• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Second Pres Debate: Who Won?

They were both terrible. At least a dozen times I wanted to shout to both of them, "Answer the damn question!"

About their talking points (which had nothing to do with the questions), Obama had a slight advantage.

As I predicted, neither one of them reprised their attack ads.

McCain looked old. Real old. Obama looked resolute and fit. Shallow observation, yes, but we know how deep the American electorate is.
 
Why does McCain still insist on characterizing Obama's answer to crossing into Pakistan to pursue OBL or Al Qaeda as "invading" or "attacking" Pakistan? And why does he say it is telling the enemy what you plan to do? (Oh yeah--when he answers the same question, doesn't he do the same thing?)

It seems nonsensical.

The only valid point is not a question of a difference of policy (that is, the information the questioner wanted) but his criticism about responsible speech. If that's true, Obama's calling attention to McCain wanting to extinct North Korea and singing "Bomb bomb Iran" definitely wins that debate.

Otherwise. . . someone should coach Obama not to say "and" so much (like as filler while forming his next sentence). Once I started hearing it, it was very distracting.
 
Oh yeah--I mentioned this elsewhere: I really miss the way Bill Clinton would answer a yes/no question. He'd say, "Yes [or no] and let me tell you why" in one breath.

No one could take the question and answer out of context without it being obvious that they were doing so, yet it had the satisfaction of feeling like the guy could actually give a straight answer.
 
Tricky said:
They were both terrible. At least a dozen times I wanted to shout to both of them, "Answer the damn question!"
Click to expand...


I also noticed this. I think it's one reason why modern debates don't really affect things all that much - the politicians have figured out how to work the system, so to speak.

The only way that I can really see a debate making a big difference is with major gaffes or stupendous put-downs (Reagan's "There you go again!" comes to mind)

About their talking points (which had nothing to do with the questions), Obama had a slight advantage.
Click to expand...


Agreed. But then I'm a fan of his talking points. :D

As I predicted, neither one of them reprised their attack ads.
Click to expand...


A smart move by both men. The fact that McCain "didn't go there" tonight shows me that perhaps he's a bit concerned about his recent ultra-negative turn. I think he's worried that it could be backfiring on him.

McCain looked old. Real old. Obama looked resolute and fit. Shallow observation, yes, but we know how deep the American electorate is.
Click to expand...


McCain always looks old standing next to Obama. He's nearly 30 years Obama's senior!
 
Last edited:
I think the problem is, Obama is for all the things McCain for. McCain doesn't have an issue to hammer him with right now. Drilling? Fine. Nuclear? Fine. Kick foreign countries' butts? Fine.

The candidates used the phrase "fundamental differences" the entire debate and showed very few.

If you have your choice between basically similar candidates, you will pick the one less attached to Bush is my guess. Obama is basically trying to lock up the independent vote through these debates.
 
I am an Obama supporter, I can't get over my own bias 100% and I freely admit that. I think Obama was better but again, I am biased.

The funny thing is I DO think McCain was better this time BUT McCain sees these the town hall debate formats as his bread and butter but I think it completely hurts him. I feel he would have been much better at the other debate if he wasn't so condescending. I think the only reason he was better this time is because he wasn't displaying complete contempt for Obama. It didn't have anything to do with the style of the debate.

I know, he is an older guy and he lived through a lot in Vietnam and that effects his mobility. That said, he looks stuff (because he is) and I think that effects his "likability" while he is up and walking around.

My girlfriend / parter said that when he says "my friends" with his body language it almost seems like an attack, almost too forceful. I think this is a really bad format for McCain.
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
with both candidates awash in mediocrity.

I don't know who won, but the American voter wanting to know if there was anything more about the two major party candidates besides soundbites was certainly the loser.
Click to expand...
Which is why I went to play golf, and get hammered afterwards, rather than watch that tripe.

Life -- it isn't for watching horsecrap dry under the heat of TV cameras and stage lights.

DR
 
Last edited:
I'd go as far as to call this debate "boring."

No new positions, possibly excepting McCain hocking a buy-out of bad mortgages. (From a Republican? Huh?) No scintillating new insights. Not even any sharp attacks. Just more of the same, and a slow slide into negativity.

Therefore, Obama won. McCain has to change the momentum of this contest. I don't think he even tried. Does he have something up his sleeve, or has he given up?
 
:p
Tricky said:
McCain looked old. Real old. Obama looked resolute and fit. Shallow observation, yes, but we know how deep the American electorate is.
Click to expand...
Nice bit of age discrimination there, old man. :p

Try the Profiles in Courage test on both candidates.

Which one has a record of voting against his, or not with his, party?

Think about it.

Of course, none of that explains the hot librarian appeal from the Frozen Tundra, other than standard Britney infested America pop media. Then again, who the hell do you think is putting on this show?

The American media. It's done for their ratings, not for you, dear fellow voter. They are trying to entertain you and sell soap. Looks like a few more data points proving PT Barnum right.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
I also noticed this. I think it's one reason why modern debates don't really affect things all that much - the politicians have figured out how to work the system, so to speak.

The only way that I can really see a debate making a big difference is with major gaffes or stupendous put-downs (Reagan's "There you go again!" comes to mind)
Click to expand...

Well, the two parties are "the system" so it's no surprise that it works to protect the candidates from those nasty voters actually getting their questions answered.

It's like they're both (all--counting the VPs) trying so hard to be everything to everyone that they're afraid of actually answering questions that might make them something to someone!
 
Halperin's grades

McCain spent much of the evening trying to define Obama on his terms, but never broke all the way through.

First 30 minutes focused on the economic crisis. Other issues included foreign policy, health care, energy and more.

Mark Halperin’s grades:

Obama: B+
McCain: B
Click to expand...
 
R.Mackey said:
Therefore, Obama won. McCain has to change the momentum of this contest. I don't think he even tried. Does he have something up his sleeve, or has he given up?
Click to expand...
Since the GOP has already thrown him under the bus, why should he care? I say he bangs Eskimo Nell, to attract the middle of the road democrat vote, pulling the WJ Clinton empathy for a hardon card.

Hell, it might work. It has more dignity than playing the race card, the age card, the experience card, the hope card, the POW card, or the supermom card.

Is this a great country, or what?

*stuff in ear plugs to mute the thunderous reply of "what" from the usual suspects . . . *
 
Last edited:
One thing that annoys me about so many of the debates and also the campaigns is the point about bringing up the voting record without context. When you say "so and so voted against lunches for poor kids" then you ignore the fact that congressional bills don't vote for a single thing like school lunches. They cover many, maybe over a hundred things. The fact that some altruistic points are eliminated if a big budget buster bill is defeated is not relevant. Because both candidates were Senators, they both have the same kind of ammunition and in both cases they are shooting blanks while simultaneously being targets.

The fact is, most Americans don't understand how Congress works, so they buy the sound bytes about how so-and-so voted against such-and-such. The overall picture is hard for them to grasp, as well as the fact that it is a movie, not a snapshot.

Debates like this make me more cynical than anything. I probably shouldn't watch them.
 
Tricky said:
Debates like this make me more cynical than anything. I probably shouldn't watch them.
Click to expand...
Fifty seven channels, and nothing on. That is why we have The Golf Channel: for when you want the TV on but don't really want to watch anything. Don't give the bastards the satisfaction by watching that rubbish they call "debates" during an election year.

DR
 
Obama came across as relaxed and poised, whereas McCain came across as angry,spiteful and downright nasty: "that one!" that shabby reference to Obama WILL get plenty of play on the next SNL! Also McCain referring to "Obama & his cronies"-- if THAT is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what would be a better example.
I think the mentally-arthitic candidate looked & sounded less than presidential tonight, and Brokaw should have shouted at both of them when they went over their alloted time limit, especially McCain talking for over 2 minutes during one of his 1 minute time limit "rebuttals"....It weren't no draw, no Sirree!
 
not_so_new said:
I am an Obama supporter, I can't get over my own bias 100% and I freely admit that.
Click to expand...
I also find that I simply cannot be objective here. That anyone could listen to what those two men said tonight and conclude that McCain had "won" in any sense of the word -- or that it was even close -- is completely incomprehensible to me. I suppose if he had been more successful in his usual attempts to misrepresent Obama's position I might have conceded that he had "won", but he doesn't do so well at that when Obama is there to straighten things out. I am also very reluctant to allow that anyone else could be any more objective about this than I can, unless that person was previously undecided on his or her choice of candidate. That anyone could still remain undecided at this point is something I find just as incomprehensible.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Fifty seven channels, and nothing on. That is why we have The Golf Channel: for when you want the TV on but don't really want to watch anything. Don't give the bastards the satisfaction by watching that rubbish they call "debates" during an election year.

DR
Click to expand...

I had no choice. I couldn't let Ms. Tricky think I was shallow.
 
I watched the first 15 minutes before I couldn't stand that **** any longer. Neither one of them answered the questions. In keeping with that style.

Our elections are ****ed up.
Gerrymandering -- packing, stacking and cracking -- has resulted in many non-competitive seats for the House. Politicians choosing voters rather than voters choosing their legislators.
The Electoral College is an undemocratic institution.
The Senate is an even more undemocratic institution.
The Presidential election starts too damn early and goes on for too damn long.
The way campaigns are financed is ********.
We have a B.S. two party system.
The "special commission" and these debates are a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom