Obama vs MCCain Presidential Debate 7/10/08

[Durandal]

So, McCain wanted this type of debate? Did he not think of how old and withered he looks when he has to walk around the same stage Barack "springy step" Obama does?

That, and he's short. Total Napoleon complex.

[Covenant]

So, McCain wanted this type of debate? Did he not think of how old and withered he looks when he has to walk around the same stage Barack "springy step" Obama does?

That, and he's short. Total Napoleon complex.

That's actually well documented, actually. He's pretty sensitive about his height. He's not pathetically short, he's 5'7" and that's really not... well, it's kinda short I do admit. I figured he'd be closer to 5'10" or so, actually. Obama is 6'1" I think, so there's a bit of a height difference there. I felt he looked a bit uncomfortable, and kept getting up when it was Obama's talking period, and that usually makes people a bit unnerved. I know this first-hand, as I tend never to sit unless told to, and people always get bugged by it.

What's wierder is how he didn't shake Obama's hand at the end. Sour grapes?

[Twoyboy]

What's wierder is how he didn't shake Obama's hand at the end. Sour grapes?

When you swing your campaign around to make it seem like your opponent is a radical, US hating, terrorist associating danger to the people, the last thing you want is to be buddies with him when all is said and done. McCain backed himself into a corner with his character assassinations on Obama, now he can't even look like he respects him, else his bullshit cover is blown.

[Tanasinn]

Similarly, after McCain tried to use it against him, we see a lot less of Obama stating that he agrees with McCain on this or that.

[Thanas]

Is there any way to watch the whole debate on the internet? I missed it due to work.

[Count Chocula]

Here's your linky, Thanas.

[Thanas]

^Thank you.

[FSTargetDrone]

What's wierder is how he didn't shake Obama's hand at the end. Sour grapes?

Even more interesting, McCain left pretty quickly after the debate ended, but Obama stayed for about 15 minutes, talking with the audience members.

[The Vortex Empire]

McCain needed a crushing victory here, and he didn't get it. If past elections are any indication, Obama's got this. Let's hope nothing major happens.

[Patrick Degan]

What's wierder is how he didn't shake Obama's hand at the end. Sour grapes?

Even more interesting, McCain left pretty quickly after the debate ended, but Obama stayed for about 15 minutes, talking with the audience members.

Bad, bad move on the Gimp's part. As bad as Poppy Bush looking at his watch during the Clinton debate. The last thing you do after a less than stellar debate performance is to worsen your position by showing ill-grace afterward. But then, as has been pointed out, McCain's backed himself into a corner with the slander campaign he's gone to. He shows "integrity" by refusing to shake hands with the Radical Closet-Muslim Terrorist Sympathiser (who, BTW, is black)™, he gets to look like an asshole as well as a sore loser. And if he shakes hands with Obama in the face of his current rhetoric, he looks like a liar as well as a sore loser.

On top of his body language though the event, his patronising manner, the fact that he does indeed look old and whithered next to Obama, McCain, with each debate appearance, makes himself look more and more like the loser in this contest ahead of the actual vote. And it can be observed that the man who is already looking like the loser in an election campaign invariably is the loser.

[Fire Fly]

Well, a little late but here's my opinion of the "debate." The whole debate was a god damn farce that insulted my intelligence. I stopped watching about 25 minutes into the programming. The rules and constraints imposed by the debate commission were designed to keep the whole show safe instead of answering honest questions. Its no wonder most people don't give a shit about watching the debates; nothing usually happens. As much as I like Obama, both he and McCain gave the same scripted, the same regurgitated answers that they've been giving for the past few weeks. The country's financial assets are in chaos, the markets are in free fall, people are nervous about losing their life's earnings, homes are being lost, the country is stuck in two wars, the armed forces are over strained and all McCain and Obama did were play footsie. This is a prime moment to speak with a loud voice and present real leadership and both of them decided that its safer to speak quietly. And whoever was in charge of the town hall debate selected some insanely stupid questions, questions which have already been answered with the same rote responses. I don't expect the third debate to be any different so I'll just skip it and read what others have to say about it. I can spend my two hours in a more productive manner.

[AdmiralKanos]

In a rational world, anyone who asked "Do you believe that Russia is an evil empire" would be flogged and then shot. What the fuck kind of question is that for a presidential candidate?

[Aratech]

IIRC, Reagan was well noted for calling the Soviet Union by such a title (to the point where he apparently once joked about the fact that he had declared Russia illegal and that bombing would be commencing momentarily... forgetting, for the moment, that his mike happened to be on.)

*rummages around*

Ahh, found it:

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

The question could have been attempting to go back towards that era.

[Lord Poe]

In a rational world, anyone who asked "Do you believe that Russia is an evil empire" would be flogged and then shot. What the fuck kind of question is that for a presidential candidate?

I thought it was a leading question to see how batshit insane McCain was. Which, as it turned out, wasn't necessary, since McCain himself said Reagan was his "hero" more than once.

I don't understand why nobody seems to be in a furor over McCain virtually endorsing a new version of "Reaganomics" last night.

One Obama slip-up McCain missed; Obama was telling the audience what his background was, and said, "No where in the rest of the country would I have this opportunity."

And it seems "that one" is getting a lot of play around the net.

[General Zod]

One Obama slip-up McCain missed; Obama was telling the audience what his background was, and said, "No where in the rest of the country would I have this opportunity."

I noticed that one too, but I figured it was a trivial slip of the tongue.

And it seems "that one" is getting a lot of play around the net.

[img]>snip<[/img]

The only way that McSame could have possibly made himself look any worse with that is if he'd said "that black fella".

[Lord Pounder]

Could the "That one" comment be a racist thing like calling him "boy" or "you people"?

I actually stayed up last night to watch the debate and while Obama wasn't earth shattering he was miles better than McCain. Every time McCain stalked up in to the audience I thought he was going to attack one of them and suck their life force so he could live to see the actual election, it reeked of desperation.

[General Zod]

Could the "That one" comment be a racist thing like calling him "boy" or "you people"?

It would probably be borderline dogwhistle racism if it were, at best, but regardless if it were racist or not it was pretty condescending and disrespectful considering the environment.

[Thanas]

Just where the heck does McCain get off calling everyone his "friends"? Those people are not his friends, living in a world completely removed from his. To me it sounds patronizing as hell.

[SirNitram]

I don't feel any racism in 'That One'. It's just plain disrespect. A thousand ways to politely refer to the man six feet away, and it's 'That one.' Like that one, over there, we don't let him have a name.

It's a sad sign of what you can get away with if you're a Republican.

[Max]

Ok, so this morning my mom sends me an email regarding Fannie and Freddie and how it's actually the democrats fault they needed to be bailed out, blah blah blah. Anyway, she's on the fence, and she lives in Minnesota. So I was hoping that maybe a couple of you who are more knowledgeable in the whole Freddie/Fannie crap can help me with responding to her regarding this email:

One of the disgusting things about the marriage between the Democrats and the mass media (besides the prevention of fair election competition) is that the history is distorted. The worst example is how kids are taught that FDR fixed the great depression when many economists now feel he was a primary cause. (For example, he put in such draconian bank regulations that we had massive bank failures while Canada did not have a single bank failure during the same period.) The worst year was 1937 which was 5 years after FDR beat Hoover but we are taught that it was Hoover's fault.

I am normally an optimistic guy but I fear that this financial crisis (caused largely by Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks into junk-junk mortgages) will be blamed on Bush even though he tried to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie May back in 2003 only to have it blocked by Democrats getting huge donations from these agencies.


Here is a clever slide show with music to explain the history.

http://beltwayblips.com/video/burning_d ... ic_crisis/

Please share this link with your swing voter friends in the hopes that they can make an educated choice this Fall and maybe know the real history.

I'm pretty sure that Minnesota will go Obama for the election, but I'd like to at least send a response to this to my mother so that she would be less likely to lean McCain. Something constructive would be nice...

[Terralthra]

The CRA is largely a red herring.

Michael Barr, Treasury Department official under Clinton:

More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20% were made by banks and thrifts. Although reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the evidence, my own judgment is that the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight.

Emphasis mine.
source (PDF)

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok, so this morning my mom sends me an email regarding Fannie and Freddie and how it's actually the democrats fault they needed to be bailed out, blah blah blah. Anyway, she's on the fence, and she lives in Minnesota. So I was hoping that maybe a couple of you who are more knowledgeable in the whole Freddie/Fannie crap can help me with responding to her regarding this email:

One of the disgusting things about the marriage between the Democrats and the mass media (besides the prevention of fair election competition) is that the history is distorted. The worst example is how kids are taught that FDR fixed the great depression when many economists now feel he was a primary cause. (For example, he put in such draconian bank regulations that we had massive bank failures while Canada did not have a single bank failure during the same period.) The worst year was 1937 which was 5 years after FDR beat Hoover but we are taught that it was Hoover's fault.

I am normally an optimistic guy but I fear that this financial crisis (caused largely by Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks into junk-junk mortgages) will be blamed on Bush even though he tried to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie May back in 2003 only to have it blocked by Democrats getting huge donations from these agencies.


Here is a clever slide show with music to explain the history.

http://beltwayblips.com/video/burning_d ... ic_crisis/

Please share this link with your swing voter friends in the hopes that they can make an educated choice this Fall and maybe know the real history.

I'm pretty sure that Minnesota will go Obama for the election, but I'd like to at least send a response to this to my mother so that she would be less likely to lean McCain. Something constructive would be nice...

The piece of legislation in question would have made the problem worse because it invested sole regulatory authority in a presidential appointee (basically creating a Bank Regulation Czar) who would be nearly irrevocably in office for 6 years. You can guess who Bush wouldn't have put in office... someone qualified or willing to regulate the industry