I don't know, inexperienced politicians seem to do better in these debates (Kennedy/Nixon, Reagan/Carter, Clinton/Bush, Bush/Gore)

That's mostly based on the perception that the public in general has from the rehearsed/scripted speeches that Obama and McCain have given. That's the only thing that a lot of people have seen of the candidates as they don't follow the day-to-day changes. Anyone who has watched Obama in his appearances know that he does extremely well in scripted speeches, while he tends to stutter quite a bit and require 'thought time' for lack of a better phrase when he's not working with a script. McCain is the exact opposite. McCain's presentation is terrible in scripted speeches, but he's very convincing as a candidate when discussing issues without a script.

Obama didn't fare that well against Clinton head-to-head. McCain is considered a slightly stronger debater than her.

It's all subjective in the end. But if the perception is that Obama should win the debates at this point, it's likely going to end well for McCain.

LOL.....do we now have to express that a post is our opinion in a political discussion thread?

I feel like I'm writing a bailout bill for Congress. :D

If I am McCain, I am still a tad worried about the "TV effect". Having a handsome, young Obama on the same stage with an older, not so handsome McCain. Younger/hipper candidate (when there is one), usually seem to pull these off well (Clinton/Kennedy) over the older/stuffy candidates (Nixon/Bush Sr). Democrats are going to vote for Obama, Republicans are going to vote McCain, but who are the independates going to vote for? What will decide their vote? We can only hope it is on the issues, but I am not that confident in the American voters.

Are you suspending your posting on this forum to work on the bailout bill? ;)

Yeah, I have to disagree with Mizzou. Right now, most people expect Obama to wipe the floor with McCain, mostly because they believe that stump speaking can be equivalent to debating style. They don't realize that McCain is actually very good in debates (it's one of the main reasons his campaign in the primaries went from just about done to nominee).

This statement and the previous one I said "What?!" to are in complete and udder contrast. and I do mean milky.

I actually think McCain can be a good debater, but he can also get flustered easily. He had some ugly moments with Romney where it was really bitter and personal. That said, he's certainly a much better debater than he is on the stump. I don't expect him to have any problems tonight in terms of losing control of his emotions, either.

His main issue in the debates may be that he is roughly 5'6" and 70 some years old.

You're right. I didn't phrase the first post well at all. There's a big difference between public perception and the perception of those who follow the race closely. I should have been more specific. The debate tonight should be a lot of fun to watch.

New Rasmussen Daily poll discussed the move towards Obama in the polls over the past week or so.

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Obama is taking the South baby!!!!

I would change it to politicians with low expectations seem to do better in these debates.

I would say that in this climate, the elder, statesman McCain may show more stability than the young and fresh Obama. So I don't know that this is true tonight.

Even more information from the American Spectator regarding yesterday's meeting. According to an Obama campaign source, someone gave Obama the bill option suggested by the House Republicans and told him that it was the compromise bill when it was not. So Obama launched into a big speech about how he opposed the bill and then Paulson agreed with him. The rest of the group that agreed on the compromise was wondering why the hell Obama opposed the compromise bill when he was in fact voicing his disapproval for the House Republican bill that he was told was the compromise. The House Republicans felt like the meeting was a big setup to make them look bad thanks to the Obama snafu and the whole meeting fell into chaos. The ironic part is had Obama been in Washington to work on the bill and known what was going on rather than relying on material given to him, we'd likely already have a compromise bill signed. Instead, everyone is finger-pointing to the Nth degree.

Ah, politics.

I'm also curious as to why McCain was against the compromise bill, since it met all of the criteria he had laid out earlier in the week for a plan to be acceptable.

Palin in one of her three interviews explaining her foreign policy experience (with a bonus commercial for a bad TV show):


Watch CBS Videos Online

Agree.


Except for those times when you realize he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about ... which would be any of the several McCain appearances on Hannity's radio show I've had the misfortune of suffering through. He sounds convincing (not to mention convinced) but only if you aren't familiar with the subject matter yourself. Hearing him speak on matters relating to the FCC and media ownership is downright painful for anyone who knows the subject and I've had similar reactions to him on other topics as well.

This has the makings of Kennedy/Nixon, with the added potential for disaster of McCain making one or more definitive statements that are later shown to be flat out wrong.

Happily, it'll be easy for me to miss the entire thing, as I'll be at a high school football game tonight.

I'd change it to, better debaters tend to do better in these debates.

With a sample size that small it's not predictive for Obama.

Have you paid even the slightest attention to McCain's erratic fly boy stunts over the past few weeks. Stability hasn't been his strong suit.

No, he didn't mistake it for the compromise bill. The story is pretty thinnly sourced, but even if 100% true it isn't as you described it. This is what the AmSpec blog says.

And back to Troopergate for a nice diversion:
Alaska lawmakers: McCain campaign interfering in Palin probe - CNN.com

This is the most exciting presidential election since 1992 (which was exciting because of Perot and Bush's self-destruction). :D

Palin on the Wall Street bailout and job creation:

Is she just spitting out a stream of random talking points? That is terrible. My God.

She's like a talking train wreck

SI

And yet she could be the president of our country if things go poorly.

Haha, good luck with that!

*hides in his igloo*

i really think that's what it is. she just is not a competent interviewee.

i really hope these videos get decent circulation - people need to see who they are voting for. More than that, McCain's selection of her really calls into question his judgement. Because while it may have been best to win the election (as some have pointed out), it would be horrible if she ended up needing to do anything at all important, or represent the U.S. at all.

And if McCain is so focused on winning that he'd pick someone unqualified because it gives him a better chance to win, in effect saying "to hell with the consequences," that's not very patriotic of him.

dude - swear to god - i'll move up there.

You might change your mind come January.

* throws log on the fire *

It's really strange.. now, admittedly, I'm biased to dismiss her (I was leaning towards voting Obama already, for the tack back to the right wing that McCain had done, I was a lot happier with him as a Moderate.. for him to tack on a right-winger's right-winger just made it very hard for him to get my vote).. but for the excitement she obviously generates in her base, the more she talks, the more this is looking like Dan Quayle redux.. how does she spell potato? :D

I think it comes down to this: like a lot of normal people, she doesn't know the answer to that question. But unlike a normal person, she is in a position where she can't admit it. After I listened to it I thought to myself "how would I answer that question if I had to say something aside from 'I don't know, good question Katie!'?" I sort of started off speaking in my mind, changed my mind part way through, paused... and then realised that I was doing exactly what she did, except that I didn't start randomly throwing out phrases people had been drilling into me.

To summarize, I guess on the one hand I feel bad for her, because if it was me, I'd be looking just as stupid. But on the other hand, I've never really considered myself fit to lead a country either. She's just in over her head.

And in spite of that, a drunk version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers is infinitely preferrable to Obama.

That's simply a lie Jon.

From a purely political stand point, the appeal to the drinking and acid dropping voters could actually prove a wise move. It could also work as entertainment - I, for one, would love to see Sarah Palin answer that question on acid. I think she actually did pretty well for being drunk in the Couric interview.

McCain already has the alzheimers vote locked down, though, and let's face it - those guys are not the most reliable voters.

As silly as it reads, I don't think a person's opinion can be a "lie". Are you able to see inside Jon's brain and see that he wouldn't really prefer "a drunk version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers", but he would prefer "a somewhat sober version of Palin on acid with Alzheimers"? :D

A person's opinion can be in poor taste, uninformed or even ridiculous, but I don't know how an opinion can be a "lie".

And what exactly did the candidate who picked Quayle fare in his election? I'm not sure you'd be smiling if McCain becomes Bush 41 to Obama's Dukakis.

every politician does this - control the interview. if you don't know the answer, phase in an answer to something you do know/have rehearsed. if you think someone is gonna start talking from the top of their head in a live interview you're silly. all a politician does is think about how they're gonna segway their answer into a talking point/message they want to give out. unfortunately for Palin that must not be her strongpoint. what *is* her strongpoint is obviously blowjobs, and she must've given McCain one muthafucka of a blowjob to seal the VP nomination.

you see, i used this post as a way to segway into something i really want to talk about - Palin giving head. the whole first part of my post was just a setup to the point i wanted to make. i could so totally make an excellent politician.

`eh, youre right. For Jon it may be spot on and if were using the Sports Entertainment analogies id actually agree with him.

Exactly. And I can always find respect for someone who is willing to put bullshit rationalizations aside and simply say, "I think that the Loyal Opposition is a monster, and for that reason alone I will not vote for him."

Like me: However much of a classical conservative I may be when it comes to economic matters -- and not even entering the debate about how little neocons resemble classical conservatives on any matter -- I am even more of a social liberal, and, barring mitigating circumstances, I will almost never be willing to vote for a party with a significant core of policy based on iron age thought and a desire to return to theocratic rule.

Tell me you won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim terrorist sympathizer and I will call you out for the ignorant fool you are. Tell me it's simply because you believe that what he actually supports is simply wrong, and Palin on her worst day would be infinitely better for that reason alone, and I won't argue with you. I may be convinced, internally, that you are sadly mistaken, but there is no useful way to argue with core principles.

I think I'll quote this one for a brief addendum to my sidebar, because I thought you made a pretty good post. (Hey, I had to pick one for some reason, might as well be that reason ;) )

And along with the core principles involved, I perceive at least one other difference between Palin & Obama. While I believe both would be incredibly even unbelievably out of their depth as C-in-C / POTUS, I think deep down she knows she is while I believe he hasn't the slightest inkling.

You keep using that word. I don't think means what you think it means. :)

Heh. Wonder if Jon would be upset about the sloppiness of the latest McCain ad, released today.. (here's a free hint, boyos... release statements/ad saying you won the debate.... AFTER THE DEBATE, duh!)

(removed the image cuz it broke the thread)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...l?nav=rss_blog

They've already released two versions of the ad, the 2nd one has a statement from McCain's campaign manager "McCain won the debate-- hands down."

Nothing like declaring victory before it even starts, huh?

Well, to be fair, there's poor children in 3rd world countries all over the world wearing "2008 Super Bowl Champion Patriots" shirts.

I hate you. (stupid Giants)..

yes, but that's because there's physical lead time in making Physical items. online, it's just "Do not show this ad before 10:00 PM EDT Friday".

My understanding is, they've stopped doing that. Now they just destroy the shirts.

Everyone calls Barry professorial, but I'd totally take a class with him. I think it'd be interesting.

I always been curious, why are they having a debate on a Friday night?

Oooh, McCain made his Bear/paternity joke... that never gets old.

As to a debate on Friday... I don't know about you, but I enjoy having sex with Jim Lerher in the background.