You just don't want to accept the fact that you're candidate came off as condescending and stiff. These debates are often not judged by the content of the arguments made by the candidates, but how the candidate comes across. Obama came across as dignified and presidential and McCain came across as condescending, stiff, and disrespectful. I've talked to various uncommitted (now committed) voters who were put off by McCain. He just came across as an ass.

 

McCain backs the bailout boondoggle, as a result I no longer have a candidate. I thought McCain came accross as aggressive and I though Obama handled that very well, but was unable to go on the offensive.

 

I think that sounds pretty accurate. That's how I saw it. I think it was alright for Obama not to go on the offensive since McCain made himself look bad on his own. Then again, he could have called him out more, so I agree. Also, this was supposed to be McCain's debate - foreign policy is his area of expertise. Although he repeatedly said "Senator Obama just doesn't understand" or "Senator Obama is naive", Senator Obama seemed very knowledgeable about foreign affairs. I think that line of attack against Senator Obama seemed empty to undecided voters who were really paying attention.

 

Half of this debate was on the economy, and Obama is naive in the same way that many young well-intentioned leftists are naive.

 

Honestly, I thought the part of the debate on the economy was pretty close (maybe won by McCain), but I thought Obama romped McCain on foreign affairs.

I find ironic all of these condescending talk, when Obama accused the other candidate of being too old and out of touch because he didn't know how to send an e-mail

 

I think that's different than belittling someone's supposed "knowledge" and it is different to do it in the context of a debate. I think you have to be more respectful in this kind of environment. Of all people, I'd expect you to agree with that. But I guess you agree only when it suits you.

 

Where did I say that McCain wasn't condescending last night? However, it is being blown out of proportion.

 

"But I guess you agree only when it suits you." --- don't project yourself on me

Honestly, I thought the part of the debate on the economy was pretty close (maybe won by McCain), but I thought Obama romped McCain on foreign affairs.

 

It is likely that you thought Obama romped on foreign affairs because you happen to be part of his base.

 

I though Obama was either horribly mistaken or outright lying about the order of events regarding North Korea.

 

I also though McCain cleaned his clock on Iraq. Obama stays with the 'never should have been there in the first place' line, which I guess works for him with his base but the rest of us understand that we are no longer in the first place and all that matters is what we do from now on.

 

I think Obama made some ground on Afghanistan, because we should focus more effort there.

 

As for Russia, I don't think either one has a clue on how to handle what is a Clinton era mess and the NATO expansion positions clearly show it. NATO is a military alliance and the Russians shouldn't like it expanding to surround them.

 

I don't think either one of them has a good idea on how to handle Iran. We cannot invade them unless they act overtly against us, and we certainly can't have them over for tea. I thought this was the only place that McCain seemed trite, he actually said 'oh please' which is hardly a reasoned argument. I wonder why nobody just talks about a quid pro quo approach with the Iranians.

my humble view:

 

I don't think any of the debates would change the most probable outcome of the election. I think McCain is finished; the spectacle of cancelling the campaign last week and heading to Washington was a risky move that destroyed an already damaged campaign. I don't see any potential scenario where McCain would look good.

 

I feel that what is to be decided is if Obama will win a close election or a landslide. I think the second is more probable.

my humble view:

 

I don't think any of the debates would change the most probable outcome of the election. I think McCain is finished; the spectacle of cancelling the campaign last week and heading to Washington was a risky move that destroyed an already damaged campaign. I don't see any potential scenario where McCain would look good.

 

I feel that what is to be decided is if Obama will win a close election or a landslide. I think the second is more probable.

 

I am increasingly of the belief that he will win in a landslide, given the trends we're seeing. McCain did nothing to stop the bleeding with his debate performance. In my view, Biden is probably going to massacre Palin, and not because he's such a great debater, but because Palin will probably be painfully bad. I think after next week we'll start seeing Obama open up a big lead.

 

The fact that McCain is playing defense in states that always go red - Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and, to a lesser extent, Florida - speaks volumes. The polling recently uniformly show Obama either ahead or tied in Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina. Colorado is starting to be a solid state for McCain. Virginia appears to be slipping away for McCain as well. Obama is surging big time in North Carolina. Two swing states from the last election are basically out of reach for him now - Obama holds commanding leads in Iowa and New Mexico. According to Rasmussen (somewhat right leaning pollster), Florida is a dead heat.

 

The only way McCain can win this election is with a game-changer. He debated Obama last night on his turf and he did not win the debate. Time is ticking for him. Maybe Bush can raise the terrorist alert just before the election. Even that won't really work, though.

Btw, I know it's easy to judge in hindsight, but I think the Republicans would have been better off with Mitt Romney. Mitt is much sharper and also comes across as more presidential. Obama looked better than McCain last night.

btw, what are the ratings for the debate last night? How many watched?

But you don't say that in a debate. You let the viewer make that conclusion on his or her own.

 

Whenever I have an argument with someone over issues, I don't say, "no, you're wrong, you're just naive!" That shows weakness. You show naivete through the use of strong facts and arguments.

I will agree with this.

 

While this is indeed condescending, it is also a fallacious form of discourse that weakens any form of argument. This absolutely hurts my perceptions of how McCain sees the issues (I will admit that my perceptions were already infinitely low).

 

Obama also made the poor decision in at least one instance of claiming to divert his foreign policy 'knowledge' to Biden, which is a disaster on many levels (mainly because Biden is a zionist war-mongerer).

 

I love how you think merely liking Israel is a bad thing. You and all the other Paul-bots. And you wonder why he didn't get more votes. Because he may be right on one thing, but alienates a whole bunch of people on another. And if he attracts people based on that next thing, he alienates a whole bunch more people on another thing.

btw, what are the ratings for the debate last night? How many watched?

 

Not sure. They were expecting over 80 million.

I read somewhere it was about 50 million last night but not sure.

Not much, then. I think Friday night is a bad night to hold a debate. The middle of the week is better.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/09/debate-ratings.html

 

 

ratings appear to be less than bush vs kerry

Btw, I know it's easy to judge in hindsight, but I think the Republicans would have been better off with Mitt Romney. Mitt is much sharper and also comes across as more presidential. Obama looked better than McCain last night.

No way.

 

His pretty boy personality turns off a lot of the carbon blobs (and he is too much of a panderer to get the support of thinking individuals).

 

If anything, the Republicans would have been better off with Huckabee.

I think that is why Huckabee has publicly opposed almost everything McCain did over the last few weeks. I think Huckabee is looking at 4 years from now. I also think he will be the front runner.

 

The way I look at it, both Clinton and Huckabee want their party to lose this election. It will make it much easier for them in 4 years. I see nothing good happening in the next four years. If McCain wins I think he will be the Franklin Pierce of our time. A bad leader and a person 90% of americans never heard of. Obama I can't think off of the top of my head who he would compare to, but I think he will be more than disliked if he increases spending and we continue to have a regression and see inflation.

Btw, I know it's easy to judge in hindsight, but I think the Republicans would have been better off with Mitt Romney. Mitt is much sharper and also comes across as more presidential. Obama looked better than McCain last night.

No way.

 

His pretty boy personality turns off a lot of the carbon blobs (and he is too much of a panderer to get the support of thinking individuals).

 

If anything, the Republicans would have been better off with Huckabee.

I think that is why Huckabee has publicly opposed almost everything McCain did over the last few weeks. I think Huckabee is looking at 4 years from now. I also think he will be the front runner.

 

The way I look at it, both Clinton and Huckabee want their party to lose this election. It will make it much easier for them in 4 years. I see nothing good happening in the next four years. If McCain wins I think he will be the Franklin Pierce of our time. A bad leader and a person 90% of americans never heard of. Obama I can't think off of the top of my head who he would compare to, but I think he will be more than disliked if he increases spending and we continue to have a regression and see inflation.

I think Huckabee is no longer part of the McCain campaign since now he is on Fox News with his own show. He will have to be 'non-partisan', even tho we know where his allegiances are.

Btw, I know it's easy to judge in hindsight, but I think the Republicans would have been better off with Mitt Romney. Mitt is much sharper and also comes across as more presidential. Obama looked better than McCain last night.

No way.

 

His pretty boy personality turns off a lot of the carbon blobs (and he is too much of a panderer to get the support of thinking individuals).

 

If anything, the Republicans would have been better off with Huckabee.

I think that is why Huckabee has publicly opposed almost everything McCain did over the last few weeks. I think Huckabee is looking at 4 years from now. I also think he will be the front runner.

 

The way I look at it, both Clinton and Huckabee want their party to lose this election. It will make it much easier for them in 4 years. I see nothing good happening in the next four years. If McCain wins I think he will be the Franklin Pierce of our time. A bad leader and a person 90% of americans never heard of. Obama I can't think off of the top of my head who he would compare to, but I think he will be more than disliked if he increases spending and we continue to have a regression and see inflation.

I think Huckabee is no longer part of the McCain campaign since now he is on Fox News with his own show. He will have to be 'non-partisan', even tho we know where his allegiances are.

 

But even before his show on Fox News, which is on now for the first time, he has tried to drift himself away and even push back against McCain a little.

Depending on how she performs in her debate, I consider Palin to be the leading candidate for the republicans in 2004 if Obama wins. If McCain wins, I think its Palin regardless. She is simply way too popular with the base.

Depending on how she performs in her debate, I consider Palin to be the leading candidate for the republicans in 2004 if Obama wins. If McCain wins, I think its Palin regardless. She is simply way too popular with the base.

I think you meant 2012.

 

I don't think that there is any chance that Palin could realistically win a Presidential nomination. Not unless she takes over for someone like Ted Stevens in the Senate, and waits until 2020, when she would have spent some time in the Senate. Not very likely.

 

Huckabee is very similar to Palin, although he is even further to the right than her socially. He has said on several occasions that he wants to change the Constitution to eliminate the clause separating church and state, something that would change this country forever, and not in a good way. We're the United States of America, not the Theocracy of America Under God.

Depending on how she performs in her debate, I consider Palin to be the leading candidate for the republicans in 2004 if Obama wins. If McCain wins, I think its Palin regardless. She is simply way too popular with the base.

I think you meant 2012.

 

I don't think that there is any chance that Palin could realistically win a Presidential nomination. Not unless she takes over for someone like Ted Stevens in the Senate, and waits until 2020, when she would have spent some time in the Senate. Not very likely.

 

Huckabee is very similar to Palin, although he is even further to the right than her socially. He has said on several occasions that he wants to change the Constitution to eliminate the clause separating church and state, something that would change this country forever, and not in a good way. We're the United States of America, not the Theocracy of America Under God.

He has never said that, I hate how people twist Huckabee words. Look at how he ran Arkansas, Church and State were seperate. He actually saved and made Arkansas one of the best states in the country.

 

There are things to attack Huckabee for, but its not church and state. Example #1 He said the people with AIDS should be punished. This was back in the mid 90's but it was still said. I think people take his southern baptism too much into consideration.

 

Listen to Huckabee speak, he is right leaning but I think he appeals to a lot of America. He is very much a relatable and likable person. He honestly reminds me of another Clinton personality wise. He easily can draw the masses in if you give him the national stage that is needed to do so. He hardly spent any money and gave people a run for their money, because he talks to people and people embrace him a la Clinton. It must be in that Hope, Arkansas water.

Explain to me why not believing that Israel is worth an American life or dollar is a 'bad thing.'

 

You seem to be insinuating like several of the ignorant posters here that this is an issue of anti-Semitism. Our government should not be in the business of fulfilling the wishes of the AIPAC lobby and jeopardizing the national security of our own people by relentlessly supporting both Israeli and Saudi governments within the Muslim world.

 

I have no idea what you mean by "liking Israel" but if you are referring to foreign aid and pledged defense (entangling alliance) then it most certainly is a "bad thing" as you say.

 

I hope that Israel prospers but not at the expense of our nation.

 

You said "zionist war-monger". Burden is on you to define that. But then again, from all your other posts, I have already figured out what you're going to insinuate: that Israel should be your sacraficial lamb to your oil gods (or rather demons), and that anything in the way of that, even is considered "war-mongering", even self-defense against said demons.

 

Anyways, you've already showed your stupidity by saying that AIPAC wants the US to support the Saudi dictatorship. Case closed.