I can't wait!!! Go Obama!!!

I'm watching it right now.

McTreason sounds like an idiot squak-box.

Fraudbama sounds like a fumbling idiot.

Neither are really answering any of the questions being asked.

And what in the world is that huge black box in the middle of the screen? A hidden teleprompter?

Glad I'm voting 3rd party! Tonight helped me solidify my position.
Maybe more will vote 3rd party now, too!

Obama's best line: McCain has been "singing songs about bombing Iran." LOLOLOL!!!!

Andrew

I think both are doing pretty well actually, an hour in.

Andrew

I am watching rerun of Two and half men which is far better

NEWFLYER: The huge black box is a camera blind so they can get camera shots from behind the candidates. You been around long?

Just flipping around the channels to see the general feeling who won and most think McCain won the debate

now back to two and half men

McCain botched the Kissinger thing. Obama is correct. Couric called Kissinger herself to clarify things after her interview with McCain the other day.

Newflyer, you are an idiot. Go ahead and vote 3rd party. And while your at it, piss in the wind and see how that treats you. While I fully respect your right to vote for a 3rd party, it's my American right to say you're marginalizing your vote while maximizing your ego. To me that's un-American and pretty much the same thing as failing to vote.

As for the debate, this is a loss for McCain. Both did well. I think Obama controlled the first hour and McCain gained a little strength in the second hour. Overall, McCain needed to hit a homerun tonight to turn the momentum back in his direction. I think he got on base on a fielder's choice. Obama hit a stand up double. Neither scored a run. But judging on stats, Obama wins.

Plus, all policy stands aside, Obama looked more presidential and McCain looked old and nervous. Those low info voters out there, some of them might think McCain just isn't up to the job.

newflyer said: Fraudbama sounds like a fumbling idiot.

Can you specify exactly what fraud Obama committed and what parts of the debates he fumbled?

Vitalogy, you are a fascist. This may be the last time around that I support the Libertarians because I am getting a bit frustrated with some of the petty bullshit that goes on in the party. Maybe I should have kept my Chilean citizenship instead of becoming a naturalized American citizen if I wanted to get suggestions on who the "legitimate" candidates are. Forgive me, I am a bit tipsy.

One of the things that I believe is working against McCain, perhaps unfairly in the end.

After two consecutive presidents from the 'baby boomer' generation , are we actually going to elect a 'greatest generation' man for president NOW. McCain was born in 1936, 11 years after my Father. I am 57 years old and my Dad is 83 !

Despite the fact that I agree with McCain's views more than Obama's , I have had some mental trepidation over this issue. And I believe so have many others.

Overall what I didn't like about Obama was that he seemed to not have an answer on what other programs would be cut/eliminated to pay for the still-proposed Wall St. bailout. And he could've just said he'd keep troops in Iraq until one day before the end of the world and people would still believe him.

Newflyer, you are an idiot.
Thank you for the compliment, even if it wasn't meant as one.

Obama looked more presidential and McCain looked old and nervous.
Issues aside, I'll agree with you on that one.

While I think both men did fairly well, we shouldn't judge their performances equally, because they both had different objectives. McCain is already pretty well-known. Obama is the fresh face who many undecided voters are considering. Its sort of like Nixon vs. JFK in 1960.

So Obama: Who IS this guy? Does he seem like he could be a good president? Does he have a good grasp of the issues? Can I feel comfortable enough voting for him? Or is he just an empty suit?

I think Obama showed he is poised and has a good grasp of the issues. He never seemed intimidated or phased. At first he seemed a little nervous but he calmed down and showed a good command of the issues.

McCain seemed relaxed throughout and looked healthy and poised also. His goal was not to have a bad debate performance - kind of defensive - and to perhaps knock Obama off his game, which I think he failed to do. McCain did get in a few good digs such as this lie that Obama's health care plan would put all Americans health care under control of the federal government (not Obama's plan at all; you can keep your plan you have now if you like it). Obama never got a chance to counter that, unfortunately - hopefully will in a future debate not supposedly focused on foreign policy.

I think the Presidency as this point is Obama's to lose. If he keeps showing he's presidential, too many Americans who are tired of failed Republican policies will feel comfortable enough voting for Obama for McCain to be able to win.

Andrew

I may be a lot of things, but I've never been called a fascist.

Well now you have.

Newflyer I just don't think its that time yet ie time for a serious shot at a viable third party. It is coming very soon though. I would guess that if things go poorly with the bailout and the next president does even average handling the job of president that 2012 becomes THE year that a strong and viable third party and canidate will emerge. Until then though all the respect but it a wasted vote IMHO. And that is coming from a guy who already made the same mistake your about to make in 2000 when I foolishly choose Nader. Not this time No Way No How NO Third Party just YET!

Also just for the record I felt as though both canidates tonight did a very horrible job at answering questions regarding the financial crisis and they were very even on the foreign policy questions. So first debate a tied affair.

Can't wait for the VP debate.

This was an important debate and I was hoping that obama would shine. After watching the debate I was unimpressed with both Obama and Mccain.
Plus it was irritating me how Obama kept pointing out that he agrees with Mccain. I felt like he was saying that the entire time.

I apologize for posting while drunk. It is kind of a long story, and it involved a whiskey sour...

Alfredo_t,

Do you even know what a fascist is?

Did you have a good time Alfredo?

On topic: I think Obama didn't make any big mistakes, but I also think he let McCain slide on a lot of lies and got into the weeds a bit too much on his answers.

He's just too smart and too honest! There are times when he can let some of the details slide and be a bit more forceful and assertive. I know the law professor in him makes that difficult, but he's got to let go of that a bit and show people he's not gonna take shit.

McCain came out there and dished it out the very best he could. Of course he's wrong on a lot of stuff, but he's also very strong in his positions and really works the emotional play hard.

Sadly, the emotional plays work with a lot of people.

If we score the thing, accounting for misrepresentations in the negative, Obama wins. To the average person, not anywhere as informed as we are, I think McCain wins.

Who was it that said. "truth is the first causality of war". or any political debate? my words after the word war. both sides in a debate streach things a bit. IMO.

You know, I'm not really willing to accept this both sides do it crap.

It's all about who does it less, what the impact is when they do do it, and their overall vision and direction.

There are also more than two sides. We've got two major parties, each with factions that follow this or that ideology. Those things are all considerations.

McCain will bring lots of Republicans with him, and that means both the good Republicans (and there are a few), and those Republicans that did this stuff to the nation.

Obama is in the same boat, bringing lots of Dems, and those Dems that helped do this stuff to the nation.

The differences in vision are stark, and that's where Obama gets his support from.

Truth is something we often don't have a solid grasp on. Simple factual truths are easy enough, but the rest is all choices. When debating, it's easy to nail the factual stuff, leaving the choices to resolve. That's what debate is!

Marginalizing that with "both sides do it" just kind of sucks, that's all.

It surprised me how well McCain held is own. I would say the first one was a draw. The fun one will be between the running mates. Biden is going to chew her up and spit her out. I didn't see it but I heard Katie Couric made Ms. Palin look pretty bad the other night. Wake up white women.

Yeah, Biden has some of that on stage character that will prove quite handy against pure emotion and "plain folks" plays.

Obama lacks that, mostly because he's very diciplined. It's a good attribute, but it does give McCain some wiggle room. One thing we do know about McCain is that he will absolutely work the room at any cost. He's been in the scene long enough to know how to do that very well.

OBAMA the clear winner... If you are a fervent Obama supporter.

MCCAIN the clear winner... If you are a fervent McCain supporter.

Both made some good points, both evaded some questions, both spent to much time trying to dismiss the other before making their own case.

Neither convinced any commited voter to switch choices...

No clear winners.

One clear choice.

Cast out oppression from bad government.

Install new leaders. Give a new direction a chance to work.

McCain: Old, belligerent, not a great communicator, cocky, too wealthy, too out of touch with common reality, lying liar.

Obama: Young, cooperative, skilled communicator, modest, middle class, very in touch with common reality, straight shooter.

>>Neither convinced any commited voter

just going after the undecideds here...a small group but very valued by each side.

Newflyer I just don't think its that time yet ie time for a serious shot at a viable third party. It is coming very soon though.
That's what everyone says every year, which IMO is why one hasn't been elected yet. If the masses were willing to do some research and remember what they said 4 years ago, I think things would turn out a lot differently.

And that is coming from a guy who already made the same mistake your about to make in 2000 when I foolishly choose Nader.
It seems like whenever I say "3rd Party," everyone thinks I'm voting for Nader or that's the first thing that comes to mind. I'm not. IMO, Nader would have much more respect than he does now if he wasn't running for President. Makes me wonder if Nader is secretly being paid to run by one/both major parties so people are tricked into thinking he's the only 3rd party candidate. Reality is there's plenty of them. Add the local folks in every local area that think it would be great if someone voted for them, and there's probably thousands.

You know, I'm not really willing to accept this both sides do it crap.
However, that's exactly what was written three paragraphs down:

McCain will bring lots of Republicans with him, [...] and those Republicans that did this stuff to the nation.
Obama is in the same boat, bringing lots of Dems, and those Dems that helped do this stuff to the nation.
This is why I think voting for a third party is the only solution. Get totally different ideas in there, not thinking that Republicans are the answer for Democrats and Democrats are the answer for Republicans. It's just like two kids that fight all the time, where one says the other started it and they are the solution, and the other says the other started it and they are the solution.

It's hard for me to be objective because I'm very much a supporter of Senator Obama. But I was really impressed with his stature during last night's event.

In a crisis, I sincerely believe Senator Obama's more measured demeanor would trump Senator McCain's more emotional response.

You're going to be waiting a long time for a viable third party in America - unless our system is changed to support one. Our presidential election especially is rigged for the two parties. If no candidate gets 270 EVs, the election gets thrown into the Congress. If third parties were viable at all, they would always take enough EVs away from the main parties to throw elections into the Congress, taking power completely away from the people.

What we need at the presidential level is to get rid of the electoral college and move to popular vote with "top-two run-off" if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote. That way, people will feel free to vote for their favorite 3rd-party candidate without worrying about throwing their vote away, because they can virtually be guaranteed a 2nd vote for the top two.

At the lower levels, third parties need to start winning elections for low-level offices, to become viable and build a base. No wonder the Green Party can't make dent in national presidential elections; how many state representative seats have they won, anywhere? Until a third party can start doing that, they aren't going to have a shot at winning the top job, because they won't have any real constituency or base of support.

Andrew

They've been working on that, Andrew. It's harder to achieve then it sounds.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/06/a_b etter_way_to_elect_a_president/

What I took away from the debate was Obama and McCain differ on many issues, some drastically. They both were well prepared for the debate and came out swinging. I know exactly where both stand.

The only thing that bothered me about McCain, besides his politics, is the man never looked Obama in the eye after their initial greeting. When going to the split screen often Obama would look McCain's way but not once did McCain look at Obama even when Obama was speaking directly to him.

Final comment: Both had a good grasp of geography when talking about foreign policy. McCain really tried to hammer the "experience" factor here. I thought Obama handled that part of the debate well.

Though I lean Obama I would call this a toss up only because they both stated there positions well, even though McCain was caught lying on several occasions.

I've got to say I feel better about either one of these guys running the show than the catastrophe of the last eight years.

McCain wins my vote--for Secretary of Defense. He has a historically-informed, humane grasp of that department--he hates war--and he revealed last night it's the one department he would advocate for ahead of all others if elected. Lord help a McCain State Department, because he doesn't seem to want to engage with the world except at the point of a gun. And his knowledge of economic issues is shallow, seemingly a result of talking-point coaching.

Obama seemed like the grownup at last night's debate. He graciously complimented his opponent--which McCain's fast-paddling spinsters are seizing on as evidence of concession. He didn't insist on refuting every single weak and oversimplified bumper-sticker poke. He looked McCain in the eye and McCain looked away.

I imagine Pallin will rally, and show how it's done.

McCain is not against war, he favors it. Look at his record. Frankly, McCain can stay in the Senate which would limit the damage he can cause. He's too old, favors failed Republican policy, and he showed terrible judgment in asking Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

And as for Palin rallying, forget it. Anyone that's seen a few of her interviews knows that she is in way over her head.

Palin is further right than Anne Coulter's strap-on.

I think Palin is going to come out Thursday attacking Obama - attack, attack, attack - just like in her RNC speech. Given the tight "debate" format - not much of a debate probably - it will be quite easy for her to memorize a bunch of scripted soundbite answers she can transition to.

It's not a whole lot harder than her competent speech at the RNC, really. Even in her interview with Couric she did this - e.g., talking about health care (wha?) when asked about the Wall Street bailout. It's unclear whether Gwen Ifill will have the same latitude to interrupt an answer and ask for clarification the way Lehrer was able to in the first debate; if not, Ifill will just ask a question and Palin can say whatever the hell she wants for 90 seconds. Say a few words in transition to bring up your talking points about how Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes, how Obama wants to surrender in Iraq and to terrorists everywhere, how Obama's health care plan would put the Federal Government in charge of everyone's medical decisions, how Obama wants to attack Pakistan, how his mentors in Chicago consist of a terrorist Bill Ayers, a crook named Tony Rezko, and an America-hating radical preacher named Wright. I'll bet anything she manages to get almost all of this into her answers, unchallenged. And if she does that, she'll shock the hell out of everyone and have accomplished her primary goal (attack the opposing presidential candidate viciously in a way your running mate can't).

Andrew

All good red meat for the already converted.
But not likely to move any of the undecided her way.

Andrew, I think you'll agree that people who complain about the lack of third parties in national elections are wanting icing before they even HAVE a cake.

Third parties have to amass a following at the local and state levels before they can hope to defeat one of the two major parties.

Just because one wants to be president doesn't mean they automatically get a "party" and our attention, let alone our vote.

Ross Perot has shown that if you throw enough money around, you can get SOME votes, but to win, Nope. You gotta do it the hard way.

Agreed.

If third parties were really serious, they would be running primary challengers in all 50 states.

They are gonna win some of those, and that's how parties get built.

Most think McCain won the debate.

Mc, you've got to be shitting me? With his DICK Cheney smerks to his NEVER looking at Obama EVER. Most people think that wrinkled up 89 yr old won? FAUXNews thought he won so you just ASS U med that he won.
Think for YOURSELF Mc....
WAKE THE F UP!

>>>>And as for Palin rallying, forget it.

What's the matter with you--can't recognize simple sarcasm?

> Do you even know what a fascist is?

A true fascist would have been somebody who was a political associate of Benito Mussolini. Today, the term tends to get applied metaphorically to anybody who comes across as authoritarian. The remarks directed to Newflyer struck me as having an authoritarian, my way or the highway, tone, and that is what I was reacting to. Had I been in a more sober state, I probably would have withheld my comments.

If anybody cares, my drunken Presidential debate experience went like this: Friday night, I was doing a video shoot for a cable access program. I caught the first few minutes of the debate while driving (sober) to the location of the shoot.

One of the two co-hosts of the program, Tim, showed up a few minutes after I did. Typically, either before a shoot or between episodes, Tim wanders into O'Malley's Pub to have a drink to calm his nerves and to give himself some time to review his notes. Since the other host had not yet shown up, and I had not yet had dinner, I accompanied Tim to the bar. When I walked in, I was surprised to the see the place packed with people attentively listening to the debates, while drinking, of course. The food service was a little slow, so I had finished half of my whiskey sour before my chicken pesto sandwich arrived.

Yesterday, I got around to watching the entire debate and NBC News's analysis of it. One of the NBC commentators had the same take on it as Roger: McCain supporters will think that McCain won, and Obama supporters will think that Obama won.

One thing I noticed that I believe hurt McCain more than Obama was the way that one of the candidates would wince and look nervously toward the camera or out into space while the other was talking. It seemed to me like they didn't realize that they were on camera, via split-screen, even though they weren't talking. McCain did this more frequently than Obama. I think that McCain would have looked a lot more confident if he had been able to keep his gaze fixed on Obama while Obama was talking. Toward the end, McCain looked exhausted.

The approaches that the candidates took to the questions was very different. McCain brought in a lot of anecdotes from history and from his own political experience. Obama seemed to talk more hypothetically, in terms of what he intends to accomplish. I really don't know how these two approaches are going to play on the swing voters. Do McCain's anecdotes and past examples make McCain look well-rounded and better prepared to assume the Presidency? Or, will Obama's more specific answers give voters hope that Obama has thought through the problems and is ready to hit the ground running?

I don't know, I keep replaying it and just can't decide who won. Seems kind of short for a debate:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/36866/saturday-night-live-presidential-debate

Polls taken since the debate have given the win to Obama, with a USA Today/Gallup poll out Sunday (September 28th) showing 46 percent of debate-watchers believed Obama outperformed McCain, while just 34 percent said McCain won.

A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll out yesterday also gave the edge to Obama, but by a narrower 49-45 percent margin. Several snap polls conducted Friday night after the debate also gave it to Obama, including a CNN survey conducted by Opinion Research that gave him the win 51 percent to McCain's 38 percent, and a CBS/Knowledge Networks poll that had it Obama 39 percent to 24 percent for McCain.

Did you even look at the link I posted??