First Debate

[uncooper 1]

People seem to be harping on the fact that Obama made a strategic error by agreeing with McCain too often. The way I remember it, he used the phrase "here is where Senator McCain and I differ fundamentally" over and over. Is it just being spun into an agree-fest, or am I remembering wrong?

[copernicus 0]

People seem to be harping on the fact that Obama made a strategic error by agreeing with McCain too often. The way I remember it, he used the phrase "here is where Senator McCain and I differ fundamentally" over and over. Is it just being spun into an agree-fest, or am I remembering wrong?

it doesnt matter. One "I agree" cancels about a dozen "Youre an idiot"

[checkymcfold 0]

I always thought, in Washington speak, a spending freeze simply meant that no programs spending would be expanded. It doesn't mean that programs already in place won't be funded. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what I thought he meant.

this is what it means, yes, but it causes problems with regard to inflation, since you're functionally lowering the budgets of each program by 2-5% or whatever it happens to be each year.

[checkymcfold 0]

People seem to be harping on the fact that Obama made a strategic error by agreeing with McCain too often. The way I remember it, he used the phrase "here is where Senator McCain and I differ fundamentally" over and over. Is it just being spun into an agree-fest, or am I remembering wrong?

obama is an academically trained speaker. generally, the way they teach you to debate in academia is to first lay out what you agree with and then lay out what's different. obama just did things that way. it doesn't mean that he's weak or smart or anything--it just means that he has a certain way of debating that is very common among people who have a history of doing so in the context of the academy.i really think it's hilarious that agreement is starting to become a bad thing in this country. both sides should be happy when the two candidates agree on something.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

both sides should be happy when the two candidates agree on something.

Communist!

[Zealous Donkey 0]

obama is an academically trained speaker. generally, the way they teach you to debate in academia is to first lay out what you agree with and then lay out what's different. obama just did things that way. it doesn't mean that he's weak or smart or anything--it just means that he has a certain way of debating that is very common among people who have a history of doing so in the context of the academy.i really think it's hilarious that agreement is starting to become a bad thing in this country. both sides should be happy when the two candidates agree on something.

I don't think agreement is a bad thing. What I was stating in my post earlier was that the republicans were running an ad which they made it look as though McCain was leader and Obama was following along. I even called it spin(which is exactly what it is). I think you were right to point out that only very shallow people will be influenced by such ads.(though I think ****ing retarded is the words you used). Anyhow, I would love to see these guys go at it Lincoln/Douglas style. Where they don't keep bring up and distorting statements that each made in the past. I thought we had a chance very early in the primary campaigns to have that kind of Campaign if it was Obama v. McCain, but alas they both turned out to be more traditional politicians than they portrayed themselves.

[checkymcfold 0]

I don't think agreement is a bad thing. What I was stating in my post earlier was that the republicans were running an ad which they made it look as though McCain was leader and Obama was following along. I even called it spin(which is exactly what it is). I think you were right to point out that only very shallow people will be influenced by such ads.(though I think ****ing retarded is the words you used). Anyhow, I would love to see these guys go at it Lincoln/Douglas style. Where they don't keep bring up and distorting statements that each made in the past. I thought we had a chance very early in the primary campaigns to have that kind of Campaign if it was Obama v. McCain, but alas they both turned out to be more traditional politicians than they portrayed themselves.

i agree with this a whole lot (my post was directed mostly at copernicus--sorry if that wasn't clear). i mean, i pretty much figured that it was a little overidealistic to assume that obama and mccain would actually be able (or want to completely) change the political election process, but at the same time, i do really think that the debate last night was a whole lot more on point than any i remember from 2000 and 2004, from both sides. the best parts were really when lehrer let the two of em talk to each other (lincoln/douglass style, if you like ), since that tends to lead to the most unscripted material. i hope that more of the debates go that direction, tbh.as to the agreement thing, i think that it's absolutely, positively the first step that needs to be taken to move beyond partisan "politics" in our country, and we need to praise any instance of it actually happening, on either side.

[CaneBrain 95]

it doesnt matter. One "I agree" cancels about a dozen "Youre an idiot"

I am glad you are here to set arbitrary exchange rates for things.

[copernicus 0]

I am glad you are here to set arbitrary exchange rates for things.

youre welcome

[brvheart 1,752]

Communist!

I was thinking he sounded like Hitler, but Communist will work.

[Loismustdie 0]

OK, so Obama did not single out any area where he would cut funds to certain programs. Not one. Now, for those criticizing Obama for instead talking about programs he wouldn't cut, please show me where McCain mentioned one single government program that he would cut? Both did the right thing: they dodged the question. Obama did it by saying he wanted to make sure education programs and energy programs weren't cut, and McCain said he wouldn't cut funds for the military and veterans. McCain said he wanted to stop pork barrel spending. He didn't, however answer the question which was something to the effect of, "With the economic problems we face, what aspects of your plan will have to change because of this? What will you not be able to accomplish that you would like to accomplish?" Neither candidate used any specific example of a program that they would cut funds too. It is completely unfair to say that one candidate didn't share any ideas when neither did. This is plain and simple, and good politics on both of their parts. If you can't see this obvious truth you aren't being objective in the least.

Except McCain DID throw out an idea!!!! If you analyze the conversation- and, for the record, that shouldn't be neccesary- but if you do, ONE candidate had an idea, which was then harped on as,"Well, you can't do THAT" but it was a friggin idea. It's two different ideologies just clashing in your face, one believes over spending is happening everywhere, and one wants to spend as much as he possibly can, on everything he can. It is not unfair to say both did not share ideas because one absolutely did, and put the other on the defense which is the point of debate. Who said what to make who react? And there you have the truth. Let's see if you can manage to recognize it Mr. Objective.

[Paul Brevard 0]

Damn you with your real world solutions and logic and examples of possibilities and simple solutions for change.

I agree. Why don't they talk more making government smaller instead of taking more and more on. I think government should be run in small buildings, they should drive their own cars, and buy their own damn gas. Why is the governement turning around and buying bad paper when the banks did the same thing and they went under? Who will bail us out? Will Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Boone Pickens bail the Government out?

[fatman 1]

I agree. Why don't they talk more making government smaller instead of taking more and more on. I think government should be run in small buildings, they should drive their own cars, and buy their own damn gas. Why is the governement turning around and buying bad paper when the banks did the same thing and they went under? Who will bail us out? Will Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Boone Pickens bail the Government out?

We'll just print more money. That will take care of the problem.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Let's see if you can manage to recognize it Mr. Objective.

Amazing unintentional comedy alert.

[Loismustdie 0]

Amazing unintentional comedy alert.

Lol. At least I can give reasons that go deeper than "She hates animals."

[Nimue1995 1]

Sorry guys but I am too sick to go through 14 pages so if this was said before I apologize. I have my opinion about certain things I noticed during the debate. I have a tendency to notice tone and attitude a great deal more than the actual language used. I felt that McCain was determined to dominate the debate by actual microphone hogging if necessary. It seemed to me that it was his goal to make sure that Obama didn't actually get a chance to reply to any of his charges if he could possibly prevent it. Obama was polite about McCain's microphone hogging for a while but eventually he began to ask Lehrer to please give him a chance to reply. And McCain eventually even ran over Lehrer as well. I would hope that people would see this for what it was, a desperate attempt keep Obama from being able to reply to many of the charges McCain made. It's possible that Obama might not have been able to but we'll never know because McCain didn't give him the chance. I hope Obama gets a strategy to deal with this by the next debate.

[copernicus 0]

Sorry guys but I am too sick to go through 14 pages so if this was said before I apologize. I have my opinion about certain things I noticed during the debate. I have a tendency to notice tone and attitude a great deal more than the actual language used. I felt that McCain was determined to dominate the debate by actual microphone hogging if necessary. It seemed to me that it was his goal to make sure that Obama didn't actually get a chance to reply to any of his charges if he could possibly prevent it. Obama was polite about McCain's microphone hogging for a while but eventually he began to ask Lehrer to please give him a chance to reply. And McCain eventually even ran over Lehrer as well. I would hope that people would see this for what it was, a desperate attempt keep Obama from being able to reply to many of the charges McCain made. It's possible that Obama might not have been able to but we'll never know because McCain didn't give him the chance. I hope Obama gets a strategy to deal with this by the next debate.

We disagree once again. Obama constantly tried to interrupt JSM and he had to talk over him to make his points. I dont remember JSM ever interrupting Obama but there may have been one or two times...nothing like big ears.

[Sheiky 0]

We disagree once again. Obama constantly tried to interrupt JSM and he had to talk over him to make his points. I dont remember JSM ever interrupting Obama but there may have been one or two times...nothing like big ears.

Possibly he had to because McCain was hogging the mic too much?Not saying that's what I think happened, but Nimue was making the point that he felt McCain tried to dominate the debate, which doesn't equate to who interrupted who the most times

[copernicus 0]

Possibly he had to because McCain was hogging the mic too much?Not saying that's what I think happened, but Nimue was making the point that he felt McCain tried to dominate the debate, which doesn't equate to who interrupted who the most times

there was time allotted for each response and then time for open discussion. Lehrer made sure that both of them had a chance to make their points. There was no reason to "hog the mike" except to be able to express your thoughts without interruption. BHO lost his composure several times throwing out one liners a few times in the foreign policy section. He knew he was getting pummelled on that section. His Henry Kissinger claims were an embarassment and he was the one trying to monopolize the time so JSM couldnt pin him down. There should be an ad showing that exchange and then Kissingers response that BHO was wrong. If there is any criticism to be leveled regarding presentation its that JSM was condescending and pedantic. The reason is BHOs defense of his prior stated positions was so bad that he deserved lecturing.

[El Guapo 8]

Possibly he had to because McCain was hogging the mic too much?

Nope, in fact half way through Leher made a point to say they were exactly even on time.

[copernicus 0]

Nope, in fact half way through Leher made a point to say they were exactly even on time.

good memory!

[Nimue1995 1]

It seemed to me that McCain was talking over Obama a great deal more than Obama over McCain. At a point, mid-debate, I admit that Obama started trying the same tactic back. But McCain was better at talking over Obama than Obama over McCain. It's something that Obama will need to resolve before the next debate which is a town hall style if I remember right. That could really give McCain an advantage both in the type of debate being more in his comfort zone and Obama needing to find his voice over McCain. I don't really give either side the advantage in this debate. But the next one could be bad for Obama if he doesn't work out how to address the problem of being too friggin' polite. I give him points for acknowledging when McCain had done something on a particular issue or when McCain was right on something. Too bad that McCain couldn't find it in himself to do the same. When I listen to them, there are a great number of points where they appear to be in agreement so I can't see why McCain couldn't be equally gracious about it.

[copernicus 0]

It seemed to me that McCain was talking over Obama a great deal more than Obama over McCain. At a point, mid-debate, I admit that Obama started trying the same tactic back. But McCain was better at talking over Obama than Obama over McCain. It's something that Obama will need to resolve before the next debate which is a town hall style if I remember right. That could really give McCain an advantage both in the type of debate being more in his comfort zone and Obama needing to find his voice over McCain. I don't really give either side the advantage in this debate. But the next one could be bad for Obama if he doesn't work out how to address the problem of being too friggin' polite. I give him points for acknowledging when McCain had done something on a particular issue or when McCain was right on something. Too bad that McCain couldn't find it in himself to do the same. When I listen to them, there are a great number of points where they appear to be in agreement so I can't see why McCain couldn't be equally gracious about it.

there arent that many points where they are in agreement. Even around half of BHOs "youre right John"s had buts after them

[fatman 1]

Sorry guys but I am too sick to go through 14 pages so if this was said before I apologize. I have my opinion about certain things I noticed during the debate. I have a tendency to notice tone and attitude a great deal more than the actual language used. I felt that McCain was determined to dominate the debate by actual microphone hogging if necessary. It seemed to me that it was his goal to make sure that Obama didn't actually get a chance to reply to any of his charges if he could possibly prevent it. Obama was polite about McCain's microphone hogging for a while but eventually he began to ask Lehrer to please give him a chance to reply. And McCain eventually even ran over Lehrer as well. I would hope that people would see this for what it was, a desperate attempt keep Obama from being able to reply to many of the charges McCain made. It's possible that Obama might not have been able to but we'll never know because McCain didn't give him the chance. I hope Obama gets a strategy to deal with this by the next debate.

Nope, in fact half way through Leher made a point to say they were exactly even on time.