News Scoring the Presidential Debate #1: Winners, Kill Blows & Major Subjects

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The debate analysis reveals that Barack Obama was perceived as more presidential and engaged than John McCain, who often failed to directly address questions. Obama effectively challenged McCain on key issues, particularly regarding tax breaks for oil companies and misrepresentations of his policies. His ability to clarify misconceptions about his tax plan and highlight McCain's past support for Bush's economic policies was noted as significant. McCain, while experienced, came off as condescending and avoided eye contact with Obama, which detracted from his performance. The discussion emphasized that the winner of the debate would ultimately be determined by public perception, with early polls indicating a favorable view of Obama. Overall, Obama was seen as calm, knowledgeable, and respectful, while McCain appeared more aggressive but less relatable. The debate's impact on voter sentiment and the candidates' contrasting styles were central to the analysis.

What was the score?

  • McCain won by a large margin

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • McCain won but it was close

    Votes: 9 23.7%

  • Obama won by a large margin

    Votes: 10 26.3%

  • Obama won but it was close

    Votes: 12 31.6%

  • It was a tie

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Total voters
    38
  • #31
As usual, I focused on Iran:

McCain said:
... Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, ...

I think it actually took him 3 or 4 times to get it right. But I could totally relate:

OmCheeto said:
...everyone references what Ahmadjeblahblah has to say...
... for about a year before Ahmadjewhatever made his visit ...

But Obama won this argument with the following statement:

OBAMA said:
First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to.

Finally... Someone actually listened to me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
LowlyPion said:
Things must be getting pretty desperate in McCainville.

I was reading some Fox sponsored blogs and I was struck by one "reader's" comment about Obama.

I also noted that Greta Van Sustren had put up a picture showing Obama arriving for the debate, with the not so subtle comment that she had to overexpose the picture because it was so "dark".
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/09/27/senator-obama/

I seriously question the Christian Right values that encourage this kind of divisiveness, and appeal to the basest of man's instincts with misrepresentation and downright nasty racial inference. And these are the same people that had hard-ons over Obama describing McCain's economic policies as putting lipstick on the Bush policy pig.

They need to be ***** slapped , the people at Fox are composed of deluded morons concealing themselves in a religiously moralistic veil ... Who the hell is promoting this type of news at Fox? Everything about them is so sleazy - always explicitly stating that they are the most unbiased e.g. Reily , when they are a travesty at this endeavor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
GCT said:
They need to be ***** slapped , the people at Fox are composed of deluded morons concealing themselves in a religiously moralistic veil ... Who the hell is promoting this type of news at Fox? Everything about them is so sleazy - always explicitly stating that they are the most unbiased e.g. Reily , when they are a travesty at this endeavor.

It's certainly a concern that there must be some violation of providing adequate balance when they run their biased shows 24/7 almost as a continuous McCain political attack ad.

The other night Van Sustern interviewed someone that purported to be a Hilary defector - Miguel Lausell - a Hispanic who went on to describe how no Hispanics would be voting for Obama. I looked up the guy and he was announced 10 days ago as supporting McCain. At the Democratic Convention he was a Hilary delegate. Turns out he was a delegate from Puerto Rico and has NO vote in the US election. What a total disingenuous crock of moose lard that he would be paraded about like he was either relevant or his support constituted any news merit.
 
  • #34
LowlyPion said:
Well ... I know you may want to paint Clinton as dishonest. And about some of the personal aspects of his life, I can't defend his choices. But I surely empathize with the situation he would have been in. But for the zeal of the overly moralistic Right Wing, there but for the Grace of Chance most anyone may have gone. I think he is on the whole a person of good heart, with genuine concerns for others and in his best moments has appealed to the best in people.
.

Its comments like this that keep me from becoming a Democrat and keep me out of this forum. I'm going to get banned one of these days. Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my **** in my pants for the length of my term. Then to come out, look straight into the camera and lie to the people he has been entrusted to lead is disgusting. Clinton is and always will be one of the most repulsive presidents ever. I don't care if "everyone does it" that doesn't make it right. And EVERY president has appealed to the best in people in their best moments. They have to or they never would have been elected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
tribdog said:
Its comments like this that keep me from becoming a Democrat and keep me out of this forum. I'm going to get banned one of these days. Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my dick in my pants for the length of my term. Then to come out, look straight into the camera and lie to the people he has been entrusted to lead is disgusting. Clinton is and always will be one of the most repulsive presidents ever. I don't care if "everyone does it" that doesn't make it right. And EVERY president has appealed to the best in people in their best moments. They have to or they never would have been elected.

Curious: How do you feel about president kennedy?

Or...richard Nixon?
 
  • #36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD4mspMtYzc&feature=related

I think Obama had much better answer and was to the point in the opening remarks. McCain was all over the place in his answer talking about the need for less oil dependence etc that had nothing to do with the question asked to both candidates.

Obama: 1
McCain: 0
 
  • #37
I accidently had the tv channel on Fox when the debate started. This is pretty close to what the Fox reporter said introducing last night's debate 'We have national War Hero John McCain who will be talking about what he is doing to save our country...blah, blah, blah,. Oh and Obama will be trying to defend his views.' For a minute I thought I was in the Twilight Zone, then realized I was on Fox. :eek:
 
  • #38
tribdog said:
Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my dick in my pants for the length of my term.
I agree that cheating on your spouse is reprehensible. If you're going to start playing the field, get divorced or get your spouse on-board for an "open marriage". I personally could not do either. Like Paul Newman said "I've got steak at home, so why should I go out for hamburg?" Hillary stood by Bill through the Lewinsky thing, so it's not inconceivable that they had agreed to the "open marriage" arrangement. I have a couple of friends who tried to do that, with resounding failure in each case. Divorces, families split up, kids bouncing from home to home for weekends, holidays, etc.

Clinton was/is not an honest person, but he is very intelligent and made himself aware of minutia that played into his policies. To be sure, he is perhaps the most politically-calculating president in recent memory, but I would rather have had 8 more years of him in office than the "Bush II years". Right now, he is doing squat for Obama, and that seems just one more example of his political calculus. Too bad.
 
  • #39
tribdog said:
Its comments like this that keep me from becoming a Democrat and keep me out of this forum. I'm going to get banned one of these days. Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my **** in my pants for the length of my term. Then to come out, look straight into the camera and lie to the people he has been entrusted to lead is disgusting. Clinton is and always will be one of the most repulsive presidents ever. I don't care if "everyone does it" that doesn't make it right. And EVERY president has appealed to the best in people in their best moments. They have to or they never would have been elected.

I made one small edit to your post - ****

Clinton could have been one of our greatest but he threw it away. I don't feel the same as you in that I don't care who the President is doinking - that is between him and his wife - but he lied to a judge and he lied to the public, and worst of all, there was no reason for it. In my heart of hearts I still like Clinton, but every time he waives that finger I want to cut it off.

And yes, he was disrepectful of the office. But after what Bush has done, it seems more a footnote than an issue now. Clinton may have ****** Monica, but Bush ****** everyone!
 
Last edited:
  • #40
tribdog said:
Its comments like this that keep me from becoming a Democrat and keep me out of this forum. I'm going to get banned one of these days. Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my dick in my pants for the length of my term. Then to come out, look straight into the camera and lie to the people he has been entrusted to lead is disgusting. Clinton is and always will be one of the most repulsive presidents ever. I don't care if "everyone does it" that doesn't make it right. And EVERY president has appealed to the best in people in their best moments. They have to or they never would have been elected.

You would be mistaken if you think that I would admire Clinton for his choices in this regard. But I equally realize that people are imperfect and fallible. And who am I to judge his personal situation with Hilary or his need for human contact, regardless of whether or not it was shallow or meaningless, or outside the bounds of marriage. Hilary is in my mind the only one not constrained from such judgment. I think it is a totally private matter between them. And but for the Chance of a busy-body gossip would likely never have become a matter of public note.

The ensuing Ken Starr witch hunt seen through the lens of Public relevance was merely an attempt to take political advantage in matters that were not a part of the Public's business.

He wasn't accepting bribes like Agnew. He wasn't obstructing a Criminal investigation and charges of money laundering like Nixon. Neither was he stonewalling on an abuse of executive power trying to get his sister's ex-husband fired as part of a vindictive divorce.

While I respect that you may have more self control, as do I have higher standards than his I might add, I don't presume to cast judgment with respect to that conduct of that aspect of his life.
 
  • #41
Cyrus said:
Curious: How do you feel about president kennedy?

Or...richard Nixon?

They were a little before my time, so I'm not as familiar with all the details, but I think Kennedy came closer to starting a nuclear war than necessary, I don't know about his cheating. I just wasn't alive at the time. I think killing him was a bit drastic. My feelings towards Kennedy have been influenced completely by the opinion of others who for the most part refuse to speak ill of the dead.
Nixon deserved what he got. Again I was just too young to remember anything about him so I have to base my thoughts on Watergate. Going to China was probably good, but I'll always think of Nixon as being dishonest.

LowlyPion said:
I don't presume to cast judgment with respect to that conduct of that aspect of his life.

Why? I never understood why someone wouldn't DEMAND their president be held to the highest standards. I demand that my doctor do his job correctly. I demand that my teachers know their subject. The president's job is to lead the country AND be the symbolic figurehead of the country. It is only 8 years at the most that I ask him to represent the best in Americans. 8 years is not a long time. I can do the morally right thing for 8 years it is not too much to ask that the president do the same. The whole Lewinski episode was something he should not have done, he broke his vows, period. The lying to me was even worse. I gave my trust and my loyalty to him and he flat out lied to me. He looked me right in the eye and lied. It is totally unforgivable and I get disgusted to hear people defend him. With Bush at least we can blame ourselves, we knew what we were going to get and elected him anyway. I can't stand Bush, I hate to have him represent my country. He is arguably the worst president EVER, but I hate Clinton more. Clinton betrayed my trust may he rot in hell. I will not ever lie to anyone here. Sure I tell jokes, but I think my jokes are obviously just that. When push comes to shove and you need someone to have your back you can call me. I want a president who I could trust not to stab me in the back, that is not asking too much.
 
  • #42
tribdog said:
They were a little before my time, so I'm not as familiar with all the details, but I think Kennedy came closer to starting a nuclear war than necessary, I don't know about his cheating. I just wasn't alive at the time. I think killing him was a bit drastic. My feelings towards Kennedy have been influenced completely by the opinion of others who for the most part refuse to speak ill of the dead.
Nixon deserved what he got. Again I was just too young to remember anything about him so I have to base my thoughts on Watergate. Going to China was probably good, but I'll always think of Nixon as being dishonest.

So why don't you say you can never be a republican because, clearly, Nixon was MUCH MUCH more dishonsest and disgraceful president than Clinton.

I honestly don't know or understand why you want a cheer leader in the white house. I don't care who he bangs in his free time. I just care that he runs the country. I don't know where you get the notion that the president 'represents the best in us'.
 
  • #43
Cyrus said:
So why don't you say you can never be a republican because, clearly, Nixon was MUCH MUCH more dishonsest and disgraceful president than Clinton.

I honestly don't know or understand why you want a cheer leader in the white house.

Mostly because Nixon didn't lie to me. I don't remember his time as president so he has as much to do with my political preference as Millard Fillmore and John Adams. And also because Nixon was not "MUCH MUCH more dishonest and disgraceful" he was exactly as dishonest and disgraceful. This is a black and white issue for me. If I trust you and you look me in the eye and promise me you are telling the truth when you aren't then I have been betrayed. It doesn't matter what it is about, it is the act of lying TO ME that I can't forgive. When I give my trust to someone I mean it and I don't give it lightly. I can forgive ANYTHING, I forgave the guy who stabbed me in the neck, but I can't forgive betrayal
 
  • #44
This nation has always had a thing against fornication , compared to most Europe the US is sexually naive despite the fact that we may have higher teenage pregnancy rates. Anywho Clinton needed to be impeached simply because ...

He had sex on the job.

Do we want a playboy as a president? Preferably not. America needs better standards to be distinguished and easily identifiable in relations with the rest of the world so that we can thrive.
 
  • #45
It has nothing to do with sex. I have sex every single night whether I'm alone or not. It is about breaking your vows and lying to me. It is about being a man of your word. THAT means something.
 
  • #46
Did anyone else notice how quickly McCain rushed through the alternative energy options, as if an afterthought, to get to his main point about drilling and nuclear power?

Based on his voting record, I think he is lying. I don't think he gives a hoot about alternatives. He seems to be in the pockets of big oil. Not only does he want to give them tax breaks when the price of fuel and sky high, and after they just made more profit than any company in history, but he also lied or mislead people about coastal reserves having an impact. He then changed his story to an emotion based market perception argument that oil pumped eight years from now will affect market prices today. PLLLLEASE!

Something else that caught my eye recently was this:

In the progress of other alternative energy sources -- such as wind, solar, geothermal, tide, and hydroelectric -- government must be an ally but not an arbiter. In less than a generation, wind power alone could account for a fifth or more of all our electricity. And just in recent memory, solar energy has gone from a novelty to a fast-growing industry. I've voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary, and often the result of who had the best lobbyist instead of who had the best ideas. But the objective itself was right and urgent. And when I'm signing laws, instead of casting one of a hundred votes, I intend to see that objective better served. We will reform this effort so that it is fair, rational, and permanent, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy.
http://sharp.sefora.org/innovation2008/compare/race/president/2008/

Not an arbiter but passing judgement on the best ideas? Classic double-talk and more of the same: Another Republican blocking our path to energy independence. And he clearly doesn't understand the chicken and egg problem of energy; that or he doesn't care.

Also, Obama mentioned biodiesel, but not ethanol. YAY!

Also, McCain specified that he does not support ethanol. While I agree with him on this, there are a good number of corn-growing Republicans out there, and I suspect that McCain lost some of them; maybe a lot of them. I don't have any information on this, but I wouldn't surprised if this hurts him in the midwest. Of course Iowa and Illinois are already in the bag for Obama, and they are both big corn States.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
GCT said:
This nation has always had a thing against fornication , compared to most Europe the US is sexually naive despite the fact that we may have higher teenage pregnancy rates. Anywho Clinton needed to be impeached simply because ...

He had sex on the job.

Do we want a playboy as a president? Preferably not. America needs better standards to be distinguished and easily identifiable in relations with the rest of the world so that we can thrive.

Im not sure, is this sarcasm?
 
  • #48
tribdog said:
It has nothing to do with sex. I have sex every single night whether I'm alone or not. It is about breaking your vows and lying to me. It is about being a man of your word. THAT means something.

What vow's do you and Bill Clinton have together?
 
  • #49
Did anyone notice that McCain claimed that Eisenhower sat down and wrote a letter of resignation after Normandy. This is not historically correct, Ike wrote a note accepting responsiblilty for Normandy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/744/


CEO's will write a note saying "so long sucker"
 
  • #50
tribdog said:
I demand that my doctor do his job correctly.

And do you also demand that your doctor be faithful to his wife? There is no aspect of the Oath of Office that extends to the personal life of the President as it would relate to the actions between consenting adults. Just as there is no aspect of the Hippocratic Oath that either suggests celibacy or a strictly monogamous spousal relationship.

You of course are free to like or dislike or respect him or not, but the moral police aspect of things, delving into the Personal life in that fashion, with the expectation that anyone had any right to receive any answers, I happen to think is out of bounds. There are numerous historical references to infidelity in the White House, from Washington that took being the Father of his country more literally than polite society would expect, to FDR, to Kennedy and Jefferson and likely others too that were never reported. Would we disqualify the brightest and most able on such thinly drawn Puritanical standards? That of course is not my choice, as it applies to the conduct of their personal lives and with respect to the activities of consenting adults.
 
  • #51
edward said:
Did anyone notice that McCain claimed that Eisenhower sat down and wrote a letter of resignation after Normandy. This is not historically correct, Ike wrote a note accepting responsiblilty for Normandy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/744/


CEO's will write a note saying "so long sucker"

I noticed that, as well as the fact that he reported Ted Kennedy was in the hospital even after he was already announced released. (I reported it elsewhere prior to the speech.)
 
  • #52
What I mostly noticed was when both candidates were asked, "what would you cut in order to pay for the $700-billion bail-out?" Obama stubbournly refused to answer. H ehad to be asked three times, before he resorted to the old montra, "the war in Iraq." Ther first two times, he just replied with things he's not going to cut, and things on which he plans to spend more.

McCain answered the question directly, and his answer made sense. To me, this characterised the entire debate; Obama continued to rhetoricise, while McCain actually gave answers.

From where I sat, the debate was close, but not that close. A definite win for McCain.
 
  • #53
LURCH said:
What I mostly noticed was when both candidates were asked, "what would you cut in order to pay for the $700-billion bail-out?" Obama stubbournly refused to answer. H ehad to be asked three times, before he resorted to the old montra, "the war in Iraq." Ther first two times, he just replied with things he's not going to cut, and things on which he plans to spend more.

McCain answered the question directly, and his answer made sense. To me, this characterised the entire debate; Obama continued to rhetoricise, while McCain actually gave answers.

From where I sat, the debate was close, but not that close. A definite win for McCain.
What, exactly did McCain say other than he was going to freeze everything? Obviously that's ridiculous, you can't freeze all spending. McCain gave no answer. I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to.

Obama made sense, he said that you would have to look at each individual program. There was no way he could answer with which programs those would be right now. Because he was being truthful, as opposed to McCain.
 
  • #54
Evo said:
Obama made sense, he said that you would have to look at each individual program. There was no way he could answer with which programs those would be right now. Because he was being truthful, as opposed to McCain.

Exactly: I have much more time for politicians who admit they can't answer questions, rather than say something and then contradict it in the future, when they get into office.

I think Obama's response was the best one can hope for: he pointed out what his important areas were, and admitted that some long term spending may need to be cut.
 
  • #55
Cyrus said:
Im not sure, is this sarcasm?

Not quite sure what you mean , it was not meant to be a sarcastic post i.e. I'm not degrading any nation.
 
  • #56
cristo said:
Exactly: I have much more time for politicians who admit they can't answer questions, rather than say something and then contradict it in the future, when they get into office.

I think Obama's response was the best one can hope for: he pointed out what his important areas were, and admitted that some long term spending may need to be cut.

Obama also mentioned that McCain would make the cuts with an ax where a scalpel may be more appropriate. McCain got that grin and bear it look on his face.
 
  • #57
Cyrus said:
What vow's do you and Bill Clinton have together?
sorry, he took an oath not a vow

LowlyPion said:
And do you also demand that your doctor be faithful to his wife? There is no aspect of the Oath of Office that extends to the personal life of the President as it would relate to the actions between consenting adults. Just as there is no aspect of the Hippocratic Oath that either suggests celibacy or a strictly monogamous spousal relationship.

You of course are free to like or dislike or respect him or not, but the moral police aspect of things, delving into the Personal life in that fashion, with the expectation that anyone had any right to receive any answers, I happen to think is out of bounds. There are numerous historical references to infidelity in the White House, from Washington that took being the Father of his country more literally than polite society would expect, to FDR, to Kennedy and Jefferson and likely others too that were never reported. Would we disqualify the brightest and most able on such thinly drawn Puritanical standards? That of course is not my choice, as it applies to the conduct of their personal lives and with respect to the activities of consenting adults.

Why am I the only person who seems to be able to take in facts and understand what they mean AND if the facts warrant it, change my opinion, or at least address them in my argument? I have to respect someone in order to have them lead me. I don't care about ANYONE's sexual behavior, but if my doctor was screwing his receptionist when he should be treating my anal fissures then yes I have a problem. My big problem with Clinton, as I've said over and over is that he lied to me. I don't respect people who lie to me. Do I forgive other presidents who lied to me? NO, but I was too young to pay attention to the others.
 
  • #58
tribdog said:
Why am I the only person who seems to be able to take in facts and understand what they mean AND if the facts warrant it, change my opinion, or at least address them in my argument? I have to respect someone in order to have them lead me. I don't care about ANYONE's sexual behavior, but if my doctor was screwing his receptionist when he should be treating my anal fissures then yes I have a problem. My big problem with Clinton, as I've said over and over is that he lied to me. I don't respect people who lie to me. Do I forgive other presidents who lied to me? NO, but I was too young to pay attention to the others.

Which brings us back to Bush.:rolleyes:
 
  • #59
BTW; did anyone else feel ripped off by this debate? Throughout the campaign, this has been scheduled as a debate about national security. More than half the debate was about the economy. Now at some point there's going to be a debate about the economy; I sure hope they devote at least half of it to national security.
 
  • #60
tribdog said:
sorry, he took an oath not a vow

He took an oath not to lie to you?

He took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws.
 

Similar threads

News 1st Presidential Debate (2016) thread
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
News Presidential Powers in Perspective
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Programs Really need advice on what to major in
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the Media Neglecting to Report Iraqi Insurgent Casualties?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • Poll Poll
News What say should the church have in politics?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News The lie of media liberal bias continued.
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K