Although...hmm...Abba...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
That's nice. There's a whole forum just crammed full of Canadian election stuff. Surely it would be okay to have a thread on the presidential debate?

---

I've had about enough though, so that's my first and last update. Thanks to the wonders on cable, I can flip over to the Brady Bunch channel

But if you're watching, BBC has the live feed plus running comments by BBC editors in text below, every few minutes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
ABBA,...phphphph! I'm listening to the best of the Archies!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
It was heavyweight versus lightweight; old fogie against young whippersnapper. I'd give it on points to McCain, although I think he was making shit up - I look forward to an analysis of how factual each person was in this debate. McCain has a scary amount of experience, and all on the Republican side. He brought up Ronald Raygun and Henry Kissinger quite a few times - he said Kissinger has been his close friend for 35 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
It's good that Obama learned something from the whole flag pin flap earlier. Having the right accoutrements is so important.

---

I have to admit, I fell asleep during the second hour of the debate. I watched the CNN coverage, and tracked the graph at the bottom of the screen. Or at least tried to. It was so small, and the scale wasn't apparent to me, so I don't know how dramatic it was or wasn't as it shifted.

It did seem to show that committed Democrats and Republicans weren't shaken loose by anything said in the first hour. I was surprised to see that the independant (how many independant audience members were there, anyway?) line go into the positives when McCain spoke about the economy, and also when it went high into the positives, at times, when Obama spoke about the Iraq war. Obama is supposed to be strong on the economics ( or at least, McCain percieved as weak) and vice versa on foriegn policy.

McCain stumbling over "Ahmadinejad" was probably no accident. Not being able to pronounce the name has become code, I think.

quote:

---

I just made banana bread and am listening to Abba.

---

Abba? I don't think I can read your posts the same way ever again, Bigcitygal.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2208

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I think McCain's use of humour ill advised. Without an audience allowed to react, and without a laugh track, I think much of it would have fallen flat with the core Repubicans-- who I don't doubt, don't "get" many comedies that don't have a laugh track.

---

But the audience did laugh. It was the only laugh of the evening except for one near the beginning that was benign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Although McCain kept Obama on the defensive, kept the debate on his topics, and Obama agreeing with him half the time, apparently his condescension towards Obama and his refusal to even look at him turned a lot of people off.

---

Bah. You didn't even watch it.

As someone who DID actualy watch it , Obama only "agreed with him half the time" on premises to which he drew different conclusions. So it would be like, "I agree with John on X, but that means we have to do Y, not Z." And he stated very strongly where he thought McCain was wrong.

quote:

---

Bah. You didn't even watch it.

---

How do you know that? I actually did.

Obama's screwed, and so would have been Hillary.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Bah. You didn't even watch it.

As someone who DID actualy watch it , Obama only "agreed with him half the time" on premises to which he drew different conclusions. So it would be like, "I agree with John on X, but that means we have to do Y, not Z." And he stated very strongly where he thought McCain was wrong.

I thought it showed that he could work well with others, find points of agreement (as opposed to disagreeing simply for the sake of partisan disagreement), and state clearly where he DID disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
How do you know that? I actually did.

---

Sure, because you changed your mind at the last moment.

Thing is, this sort of stuff should all be illegal, and it is most assuredly not. Same with trying to prove corruption in Canada. Almost impossible, because it's the corrupt that make the laws.

I have been accused here of being a "reductionist" as if it's a bad thing. It may come to be that Obama has no money to do the things he set out to do.

But one can always change the laws, change the system so that it is more difficult for this game of three card monte to be played. That doesn't cost money. Well, it doesn't cost us money.

And that's where you attack the root cause of all this.

That's why I'm more into changing the system than advocating for this social policy or that social policy. Anything in Canada we gain is easily taken away by the Conservatives, and these things are always used by the Liberals to scare or lure "progressives" into voting for them. And we pay cadilac rates for the pinto services we do get.

Somewhere on the rabble political blogs, James Laxer resurected the idea of nationalizing a gas company, like we did back, what, in the 70's?

We bought at inflated prices, then Mulroney sold at fire sale prices. And James wants to do it all over again. Makes me wonder who he works for. Cui Bono?

The history of the Canadian National Railway might be instructive on the subject of the U.S. financial bailout.

Socialized losses, privatized profits.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

I did not hear Obama say he would support an across the board spending freeze. It was interesting that when MeCain was asked about where he would cut, he talked about the bloated mililtary. Then two minutes later he said he would freeze spending except for the military and entitlement programs. Obama had nothing to say about military spending and the deficit - yet you can already see that should he win, the Republicans will immediately begin attacking the Democrats for running deficits.

I thought Obama held his own but missed a number of opportunities to hammer McCain. He gave no critique of nuclear power while he did mention "clean coal". Part of Obama's problem - and that of the two-party state - is that his fellow democrats supported many (most?) of the republican initiatives around war, the police state and deregulation.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]

McCain: "Blah blah kill kill Iran kill America Number One blah kill Eye-rack surge success blah more kill nukular blah main street blah experience POW maverick maverick maverick pow blah kill."

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I don't see what's wrong with Obama saying he has a bracelet too.

It's called being good with words and being fast, it makes the valid points that soldiers and their families take many different perspectives, and thus neutralizes the sympathy for the soldiers' honour card that McCain was trying to play.

---

For example:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:
MeCain

---

quote:

---

What I did keep noticing was McCain’s body language. He wouldn’t look at Obama. He wouldn’t address Obama directly, even when the debate moderator explicitly urged him to do so. He didn’t even turn in Obama’s direction, as far as I saw. He seemed doggedly determined to act as if his opponent didn’t exist, and the debate was strictly a one-on-one conversation between him and Jim Lehrer.

(snip)

Not so long ago in this country — within McCain’s adult lifetime, though not Obama’s — white men did not look at black men, except to order them around or warn them off white women. They did not address black men directly if they could help it — and if they had to, it was never done in a way that might suggest respect. Black men did not look at white men either, because that was the shortest path to death; a black man who dared to look a white man in the eye was “uppity”. Didn’t know his place. Needed to have a lesson taught him, usually with a bullet or a length of rope. Even today there’s a certain kind of white man — usually older ones from the South or from wealthy backgrounds — who still won’t accord a man of color the simple courtesy of looking him in the eye.

(snip)

This irritation is what I saw in McCain’s body language: affront that a black man dared to challenge him or speak to him as an equal.

I don’t think I would’ve seen that if McCain hadn’t shown this kind of contempt in other contexts: his behavior towards his wives, for example. That certain kind of white man isn’t all that fond of uppity women either. And yeah, some of it might simply be McCain’s infamous temper; he’s had equal-opportunity hissyfits, pretty much at anyone who disagrees with him.

(snip)

Now, McCain isn’t stupid, and I don’t think his campaign managers are either. I don’t think McCain’s body language was accidental or unplanned. They knew full well how this would look, and I think they’re counting on it. The silent language of McCain’s posture and eye contact is practically a shout-out to white Middle America, sending a very clear message: “Can you believe this boy? Can you believe he’s actually talking to me?” And in the unspoken fury telegraphed by McCain’s surgically-constructed cheeks, and the constant flexing of his jaw muscles as he ground his teeth tried to smile graciously, I heard, “Y’know, back in the day, we would’ve known just what to do with a fella like you.”

---

The subtext of McCain's Anger

I love that quote.

That's an interesting observation from nojojo. I might have dismissed it at one time. However, he did vote against Martin Luther King day, and he seems to have been behind or a part of the drama at the bail out meeting at the White House-- catering to the demands of the most right wing Republicans.

CNN for example had the focus group dial graph on display. Everytime McCain dismissed Obama and said he "didn't understand" or said he wasn't up to the job, the independent line on the graph went negative. Big time.

While the debate was deemed a draw by analysts, that really means a win for Obama. McCain has said time and time again that Obama isn't ready, isn't qualified, isn't up for the job. Well, here he stood, looking presidential with a grasp of the issues. And the issue focus was foreign policy. This was suppose to be McCain turf. Maybe that's why analysts saw it was draw but voters gave Obama the win.

somewhere. broken up into 11 parts. URL didn't work.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: SwimmingLee ]

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: SwimmingLee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
You're right. The "starve the beast" tactic goes back to David Stockman at the beginning of the Reagan administration. But voters, at least in the U.S., have never punished presidents for deficits, despite all the hue and cry. That shouldn't stop a Democrat from advancing a needed program.

---

But will they if Obama has no choice but to print the money needed to shove the projects forward? The island of Guernsey apparently did do just this when they needed a seawall. They ordered the printing of about a couple hundred grand in either pounds or guineas, whatever their currency was at the time, and behold, a seawall. (Found a reference here)

Some other island borrowed the money and didn't make the last payment until like 1985.

OTOH, Obama could do an FDR and actually raise taxes on rich people.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

What I did keep noticing was McCain’s body language. He wouldn’t look at Obama. He wouldn’t address Obama directly, even when the debate moderator explicitly urged him to do so. He didn’t even turn in Obama’s direction, as far as I saw. He seemed doggedly determined to act as if his opponent didn’t exist, and the debate was strictly a one-on-one conversation between him and Jim Lehrer

---

Hi all. Dropping in from Winnipeg to comment. The very first thing I noticed about this debate was the fact that smug ass McLame would not look at Obama. He ignored Obama and then when asked a question would refer to him as if he wasn't there. Obama on the other hand engaged McLame directly. It was extremely disturbing to watch. Racism is deeply entrenched in McCain. To me, that was obvious. It also felt (to me) that McCain was smirking and dismissing everything Obama said. McLame was playing the politics of diviseness and it was clear. It did not make him look presidential. It made him look petty, racist and mean.

Unfortinately, I think McLame will win. Not because of anything good he says, or because he picked a woman as VP. Nope. McLame will win because there are far too many people who would never see a black man in the white house.

quote:

---

McLame will win because there are far too many people who would never see a black man in the white house.

---

quote:

---

Obama had nothing to say about military spending and the deficit

---

Actually, he said that is where he would make cuts, and he specifically cited Iraq as a great place to make cuts, by GTFO.

Star Wars was also targetted, which McCain got all huffy about, citing his great friendship with the Gipper back in the ancient past as proof that Star Wars is cool.

quote:

---

OTOH, Obama could do an FDR and actually raise taxes on rich people

---

This is exactly his tax plan, a firmly nailed and glued campaign plank, which the McCain campaign is desparately trying to muddy the waters about.

Everyone under 250k per year gets a cut. Everyone over gets a hike, including reversal of the Bush cuts (although he said he is willing to just let them expire).

If I were he, I would spend time ramming through legislation to stop the loopholes and tie the corporation to the country. or face stiff penalties for leaving.

Heh, if it was China, they'd simply let the corporation 'leave' but seize all the assets in China.

He's also advocating taxing companies who ship jobs oveseas.

[ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

[ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

Ambinder:

quote:

---

The first presidential debate was watched by tens of millions of people who were seeing the candidates discuss their views for the first time. There was something Pat Buchanan said that night that is at once blindingly obvious and yet very important; Obama's debate performance placed him solidly in the American political mainstream.

Think of the "bitter" comment, his middle name, the flag pin, the Chicago connections. Low information voters wouldn't be out of line if they had a pretty strong impression of Obama formed by these attributes.

The sober performance and the congeniality towards McCain worked so well because so many people expected to see someone dangerous. Even the throwaway line: "we'd lower everybody's taxes if we could" quietly undercuts the notion of old-school liberalism.

It's possible that this weird racial/ideological caricature was priced into our (campaigns, media) debate expectations, and with Obama coming off as a sensible, middle of the road senator actually did him a world of good as far as the reassurance of sensibility.

---

Sullivan:

quote:

---

A reader sends along this anecdote of a senior white dude:

"I went out canvassing yesterday and am going again on Saturday. I have had some remarkable experiences. I approached 2 tall black young guys who were walking on the street I was canvassing. One was without his shirt and when he turned around, I saw he had 2 tattoos on his chest - 3 inch letters, one word HATE, the other PAIN. Yikes!"

"I asked them if they were registered - yes, both of them said. I asked if they were going to get to the polls: yes they were. As I walked away, the tattooed guy says, "Thank you, sir, for supporting Obama"."

"It was a stunner on several levels (thanking me; '"sir"; the look of appreciation of a kid, not a gangster...)"

---