Trent Steele wrote:Why is it that I enjoy Pat Buchanan more than any of the other idiots talking heads?

well I don't know about the debates but the "livestock, lipstick...." thread title will likely not be topped until at least year 2 of the Palin administration

Olbermann is awful.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:Why is it that I enjoy Pat Buchanan more than any of the other idiots talking heads?

When he's not being racist, he's really quite a perceptive guy.

He hates Neo cons as much as PtK.

And the best thing about PBS's coverage--it's over. There really is no reason to spend more than an hour on analysis of the debate.

drsmooth wrote:well I don't know about the debates but the "livestock, lipstick...." thread title will likely not be topped until at least year 2 of the Palin administration

Back she kos politikakke was pretty good though, no? omg please i need your acceptance

Woody wrote:

drsmooth wrote:well I don't know about the debates but the "livestock, lipstick...." thread title will likely not be topped until at least year 2 of the Palin administration

Back she kos politikakke was pretty good though, no? omg please i need your acceptance

I distinctly recall emitting a deep belly laugh at that particular heading, yes

and I am not condescending so much as an inch there - it stood on its merits and some I believe feel it may well have inspired its successor

KING OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!1

Trent Steele wrote:Why is it that I enjoy Pat Buchanan more than any of the other idiots talking heads?

Because he never breaks character

40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.

68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision
about the economy. 41% think McCain would.

49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.

- CBS snap poll that doesnt matter

Ok, just kind of scanning around now, and some people are making a big deal of McCain not looking Obama in the eye. Is this going to matter?

One good thing is so far, I haven't heard any, "well, McCain did ok considering he didn't prepare" crap. Unlike with Bush, there's no succeeding by overcoming low expectations here.

I also wonder if the fact that a number of people from the blue part of Indiana and the blue part of Pennsylvania and Tampa were likely watching baseball doesn't mute the impact of this debate some.

This was supposed to be a debate about foreign policy but there was no talk about the poverty and human rights situation in Africa.

TheDude24 wrote:This was supposed to be a debate about foreign policy but there was no talk about the poverty and human rights situation in Africa.

There's about 8 votes there, and none of them are in swing states.

I don't know why I always hope for more with these debates. It's so rare that something like this happens, where people pay attention. I'm just so disappointed.

Sound bytes, transparent talking points and speechifying. Dems don't grab the bull by the balls. No direct answers to questions.

Overall, if I was forced to rate the debate like a contest, a sporting event, I'd say it was pretty even. They each have a style that works for a segment of the populace. They each know how to handle the cameras and microphones. Very few stumbles by either. But Obama, like Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis before him -- still didn't get down and dirty and call the Republicans out on their brutally failed policies -- and when McCain talks about greed, where is the Keating 5, where is the voted for the policies of deregulation, and STILL asking for tax breaks for wealthy, that got us in to this situation.

Very little substance.

I think that anyone claiming a clear win or loss for either candidate tonight is out of their mind. Both were pretty professional and neither disrespected, condecended, or acted like a jerk. Obama had the presidential thing down, McCain had the details down and opened himself up by bring up "details". It was a pretty good draw and both candidates looked good in the end, IMO.

I did find myself yelling "DETAILS?" to both candidates at different times.

VoxOrion wrote:I think that anyone claiming a clear win or loss for either candidate tonight is out of their mind. Both were pretty professional and neither disrespected, condecended, or acted like a jerk. Obama had the presidential thing down, McCain had the details down and opened himself up by bring up "details". It was a pretty good draw and both candidates looked good in the end, IMO.

I did find myself yelling "DETAILS?" to both candidates at different times.

Good analysis, Vox. Agreed.

Obama by a landslide

I just watched a chunk of it on the rebroadcast. I agree with the consensus that neither of them clearly "won" the debate, in terms of changing the minds of large numbers of voters either way. They both looked and sounded well informed, competent, more or less rational, etc.

What I did notice, from my admittedly biased perspective, was a difference in how they approached the questions, which seems like a decent proxy for "how they think."

Obama takes an analytical, systemic approach: if you're concerned about the budget, look at how my policies around taxes and expenditures are going to move the numbers, and how it's going to affect you personally. And when you're thinking about Iraq, keep in mind how we got there and whether we should ever have started the war, and consider who had the right judgment then and who would have the right judgment next time.

McCain goes much more for the gut. He tried to make his (implied) big arguments through little examples: how Obama's requesting earmarks as a Senator destroys his whole credibility as a foe of irresponsible spending, or that McCain's endless inveighing against earmarks shows his own fiscal prudence. On Iraq, he leaves you with the emotional hit of seeing a couple hundred military personnel re-enlist, asking the country to "let us win." He's a little blurry on what "letting them win" specifically would entail, though more compelling when he sets out the consequences of failure--which he obviously thinks is more important to avoid than anything else. (To some extent, I think he defines "winning" as "not losing," which is certainly defensible.)

I want a rational decision-maker as president above all else. Obama I think came across as more rational. Maybe that's only to me, because I agree with him on more of the specifics. But that was my impression of both candidates from a process standpoint.

Only other reaction of note was that even after all the ugly and silly stuff in this campaign, it just feels good to see in McCain a national Republican leader who doesn't inspire in me the total disbelief and disgust that Bush did, and still does. He doesn't make me think, "how the hell did this fucking simpleton even make it up there, and what does it say about the country that he did?"

Though I'm thinking Palin will fill that void next week.

I'm a big fan of MSNBC's interpretation of Obama's saying "John is right.." - somethign to the effect of - "that's the kind of guy Obama is, he starts nice and agrees then..."

Awful, awful spin. That's as shameful as the Fox News poll that shows that EIGHT TWO PERCENT of viewers percieve a McCain win. I mean, the 60/32 thing in Obama's favor on CNN seemed overly favorable to Obama - but EIGHTY TWO FREAKING PERCENT?!?!?

Anyway, I think the thing MSNBC did was lamer and funnier - and this is coming from a guy who's expecting an Obama win this week (cause two weeks ago I couldn't see McCain losing and three months before that I couldn't see Obama losing, etc).

huh :?:

Bucky wrote:huh :?:

Shut it.