Presidential Debate: YOU Decide

Now that you’ve had some time to digest Friday’s first Presidential debate, how do you rate the outcome? Vote and comment below…

Who Won Friday's Debate?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

143 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Libertad says:

    Led us face it, McCain should have cleaned his clock.

  2. sxp151 says:

    There were a couple good lines on both sides, so it was a draw if you just read the transcript.

    But actually watching McCain sneering, not looking at Obama once, etc., you realize this is a man who is not in control of his anger. On the other hand, Obama was open, friendly, willing to give points to McCain, etc.

    Obama looked like a negotiator and problem-solver. McCain looked like an asshole. Purely based on body language, Obama won in a landslide.

  3. PERA hopeful says:

    McCain really shot himself in the foot by his refusal to look at Obama or speak to him directly.  I thought they were about the same in terms of the amount of substance vs. posturing, and answering (or not answering) the questions.  But Obama seemed more respectful of McCain and the forum.  McCain looked disdainful and disrespectful of Obama.  I think that will backfire on him.  

    I think Obama won because he came across as thoughtful, serious, and a leader.  Mostly, though, he came across as being damn smart, and that’s something we are yearning for in our next President.

    I’ll take smart and inexperienced over experienced but not as smart any day.  A smart President knows what he needs to learn, and knows who can give him the best advice.  

  4. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    Jim Lehrer was the best moderator we have seen in a while.

    I liked the format–allowed the candidates to get into the meat.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      One thing he did very well was when the discussion moved from his question to something elese – but it was a substantive discussion, he shut up and let it run. He was there as a facilitator, not as Mr. Question man. Sort of the anit-Wolf Blitzer with his “raise your hand…” stuff.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      He was outstanding. He put the moderators in the primaries to shame.  

    • sxp151 says:

      He let McCain (and maybe once Obama) talk over him, even when he wanted to move on to a new topic. At one point he said, “We have to go on to a new topic,” and McCain said, “Yeah, I know we have to go on, but…” and then went on to talk for two more minutes.

      If you’re going to pretend to be a moderator, try and exercise a little power. Otherwise, why are you there?

      The other thing that bothered me is that most of his questions weren’t very specific. He tried to pin down the candidates on the first big question (“What will you change in your plan because of the bailout?”) and when that didn’t work, all the questions were, “Talk about Iraq.” “Talk about Iran.” “Talk about Pakistan.” Thus the candidates tended to fall back on their pre-written speeches.

  5. Half Glass Full says:

    Some inside-the-beltway types saw Obama’s occasional acknowledgements that McCain was right about something – usually followed by a quick “… but he’s wrong about…” – as weak.

    I disagree, and I think most of the public disagree. We like a person who’s confident and sincere enough to recognize when someone else is correct – instead of all this demonization we’ve gotten over the past eight years.

    McCain came across as more of the same Bush-Cheney absolutism and condescension/contempt for anyone who disagrees with them.

    Obama won.

    • Danny the Red (hair) says:

      Conceeding points makes you look reasonable not weak.

      However, Obama needs a stronger riposte.  “I agree with you on X, but I disagree with you on Y.  And what’s great about that we can try to do something about X and we only have to argue about Y”

      Independants love that kind of pragmatism.

      • BlueCat says:

        saw an advantage for McCain because he was more aggressive, the public saw a rude arrogant contemptuous son of a bitch.  The man can’t stand  anyone who doesn’t stroke his ego.  He wouldn’t honor Obama with so much as a glance.  I think the Obama tilted polls showed people reacting to the idea of such a nasty little man being America’s public face to the rest of the world.  

        Also, all of Obama’s “John is absolutely right about”  fill-in-the-blanks before launching his calm counter attacks clearly got McCain steamed.   He looked like he was thinking, how dare Obama agree with me! Is he just being patronizing? Is he trying to force  me to return the compliment?

        I think Obama’s self confident graciousness impressed the public and drove mean old get-off-my-lawn McCain nuts.

        Next up, watching Palin attempt to debate.  Conservative columnist and former Palin booster Kathleen Parker, after seeing the Couric interview, says Palin really has to withdraw.  Not from the debate. From the ticket.  

        • Laughing Boy says:

          the public saw a rude arrogant contemptuous son of a bitch.

          That’s what virulent Obama supporters saw.  Most of the reports I saw thought it was even, and a snoozefest.  

          • Danny the Red (hair) says:

            The pundits saw a tie.

            The undecideds saw a strong Obama win.

            Perhaps the McCain strategy of presenting Obama as an unready empty celebrity depressed peoples expectations of Obama.  

            You and I (and most informed people) know that isn’t the case (admit it).  I just agree with Obama’s policies and you disagree (for the most part).  Its also why pundits (and you and I) saw a tie.

            However those depressed expectations of Obama for low info voters led to Obama to exceed expectations of those low info voters–hence independents calling it a win.

            On another note the Obama campaign hasn’t said much about Palin.  They’d love to lower expectations on her for the debate with Biden, but after the Couric interview the press will call it a success for her if she doesn’t drool on herself.

              • Half Glass Full says:

                Tina Fey couldn’t even parody Palin, because Palin’s so bad already. At one point Fey did little other than DIRECTLY COPY Palin’s response to Katie Couric on the bailout question, and the crowd was laughing.

                I wish Fey had looked at the camera, gone out of character for a sec, and said, “I’m not doing satire here, folks – this was her REAL answer!”

            • lildem'83 says:

              “Perhaps the McCain strategy of presenting Obama as an unready empty celebrity depressed peoples expectations of Obama.”

              It reminds me of the West Wind season 4 when he is running for reelection and decides on one debate to smash him.  Smashing the oppenent at every turn is not becoming of POTUS.

          • BlueCat says:

            More of those polled, including undecideds, rated Obama as the winner.  It may have been a snoozefest but it was a snoozefest in which Obama was the favorite and McCain was very much not.  True, McCain’s  immature, temperamental nonsense IS boring.

        • Archimedes says:

           I am deeply concerned. Obama said that he would go into Pakistan if he knew that Ben Laden was hiding there. The reason that Joe Biden and Clinton and other Democrats and Republicans voted for the war in Iraq was because they made a decision based on intelligence known only to Congress. Obama made a decision against the war without that Intelligence. He was not a U.S. Senator at the time the decision was made.  This only shows me he is capable of making major decisions without information (reckless and dangerous). Furthermore, he is saying that if he had intelligence about Ben Laden in Pakistan, he would make the same decision that Senator McCain and the congress made to go into Iraq. What if his Intelligence in Pakistan is wrong as it was in Iraq? Wouldn’t he make the same mistake? He is showing me that he has not learned the lessons of Iraq. Senator McCain seems to have learned that we need the cooperation of our allies before making the same mistake that we made in Iraq. He has the right approach; get the foreign Governments involved first so we don’t repeat the past.

          • sxp151 says:

            And if you’re so concerned about Pakistan, what do you think about the fact that we’re already doing the cross-border raids Obama suggested and you’re complaining about?

            Do you, like John McCain, just not follow the news enough to know that? I was shocked at how McCain could talk about this as though it were in the abstract, rather than this week’s news.

          • parsingreality says:

            I didn’t have the intelligence either, but I knoew BS from probability.

            Guess Obama ‘n me, we be Mensa.  

          • Danny the Red (hair) says:

            As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

            I, too, presumed the president was being truthful — until a series of events undercut that confidence.

            In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq — a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

            In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.

            At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

            Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein’s capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

            There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein’s will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

            Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States’ removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

            The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs.” It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as “If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year,” underscored the White House’s claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

            From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth — or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

            On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

    • PERA hopeful says:

      I worried a bit about Obama’s willingness to say when he agreed with McCain, but as McCain kept jabbing him about not reaching across the aisle, I began to appreciate Obama’s ability to acknowledge agreement.  

      McCain polled as much more negative than Obama, and I think Obama’s expressions of agreement helped him appear more positive, cooperative, and willing to work with the other side.  It’s been a long time since we saw that in a president, hasn’t it?

      • Laughing Boy says:

        Besides the Lugar bill (which Bush supported), can you give me any examples of Obama reaching across the aisle?

        • cdsmith says:

          There’s Obama-Coburn, of course.  And a whole lot more, but you missed a really big one there.  You want us to go look up a bunch more, too?

        • sxp151 says:

          You mentioned once that the things you disliked most about McCain were McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. IIRC.

          Your guy’s bad at being Republican. Our guy’s good at being a Democrat.

          • Laughing Boy says:

            It’s one of the things I like the least about McCain.  

            But let’s be honest, here.  The only way Obama’s going to reach across the aisle is to drag someone kicking and screaming the first two years of his Presidency.  He has no history or intention of upsetting his own party to do what he believes to be the right thing, like McCain did.

            I disagree that McCain’s choice of reaches were the right thing to do, but he’s actually done it.

        • PERA hopeful says:

          And I’ll bring ’em to ya!

  6. Go Blue says:

    Fun fact. How many times did McCain mention the middle class last night? ZERO. That says a lot about McCain’s priorities.  

  7. vuzh says:

    I found myself drifting off and not listening when Mccain spoke, but really drawn in by Obama…  I’m talking about speaking style, not substance.  It was more difficult to pay attention to what Mccain said because he’s not very dynamic.  

    Idea-wise Obama was clearly a winner, especially with his stating that renewable energy will not only reduce dependence on foreign oil, but also stimulate the economy by creating jobs and help with global warming / greenhouse gas emissions.  Good stuff.

    I also like that he’s reminding us that the war in Iraq, on top of everything else, is REALLY expensive, chewing up lots of taxpayer money.  

    Jim Lehrer was a wonderful moderator, and I hope they draft him in for some of the other debates.  I’m looking forward to Gwyn Ifill being the moderator for the Vice Presidential candidate’s debate.  

  8. DUDem says:

    and thought it was a draw.  maybe i would have thought differently actually watching them.

  9. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    “We” are the partisans.

    “We” are the high information voters (for the most part).

    What matters is how it played with “the gettable 10.”

    60% of voters will never vote for anything other than “their” party. I mean never.

    Another 20% would almost never vote for  another party.

    Another 10% will follow a landside.  They don’t matter, because they follow.

    Only 10% of voters are actually true swing voters.

    That’s is why there are 3 election components: Get out the base, win the middle expand the base.

    Reagan won because he expanded the base of the GOP.  Evangelicals were not part of the GOP coalition until Reagan, that expanded base changed the electoral math.

    Clinton won because he won the middle.

    Bush won because he got out the base.

    In this election Obama is expanding the base (this is the point of the registration drives), has the best Democratic GOTV operation in 30 years, and according to the dial testing of the “gettable 10” he is starting to win the swing.

    McCain is over and Lieberman better get ready to sit in the corner.

  10. DavidThi808 says:

    What I think is one of the major wins for Obama is that he came across as someone looking for common ground and ways to bring us together to solve our problems. McCain came across as combative. He wanted to fight.

    So the debate polling shows that Obama did much much much better with women than men. With men he convinced them he is qualified and got a slight win. But with women he gained a giant win with that.

    And I think that’s because while we men would have loved a knock-down fight between the two in the debate, women want to see people working for solutions and resolving conflict. Obama played it perfectly for the female voters.

    And I think many male voters will, over the next couple of days, make the same decision. Because while we guys dod tend to prefer conflict, we also want solutions to the problems we presently face.

    • parsingreality says:

      Just like Clinton was our “first black” president, so is Obama our “first female” president.

      His style of solution finding is definitely more in line with that of females; look for common grounds and solutions where everyone can hold hands.  

      Frankly, I think it is what we need in the world regardless of the physical body that attitude resides in.  

    • parsingreality says:

      Just like Clinton was our “first black” president, so is Obama our “first female” president.

      His style of solution finding is definitely more in line with that of females; look for common grounds and solutions where everyone can hold hands.  

      Frankly, I think it is what we need in the world regardless of the physical body that attitude resides in.  

  11. Progressive Promoter says:

    Content-wise, I think you can call it a draw.  Both men demonstrated knowledge of policy and explained (more or less) their approaches to the issues.  It was McCain’s turf (foreign policy), so it was no surprise he knew his stuff, but Obama more than held his own.

    But on the overall impression, Obama won hands-down.  McCain looked like a bitter, twitchy old man and Obama was a gracious-yet-firm problem-solver.  

    All the parents on the soccer fields today–Repubs included–agreed that Obama skillfully stole the win from McCain.

  12. blahntosh says:

    I honestly cannot believe Americans cannot see right through Obama.  He ran for president too soon and I believe is in way over his head.  Why he isn’t loosing by a landslide right now is beyond me.  The man doesn’t know what to say unless his advisors are spoon feeding him what to say.  Clearly in the debate he was eloquently talking in circles to try and win over the ignorant vote.  Clearly, by his continuous laughter, John McCain (and any one else with any sense) sees right through him.  I’ve vented and now, the real reason I’m commenting.  America is at a turning point.  We have the 9/11 of the economy taking place, we have two wars going on, and a serious energy crisis taking place.  All of these are very serious, and none of which Obama has the experience or judgement to handle effectively or safely.  I beg you, sit down and think about why you are supporting who you are supporting.  We really need to do what is best for our country and not just voting for the party we’ve always supported.  John McCain will be bipartisan in his considerations as president.  He has an amazing track record of doing just that.  Look into we need John McCain to help get this great nation back on its feet.  Let’s get the power back to us, the citizens of the United States of America!

    • ClubTwitty says:

      McCain is a drama queen and his campaign is built in lies.  

      • blahntosh says:

        lies such as?

         As far as Palin being a president she is a strong woman that also has a track record of doing what is best for the people.  In some aspects I believe Palin would be a better president than McCain.  She shares many of the amazing leadership qualities of Hilary.  I believe if they do not get in America is in big trouble.  We need strong leaders.  Even if we disagree with some of there preferences at least they are out front with them.  Ultimately, they will listen to what WE AS CITIZENS, want to do.  We are their boss, we hire them into office and as a nation call the shots.  It takes work on all of our parts.  We really need to see who has the experience and judgement to make a good leader.

          • blahntosh says:

            You have no legitimate argument.  My first question, “LIES SUCH AS?????”,  was left unanswered.  You are falling into the Obama campaign’s “ignorant voter column”.  If you watch Obama campaign, he talks in eloquent circles to excite the ignorant voter.  Please I beg of you, don’t mindlessly follow him.  He may be a nice, charming, person but nice and charming will not end the war, prosper our nation, and begin to solve our energy crisis, starting with lowering gas prices.

            • ClubTwitty says:

              the blogosphere, traditional media, etc.  I don’t feel like wasting my time to repeat them here.  Since you can easily dig them up as its not very hard or difficult to type “McCain lies” into Google.

              Why respond at all, since the purpose of trolling is simply to throw things out and waste people’s time and energy.

              As for being uniformed, you have not impressed me.  I believe that each of the following statement show how terribly uninformed you are:

              As far as Palin being a president she is a strong woman that also has a track record of doing what is best for the people.

              Like charging a per diem to the taxpayers for staying in her own house?

              Like promising full cooperation with a bi-partisan investigation and then stonewalling?

              Like hiring a lobbyist to bring taxpayer monies to her town, lying about ‘saying no thanks’ to the Bridge to Nowhere (and keeping all the cash from the U.S. Treasury)?

              In some aspects I believe Palin would be a better president than McCain.  She shares many of the amazing leadership qualities of Hilary.  

              I have nothing to add.

              I believe if they do not get in America is in big trouble.

              I most emphatically disagree.

              Ultimately, they will listen to what WE AS CITIZENS, want to do.  We are their boss, we hire them into office and as a nation call the shots.

              Have you even read a single newspaper in the last eight years?

              • blahntosh says:

                Well, I have to say that you have proven yourself as an informed person.  I will look into to your credible sources.  Let me make sure if I have them correct.  

                1. type “McCain lies” into Google

                2. (any) single newspaper in the last eight years

                I will get right on that research.

        • Ralphie says:

          And another Nancy sock puppet has arrived.

          Check the signup date/time.

        • Progressive Promoter says:

          I recommend you watch all these clips on YouTube.  If you still defend her after seeing her syntax-mangled, knowledge-free answers to legitimate interview questions, you really are a mindless troll.  I refer you to righty columnist Kathleen Parker in the National Review for more information on how she’s “Out Of Her League.”

    • bobster1 says:

      and voting for him means rewarding failure.

      We have two wars and an economic crisis because of the close-mineded, insecure, fear-based ineptitude of the Bush Administration, with which McCain has voted 90% of the time.  It was damn cute for him to show up in Washington this week considering he hasn’t cast a vote in 5 months.  

      I’ve read both Obama’s books and met him on several occasions.  His IQ all by itself exponentially outstrips McCain & Palin put together. I have every confidence that he could mentally run rings about any tinpot dictator at the negotiating table.

      McCain, on the other hand, has quit learning or absorbing new information and keeps mumbling the same non-sequiturs over and over.  He knows what he knows and isn’t interested in knowing anything else. He is mentally and physically incapable of doing the job.  The idea of him in charge of our national security, piling his fossilized assumptions on top of the last 8 years of abject failure, scares the crap out of me.

       

      • blahntosh says:

        Economic Crisis?  If you are referring to the situation were are in with the mortgage companies, we have more to blame than just McCain.  Republicans and democrats alike, with these nonsense policies of loaning money to people who cant afford to pay it back, are to blame.  I’m sure if Obama had a chance to vote “present” he would have.  In fact it was the Clinton administration that really started it all, but I place blame to both parties.  As far as voting 90% of the time with Bush administration, Bush (despite the biased media reports) hasn’t done that bad of a job.  Since this administration I have been able to get my family from poverty to lower middle class and get off of all sort of government assistance.  I pay for my own health care, pick my own doctors, and buy whatever kind of food that I want.  Freedom!  So what of these 90% would you not have voted for?  At least he votes Yea or Nay and not “present”.  Decision making is key for a leader.

        As far as writing books is concerned, that alone doesn’t make me want to have him making important decisions for the country.  If that were the deciding factor I would vote for Stephen King.  What is his IQ?  How administered the test and what did that company come up with for McCain and Palin?  Those free IQ tests just want you to buy there silly certificates any way.  I hear they always pack the numbers high to make money.

        As far as being confident in his experience, I would have to agree with you.  He has vast knowledge and experience common to someone who has been through as many administrations as he’s been in.  I suppose that being physically fit is important, I mean FDR was a terrible president.  Dr. Stephen Hawkins has written some books but they must be a joke because he can’t even move at all.  Good point.  

        • bobster1 says:

          seriously, the right needs better-quality  trolls.  Or at least some that have gotten past the 8th grade.

          To the non-trolls out there, this is hilarious send-up of Sarah Palin, although it should come with a warning: requires sufficient brain cells to grasp satire:

          http://www.newyorker.com/humor

          There are two kinds of folks: Г‰lites and Regulars. Why people love Sarah Palin is, she is a Regular. That is also why they love me. She did not go to some Г‰lite Ivy League college, which I also did not. Her and me, actually, did not go to the very same Ivy League school. Although she is younger than me, so therefore she didn’t go there slightly earlier than I didn’t go there. But, had I been younger, we possibly could have not graduated in the exact same class.  

    • RadioFreeDenver says:

      Username:   blahntosh

      PersonId: 7967

      Created: Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 17:59:09 PM MDT

      • Yokel says:

        Userstatus: I disagree with them

        • Aristotle says:

          Defending people like this is why few take you seriously.

          • Yokel says:

            I just think that “They’re noobs so they must be sockpuppets” is an ad hominem that’s pathetic and beneath your skilled levels of argumentation.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            Yokel speaks on topic and raises legit points. Most of us find his logic flawed a lot of the time – but he is engaging in a discussion of ideas and approaches with us.

            blahntosh is clearly an idiot that can repeat talking points but probably doesn’t even understand what he/she is saying. Sort of like Sarah Palin, except Palin has much better presentation.

            With that said, Yokel – please don’t defend the sockpuppets, at least not the incoherent ones.

            • Aristotle says:

              My perspective is, of course, biased by my experiences with yokel – I couldn’t even hope to count all the times he’s ignored good points and answered queries that were not posited. But then again I place higher value on logic, consistency, and the ability to acknowledge an opponent’s good points than I do their willingness to talk to themselves under the guise of talking to you (AKA “engaging”).

    • Half Glass Full says:

      You make the point that McCain was directing contemptuous laughter at Obama – without even having the decency to look Obama in the eye or talk to him.

      I think that if you noticed it, many independents did too – and they won’t view it as charitably as you do.

      To quote you: “I beg you, sit down and think about why you are supporting who you are supporting.” Really THINK about it.

      And while you’re at it, I would love to hear your thoughts about the person McCain has chosen should he – a 72-year old with recurring cancer and other problems – die before the end of his term: which is actuarily about a 1 in 3 chance!  

  13. rocco says:

    The image of an angry old man, bitter to the point of condescension toward his opponent, will dog Mccain for the remainder of the campaign.

    I thought that Mccain had a good night, and came off much better than I expected. He seemed to grow stronger as the debate wore on, and was very aggressive at the closing exchange.

    But, in his attempt to goad Senator Obama into reacting to childish grim maces (he didn’t get the memo on how that played for Gore in 2000), sophomoric insults, and never addressing his opponent by making eye contact, he came across as the grumpy senior, mad that people are listening to the young whippersnapper instead of bowing to his 26 years on the hill.

    This was billed as the debate Mccain would win since foreign policy is supposed to be his strong suit. At times he didn’t disappoint. While open to argument, his approach often came across as clear and strong.

    But in the end, the sneering, the name calling (naive, dangerous, inexperienced), and the condescending attitude left a bad impression.

    In a debate in which he would have at the very least tied, bad behavior, to the point of boorish, did him in.  

       

    • blahntosh says:

      “an angry old man, bitter to the point…”  that was a well put opinion, but an opinion just the same.  I understand that the media has tried to have you believe McCain’s frustration was bitterness, but I shared in McCain’s frustration.  Obama said a lot of nothing in that debate.  (McCain at points played the same game, I won’t deny that)  I believe he couldn’t help but laugh, I couldn’t help but laugh.  Some of the processed food Obama was feeding us tasted great but where were the nutrients.  Obama’s eloquent circles may have made you all tingly but I just laughed.

      For both parties last night the debate wasn’t too effective.  I believe the debates to come will be much better now they are getting a feel for each other.  As far as sneering vs. uncontrollable laughter it’s a matter of opinion.

  14. rocco says:

    Judging by the now rather large amount of polling out there, Senator Obama’s resonating.

    Did you pull up the info Club Twitty answered you with?

  15. rocco says:

     That 538 in trade number says we’re not the only ones noticing the difference between the two.

    In control, pragmatic, affable, calm, firm, and with an IQ through the roof.

    What a refreshing change.

    Or, with Mccain, more of what we’ve already got.  

    • sxp151 says:

      Looking at day-traders to determine worth of things is exactly how we got into this stupid mortgage crisis. The Intraders are always a step behind the blogs, because obviously they have no information we don’t already have. So using them as evidence is worse than useless.

      And that’s quite aside from the suspicious trading on that site.  

      • Half Glass Full says:

        People say, “Didn’t Intrade pretty much nail the results in previous elections?” Of course, if you look at the FINAL trading results right before the election you’ll probably get a pretty close result.

        But right now, all Intrade is, is a bunch of people voting with their money on what they think the CURRENT state of the polls are. They have no insider information on other events that may occur between now and November 4.

        My big worry is that Obama may have another off night – the guy is only human – and utter a line like the one he did when asked about when life begins: “that’s above my pay grade.” I know what he was TRYING to say, but the language was terrible.

        • ClubTwitty says:

          I am not suggesting that In Trade is a be-all-end-all or anything approaching that.  I look for trends across a variety of sources, and at the moment pretty much everyone is favoring Obama.  McCain is on the ropes.  What will the Drama Queen do next?  

          • Danny the Red (hair) says:

            He pulls a stunt to get back on the news and change the narrative.

            I expect him to go on letterman and apologize…by jumping up on the desk and waving him genitals at Dave.

  16. Neither did much of anything to impress me.  Obama is the same old same old boring blah blah blah.  I knew what he was going to say minutes before it was said.  And quite frankly, McCain isn’t a public speaker.  It was a draw in my mind.  Although watching Obama’s face when McCain said something that annoyed him was priceless.  Actually, it kind of reminded me of a Schaffer/Udall debate…

      • Mr. Toodles says:

        But four minutes before the post was made.

        I dont understand why they wouldnt wait a day or a week before they started posting.  

        • So I can’t read for months and months and finally join and then post?  Sounds kind of retarded to me.  What standard are you using to determine who can post and when?

          • DavidThi808 says:

            However when your first post is immediately after registering and yoiur post is straight out of the Republican sockpuppet playbook, then we assume that you’re a sockpuppet.

            Read the comments above, there are major disagreements between Republican and Den=mocratic posters. We argue, we post links to articles to back up our posts, we even call each other namkes at times.

            But we are discussing issues, many issues, and we do respect that we all come to our opinions honestly. But a large part of that is we write for ourselves, we do not just copy & paste from McCain’s “Lies to post on blogs.”

            • Well first, let me tell you I dislike McCain with a passion.  Almost as much as I dislike Obama.  So don’t assume I’m immediately a McCain supporter because I prefer him in this election.  I also don’t exactly consider myself a Republican.  I’m a libertarian.  If you look at my profile, you can read on my blog my position on many issues.  And they aren’t all Republican or Democrat (I support abolishing the military and replacing it with a militia for defense only for example, I also don’t care if gays are allowed to marry so long as churches aren’t forced to perform such marriages, etc.).

              Quite frankly, Obama is a better statesman.  He knows how to speak.  As a former debater, I’m well aware of this.  But like McCain, he’s all bloviated rhetoric (yes, I know this is O’Reilly’s line).  It’s just nothing new in these debates.  Same old same old.  I’ve been doing this for almost 11 years, so far no politician I’ve seen has done anything new.

              • sxp151 says:

                Since you were 8? Seriously, I looked at your blog. You’re a college freshman. Of COURSE you’re a libertarian.

                Hell, even I was a libertarian when I was a college freshman.

                • Yes, since I was 8.  And I’m not in college.  Too much work to do, I don’t have time for it.

                  • sxp151 says:

                    You use “honoured” and “learnt” in your blog. I’ve never seen an American do that.

                    • I’m a Colorado native.  I think perhaps I was born in the wrong country, because American spellings look incorrect to me always.  I think it’s from reading way too much Brit Lit in middle and high school. 😉  And my last year of high school I debated NATO–and much of the research I did was from European resources who use the British spellings in their English translations.  It’s just a habit I’ve gotten into.

                      Oh, and something else I wanted to point out.  I’m not a new libertarian.  I’ve been that way for several years now.  So assuming that it’s because I’m of college freshman age (and actually, if I had gone, I’d be a sophomore this year) that I am libertarian is really an unwise assumption.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      And as parsing says, I’m really embarrassed about some of the stuff I wrote back then. Glad none of it is online.

                  • parsingreality says:

                    Nothing at all about wind, solar, geothermal, tidal?  Only “drill here, drill now” drumbeat of the far right and pro-nuke?

                    I give you credit for loving politics and being involved.  Check your own pages in forty years and I’ll bet you’ll cringe.  I’m not putting you down.  I’m just saying “Be prepared for personal growth.”

                    I noticed a discrepency of starting politics at age 8 or age 9.  Oh, the humanity!  Jus’ kidding, no big deal.

                    • I believe in all forms of energy.  My two passions are for nuclear energy and shale oil, but I will support any and all forms of alternative fuels that are viable options (cost effective and safe).  When I debate energy policy in high school, my case was on using geothermal energy for home heating.  🙂

                      I completely agree.  My views in the last 5 years have changed drastically, and I’m willing and open to allow them to change as I learn, mature and grow.  It’s those who are close-minded to changing their political views that disturb me and strike me as hypocrites.

                      You’re right.  I started political volunteering the week before I turned 9.  So I was 8, but it’s so close I’m not sure which is better to say some of the time.  shrugs

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      especially when you add in the externalities

                    • If Canada can do it, so can we.  Even if it’s not ready now, it will be.

                    • parsingreality says:

                      Very, very different extraction costs and methods.  

                      When light sweet crude is perpetually at $200/barrel, shale MIGHT be economocally viable.  Woe to the environment.

                    • ThillyWabbit says:

                      And then there’s that whole thing about shale kerogen not containing the hydrocarbons needed to produce gasoline, so we’d all have to buy new diesel cars anyway.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      Carbon costs–with several new power plants required, how do we account for this cost–as a general public subsidy totally external to the companies’ P&L?  These costs are coming.

                      Water costs: again, how do you plan–in the free-market sense of accounting for costs–to measure these costs, and reflect these in the cost of the product.  

                      I could continue in this vein a while.  Land and land use impacts–huge with a commercial oil shale industry, both directly to the land that is being bladed and filled with heaters, but also to all the surrounding communities.

                      It always amazes me that the oil and gas industry can scream about ending a tax subsidy, when so much of the true cost of their product is already socialized, with a system of return that already overcompensates them to the detriment of the greater number of presumably free agents.

                      But I am not sure why a libertarian (or most anyone else) would support this industry’s narrow privilege, when it is burdening communities and taxpayers in a manner that is borne so broadly.

                      Oil shale is a sham.  At least under the bill of goods in which it is being sold to us now.  Colorado deserves to know the costs of oil shale development, and we should not relish it being held out as some salvation to a dying worldview.  That is not a good prospect for the Western Slope.

          • Mr. Toodles says:

            After the glut of empty accounts, Im just a little suspicious. Your sig line wasnt in the post when I responded to it originally, otherwise I wouldnt have been as skeptical.

        • So I can’t read for months and months and finally join and then post?  Sounds kind of retarded to me.  What standard are you using to determine who can post and when?

  17. ClubTwitty says:

    described as ‘must see’

    • sxp151 says:

      Especially the question on the bailout, Fey’s hilarious. The rest, eh, not so great.

      And I was REALLY disappointed they didn’t do something on the debate, although I guess it takes more than a few hours to write a good sketch.  

        • Half Glass Full says:

          They didn’t even “get” the key points: that McCain wasn’t even looking at or talking to Obama.

          Darrell Hammond kept playing McCain saying, “Senator,” or looking at Obama, when the whole feel of the debate was McCain practically turning the other way and laughing when Obama was talking… That would’ve been a lot funnier sketch.

      • Half Glass Full says:

        Fey should have made clear that her response on the bailout really wasn’t even a PARODY – it was an accurate COPY of Palin’s answer.

        Palin is hard to parody, because she’s already such a disaster.

  18. DavidThi808 says:

    My 25 year old daughter went to a “kicken” (apparently means “happening”) party last night. She arrived – and they were all watching the debate.

    Friday night, party, 25 year olds, not politically active. And they’re all watching the debate. Obama owns that demographic. If they’re taking time to watch the debate, they’ll take the time to vote.

  19. Sir Robin says:

    Obama had a flag pin…..very patriotic of him, while McCain didn’t…..how unpatriotic.

    This is something all you righties must understand.

  20. DavidThi808 says:

    from Daily KOS

    The diarist was talking to a single person in southern small town PA and had this nugget:

    He wasn’t happy with Bush.  And he liked the old McCain, but thinks the new McCain isn’t “talking sense”.  Sure, he had some doubts about Obama.  He wondered if he was really a radical, an elitist, or a risky choice.  But after last night, those doubts seemed largely erased, “He looked real comfortable up there, answering questions.  Really in command.”  I joke with him, “Hey Jeff, you want an Obama sign for the front yard?”  He laughs, and says, “I like the guy, and I’m voting for him, but I’ll have to pass on the sign.”  He admits that he isn’t completely comfortable with the idea of everyone knowing that he supports Senator Obama.

    What if there’s people who are going to vote for Obama, but are afraid to let anyone know. Not their neighbors, not their spouse, not even their dog. So when they get called by a pollster, they say McCain. But in the voting booth, it’s Obama.

    This is what happened in Chicago the first election where the old Daley machine lost. The polls were way off. It turned out people lied to the pollsters because they didn’t want anyone to know they weren’t supporting the machine.

    It’s a single data point. But it is a strong possibility…

    • Half Glass Full says:

      I’ve been looking at this all along that people won’t be honest with the pollsters that they WON’T vote for Obama because he’s black – but I keep forgetting that those people already have a “safe” outlet for their nascent racism: saying they’ll vote for McCain.

      It would be fascinating if the final results indicate that yes, there is nascent racism – people uncomfortable with voting for Obama because of his race – but that in fact it leads to UNDERREPORTED support for Obama at the polls!

  21. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    All the talking heads, all of us and the rest of the world has no idea.

    There are too many factors in this historic election.

    We are facing the most difficult economic situation in generations, we are at war and we have the historic choice between the Black guy or the old guy who could die in office and leave us with the cute, airhead that wants to ban books.

    No of us know what will happen.  November 5th will be an interesting day.

  22. bearstobulls says:

    Regarding the debate, it was a tie.  Both candidates handled the subject matter well, and regardless of what the bleeding hearts thought they saw, McCain controlled his ‘anger’ as well as Obama.  McCains real problems aren’t his age or anger, they’re his choice of running mate and ridiculous voting record.  McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain Lieberman, etc. were all silly, needless pieces of legislation and a testament to the Senator’s lack of sound judgement.  And, while I’m on the subject, the selection of Sarah Palin rivals G.W.’s nomination of Harriet Meyers as the most frivalous and transparently dumb in history. As true conservatives wake up to the fact that Mrs. Palin’s selection is designed to deceive them and divert their attention away from Senator McCains real beliefs rather than her experience and ability to lead America, they’ll realize that the party of Reagan is dead, dead, dead.  While they won’t get over their fear of an Obama presidency, they’ll know that John and Sarah don’t provide a conservative alternative. Bottom line?  Both major party candidates are very flawed and no where near the high standards that Americans should demand when selecting their President.  If the Dem’s want to put this election away, they need to focus their energy on exposing the 800 lb. elephant standing in the middle of the room (McCains record and deception) and forget this nonsense about anger, etc..  

    • DavidThi808 says:

      You called it a tie but as a Republican you were not happy with McCain’s effort – he didn’t close you.

      On the flip side, Obama thrilled us on the left and those in the middle. We do like Obama (no he’s not perfect) and we do think he’ll do a good job.

      That is why a debate that was a tie on points is still a big win for Obama.

  23. countrygal says:

    If I need a heart operation I wouldn’t want a first year resident performing it. I would want the surgeon with the most experience. McCain clearly won the debate and it didn’t matter to me who looked at who.

    • sxp151 says:

      how many people created accounts this weekend just to post one comment.

      • countrygal says:

        Between the two I wouldn’t want the value system of Obama. He is just another Chicago cronie. Once a community organizer always a community organizer.

        • ClubTwitty says:

          they all say the same type of things…trying to sow doubts about Obama being the ‘other’ the ‘Manchurian candidate’ etc.

          some AstroTurf ‘community organizer’ is on the payroll to create the impression of citizens raising issues.  its a scam.

          • countrygal says:

            His real name is Barry Soetoro. He moved to Indonesia at age 6 and attended a Catholic School Fransiskus Assisis. There he registered as Muslim and was there studying the Koran. You can see the official documents on the web isrealinsider they have published it several times.

    • Danny the Red (hair) says:

      Who went to medical school in the 50’s and is versed in 50’s best practices.

      Who is unfamiliar with all the developments in medicine in the last 15 years and views the old ways as the best ways.

      Who continues using old surgical techniques well after they have been proven less effective than modern techniques.

      Whose mental and physical accuity are well past their peak.

      So you want the oldest surgeon?  

      • parsingreality says:

        And one who might die at the operating table?

        McCain is so old school he is a caricature.  The things that are always in style old school such as fidelity, consistency, integrity he long ago abandoned for expediency.  

    • Pam Bennett says:

      I found this to be a tasty sauce for cheese burgers:

      1/2 cup mayo

      2 Tb    Russian Dressing

      1 1/2 Tb sweet pickle relish

      1 Tb    minced onion

      1 t     vinegar

      1 t     sugar

      pinch+   salt

      mix gently.  Allow to sit in refrigerator for an hour or two before using.

      Makes approx. 1 cup of sauce.

      I would allow a child to make this at home.

  24. Go Blue says:

    Palin was debating intellectual design

    Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago — about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct — the teacher said.

    After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.

    Palin told him that “dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time,” Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said “she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks,” recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

    The idea of a “young Earth” — that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on — is a popular strain of creationism.

    Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based “intelligent design” to be taught along with evolution in Alaska’s schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.

    She’s a religious extremist and a dangerous one at that.

    • Danny the Red (hair) says:

      If it didn’t come from decaying organic material placed under pressure over millions of years where did it come from?

      Is it Jesus Juice?

      According to McCain she knows more about energy than anyone in the country.  How can McCain say that when she doesn’t understand the basics of Geology, Physics or Chemistry.

      If that is what passes for “knowledge” amongst conservatives, no wonder they think we can drill our way out of the problem.  Jesus just put enough Juice in the ground to get us to the second coming.  The faster we drain our oil the sooner Jesus will return.

      Terror.

  25. ClubTwitty says:

    like a rock in the open seas…

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

    Now, I am one to say ‘it’s still early’ and all that.  Far be for me to predict anything but a hard fought battle right up to the polls closing on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2008, but McCain is in terrible shape.

    Even the happy nuptials of Bristol and Levi are unlikely to make this rock float.

    • Go Blue says:

      these were pre-debate polls too. From your link

      You should bear in mind, however, that these polls reflect the pre-debate state of the race, as the overwhelming majority of the interviews for the these tracking polls took place before last night’s debate was completed. A variety of reactions to the debate seem possible to me, including (in rough order of probability): i) a small gain for Obama; ii) no effective change; iii) a larger gain for Obama; (iv) a small gain for McCain. The reaction in the horse race polls in the days following the debate do not always match the overnight flash polls, as opinions about the debate may change once filtered through the lens of the media. However, since Obama won or tied essentially all objective evaluations of public opinion about the debate, material gains for McCain appear unlikely.

      Barack will be in Colorado tomorrow and Michelle here on Wednesday. I’m also looking forward to seeing the Bidens sometime soon. 🙂

  26. ClubTwitty says:

    all over, including CO

    Here’s one

    Here’s the story

    link

  27. kstrait says:

    If you still have doubt about Barack Obama, take some time and watch the video.

    http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.