simple math:

obama > mccain

palin = totally fucked

I can't wait to see the next round of polling. I think we could get to the tipping point where the inevitability of Obama's victory brings over big numbers of undecideds who want to vote for the winner.

Respectfully, I am entirely unable to understand how anyone can say that McCain won or had the upper hand or any equivalent assertion.

Even Alex Castellanos gave Obama higher marks, friggin' Larry King saw a draw, and even Pat Buchanan allowed that McCain's affect might be viewed very negatively by Americans.

Here is why Obama won, on many levels:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/mcpain-is-ailin.php#comments

I'm glad you are coming around to the consensus, Greg :-)

Like I said, if DumbBillC shows up, McCain lost.

QED.

Well Roger Simon at Politico seems to think that "the Mac is back." It will be interesting to see how some of these pundits change their tune once they see the snap polls. MSNBC's Pat Buchanan already started to soften after Keith read him the polls.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14005.html

Thank you for the post. This is the most important post for sometime. Everyone wait for 1-2 sucker punch. Biden will give a KO.

Kissinger has been contacted and said McCain was right in his characterization. I'm betting this will be the story that comes out of this debate.

Obama will need an economic crisis settlement early next week which will devour media discussion until it's time for the VP debate on Friday.

I think our side hoped/expected McCain to fall flat, thus giving the edge to him when he didn't. Sadly, the country seems to have a better opinion of McCain than we do, and he didn't quite meet or exceed their expectations in this debate.

btw -- CNN had a huge gender gap: 59-31 for Obama.

Go girls!

That CNN poll is devasting..I've kept saying for weeks..this is Carter/Reagan in spades..People are just dying to vote McCain and his party out of power
Now they can do so with confidence in the alternative

I think likability is HUGE in America.

People will think "who would I rather listen to and see on tv for the next several years?"

I think McCain is just tiresome on so many levels. Hasn't he already president been once? He's on tv just so damn much.

I think if you listen to the soundbites, Obama clearly wins. And most people just listen to soundbites.

I agree that Obama won based on style points. But I think McCain probably endeared himself to some folks when he stumbled over the pronunciation of Ahmadinijad. (I can't even spell it myself.)

Just watch when the next debate comes. mcShame will try to "look" at Barack. But I guarantee it's gonna be a weird kind of look. And won't work. Remember those weird smiles in that one speech?

Can I ask a question here? Where have they been hiding all these great Black commentators? All of a sudden the floodgates have opened and we are swamped with thoughtful, intelligent and, yes, articulate, Black news analysts all over TV. What took so long?

Thanks Barak.

Does anyone else besides me think that the CNN presentation with the pundit's scores on both sides of the screen help steer the audience? In this case, thankfully, the pundits gave Obama a +21 score (I might be a bit off, but that's the gist of it). So is it surprising that the myriad sheep that make up sound-bite America now respond that Obama won?

Hurray that it came out that way. but really? Is this what we want? Do we want our TV coverage to tell us the play-by-play of what 6 "experts" think and should we allow that to create our public perception of the debate? I say no.

Fox News is an abomination. Please deliver us from the rest of the new media becoming mirror images of the mindless drivel that issues forth through that media outlet. Let people think for themselves! Please. Deliver news. Do investigative reporting. Tell us facts. We don't want your opinions. Blech!

For goodness sakes, the Daily Show is better at showing the hypocrisy of modern politicians than any news outlet. John Stewart shows us clips of politicians years ago juxtaposed vs. clips from today. The 180 degree changes are mind-boggling.

I have a buddy who was influential in the early days of CNN and who claims he was instrumental in filling airtime with "expert opinion" during the first gulf war. ugh. That's all that we get these days. Supposed experts spouting on and on. Who cares? It costs the networks very little. But the problem is that it has taken the place of real investigative reporting which is sorely needed in these days of massive corruption and mismanagement at teh highest levels of our government. We need reporters with BALLS who will dig and expose the dirt (Republican or Democract) and return the power to the people.
Period.

The biggest problem with America today is not global warming, Iraq war, or Wall Street meltdown. The biggest danger to our democracy is the erosion of our free press. It's all controlled by big business these days who have profit agendas of their own. Balanced and fair, investigative reporting is not what it's all about any more. Yet, an informed populace is what is required for democracy to triumph.

My $0.02
Dave

Debate in a nutshell:

A cranky old man lecturing a smart young man about the way things used to be.

On CNN tonight and it looked like Obama's hair and eyebrows were looking much darker than usual, almost as if he had dyed them. But when I switched to MSNBC, his hair and skin tone was lighter.

Going back to CNN, both McCain's and Obama's jackets were so dark, they showed almost no detail. There is plenty of detail on the MSNBC footage.

To make a long story short, It looks like CNN took the feed and deliberately saturated (darkened) it.

Did anyone else notice this?

The entire CNN panel was laughing outloud at the thought of a Palin-Biden debate. Even John fuckingIhavetobeimpartial King smirked.

She has become a national laughing stock.

From debbiedoesnothing:

Palin was remarkably absent from the spin machine after the debate, which is normally a VP's job. Biden did a great job on Countdown while nobody's heard from Moose girl.

I wrote elsewhere that Palin will be out before Friday's debate for family reasons and that Huckabee will replace her. It has to be someone who appeals to the evangelical base.

Kissinger? Who the hell cares about that fossil? The take-away is that Obama won the night on points according to every poll and that McCain is still a miserable old prick. His behavior has a chance to become the Al-Gore-sighing story all over again. And even if it doesn't ... this thing is as good as over.

I think you mean polls that only support your view point....

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

MCCAIN

66% 119,642
OBAMA

32% 57,049
NEITHER

2% 4,099

Total Votes: 180,790

Hey with the last couple of weeks McCain has had, Yeah! Barack not losing is a win, a big win.

Re: the VP talk

My understanding is that a new convention would have to be held to do something as serious as change the VP candidate.

Maritza is right about this: "Always remember that people vote just as much if not more on demeanor and style than substance"

Maritza's right about that. In addition, something else may be at work. People are sick of McCain's antics and are forming a negative view of him. And it's always easy to say that the guy whom you view negatively going in, has lost the debate. They also wanted to know if Obama could pull off the "Presidential" thing, and since he passed that test, they voted more for him, not based on substance.

My personal observations of the debate - for what its' worth:

1) Obama was a bit awkward in his delivery. Good talking points. Very direct and to the point. Just a little too much casual than formal. It took a few rounds before Obama realized the moderator was going to allow them to go one-on-one addressing misstatements of positions and he was quick to step in and corrected McCain with facts refuting a stated misconception. Obama was a quick study of the flow the debate was taking and attempted to make the debate an exchange of views and opinions to be discussed and clarified. If I had to give a grade, I'd say B+. By the way, a B+ in my book is between 91 and 93.

2) McCain delivery was condescending throughout the debate. It was very subtle at first, but as the debate progressed to was obvious that he was uncomfortable and irritated with having to stick to answering questions directed at him instead of freewheeling it. Note the change in his voice at the beginning and at the end. He came across grandfatherly at first, but turned grumpy at the end. Also, note he was quite rude in interrupting Obama when he disagreed with a talking point Obama was making. One could easily sense the bitterness of his rebuttals and his talking down to Obama. Also, when McCain discussed a position he has taken, for example the military, he always painted himself as the champion of the cause and Obama as clueless and not caring. His record was always greater and set in stone whereas Obama's was nothing more than hastily scribbled note on a postit. Towards the end, he was became rigid and refused to yield to Obama for counter arguments. It was almost a shouting match - McCain kept talking to drown out Obama's counter argument as if his status as a senior Senator overrode the junior Senator. This may work in the chambers, but in public it was bad taste. It was as if he didn't want to hear Obama anymore and was doing everything he could stifle any view contrary to his. As for grading, I would be considerate and offer McCain a chance to retest. He clearly did not have the temperament to freely discuss and debate with facts to substantiate his points and was not willing to yield territory he felt he conquered with questionable facts and accusations. In short, he did not make his case in a coherent form.

A-ha, here is the CNN transcript from the GWU former SoS symposium, link at bottom, emphasis mine:

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.

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

Posting this as a separate entry too.

From:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

Saturday, September 27, 2008

What A Debate Reveals: Anger, Entitlement and Contempt

What I found shocking reflecting on last night's debate was how angry and entitled McCain was, in a very open way.

McCain's manner was one of that who believed he should not even be on the same stage with this person. This indicates a person of extreme rights and extreme wrongs, not a statesmanlike persona, but an angry and impulsive one.

McCain carries strong ideas of what a liberal is, ideas that very little from his cherished ideas of who betrayed the nation during the Vietnam war. A stock character, driven and created by his own rage, carried, as it has been since the '70s, with a virtual ideological blindness--blinded by a contemptuous rage--that there are others who cannot understand the world the way he can. This is not judgment, but angry certainty. This is not readiness, but a just-contained rage that he should be confronted by such ideas.

You can see it in his constricted "can you believe it" rage at one who disagrees with him. This kind of contemptuous, angry dismissal of others ideas leads easily into the impulsive decisions of the last few months--generated with barely contained contemptuous rejection of those who would reject his ideas--only the most recent forms of those essential constructs--a contemptible media, easily fed with false notions and panaceas, as he believes they were earlier in his life; intellectuals, whose reason and deliberation is contrasted with the sharp, impulsive action that for his life has constituted a certain knowledge, and an angry, certain need to sweep away those who would stand in the path of righteous certainty.

What is beautifully ironic is how McCain maintains this contempt even as he switches from one position to another in the opportunistic second--this is when the look of contempt and entitlement turns, for a moment, to anxiety and panic.

Soon, however, the gaze is back. No matter what the new position is--impulsively determined, desperately grasped--if only "they" knew better. If only "they" knew the truth.

This kind of ideological rigidity and certainty (note how Obama could not contain himself from smiling when McCain attempted to compare him to Bush in that regard) combined with impulsive decision making, from the "gut" of sure knowledge, is what has created the outcomes of the past 8 years.

It was--in a setting where one would not expect it to be, where one would expect McCain to contain it--glaring apparent last night.

This is an amplification of the last 8 years rather than a change.

We do not need to experience this type of decision making again.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

New Obama ad hitting McCain for not bringing up the Middle Class once during the entire debate. And a nice broadside on McCain's taxplan as well.

Andrew Halcro's blog has an interesting tidbit abour McCain not looking at Obama last nite:

After Friday nights debate between Senator John McCain and Senator Barrack Obama, analysts wondered aloud why McCain didn't bother to once look at Obama during the ninety minute debate.

Both Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and Pat Buchanan of CNN said it was a way McCain attempts to demonize his opponent.

Then it struck me....that is exacty why McCain became an instant soul mate with Governor Sarah Palin during their one meeting; they both sensed the same core value; demonizing their critics and opponents.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/now_it_makes_complete_sense

Andrew Halcro's blog has an interesting tidbit abour McCain not looking at Obama last nite:

After Friday nights debate between Senator John McCain and Senator Barrack Obama, analysts wondered aloud why McCain didn't bother to once look at Obama during the ninety minute debate.

Both Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and Pat Buchanan of CNN said it was a way McCain attempts to demonize his opponent.

Then it struck me....that is exacty why McCain became an instant soul mate with Governor Sarah Palin during their one meeting; they both sensed the same core value; demonizing their critics and opponents.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/now_it_makes_complete_sense

For me the most baffling numbers from the poll are at the bottom: despite big margins in Obama's favor on who did the best job in debate, who do you favor on the economy, intelligence, leadership, likeability, etc. when asked who would handle the job of president "better" it was almost even 69% to 68%!!

Disconnect?

Also, the poll should have had a question about which candidate put America first (instead of pandering) in their VP choice...

I also think Obama looked presidential. McCain looked like some grumpy old man who can't speak coherently. Furthermore, Obama seemed to answer the questions and had a vision for the future. McCain seemed to relish in the past -- the Reagan era. By the time he got through rambling through his answers, I forgot what the questions were. He mostly seemed to attack Obama, but offered no solutions to our current problems -- other than his definition of victory in Iraq.

I think that Obama needs to make a counter point to McCain's "YOU JUST DON UNDERSTAND." Obama should say "Senator this I do understand, we don't won't to repeat your and Bush's pass failures--we must go forward for peace and prosperity for the sake of the American people it is time for change. Your way and George Bush way have landed us in the mess we find ourselves both at home and abroad, we tried your way for 8 years and it has brought us where we find ourselves today. We must move forward WE CAN NOT AFFORD FOUR MORE YEARS OF THE SAME.

That 2-1 likeability ratio is LITERALLY all that matters. If it was about substance Gore would be finishing his second term right now. THAT is the reason Obama is winning. Alot of these undecideds don't really watch for the substance, they watch to see who cares about them and their needs. In that case Obama BLEW IT OUT OF THE WATER.

Here's 4 groups of voters that would be alienated by McCain's demeanor last night:

1) Women: We have a visceral reaction to being dismissed contemptuously.
2) Old people: It was just plain rude.
3) Blacks: "We're not good enough to be even looked at?"
4) Young people: Our opinions don't count because we lack experience?

FUCK WHUT THE MSM,POLITICAL PUNDITS,POLLS AND SOME OF THESE CLOSE MINDED DENSE GOP'S THAT SAID MCBUSH PAWN BARACK,BARACK LITERALLY DESTROYED THAT MUTHAFUCKA,AND SOME OF THESE DUMBASS TALKIN ABOUT MCBUSH HELD HIS OWN,HELD HIS OWN ON WHAT?HE COULD'NT EVEN LOOK BARACK IN HIS EYES,EVEN GOP FRANK LUNTZ,GOP ALEX COSTELLANOS AND CONSERVATIVE PUNDIT GEORGE WILLS SAID BARACK DESTROYED MCBUSH HANDS DOWN,BUT IAM DISAPPOINTED IN BARACK ON 1 THING,BARACK SHOULD OF BRUNG UP THE G.I BILL THAT WAS PROPOSED BY A GOP AND A DEMOCRAT,SEN.CHUCK HAGEL(R.NE) AND SEN.JIM WEBB(D.VA)MCCAIN OPPOSED IT,AND SOME OF THESE OLD WHITE RACIST VETERANS REALLY THINK THAT MCCUKOO IS WIT THEM BKUZ HES WHITE,BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER MCCUKOO DOESNT GIVE A FLYIN FUCK ABOUT THOSE WHITE RACIST VETERANS!!!!!

to all obama supporters like myself its time for us to expose mccain hard,please put this on the blogs,john mccain opposed the G.I.Bill that was proposed by Sen.Chuck Hagel(R.NE)and Sen.Jim Webb(D.VA),and nmccain opposed it and went and vote for bush G.I.and mccain is brainwashingthe old racist white veterans like hes fighting for them when in actuality he really doesnt give a fuck about them all they know is their votin for him because hes white also its time to focus on Charles Keating more and Rev.Hagee and Parsley,lets fight this racism from some of the media along wit the neocons GOP's,u do not have to agree wit some of Obama stances or his voting record,or hes an empty shell,or his family is some elitist which i think is a bunch of bullshit,why when a white 17 yrs old girl get pregnant they don't make an issue out of it but when a 17 yrs old black girl get pregnant the y call them some of the most sickening stuff in the book,why some white people come up wit this bullshit about iam not racist towards Barack i just din't like him bkuz hes arrogant,btw thats confidence and focus to us,then they some of the white people try to say i would vote for condolleza rice or Collin powells WOW.LETS FIGHT THE RACISM AGAINST BARACK AND MICHELLE HE IS WAY MORE QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB PLAIN AND SIMPLE,ALSO TO DEMBIL C,FOGU2,LALO35 AND THOSE WHO R STILL CLOSE MINDED,FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY NO NOT WHUT THEY DO!!!!

LOL for much of the PUNDITS attemptings..Found review the pundits themselves, detectable perception that THEY were disappointed, they tried hard to skew it that McC was nt just holding his own but showing up Obama and was NOT the average viewer take. With some on line (CN Scneider for one,,during the debate trying to berate/derate Obama along thru the debate totally out of sync and few others actually willing to call it against McC, perhaps thinking NONE would notice his flaws in his performance. Herad one exclaim Obama seemd "nervous", saw it quite differently and attributed to McC having had a rigorous sked (holed up in dc with 2 podiums to practice with while proclaimed as being the bi -partisan facilatator...that portion did come out after thou...the podium practice that is, the attempt to prclaim him the bi-partisan wonker who brought al together/etc fell flat earlier in the ridiculous attempt to take command of the center stage which did only work well enought to keep his campaign manager semi unnoticed with HIS associatons as a paid lobbiest for Fannie and Freedie and on their payroll til just last month no less...) Obama scored this one, John lost what was supposedly his greatest expertised strength or at least perceived to be his greates strength/asset. Next up Palin, lets check out HER performance. Hope it estimated fairly..and that means no shaved points cuz is a woman versus man in it...equal footing--make it about experience/expertisement NOT gender. She is claiming UP to the job and sorta, kinda; played that a victim of sexism yet palys victim too often at this point in that regard. Needs to be REALLy able to do it in high heels and backwards EXPERTLY otherwise send her back for "aging",perhaps for another day , we aint got the time for her presently, not in these particularly critical /crisis laden times !!!