Presidential Debate #1 thread

[Realitycheck]

In case you missed the debate:

 

http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/09/27/video-obamamccain-debate-from-mississippi-926/

[ParanoiA]

The most fun was watching the two of them dodge the bailout issue. It would have been absolutely awesome if Lehrer had asked them about the sudden insistance on bipartisan unity and the disparity between the outcries by the constituency and their dismissal by congress.

 

It would have been great to see them both wiggle through that one. It would take quite the slickster to somehow say that the people's voice matters while ignoring them at the same time.

[Pangloss]

I only caught a few minutes of it but I did see a little of that dodging, which was unfortunate, but I think understandable at this point because we simply don't know yet what the bill will be, exactly. It's something that's always bugged me about politics, how politicians are expected to have firm positions on stuff that hasn't even been decided yet. But that's part of the game, I guess.

 

Yeah I would have liked that question very much, as you say, focusing on the disparity between what legislators apparently want and what the people seem to be radically opposed to. In the very brief glimpse I got I did see Obama try and defend the idea of government intervention, which looked interesting.

 

I'll try and catch up on the debate late this afternoon when I get home; I've got it tivo'd.

[iNow]

So, who wants to pick a winner and explain their choice?

[ParanoiA]

I only caught a few minutes of it but I did see a little of that dodging, which was unfortunate, but I think understandable at this point because we simply don't know yet what the bill will be, exactly. It's something that's always bugged me about politics, how politicians are expected to have firm positions on stuff that hasn't even been decided yet. But that's part of the game, I guess.

 

No, I understand dodging particulars and I would think it would be best to put it that way. I'm talking about the obvious discomfort displayed at simply answering the generalized question of whether or not they support the notion of a bailout. That would have been a terrific time to launch into theory; to show some depth and explain why they think we should intervene.

 

But they were clearly scared to death of each other's campaigns - knowing that any slip, any little hint at this or that could give the other some ammo to exaggerate and distort. That's what I find dissappointing.

 

Really, this has been the case for decades, maybe more I guess. Debates are still too crafted by each candidate - too cautious with their presentation. They may not be making a speech, but they're still regurgitating pre-negotiated verbiage they feel is "safe". That's unfortunate, because it would be nice to hear them relax and just say what they really think in a down to earth, meat and potatoes debate.

 

So, who wants to pick a winner and explain their choice?

 

They were fairly equal I thought. I'd be fairly suspicious of anyone declaring a winner in this one as it would be little more than a cheer for their guy.

[jackson33]

So, who wants to pick a winner and explain their choice?

 

Most folks will judge according to preconceived conception or along party lines. Hear what they want, so to speak...

 

I saw nothing to indicate either was what different to my conceptions. I thought McCain appeared knowledgeable and understood issues in depth, where Obama appeared to be answering a quiz, taking an oral test or giving the Democrat viewpoint. Interesting, but nothing decisive....

 

Any your winner and why???

[bascule]

Some interesting polling figures on the debates:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Obama did the better job in Friday night's debate, while 38 percent said John McCain did better.

 

Men were nearly evenly split between the two candidates, with 46 percent giving the win to McCain and 43 percent to Obama. But women voters tended to give Obama higher marks, with 59 percent calling him the night's winner, while just 31 percent said McCain won.

[Phi for All]

Debates are still too crafted by each candidate - too cautious with their presentation. They may not be making a speech, but they're still regurgitating pre-negotiated verbiage they feel is "safe".

This was my take as well. I was not impressed. I felt they were about equally well prepared.

[Pangloss]

If that's true about them seeming prepared it's interesting, because they were pretty pre-occupied over the previous week. But I read somewhere that Obama had been in 22 debates and McCain 15 prior to Friday night, so that may be part of it as well.

[swansont]

Seems to me all the answers were just a couple of seconds of ad-lib to bridge the way back to their talking points. I was disappointed that Obama seems reticent to take the gloves off. In an early exchange McCain talked about earmarks and fired a salvo at Obama. If McCain's so opposed, why did he choose a running mate who loves them? Obama didn't bring that up at all. And McCain's lame joke about bear DNA would have been a time to attack him on the importance of science and technology.

 

I tuned out after McCain's second reference to himself as not winning "Miss Congeniality." It just seemed like theater by that point.

[bascule]

I was disappointed that Obama seems reticent to take the gloves off.

 

There was some of that. As soon as McCain went into his played out soundbyte about his bracelet bearing a soldier's name as part of his overall talking point about the sunk cost of the Iraq war ("we can't let them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory", interesting metaphor there), Obama responded with a bracelet of his own, emphasizing that no soldier dies in vain and the cost of McCain's approach to honoring that soldier's memory in the way he's describing is... more dead soldiers.

 

Overall Obama seemed more comfortable. Jim Lehrer wanted the candidates to talk to each other, which is something only Obama seemed to do. I heard "I agree with my opponent" pretty often out of Obama and "my opponent just doesn't understand" out of McCain, ostensibly an attempt to play up his experience.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, who wants to pick a winner and explain their choice?

 

I think they were both losers. They both sounded like children, using bad arguments and blatant lies to try to pin something bad on their opponent. Rather than having an opportunity to explain their positions, they both spent too much time attacking each other with little games of "Am not!" and "Are too!". I'd have said, "That's false, and anybody who researches it would agree. It's such a silly accusation I won't dignify it any more than to say it is false." Particularly amusing was how they each tried to answer slightly different questions than asked, and the refusal of both of them to name what they would cut to pay for the bailout.

 

Before the debate, I expected Obama to trounce McCain, and overall I think he did slightly better ... but the overall result of the debate was that my opinion of McCain was slightly raised, and my opinion of Obama lowered, which would make him the loser for me, personally.

[Realitycheck]

There is just no way to cut 700 billion dollars of spending in the environment that we are in, period. Total spending in the 2008 budget was 2.9 trillion dollars. I challenge you to find 700 billion dollars to take out of all of this. Check out this interest on debt. 10% increase from prior year and roughly the same percentage increases every year since Bush took office. I guess we could just follow Ron Paul's advice and completely close down the federal government and let anarchy run supreme in all of these areas.

 

The President's budget for 2008 totals $2.9 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2007. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

 

* Mandatory spending: $1.788 trillion (+4.2%)

o $608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security

o $386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare

o $209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

o $324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending

o $261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt

 

* Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion (+3.1%)

o $481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense

o $145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror

o $69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services

o $56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education

o $39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs

o $35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development

o $35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs

o $34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security

o $24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy

o $20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Department of Justice

o $20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture

o $17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

o $12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation

o $12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury

o $10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior

o $10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor

o $51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending

o $39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

 

The Iraq war and the Afghanistan war are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.

 

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

[Pangloss]

I think they were both losers. They both sounded like children, using bad arguments and blatant lies to try to pin something bad on their opponent. Rather than having an opportunity to explain their positions, they both spent too much time attacking each other with little games of "Am not!" and "Are too!". I'd have said, "That's false, and anybody who researches it would agree. It's such a silly accusation I won't dignify it any more than to say it is false." Particularly amusing was how they each tried to answer slightly different questions than asked, and the refusal of both of them to name what they would cut to pay for the bailout.

 

Before the debate, I expected Obama to trounce McCain, and overall I think he did slightly better ... but the overall result of the debate was that my opinion of McCain was slightly raised, and my opinion of Obama lowered, which would make him the loser for me, personally.

 

There is a certain irony in the fact that they're using methods that would never be tolerated in a discussion forum like this one, and yet this is how we decide the leader of such a powerful nation.

 

I agree with your assessment that Obama did slightly better than McCain.

[john5746]

I thought McCain was very weak at the beginning and didn't really pick it up on the economy until he started talking about earmarks. I like Obama's style, so I am generally going to be biased in that regard. I thought McCain did better through the foreign section and much better in closing - he left with us with the idea that he is experienced and confident - ready to go from day one. The implication that Obama is not ready was not addressed.

 

Regarding the budget, Obama almost got to this by saying he would cut parts of his energy plan. That's the smart way to answer. You can't cut any one thing in totality, just parts of all the programs. Basically a draw, IMO. Obama should do better in the rest of the debates.

 

I think Biden has a tough debate ahead. Palin is expected to be terrible and Biden has to be careful about attacking her lack of experience, because she will turn it around on Obama. Biden's main job is to defend Obama, not himself.