Perhaps, because I was actually listening to what they were saying.) But, apparently, the American spectator is more influced by perception than by seasoned argument swapping." That's sort of silly. Maybe some of us are better at paying attention to more than one thing at a time than you are.
I think that McCain lost. He seemed nostalgic and stuck in the past. I was watching him thinking "you don't have the knowledge, vision or energy to move this country forward." And, I thought McCain's name calling was a real low. He came off like angry grand-pa- the grandfather you wouldn't want to know. And you never never call yourself a maverick. That was really foolish AND too bring up Palin, come on, that sheet has been lifted.
it was obama, who gave decent answers, but received a lot of help from mccain being so personally unpleasant.
@ john and pj
Anyone who hasn't decided who they're voting for in this election by now is a low information voter, someone who's incapable of discerning the instances where McCain was intentionally (or worse, unintentionally) misleading and/or factually inaccurate. With little more than a basic grasp of the complex financial issues at issue and having only a limited understanding or awareness of world events, the swinger is going to look to the candidates' tone, confidence, and fighter instinct, among other qualities that are assessed on the visceral, rather than intellectual, level. In this regard, McCain came in like a charging bull, a scrapper, yet, improbably, showed himself--unfortunately-- to be polished, steeped in historical context, and even steady. More along these lines here: http://trickstervillain.blogspot.com/2008/09/letting-down-your-republican-guard.html
"If folk weren't so enthralled by McCain's POW experience (he wasn't the only POW, nor was he the only one who suffered), then they would see that Senator Obama was the clear winner." Pamela TR: I think they mention the POW thing way too much. During the Republican Convention I was even like "ENOUGH with the POW stuff already, what is he going to do!" I really don't care if a Presidential candidate ever served in the military. In some cases I might even prefer one who didn't. However McCain did not have a Bush 2004 style meltdown. He showed he does know and have an interest in the rest of the world. And on many areas I think he did successfully manage to show he is different than Bush, which deflates a central part of what Obama was doing. They both kind of stunk on the economy part IMO, but Americans right now prefer Democratic economic idiocy to Republican economic idiocy. However McCain failed to make Obama look naive, foolish, weak, or scary. Obama succeeded at looking reasonable and maybe even Presidential. They both succeeded and failed in different ways. It was basically a draw, which I'd agree can be understood as an Obama victory.
Fundamentally - McCain cannot multi-task. This is why he had to suspend his campaign and go back to Washington DC to focus on the bailout bill. It was apparent again in the debates when he couldn't look at Obama and could only focus on the words he was speaking, the moderator, and the cameras.
As a European and something of a foreign affairs wonk, I dispute the idea that McCain showed his foreign affairs competence. He showed the opposite. Being able to rattle off the names of Ukraine's politicians (after obviously having memorized them shortly before) and getting the strategic context completely wrong, is not a sign that you are comfortable with the subject matter. His views on the Georgia/Russia conflict were simplistic, good vs. evil, as befits someone who glanced for three seconds at a headline with one side of the story. His ideas on Russia would guarantee the revival of the Cold War. His mentions of the Iranian threat to Israel were all based on exaggerations of mistranslations. If this is "expertise" in US eyes, then I understand why the CIA had everything wrong in Iraq. Obama did not shine for his knowledge, but it was unclear whether that was to avoid making controversial statements. A revealing difference was that Obama put non-proliferation in a wider context; for McCain it was just a question of bullying Iran. As James Fallows so correctly notes, Obama showed strategic thinking, McCain showed short-term tactics. I was also disappointed to see that in the US today, apparently a foreign policy debate may concern only enemies and potential enemies. There was a time you included discussion of alliances, of friendly nonaligned countries, even of development aid. Ah well.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
According to CNN focus group McCain was condescending to Obama.
According David Gergen McCain lost in a way today because he needed a clear win which did not happen. So the winner is Obama.
Posted by Linda | September 26, 2008 10:58 PM