Game On: The First Presidential Debate

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

If I'm only seeing things through biased eyes, then, please, humor me and post what personal attacks Obama made.

I'm not sure where you got your "personal attacks" idea from, but I said in-person attack ads. I call any accusation at the other, rather than an expolanation of personal beliefs, attacks. Both candidates took part in that.

And for the record, I found the most disrespectful thing done the entire night was when Obama constantly referred to McCian as "John" and not by his title, which is the custom. The man's been a Senator for 30 years, he deserves the respect.

Overall, I hated Lehrer's idea of having the candidates speak to one another. This is a debate, not a conversation. There is a structure that has been proven in time and use. In Congress, there is a reason why all discussion is directed at the SPEAKER and not one another: It creates awkward moments and unconstructive discourse. And thats what we saw.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I'm not sure where you got your "personal attacks" idea from, but I said in-person attack ads. I call any accusation at the other, rather than an expolanation of personal beliefs, attacks. Both candidates took part in that.

And for the record, I found the most disrespectful thing done the entire night was when Obama constantly referred to McCian as "John" and not by his title, which is the custom. The man's been a Senator for 30 years, he deserves the respect.

Overall, I hated Lehrer's idea of having the candidates speak to one another. This is a debate, not a conversation. There is a structure that has been proven in time and use. In Congress, there is a reason why all discussion is directed at the SPEAKER and not one another: It creates awkward moments and unconstructive discourse. And thats what we saw.

Talk about seeing things through a biased.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Talk about seeing things through a biased.

Please explain. Blanket statements like this enlighten no one, including myself... And for the record, I've never claimed to NOT be biased. I'm obviously a fan of McCain and I dislike Obama greatly. I;ve been clear on this I think. Your analysis is biased as well, obviously, but I at least expect discourse and not empty blanket statements.

As for considering the debate a tie, I don't think thats good for McCain. This was McCain's issue, and he should have been more impressive and won decidedly if he wants to win he election. He didn't, and that will not sit well with undecided voters.

As for referring to one another by their title, its not something of the past... its currently done every day in Congress. Do yourself a favor and turn on CSPAN sometime. The tactic of calling McCain "John" was calculated and purposeful, because Obama needed to show himself as a colleague, and not a junior senator. In that respect, I think he was affective. Disrespectful, especially when McCain referred to Obama properly? Very.

[Vampyr]

Just the fact that you thought -that- was the most disrespectful thing, rather than the other things I've already said.

Also:

A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.

Obama scored even better -- 52%-35% -- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country’s problems.

[Professor S]

I figured the polls would show well for Obama, and that reflects that independents would have expected McCain to do much better than he did on the foreign policy issue.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I figured the polls would show well for Obama, and that reflects that independents would have expected McCain to do much better than he did on the foreign policy issue.

Yet you still contend that McCain is better for the job? If McCain isn't even good at what he is supposed to be good at according to the independents, then...what is he good at? Seriously..It's over. 50% to 42% according to Gallup at this point.

This too, by the way...http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...ntial-election

I am writing drunk from the UK, so if this isn't a great post, I understand, it's more of a a partisan gloat..

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Yet you still contend that McCain is better for the job? If McCain isn't even good at what he is supposed to be good at according to the independents, then...what is he good at? Seriously..It's over. 50% to 42% according to Gallup at this point.

You confuse performance during a debate for performance as president. I can say McCain did not perform that well during the debate, but still is by far the more qualified and superior candidare on almost every level. McCain came off a little bitter, and did not challenge Obama on some glaring misstatements, such as when Obama claimed McCain's accusation that Obama voted for a tax increase for Americans making $45k year. Obama vehemently accused McCain of lying about it, but in fact Obama DID vote for that tax increase according to FactCheck.

MCCain also spent too much time talking about spending when he should have stayed on the bailout topic when they talked economics. That was the hot button issue, and McCain looked like he was deflecting, when actually I think he was addressing a core issue. It came off bad.

A tie in a foreign policy debate is a win for Obama because of expectations. Obama is still the favorite, and now I think much more likely to win. It also doesn't take away from the fact he is one of the worst candidates ever to run for President.

This too, by the way...http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...ntial-election

I wonder what those numbers of Lichter's would be like post-Palin nomination? Also, being the Spring and early summer when Lichter did the study on Obama/McCain, was Obama still heads-up with CLINTON at the time? There are a lot of variables we don't know, and none of his points address any of the points I have made about media bias.