Solid performances by both men - in the sense that they both probably exceeded expectations in the political class (thus influencing the post-debate coverage).
Most relevant given that it was the first debate: no major gaffes from either side. No real verbal haymakers either, with the exception of McCain's comeback of "I don't even have a seal yet" when Obama oddly tried to hit McCain on the faux controversy of whether or not he would host the President Prime Minister of Spain at the White House.
Both sides got in some good lines and effective attacks, none widely memorable though. Obama did hit McCain hard on the claim that McCain = Bush economic policy = Satanic gruel for Americans. McCain roughed Obama up on non-Iraq foreign policy.
Visually there didn't seem any big takeaways (or fumbles in demeanor). McCain looked peevish at times while Obama spoke. Obama tried to talk-over McCain too often. Obama looked more enthused, and not so amazingly, a fit middle-aged man looks better on TV than an old guy with visible war injuries.
Mutual fumble: McCain accidentally referred to Iran's "Republican" Guard. Obama repeated the mistake. It's the "Revolutionary" Guard. The Republican Guard was a tool of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Strong points for McCain: talking bi-partisan record, waxing eloquent on spending, demonstrating his broad foreign policy understanding, ramming home his theme: "Senator Obama, you don't understand..."
Strong points for Obama: was better then political junkies expected off of the teleprompter, had his talking points and got them out well - pivoting often from the topic of the question to more preferred ground, was on message on his messages on the Bush economy and Iraq. Policy arguments aside, Obama looked competent to the low-information voter.
Weak points for McCain: all economic talk outside of spending. Prolonged talk on Iraq - I think independents just want the issue to go away now. Failed at times - especially on domestic policy - to debunk some of Obama's creative assertions on McCain's own positions.
Weak points for Obama: the bulk of the non-Iraq portion of the foreign policy exchange. Lack of specificity on all those areas he claims need reform domestically. The anti-Bush message has its uses, but several times the Independents on CNN's instant response dials (shown at the bottom of the screen throughout the debate) went south when Obama played partisan attack-dog rather than forward looking problem solver.
Moderator: Jim Lehrer seemed solid. He encouraged back and forth and his questions didn't suck. He could have actually made sure this was a foreign policy debate as advertised once he couldn't get much out of the candidates on the general topic of the financial sector deal pending in Congress. Speaking of which, the one question that seemed foolish was why was he asking them how they would vote on a piece of legislation that is still very much a controversial work in progress? Of course he wasn't going to get a straight answer on that.
To do for the next debates:
McCain - turn to Obama and look him in the eye and the appropriate time. Be more energetic at the start of the debate. Break out the middle class tax cut that the National Review keeps touting (explain how you'll help the average American). Be 100% ready to pound out answers on energy policy. Be 100% ready to take apart Obama's proposals on taxes and spending.
Obama - don't keep saying "I agree" to McCain. Classic debating error. Make long answers more coherent. Obama keeps breaking down multiple points and then fails to weave disparate talking points on the same topic together. It detracts from ramming home a theme in his answers. He didn't stutter or "um" as much as he's prone to (though what he did do might still surprise average voters not familiar with his non-teleprompter speech performances), but that could always be improved upon.
Short story: overall the debate seems like a wash, especially given the lack of lasting takeaways. Perhaps a modestly better night for Obama given that he appeared competent on the surface and many voters might have turned the channel from a boring debate before McCain ran up the score in the last half hour.
Wildcard: the reaction of lay voters can be very different than that of political junkies. So, what will they think?
Posted by Eric Earling at September 26, 2008 08:40 PM | Email ThisStart taking the pills, Barry...they can delay Alzheimer's by a few months, at least.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 26, 2008 08:49 PMI'd call it about a wash, although I thought at the end McCain did a pretty good job at getting the last word in and, while I'm admittedly a bit biased, I think he turned in a better performance than Obama. If he doesn't let Obama get him on the ropes about tax breaks with his pandering "95% plan" in the next debate, he could score some real points.
If he raises the capital gains tax by say 10%, and you sell a $100 or even $100,000 capital gain, you will be paying between $10 and $1000 more in taxes, even if for the whole year you only made the proceeds of that capital gain.
He is flat lying about the consequences of his tax policy, in the middle of a recession / depression.
He flat lying about this every time I hear him, are people really stupid enough to beleive his massive spending spree will not cost them all the way down the taxing chain?
Posted by: gs on September 26, 2008 09:07 PMNext, the VP debate! That should be delicious fun for both sides. Pure parlor games, though... it'll have even less of an impact.
Posted by: demo kid on September 26, 2008 09:12 PMThe VP debate should be very interesting. Seems like the consensus is that Palin will get blown out, as her interviews have not been exactly enlightening. The good part is that the bar is set low for her. Biden is unpredictable though and if she can call him on a gaffe or two, she'll be in the ball game.
Posted by: KS on September 26, 2008 09:31 PMMcCain also missed the opportunity to pin the Fannie/Freddie mess on Democrats who blocked reform. He has the advantage over Obama on earmarks and spending, but that was not the focus of the economy this week, and he spent too much time on that.
Posted by: Palouse on September 26, 2008 09:33 PM
That was cute quote, but it was a sound bite and nothing more. Meant just about as much as the Spain comment.
Posted by: demo kid on September 26, 2008 09:36 PMNot quite a tangent per se when McCain's comment about energy was factored in... but he did belabor the point a little too much.
Posted by: demo kid on September 26, 2008 09:39 PMEven then, I thought McCain missed an opportunity to point out how Obama was against off shore drilling before he was for it.
Posted by: Palouse on September 26, 2008 09:45 PMAnd what he doesn't want people to realize is that if you are single and earning something like $150k in a year, you will be hit with a tax increase. He's being deceptive with his "$250K" thing. He also deceived on 60 minutes when he said the tax rate he wants to increase will be lower than Ronald Reagan's tax rates. Flat-out untrue. Reagan cut the top rate from 70 (Carter's rate) to 28%. The current top rate is already higher than Reagan's at 36% and he wants to raise that. He deserves to be smacked for his deceptiveness. And why does he need to be deceptive? Is he ashamed of his plan?
and who was the last democrat candidate to claim he'd cut taxes for the middle class? Oh yah, Bill Clinton, who ditched that idea about the second his hand came off that Bible in January 1993. I don't believe Obama will cut anyone's taxes. Besides, he would let President Bush's tax cuts expire, so everyone WILL get a tax increase. Don't be fooled, people. Obama isn't interested in cutting anyone's taxes. He's a far-left fringe (come on--marxist, anti-american church and friends, and Saul Alinsky "community organizer"=radical socialist) candidate who got pushed to the front mostly by the superdelegates in his near-tie with Hillary. No to this character.
Posted by: Michele on September 26, 2008 09:54 PMBut, this debate struck me as being similar to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Particularly when it comes to the issues of this debate. A bankrupt nation doesn't typically have much standing in the world.
Posted by: BananaLand on September 26, 2008 10:40 PMIf Obama would just say he misspoke about preconditions, he might be more ethical. But no one will call him on it.
So he will "win" because he is suave. Great.
Posted by: janet s on September 26, 2008 10:49 PM@23: Figures. I think that he was crotchety and old and gruff and took a long time to warm up. But I can be evenhanded. You're nothing but a blind partisan, apparently.
Posted by: demo kid on September 26, 2008 11:00 PMIt looked to me like the difference between a real man and a teenager. I don't want a teenager POTUS, personally.
Posted by: Renee on September 26, 2008 11:33 PMBut I can be evenhanded. You're nothing but a blind partisan, apparently.
I'm still waiting for the Obamassiah to say what he'd give up to fund the $700 billion bailout. He talked about lots more spending, and even called John McCain to task when McCain said we should have a spending freeze, saying instead that lots of programs are underfunded.
So if he can't even identify what cuts are needed, can't even answer a question (Jim Lehrer was visibly perturbed) with a remotely related answer, how can you actually call it "close"?
Face it, when the Obamassiah is up by 2 points you guys crow about how it will be a blowout. For you to take a "it was close, a draw" position means you really are acknowledging the fact that of the 8 questions, McCain simply outgunned, outclassed and - dare I say - looked a LOT more Presidential than Obama on at least 7 of them.
Even the BBC calls it a McCain win. And the BBC is no champion of the Republican Party now, is it?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 26, 2008 11:54 PMPresident of the Government. The head of state is the King.
With the exception of France, where western European countries have a president, their function is mostly ceremonial.
But in English I've never heard the head of the Spanish government called the president. Zapatero and Aznar--the current and past PM's are referred to as PM.
That speaks to a rather despicable shallowness about soldiers and veterans... an "I'll say anything to win... even when I clearly don't mean it" kind of attitude.
Dovetails nicely with blowing off the wounded troops in the Landshtul military hospital so he could go play basketball at the Ritz-Carlton.
A little advice: Sen. OhDrama, if you really give a rat's ass about us, then you have to show it. And tonight, yet again, you failed.
Sigh.
Posted by: Hinton on September 27, 2008 12:09 AMTalk about worrying about the drop in the bucket!
Posted by: lysander on September 27, 2008 04:16 AMOverall I was mostly shocked that the Lamestream media was able to put forth a human being who conducted himself like a moderator and not a smarmy partisan attack dog. Although a "Chris Matthews" style Nutroots moderator would have helped McCain by being so overtly biased. Kudos to Jim Lehrer.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 27, 2008 05:38 AMMaybe this time, but I'm not holding my breath.
PS. Yes Obama did the ahhhh thing too many times.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 27, 2008 07:51 AMO-blah-blah seemed to have to try so hard to be passionate about fighting our enemies.
McCain is ready to lead in a dangerous world.
O-blah-blah simply is not. Good intentions will only carry him so far in this dangerous world. But O-blah-blah is "ARTICULATELY WRONG!" on many issues....like the surge.
In the end, voters have a clear choice..
McCain==Knowledgeable, experienced, passionate
versus
O-blah-blah==Good intentions, rookie, no deep-down passion
In 2000 and 2004, George Bush was heavily outgunned and outclassed John Kerry and Al Gore in terms of an understanding of the issues, speaking ability, and presidential attitude. The only thing he won on was his "folksy charm", and that was enough for a lot of people.
In this debate, I don't think that it was that one-sided, and Obama delivered a good performance. I wish that he would have landed more blows, though, and really hammered away at McCain at his weak spots. But McCain definitely had his own problems too, and ignoring those is just plain dishonest.
Figures that you can't get over your own biases...
Posted by: demo kid on September 27, 2008 09:00 AMI give McCain a sharp edge.
#36, I thought that comment was hilarious. Someone didn't do their homework.
I give McCain a sharp edge.
#36, I thought that comment was hilarious. Someone didn't do their homework.
In 2000 and 2004, George Bush was heavily outgunned and outclassed John Kerry and Al Gore in terms of an understanding of the issues, speaking ability, and presidential attitude. The only thing he won on was his "folksy charm", and that was enough for a lot of people.
And now we have come full circle. Your defense of the poor showing by Obama is that "well George Bush did poorly too!". So now you're comparing the oh-so-educated Barack Obama (by the way, where are his transcripts?) to dumb-as-a-doorknob George Bush.
Wow. Just wow. Think about what you did Slavery Party Kid. You're saying that Obama is no better - EQUAL - to George Bush, the man you and your fellow Slavers have derided for the last 8 years as a bumbling country rube. That is your defense.
Thanks, I will remember that!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 27, 2008 09:31 AMReagan cut the top rate from 70% to 50%. NOT 28%. We didn't see a 28% top rate until Bush I, and he had to RAISE taxes to help offset the massive deficit.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Anyway, the nation will soon decide. Virginia is now blue, and Obama is up by 5% nationwide. Given that the 18-34 vote is severely undercounted (since many don't use landlines), and breaks for Obama 70-30, this election might not even be close.
Voters now know that we can't trust GOP/Republican administrations with the economy. We know that historically, the economy ALWAYS does better under Democrats.
Slam dunk baby.
Posted by: Proteus on September 27, 2008 09:42 AMYou are really a piece of work; did you even LOOK at your own link, bozo?
Top tax rate in 1988 is 28% according to YOUR OWN LINK.
So rather than calling other people liars, how about you first learn to use your own data, or at least understand basic numbers. Hoisted on your own petard, methinks!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 27, 2008 10:05 AMAbsolutely not. What I'm saying is that it's interesting how Republicans have come full circle. First, you push forward someone who actually is a country rube about a lot of issues, and he's hailed as the best thing since sliced bread because of his charisma. Then, you nominate someone who can rattle off the former heads of the Soviet Union, and he's hailed as the best thing because he has experience, despite his gruff attitude and complete lack of charisma.
It's a double standard. Obama has strengths and weaknesses, just like McCain. This was not the slam dunk you thought it was, but if you are going to grade the candidates, stay consistent.
Posted by: demo kid on September 27, 2008 10:15 AMwww.LessEmotion.com
Posted by: Keith on September 27, 2008 10:56 AMThe reason why you don't see it is because you're an idiot that probably gets his news from the headlines of Fox News.
Sneaking through deserts: Spanish enclaves quiet after deaths
Rafts in waters (not shark-infested, but still dangerous): 12 die when dinghy capsizes off Albania
Sinking ships: Nauru to accept refugees Australia turned away
And, of course, many of the countries that receive these immigrants don't particularly like them either: Zimbabwe refugees flee South Africa as violence erupts
Immigration is a hot-button issue *everywhere*.
As far as foreign aid, we're well behind *many* other countries in terms of percent of GDP.
And who the hell are you to say that Obama isn't a proud American? Seriously. If you're not a proud American, why waste your time running for office? Liberal or conservative, if you don't really give a crap about your country or community, there are far better ways of spending your time.
Posted by: demo kid on September 27, 2008 01:49 PMI also thought he was stronger than Obama on Foreign Affairs, Wish he could of tied Obama/Dodd to the Financial scandal...
Posted by: Raylene on September 27, 2008 03:13 PM"As far as foreign aid, we're well behind *many* other countries in terms of percent of GDP"
Lets see. Our GDP multiplied by our percentage of aid equals ... ?
BILLIONS MORE!!!
If you are right (which I doubt) a smaller percentage of a bigger number is bigger than a larger percentage of a smaller number. You must have gone to a public school.
Posted by: Silkworm on September 27, 2008 05:28 PMhttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bears
and it's required under the Endangered Species Act. Cute comment by McCain, though.
@55: From 1992-2000, Japan was ahead of the United States in foreign aid in raw dollars, despite having a substantially smaller economy. Even with their economic problems, they have still placed high on that list.
Do you want sources?
Posted by: demo kid on September 27, 2008 05:53 PMI'd like to see him call Obama on the carpet about his ties with ACORN and William Ayers, but specifically ACORN. Furthermore, the Get out the vote by ACORN is an attempt to register as many voters illegal or not in a veiled attempt to steal this election. He has funded them $850,000 specifically for this reason. To my knowledge, no presidential candidate has ever made a grass roots campaign tied to committing voter fraud (the end justifies the means) in the name of winning - not even WJ Clinton.
Actually, the McCain campaign is very aware of this and it is time that the American people hear about this and they can do what they want. Of course if this were done, we would witness a valiant tap dancing effort by the The Obama-messiah turned Lucifer - once the disinfectant of light is shined on this grandiose scheme. If this were presented as such in the next debate, this would raise more than a few eyebrows and probably influence the polls/actual vote by say a few points.
Posted by: KS on September 27, 2008 09:52 PMHere's one link: http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance
Of course, this is also mostly under a Republican Congress, who controlled the purse strings. Not absolving Clinton of any responsibility, of course, but also need to give credit where credit is due.
Posted by: demo kid on September 27, 2008 10:02 PMAbsolutely not. What I'm saying is that it's interesting how Republicans have come full circle.
No, what is consistent are the fundamental beliefs of the Republican candidate. We judge the suitability of a candidate based upon their positions on fundamental principles and leadership skills, not the prestige of their college or the number of years as a community organizer.
Consistency counts for a lot - look at the issues between Obama and Biden; differ on the Iraq war, nuclear power, coal power, fitness of each candidate to BE a candidate, and many more. Each was a political pick only, trying to appease certain demographics. There is no consistency in your own candidates, which means there is no adherence to a a core set of principles other than win-at-all-costs-to-line-our-pockets.
Now counter the Republicans. A choice for basic principles and leadership skills. Eisenhower - a graduate of West Point. Reagan - a graduate of Eureka College. Both were strong leaders, neither had what most of the leftists would consider a "quality education". And both were inarguably VERY strong and effective leaders.
Leadership cannot be taught; it's in inherent inside a person. And based upon Obama and Biden's actions it is clear neither is a leader. They are followers and charlatans, but not leaders (when has either owned their gaffes, or actually accepted responsibility for their own failings?).
As far as foreign aid, we're well behind *many* other countries in terms of percent of GDP.
Slavery Party Kid, you really need to learn to think and research more than just reading the daily Marxist and Slaver talking points...
Regarding charitable giving; you're again being either deceptive on purpose (we call that lying), or you're ignorant of the facts.
If you look at official 'Government' giving, yes the US lags many. But that does not factor in the dominant source of US charity, private. Unheard of in most countries, personal charitable giving is massive in the US, being $300 BILLION in 2006, and typically climbing every year.
Factor in our personal giving and you'll find we lead the world. For example, in 2006 it is often claimed that Norway was the most charitable, because they gave 0.89% of their GDP as aid.
Compare that to the $300 billion in 2006 for the US. The GDP of the US in 2006 was $13.13 trillion. Do the math - that is 2.2% of our GDP, two and a half times GREATER than Norway.
The US is by far and away the most charitable nation in the world, no thanks to you Slavery Party hacks. Look no further than your own cheapskate Vice Presidential Nominee giving a pitiful 0.1% of his own income. That is because you Slavers believe that it should be Someone Else's Problem - not yours.
So we look at the facts, and you are proven wrong yet again. Meaning that you are either a liar or ignorant - which will it be today?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 28, 2008 03:48 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Posted by: Jim T. on September 28, 2008 08:02 PMA wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left.'
Ecclesiastes 10:2
Again, wrong. From the same article:
The biggest chunk of the money, $96.82 billion or 32.8 percent, goes to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $29.56 billion or 13.9 percent, goes to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries.
So you're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about FOREIGN aid and donations, and you're lumping in all possible donations, including domestic donations. That may be reasonable to you... but it's not accurate since both slices are better funded by European governments, and don't really have to rely on begging to get the funding they need.
This report provides a better perspective on foreign aid, adjusted for a number of different factors:
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/3646
and while the US may come out higher on an adjusted basis, we still are at the low end of the spectrum.
So yeah, try again. You lost that one.
And personally, I don't give a crap about what Biden does. I've donated to charities even when I haven't had a pot to pee in, as should most people. That's no substitute, however, for a real social safety net that doesn't rely on the capricious whims of donors that may get distracted by another worthy cause.
@64: Hey demo, not even close to debunking what I said.
Very close... unless you're just a partisan hack with no real interest in looking at the facts. Europe IS dealing with illegal immigration at the same scale as the US.
@65: Like I give a crap about a quote taken out of context from a extreme right-wing nutjob. Try again.
Posted by: demo kid on September 29, 2008 03:56 PMYou proved my point. In a Slavers mind, aid not given through a Government agency doesn't count. It's not your money being spent overseas, it's someone else's money.
And if it doesn't go to a Slaver's pet project, it's not "real charity", never mind the amazing amount of benefit and real world charitable results that come from religious organizations.
I've been to Haiti 3 times (Dessalines twice, Port-au-Prince once) to work for a CHURCH mission - I was a pharmacist for a medical team. All costs were donated from churches - we used it to buy the drugs. All doctors, nurses, and staff volunteered and paid their own way. In each case we saw over 4,000 patients in 20 days, and did innumerable other jobs (well repair, rebuilt generators, farming projects, etc).
NONE of that went through a Government agency. None of it "paid" for people to do the work. It was all private, RELIGIOUS giving. And we stretched dollars further than any Government slacker would ever think could be done.
But yes, let's ignore that giving because it was through "evil Religion" and not from the all-gracious State and thus should not count.
Bottom line - more money flows from the US in terms of charity than any other country. In absolute dollars and per capita giving. It's only when you axe out a large portion of the giving that you can game the numbers to knock the US down a few notches.
Of course, knocking down the US seems to be a favorite of you Marxist Slavery Party hacks... Look no further than Biden at 0.1%. Or Obama at under 2% for the 2000s.
Then look at what REAL Americans do - McCain coming in at over 20% average for the last several years. GWB giving over 10%. And on and on...
One side talks the walk, the other side walks the walk. You selfish, America-hating Slavers keep yakking away, let the adults do the real work...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 29, 2008 05:32 PM