Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Debate scorecard
Play the part of political pundit and score tonight’s debate between John McCain and Barack Obama from the comfort of your own home.
On a scale of one to five, rate each candidate’s performance in the following areas:
Appeal to undecided voters (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Appeal to party base (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Zingers and quips (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Poise (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Command of subject matter (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Appearing presidential (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Now deduct points for the following:
Gaffes/factual errors (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Bad jokes (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Failure to answer questions (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Needless attacks (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Losing his cool (McCain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ) (Obama 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 )
Get the popcorn popping, your pencils sharpened, print out this post, and play along at home. Total up your points for each candidate and be sure to post your results once the debate concludes.
back to top82 Comments to “Debate scorecard”
My nephew stopped by on his long drive from Houston back to Cary NC. Down in Texas as an AT&T subcontractor. So we took him out for dinner and MISSED the debate.
I’m thinking McCain’s wishing he hadnt fired Phil Gramm right about now.
Report comment to moderator
It’s still going on, turn on the tv.
Report comment to moderator
McCain wiped the floor with this naive and ignorant child.
Report comment to moderator
Obama had a cake walk over McCain, who seemed old and feeble.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, a cake walk? Depends on your perspective I guess. Both seemed to hold their own.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t see it all, only the second half. Neither really seemed impressive. Sorry, the Yanks are poundin’ the Sox and I just had to watch. This is it for us, first time in a long time, and I’m not dealing with it well. But anyway, I think in posts 3, 4, and mine, we’ve covered all 3 possible choices of the outcome of the debate. Frank will probably be here soon to say both were bad, and undeserving, and that’ll be a wrap. We’ll have covered all the bases.
Move along, we’re done now.
Report comment to moderator
Did no one ever tell Obama NOT to interrupt when other people are speaking? How rude and annoying. But, then again, his voice, with the halting speech, is annoying as well.
Report comment to moderator
Using the scoring system I scored it 23-18 Obama but with penalty points it was reduced to 18 to 5. As far as debates go this was much better than the two Bush debates in 2000 and 2004. In fact, it approached the standard you would see in the UK, Canada and other parliamentary countries. I knew Obama could pull it off but McCain did better than I imagine. Mind you I very low expectations of him.
McCain was good when recounting experience, history and his assessment of Russia was good yet both in the Russia-Georgia discussion and the Iran question he ruined potential good points by going back to mundane and pointless political jabs that had no real value. His return to the “no preconditions” comment was pointless, Obama explained it adequately but McCain rambled on. He also was caught smirking several times when Obama was speaking, poor form. At the end, when each were free to finish up, McCain finished up with Iraq and had trying to score political points — a poor finish.
Obama did better on the economic questions in the beginning emphasizing his strong points and lumping McCain with Bush and deregulation. Obama had to weasel abit in his Pakistani comments but overall his linkage between Iraq and Afghanistan was good. McCain could have pursued him over Pakistan or Russia but he didn’t instead McCain rehashed some sound bytes. In the end, Obama went back to his strengths, his differences in Iraq and linking it to more pressing domestic needs.
Overall Obama wins but McCain survived
Report comment to moderator
I thought both did well, held their own. I was impressed with McCain’s sheer knowledge of the world, its leaders, its wars, etc. I don’t think either was a runaway winner, but proponents of either won’t be disappointed in their man.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
They both interrupted several times with McCain interrupting the moderator which is worse. Watch the Canadian (or UK) debates, in a multi-party setting, if you don’t interrupt you won’t be heard. You just need to interrupt strategically and with stealth. Don’t interrupt the moderator and wait for the most opportune time with your opponents. I believe once I perceived Obama to interrupt badly whereas McCain twice cut the moderator off.
Report comment to moderator
I was impressed with McCain’s sheer knowledge of the world, its leaders, its wars, etc.
This is where he came off the best but he couldn’t resist cheap sound byte and he then reduced himself from experienced to petty.
Report comment to moderator
My analysis:
Obama pounded McCain relentlessly for the first 2/3rds of the debate, to the point that he made him visibly agitated. Then McCain got mad, which, against all expectations, worked in his favor. He started talking over Obama, which made Obama come across as too cordial to be a strong leader. “Now John, come on now, John,” is not the response most Americans are looking for in their presidents.
Obama had the victory, but dropped the ball in the last 1/3. He stopped taking the fight to McCain, letting McCain get away with easily refutable attacks, and redirecting to answer Jim Lehrer’s questions rather than respond to McCain. That may work well for professional debate moderators, but the American people (I think) mostly want to see strong, direct responses.
So in substance, I’d still give it to Obama. In style, McCain stole the show in the last 30 minutes. If the debate had ended 30 minutes earlier, I would call have called it a crushing victory for Obama. As it is, the last 30 minutes where McCain came out strongest and Obama came out weakest will stick in people’s minds. Once the ink dries, I think what could have been a McCain rout will be judged a wash.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, HRW, but Obama interrupted MANY times. I kept saying “let the man speak.” He’s rude and wouldn’t let him finish a sentence. My complaint has nothing to do with the moderator. Obama continually spoke off to the side while McCain was speaking. Again, he is rude. And if you were paying attention, he was being told to stop by the moderator. He didn’t.
Did anyone count how many times Obama said to McCain “you’re right?”
Report comment to moderator
Obama seemed more relaxed and was more poised on the economic questions in the beginning. McCain started out very feebly like he needed oxygen, but became stronger and stronger as the debate went on. He must have reached back into his prison camp days for extra strength.
McCain scored hits on Obama on wanting to attack Pakistan (a friend, sort of) and talk to our enemies. McCain showed vastly more knowledge and command of the facts on the ground on foreign policy. All Obama could do was keep repeating the past that Iraq was wrong.
Obama’s answer to the war is to shift troops to Afghanistan so we can attack Pakistan and get rid of poppy plants. In other words, he will have us retreat from Iraq and have the troops prancing through flower fields.
The rest of the debate kind of went like this. McCain said about seven times “You’re naive”. Obama said about the same number of time “I agree with McCain”. Obama is right!
Report comment to moderator
Obama said he was right three times and said he was lying also three times.
Yes Obama interrupted more than once but only once did I say “bad timing” McCain interrupted Obama twice but both times he pulled it off. However, asking for “one more point” when the moderator stopped Obama and wanted to move on to the next point is bad form and the moderator was not impressed.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
“Obama just doesn’t understand” was an other well used line. I believe McCain didn’t slam the Pakistan point as well as he could have and Obama recovered well. I agree McCain did well when in general knowledge esp. Russia but he failed to press home and instead gave in to the temptation to be petty.
BTW poppy fields produce heroin, the sale of which funds the Taliban, hence destroying the poppy crop and encourage the Afghan farmer to plant different crops is an important part of the Afghan mission.
Report comment to moderator
I felt there was a lot of rhetoric throughout the debate with both sides pulling off obscure numbers and past voting records to show why they were good and why their opponent was bad. But that’s what politics are, an effort to sell a bag of goods to the people they want to represent. It seemed like the status-quo at work with two status-quo candidates.
I’ll give the substance to McCain over Obama though and presentation to Obama over McCain but that kind of represents what we already know about the candidates (substance vs. form).
I watched my apathetic brother try to tolerate the debates but he only lasted about 20 minutes before he couldn’t take it anymore and went back to his xbox. Sadly he is the type these debates are designed for, the undecided, yet really, how many undecideds were going to spend their Friday evening watching a presidential debate, c’mon. Fortunately for him he has a right leaning roomate and brother that usually sets him straight on election day as to who to vote for as he trusts my judgment
Report comment to moderator
More than once? Obama interrupted McCain on every question, and I am not talking about his “one more point” statements. He interrupted him throughout his answer.
Report comment to moderator
#15 HRW My son will most likely end up in Afghanistan. To be perfectly honest, his mother and I prefer that he spend his time there picking flowers. I doubt he would agree though.
Report comment to moderator
Score card:
Appeal to undecided voters: M3 O4
Appeal to party base: M5 O5
Zingers and quips: M4 O2
Poise M2 O4
Command of subject matter: M5 O2
Appearing presidential: M4 O3
Total: McCain 23 Obama 20
Report comment to moderator
NJL
We obviously watched a different debate.
Xion
You really don’t want your son to be picking poppies — not good for his long term health and would probably lead to a court martial for drug abuse.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
I watched it on CNN and they had this little instant input graph below and it seemed to show Obama with a greater appeal to independents and at the same time McCain didn’t seem to impress his base. As for appearing presidential, I would give the edge to Obama — more poise; McCain was somewhat overexcited at times and appeared to be small minded when returning to the same point on “no preconditions” when it had been answered by Obama. I also thought McCain was trying too hard to get a defining quip out — desperate for the perfect sound byte.
Report comment to moderator
Obama interrupted so often it became embarrassing – Obama also smirked and smiled like a child who knew they were in deep over their head, and yet hoped the smiley stance might help – he appeared as a young kid, rather than an adult seeking the highest office of the land. Senator McCain on the other hand knew what he was talking about, took the lead. He was a complete gentleman when Obama played the childish, unmannered, unlearned stance of childish behavior, butting in and not waiting his turn.
Senator McCain has a plan, he spoke plainly and directly giving answers which made sense, not making wild claims about how we would spend more money, but how we would conserve what we had. McCains remarks concerning Russia, Iran and Iraq were to the point and ’spot on’ –
McCain won, Obama looked like a silly school kid, trying to keep up -
Report comment to moderator
Amen, Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
Well, at least McCain didn’t resurrect Czecheslovakia for the fourth time.
I thought the whole thing was a tie. Watching CNN’s little green line for the independents, the one thing that was most noticeable was that every time McCain claimed Obama was naive or inexperienced or “didn’t understand”, the line dove for the basement.
And every time Obama launched into egghead mode, it did the same.
Translation is that Obama needs to get crisper and McCain needs to give up on that idea, which seems to be the centerpiece of his campaign. Oh yeah, a bunch of the tried and true patriotic themes elicited little if any response, except from the red line crowd.
One of these guys is still trying to nail down his base, while the other one does seem to be expanding his appeal.
But, unless he is at least 5 points ahead in the polls before the election, he will lose.
Report comment to moderator
To some, appearing presidential might mean poise. It’s good for ballet and banquets. But true grit and a command of the facts seems more presidential to me.
The only topic that I thought was really a defining moment for me was thinking who would be more likely to challenge a shameful spend-drunk Congress. McCain kept hammering that point home over and over and I almost believed him. Obama kept talking about his really expensive programs instead. I want a president who will reduce the size of government. Will either of them? No, but it was a solid effort on McCain’s part that Obama had no answer for.
Report comment to moderator
Seriously, leaving out my obviously partisan comment in #4 (as a response to the obviously partisan comment in #3), one thing is for certain:
Those who favor McCain are gonna say he won.
Those who favor Obama (including yours truly) are gonna say he won.
Obama was considered the “challenger” in this debate, which was on foreign policy. It was his job to appear credible as a “Commander in Chief”.
I think the debate was a tie, and the tie goes to the “challenger”.
I think once everything shakes out over the next few days it will probably be generally perceived by the American public as a small win for Obama. I don’t think it will move many votes either way.
Report comment to moderator
Keep in mind with the current state of affairs, who ever wins the election must be ready to step in and take charge quick. Not much time for easing into the job this time. McCain is ready. Obama is still in the “student” stage
Report comment to moderator
23
I watched the debate with my 10 year old — she complained that McCain smirked, laughed and snorted too much — its all a matter of perspective. As I said to NJL, there is a proper place for interruptions in a debate. Other than the two opening minutes following the question, the moderator was encouraging a free exchange of ideas and I thought both sides managed this well — except for one overly obvious interruption on Obama’s part and the two or three times McCain didn’t let the moderator begin the next question.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
as a member of the party responsible for the mess America is in, McCain needed to be as forceful as possible — he was almost believable except you knew you heard that same refrain from conservatives before and the only result was a larger debt. Obama as the challenger only had to present a different set of priorities and a change of governance which he did. Obama also scored well to bring in health care issues which people seem to think is “his” issue.
Report comment to moderator
“as a member of the party responsible for the mess America is in”
Um, which party is in charge? Which party is in control of the banking commission? Which party got the most money from Fannie and Freddie? Which party do Chris Dodd and Barney Frank belong to who have their fingerprints all over this debacle? Bush and the Democrats were on the same side on this bogus bailout wanting to do a quick deal before anyone figured it out.
But let’s be real. McCain had it right. He was furious with both parties because both parties are up to their ears in this. I like someone who is as angry with both sides. It won’t matter, but at least his head is in the right place.
Obama just rambled on about his massive programs to help the little guy even though the lion’s share will go to legislators like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Obama who got the second highest amount. A little for you, a lot for me. A little for you, a lot for me.
Report comment to moderator
I give the debate to Obama since he was the underdog and held his own against an opponent that is more experienced in foreign policy.
There was certainly no clear winner. In all honesty after this past week, I prefer both presidential candidates over their running mates.
I would vote for an Obama-McCain ticket over an Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin ticket.
McCain experience on foreign policy is important but I would like Obama’s calm temperament and more careful considered approach.
I would also like to combine their energy policies, education policies, and several other ideas.
Health care, I’m not taken with either but Obama’s plan is better.
Abortion, same sex marriage, stem cell research, social security, medicare, welfare, and immigration, I’ll go with McCain.
Environment, research, and alternative energy is definitely Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Senator McCain as a true statesman. He began his comments by speaking of Senator Ted Kennedy being taken to hospital – Senator McCain is a gentlemen, a man of manners and honor. On the other hand Obama launched into himself and his hunger for the White House.
This might not seem very important to many on the outside, but to ignore Senator Kennedy and his serious health condition, consider Kennedy stood up for Obama is a FAUX PAS of the worst order on Obama’s part -
Report comment to moderator
Senator McCain clearly won this debate. The experience factor was striking. Senator Obama spent too much time doing “hindsight analysis” instead of directly addressing the question. Allowing his frustration to manifest itself with the persistent interrupting certainly hurt him as well.
The best post-debate quotation I heard came from Senator Lindsey Graham: “Now we know who is ready to be President from Day One, and who is not.”
Report comment to moderator
McCain won this debate. He came through in a relaxed, competent way that comes froms years of being a thoughtful, nuanced, accomplished leader. He clearly understood the nuances of both domnestic and foreign policy. He mopped Obama up when he pointed out that Kissinger is adamantly opposed to presidentials talks with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, et al without preconditions. On balance, Obama came across as the inexperienced leader with no major accomplishments that he is; McCain, as the thoughtful, experienced and very accomplished leader that he is.
Report comment to moderator
Senator McCain greatly outclassed his opponent at the start of the debate by taking time to mention Senator Kennedy’s hospitalization (a not-so-subtle reminder of his bi-partisan stance) and also by expressing thanks to those who had worked to make the debate possible. Wouldn’t it be great if good manners could make a comeback in this country? Naw, couldn’t happen…
Granted, I came into this knowing who would “win” as far as I was concerned — didn’t we all? Realistically, almost everyone who watched the debate already knows who he or she intends to vote for, and this is what will decide who won in each voter’s mind. This debate might have made more of a difference if it had happened a month or two ago. A large proportion of young people have been thoroughly indoctrinated to zealously follow Senator Obama.
I was impressed that Senator McCain had some actual experience that he could rub his opponent’s nose in. We’ve got to all be asking ourselves right now how someone with no military experience could possibly be qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. As for who interrupted more: have we forgotten that these men are both Senators? Interrupting each other / talking over each other / sometimes yelling at each other is just the normal way they do their day-to-day business in Congress. The loudest wins. Kind of like a charismatic church service. Maybe that is the reason they relaxed the debate rules somewhat to accommodate this tendency.
Report comment to moderator
a relaxed, competent way
you’re kidding right — at one point I though McCain was going to have an aneurysm. His shrugs, arm waves, head bobs all indicated a man who was agitated and struggle to control his temper.
Senator McCain had some actual experience that he could rub his opponent’s nose in.
His strong point yet he diverted himself to labor over smaller points hoping for a sound byte — meeting with leaders and the Georgia conflict. When he was discussing the geopolitics of Russian-European relations, he demonstrated knowledge and experience. When he searched for the sound byte he came across as petty.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, McCain has physical impediments that cause him to move in certain ways. Did you make fun of Stockdale, too?
Report comment to moderator
I agree with HRW that McCain didn’t look relaxed at all. To me he looked like a wound spring ready to pounce. I thought that any second he would reach into Obama’s chest and pull out his beating heart. Good think candidates are not allowed to be armed during debates. I admit that I watch too many guy movies. Sorry!
It was like General Patton trying to speak softly to a little snot nosed war protester who was sassing him.
Report comment to moderator
Man, you guys have some thick rose-colored glasses.
McCain was definitely angry. He looked like he was going to blow his stack a couple times early in the debate.
But as I said earlier (#12), I think the anger unexpectedly worked in his favor. He became more forceful, completely talking over Obama, and heaping an extra bit of scorn on him. But there’s no doubt he was angry, and I would say he wasn’t composed.
Did you notice he would never look at Obama? Obama spoke directly to him most of the night. McCain always spoke to Lehrer.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, I’m actually surprised this morning. I went to bed calling it a tie (with Obama letting clear victory slip away in the last third), but polls this morning indicate a majority of Americans are calling it an Obama victory.
A CBS poll of undecided voters had 39% saying Obama won, 24% saying McCain won, and 37% saying tie. 46% said their opinion of Obama improved, compared to 32% for McCain.
CNN’s poll puts it at Obama 51%, McCain 38%. Their unscientific online poll is even more lopsided — 66% Obama, 27% McCain. Even Fox’s unscientific online poll gives McCain only a very slight edge — McCain 51%, Obama 49%.
Report comment to moderator
Since I ended up sleeping through much of the so-called “debate”, I cannot say who won. I do not know why I wasted my evening watching, as what I heard I could have found out by going to the candidates’ web sites.
My scoring: Media hype 10, US voters 0.
Report comment to moderator
JJF @41: The MSM polls are always like that. Al Gore and John Kerry led after the first debate in the most recent Presidential elections. In fact, I wonder when was the last time that the Democratic candidate didn’t lead after the first debate?
Report comment to moderator
Byron York, a tough minded journalist, has an excellent analysis of the debate, ‘Senator McCain Is Absolutely Right…’
Barack Obama plays Mr. Nice Guy — and loses — in the first debate.
including:
But Obama’s problem wasn’t just saying “John is right” too many times. He also let McCain control the discussion even when — especially when — the conversation turned to issues that play to Obama’s strength. The debate was scheduled to focus entirely on foreign policy and national security, but for obvious reasons moderator Jim Lehrer devoted the first half-hour to the current financial crisis. Polls show Obama with a pretty big lead on economic issues, and yet McCain was able to turn the discussion — ostensibly about the $700 billion bailout proposal — into an extended examination of federal spending and earmarks, two issues about which McCain has strong feelings and a good record. When McCain pointed out that Obama had asked for $932 million in earmarks — “nearly a million dollars a day for every day that he’s been in the United States Senate” — Obama answered weakly that yes, the process has been abused, “which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.” Not his best moment.
Jjf, those liberal media polls and $1.50 might get you a cup of
coffee in a second-rate diner.
Report comment to moderator
#38
its not his limitations I was pointing out but rather what his abilities and the manner in which he used them. He lost his cool and gestured erratically. I agree that this motivated him to catch up and get back in the “game” however I think it cost him some credibility in terms of demonstrating stable leadership; an area he has already been lacking in. He came across as an angry old man upset that some young guy was walking on his lawn.
The question York and Leavitt should be asking is do the voters want the tough old man or the young nice guy.
JJF
I have to disagree with your previous analysis. By finishing the debate with Iraq McCain reminded the voters of Bush and failure. He should have stuck with experience and overall geopolitics – a general overview demonstrating his knowledge. This allowed Obama to finish with an attack and on a strong note – his original opposition to the Iraq adventure.
Yes McCain did score a hit with the earmark comment but Obama was pretty quick to turn the conversation towards health care and deregulation. Linking McCain’s support for deregulation to health care was an excellent and deft move away from earmarks.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: By finishing the debate with Iraq McCain reminded the voters of Bush and failure.
To you and me, yes. But I suspect many American voters would rather hear “victory, honor, win” than be told that our going in was a mistake. It appeals to a certain simple-minded rah-rah go-team patriotism to tell people “we’re gonna win, ’cause we’re the best,” even if it’s a fight we never should have started in the first place.
And CNN’s polls do indicate that Iraq was the only question on which McCain had the edge. I’m not going to look it up again, but it was something like 55% / 45% in McCain’s favor.
Report comment to moderator
McCain was McCain – nothing special but very competent. It was often sad watching Obama. Often it appeared that he talked (and talked, and talked) for the sake of talking. He was rambling aimlessly as if he was constantly caught off guard by Jim Lehrer’s questions. I’m not at all sure which debate those of you who thought Obama did well were watching. It certainly wasn’t the one televised last evening.
Report comment to moderator
Peter and Tychicus:
Oh, all that pesky data. It so often gets in the way of what you’d like to believe.
The polls are not “liberal polls” asking “liberal people” “liberal questions.” They ask a room full of undecided voters who they thought won the debate. They conduct a random phone survey, asking people who they thought won the debate.
A majority of the sampled people say that Barack Obama won the debate; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a majority of the American people thought Barack Obama won the debate.
Now maybe you think McCain won the day, bloodied Obama’s nose, spanked him like a child, then sent him home crying. Fine. But you’re in the clear minority in that belief.
Report comment to moderator
Fox News even called it for Obama, according to the responses of their viewers in a room with Frank Lunz with their hands on I-like-it dials (which I find creepy in a humans-as-lab-rats, testing for stimulus response rather than substance kind of way, but that’s another discussion).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulSfPYed5yc
And just to reassure you that just because they reported reality as it occurs, Fox News isn’t actually going “fair and balanced” on you, Frank Luntz closes with the ludicrously partisan assessment, “[Obama] talked about beating up on CEOs.”
So no worries, guys, Fox is as unfair and unbalanced as always. But even they called it for Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Jay Nordlinger in his comment about the debate makes a salient point :
What’s depressing, to a person like me, is that Obama has mastered the trick of coming off as perfectly moderate — even when your career and thought have been very different. Listening to Obama last night, you would have taken him to be a Sam Nunn, David Boren type. No ACORN, no Ayers, no Wright, no community-organizin’ radicalism, no nothing. He certainly knows what it takes to appeal to people in a general election. Then, once he’s in — if he gets in — he will govern as far to the left as possible.
How else has Obama skated past the fact that for twenty-years he belonged to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”?
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
It completely depends on who you ask who thinks Obama won or McCain won.
My question to you: Since when is it okay for the Presidency to be a popularity contest? Seems to be the angle you’re approaching it as.
In a televised debate, we learned a long time ago (Nixon vs. Kennedy) that the younger, better looking dude will “win.”
I wonder what the radio people thought? In Nixon’s time, people listening on the radio thought he’d won hands down, but people watching tv thought Kennedy had won hands down.
It’s a sad commentary on our tv society, and certainly doesn’t say a thing about substance or who really knew what he was talking about.
Report comment to moderator
#50
I just can’t understand it. How can ANYONE prefer a leftist, Black theology, no experience, socialist candidate?
It all boils down to SHALLOW. He says “Change” and dresses nice and is young. Whoo Hoo! I’m gonna vote for him now!
Report comment to moderator
If Obama wins, I’m guessing it will be as punishment from God. God says that HE picks and chooses who will be in leadership. If we get a no-experience, liberty-killing, socialist, Black-supremacist in power, than it is probably what we deserve for turning our collective backs on God over the last 50 years or so.
Hopefully, we’ll survive it. And, those on the Left can see what their Messiah is really like. (Of course, they may love him all the way into Communism too. People are very, very shallow.)
The positive? We can jump all over someone the next time they suggest that we’re a racist country.
On the other hand, we will probably get thrown in jail for a “hate crime” and for “thought crime” before we get any feeling of satisfaction for being right.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama wins, I’m guessing it will be as punishment from God.
Well, whether it is or isn’t, I’m so gonna laugh my head off and celebrate on here if Obama wins. Of course, I still have serious doubts that he will win, but if he does…watch out!
Report comment to moderator
Leftists have been savaging Obama for not talking about economic misery when McCain hijacked the debate for his pet obsession, earmarks. Instead of bragging that he too wears a dead soldier’s dog tags, Obama should have pulled out his wallet and shown the pink slips and foreclosure notices that living Americans have given him as relics of their passion, to hallow Obama’s pilgrimage to the White House.
Why didn’t he stage his own passion play? Is Obama bound by his phlegmatic tendency to cede control and by his cool detachment from working class experience? Perhaps so, but other considerations bind Obama as well, as Shelby Steel argues. Obama has to look like the least threatening black man in America. Any talk about economics is a plus for Obama, even if McCain controls the topic. All Obama has to do is resist. Moreover, Obama wanted in this debate to give voters a primary impression of his capacity for foreign policy. Beating McCain on economics could have enraged the beast and deprived Obama of a rational forum in which to talk about world affairs.
Report comment to moderator
#50 Has it occurred to the fear mongers on the right that Obama is actually a moderate and his posturing as a leftist early in his political career was political opportunism necessary to get a political career started in the south side of Chicago.
#53
Punishment from God?? Wasn’t that Katrina, Hugo, 9/11 etc. God must punish America a lot thus America must be one bad country. North of the border, we don’t get hurricanes or terrorist attacks, we must be well-behaved.
Report comment to moderator
Obama a moderate? What’s in your koolaid?
Report comment to moderator
“North of the border, we don’t get hurricanes or terrorist attacks, we must be well-behaved.”
This is also funny. Maybe God doesn’t even think to bother himself to correct you guys. Maybe he thinks Canada is a lost cause and has given you over.
Report comment to moderator
#56 Scroop “Leftists have been savaging Obama for not talking about economic misery”
Washington is the cause of economic misery, not the solution.
Obama plans to bring more money to Washington to the tune of $1.4 trillion in new spending. How much of that will the little guy see?
How much will Obama cost America?
Report comment to moderator
How much will Obama cost America?
Face it, that’s not why right wingers fear Obama. Bush cost America, and y’all saw it coming and lived with it, even without profit. The peril of Obama to you is not the cost, but the potential profit. Bush was all cost and no profit. Obama will venture something and gain something important. Maybe transformative.
Nevertheless, please persist in your line of thinking. Obama will crash and burn and Republicans can have the White House and Congress back in 2013. Relax, America will want a Restoration.
To me, Bush left too many opportunities for Democrats to exploit. O B A M A spells the end of the ancien regime.
Report comment to moderator
#57 — you do know what the second largest cash crop is in Canada?
Report comment to moderator
HRW – 61
KOOLAID!
Report comment to moderator
HRW, Has it occurred to the fear mongers on the right that Obama is actually a moderate and his posturing as a leftist early in his political career was political opportunism necessary to get a political career started in the south side of Chicago.
I see, Obama postured as a leftist opportunist and is now honorably showing his true core as a moderate. Give us a break. To the extent anyone knows about this enigma wrapped in a mystery, he is just now a hard-core leftist posing as a moderate to trick the American people. As Nordlinger surmises, most likely, if he wins, he will try to govern as far left as possible.
The left is geting off just now, hoping that Obama will pull this stunt off, though I hope and pray that the American people, who are usually sensible and center right politically, will see through this ersatz statesman, as they did with Gore and Kerry.
Report comment to moderator
Peter see my response in the other thread. Apparently this site doesn’t like double posts.
A hardocre leftist would nationize the oil industry, limit Wall Street to the buying and selling of shares banning puts, shorts, derivatives etc., institute universal health care banning any form of private care, nationalize the entire insurance industry, limit CEO pay, maintain a heavy death tax, close any exemption to capital gains tax, raise the dividend tax, take away the mortgage deduction, etc. And thats the first 120 days. Have no fear Obama isn’t even thinking of the above.
And Victoria — you can’t grow koolaid try again.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
They grow all sorts of things to the north – Didn’t you know there was a plant called koolaid?
Report comment to moderator
OpenLeft is regularly full of angry protests against the site’s theme that Obama is not a “progressive” but very much a centrist.
As an example, Obama has told House Democrats they can’t put any alteration to consumer bankruptcy regulations into the bailout.
Paul Krugman argues that Obama is to the right of optimal Democratic economic policy. His health care proposals for example undermine themselves.
There’s no deception about Obama’s plans. You can say they are socialistic, but they aren’t coovert.
Report comment to moderator
#65
No, thanks for sharing. I was referring to a much more enjoyable plant for personal consumption.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, the problem with polling “undecided voters” is large. In the first place, anyone undecided this late in the game has probably not been paying much attention. Also, they’re the least likely to vote. So it’s an “interesting” poll, but not a very relevant one. A poll of likely voters is more more useful.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl:
But now we’re talking about two different things. If the question is which candidate “won” the debate, polling undecided voters is the best way to do that. They don’t have the kind of preconceived bias that the diehard supporter does.
If the question is who will get the most votes on Nov. 4, then you may be right that the opinion of undecideds doesn’t much matter. But I don’t think so. Both candidates have been working hard to court them, so the campaigns don’t seem to think so either.
Besides, the CNN poll was a phone poll that did not restrict itself to undecided voters, and Obama still won that handily.
Report comment to moderator
TRS:
It completely depends on who you ask who thinks Obama won or McCain won.
Sure. But in a room of 100 random people, 60 of them think Obama won the debate.
My question to you: Since when is it okay for the Presidency to be a popularity contest? Seems to be the angle you’re approaching it as.
The Presidency most certainly should not be a popularity contest (one of the reasons I so despise McCain’s cynical and increasingly damaging Palin pick). I am not saying that because Obama won this debate, he ought to be president. I am merely saying that in the eyes of most people, Obama won this debate.
“Won” is a simplistic abstraction. In more detail: Obama gained ground with undecided voters, who did not see the naive and dangerously unprepared candidate that McCain has been describing in his ads.
Report comment to moderator
#56
Rev 3:19 “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.”
Maybe that says something about where Canada stands with God?? LOL
Report comment to moderator
North of the border, we don’t get hurricanes or terrorist attacks, we must be well-behaved.
No, you get winters so cold I wonder how anyone can survive them. In fact, don’t 60% of your citizens live within 40 miles of the Southern border? You get socialized medicine so inefficient that many Canadians come South for health care. You get our draft dodgers and other malcontents who don’t like what’s going on down here. But you have so much oil that we get most of ours from you (or so I have read).
Report comment to moderator
Watch out, Canada — Kyle is headed your way…
“…Tell him, Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.” (I Kings 20:11)
Report comment to moderator
JJF, I’ll give you one point I said (that undecided voters are less likely to vote) but continue to assert that undecided voters aren’t even the best ones to say who “won” the debate because they’re less knowledgeable overall. In other words, it doesn’t say much to poll potential voters who don’t know who Kissinger is, don’t know much about what’s going on in Europe, know little about world history, have never read the Constitution, rarely have bothered to vote in past elections, and know little or nothing about today’s financial situation. That person can say, “So-and-so sounded more confident,” but he cannot say, “So-and-so is aware of the things a president needs to know, and has the right policies on the issues.”
A third grader might have an opinion about who sounded better, but he’d be useless in matters of polling, and I think undecided voters aren’t a whole lot better. (Now, a person who is undecided because he doesn’t like either candidate, and can give you five or six reasons for his dislike of each, that’s a different case. But that’s not the typical undecided voter. If I were taking such a poll, I’d want an undecided voter who voted in the last four presidential elections, or every election since he was old enough to vote if that is fewer than four presidential elections, and voted in this year’s primary–an undecided voter with some knowledge of history and some concern about the issues.)
Report comment to moderator
Peter L – 72
Don’t confuse them with FACTS. You should know better, you bad boy.
Report comment to moderator
What’s up with this . Change we can believe in? I’m as much for nuance as the next guy, but outright incoherence aint nuance.
Report comment to moderator
I did not watch or listen to the debate. I was taking care of my four-year-old granddaughter and found her more rewarding to be with and more interesting to listen to. Let’s see if I can start a grass-roots write-in campaign: Random Name’s Granddaughter.
She was born in the United States. However, she is not yet 35 years of age. There must be some way to finesse this problem. Also, she does have a tendency to engage in pre-emptive strikes, so I am a little uneasy about having her in charge of our nuclear weapons.
I read over the comments. I suspect they tell me much more about the commentors than they do about the debators. I don’t know how many reading this saw the movie, Never on Sunday. In the movie a Greek woman watches Greek tragedies, but creates her own play in her mind, one with happy endings instead of tragic ones.
I think most people commenting here created a debate in their own mind and watched their imaginary debate rather than the one that took place. Just as I wonder if there really is a Finnish language (although one of my daughter’s best friends is Finnish and once told me she spent a week staying with her Finnish friend’s family in Finland), how do we know there is such a language? Perhaps the Finns are just putting us on and pretending to speak this incomprehensible language that no one else in the world can read or speak. The Finns may just be the “cuckoos” of humanity.
Speaking of cuckoos…
Report comment to moderator
The real debate courtesy of SNL;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGy8q9qeMPg
the facts
- its just as cold in Minnesota
- global warming has made it almost tropical here
- Canada is the largest supplier of oil to America (Saudi Arabia and Venzuela are next)
- 90% of the pop. live within 90 kms of the border
- we don’t have a banking/financial crisis
- we don’t have a deficit
- our real estate values are still holding firm
Report comment to moderator
So if a nation is peaceful and prosperous, that’s a sign of God’s displeasure. Unless it’s America, then it’s a sign of God’s favor. But when America has lost peace and prosperity (or elects a Democrat), that’s a sign of God’s loving chastening. But if, say, Pakistan or Germany is going through crisis, that’s God’s judgment on their godlessness.
In short, if a nation is America, God loves it. Otherwise, he doesn’t.
Cheryl at #74:
I agree with you. The entire argument depends on what we mean by “won.” If we mean “gained most ground with voters,” then polling is the best way to decide that. Obama “won” the debate under that definition.
If we mean “gave the most substantive responses, outlined the most efficacious policies, etc.,” then it becomes much harder to decide who won. The MSM has entirely abandoned analyzing debates on those grounds and has instead adopted a “they each have different approaches and who’s to say which one is better” stance. Besides, imagine the furor about political bias is a paper came out and said “As high level diplomats have noted, Obama is in fact correct that negotiation with even hostile states is essential to protecting America’s interests.”
For myself, I am convinced that Obama “won” most issues in the debate on substantive grounds as well. That claim is too big to defend in a post like this, but if you want to take up one particular issue we could.
Report comment to moderator
Well, JJF, if I thought Obama “won” the debate, I would say so. But even if I said that, it wouldn’t mean I would be voting for him.
Everyone here puts too much faith in polls.
Report comment to moderator
Reading through the various blogs and watching news coverage, one finds a significant fixation on “Who won the debate?” And the obvious answer is, “It depends very much on who you ask.” Those that support Sen. McCain feel that their candidate won. Those that support Sen. Obama feel that their candidate won. It is very evident that the answer to the question is very subjective.
My answer is, “Who cares who won the debate?” I believe that the only reason for having the debates is not to determine who performs the best, but to determine which candidate aligns best with your own views and the direction you feel the United States should be led. I believe the focus should be on the substance of the candidate and not on the form.
To that end, I preferred Sen. McCain. Only because he stated views that are aligned with what I believe is right for the country and subsequently, right for me. A federal government that waste less of the tax money that I send in each year (you know that they will waste the majority of it, so less waste is better than more waste), healthcare that is not administered by the federal government (can you imagine how awful this would be?), winning conflicts that we are engaged in or become engaged in (hopefully, Sen. McCain would let the generals be generals).
America should worry less about “Who won the debate?” and more on which candidate they feel would be better for America and then they should vote their conscience.
Report comment to moderator
MD post 81,
your point here is quite valid:
“I believe that the only reason for having the debates is not to determine who performs the best, but to determine which candidate aligns best with your own views and the direction you feel the United States should be led. ”
But of course this means that the candiidate which represents your views (since these presumably represent what you believe is for the betterment of the U.S.) would be the one who you believe won the debate and:
” “It depends very much on who you ask.” Those that support Sen. McCain feel that their candidate won. Those that support Sen. Obama feel that their candidate won.”
and it would seem that your argument is circular!-)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!