http://www.oxforddebatehousing.com/Images/logo.jpg

Looks like McCain doesn't have a lot of support from CNN viewers/readers. Check out the comments after this article:

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/23/what-will-you-look-for-at-the-presidential-debates/

I heard yesterday that they are expecting 100 million + viewers for this.

I think it will be very interesting. Especially when you consider the public speaking edge Obama has and the temper McCain has. This one has more to it than just issues to watch.

Everyone is selling McCain short here, but he is a decent debater and this is a foreign policy forum, it should be up his alley. I'd be very surprised if the media message afterwards wasn't "McCain explodes with strong performance, grills Obama...blah blah."

I heard yesterday that they are expecting 100 million + viewers for this.

i heard that too, but 100 million = 30% of the country including kids. I'd be surprised if they had half that many, especially on a fri night. I suspect a large fraction of the country has made up their minds.

Nonetheless, i suspect mccain will take a very aggressive foreign policy stance, accuse obama of not 'putting country first' whenever obama disagrees with him, and ridiculously exaggerating palin's credentials. i suspect obama will take a more aggressive than is prudent to not 'appear weak', accuse mccain of grandstanding, cite the money spent in iraq that could be spent at home, and repeatedly praise the efforts of the troops. Overall, I doubt that mccain's temper will come out unless he is utterly unprepared to answer a specific question. I am most interested to see how they respond to recent attacks conducted in Pakistan and derided by the Pakistani govt. obama has promised to pursue al qaeda in Pakistan even without Pakistani approval, but he will claim that bush hasn't been careful enough in identifying high-value targets prior to attacks. I suppose mccain will retract some of his opposition to obama's promise to engage al qaeda in Pakistan, but will attempt to exaggerate obama's position to be more dangerous than what bush has done (although that would be a lie).

BO has so many 'ahs' and uhs and this's and that's that he starting to bug me. I read about his speaking style actually NOT being that great cuz he can't get to the point.

What time is it, Barack?

"Well, uh, first we uh need to uh talk about clocks"

By the time he gets too his answer the audience is asleep.

JM isn't going to dazzle 100k peeps, but he 'should' do Ok, here.

Now THAT is worth an LOL.

^ Sorry, had to keep up my partisan role around here or things would get really boring.

And I actually did read that DrRay and, AND it was on CNN, iirc. It was after that 911 tribute thing. They said in that format, BO SUCKS. Not really, it said something about him not getting to the point or his answer quick enough.

I know thats damn near blasphemy around here to say BO isn't that good on some of his oral skillz, but thats what it said.

I'm not lying on that part.

He actually thinks about his answer.

He actually thinks about his answer.

With that winning answer, you win a copy of Bill Oreilley's new book, A bold piece of humanity" or something.

And I actually did read that DrRay and, AND it was on CNN, iirc. It was after that 911 tribute thing. They said in that format, BO SUCKS. Not really, it said something about him not getting to the point or his answer quick enough.

I know thats damn near blasphemy around here to say BO isn't that good on some of his oral skillz, but thats what it said.

I'm not lying on that part.

Glenn's partly right on this. It's that BO takes time to word out his thoughts eloquently and accurately, which I, for one, appreciate. I have noticed his "uhh's" and such and do not like them; but, if he would just eliminate those and substitute in silence, I do not think as many people would notice.

In a debate format, he is less quick on the trigger than most, and that is admitted. But I'd rather him think through his answers than say something that he doesn't mean.

Obama had to be particularly careful tone-wise with Hillary. There was a black man vs. white woman dynamic going on. Obama doesn't have to be quite as guarded with McCain, and he's negotiated a format more suited to longer answers (and probably less fine-grain questions). My suspicion is that there'll be more chestnuts from stump speeches for both.

This bit could prove to be VERY interesting in a foreign policy debate. I wish Taymelo were around.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008092220080922bootdanzig.html


LEESBURG, Va. -- A McCain administration would discourage Israeli-Syrian peace talks and refrain from actively engaging in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

That was the message delivered over the weekend by two McCain advisers -- Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Richard Williamson, the Bush administration's special envoy to Sudan -- during a retreat hosted by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy at the Lansdowne Resort in rural Virginia.

One of Barack Obama's representatives -- Richard Danzig, a Clinton administration Navy secretary -- said the Democratic presidential candidate would take the opposite approach on both issues.

In an interview with the Atlantic magazine over the summer, U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) insisted that in his presidency he would serve as the chief negotiator in the peace process. But at the retreat, Boot said pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian deal would not be a top priority in a McCain administration, adding that as many as 30 crises across the globe require more urgent attention.

Boot called the Bush administration’s renewed efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian talks a mistake. He also cast Israel's talks with Syria as betraying the stake that the United States has invested in Lebanon's fragile democracy.

"John McCain is not going to betray the lawfully elected government of Lebanon," Boot said.

Williamson was slightly more nuanced in addressing the issue of how the message would be sent.

"Israel should not be dictated to in dealing with Syria or dealing with Lebanon," he said, addressing Israeli and some pro-Israel resentment in recent years at pressure by the Bush administration to stifle such negotiations. "Hopefully as friends they will listen to us."

That Williamson was endorsing such views at all signified how closely the McCain campaign has allied itself with neo-conservatives. A veteran of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, Williamson in other circumstances would be more closely identified with Republican "realists" who have vociferously eschewed the grand claims of neo-conservatives to a new American empire.

Yet here he was echoing their talking points on several fronts.

McCain until the last year or so has kept feet in both the realist and neo-conservative camps. The session at Lansdowne appeared to suggest that the Republican presidential nominee has chosen sides, opting for policies backed by the outgoing Bush administration and its neo-conservative foreign policy architects.

Both McCain advisers insisted, however, that their candidate was synthesizing the two camps as a "realistic idealist."

McCain would be a "leader who will press for more liberal democratic change " and "is realistic about the prospects of diplomacy and just as importantly its limits," said Boot, echoing what has become the twin walking and talking points of neo-conservatism: a muscular foreign policy and an affinity for promoting democracy.

Surrogates for Obama, an Illinois senator, re-emphasized their commitment to stepping up U.S. diplomatic efforts. Danzig said an Obama administration would revive the idea of a special envoy for pursuing a peace deal.

The "appropriate level of presidential engagement requires that the United States designate someone whose energies are predominantly allocated to this," Danzig said.

Someone like Tony Blair, the former British prime minister now leading efforts to build a Palestinian civil society, might fit the bill, he added.

Surrogates from both campaigns appeared to agree on the need to further isolate Iran until it stands down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Each side emphasized that it would keep the military option on the table and enhance sanctions.

It was clear that each campaign had devoted a great deal of attention to the issue. Officials from both campaigns signed on to a Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy paper this summer that called for closer U.S.-Israel coordination on Iran, borne out of concerns that Israel's leadership was getting closer to contemplating the option of a strike.

Williamson and Richard Clarke, the former top anti-terrorism official in both the Clinton and current Bush administrations who spoke for Obama, described the near impossibility of taking out a weapons program that is believed to be diffuse and hidden in population centers. Clarke added the possibility of covert action against Iran, without details -- a first for either campaign.

The sole difference was over Obama's pledge not to count out a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president who has denied the Holocaust and rejected the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

"What could such a meeting possibly accomplish?" Boot challenged.

Danzig replied that it would make it easier for Obama to rally worldwide support for sanctions.

"These things require a community of nations," he said.

Danzig cast Obama's emphasis on sanctions and diplomacy in terms of Israel's security, a pitch tuned to the Washington Institute's pro-Israel orientation.

"The threats and dangers are more substantial than they were eight years ago," he said.

McCain’s advisers attempted to deflect comparisons between McCain and Bush. In trying to turn such comparisons against the Obama campaign, Boot noted that eight years ago he favored "another presidential candidate with not much experience in national security policy” -- George W. Bush -- “and we've seen the implications."

The Washington Institute crowd, hawkish in its predilections and likelier to favor McCain's foreign policy, would nonetheless only allow the McCain surrogates to take the character and experience issue so far.

Fred Lafer, the institute's president emeritus, pressed Boot on why McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a foreign policy novice, as his running mate if he was committed to national security.

Boot said "she has as much" foreign policy experience as Obama, prompting cries of "No!" and "what?”

Also, I wonder if immigration will come up.

A FRIDAY NIGHT!? how stupid are these people

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/former-secretaries-of-state-to-next-president-get-over-it-get-real-be-smart/

WTF?


John McCain suspends campaigning to work on economy, requests postponing Friday debate; asks Obama do the same.

McCain seeks to delay debate to focus on economy

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
3 mins ago

NEW YORK – Republican John McCain says he's directing his staff to work with Barack Obama's campaign and the debate commission to delay Friday's debate because of the economic crisis.

In a statement, McCain says he will stop campaigning after addressing former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative session on Thursday and return to Washington to focus on the nation's financial problems.

McCain also said he wants President Bush to convene a leadership meeting in Washington. Both he and Obama would attend the session.

So he doesn't want to debate the economy because he doesn't know how to address any questions in light of this crisis?

(that's my opinion).

Is he going to wait until this mess is sorted out so he can keep saying the fundamentals are strong?

Obama likely to keep debate as McCain seeks delay

Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer – 7 mins ago

NEW YORK – Barack Obama's campaign says he is inclined to go ahead with Friday's presidential debate, even though rival John McCain is calling for a delay. McCain said Wednesday that he wants to stop all campaigning tomorrow and postpone the debate so they can work together on the financial crisis.

But Obama campaign officials say the senator is inclined to move ahead.

McCain said the Bush administration's plan seemed headed for defeat and a bipartisan solution was urgently needed.

now Obama is going to be painted as someone who won't put the country first

not if this is solved by Friday.

now Obama is going to be painted as someone who won't put the country first

Oh, they'll try, but it can also be said that McCain is using the financial situation to try and delay the debate until the economic crisis has time to get out of the headlines.

I like the move by Obama, don't let McCain use this to distance himself from Bush, gotta tie them in together.

Obama supporter and chief debate negotiator Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., told MSNBC that "we can handle both," when asked about his reaction to McCain's call to postpone the first debate because of the administration's bailout plan.
He believes they are making good progress on Capitol Hill on the bailout and his initial reaction is that the work on the Hill should not preclude the debate from taking place.
An Obama campaign official told ABC News the Democratic presidential candidate called McCain this morning to suggest a joint statement of principles.
McCain called back this afternoon and suggested returning to Washington.
Obama is willing to return to Washington "if it would be helpful." But reiterated Obama intends to debate on Friday.

This is turning into 1980 again, with Reagan and Anderson debating the empty chair! WOW!

Harry Reid just informed McCain that McCain isn't really welcome, as the presidential politics would only distract from the process of getting something ironed out.

Pundits from both sides agree that Obama scores big with his "a President needs to be able to handle multiple things at a time" comment.

Everyone is selling McCain short here, but he is a decent debater and this is a foreign policy forum, it should be up his alley. I'd be very surprised if the media message afterwards wasn't "McCain explodes with strong performance, grills Obama...blah blah."
I agree, and its not how the debate is anyways, its how its portrayed. Bush never won a debate imo legitimately, but sure did play to the crowd enough to sneak out as a winner.

Pundits from both sides agree that Obama scores big with his "a President needs to be able to handle multiple things at a time" comment.
I concur. If McCain wants to go to Washington and address this, fine. But why hasn't he done so prior? Why can he only go Friday night?

This is like a kid who isn't ready to take the exam.

I wonder, is this a ploy so the pressure is off McCain to perform? He's too busy trying to solve our economy to properly prepare, blah blah.

AMERICA FIRST!

You betcha baby, McCain is the MAN!

I don't think that will fly in light of Obama's comments. Is McCain only going to be able to pay attention to domestic affairs or can he handle many balls in the air at once?

I'm sure he can pay attention to both. However if he chooses to spin this thing I think he'll get burnt by what Obama said.

BO dodged JM's proposal to debate across the country.

BO is running SCARED.

BO dodged JM's proposal to give JM free publicity across the country and take BO off the campaign trail. Running scared? Who's dodging 48 hours before the first scheduled debate? Hmmm...

America First!

Take him off the campaign trail? He even said mostly go to where BO wanted and he still dodged him.

Obama countered with a town hall and that was rejected.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5837182.html

<yawn> Few people give a shit about the town halls at this point except for McCain, who says his campaign might not have been as nasty if not for them.

McCain's dodging, and trying to delay the VP debates as well. I've seen what happens when a presidential candidate debates a chair, and so have you.

AMERICA FIRST!

You betcha baby, McCain is the MAN!

I thought that no politicians knew anything about the economy anyways so it didn't matter what happened with the bailout.

I thought that no politicians knew anything about the economy anyways so it didn't matter what happened with the bailout.

xanadu is playing "gotcha" messageboarding.

And it's fun.

http://my.barackobama.com/latestremarks

XjkCrfylq-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

at about the 6:50 mark is where this starts to get real interesting

Letterman endorses BO anyway, so it's just another Jon Stewart using his platform to try and persuade viewers...

an unwarranted poke at JM if you ask me

Letterman's had a great relationship with McCain for many years now. Fuck, Letterman is where McCain ANNOUNCED his presidency!

McCain had to really fuck up to piss away that relationship, and he did. He even managed to show that this debate delay was a cheap political stunt in the process and get owned. That takes talent.

Letterman is the one of the few redeeming things to ever come out of the state of Indiana.

I actually always pictured him as a Republican, is he definitiely not?

so he couldn't suspend his campaign last week or even at the start of negotiations this week. bam! 3pm on wednesday after meeting with lady de rothchild and it is suddenly crisis time. of course, it's not exactly a crisis since he gave an interview to katie couric last night and is giving a speech at the clinton foundation today. it is just friday at 9pm when he's booked solid? i know mccain thinks americans are pretty fucking dumb, but give me an ounce of respect.

also, would any other president sit on his ass for 2 weeks before finally coming on tv and telling the country that we face economic disaster. I mean that 2 1/2 page memo about needing $700 billion to be spent at the sole discretion of bush's no. 1 money-man was certainly unambiguous, but i like some face time with my presidents. was he catching up on his reading: my pet mule, my pet giraffe, etc.

Letterman is the one of the few redeeming things to ever come out of the state of Indiana.

I actually always pictured him as a Republican, is he definitiely not?
He is definitely one of those "unaffiliated" voters I keep hearing about but have never actually met. I know he's voted Republican in the past. I don't see him going that way this time, though. He definitely dislikes Bush and considers him an embarrassment.

The Republicans have really damaged themselves in New York, I think, especially. These people were really traumatized by the WTC attacks, and they wanted something done about it, and I don't think they are satisfied with the things Bush has done overseas.

Letterman is a fascinating dude. You'd think that this whole "our show sucks, everyone around here is such an idiot" thing is part of his act, but the joke's on you: people who know him say that he really is kind of a jerk.

His show was pretty much the best thing about the late 1980s. It was so fucking unpredictable, and he would just carve his guests right up on live TV. I think he really hates phonies and doesn't mind getting all up in their faces. It's the best combination of Midwestern and New York attitudes, but for the life of me I can't imagine why a guy like that would want to be on a show where he interviews celebrities.

I simply don't believe Olbermann when he said "there's very liitle about his campaign he doesn't know about". The Katie Couric interview is staged and well planned out, allowing stump answers previously rehearsed. Letterman, on the other hand, loves to play around with guests, but really is an excellent interviewer when he decides to be.

I still firmly believe the GOP heavies are playing with McCain like a puppet, pulling his strings at every turn.

^ Agreed.

It was marginally better for Olbermann to say McCain was competent than the alternative. Letterman is not the show where a guest would look good by pounding on the old and infirm.

I thought that no politicians knew anything about the economy anyways so it didn't matter what happened with the bailout.

LOL, do you honestly believe that I believe that JM going to DC is going to fix the economy? Holy shit!

LMAO

At this point, Obama's in a no-lose situation.

Either McCain shows up to the debate, in which case McCain has to flip-flop quite significantly, be forced to do what he clearly doesn't want to do.

-or-

McCain doesn't show up for the debate, and Obama gets a huge audience who's taking bets on whether he debates an empty chair or a sock puppet.

At this point, Obama's in a no-lose situation.

Either McCain shows up to the debate, in which case McCain has to flip-flop quite significantly, be forced to do what he clearly doesn't want to do.

-or-

McCain doesn't show up for the debate, and Obama gets a huge audience who's taking bets on whether he debates an empty chair or a sock puppet.

They won't send Palin.

"But, but, but McCain didn't have time to prepare because he was busy putting COUNTRY FIRST".

Apparently, this isn't the first time McCain's pulled out of a debate:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/28/MN62687.DTL&hw=mccain+opinsky&sn=001&sc=1000


With new polls showing his campaign dead in the water among California Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain has pulled out of a long-scheduled debate with Texas Gov. George Bush, set for Thursday in Los Angeles.

McCain campaign won't commit to debate on Friday

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
51 mins ago

WASHINGTON – John McCain's campaign expressed cautious optimism Thursday as congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed in principle on a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry hours before the two presidential candidates were to meet with President Bush on the crisis.

Even so, the action didn't appear to be strong enough to convince McCain to attend Friday's scheduled presidential debate. His campaign has said he wouldn't participate unless there was consensus between Congress and the administration, and a spokesman said the afternoon developments had not changed his plans.

"There's no deal until there's a deal. We're optimistic but we want to get this thing done," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said.

Obama still wants the face-off to go on, and is slated to travel to the debate site in Mississippi on Friday.

The debate over the debate is the latest campaign twist as McCain and Obama try to navigate the uncharted politics of the financial meltdown and show leadership at a time of national angst.

"With so much on the line, for America and the world, the debate that matters most right now is taking place in the United States Capitol — and I intend to join it," McCain said after addressing former President Clinton's Global Initiative in New York on Thursday before heading to Washington.

Obama argued the debate should proceed because a president needs to be able to handle more than one issue at a time.

"Our election is in 40 days. Our economy is in crisis, and our nation is fighting two wars abroad. The American people deserve to hear directly from myself and Sen. McCain about how we intend to lead our country. The times are too serious to put our campaign on hold, or to ignore the full range of issues that the next president will face."

In Oxford, Miss., debate organizers continued to prepare.

At a news conference, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, said he expected the presidential debate to go ahead, though he said he had no inside information. "This is going to be a great debate tomorrow night. We're excited about it," Barbour said.

Television networks, too, were moving forward. "We're proceeding as if it's on and will until someone tells us that it's not," ABC spokeswoman Cathie Levine said.

The two candidates spoke to the Clinton Global Initiative — McCain in person, Obama via satellite — before the meeting in Washington with Bush and House and Senate leaders from both parties. One of them is certain to inherit the economic mess, including the aftermath of the unprecedented plan to rescue the financial sector.

Presidential politics was running smack into the delicate negotiations over how to stop further weakening the sagging economy without putting an enormous new burden on taxpayers or rewarding corporations or their executives who share the blame for the woes.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic and Republican negotiators emerged from a closed-door meeting to report an agreement in principle. They said they would present it to the Bush administration in hopes of a vote within days.

Rogers said McCain didn't participate in that meeting, but was in talks with Republican leaders afterward. Conservative Republicans were among the holdouts, and there were indications they were waiting for McCain to make a move before they did.

As Thursday began, McCain said he didn't believe the administration's plan had the votes to pass without changes. "We are running out of time," McCain said. However, he said he still was confident a bipartisan compromise could be reached before markets open on Monday, one that would stabilize the markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners and "earn the confidence of the American people."

He again portrayed his announced halt to campaign events, fundraising and advertising as an example of putting the country ahead of politics. But in doing so he also hoped to get political credit for a decisive step on a national crisis as polls show him trailing Obama on the economy and slipping in the presidential race.

Despite McCain's stated campaigning hiatus, his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, paid a highly visible visit to memorials in lower Manhattan to those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Democrats derided McCain's claim to have halted his campaign as a political stunt, though Obama himself didn't go that far.

For his part, Obama urged a swift resolution that would get the legislation passed, saying "action must be taken to restore confidence in our economy ... Now is a time to come together — Democrats and Republicans — in a spirit of cooperation on behalf of the American people."

Obama also rolled out a new 60-second TV ad to run in "key targeted states" in which he cited economic policies endorsed by Bush and McCain as essentially to blame for the troubles.

"For eight years we've been told that the way to a stronger economy was to give huge tax breaks to corporations and the wealthiest. Cut oversight on Wall Street. And somehow all Americans would benefit," Obama says in the ad. "Well now we know the truth. Instead of prosperity tricking down, the pain has trickled up. We need to change direction. Now."

Rogers said McCain didn't participate in that meeting, but was in talks with Republican leaders afterward. Conservative Republicans were among the holdouts, and there were indications they were waiting for McCain to make a move before they did.

A skeptic might suggest that he's trying to hold this thing up to keep the debate from happening.

Y'all are really having a hard time with someone who puts AMERICA FIRST!

I thought the pussy was at the bottom of the ticket.

Letterman endorses BO anyway, so it's just another Jon Stewart using his platform to try and persuade viewers...

an unwarranted poke at JM if you ask me

So you're not only giving him a free pass for an outright lie, you're saying the person he lied to is "unwarranted" for calling him on it.

Wow. Just wow.

I'm not going back to read how David Letterman (D) got into this thread but are we talking about the possibility that JM lied to Dave?

If so, that is possibly one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time.

Here.

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff51/Kilberg1/Double%20Takes/clue-premier-edition.jpg

I'm not going back to read how David Letterman (D) got into this thread but are we talking about the possibility that JM lied to Dave?

If so, that is possibly one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time.

Apparently, a consensus agreement (nothing on paper) was reached BEFORE McCain arrived in DC. This was nothing more than a political stunt. At first, some Americans might side with McCain, feeling he's placing "America First", but really he's placing "McCain First". If the debate is delayed, watch the media simply destroy McCain.

BTW, it's estimated nearly 100 million people will watch the debate (a little high, me thinks... maybe more like 60-70 million). Still, that's a lot of persuasive minds to mold if you play your "it's his fault" card right.

I'm not going back to read how David Letterman (D) got into this thread but are we talking about the possibility that JM lied to Dave?

If so, that is possibly one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time.
McCain told Letterman that he was leaving for DC to save the economy. Letterman's cheesed off -- why couldn't he have sent Sarah Palin? -- but spends much of the time praising his service as a POW.

Midway through the taping, Letterman finds out that's not the case. McCain's actually interviewing Katie Couric just down the street!

So, Letterman taps CBS's live feed and catches McCain in the act of getting makeup applied in preparation for Katie Couric -- a presidential moment kinda like Dukakis on a tank.

To top it off, Letterman had as his emergency fill-in guest none other than Keith Olbermann (or maybe KO was supposed to be there with McCain, but I doubt it). So Letterman and KO get to exchange pleasantries as McCain is caught lying red-handed. KO nearly bust a gut laughing at one point...

Letterman had been one of McCain's biggest fans. Remember, McCain chose to announce his candidacy on Letterman's show. Apart from $2300 to Al Franken (who he knows socially -- they were in the same circles back at NBC), Letterman's not especially partisan. He's about as centrist as they come. McCain losing Letterman is a big deal.

I'm not going back to read how David Letterman (D) got into this thread

WTFDetroit frowns upon that type of attitude.

Trust me.

McCain told Letterman that he was leaving for DC to save the economy. Letterman's cheesed off -- why couldn't he have sent Sarah Palin? -- but spends much of the time praising his service as a POW.

Midway through the taping, Letterman finds out that's not the case. McCain's actually interviewing Katie Couric just down the street!

So, Letterman taps CBS's live feed and catches McCain in the act of getting makeup applied in preparation for Katie Couric -- a presidential moment kinda like Dukakis on a tank.

To top it off, Letterman had as his emergency fill-in guest none other than Keith Olbermann (or maybe KO was supposed to be there with McCain, but I doubt it). So Letterman and KO get to exchange pleasantries as McCain is caught lying red-handed. KO nearly bust a gut laughing at one point...

Letterman had been one of McCain's biggest fans. Remember, McCain chose to announce his candidacy on Letterman's show. Apart from $2300 to Al Franken (who he knows socially -- they were in the same circles back at NBC), Letterman's not especially partisan. He's about as centrist as they come. McCain losing Letterman is a big deal.

Ok, I'll give you JM lied to Dave. Point conceded.

Huckabee weighs in:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/26/huckabee-calls-mccain-debate-ploy-a-huge-mistake/

Huckabee said he still backs McCain’s candidacy, but said the Arizona senator should not have put his campaign on hold to deal with the financial crisis on Wall Street. He said a president must be prepared to “deal with the unexpected.”

“You can’t just say, ‘World stop for a moment. I’m going to cancel everything,”‘ Huckabee said.

It's on bitches!

AMERICA FIR....Ah SECOND!

The debate already happened. McCain won. Didn't you see the ad? This image appears in the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal online:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/363/McCain_Wins_Debate.JPG
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_wins_debate.html

If you think about it, the debate is for about 10% of the country really. I mean, 45% JMers and the 45% BOers aren't going to change their mind by this debate.

And like the ad, no matter what happens, both sides will spin the hell out of it.

The debate already happened. Rick Davis said "McCain won the debate-- hands down." We need to close this thread now! :)

Thats funny.

Probably a stupid question, but excuse my novice. Do they "score" these things?

Everyone has their take on the tdebates. The only score that matters comes up in a few weeks. There's no formal scoring like you'd expect in a rhetoric class or anything like that... these are political theater as much as "debates".

On an unrelated note, the Klan will be recruiting at the debate tonight:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1844872,00.html?imw=Y

OMG, McCain won this thing hands down.

McCain is trying to make this a mud slingers battle, is somewhat successful, but is spending too much attacking and not answering questions.

OMG, McCain won this thing hands down.

You really think so? Or are you just saying that because you're a Republican Slappy?

McCain is trying to make this a mud slingers battle, is somewhat successful, but is spending too much attacking and not answering questions.

It reminds me of the Bush debates back in 2004. McCain is doing way too much attacking of Obama's statements and not worrying about getting in as much information about his stance...

You really think so? Or are you just saying that because you're a Republican Slappy?

The debate didn't even happen yet. Sorry.

This has been interesting so far - McCain seemed to have a firmer grasp of what he'd do WRT the economy, while Obama has remained on point and less in attack mode talking about Iran/Afghanistan. Not the order I was expecting, but I don't put much stock into debates to begin with.

This has been interesting so far - McCain seemed to have a firmer grasp of what he'd do WRT the economy, while Obama has remained on point and less in attack mode talking about Iran/Afghanistan. Not the order I was expecting, but I don't put much stock into debates to begin with.

I think I agree in a different way, JM got off to a strong start (economy) and then BO picked it up in the middle(war).

I got a phone call (TIVO) so I'm still listening,

The debate didn't even happen yet. Sorry.

I probably should look at the time stamp, huh?

I probably should look at the time stamp, huh?

Oh hell no. Just join the club and rip me. :)

But just remember, Mxy secretly has my back.

AWWWWWWWWW YEAAAAAH McCain use that POW shit BABY!!!!

Is thiss the drunk trhread?

Both sides got enough red meat where their proponents can reasonably say that they won. No big gaffes (though I have to wonder just how "spending freeze" won't be interpreted as the second coming of Herbert Hoover). But I have to wonder how independents perceive this.

There's too much time -- seems like it's way too easy to sling shit on both sides, and the questions aren't focused enough to prevent that. I thought the debate format would be better for us, but I'm not sure that's the case.

BTW, since there was much back-and-forth about what Kissinger said, here's what Kissinger said:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/20/se.01.html


KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

(CROSSTALK)

SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.

Both sides got enough red meat where their proponents can reasonably say that they won. No big gaffes (though I have to wonder just how "spending freeze" won't be interpreted as the second coming of Herbert Hoover). But I have to wonder how independents perceive this.

There's too much time -- seems like it's way too easy to sling shit on both sides, and the questions aren't focused enough to prevent that. I thought the debate format would be better for us, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Told ya.

Seriously, it was a rehash of a lot of things that are said on the campaign trail.

But since BO is winning in the polls, a draw benefits BO.

McCain surprised me with his poise, I thought he was the type who had a hard time selecting words like W.

I thought McCain got under Obama's skin a little bit.

Strong showing by both.

McCain surprised me with his poise, I thought he was the type who had a hard time selecting words like W. Not true.

I thought McCain got under Obama's skin a lot.

Strong showing by John McCain.

phiksted :)

It just finished for me, TIVO, but that was a good debate, imo. The audience was good and quiet.

Usually you get the anarchists libs who feel organization is bad, BAD. They did a good job of getting the 'don't taze me bro' libs out of there.

That second para mostly a fucking joke by the way. Throwing "some spears". Just "poking y'all". Just "havin some fun". Just "goofing around". Just "provoking thought". I do, afterall, live in a van down by the river.

also that post will all be lost on you youngsters.

^^well, i was trying to be unpartisan for a bit, but I do think McCain had an upper edge...

he was definitely on offense, let's put it that way

IMO McCain and Obama both struggled on economy issues. Neither did a very good job of answering the questions. And they both seemed to lack a good plan. Really a spending freeze, stimulate the economy by not giving money to schools.

FoxNews did a poll and they said JM won, so it must be true.

Lehrer's "What won't you be able to do because of the upcoming undefined bailout?" question made sense in a way, but it's too nebulous. Beyond some big scary number that may or may not be grounded in reality, the form of the bailout is so nebulous that it's hard to answer in anything but generalities. I don't think it was a question that COULD be answered well, by either of the candidate. Both listed their priorities, which is about all you could expect.

Just checked in on the fair and balanced MSNBC, and the first thing I heard was something about JM not giving BO dignity or something cuz he wouldn't look at him.

Thats it. Fuel that hatred. Go with it. Roll with it. Get peeps fired up. Get the to vote.

Mxy, you may not be a mathmetician but what does 700 billion divided out if they just gave each and ever US citizen an equal share of that money?

What are we, 300 million or so?

$2,333.333333333333333333333333333333E

Assuming 300 million people.

FoxNews did a poll and they said JM won, so it must be true.
CBS had a poll of independents:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml

UPDATED WITH NEAR-FINAL NUMBERS CBS News and Knowledge Networks conducted a nationally representative poll of approximately 500 uncommitted voters reacting to the debate in the minutes after it happened.

Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-five percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-six percent saw it as a draw.

Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight. Thirty-one percent said their opinion of McCain got better.

Sixty-six percent of uncommitted voters think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy. Forty-four percent think McCain would.

Forty-eight percent of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. Fifty-eight percent think McCain would.

We will have a full report on the poll later on. Uncommitted voters are those who don't yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds.

The margin of sampling error could be plus or minus 4 percentage points for results based on the entire sample.

I wish we could get a poll of the TRUE undecideds. I think all those undecidedes just lie to get attention. :) I mean how can you be undecided?

It's the nature of undecideds to lean towards the Dems. It's the reason Dems cringe when a 3rd candidate decides to run and has enough backing to make the national stage... he's not stealing Rep votes. While those poll results are nice to see, I wouldn't imagine it being any different just based on what I've seen in my lifetime during any election.

Mxy, you may not be a mathmetician but what does 700 billion divided out if they just gave each and ever US citizen an equal share of that money?

What are we, 300 million or so?

0) ~$700 billion/~300 million people (not all citizens)=~$2300/head. Restrict to citizens and you can call it ~$2500/head.

1) The key question isn't "what are we" but "what is our bailout". We're at well over $700 billion of potential liability based off the recent bailouts and regulatory-related bailout activities that have already happened. CNBC had calculated it at $1.8 trillion, and I posted about that already:

http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?p=274552&highlight=trillion#post274552

2) No, I'm not a mathematician.

If I hear McCain use that Miss Congeniality joke one more time....!!!!!

I thought it was a very good debate. I'll call this one a draw.

Which is a huge victory for Obama. He split the two at McCain Stadium (foreign affairs) of a best of five series (2-2-1). McCain did not slam dunk Obama, who seemed well versed enough in foreign matters to offset McCain's experience a little.

I think the next debate is domestic (Mxy, correct me if I'm wrong). McCain had better come out with everything he's got.


Side note: LOL@Palin. On NBC, they had Biden for the Democratic spin. Brian Williams then stated that they tried to get Sarah Palin to weigh in on the GOP spin side, but instead the Repubs gave 'em Guliani.

I can't wait for the Veep debate. Hahahahahaha.

It's the nature of undecideds to lean towards the Dems. It's the reason Dems cringe when a 3rd candidate decides to run and has enough backing to make the national stage... he's not stealing Rep votes. While those poll results are nice to see, I wouldn't imagine it being any different just based on what I've seen in my lifetime during any election.
Some Dems cringe because of Nader in 2000 and the prospect of fucking up a swing state. They're actually happy this year about Bob Barr on the ballot, Ron Paul on the ballot in Montana. Bill Clinton won twice with independent Perot drawing a significant % of votes from him.

Undecideds OVERALL are thought to lean Democratic. But, undecided folks who are registered and deemed to be probable VOTERS are a different beast. Some don't hold solid opinions on much of anything. Some cling to the last thing that got their attention. Some don't care much about the news. Some live in states where their vote doesn't really matter and they're not the subject of massive ad blitzes. The pollster to do some decent screening for these profiles, but the IT for doing this has evolved greatly.

Good points Mxy. Had a few beers so forgive me... I like Ron Paul a lot and would strongly consider him if he had a chance in hell, but he doesn't. Clinton won because, well, he couldn't lose. As much as Perot mattered, in the end he didn't matter aside from great schtick for Dana Carvey. Nader on the other hand, that's a different story. Generally though, I think we agree that on the surface the indys lean to the left.

The next Presidential debate is a town hall. The final debate is theoretically domestic, though I don't know how well that holds given how much extraneous stuff came out in the so-called "foreign policy debate".

Both teams played hard.

It was entertaining, but I was mildly disappointed by both.

Both hit with jabs, but neither went for a knockout blow.

I think it just confirmed what everybody already thought, McCain is crotchety and Obama is a cool customer, a collaborator/nice guy (although he got tough when he had to).

I did enjoy the infamous "Bomb, bomb, Iran" reference, I'm surprised that hasn't been used more.

Thursday should be more entertaining (and more humorous), for sure.

Generally though, I think we agree that on the surface the indys lean to the left.
Historically, that's been true. I'm not so sure if that's AS true with today's media penetrating and programming better than ever. Bush-Kerry had the largest % turnout of an election in recent memory (though still only ~55%). The left didn't win. Australia, home of Fox, has nearly 100% turnout due to compulsory voting laws. They elected a conservative for a lonnngg time.

I am surprised that Lehrer didn't ask McCain to speak directly to Obama.

McCain couldn't even look at him, not even when they shook hands.

And you'll also notice which side walked over to shake hands with their spouse at the end.

I was impressed with both to a degree, McCain was tough, though he really started to annoy me by the end. I hate the I've got a bracelet, ribbon or letter from -INSERT NAME- bullshit that politicians use. So I was happy when Obama was all " oh that's wonderful John, guess what, I'm a politician as well and here's my bracelet bitch".

Neither made any terrible mistakes IMO. McCain was just all "I've been there x6, Reagan did this x3, I'm not Miss congeniality x2 and oh yeah, did you fucks hear I'm a POW?"

I thought Obama responded to McCain's attacks pretty well overall where as McCain didn't bother with Obama's attacks. IMO Obama got the better of this by a tad, McCain had some work to do to get my vote and he didn't. I never had any HELL YEAH McCain moments, but had a few for Obama.

P.S. - McCain really needs to look at Obama more, or even once. What the fuck was that? My wife who is participating in her 1st presidential election thought McCain looked really stupid for not doing so and so did I.

I figured it would be this way. Both are standing Senators, and Senators running for Prez tend to hold back the knockout blows (read Kerry), since a loss would undoubtedly assure them of headaches and back-turns when they arrive back on Capital Hill.

It's why I love it when a Governor is in the mix. A governor, in essence, has already run a small country of sorts, and thus is better equipped to deal with the political game from an elevated position (in theory: read W.).

Obama really missed a great opportunity, with McCain bashing him with the golden "experience" card. It's like they're playing Texas Hold 'Em, and McCain is relying on his unbeatable Golden Ace to trump anything Obama layss on the felt. Consider the past presidents and their "overall experience" for leading this nation:

W. Bush -- major experience, Gov. of Texas
Clinton -- major experience, Gov. of Crack Creek, er, Arkansas.
HW. Bush -- major experience, VP and Dir. of CIA.
Reagan -- major experience, Gov. of California and Prez of SAG.
Carter -- major experience, Gov. of Georgia and state senator
Ford -- major experience, VP and professional tumbler

Nixon -- Here's where it gets interesting. Of all the presidents over the past 4 decades, Nixon far and away had the most national experience of any standing president (House of Represenatives, Senator, VP), as a military commander, and as a foreign advisor (Ike used him extensively in that role).

So, if McCain continues to play the golden "experience" card, I'd suggest Obama compare McCain to the next Richard M. Nixon. It really is as simple as that.

I think most nonpartisan pundits agree that it pretty much was a draw and that both drew some benefit out of it.

McCain showed that he's not a douchy as he has seemed over the past two weeks and Obama pretty much dispelled any "inexperience" claims by showing that he knows every bit as much as McCain does about the issues, and in some cases, more.

I heard some good points about Obama needing to play nice so he doesn't come across as "the angry black man". That ol' race thing, again.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/debate_live_fact_check_starts.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

I think McCain needed to hit it out of the park in order to come out ahead on what was clearly a pretty terrible week for him. He didn't really do that, but he hit a respectable grounder. Problem is, he was up against a dude who's been hitting respectable grounders for a while now.

It was a really civil debate - you could tell that Jim Lehrer was bummed out that they didn't go for each other's throats. The media might have found it boring, but I think there was a lot of substance in this debate (compared to years past), and I'm happy about that.

Poll after poll shows Obama did better (and I'm not talking "internet polls" or other such nonsense):

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/what_sayeth_the_undecideds.html

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/09/usatgallup-poll.html

I think the key is not so much "who won the debate" but "who overcame the negative perceptions about them better amongst indies". I think Obama did a much better job coming across as "not a jive-talking lightweight" than McCain did in coming across as "not old and cranky". I think that's what Obama was going for. He's deliberately NOT going for the Mortal Kombat fatality, because he knows a lot of disengaged independent voters don't go for fighting. I bet he made it a point of saying that McCain was right.

It's clear that Obama certainly CAN go for the jugular. This from the DC meeting just before the debate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603957_pf.html

No, Boehner replied, he just wanted his members to have a voice. Obama then jumped in to turn the question on his rival: "What do you think of the [insurance] plan, John?" he asked repeatedly. McCain did not answer.

One Republican in the room said it was clear that the Democrats came into the meeting with a "game plan" aimed at forcing McCain to choose between the administration and House Republicans. "They had taken McCain's request for a meeting and trumped it," said this source.
It's even more of a hoot that Lehrer forced McCain to choose on stage.