McCain Wins the Debate

Obama was smirking like George Bush. We can't have more of the same... we need change.  

I completely disagree.  McCain showed how out of touch his is with America on a world stage.  He can talk about experience in foreign policy all he wants, but Obama spoke directly about what we need to do, and what he will do, to expand our foreign policy and get us moving in the right direction.

McCain wasn't using talking points??  That lamentation for the positive or negative segments being said on either side of the issues is quite useless.  They both had talking points to emphasize... it's how they bring people to their side.

I would say it was a tie--I like them both but neither had a grand slam.  One thing I noticed, though, was that as a whole--they both did much better than Bush & Kerry or Gore.

Marv

I think Obama said it best....repeatedly.....

"You're absolutely right John. "

"I have to agree with John"

I wonder if he agrees that McCain won the debate? 

McCain looked and sounded much more Presidential than Obama did.

Did any notice how thin and gaunt Obama looked?  I didn't think he looked that good.  Or is it just me? 

I'm still not planning to vote for either of the two, but I've got to comment on this: Obama needs to realize that second-guessing the initial invasion of Iraq is not a plan. Several times when asked about his strategy, he just went on about how it was a bad idea to start. That's not going to help get anywhere.

Rat! I only managed to cath bits of it. But it was quite fun to watch.

I dunno about won. Maybe in this grandscale mudslinging match Obama wasn't throwing as much McCain?

But I only managed to watch a few bits on the War, healthcare and taxcuts. I missed the rest

Anyone know where I can watch the debate again? I want to watch it again later. more slowly and examine points a bit more (on that funky thing called the interweb that is )

I was kind of disappointed with their answers on international affairs. When it came to Russia, it was like a pissing contest on who could appear tougher than the other: what was said was so dumbed down it was appalling. The US has been pushing for former soviet republics to join NATO, you bet Russia was going to strike back. And with Irak and the Balkans, good luck arguing with Russia about international law (“Oh, the UN. The same UN you said was useless and corrupt?”).

Obama tried to get a little bit away from the tough guy posturing, but all he could do was utter more generalities. All in all, a big disappointment.

I don't think there was a clear winner...no one really knocked it out of the park in my opinion.

I think the part I enjoyed most was how they avoided eye contact with each other for the first bit and didn't really want to talk to each other.

~Zoo

I missed it. Was at a High School Football game and forgot to set satellite box to record. I'm sure I didn't miss much. Same old talking points, things we already know about both candidates and most likely Obama trying to seem as if he has alll the answers while saying McCain is correct at the same time. Right?

What debate did you watch last night?  You've got to be so blinded by bias for you to believe McCain won.

Obama certainly didn't 'knock it out of the park' but at least he didn't get lost in his own muddled answers.  I felt embarressed for McCain, who did come across as creaky and, maybe, unprepared. Obama simply won by default.

The real winner last night was Jim Lehrer who did every American citizen a public service by saying this:

But if I hear the two of you correctly neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you're saying?

Great point, Divination. I was actually becoming upset listening to them ramble about how they would try to save money instead of answering the question of what programs might you have to cut/postpone in lieu of this financial bailout proposition.  It took so long to even drag a reasonable response out of either of them, and, still, they weren't clear or concise.  As the candidates, they should know which among their plans is the most important for them to focus on and which ones might need to get put on the back-burner in event of a fiscal calamity.

Thanks, and I agree with you, they were not direct or clear and did more dancing around the question then any thing else.

Do they actually have any serious thought out solutions to our nations ills or do they both 'just wanna' be President'?

Marv,

A few questions for my own curiousity.

1. Are you American
2. Have you voted before, and if so for whom?
3. Do you care who wins this time?

I am trying to get a good unbiased view, and so far, you are the only one that I do not know how they think before the debate.

Well if McCain wins (looking less likely based on the polls but still a possibility) I can't see the K...G...B comment doing much to enhance relations with Russia when he next meets Putin!

A Hugh Hewitt reader got it right... It was like watching the master schooling young Grasshopper.

 As a Republican I was ashamed at the way that McCain turned a debate into a set of personal attacks and falsifications (see NPR.com for fact checking of the debate and the quote from Kissinger stating exactly what Obama said he did about negotiations). I was disappointed about his address of economical issues. He seemed to get stuck on earmarks and couldn’t get off it. I am wondering if he really has a plan. I like that he has military experience, but I wonder if it will limit his creativity in using other methods. His whole life has been military. He may make a good Secretary of Defense, but can he build relationships and alliances with other countries? He seems to be pretty set on winning at any cost( anyone seen the show Lions for Lambs). I fear that he parrots Bush in his belief that the rest of the world is inferior to the U.S.. I am proud to be an American, but I don’t believe in the bully philosophy that Bush has adopted. I am terrified that he will die and Palin will have to step into the role of president and if you want to talk about inexperience and not understanding. According to actuary tables there is a 1 in 3 chance that that could happen. He showed a lack of class and good sportsmanship in his refusal to address Obama directly and treated him as an enemy (last I checked we are all on the same side here). I found his remarks about Obama “Just not understanding” condescending and clearly untrue. I think anyone who is honestly evaluating the candidates would agree that based on the debate Obama certainly has a very good understanding. They may not agree with his strategy, but understand of the world doesn’t seem to be a problem for him. I have to say that I think it was a draw. McCain has more experience in military issues and time in congress, but Obama has a very clear understanding and intelligence about what we need.

I think what he meant to show by doing that is that he had the forethought to lead our contry differently than Bush chose. If he had been president then instead of Bush his focus would not have been distracted with Iraq. He was making a point that he would have chosen differently than McCain and Bush had. It is an important distinction because he will be making future choices on what to engage in if he is president.

. Marv KFC Kickin For Christ Wrote: On Sep 26, 2008 Reply Quote I think Obama said it best....repeatedly..... "You're absolutely right John. " "I have to agree with John" I wonder if he agrees that McCain won the debate? McCain looked and sounded much more Presidential than Obama did. Did any notice how thin and gaunt Obama looked? I didn't think he looked that good. Or is it just me?[/quote]

It is interesting that many people feel that agreeing with someone is a weakness. I like the fact that Obama can look at all sides of the issue and if he agrees he doesn't let his pride interfere with saying it. It shows open mindedness and a willingness to gather information and logic to form strategy. There is something very right about a candidate that gets up and really talks (even if that means saying he agrees if he does) and having a debate. A good leader knows that there is wisdom to be found anywhere and they aren't afraid to have a discussion about issues. They treat there oppobebts with respect instead of tryig to convice the people that the other opponent doesn't have a clue when its obvious he does. Let's be clear it doesn't take someone who has been in war to lead a war. It takes someone who can gather information, surround himself with good people and not be ashamed to explore all sides.

I finally got a copy of the debate and will check it out tonight and give my opinion then.

BTW, I have seen very few, if any, of the media disecting the debate so I guess you can say I have not been influenced by their comments.

Kurtin posts #2

Obama did a great job pushing his brand of far out liberalism....bring the government in throw more tax payer money at failing entities..... 

Even knowing the taxpayers are going to be further burdened with some kind of Wall Street bailout, Obama STILL wants his $800 million in NEW spending. When asked what he'd cut...he answered "what we need to do" is throw new money (19 Billion) at federal education...he wants 10 Billion to expand "early education"....he wants our 4 year olds in school, a longer school day and double spending on after school programs....nothing there about teaching to read and passing basic math...

Obama's all for choice, just not when it comes to allowing parents to choose of schools.

JohnReed posts:

ENOUGH of this nonsense....I saw Fox News and heard former Sec. of State, Henry Kissinger say that he never said what Obama claimed he said. Kissinger said Obama was wrong and he agreed with McCain's position that it's both naive and dangerous for Presidents to speak with rogue dictators without pre-conditions.

All of that money to the schools sounds wonderful to me, Lula!  Priority check!  Help America where we need growth, or hold back on beneficial spending...I pick the former.

JohnReed posts #18

Well, that's just it..... Obama is full of pride....take the issue of during the primaries.... in order to separate himself from what Hillary said she would have done, Obama said that as president he'd meet with dictators without pre-conditions. They bagged him on this point and being too proud to back down, or admit he made an error, it has now become his mantra; his personal doctrine of policy. Mybe you do, but I don't want the next president to speak to tyrants without pre-conditions. It's exactly as McCain said, it's naive and dangerous, and I'll add prideful and stupid.

On this, Obama was wrong then, and was wrong at the debate and still is too proud to say he is wrong about it today...IMO,  this indicates a very bad character trait.

Lula, no Republican would check facts at NPR. Only a far out left winger would do such a thing. (I can swear I hear toccata fugue D minor).