Comments on: McCain and Obama Debate One: Will It Matter By Monday ?

By: vwcat

vwcat — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:14:12 +0000

I agree with Gergen because as he said, obama was the challenger and the younger, less experienced challenger in this contest either tying or beating out Mccan leaves McCain losing. As the older and more experienced candidate who was suppose to be on his turf with FP, tying with Obama is a loss and keeps him bleeding.
Obama's challenge was like Kennedys where he had to go toe to toe and maintain and he clearly did and therefore passed the commander in chief test and the presidential test.
The older and more experienced mcCain debating on his turf issue should have beat and not tied Obama.
(Plus McCain made a huge gaffe. He said pakistan was a failed state before Musharif. it was not).

By: vwcat

vwcat — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:09:29 +0000

I so disagree with the writer. mcCain sat and pouted, sulked and let obama get under his skin and let his 'bitchiness' show. McCain made a huge gaffe in saying Pakistan was a failed state before Musharif. that is clearly a huge gaffe.
McCain lost big. He needed to win this and did not. Between his refusal to even look at Obama and letting his temper get to him and his snide attitude toward Obama and the Pakistan gaffe left him a big loser.
Obama came off as presidential and knowledgible and competent and cool headed.
He was well informed and knew his subject well.
I think Obama won big over the sulky and pouting and temperamental McCain

By: Patrick E

Patrick E — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:57:27 +0000

So if we agree more than we disagree am I gonna get a go Cubs from you ?

BTW: I am a history nut myself, so I enjoy your comments there.

As to the debates, I agree on VP debate but I was referring to the Presidential ones.

Biden/Palin should be very interesting given that if Palin avoids drooling on the podium she will beat expectations

By: elrod

elrod — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:55:02 +0000

Patrick,
We probably agree more than we disagree!

I'm not sure if this raises or lowers the bar for future debates.

Remember, the next debate is Biden and Palin. And the expectations will be very different.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:46:45 +0000

Apart from the “winning” question, there's also the question of whether we and the voters at large learned anything about the candidates from the debate. For me as a follower of politics, the big revelation is McCain's proposal to freeze spending almost across the board. I was screaming just yesterday about his refusal to ever say what he'd cut other than earmarks. He seemed either unwilling to play his hand or had no actual plan. But he finally said something that people can judge.

There's also the question of what people who don't follow politics like TMV readers learned. For us, almost everything Obama said is old news. But for people who don't follow, they may have gotten a far more nuanced version of Obama than they previously had. This might explain why the polling (possibly) supports an Obama win while for us it seemed fairly even.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:45:10 +0000

As Dorian mentioned, McCain came across as condescending and seemed to have an underlying mood of sarcasm, while Obama conducted himself more appropriately – in that sense. Perhaps this is what the CNN poll was reflecting. That said, my understanding is that lots of people let the pundits decide who won the debate for them. Go figure…

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:44:41 +0000

It wasn't a game changer- but McCain did well enough to stop the slide in the polls. I think it will stay neck and neck until the election, unless Biden scores a knock-out against Palin.

Yes people want change, but they also want reassurance during times of uncertainty. That will keep things close. McCain also has the advantage of not being Bush's VP– if he were he wouldn't stand a chance. I thought he did a decent job of separating himself from Bush tonight.

By: Patrick E

Patrick E — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:36:14 +0000

Well first off allow me to express my pleasure at us finally agreeing on something, though I am working on you rooting for the Cubs.

I would sort of agree with both camps. I think McCain won a tactical victory in the sense that he won slightly on points and did stop some of the bleeding but that probably Obama won a strategic victory in the sense that if nothing changes the guy ahead in the polls wins.

However I really think 1) that the debate will be history by Monday and 2) that we probably don't know who won yet in that we don't see how this will impact the future debates.

IE will it hurt McCain because the bar is now raised or will it hurt Obama in that the pressure was on McCain to win the FP debate and now on Obama to win the Domestic policy debate.

But pretty much I think we all agree that nobody really won or lost much tonight.

Since I expect Obama to probably win the election regardless I am not sure any of this really matters

By: elrod

elrod — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:30:51 +0000

Great analysis, Pat. Loved your live-blogging too!

Interesting that the real question now is: who benefits from a tie?

Alex Castellanos argues McCain gains with a tie because it stops the bleeding for McCain.

David Gergen argues Obama gains with a tie because McCain needed a game-changer; the status quo is death for McCain.

I sense that you agree with Castellanos and I with Gergen. There were no big punches, no big gaffes, no memorable exchanges, a handful of soundbites, and not a lot of new policy. But Obama, by crossing the viability threshold, won out.

By the way, CNN just showed results of a telephone poll and Obama won 51-38 overall, 52-47 on Iraq and 58-37 on Iraq. I was a bit surprised at the result, but it's pretty overwhelming.