Thus far the blogging of the VP debate drew comments faster and more furiously than the Presidential debate. Let’s see what happens this time around. As always, I’m watching the broadcast on PBS. Comments below the cut line.
9:02: ” I have selected a long list of excellent questions that will not be answered…”
9:03: McCain in a red tie, Obama in a blue tie. Perfect.
9:03: Obama goes for the attack early.
9:05: I’m being reminded of the Underpants gnomes from “South Park.” “Step One, Bailout. Step two…(deafening silence). Step three: Profit!”
9:06: Huh? Energy independence? Uhm…okay.
9:07: I’m waiting for McCain to sit down on the step next to the guy. Maybe ask him to sit in his lap.
9:08: And McCain goes for a joke! It’s a missed bunt.
9:09: Here’s the problem: McCain is talking about wall Street cronyism, yet he has plenty of Wall Street lobbyists on his staff.
9:10: Obama continues on the attack. He’s trying to bait McCain into blowing his temper, get scolding, etc. It’s a gambit; if it doesn’t work, if McCain doesn’t respond to the attacks, Obama going to look as if he’s endlessly carping.
9:12: The questioner is looking for specifics. Let’s see if he gets them. And now McCain fires back at Obama, referring to “cronies.” Obama is going to have to spend time defending himself rather than getting specific.
9:14: Smart. Obama speaks to the question first rather than responding to McCain’s charges.
9:15: And yet politicians ARE pointing fingers.
9:18: How do we trust you? Good question.
9:19: This could wind up being a major question because Obama tends to be a history and facts wonk while McCain does better in connecting with people on an emotional level, and trust is an emotional question.
9:20: This would have been the question for Obama to talk about hardscrabble roots or some such, the notion that “I’ve known hard times, I’m on your side.”
9:21: No, he has NOT been a consistent reformer. He has been consistently self serving. Read the Rolling Stones article.
9:22: They’re both blowing this opportunity. This is the kind of question that Bill Clinton would have knocked out of the park. Say what you will about Clinton, but he has tremendous personal charisma and you would have seen it on display for this question.
9:24: he could work on all three at once? NOW he can multi task? He couldn’t even campaign and work on the economy at the same time.
9:25: Every time he says, “My friends” I keep flashing back to “The Music Man” doing “Trouble.”
9:26: Yeah, but JFK had to die to give us the impetus to get to the moon.
9:27: Brokaw is trying his best to rein them in for time.
9:29: That air force tanker was actually a pork barrel project that he managed to push past through Carter’s objections. And there was a lawsuit involved as well because of European involvement that made its construction unfair competition for Americans.
9:30: OBAMA mentioned 9/11 first? Cripes.
9:31: Still, the comment about going out and shopping “not being the kind of call to service we were looking for” is kind of funny.
9:32: Clean coal technology is a myth. Unless there’s a new scientific breakthrough, it’s never going to happen.
9:33 If Bush says Wall Street got drunk, I’d take his word for it. With his history, he’d know.
9:34 I wonder if either of them will talk about putting Wall street on a 12 step program.
9:35: Obama should say, “I know Senator Obama worked with Herbert Hoover and knew Herbert Hoover, but I assure you I’m no Herbert Hoover.”
9:37: I keep waiting for them to follow the “West Wing” format and basically say, “Screw the rules, we’re just going to talk back and forth.”
9:38: Social security is the third rail of politics. If they talk about reforming it, they’re in trouble. “The straight talk express lost a wheel.” Nice. I’m sure he was waiting for the opportunity to use it.
9:40: Obama is steering the question away from what Brokaw said.
9:41: I’LL answer the question. Oh, snap.
9:41: Oh God, another frakking commission.
9:42: Look at the record? Keating 5.
9:43: McCain tries to distance himself from the Bush administration. Smart. Let’s see if Obama tries to tie him right back to it. Meantime he follows the West Wing scenario, advocating nuclear fuel just as Vinick did. Again, let’s hope a nuclear meltdown doesn’t happen to keep the scenario going.
9:45: Is EVERYTHING one of the biggest challenges of our time?
9:46: YES! Obama finally hits the nail in talking about the fact that McCain has been there for so long and hasn’t accomplished any of the things he talks about.
9:47: God, I just wish that Brokaw would just say, “Look, do you guys just want to toss the rules? Because if you do, let’s take the gloves off and go and I will go ‘Meet the Press’ on both of you.”
9:51: No. the health care in the congress is one of the most generous policies ever. They have all the stuff that we have slowly lost over the years due to the insurance companies.
9:52: Notice that Obama is no longer (a) stuttering at the start of questions and (b) saying “Senator McCain is absolutely right” about anything.
9:53: Why does no one point out that $5000 won’t get you health insurance?
9:54: cross-state insurance won’t work. NY people can’t go flocking to Ohio for health insurance, because in many states the state governments supplement the medical programs (the HIP program, for instance, is supplemented by state taxpayer money.) If the state governments see people flooding in from other states whose taxes aren’t going into the pot, how likely are they to continue supplementing the programs?
9:56: Oooo. Obama finally brings the personal aspect in.
9:57: Hah! He brought up McCain voting against children’s healthcare. I was wondering if he would.
9:58: Obama just stepped in something and he knows it. Biden’s from Delaware.
9:59: Obama can use this question as a major opportunity to link McCain to Bush when it comes to damaging our ability to act as peacemakers.
10:01: Obama was wrong about the surge. And McCain was wrong about every aspect of the war.
10:02: Not really answering the question, but he’s jabbing back at McCain at least.
10:03: 79 comments on this thread thus far. As of this time during the VP debate we had over 200.
10:05: I agree with McCain: It requires a cool hand at the tiller. Unfortunately his is anything BUT a cool hand. That’s the problem.
10:07: “Your young men and women are my first priority right after our nation’s security.” Which would make them your…second priority.
10:09: Except the problem is that more troops in Afghanistan will likely not lead to much except more deaths of civilians which is going to pìšš øff the people there and further inflame hostility toward us.
10:11: Actually it’s “speak softly and carry a big stick,” which is a West African saying that Roosevelt quoted.
10:13: YES! YES! And notice he said “speaking softly, ” the correct quote.
10:15; And we’re back to McCain’s secret plan to get bin Laden. He keep saying that. He has a secret plan. Has he shared this plan with anyone?
10:16: Brokaw is going to give Saturday night Live a field day.
10:18: Oh my God, McCain said that Obama was correct about something. Is that a first?
10:19: McCain’s right, I doubt we’ll have another cold war with Russia.
10:20: We’ve been SHOWING moral support for Georgia. It didn’t mean jack.
10:21: Yes. Obama jumps on the moral support opening. The question is, where do we get the money to provide financial support. And Obama already said the first thing he would cut would be money designed for foreign support.
10:22: As opposed to anticipating something AFTER it happens?
10;23: Gee, I would have thought McCain says Yes.
10:25: Ooooooo. the Jewish vote is listening carefully.
10:26: Aw, c’mon, are we back to the preconditions thing?
10:27: So Obama is basically saying that we want to take steps to make sure Israel isn’t attacked by Iran. Which is fine. But WHAT IF IT IS? That’s the question. If the steps fail, what then?
10:29: He never answered the question.
10:30: Obama deflects the zen question with humor and switches to his stump speech.
10:31: I could see McCain saying, “I don’t know how we will survive if Obama is elected, and I intend to never have to learn it.”
10:34: Except the great honor of his life was to put himself first. Again, read the RS articles.
CONCLUSION: I think both of them got good shots in. To my mind, Obama gave the better performance, albeit narrowly, but I’ve no idea if anyone who is undecided would have been swayed one way or the other.
• 
You know, it’s funny. Most of my TV-watching is, to some degree, casual, even when it’s something I’m very interested in, like the debates; I’m usually watching it when I’m at the computer or drawing board, and even during these live blogging sessions, I haven’t noticed something that I noticed last night when I was listening to it on the radio:
These two guys put A LOT of padding in their answers, often not even answering the question at all. They’ll start off thanking the citizen for their question, explaining why the topic they asked about is important, and often substituting an explanation of what their opponent did in the past instead of saying what they’re going to do to address the issue in question. I wonder if it was always like this, and I never noticed it because it was TV, and only now because listening on the radio forced me to focus more on the substance of what was being said.
————-
And yeah, I noticed the “That one” line by McCain too. I thought that odd, and wondered if he was just stumbling in choosing his words.
I have more respect for McCain than I have for draft-dodger Bush, but in a way, they’re similar: rich, privileged guys that had the family connections to make it.
Well, no problem with that, except that their party loves to call the Dems “elitist”, ironically.
It seems like the only factors that determine whether someone is “elitist” in the US today are religious faith (or lack thereof), dislike of intellectuals, and dislike of cosmopolitan life.
Money and privilege apparently don’t count.
Except that McCain stopped referring to himself as a maverick, and stopped trying to hammer Obama on his inexperience, demonstrating their ineffectiveness. Obama sticking to relieving 95% of taxpayers of the hikes he’s imposing on the rich, and hammering McCain on imposing taxes on health coverage benefits demonstrates the effectiveness of his campaign strategy.
Just heard that McCain’s $5000 break for health insurance is for families. JHC, it’s the John McCain who can’t tell the difference between Spain and Cuba we all know and love.
Except that McCain stopped referring to himself as a maverick, and stopped trying to hammer Obama on his inexperience, demonstrating their ineffectiveness. Obama sticking to relieving 95% of taxpayers of the hikes he’s imposing on the rich, and hammering McCain on imposing taxes on health coverage benefits demonstrates the effectiveness of his campaign strategy.
Just heard that McCain’s $5000 break for health insurance is for families. JHC, it’s the John McCain who can’t tell the difference between Spain and Cuba we all know and love.
You’re missing the point. He’s unnecessarily handed a wedge issue to his opponents. If they have any brains, they immediately leap on this 11th hour gift and start saying, “Barack Obama complains about the lax corporate laws in Delaware…the state represented by his running mate, Joe Biden!”
That’s a very big “IF.”
Meanwhile, I’m surprised nobody seems to be saying more on the surge than that “it worked.” The verdict on the surge is far from complete. While the increase in troops has apparently coincided with a decrease in civilian casualties, we also have studies that show that the violence in Iraq killed or drove out so many civilians that certain key areas of major cities were drastically reduced in sectarian diversity, and therefore those areas were largely out of people to terrorize by the time the surge troops arrived. Newsweek also did an article a while back about how the surge has given way to a power structure in Iraq that’s taking women’s rights back to the Middle Ages. Many people might not be quite so concerned about women getting to hold jobs and move about as they please as long as the violence is under control, but I think that if the Obama camp had all the data, they could be asking whether, not why, the surge really accomplished anything.
You’re missing the point. He’s unnecessarily handed a wedge issue to his opponents. If they have any brains, they immediately leap on this 11th hour gift and start saying, “Barack Obama complains about the lax corporate laws in Delaware…the state represented by his running mate, Joe Biden!”
That’s a very big “IF.”
Meanwhile, I’m surprised nobody seems to be saying more on the surge than that “it worked.” The verdict on the surge is far from complete. While the increase in troops has apparently coincided with a decrease in civilian casualties, we also have studies that show that the violence in Iraq killed or drove out so many civilians that certain key areas of major cities were drastically reduced in sectarian diversity, and therefore those areas were largely out of people to terrorize by the time the surge troops arrived. Newsweek also did an article a while back about how the surge has given way to a power structure in Iraq that’s taking women’s rights back to the Middle Ages. Many people might not be quite so concerned about women getting to hold jobs and move about as they please as long as the violence is under control, but I think that if the Obama camp had all the data, they could be asking whether, not why, the surge really accomplished anything.
I have more respect for McCain than I have for draft-dodger Bush, but in a way, they’re similar: rich, privileged guys that had the family connections to make it
At this point the big difference between the two is that Bush didn’t keep crashing his planes.
PAD
I think that if the Obama camp had all the data, they could be asking whether, not why, the surge really accomplished anything.
The problem is that Obama is already on record as saying positive things about the surge. If he starts questioning it now, he’s portrayed as contradicting himself. The far better approach is the one he used: To say that as long as we’re discussing who was wrong about Iraq, how about McCain initially saying that it was going to be a cakewalk, that we would be greeted as liberators, and then when it all turned to crap, saying that he’d said from the beginning it was going to be a tough slog.
PAD
I think that if the Obama camp had all the data, they could be asking whether, not why, the surge really accomplished anything.
The problem is that Obama is already on record as saying positive things about the surge. If he starts questioning it now, he’s portrayed as contradicting himself. The far better approach is the one he used: To say that as long as we’re discussing who was wrong about Iraq, how about McCain initially saying that it was going to be a cakewalk, that we would be greeted as liberators, and then when it all turned to crap, saying that he’d said from the beginning it was going to be a tough slog.
PAD
That’s a very big “IF.”
May not be all that big. Say what you will about McCain’s people, but they’re superb at digging up dirt. If they can try to link Obama and the Weathermen even though he was eight years old when they were active, they will certainly pounce on Obama criticizing the very Delaware laws that Biden has helped promulgate. I would go so far as to say that there’s no chance they’ll pass it up.
PAD
That’s a very big “IF.”
May not be all that big. Say what you will about McCain’s people, but they’re superb at digging up dirt. If they can try to link Obama and the Weathermen even though he was eight years old when they were active, they will certainly pounce on Obama criticizing the very Delaware laws that Biden has helped promulgate. I would go so far as to say that there’s no chance they’ll pass it up.
PAD
PAD: You’re missing the point. He’s unnecessarily handed a wedge issue to his opponents. If they have any brains, they immediately leap on this 11th hour gift and start saying, “Barack Obama complains about the lax corporate laws in Delaware…the state represented by his running mate, Joe Biden!”
Well, if you want to talk about missed points, you just missed a big one, PAD. State laws are made by state legislators, and that’s not Joe Biden. So what would the McCain Campaign do, go after Joe Biden’s son, who just shipped out to Iraq? It’s possible to attack Obama that way, but making Obama’s statement connect back to Joe Biden in a negative way would be complicated enough that it wouldn’t make a simple, effective TV commercial.
I don’t see this as doing any good for McCain.
PAD: You’re missing the point. He’s unnecessarily handed a wedge issue to his opponents. If they have any brains, they immediately leap on this 11th hour gift and start saying, “Barack Obama complains about the lax corporate laws in Delaware…the state represented by his running mate, Joe Biden!”
Well, if you want to talk about missed points, you just missed a big one, PAD. State laws are made by state legislators, and that’s not Joe Biden. So what would the McCain Campaign do, go after Joe Biden’s son, who just shipped out to Iraq? It’s possible to attack Obama that way, but making Obama’s statement connect back to Joe Biden in a negative way would be complicated enough that it wouldn’t make a simple, effective TV commercial.
I don’t see this as doing any good for McCain.
The problem is that Obama is already on record as saying positive things about the surge. If he starts questioning it now, he’s portrayed as contradicting himself.
Okay, fair enough. Another handicap to discussing the issues is that the campaign demands that the candidates communicate everything in quick, simple sound bites. That doesn’t really leave room for discussions of what the surge actually accomplished.
Well, if you want to talk about missed points, you just missed a big one, PAD. State laws are made by state legislators, and that’s not Joe Biden. So what would the McCain Campaign do, go after Joe Biden’s son, who just shipped out to Iraq? It’s possible to attack Obama that way, but making Obama’s statement connect back to Joe Biden in a negative way would be complicated enough that it wouldn’t make a simple, effective TV commercial.
Doesn’t matter. To the best of my knowledge, Biden supports the current laws, not to mention having a track record with credit card companies and bankruptcy laws. But McCain’s people don’t even need that. A simple, effective commercial?
“Barack Obama is against the lax laws in Delaware that favor big business. Who’s the senior Senator from Delaware? Joe Biden. So how will Barack Obama get tough on big business with Joe Biden protecting them? He won’t. We need someone who’s not in the pocket of big business.” “I’m John McCain and I approved this message.”
Twenty seconds.
PAD
Well, if you want to talk about missed points, you just missed a big one, PAD. State laws are made by state legislators, and that’s not Joe Biden. So what would the McCain Campaign do, go after Joe Biden’s son, who just shipped out to Iraq? It’s possible to attack Obama that way, but making Obama’s statement connect back to Joe Biden in a negative way would be complicated enough that it wouldn’t make a simple, effective TV commercial.
Doesn’t matter. To the best of my knowledge, Biden supports the current laws, not to mention having a track record with credit card companies and bankruptcy laws. But McCain’s people don’t even need that. A simple, effective commercial?
“Barack Obama is against the lax laws in Delaware that favor big business. Who’s the senior Senator from Delaware? Joe Biden. So how will Barack Obama get tough on big business with Joe Biden protecting them? He won’t. We need someone who’s not in the pocket of big business.” “I’m John McCain and I approved this message.”
Twenty seconds.
PAD
Ðámņ, dude, don’t give him any more ideas!
If I see that ad on the air, I’ll know where they got the script.
The biggest problem with it is that it’s hypocritical. McCain and about ninety percent of the pols on the hill are in the pocket of big business and special interests.
Hello to the wife and kids.
Miles
Ðámņ, dude, don’t give him any more ideas!
If I see that ad on the air, I’ll know where they got the script.
The biggest problem with it is that it’s hypocritical. McCain and about ninety percent of the pols on the hill are in the pocket of big business and special interests.
Hello to the wife and kids.
Miles
PAD: Doesn’t matter. To the best of my knowledge, Biden supports the current laws, not to mention having a track record with credit card companies and bankruptcy laws. But McCain’s people don’t even need that. A simple, effective commercial?
How would McCain use that against Obama. What’s the pull quote? Which part of the video can they show that won’t also reference Obama’s attack on McCain’s health care proposal? Obama says some bad things about Delaware banking laws, but that’s not a direct condemnation of something that Biden did, so they’d have to list out connections for the viewers. Tenuous connections might be worth it if you’ve got something emotional like “terrorists” at the end of the chain, but Delaware’s banking laws are not something you can mention and get an automatic boo from the audience.
There’s video from the Democratic debates of Biden saying that Obama wasn’t ready to be President. If *that* didn’t have a powerful impact, this certainly won’t. McCain needs something big to attack with, but would just feel like quibbling over details, which would look kinda pathetic.
And again, who outside of Delaware is going to care? So Obama disagrees with something that Biden supported that most people don’t even understand. What Obama said was a decent counter punch against McCain’s health care proposal, but it’s not something that people have a strong, emotional reaction to already. Just the fact that Obama disagrees with Biden about certain laws, laws Biden never voted on, isn’t going to get much of a rise out of people.
Honestly, if there was anything to be had from that comment, the spin rooms would have been on it last night. As it is, this is the only place I’ve seen mention it.
Tell you what, if the McCain campaign uses that comment, I’ll buy you a Coke, PAD.
Honestly, if there was anything to be had from that comment, the spin rooms would have been on it last night. As it is, this is the only place I’ve seen mention it.
Then you haven’t been looking very hard. Because I’ve seen everything from the NY Daily News to the London Times bring it up.
The problem is that you’re thinking of a commercial as if it were a debating tool, needing to cover all aspects of an argument. It doesn’t. Commericals aren’t appeal to the rational; they’re appeals to the gut. To suspicions.
PAD
Honestly, if there was anything to be had from that comment, the spin rooms would have been on it last night. As it is, this is the only place I’ve seen mention it.
Then you haven’t been looking very hard. Because I’ve seen everything from the NY Daily News to the London Times bring it up.
The problem is that you’re thinking of a commercial as if it were a debating tool, needing to cover all aspects of an argument. It doesn’t. Commericals aren’t appeal to the rational; they’re appeals to the gut. To suspicions.
PAD
This from Conde Nast portfolio.com:
Obama struck me as a bit more laconic than usual. He seemed tired and made a number of verbal miscues, the most notable was his whipping Delaware as the state with lax banking regulations. D’oh! You knew he regretted dissing his veep’s home state as soon as he said it.
PAD
This from Conde Nast portfolio.com:
Obama struck me as a bit more laconic than usual. He seemed tired and made a number of verbal miscues, the most notable was his whipping Delaware as the state with lax banking regulations. D’oh! You knew he regretted dissing his veep’s home state as soon as he said it.
PAD
PAD: Then you haven’t been looking very hard.
Exactly! If it was worth anything, I wouldn’t *need* to look very hard. Anything that can actually affect the election would show up in a lot more places than that. Elections aren’t swung by the people who “look very hard.”
PAD, the problem isn’t that I’m thinking of it as a debating tool. The problem is that the comment was nothing. You’re saying that Obama knew he made a mistake and you could see it in his face. I’ve gone back and looked at the tape and I don’t see squat in Obama’s face. Sure, he pauses slightly, but he does that all the time. I think you’re reading too much into this one.
You say this attack doesn’t have to be rational? PAD, the McCain campaign was not lacking in irrational attacks. They already had plenty. If they want to make an irrational attack, they’ll keep talking about terrorists, not Delaware banking laws.
Yes, it is *possible* that McCain could make a commercial out of this. But I still don’t think Obama did anything that will actually hurt him measurably. So I’m sticking with my original analyses: I doubt that will be much of a problem.
PAD: Then you haven’t been looking very hard.
Exactly! If it was worth anything, I wouldn’t *need* to look very hard. Anything that can actually affect the election would show up in a lot more places than that. Elections aren’t swung by the people who “look very hard.”
PAD, the problem isn’t that I’m thinking of it as a debating tool. The problem is that the comment was nothing. You’re saying that Obama knew he made a mistake and you could see it in his face. I’ve gone back and looked at the tape and I don’t see squat in Obama’s face. Sure, he pauses slightly, but he does that all the time. I think you’re reading too much into this one.
You say this attack doesn’t have to be rational? PAD, the McCain campaign was not lacking in irrational attacks. They already had plenty. If they want to make an irrational attack, they’ll keep talking about terrorists, not Delaware banking laws.
Yes, it is *possible* that McCain could make a commercial out of this. But I still don’t think Obama did anything that will actually hurt him measurably. So I’m sticking with my original analyses: I doubt that will be much of a problem.
Exactly! If it was worth anything, I wouldn’t *need* to look very hard. Anything that can actually affect the election would show up in a lot more places than that. Elections aren’t swung by the people who “look very hard.”
Okay. How about “at all?” Because I watched the debate coverage on PBS and when they had their analysis immediately afterward one of their commentators brought it up within five minutes.
The McCain camp HAS been making attacks about terrorists. Obama is pulling ahead. They’ll be looking for new things and Obama just handed them something.
The point wasn’t whether it would be “much of a problem,” so you’re welcome to stick to your analysis undisputed. The point was that Obama said something dumb and clearly knew it the moment he did so. He provided brand new grist for the mill. Do I think it will ultimately impact on the election? Probably not. But it was a miscue and created unnecessary grief for Biden.
PAD
Exactly! If it was worth anything, I wouldn’t *need* to look very hard. Anything that can actually affect the election would show up in a lot more places than that. Elections aren’t swung by the people who “look very hard.”
Okay. How about “at all?” Because I watched the debate coverage on PBS and when they had their analysis immediately afterward one of their commentators brought it up within five minutes.
The McCain camp HAS been making attacks about terrorists. Obama is pulling ahead. They’ll be looking for new things and Obama just handed them something.
The point wasn’t whether it would be “much of a problem,” so you’re welcome to stick to your analysis undisputed. The point was that Obama said something dumb and clearly knew it the moment he did so. He provided brand new grist for the mill. Do I think it will ultimately impact on the election? Probably not. But it was a miscue and created unnecessary grief for Biden.
PAD
Grist for a mill that’s already full of grist is meaningless. McCain has an attack against Obama that won’t sway undecideds in the slightest? Big deal.
As for “Obama said something dumb and clearly knew it the moment he did so,” no way.
a) It wasn’t dumb, he was right. Candidates don’t have to agree with each other on everything and Obama is absolutely right about what would happen to the health care industry with McCain’s idea. He needed to pound McCain and he did so. That’s the important part of the debate, not the fact that he disagrees with Biden about something.
b) It’s not remotely clear that Obama thought he said something dumb. I’ve looked at the video and I don’t see anything in Obama’s face or voice that I didn’t see or hear plenty of other times that night.
A few days ago Palin said something about invading Pakistan that directly contradicted what McCain had said. It was on the news many times, comedians made fun of it, and it was obviously a big deal. *That* is one candidate working against another. This is something that people like you and me (and the folks at Conde Nast portfolio.com) will debate while people who are actually making a decision yawn and look elsewhere.
It’s inside baseball, PAD. Just us thinking too hard about a minor detail, nothing more.
Grist for a mill that’s already full of grist is meaningless. McCain has an attack against Obama that won’t sway undecideds in the slightest? Big deal.
As for “Obama said something dumb and clearly knew it the moment he did so,” no way.
a) It wasn’t dumb, he was right. Candidates don’t have to agree with each other on everything and Obama is absolutely right about what would happen to the health care industry with McCain’s idea. He needed to pound McCain and he did so. That’s the important part of the debate, not the fact that he disagrees with Biden about something.
b) It’s not remotely clear that Obama thought he said something dumb. I’ve looked at the video and I don’t see anything in Obama’s face or voice that I didn’t see or hear plenty of other times that night.
A few days ago Palin said something about invading Pakistan that directly contradicted what McCain had said. It was on the news many times, comedians made fun of it, and it was obviously a big deal. *That* is one candidate working against another. This is something that people like you and me (and the folks at Conde Nast portfolio.com) will debate while people who are actually making a decision yawn and look elsewhere.
It’s inside baseball, PAD. Just us thinking too hard about a minor detail, nothing more.
Hmmm. My gut feeling is that the GOP will not end up using the Delaware comments in any commercial. Too complicated and too expensive to utilize when they can simply go with making references to Obama being pals with terrorists and the like.
Barack Obama could star in a revival of “That Girl” called “That One”: youtube.com/watch?v=ed-k1xOCsMs
Barack Obama could star in a revival of “That Girl” called “That One”: youtube.com/watch?v=ed-k1xOCsMs
Anyone else think Brokaw was a lousy moderator? I understand the importance of keeping the candidates on point, but he came across as whiny and annoying on the time limits even when they were discussing the issues. If they’re talking about something important, let them talk. If that means you don’t have time for some questions towards the end, so be it.
Anyone else think Brokaw was a lousy moderator? I understand the importance of keeping the candidates on point, but he came across as whiny and annoying on the time limits even when they were discussing the issues. If they’re talking about something important, let them talk. If that means you don’t have time for some questions towards the end, so be it.
9:08: And McCain goes for a joke! It’s a missed bunt.
When was the last time one of those happened in a major league game? I’m curious. It would probably be more embarassing for the batter than McCain failing to get any laughs was embarassing for him, but not by a whole lot.
9:24: he could work on all three at once? NOW he can multi task? He couldn’t even campaign and work on the economy at the same time.
Any time McCain or one of his supporters criticizes Obama for promising more than he can give (and I’ll be honest, there were times during the debate when I thought “is he really going to be able to do all of this stuff?”), somebody should bring up this moment. “Why bother prioritizing! We can do everything at the same time! I know we can because we’re America and America can do anything!” Okay John, you get points for having faith in your country (or sounding like you do), but you’ve got to be realistic.
9:32: Clean coal technology is a myth. Unless there’s a new scientific breakthrough, it’s never going to happen.
Yeah, I’m also disappointed that Obama and Biden are talking about that.
10:05: I agree with McCain: It requires a cool hand at the tiller. Unfortunately his is anything BUT a cool hand. That’s the problem.
Peter David is absolutely right. 😉 That’s what I was thinking too–if you’re John McCain, you don’t want to be saying things like “we need a steady hand at the tiller.” He might as well be saying “we need a President who’s capable of doing a chin-up.” In neither case is the man accurately describing himself.
10:27: So Obama is basically saying that we want to take steps to make sure Israel isn’t attacked by Iran. Which is fine. But WHAT IF IT IS? That’s the question. If the steps fail, what then?
10:29: He never answered the question.
I think he did by saying they wouldn’t take military options off the table and wouldn’t provide veto power to the U.N. So in response to the question about getting the U.N.’s permission to act if Israel were attacked, the answer would be no.
Hey, I’m watching an Obama speech right now, and he just made PAD’s point; “Senator McCain didn’t mention that the average healthcare plan costs $12,000, not $5,000.”
Hey, I’m watching an Obama speech right now, and he just made PAD’s point; “Senator McCain didn’t mention that the average healthcare plan costs $12,000, not $5,000.”
And yeah, I noticed the “That one” line by McCain too. I thought that odd, and wondered if he was just stumbling in choosing his words.
I kinda got that feeling too. It was as if McCain was about to say something like “You know who voted againts it? That guy.”–y’know in an attempt to be regular and folksy–and then second-guessed himself and out popped the even worse-sounding “That one.”
And yeah, I noticed the “That one” line by McCain too. I thought that odd, and wondered if he was just stumbling in choosing his words.
I kinda got that feeling too. It was as if McCain was about to say something like “You know who voted againts it? That guy.”–y’know in an attempt to be regular and folksy–and then second-guessed himself and out popped the even worse-sounding “That one.”
Posted by: Matt Adler at October 8, 2008 12:52 PM
Hey, I’m watching an Obama speech right now, and he just made PAD’s point; “Senator McCain didn’t mention that the average healthcare plan costs $12,000, not $5,000.”
Good for him. Would’ve been nice if he’d said so last night when there was a bigger audience, but still…
I had a few worries last night.
When Obama started talking about the need to stimulate the economies of the old Soviet satellites like the Ukraine I thought “Crap. The McCain people might put together an attack ad saying that in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, Obama wants to give away our money to other countries because ‘he just doesn’t understand’, etc.”
There was also a point where Obama misspoke at the end, and said something like “nowhere else in the country could I have achieved what I have.” Obviously he meant “nowhere else in the world”. I thought that the McCain people might have pounced on that and claimed that Obama was saying his part of the country was better than any other.
Now for something that amazed me.
How in the blue hëll can anybody think that Obama saying “if we have bin Laden in our sights, we will go after him” is a bad thing? Haven’t the Republicans been running on the idea of “we’re the only ones who can protect you from Al Qaeda” for years now? And yet McCain criticizes Obama for saying that they should go after bin Laden.
Why? Because that’s somehow “telegraphing your punches”? No it isn’t. Saying “we want to kill or capture Osama bin Laden” isn’t tipping your hand. Everybody knows it.
Because it’s not respecting Pakistan’s borders? Obama already said they would ask Pakistan to help first. If Pakistan says “go screw yourselves, we won’t do anything about him,” then would McCain want nothing to be done? Ðámņ, it’s no secret that I’m much more of a dove than a hawk and even *I* would be in favour of attacking bin Laden’s location with or without Pakistani approval, provided it were done in such a way that no civilians died.
I just don’t see how McCain can say asking the U.N. for permission to act is weak, and say at the same time that it would be unacceptable to do anything in Pakistan without Pakistan’s permission. It seems to be a contradiction. Is there something here that I “just don’t understand?”
“10:27: So Obama is basically saying that we want to take steps to make sure Israel isn’t attacked by Iran. Which is fine. But WHAT IF IT IS? That’s the question. If the steps fail, what then?
10:29: He never answered the question.
I think he did by saying they wouldn’t take military options off the table and wouldn’t provide veto power to the U.N. So in response to the question about getting the U.N.’s permission to act if Israel were attacked, the answer would be no.”
1) The last thing Israel wants is American troops fighting for it. It never asked them to. There are two times when US troops were station in Israel. During the first Gulf War, American soldiers manned the Patriot Missles. Today American soldiers are maning a new anti-missle radar system that was given to Israel. In both cases the US placed these weapon systems and soldiers in order to get Israel not to use its force to attack Iraq and Iran respectfully. (Although I don’t know if Israel has the capacity to attack Iran with its air force).
I thin some in Israel would want the US to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, since it’s possible that Israel does not have the strength. However the US cannot and does not want to do it, nor do they want israel to do it even if it could. Even if Israel could attack Iran, they cannot do it if the US doesn’t allow it.
2) In the case of conventional war the help Israel gets from the US is in diplomacy, money, weapons, intelligence, joint R&D, not soldiers.
3) If Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons Israel will probably end. It wil lbe too late for anything. Israel wil lbe destroyed, Iran will survive but suffer a nuclear counterstrike. (Unless the anti-missle systems that Israel and the Americans are developing together will work).
4) Iran will probably not use nuclear weapons against Israel.
5) Iran will probably not attack Israel with its conventional missles at all unless the US or Israel tries to attack their nuclear facilities. Otherwise they will continue to use proxies.
6) It doesn’t seem likely that there is anything to do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The best the US could do was to get the Chinese and maybe the Russians to pressure Iran.
7) Iran talks a lot against Israel for PR reasons, just like Saddam did during the Gulf war. But they are much more of a threat to the Gulf states and to the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, and Lebanon. The threat to Israel is mostly with the use of proxies and the general hostile atmosphere they Iran promotes.
7)
“10:27: So Obama is basically saying that we want to take steps to make sure Israel isn’t attacked by Iran. Which is fine. But WHAT IF IT IS? That’s the question. If the steps fail, what then?
10:29: He never answered the question.
I think he did by saying they wouldn’t take military options off the table and wouldn’t provide veto power to the U.N. So in response to the question about getting the U.N.’s permission to act if Israel were attacked, the answer would be no.”
1) The last thing Israel wants is American troops fighting for it. It never asked them to. There are two times when US troops were station in Israel. During the first Gulf War, American soldiers manned the Patriot Missles. Today American soldiers are maning a new anti-missle radar system that was given to Israel. In both cases the US placed these weapon systems and soldiers in order to get Israel not to use its force to attack Iraq and Iran respectfully. (Although I don’t know if Israel has the capacity to attack Iran with its air force).
I thin some in Israel would want the US to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, since it’s possible that Israel does not have the strength. However the US cannot and does not want to do it, nor do they want israel to do it even if it could. Even if Israel could attack Iran, they cannot do it if the US doesn’t allow it.
2) In the case of conventional war the help Israel gets from the US is in diplomacy, money, weapons, intelligence, joint R&D, not soldiers.
3) If Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons Israel will probably end. It wil lbe too late for anything. Israel wil lbe destroyed, Iran will survive but suffer a nuclear counterstrike. (Unless the anti-missle systems that Israel and the Americans are developing together will work).
4) Iran will probably not use nuclear weapons against Israel.
5) Iran will probably not attack Israel with its conventional missles at all unless the US or Israel tries to attack their nuclear facilities. Otherwise they will continue to use proxies.
6) It doesn’t seem likely that there is anything to do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The best the US could do was to get the Chinese and maybe the Russians to pressure Iran.
7) Iran talks a lot against Israel for PR reasons, just like Saddam did during the Gulf war. But they are much more of a threat to the Gulf states and to the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, and Lebanon. The threat to Israel is mostly with the use of proxies and the general hostile atmosphere they Iran promotes.
7)
If you don’t mind my asking, Micha, what’s the general feeling in Israel about the infamous “wipe it off the map” statement? I know that Ahmadinejad doesn’t like Israel (or perhaps he’s talking tough for PR reasons, as you said), but there’s a difference between thinking a country shouldn’t be there and threatening to destroy it in a speech.
My understanding is that Ahmadinejad didn’t say something that could be accurately translated as “Israel should be wiped off the map”, let alone “we will wipe Israel off the map” as McCain keeps claiming he said. As McCain mentioned last night, as a matter of fact.
If you don’t mind my asking, Micha, what’s the general feeling in Israel about the infamous “wipe it off the map” statement? I know that Ahmadinejad doesn’t like Israel (or perhaps he’s talking tough for PR reasons, as you said), but there’s a difference between thinking a country shouldn’t be there and threatening to destroy it in a speech.
My understanding is that Ahmadinejad didn’t say something that could be accurately translated as “Israel should be wiped off the map”, let alone “we will wipe Israel off the map” as McCain keeps claiming he said. As McCain mentioned last night, as a matter of fact.
“Uhm…no. Not at all. But thanks for giving it the worst possible interpretation. I was simply making an observation that the VP debate garnered three times the response, which I thought was kind of interesting.”
“I don’t think he was serious about the “whined” comment, PAD. It struck me as pretty tongue-in-cheek.”
Thanks TWL, just trying for some levity (obviously failed)
“Uhm…no. Not at all. But thanks for giving it the worst possible interpretation. I was simply making an observation that the VP debate garnered three times the response, which I thought was kind of interesting.”
“I don’t think he was serious about the “whined” comment, PAD. It struck me as pretty tongue-in-cheek.”
Thanks TWL, just trying for some levity (obviously failed)
You and John McCain, edhopper. 🙂
You and John McCain, edhopper. 🙂
Hmmm. In light of McCain’s recent memory problems, is it possible that his reference to Obama as “that one” was simply a momentary failure to recall Obama’s name? I think that this might be the case and, if so, is not an example of McCain being arrogant, but of showing his age.
Hmmm. In light of McCain’s recent memory problems, is it possible that his reference to Obama as “that one” was simply a momentary failure to recall Obama’s name? I think that this might be the case and, if so, is not an example of McCain being arrogant, but of showing his age.