Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Oh, definitely.

I am least interested in progressive whining about why Obama was deferential or agreeable. Of course we hate that. We should learn to love it.

by BooMan on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:19:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, (4.00 / 6)

I think his defferential approach is what wins with women. He didn't come off as week, he came off as someone who actually walks the walk with respect to trying to reach across the aisle.

How in hell can McCain really get bipartisan buy-in with his confrontational attitude? Bullying people into agreeing? That's not building coallitions & cooperation.

Obama proved he had that grace, without losing his cool. Like, he displayed the tactfulness that might lead people to think he could successfully pull our national reputation out of the international gutter.

And then, in the moments with McCain stared right at the camera, smug as if he'd finally be asked a question on which he had actually done his homework, his delivery was predictable. "oh! I called Obama dangerous Karl Rove will be soooo proud of me!!"

With a debate opponent who offered any lesser degree of obstinate contrary bluster, Obama probably would have had a fairly enlightened debate. Sadly, he's stuck debating a frothing shithead.

There's reason to suspect Obama will perform better on the next two topics, no? And McCain will have to survive watching his campaign rolling in napalm, playing with matches, after Palin gets to go all Miss South Carolina on Biden.

by martini on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 01:59:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, (4.00 / 4)

Despite her performance to date, I do not think we should be quite so sanguine about the likelihood of Palin crashing and burning in the debate. It seems counter intuitive to expect something different, but I have an uneasy feeling.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 02:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, (4.00 / 4)

I think your right Hurria, it will be what the MSM makes it. Expectations are through the floor with her. If she comes and doesn't speak in tongues they will spin it into a victory for the McCain campaign. It is definitely counter intuitive. Lets remeber Bush the idiot getting crushed in his debates and then winning the election.

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; now we know that it is bad economics;" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

by Salunga on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 08:49:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, (4.00 / 3)

Palin will do fine in terms of presenting memorised talking points to scripted questions, and the format will not allow for much more than that. Biden has to be careful about appearing querulous and ungentlemanly in confronting her. Its a debate he really can't win because the expectations of her are so low.

"We reported back to hearts what we had seen, and told our footsteps all about where we had been."

by Frank Schnittger (Frankschnittger at hotmail dotty communists) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 08:55:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, No notes during the debates (4.00 / 4)

Palin can't bring her notes to the podium.

Go take a look at Palin in this segment of the Katie Couric interview.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 09:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, No notes during the debates (4.00 / 3)

She's smart enough to learn stuff by rote. Biden has to try and engage with her directly by asking her unscripted questions

"We reported back to hearts what we had seen, and told our footsteps all about where we had been."

by Frank Schnittger (Frankschnittger at hotmail dotty communists) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:13:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, No notes during the debates (4.00 / 3)

as we all know and as the Couric's Palin interview confirms -learning stuff by rote does. not. guarantee. giving the correct answer to the question asked.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:30:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, No notes during the debates (4.00 / 2)

Correct answer? How about a coherent sentence, whether or not it answers the question. That would be an improvement already.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 05:16:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, No notes during the debates (4.00 / 4)

yes, that is devastating (or "pathetic" as Jack Cafferty said). How media spins the debate performance is a big part of it - and even if Sarah P does a bit better than in her interviews (though I don't see how she can without her notes - oh! the earpiece! my bad!) people are looking at the danger of a total incompetent (who gets all her answers from some right wing theocratic interpretation of the Bible) as president.

Viva Obama

by Errol on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:20:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What bothered me was not hearing Obama say that McCain was right on some issues, but hearing which memes he was conceding -- so many of which were related to the military. He called Russia the aggressor in the recent Georgia conflict. He called the Iran Republican Guard a terrorist organization. He credited the surge for the reduction in violence (when the violence reduction is because of an Iraqi ceasefire in effect before the surge and because of a reduction in civilian population available to be killed). He supported missile defense (Star Wars, for Pete's sake!).

I realize that when the American people have been lied to about these issues for so long, a brief debate format does not provide the time to set the record straight. Still, by accepting Republican frames (and outright lies), I don't see how he strengthened his position.

A Progressive Christian perspective on I/P at Beyond Bethlehem

by RustyPipes (rustdotypipesatyahoodotcom) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 06:57:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My take is that Obama actually believes all that shit. In fact, in one of the things he disagreed with McCain about he was dead wrong. He said to McCain "You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong." No. Obama is wrong. Prior to 2003 Iraq had no history of serious, widespread, or protracted violence between Sunnis and Shi`as, and yet Obama, like almost all other Americans, has bought hook, line, and sinker, and without quesiton the "received reality".

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 07:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is Alex Cockburn's take on that:

The first function of any presidential debate is to demonstrate to the Big Money that both candidates are "safe", first on the matter of keeping the rich secure from worry. The second function is to assure all relevant lobbies that they are ready and willing to blow up the world if American "security" requires it.
In the requisite demonstrations Obama and McCain sang in unison.

Cockburn also notes that McCain blew his one last big chance to salvage his campaign yesterday: to come out against the bailout.

by Alexander on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 07:38:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thoughts (3.88 / 8)

What is it about people that they don't seem to grasp the fact that Obama is not playing at being cool, calm, and collected. He IS cool, calm, and collected. I'm not suggesting that he never gets angry. We ALL get angry, but we have different ways of dealing with it. This whole narrative about Obama having to avoid coming off as an "angry black man" is ludicrous. Does anyone believe that he stifles himself in public in order not to affront anyone, but that when he is in the intimacy of his home environment he screams, breaks the dishes, and beats the dog?!?

I have dealt with both extremes, and a lot of people in between. People who are quiet but forceful and reasonable in their arguments get much more accomplished. And people who truly listen to the people that are talking to and around them also get much more accomplished. Do we really want a head of state that evinces the qualities that McCain displayed tonight: sneering, angry, petulant, sour, etc.? McCain didn't even look at Obama. And he didn't appear to be truly listening to what Obama had to say. He was formulating his reactions, with that stupid mantra ("Senator Obama doesn't understand . . . ) threatening to leap out of his mouth before Obama could even finish a sentence.

Do any of us really want an angry, resentful, petulant man or woman at the helm of this nation? Haven't we had enough of Quick Draw McBush, and haven't we seen enough evidence of McSame's war-mongering propensities, to realize that we need a different way of leadership for a future to even be a possibility?

by Mum on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 04:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see your point and absolutely agree with you!

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 05:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

go here for a list of what McCain didn't do.then type in Obama"not look at"Obama:

Some results

Livebloggling the Debate at Ole Miss
15 hours ago
Obama is standing up to McCain, and is now talking directly to him. McCain will not look at him. Obama is strong, again talking retail, something he hasn't been good at in the past. Lehrer once again asks McCain to TALK TO OBAMA. ...
Taylor Marsh - http://www.taylormarsh.com - References
8 hours ago by Scott Whitlock
During late night coverage of Friday's presidential debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews attacked the Republican for showing both "contempt" and an "inferiority complex" towards his ...
NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias - http://www.newsbusters.org
Leaning Obama after the debate
11 hours ago by regan
John McCain refused to look at Obama. This bothered me. It did not seem civil or statesman like. Obama would talk to McCain, but McCain would not look at him. This is representative of their approach on talking with "rogue" nations. ...
Pulling Weeds out of Potholes - http://regansravings.blogspot.com/
I know, lately a large portion of this blog has been devoted to ...
1 hour ago by The Clandestine Samurai
Besides the fact that McCain did not look at Obama at all even though Obama addressed him directly like a gentleman and a scholar is supposed to, besides the fact that McCain lied numerous times and worked to bully and take over the ...
Life: The Dynamic - http://transcendanxiety.blogspot.com/
Obama: Presidential, McCain: Brawler, American
10 hours ago by admin
And, it seems as though his debate prep consisted of two things - ride through the financial crisis with various stories and do not look at Obama. Obama, on the other hand, seemed to be focusing on the concept of being the Presidential ...
Political Gastronomica - http://www.politicalgastronomica.com - References
Barack was courteous enough to comply with his host moderator's request McCain did not look at Obama once. To me, this made McCain seem surly, snarling, rude, dismissive. I want less bombast and incivility. I have just lived through the ...
Utah Savage - http://utahsavage.blogspot.com/
McCain's patronizing contempt for Obama
7 hours ago by NMC
Looking at reaction online, and listening to what people said at a (very pro-Obama) party after the debate, I'm hearing that folks (Chris Matthews, for instance) are commenting on the fact that Mccain would not look at Obama. ...
folo - http://www.folo.us

McCain needs some rabbits

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:22:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

I don't know that anybody's looking for Obama to turn into a barroom brawler. The fact remains that Obama would not be the nominee now if not for his ability to make passionate speeches that sweep his audiences up into an emotional whirlwind. Last night's debate showed none of that. I think Obama would have done better for himself to show some of the passion he brings to speeches.

But maybe that's not what the audience wanted. He may know exactly what the's doing, but I can't help mourning the death of the idea that politics is supposed to have some connection to caring about ideas.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 11:28:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama won but (4.00 / 5)

he missed some opportunities to really nail that condesending SOB. He was looking down his nose at Obama the whole 90 minutes. McCain is living in the past. Obama wants the future to be clean of creeps like McSame/Palin.

by NancyImpeachBush on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:18:50 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thoughts (4.00 / 4)

Here's the way I look at it: This was McCain's "home turf". A subject where he held a demonstrable and measurable advantage (by CW's horseshit) and he walked away with a tie - maybe. That's a loss by most metrics. Especially given the current trends in the polls and the fact the VPs are up next and there is NO WAY the McCain campaign can dodge the oncoming Palin train wreck, sans ending the campaign in it's entirety.

My World Without Gravity

by jack fate on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:47:21 AM EST

Unafraid (4.00 / 5)

The thing about Obama is that he has to thread three needles in a row with any performance - not come off as too cocky, too emotional, too elitist, too naive, whatever, you know the drill. But he somehow does that in every instance, and did that again tonight. The feeling I get when I watch him is the same feeling I get when I'm watching one of my sports teams in the playoffs or finals - total hyper-nervousness. And yet like the players for those teams I am amazed at how calm, collected, confident and totally unafraid this man is when he's on a national (and international) stage. I think while McCain has been debating for a long time, Obama just seems like a natural. And yes I think Obama won hands down. But the feeling I have right now is more relief than anything.

We can understand, too, that natural species are chosen not because they are 'good to eat' but because they are 'good to think - Levi-Strauss

by American Insomniac on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:53:21 AM EST

Re: Post-Debate Thoughts (4.00 / 5)

I also saw it as a draw for the same reasons. I didn't think McCain did badly and I thought his aggressiveness would win the day.

So either I'm an atypical woman or I'm a man with a female user name.

by maryb2004 on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 01:02:42 AM EST

or I'm a man ... (none / 1)

.
debatable?
I don't think so.

by Oui on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 03:18:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My guess is you are an atypical women.....

"We reported back to hearts what we had seen, and told our footsteps all about where we had been."

by Frank Schnittger (Frankschnittger at hotmail dotty communists) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 08:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It was a draw, and yet it wasn't (4.00 / 5)

because there's really no such thing as a draw in this situation. To have any measurable effect in the race McCain had to put Obama on the mat, and he didn't do that. Obama managed to hold his own, and the number of punches landed (naivete vs. 90% support for Bush, for instance) was about even.

So technically it was pretty much a draw, but a draw means McCain is still behind in the polls, he still has the same campaign, the same campaign staff, the same running mate and the same reaction from the voter on the street. That's not going to win it for him. So, in spite of it being a draw, Obama was the winner.

I for one welcome our new Twitter overlords. @Omir55

by Omir the Storyteller (omir.the.storyteller -CAT- gmail -DOG- com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 01:16:26 AM EST

A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (4.00 / 2)

Were we watching the same debate?

I mean...McCain was terrible. Supercilious, not listening, talking over everybody until he droned on into silence. And nobody called him on it.

But Obama was worse. Weak, tentative, stammering and querulous when McCain haughtily dismissed him with his "This uppity, overeducated nigger just doesn't UNDERSTAND!!!" shit.

About five minutes into the debate Obama should have walked over to McCain and demanded some respect.

"LOOK at me. motherfucker!!! I am talking to you!!!"

But he didn't.

Instead he "Yassuhed" him. "You sho' am right about that, boss. Yassuh!!!"

The people of America would have stood up in their living rooms and applauded. They recognize McCain for what he is...that nasty boss who doesn't really know what he's doing but has all the money and all the power. They've been under thumbs like his for so long that they have just about given up fighting. What's the use? They've been kowtowing to people like him all their lives. most of them, and they would love to see someone tell him to get the fuck offa his high horse and listen for a fucking change.

But Obama he did not do this.

If he eventually loses...that's why.

Not enough street.

So it goes.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

by Arthur Gilroy (arthurgilroy<at>earthlink.net) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 01:30:56 AM EST

Re: A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (4.00 / 4)

If Obama did what you ask I would be very very disappointed. McCain was afraid of Obama. Why? Because McCain came to an intellectual battle armed with nothing but a bag of zingers with no content. The manor of Obama was not an act but the natural manor of a real gentleman. Obama is used to dealing with Republican idiots all the time and does so as a gentleman. He first finds the common ground then goes on to make his point on the issues. I think Obama's approach demands respect in a refreshing way.

Don't get into a fight with a pig because you'll both get dirty and the pig likes it. Stop looking for the zingers and listen to what was said. Obama mopped the floor with McCain. I don't think the public is used to hearing the issues.

by AustinSax on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 03:32:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (4.00 / 3)

That's how I saw it too.

Johnny Cracka was skeered, Arthur.

mbr + dv + woyg

by keirdubois (keir@mybandrocks.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 04:11:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (3.75 / 4)

Absolutely. I agree with you, AustinSax. It seems like there are some people who thought they were going to be watching a boxing match, or an episode of Jerry Springer. This was a debate, a war (if you like) of intellects and ideas. We heard about policies and philosophies and the issues and the like, but we also saw one young African-American Senator comporting himself like a calm and wise statesman, and one old white Senator acting like a petulant child. Just the expression on McCain's face as Obama was speaking was enough to remind me of the middle-school boys I taught in a class for emotionally-troubled students. They snickered and sneered and laughed when anyone else was talking, and couldn't wait to get their digs in.

by Mum on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 05:07:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (none / 0)

"You" would have been disappointed.

It's not about "you", AustinSax. You are obviously convinced already.

It's about the vast herd of undecideds.

Now...think on it.

Who or what could possibly be "undecided" about this election after the fiascos of the past 8 years? Really.

Answer?

People who do not operate very well on an intellectual level.

The "decideds"? About whom we hear next to nothing? The dedicated Dems and RatPubs, the racists, the well off, the poor? It's perfectly obvious who they are going to vote for, and neither candidate could lose them in a debate short of going completely off the tracks in public. McCain starting to drool or Obama saying how much he loathes stupid white people.

But the undecideds? They operate primarily on more emotional and/or physical planes. Now physically both of these men are fine athletes. You don't think of McCain as an "athlete" because he is past his prime now, but lemme tell you something. Anybody who can operate a fighter plane is a world class athlete. I know because have some in my family. Betcha he could handle himself in a fight when he was a young man, too. He's a bad tempered little brawler by nature. That type goes over big in any number of circles that vote. Bet on it. And Obama? Another fine athlete. Just look at him play basketball for all you need to know on that topic.

So the physical thing is a tie, perhaps swayed a little towards Obama because of his relative youth and/or towards McCain because the majority of the voters in this country are still white and on this physical level racism is quite common.

Now on to the emotional aspect. It is obvious that McCain is running on emotion. Negative emotion, mostly, but that's emotion nevertheless. The strongest parts of his performance last night were those that depended on pathos. "Sob, sob, those poor soldiers. I'll take care of 'em!!!" And on dismissive anger. Again..."This uppity, overeducated nigger just doesn't UNDERSTAND!!! The stupid half-black bastard!!! I'd like ta punch him in his fucking nose."

Sorry, but there it is. Barely repressed anger simmering under almost every word.

Obama? Cool to the point of coldness.

Which one...again factoring in the racial aspects at this relatively low level of...which one is going to appeal more to the emotionally-based voters of this country?

Please.

No matter how mightily the media heads try to spin it the other way...and they are pro-Obama by about 7 to 1, bet on it...last night was an overall win for McCain. He didn't lose any of his own "decideds", and by emotional cues he swayed any number of undecideds.

Obama? He neither won nor lost anyone.

It's all about the votes, AustinSax.

It's all about the votes.

McCain went into this thing in trouble. Any real fighter on any level will tell you the same thing. When you have your opponent in trouble, FINISH HIM. Don't mess around, just do him in. Why? Because if you don't then he has a chance to come back and finish you. Obama gave this little banty rooster that chance last night, and I fear that it was a mistake.

We shall see.

Stay tuned.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

by Arthur Gilroy (arthurgilroy<at>earthlink.net) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 08:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (4.00 / 2)

It's not about you either, Arthur. Look at the data - Obama won hands down on all the debate segments with all voter groups bar Republicans.

He didn't have to win the argument for Dems. He had to appeal to independents and this he did big time. See http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2008/9/27/2817/64860

"We reported back to hearts what we had seen, and told our footsteps all about where we had been."

by Frank Schnittger (Frankschnittger at hotmail dotty communists) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 09:06:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (4.00 / 2)

He didn't have to win the argument for Dems. He had to appeal to independents and this he did big time.

A thousand times this. The message of "fight, fight, fight" works very well for partisans. It doesn't work so well with folks who aren't partisan. Obama's got the partisan Dems at this point and he's never going to get the partisan Republicans no matter what he does.

So now he's got to win over that segment in the middle that isn't sure. And that segment is the party that responds very well to his message of bi-partisanship and unity. Notice that BOTH of these guys are attempting to make the argument that they're going to govern in a bi-partisan, united manner to fix the problems we're in. That's how Bush campaigned in 2000 too - as a bipartisan "uniter not divider" because that's what the mushy middle responds to.

So who won the debate may well come down to "who looked more likely to walk the walk of bipartisanship and not just talk the talk." Winner - Obama. Who looked more Presidential - professional, respectful, on his toes and intelligent but not condescending? Winner - Obama. Who seemed confident in what he was saying through the entire debate and didn't start rambling about unrelated subjects like earmarks and "bracelets from soldier's moms" (Gods I wanted to barf when McCain decided to use a dead soldier as a prop - sickening). Winner - Obama. Who didn't get called out multiple times by his opponent for outright lying on the stage to the public? Winner - Obama.

Sure when I was watching it I figured it was a tie. McCain didn't blow up in anger and sounded like he knew what he was talking about (though the earmarks stuff and the "immediate spending freeze" stuff that he seemed to come up with on the fly right there on stage made me go WTF?). Obama was calm and professional, and though he was a bit long winded in his answers they were always clear and didn't sound like Kerry-esque equivocating (no "for it before I was against it" craptacular answers).

But I don't matter. Obama's got my vote so why the fuck should he do anything to make me feel good. He needs to reassure the folks that he really does have what it takes to do the job - both intellectually and temperamentally. It looks like he took some big steps towards that last night, even if I couldn't tell that was happening while it was going on.

(I also think there's a lot of meta-narrative going on right now that fed into people's perceptions of the debate. McCain's antics with Letterman earlier this week had them prepped to see him as a liar and a jerk. Palin's continual death spiral has people questioning his judgment - which means Obama talking about McCain's bad judgment to rush us into war and take our eyes of Afghanistan gets more of a hearing than it might others. McCain has been working hard to tar himself as a lying jerk with bad judgment, so Obama doesn't have to do much but push those buttons as appropriate. McCain's angry demeanor and refusal to look at Obama plays into that "lying jerk" motif too, so I think he got hammered for that last night more than he might have otherwise.)

by nonynony on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (none / 1)

Beware polls.

ALL polls.

Remember '00 + '04.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

by Arthur Gilroy (arthurgilroy<at>earthlink.net) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 05:19:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (none / 0)

I think not.

Like I said above, Obama did not move the undecideds. Not far enough, anyway. And now they are being told by the hypnomedia that the debate was a draw.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Debate does little to sway electorate
Obama, McCain get split decision, await next clash
By RICHARD S. DUNHAM
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- With few rhetorical fireworks and no memorable gaffes, the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama seems unlikely to change a presidential race that has tilted toward Obama over the past two weeks.
Friday night's debate in Oxford, Miss., was a split decision of sorts: Most pundits after the debate declared it a draw or gave McCain a slight edge, but viewers polled immediately after the debate said that Obama was the winner.
---snip---
With so many undecided voters remaining up for grabs, the stakes will become even greater for the remaining two presidential debates and the vice-presidential clash, scheduled for Thursday in St. Louis. The presidential candidates will meet Oct. 7 in Nashville and Oct. 15 in Hempstead, N.Y.

McCain lives.

Only a stake through its heart will end his candidacy beyound all resurrection. Obama did not even attempt such an act.

Give McCain this...he does keep trying.

Bet on it.

...the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama seems unlikely to change a presidential race that has tilted toward Obama over the past two weeks.

A tilt is not a landslide.

Tilts can be changed.

Only landslides cannot.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

by Arthur Gilroy (arthurgilroy<at>earthlink.net) on Sun Sep 28th, 2008 at 02:22:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A very strong performance by Barack Obama? (none / 1)

Just a couple of points.

You wanted to advise Obama to say "...LOOK at me. motherfucker!!! I am talking to you!!!".

About the decideds you said later "...and neither candidate could lose them in a debate short of going completely off the tracks in public. McCain starting to drool or Obama saying how much he loathes stupid white people..." You just made my point.

I would divide the undecideds into groups of stupid and intelligent. The intelligent ones will listen to the debate because they are interested in his positions on the issues. Obama wins.

The stupid ones may or may not be a lost cause. If they are too stupid to pay any attention to the issues they are not worth the trouble. If they make an emotional choice to join the McCain side the only answer is to defeat them.

So to my last point. The real fight is yours to win. You must work to get people registered to vote, help to get people to the polls and knock on some doors. This is the only way to really finish McCain off.

by AustinSax on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 06:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is smarter than me and has better political judgment than I do.

Yes, it's nice to have a major politician who has a good chance at the White House who is smart again. Clinton was smart, but that only allowed him to do so much.

Let us hope that Obama surrounds himself with better advisers than Clinton did. So far, I am not reassured. For example, Obama has as his economic adviser Robert Rubin, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and CEO of Citigroup: a main architect of the economic deregulations that have brought us to our present predicament.

by Alexander on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 01:35:11 AM EST

I'm not so sure that it's about advisors as much as the other people who surround the President. The limitations of what a President can do or where his intellect and understanding of the world takes him is limited by the national security state, and those limitations were visible last night. No talk about the real reason for invading Iraq, no honest explanation of Georgia, no admission of Israel's vast nuclear superiority in the region, etc. These things aren't opinions. These are facts that aren't allowed to be spoken.

The question isn't how far to the left Obama is but rather what his superiors allow him to do within the strictures they impose.

by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:29:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thoughts (4.00 / 6)

Well, I liked the "John" this or that from Obama. Beautifully done, Sir! See, McC kept on w/ his condescending shit, so Obama called him John because after all they're both Senators. In my own wacky sense of humor John is a john!

UG

by ChrisK on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 02:40:20 AM EST

Did McCain even speak directly to Obama? (4.00 / 4)

I couldn't watch the entire debate, but I've seen a lot of criticisms that McCain wouldn't look at Obama.

And according to the transcript, it seems that McCain only addressed Obama directly once, and not by name.

MCCAIN: With all due respect, you already gave them to the oil companies.

That's it, as far as I can tell.

Given the number of times Obama addressed McCain directly by name, the protocol deficit and the lack of direct engagement with Obama are glaring.

by Sawgrass on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 03:28:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did McCain even speak directly to Obama? (none / 1)

Exactly. I thought I heard McC refer to Sen Obama once. But not directly, as w/ respect to an equal. And I think that's your above quote. I believe that's when the "John" came in. I'd have to comb thru that transcript to see if we're 100% correct. Whatever the case, as I watched that debate, my response to the "John" was, "excellent!" I love subtle zings, which McC got and thus the grimaces thru-out. I'm not sure, since we've had "fight club" kind of politics, whether these old foolish tactics work. I really believe the electorate is fatigued. That's the 21st Century Obama was pointing to -- enough of 20th we're in 21st. Geez, McC went back to Alexander teh Great, I thought he was going to get into how the Roman Empire was so fab at infrastructure, and lets put a blow torch to the iron curtain. Sorry, we went so far back w/ that guy that I didn't know what decade he was discussing, let alone what freakin century. Then what continent, country, makeup of each? But he did hit the pow at the end .... indeed! That deserved a whole new rule to the drinking game!

UG

by ChrisK on Sun Sep 28th, 2008 at 03:51:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thoughts (4.00 / 4)

I agree that we do well not to underestimate Obama's instincts, his organization and operatives, and his confidence in himself, but, as he does, focus on the big picture and the goal on down the pike. He's not going to get caught up on every question, as we do--hoping as we are for him to score every possible zinger, etc. He's letting it happen organically, letting his performance as a whole convince voters.

This is just why he didn't choose Hilary, I think. He wouldn't have wanted to be Pres with her as VP, and he wants to win the election being himself--WYSIWYG!

He has superb political reflexes (I think we can't see it happening, he's ahead of us), and I just love that easy confidence--of course he would have no problem meeting a non-allied foreign leader with "no pre-conditions!" No drama necessary; it's the message. He's sufficiently self-aware and assured (but I don't see him as arrogant--this is a key to his growing appeal)and he's patently tough as well.

I know this sounds fawning, but I agree with you, Boo that the debate was a little closer than I'd have wanted it to be. But I think all the other intangibles, like the crazy-making behavior over flying to DC, getting all dramatic with the debate schedule, looking like an ass, and the continuing cratering of Palin's performances are adding up to a complete picture of an Obama campaign still on track, hitting its stride after the early lap dust-ups with Hillary, Wright, etc.

by Terra Incognita on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 03:00:54 AM EST

"He didn't make any major gaffes" (4.00 / 3)

We've all been heavily exposed to videos and transcripts of McCain's gaffes. Given that history, my own expectations for McCain's performance was low; I thought there was a chance he'd commit a game-ending mistake. So, if McCain made no gaffes, he exceeded my expectations and I'd be more likely to call it a draw.

But how about those people who haven't been as exposed to McCain? Perhaps many expected a repeat of the well-scripted and well-rehearsed nomination speech in front of a friendly audience. And he didn't meet that standard.

There may be another factor that affected his delivery and rhythm, and the audience's perception of his effectiveness vis a vis the GOP convention and town hall excerpts. One of the things I noted almost right away tonight was that McCain seemed to expect a sympathetic audience reaction to his words, like his (overused) "Montana bear DNA" joke. Was that a bad delivery, or what? And if I didn't already understand the reference, I wouldn't have known what he was talking about. Using that joke made me wonder about the appropriateness of his preparation for the venue and its silent audience.

Whether McCain tied or lost probably depends on the extent of one's knowledge of his prior performance.

What I really wondered is that his staff would say to him afterwards? "Good job, no major gaffes", perhaps?

by Sawgrass on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 03:43:34 AM EST

McCain lost because he repeatedly made it clear that he intended to keep us in the war forever. When you regret leaving Viet Nam you are saying you would like it if we were still in Viet Nam. That is extreme to most normal people.

Stray Roots Message Board,Thus far unmoderated! Dameocrat Blog

by StrayRoots (dameocrat@STUFFTOREMOVEpeacemail.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 05:02:59 AM EST

Ah! The good old days when Saigon was Saigon.

by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thoughts (4.00 / 4)

I don't think McCain is really listening to Petraeus...

John McCain made such a point last night that we don't get out of Iraq without "victory" and said that Obama would know that had he been listening to General Petraeus. McCain repeatedly made Petraeus the clear definer of our military activities in Iraq.

It never was brought up, however, that this very month, in an interview with the BBC as he was changing his assignments in the Middle East, Petraeus stated that he will "Never declare victory" in Iraq. He further stated that "this is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade..."

To hear it in Petraeus' own voice go here. To read his words and review the whole interview go to "No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus."

Under The LobsterScope

by btchakir (btchakir) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 07:35:00 AM EST

He talks like its the fifties, the nation is rolling in wealth and we can afford to occupy a country for fifty years. Not one mention of the suffering Iraqis through the whole thing or their opinion of McCain's neverending occupation. I guess half the freaking country is still in the fifties.

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; now we know that it is bad economics;" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

by Salunga on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 09:01:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Respectfully disagree (4.00 / 2)

Obama won be remaining succinct, keeping his cool, looking at McCain, and looking at the American people. He was logical and wasn't scary.

Obama is in an impossible position in these debates; he is a young black man debating an older white man. If he gets aggressive, he falls into the Harold Ford, Jr. trap.

He truly won last night by not losing.

Michaela

by michaelmt (MrMichael_t@yahoo.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM EST

I say Obama won because he treated McCain like an angry Old man. We all could see it, McCain wouldn't look at Obama, and didn't mock McCain who was looking for an enemy in every corner of the world.

by americanforliberty on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 09:35:02 AM EST

I think that everyone who has been following the race closely for months, bloggers, MSM, thought McCain was good given what they expected from him going in. If you are just tuning in to the race (believe it or not there are a lot of people doing this), you may not know that McCain's been flailing around the past few weeks, had a terrible week this week, so you expect him to be presidential and knowledgeable in foreign affairs. Obama probably surprised or reassured a lot of people. I thought it won based on that criteria alone.

by RollaMO on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 09:55:33 AM EST

Couple of things.

Obama made the best point of the night when he said the horrendous state of our economy is THE national security issue. Our economy will dictate our military options for our next President (or our lack of options).
McSame admitted we had tortured people in the past and Obama didn't call him on it?!?!

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

by Zandar1 on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:05:56 AM EST

"Our economy will dictate our military options for our next President (or our lack of options)."

That is the one upside to the economic crisis. Maybe it will prevent Obama or McCain from growing the U.S.'s imperial forces beyond the bloated, overgrown, overused death-and-destruction machine that it presently is. Maybe Obama or McCain will even have to consider setting aside the imperial project for a while.

Every cloud has its silver lining they say.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 11:39:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thoughts (3.50 / 2)

And yet McSame went on the record saying he wanted a spending freeze on everything other than Defense.

Think about that.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

by Zandar1 on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 11:43:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post-Debate Thoughts (3.50 / 2)

Well, hopefully there will never be a President McCain, but if there is, reality might just hit him between the eyes, and he might find himself compelled to freeze spending on the War machine (often misnamed "defense" - how many here know that the "Defense" Department was called the War department until just a few decades ago when it was changed for propaganda purposes?).

When is the last time the U.S. military was used for anything that can even remotely realistically be called defense?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 11:52:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the war "business" is related to (none / 1)

energy "business" - making a major united states effort on renewable energy (which Obama is committed to) will open up the war situation to a different kind of discussion. it's sort of an end run around the current Iraq (and all the other oil-owning countries that the neocons are eying) debate

Viva Obama

by Errol on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 01:22:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the war "business" is related to (none / 1)

Obama has so far shown that he is just as committed to empire as every other President has been, and I mean each and every Democrat or Republican president, including the saintly Jimmy Carter.

And by the way, empire is about much, much more than energy. In fact, in the case of Iraq the oil is not the end goal, but a means to achieving the end goal.

The availability of alternative energy will not dampen the lust for world dominance on the part of either Republicans or Democrats. Listen to Obama when he says, for example, that the trouble with the Iraq invasion and occupation is that it diminishes the ability of the United States to project its power in the world. What is that but just another term for dominating the world - i.e. empire?

Oh yes - and Obama is clueless about Iraq. In fact, he was dead wrong and McCain was right last night on at least one very critical historical point having to do with Iraq. Obama stated to McCain "You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong." No, sorry, my abysmally ignorant friend, but YOU are wrong and McCain is right, and this point is in the category of Iraqi History for Dummies 101.

Since the tenth century AD when Sunni and Shi`a became two distinct religious groups there have been periods of tension between the two, but only very rarely has there been violence. In fact, there are only three episodes of Sunni-Shi`a violence between the tenth century and the 1990's, and all three were a result of foreign invasion and not any kind of sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shi`a, just as the violence of the last six years have been a result of foreign invasion and brutal manipulation of every facet of Iraqi life.

How can anyone understand what is going on in Iraq and what will make it better if they are so clueless about its history that they do not know the simplest facts or understand the simplest realities?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 01:51:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not so sure that what isn't reflected is that the electorate is changing. It's one thing to allow bumper sticker slogan philosophies for War and acts of terrorism. Foreign policy is filled with difficult names, history and a complexity that doesn't invite understanding without a little bit of curiosity and work. People are suckers for bad guy/good guy overly simplistic explanations.

But when the economy comes home to roost, the luxury of not having to pay attention is gone. So, people start to look for someone to explain it to them. Bill Clinton was excellent at taking the Country by the hand and walking you through an issue.

I think McCain's condescending anger sound bites were taken as personal affronts by the folks who thought Obama won. People are getting hungry for leadership that includes them in the story and what used to be a case of overtelling on Obama's part (or Kerry's) is now just what the doctor ordered.

Americans may finally be ready for more than a cookie.

by mainsailset on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:10:15 AM EST

People realize how screwed up things are, and no matter what the pale geezer churns up they realize that he has been part of making this mess.

Ultimately, there will be some who will forever remain racists or reactionaries, but there is a wide swath of people who were born when "whites only" was the rule, who lived through the civil rights movement, who watched "The Cosby Show" and who root for Tiger Woods on Saturdays and Donovan McNabb on Sundays. Maybe a black man in the White House is a little scary, but Tiger drives a Buick, right?

by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I haven't hated a candidate so much since Hillary during Primary season.

Recommended by Hideo Kojima

by robertdsc on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:15:21 AM EST

It's pretty amazing that in the middle... (none / 0)

of the most serious financial crises our nation has faced in 75 years neither candidate for the presidency had any position on what we should do about it.

Just fuckin' amazing.

by Ed J on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 08:57:27 AM EST

Re: It's pretty amazing that in the middle... (4.00 / 2)

They did stay clear of it. Maybe because of the negotiations on the bailout. I think its kind of like a third rail now and that is really twisted since it has a bearing on every other issue.

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; now we know that it is bad economics;" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

by Salunga on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 09:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Twisted indeed. (none / 0)

Those who aspire to leadership roles should provide leadership.

In the sad state of our discourse, some call the ducking of third rail issues "good politics". It needs to be called what it is - cowardice.

by Ed J on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 09:25:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Twisted indeed. (none / 0)

I was as disappointed as you are at their lack of opinions on the bailout controversy. But I wouldn't call it cowardice. It's simply what politics has become in this country -- everything a candidate does is measured by exactly the same standard as advertising. If the approval button gets pushed more, it's good politics and that's all that matters. The founders' had a different notion: that politics is about winnowing and sifting ideas until we discover the best ones. That's as dead and buried as McCain's Cold War worldview.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Creepy (none / 1)

This morning the main bit I can't shake from my mind is McCain's introduction. In part, he said, "I have some bad news," long pause, "Senator Kennedy is in the hospital," long expectation of reaction and none was allowed. From then on, he was Peter Lorie to me, ghoulish and creepy. He even fiddled his hands together like a preying mantis delivering his misinformation.

Before the debate started, KO told us Teddy had already been released. McCain showed himself to be out of the loop, behind the flow of info.

by sjct on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:08:09 AM EST

Re: Creepy (none / 1)

It reminded my of my 84 year-old mom, who used to read the obituaries in the local weekly. At least until everyone she knew had died. No one should ever vote for my mom for any elective office.

by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:35:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama responded to McCain's soundbites, sloganeering and nastiness with facts and with answers that alluded to the complexity of the issues - i.e. bypassing the emotional responses. That and his frequent "I agree with Sen McCain about xyz" were ways to move Obama's side of the debate away from personal vendetta and jingoism (though McCain always moved it back) back to the complex and difficult issues facing us. maybe enough voters are thinking this time around that's what we need

Viva Obama

by Errol on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:41:51 AM EST

I agree.

It annoyed me that he kept agreeing with McCain, and like most liberals I thought that there were ample opportunities for a knockout instead of a gentle jab.

McCain, especially since he kept repeating his lame one-liners like "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand" and "I wasn't elected Miss Congeniality", came off as Obama's intellectual inferior. And he looked inferior because of either what he didn't know or what he's forgotten. Those are insidious memes, especially the latter.

Spain. An ally! Whooda thunk?

by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain played into Obama's generous concessions ("and I agree with Sen McCain on that" - starting the sentence with "and" or an inflection making it parenthetical and himself in control) with his body language and "Obama doesn't understand" to make Obama look even more generous and statesmanlike and making McCain look more petty and temperamental

Viva Obama

by Errol on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 11:24:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain seemed so proud of that strange "I wasn't elected Miss Congeniality" line. I suspect it hurt him more than anything else in the debate. It makes no sense and evokes no image of anything except maybe McCain in a bikini. With this McCain comes off as just a barroom drunk stupidly repeating a line that got him a laugh last year.

At first I thought he was contrasting himself to Palin, who pretty much did get where she is by leveraging her beauty queen resume. Anyway, I hope McCain keeps using the line over and over again.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Palin actually did win Miss Congeniality. For real.

by BooMan on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes, how weird is that? I think he (Rove) thought it was a way of disarming the temperament issue but it just reinforced it. He should have tried a more effective way, (won't suggest any here in case his incompetent campaign aides are desperate for suggestions)

Viva Obama

by Errol on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John McCain is seriously disturbed in a clinical way. I'm sure there are names for the various emotional and cognitive dysfunctions he's afflicted with and which affect his behavior so much.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

by sbj on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 11:33:59 AM EST

I fervently believe that when... (none / 1)

a candidate chooses to rise above the "same standard as advertising", he or she will win in an unprecedented landslide.

by Ed J on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:48:37 PM EST

"I think McCain's weakness with women was partially a result of the fact that the debate's last hour was dedicated to foreign policy."

That strikes me as more than a little bit sexist - as if women are not interested in foreign policy, and men are?

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 01:59:55 PM EST

More like, much of the last hour was dedicated to war. While it is sexist to assume that women are not interested in foreign policy in general, support for war is higher among men than among women. While Obama came across as more hawkish in his answers than I was comfortable with, McCain came off as even more so.

Even though there were several military issues where I thought Obama conceded McCain's memes unnecessarily, Obama's willingness to talk to enemies clearly differentiated him from McCain.

A Progressive Christian perspective on I/P at Beyond Bethlehem

by RustyPipes (rustdotypipesatyahoodotcom) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 04:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]