This is Obama after the debate:
And this is McCain:
But don't worry, Jonny, you can still get your hug....
When someone keeps calling me "his friend" again and again and again, I tend to reach for my wallet.
In both of the last two debates, polls of independent and/or undecided voters overwhelmingly indicated that Obama/Biden won handily, yet the rhetoric out there in the news agencies and on the blogosphere is that "debates don't matter" and "debates don't change people's minds" and "nobody wins these debates, each side says hooray for their own side and that's it" .... because that is simply not the truth. So let's cut that out, OK?
(Watching debate as I write this: Oh, oh, yessss. Obama just whacked McCain totally upside the head, made him flinch. Bomb Bomb Iran indeed. KO!!! Forcing McCain to explain himself, forcing him to lie about what he said, forcing him to get a bit hot under the collar, just. a. little. mad.)
(Oh, oh, Obama got the camera to swing over to Michelle. Jackie K city. 3 points.)
- Log in to post comments
I was impressed. Every time McCain pulled out a strategy he was expected to use, his rating among CNN's undecided voters actually went down. I'm thinking that the press has been talking so much about what McCain has to do and how they expect him to do it, that when he does it, the reaction is, "Oh, he's just saying that because he thinks he has to." There didn't seem to be much faith in his credibility.
Similar results on MSNBC, in the post game analysis ... they showed the votometers for certain McCain and Obama statements.
CNN's instant poll shows 51% think Obama won. Obama's favorable rating improved from 60% to 64% and his unfavorables dropped. McCain's ratings were unchanged.
Much talk about "that one" and McCain leaving the auditorium immediately.
There are undecided voters left? Did CNN have them all in the studio?
The whole audience was supposedly undecided, I thought. From some of the expressions I saw, I'd say they didn't stay that way.
And sorry, it was 54% said Obama won. 30% for McCain.
Obama could not pass a background check with his mysterious pass.
Hmmm lived in Indonesia, Kenyan father with ties to radical government officials, half brother living in box in Kenya on a dollar a day, had a Saudi Muslim write a letter to get him into Harvard (why not release your grades from Columbia?) Did you not get into Harvard without shell money from the Saudis to fund your education? Who paid off your student loans? Release those documents Obama.
Then you have a Pakistani roommate in college and head to Pakistan for 6 weeks? French Riveria? NO but Pakistan. THen you are associated with Louis Farrakahn and Rashid Kashid and then 20 years with Rev. Wright.. PATTERN?
Ask yourself if the Feds would not pass an average person with a background check such as this handling your US information, why would you vote for this MYSTERIOUS guy?????
Voting for McCain the true patriot!!!!!
Mike, just because you read it in a forwarded email doesn't make it true. There are places you can check all this stuff out, you know.
By the way, we have two of the least mysterious candidates we've ever had for president. These two guys have lived their lives so much in the public eye.
True patriot? Yeah, right.
I found McCain's continual use of "my friends" pretty tiresome. I also found (a) his continual falling back into Republican agitprop blather and (b) his repetition of the claim that Obama voted 94 times against cutting taxes pretty tiresome, too. He tried that during the first debate, and it didn't work. I guess, from what I've been reading, the rest of the country is beginning to find this repetition tiresome, too.
Anne G
I found McCain's continual use of "my friends" pretty tiresome. I also found (a) his continual falling back into Republican agitprop blather and (b) his repetition of the claim that Obama voted 94 times against cutting taxes pretty tiresome, too. He tried that during the first debate, and it didn't work. I guess, from what I've been reading, the rest of the country is beginning to find this repetition tiresome, too.
Anne G
I just want to state for the record that the "mike" who posted above is NOT ME.
I didn't like the format of this debate at all. Too little time for the responses and no time for rebuttal. Made it easy for McCain to try to score cheap points.
It is abundantly clear that McCain is going for the anti-science vote. Last night he referred to the star projection system in Adler Planetarium as an "overhead projector." when it comes to science education, Grandpa doesn't get it.
Alternate caption for last photo:
"If you can think of a better way to exchange long protein chains, I'd like to hear it." - Alien Kang from The Simpson's (running for president).
Shorter mike:
BOO! HE'S TEH MUZLIM!
I think he called it an "overhead projector" to try to denigrate it, but it probably worked against him. I, for one, was thinking "how much is an overhead projector, a couple hundred bucks? A couple thousand at most? Who cares?"
Mike H. wrote:
You know, a decent "debate" would have 3 at a roundtable (the two candidates and the moderator), and they would just have a discussion, guided by the moderator. If they interrupted each other, at least in an impolite way, that would let us judge them better, too. If it got too nasty, the moderator could jump in and stop it.
But that would give a much better give-and-take, back-and-forth, and allow real-time challenges to falsehoods. It would also give them the opportunity to explore each other's ideas.
But no major party or candidate would ever agree to do such a thing. Not sterile enough; too many risks.
Hanoi flashback: McCain refers to "my fellow prisoners"