posted
Anyone watching the debate tonight? McCain has so lost it! I can't believe he brought up the Ayers nonsense. I loved Obama's line...something like, ...I think the fact that you're talking about my association with Ayers says more about your campaign than mine. (paraphrase)
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish Obama had even more time to smack down McCain's nonsense. Fortunately I don't think McCain's tactics are going to resonate with independents.
EDIT: Why did he drop the Obama=Hoover thing again??
EDIT2: I think McCain did much better during the middle part of the debate than he did on either end.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: EDIT2: I think McCain did much better during the middle part of the debate than he did on either end.
I think you're right, although it wasn't long before I was inclined to roll my eyes every time he opened his mouth. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the end of the debate, my husband and I turned to each other and speculated on what Joe Plumber was thinking while watching that debate. "WTF?" was our best guess.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why did Obama have to insist that 100% of McCain's ads have been negative? He has to know that's going to hurt him.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well it was certainly a lot more entertaining, but the whole thing was he said/he said. McCain threw a dozen different issues at Obama, and Obama answered most of them convincingly, yet afterwards McCain just kept repeating the charges like the answers didn't even matter.
It wasn't a debate. Sure they reacted to each other a bit, but they were just delivering pre-rehearsed attacks and defenses, and I never got the sense that anyone was saying anything unplanned in reaction to a new point one of them raised. No one said "Gosh Senator you're right, I didn't know that and that answers my question on this particular issue I've had with you."
My general impressions? McCain knew he had to change the dynamic so he pulled out every stop that he felt comfortable pulling out. Obama went tried and true and stayed calm, stayed mostly defensive, and rarely ventured out on his own to attack.
The result? I think McCain landed some punches but went a long way towards making himself sound like a douchebag (at least, if my mother's yelling at the TV is any measure). I think Obama played defense but did a good job of making McCain look just plain weird. Obama sat there and explained his plans flat out and then McCain claimed they were something totally different. It was just strange to me. Inexplicable.
Was there a clear winner? Clear? Not really. McCain might have eked out a tiny advantage from it, one that you might seen in the polls in the next few days, but I have a hard time often imagining how regular people view these things. I think it was really another tie, albeit much more entertaining than the previous debates.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Why did Obama have to insist that 100% of McCain's ads have been negative? He has to know that's going to hurt him.
Is it inaccurate? Because I can honestly say that 100% of the ads that I've seen by the McCain campaign have been negative.
That doesn't mean that there aren't positive ads out there somewhere. But I haven't seen them.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Why did Obama have to insist that 100% of McCain's ads have been negative? He has to know that's going to hurt him.
Is it inaccurate? Because I can honestly say that 100% of the ads that I've seen by the McCain campaign have been negative.
That doesn't mean that there aren't positive ads out there somewhere. But I haven't seen them.
Sadly, doesn't matter. If McCain has one non-negative ad anywhere- say, the "McCain-Palin: The Original Mavericks" ad that often comes up on the banner here- that's a gotcha. A small, petty gotcha, but a gotcha none the less.
rollainim is right; Obama shouldn't have said it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, can we call this the official end of his campaign? Anybody else wanna join me in hurling shares onto Obama on Intrade?
I had been progressively making more and more cash bets on Obama winning the election. I got most of my big bets when I acted early to bet on Obama. fewer and fewer people were willing to drop even twenties or fivers on McCain, then it petered out because McCain went sub-10% on fivethirtyeight.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now you have to start betting margins of victory. I think Obama will win with a 7-10 point victory and somewhere between 345-360 electoral votes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were I to bet on margins of victory (I'm not), it would be .. umm, greater than 350 electoral votes for Obama.
Popular vote margins I would put closer.
The best bets one can find in a situation like this, though, are straight up personal bets on the outcome. You find people and you tell them "I will bet you $100 that Obama will win." Put in your cash with a third party. I first started taking these bets on the 11th, so I was able to score a few. Then I made sure I had two days off after the election.
posted
Am I the only one who thinks that McCain is just flat-out creepy? I'm registered Republican and should be cheering him on, but the guy just totally gives me the heebee-geebees. That's not the reason why I'm not voting for him, but it definitely doesn't help any.
I was really irritated by McCains whining when the moderator asked about the negative campaign ads. I think if anything, that hurt him during this debate. That's mostly where I felt like McCain was ignoring everything that Obama had to say about it. My husband and I both felt like he wanted to keep his hurt feelings about the ads.
Also, am I the only one who got the 'McCain/Palin Invest in Victory' ad down at the bottom of the page? How ironic.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Three things from the debate that I forgot to mention.
1. Was anyone else awkwarded out at the end when Obama and McCains hook hands and McCain said "good job good job good job good job!" over and over? That was just weird.
2. When he "accidentally" called Senator Obama "Senator Government" I'll admit I laughed. It was a ridiculously planted line, but it was still funny.
3. Did anyone else notice that McCain was dropping his g's all night? Killin', and hurtin' and helpin' all over the place. Obama drops some of his g's, Palin drops ALL of them, but until now McCain hadn't. It was an odd diversion that combined with Joe the Plumber makes me think he's trying to EMULATE Palin of all things. Yipes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone have any idea why both candidates kept insisting that this country needs a nude erection?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wish I knew whether that really happened. Problem being the DailyMail is notorious for photoshopping celebrity pictures: eg turning unnoticeable-except-at-needle-threading-distance cellulite into a craters&rills moonscape.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, McCain definitely blinked too much. It was kind of funny.
I think McCain really bugged me when he was talking about the negative ads. He acted like his feelings were hurt, which is not something I need to see in my president. And McCain specifically said that Obama attacked his health care plan, not him, which is like, "Well, yeah, that's what I want to hear. If he got the details wrong, let us know." McCain, on the other hand, has been attacking Obama himself.
Honestly, I think McCain hurt himself by pulling out all the stops. He gave Obama a chance to calmly and rationally explain the attacks he's been leveling over the past months, including Ayers (give it a rest!) and that "infaticide" crap I keep hearing about. Then, after Obama gives a well reasoned answer (whether you agreed with him or not), McCain just pretended like the man hadn't talked at all. What?
But my favorite part of watching the debates last night was the aftermath, when Tom Brokaw said he didn't usually like to call a winner, but tonight he would. It was "Joe the Plumber." Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Cuz everybody's tired of not being able to see the s...l...o...w...progress being made in the replacement for the WorldTradeCenter.
I was vaguely dissapointed that your link didn't go to here.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well to be fair that photo was McCain and Bob Schieffer doing a sort of back and forth from opposite ends of the table in an effort to meet the other and shake hands. But I did notice the Michael Jordon tongue come out at least twice at the end of the debate, but I am not familiar enough with McCain's body language to say if he does that alot.
I've always found this photo to be more funny in a cute way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Wish I knew whether that really happened. Problem being the DailyMail is notorious for photoshopping celebrity pictures: eg turning unnoticeable-except-at-needle-threading-distance cellulite into a craters&rills moonscape.
Apparently he and the moderator had one of those stupid "you dance beautifully" moments as they keep moving in the same direction, trying to get to each other around the table. McCain made a silly face, to indicate that it was, well, silly, and the camera just happened to catch it at the worst possible angle.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Yeah, McCain definitely blinked too much. It was kind of funny.
I think McCain really bugged me when he was talking about the negative ads. He acted like his feelings were hurt, which is not something I need to see in my president.
Agreed. Obama's "I don't mind being attacked for the next three weeks" comment resonated with me for that reason.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Yeah, McCain definitely blinked too much. It was kind of funny.
I think McCain really bugged me when he was talking about the negative ads. He acted like his feelings were hurt, which is not something I need to see in my president.
Agreed. Obama's "I don't mind being attacked for the next three weeks" comment resonated with me for that reason.
Agreed as well.
And it came off a little like "Yes, we did say he hung out with terrorists, but he made fun of my health plan!"
Does he really not get the difference between attacking someone personally and attacking someones' positions?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One item the debate has settled, Ireland's biggest bookmaker will "pay out...more than 1 million euros...on bets that Barack Obama will be the next U.S. president, three weeks ahead of the election."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Wait, you're telling me that that tongue *wasn't* photoshopped into that picture?
I didn't mean to imply that the DailyMail would deliberately use a separate image "photoshopped into" the main picture to deceive.
However the DailyMail does photoshop to push up the contrast between light and shadow, alter the saturation of colors and hues in a manner such that celebrity women appear to have highly visible mustaches, laugh lines appear to be canyons, etc...
It's also been known to badly use distortion effects (ala AnnCoulter's attempt to make herself appear more slender and coltish, which resulted in LadyDeathstrike hands on her cover photo). The most recent egregious example was "photo evidence" that a couple of well-known actresses were engaged in anorexic dieting.....for which the DailyMirror lost the resulting slander suit.
So the question in my mind wasn't whether McCain stuck out his tongue, but rather whether he stuck it out to nearly MichaelJordan going for the slam dunk proportions.
posted
Ever since Colbert mentioned it, I've really noticed when McCain would jut out his tongue. Y'know, kind like a snake. (Not to imply he is a snake.) And he did it a LOT yesterday.
For those who didn't see the debate and want a fun, brief three minute summary, here you go.
(That video is meant to be in good fun.)
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if Colbert mentioned it or not, but there have been several mentions and analyses done into McCain's tongue jut that conect it to the equivilant of a poker tell. In other words, a LOT of people think that when the tongue comes out, he's lying.
I don't know if I believe it or not, but it seems to disproportionately come out when he's either making a character attack on Obama or being untruthful about Obama's policies. I think he's uncomfortable. I don't know if it's that he just hates Obama or he hates what he has been doing in this campaign, but he reeks of a man not in control of his own life at the moment. It's a milder version of the puppeteering that I felt from Ron Paul.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain's 100% negative ad figure: in Obama's campaign materials, it's "McCain's recent ads have been 100% negative" (italics added), a figure that was used in several articles recently about the negative campaigning. When counting all of McCain's ads, it's merely a very high percentage.
McCain's rejoinder about Obama spending more on attacks ads than anyone, ever, is both misleading and not a bright thing to bring up. The percentage of attack ads compared to all his ads is much, much lower than McCain's. And he's spent more because he raised more, largely from individual contributors, which is a sign of how many people want him to win. Is that the sort of thing McCain wants to point out?
The main thing is, I don't recall any incidence where Obama or his campaign have impugned McCain's character. His actions, his votes, his policies, certainly. But never the man. Whereas a disturbing percentage of McCain's campaign seems to want to turn Obama into a terrorist boogeyman.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: The main thing is, I don't recall any incidence where Obama or his campaign have impugned McCain's character. His actions, his votes, his policies, certainly. But never the man. Whereas a disturbing percentage of McCain's campaign seems to want to turn Obama into a terrorist boogeyman.
You see, by this measure I don't recall seeing a single attack ad from Obama's campaign. IMO, an attack add impugns a person, not policies.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Looks like Joe the Plumber gets a tax break with Obama's plan after all.
Looks like Joe the Plumber is a fraud. The McCain campaign might want to do a little bit of resesarch into their next gimmick. I would hate to think that his presidency would be as sloppy and directionless as his campaign had been.
posted
I'm not sure what's funnier -- his almost unpronounceable last name (imagine how the debate would have gone if they'd tried to say THAT 26 times?), or the fact that he's unlicensed and failed to pay his property taxes.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that reporters failed to note that a man who can't come up with $1200 is unlikely to be able to buy a successful business, which makes any taxes a moot point. And JoeWurzelbacher's awareness of the intrinsic silliness -- "I'm kind of like Britney Spears having a headache...Everybody wants to know about it." -- of being so heavily covered by the media.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpret any political ad with the ominous music and intensely sarcastic voice as an attack ad. "John McCain wants to tax your health care benefits and steal your children's candy. Are you gonna let him do that?" Especially if the ad misrepresents the opposing candidate's policy. And a few of Obama's ads fit that definition.
To Obama's credit, however, most of his ads were about his own plans and didn't mention McCain at all.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my goodness.. who the heck cares that he's not a real plumber. He presented what could fairly be considered a hypothetical question to a presidential candidate--IF he bought the business, wouldn't he be taxed more? He's not the one who made it such a big deal at the debate. It's not fair to be disparaging about the fact that he's not really a plumber, and it's certainly not fair to publish the fact that he has had some financial trouble in the past. How in the world is that relevant to the presidential election? It's not!
Just because he wouldn't be able to buy the business anyway doesn't mean that the question doesn't have some merit for someone out there who IS in a similar situation. The idea that his doing what anybody should be able to do--ask a presidential candidate a tough question--makes him a target for ridicule--well, that's not funny at all.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's a theoretical/hypothetical question, then pose it as one. He misrepresented himself to pose a "gotcha"!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But his hypothetical didn't prove the point he wanted it to prove. He in actuality would do better under Sen. Obama's tax plan and health plan. Even his imaginary person would do better. If you listen to this guy, he isn't some undecided voter. This is a guy who said that Sen. Obama tap danced "almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr."
My point was that for Sen McCain to use this guy as a campaign gimmick was just that - a gimmick. And it was a careless, slipshod gimmick from a campaign that couldn't think far enough past the gimmick to realize that it would backfire when it was proved to be a fraud.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what? He's just a guy. He's not running for anything, and the question is relevant. It's not a "gotcha" for someone to believe something about a candidates policies and to ask about those policies. He wanted to confront Obama about something he didn't agree with--it doesn't matter if he could actually follow through with buying the business. He could conceivably become licensed at some point, but still--that's irrelevant.
The QUESTION has merit.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
No, his hypothetical doesn't prove the point he wanted to prove--but that doesn't mean it was somehow wrong for him to pose the question. The question gives Obama a chance to re-explain his policies to clear up those sorts of misunderstandings. If you're only allowed to ask questions of those you already agree with, then there's a problem. And I think it's perfectly okay to try to ask a question of a candidate you don't agree with with the specific intent to point out something you don't agree with.
My point is that as a questioner, he doesn't deserve to be ridiculed. The idea that he's not really a plumber--is, at best, marginally relevant--still doesn't mean that the question doesn't have merit for someone who is a plumber. (And it certainly wouldn't give the candidate a reason not to answer--and I know Obama DID answer.) But his failure to pay back taxes? Sorry, that's just out there to embarrass him, It's not relevant and he is NOT fair game.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
