I don't think we have a thread yet.

Let the games begin...

McCain sure came out swinging, and connected on a lot of his shots. He's dropped off a bit since then, but he's still doing a lot better than he has in the past debates.

-Mir

McCain looks pissed off. He trembles when he talks. He is ready to shout

Can anyone clarify what McCain said?....

Honestly..I got a little confused when the discussion was about NAFTA...so he talks about Colombia (not part of NAFTA)...and then All of a sudden...he says that Obama wants to talk to the President Hugo Chavez?....

Hugo Chavez is the President of Venezuela....wtf.

John McCain looks particularly senile tonight (Joe the... plumber).

Barack Obama can't complete a sentence without stuttering all over the place.

McCain has definitely done better than I expected (I was especially pleasantly surprised when he spoke about his position on ethanol subsidies and tariffs, as well as the Colombia free trade agreement). Barack was way too tame for the first half (especially when given a gold-plated opportunity to rightfully shred apart Sarah Palin... instead he starts using autism research as an example of using a scalpel to carve up the budget! Dub-tee-eff!!!) Second half has been all Barack, though, especially on health care.

Bottom line for McCain-Palin: debates don't win elections, but they sure can help to lose them. Pinning their hopes and dreams on tonight's performance leaves them in an untenable situation.

Edit: turning one of my jumbled phrases into a coherent sentence

[Edited 2008-10-15 19:13:22]

Quoting BlueElephant (Reply 3): Can anyone clarify what McCain said?.... Honestly..I got a little confused when the discussion was about NAFTA...so he talks about Colombia (not part of NAFTA)...and then All of a sudden...he says that Obama wants to talk to the President Hugo Chavez?....

He is doing a lot of talking about one point, and then adding something else barely related at the end as an aside. It wasn't just on that topic.

-Mir

Quoting BlueElephant (Reply 3): I got a little confused when the discussion was about NAFTA...so he talks about Colombia (not part of NAFTA)

He was talking about the Columbia Free Trade Agreement which Obama opposed.

Joe the Plumber should change the name of his business to "Joe The Plumber"

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 2): McCain looks pissed off. He trembles when he talks. He is ready to shout

And he seemed to interrupt a great deal, which his opponent did not seem to do.

Looks as if McC is another who does not understand the difference between gross income and net income for a business. If Joe the plumber is a start up and has a net income >250K he needs a better accountant!!

McCain appeared angry, negative and mostly beholden to his talking points and prefabricated anecdotes. His frustration and desperation was palpable.

Obama appeared concise, gracious, non-partisan, to the point and apart from his trademark stuttering at times very smooth and eloquent in his delivery.

Another clear win for Obama — McCain was so busy pandering to the core of his republican base that he probably lost even more of the swing vote tonight. The effect should be noticeable in the next polls.

This debate was interesting, and the above comments seem to mirror and echo some of my own feelings.

The republican party should be happy as McCain came across as fighting and angry and Patriotic, but I am not sure he looked presidential in this debate.


I still have three weeks to make up my mind. Should be an interesting run.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8): Another clear win for Obama --- McCain was so busy pandering to the core of his republican base that he probably lost even more of the swing vote tonight. The effect should be noticeable in the next polls.

Not too sure. He basically confirmed that his policies are socialist, and unapologetically so. We will see if that is what the American people want.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): Not too sure. He basically confirmed that his policies are socialist, and unapologetically so. We will see if that is what the American people want.

When looking at the Bush administration having caused and now overseeing the biggest honking nationalization program probably since the soviet October Revolution and at the same time the lack of health coverage amounting to an acute crisis, such feeble stereotypes look decidedly pale by comparison.

Yes, they will still work on the shrinking core of the republican base, but that's not how elections can be won.

McCain looked like he was struggling when asked why would his VP candidate would make a good president. He gave a very vague answer. All he basically said about her was she is a roll model for women and a reformer.

Obama again showed his marxist ways.

He is a left wing nutjob who will hurt this countries in ways that we can't imagin.

He told the same lies...just on a different day.

McCain also sounded like a jerk with his reply on Obama being against partial birth abortions except for cases of the mother's health. He puts down "the mother's health" saying it's a talking point by the "pro-abortion crowd." Hey McCain, you are not a woman nor a doctor; who are you to tell people that a "mothers' health" is political. There are definitely life or death emergencies in a pregnancy where termination is the best (unfortunately) option.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 14): He is a left wing nutjob who will hurt this countries in ways that we can't imagin. He told the same lies...just on a different day.

And McCain is still a right-wing nutjob who will also hurt this country in ways that we can't imagine.

He also told the same lies, just on a different day.

... It's all politics, neither one of them is speaking the gospel truth.

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 13): McCain also sounded like a jerk with his reply on Obama being against partial birth abortions except for cases of the mother's health. He puts down "the mother's health" saying it's a talking point by the "pro-abortion crowd."

He should have been more specific. Wherever concern for the "mothers' health" is required for, say, late term abortions, that includes mental health and basically doctors would perform the abortion if the woman basically said that she would be upset if the baby was born.

I also think their should be allowances for the mothers' health, but REAL health - i.e. if she has the baby she might die or never walk again.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): When looking at the Bush administration having caused and now overseeing the biggest honking nationalization program probably since the soviet October Revolution

We can only hope that these events are as temporary as they promise. I'm sure I like them less than you do.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): and at the same time the lack of health coverage amounting to an acute crisis

This is something that McCain has absolutely correct, but he did not give the reasons for it (iI'm not even sure he thinks this way, but maybe so). It is absolutely VITAL that we disassociate health care from employers. I repeat - you should not be tied to any health insurance that is tied to an employer. People change jobs, sometimes rarely, sometimes once a year or more. Pick your own health insurance company and stick to it even as you go from job to job. It's more efficient for everyone. Obama wants to do the exact reverse. Dumb.

And by the way, he greatly exaggurates the cost of health care, from what I can see. Where I get my insurance from, full coverage costs around $4000 per year for a single person up to about $7,000 per year for an entire family with children. I don't know who pays his figure of $12,000.

Hesitated to contribute because threads like this tend to get axed within a few hours and replaced by an 'official' one. Can I suggest to the Mods that they just make this one 'official' instead? Or, failing that, transfer the entries?

Two snap polls give the debate to Obam by a two-to-one margin:-

"A CBS poll found that 53 per cent of uncommitted voters saw Senator Obama as a winner against 22 per cent who thought Senator McCain won. Twenty-four per cent saw the debate as a draw.

"According to the CBS poll, before the debate 54 per cent thought Senator Obama shared their values but that percentage rose to 63 per cent after the debate. For Senator McCain, 53 per cent thought he shared their values before the debate, and 56 per cent thought so afterwards.

"CNN also released snap polls following the debate and it indicated 58 per cent of voters saw the Democrat the winner over 31 per cent for Senator McCain.

"It also found that Senator Obama's favourability ratings increased to 66 per cent from 63 while Senator McCain's dropped to 33 from 35. Some 66 per cent said Senator Obama presented ideas more clearly over just 25 for Senator McCain. On likeability, Senator Obama won easily at 70 to 22."

Also, independent voters, critical to the election result, broke 57 to 31 to Senator Obama in the CNN poll.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...story/0,25197,24506160-601,00.html

Funny - I thought myself that McCain didn't do that badly - or alternatively that Obama didn't do that well. But then I usually feel that way about debates.

Possibly the key is 'likeability.' McCain certainly doesn't come across as any sort of 'nice guy.'

[Edited 2008-10-15 23:26:04]

McCain is too old to be running for President. Seriously. It was very evident in this debate.
He looked angry, those gritty teeth, pointing finger, smirking face and fiery "yes" shows he is out of touch with reality and just wants to win the election at any cost. Even Joe the plumber should be afraid.

Quoting Dragon-wings (Reply 12): All he basically said about her was she is a roll model for women and a reformer.

Haven't you guys heard this one?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=D2MKG2hFWao&feature=related

My favourite lyrics:

Like a mama bear in Idaho / She'll protect your family's condition / If you mess with her cubs / She's gonna take off the gloves / It's an American female tradition

Who knew bears in Idaho wore gloves? And what a shame...giving the poor bears a bad name, what did they ever do to deserve this?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8): Obama

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8): non-partisan

        

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8): Another clear win for Obama

        

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): When looking at the Bush administration having caused and now overseeing the biggest honking nationalization program probably since the soviet October Revolution and at the same time the lack of health coverage amounting to an acute crisis, such feeble stereotypes look decidedly pale by comparison.

Read your history. First, Bush didn't cause the economic crisis, it began under Carter, expanded under the Democratic Congresses and Clinton. The Republicans and Bush have been giving warnings about it since 2001.

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 13): McCain also sounded like a jerk with his reply on Obama being against partial birth abortions except for cases of the mother's health. He puts down "the mother's health" saying it's a talking point by the "pro-abortion crowd."

So, you want to smash babies who can survive outside the womb? That is how they complete partial birth abortions.

Planned Parenthood says all health issues for women are threats to the survival of women if they are pregnant, including her pregnancy itself.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17): "It also found that Senator Obama's favourability ratings increased to 66 per cent from 63 while Senator McCain's dropped to 33 from 35. Some 66 per cent said Senator Obama presented ideas more clearly over just 25 for Senator McCain. On likeability, Senator Obama won easily at 70 to 22."

Do you want a POTUS who makes you feel good, or one who gets the job done?

You quoted a CNN poll. FoxNews says their poll shows McCain at 87%, to Obama at 12%.

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 19): McCain is too old to be running for President.

Winston Churchill was 66 when he became the British PM in 1941. When he became the PM again in 1951, he was 76. No, McCain is not too old

McCain looked to be the total douchebag that he tries so hard not to be...it just can't help but come thru in his body language, his smirks and his snide comments. I gotta give credit to Obama, he didn't fall for that nonsense.

Overall, Obama just looks so darned Presidential....McCain? Not so much.

fake smile, rolling eyes, sticking the tongue, sitting extremely upright in the chair like he was holding back from reaching over and hitting Obama, McCain is a very angry man who has no business running a country.

by contrast Obama just sits there and looks unflappable, no aggression, just a courteous smile while McCain digs his own grave. probably not Obama's best debate but all he needed to do with talk about his policy and stay cool.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dic4oh5M11s

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):

I'm no Obama fan, but I'll be very surprised if he doesn't win this. If the Democrats lose this one..they should quit politics and start selling fish.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): You quoted a CNN poll. FoxNews says their poll shows McCain at 87%, to Obama at 12%.

CNN quoted Dems, Reps and independents. Overall, the result was that Obama won. The Fox poll conviently only gives the Reps' opinion.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 14): Obama again showed his marxist ways.

Gimme a break man. Lenin was marxist. Chavez is marxist. Castro is marxist. Are you seriously throwing Obama on that same heap?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): Read your history. First, Bush didn't cause the economic crisis, it began under Carter, expanded under the Democratic Congresses and Clinton. The Republicans and Bush have been giving warnings about it since 2001.

How convenient you omit the Reagan and Bush sr presidencies, but include the Dem. presidents. I guess no points for guessing your political colour  

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): Read your history. First, Bush didn't cause the economic crisis, it began under Carter, expanded under the Democratic Congresses and Clinton. The Republicans and Bush have been giving warnings about it since 2001.

More like the Reagan Administration and the wonderful people who brought Greenspan into the chairmanship of the Fed. I believe the big culprit in America's problems are two-fold: deregulation of the banking system and the introduction of these derivative-based creatures such as ABCPs and the like, most of which was off-book. The US Congress wanted more oversight (under CLinton) and Greenspan vociferously argued against it -- successfully. Congress yielded basically because times were good. Now the time has come to pay the price.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): You quoted a CNN poll. FoxNews says their poll shows McCain at 87%, to Obama at 12%.

Perhaps so, but Faux News describes Sean Hannity as a "journalist".   

It is sad how all these 'debates' have been more smoke than heat and light. We see 20 minutes over the mud slinging of Obama and McCain on each other rather than on real answers to real problems such as dealing with the current financial crises. Of course no politician can say what really must be done - such as cutting spending on entitlements or in areas like farm subsidies or the military and raising taxes on energy to reduce consumption.

McCain did make some good points finally going to the usual Republican tacts of bashing 'tax and spend Democrats', using 'Joe the Plumber' references as a key arguments point vs. Obama's tax proposals but then he came off angry, confused, stiff at other times.

Both missed the question as to dealing in their 1st term as to cutting importing energy. They both could have said they would use tax incentives or disincentives to encourage real conservation, such has higher taxes on gasoline, fuel guzzler taxes on poor fuel mileage vehicles, larger tax deductions for making energy use improvements in homes and commercial buildings.

In the end, Obama came off much better than McCain in all of the 'debates'. Still, to me we need to make major changes in these so called 'debates' and in our political campaigns to encourage more honest policy discussions that voters need.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 25): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): Read your history. First, Bush didn't cause the economic crisis, it began under Carter, expanded under the Democratic Congresses and Clinton. The Republicans and Bush have been giving warnings about it since 2001. How convenient you omit the Reagan and Bush sr presidencies, but include the Dem. presidents. I guess no points for guessing your political colour

You might want to check the increases in indebtedness under various administrations.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/US...e_Presidents_Responsible_1938_2004

And

http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Puts it in percentage increases during terms and national debt on leaving office :

Carter (4) + 42% $2.67 T

Reagan (8) + 189% $5.10 T

Bush I (4) + 55.6% $6.34 T

Clinton (8) + 36% by year ranged from +9% on taking over to -2 % which is what he gave to Bush II $9.82 T

Lucky I kept this handy on a file from when I last looked it up!!

I would be interested in the link to your Fox poll numbers KC, I saw nothing like it.

Bush II (7) + 64% (range +5% to +9%) $13.93 T

That is one "half" of the problem, as Connies points out, the obscure "private" sector debts are the other half that has now proved the straw that seems to have broken a camels back, well actually it more looks like having broken a certain elephant's back. You remember the white elephant?

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 23): sitting extremely upright in the chair like he was holding back from reaching over and hitting Obama, McCain is a very angry man who has no business running a country.

Why? I WANT an angry president. I want countries like Iran and North Korea to be very worried about the consequences of pushing him too hard. I want a president empassioned about the welfare of the company. I do not want a statist idealogue who is only concerned about how can he use the situation towards his statist goals.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 28): http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm Puts it in percentage increases during terms and national debt on leaving office :

You are not an American, so you are forgiven for not knowing this: The president has no influence at all on the budget or the deficit. Responsibility for taxation and spending (and therefore the deficit) falls on the House of Representatives. The president can veto, but considering the difficulty in passing these huge budget packages, that is a big gun that is rarely used.

So a far more interesting measure would be to match GDP, Deficits, and unemployment with the party in control of the House.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29): Why? I WANT an angry president. I want countries like Iran and North Korea to be very worried about the consequences of pushing him too hard. I want a president empassioned about the welfare of the company. I do not want a statist idealogue who is only concerned about how can he use the situation towards his statist goals.

What company? I guess you mean country? What consequences of pushing him too hard? War? Another (unneccesary) war?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): He basically confirmed that his policies are socialist, and unapologetically so. We will see if that is what the American people want.

Independents regarded his education and energy independence plans on pretty favorable terms. Where Obama loses points is on healthcare and his apparent refusal to disregard ideology when considering Supreme Court appointees. I don't see where the blanket socialist label applies with those kind of results - it's a convenient word that when grossly overgeneralized and misapplied only makes the person using it look like a fool. Almost as foolish as saying a 72 year-old is "too old" to hold a leadership position.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): First, Bush didn't cause the economic crisis, it began under Carter, expanded under the Democratic Congresses and Clinton. The Republicans and Bush have been giving warnings about it since 2001.

So the government, one way or another, is totally at fault here? You clearly don't understand the dynamics of this crisis. This is the second time I've had to call you out on this kind of nonsense. And before we forget any of our recent history, I have just one question: which administration signed Sarbanes-Oxley into law?

It is so appalling to see folks in here immediately go down their partisan view in declaring the winner. Common fellow citizens, don't follow your party so blindly!!

Here's my view, as an Independent:

If you told me that I was watching the first debate instead of the first one I would have believed it. I didn't hear anything new that was substantial in deciding who to vote for. They both went down their partisan lines attempting to appease their base. Problem is, more so for McCain if you believe the polls, this is the time to appeal to those beyond their core constituency. And both failed miserably in doing so.

Let's start with McCain. The first half goes to him, he started out very calm and collected and made a clear effort to connect with the public. He was aggressive when needed but held back some of his anger...unfortunately not for long. He succumed into personal attacks, frequent interruptions, and he ended up sounding bitter and looking as if he ran out of steam. He certainly didn't look or sound presidential, more like a tired politician annoyed at having to explain why he is entitled to be President. Debates don't win elections and that's a good thing for him, cause he came out as the looser out of this one.

Now onto Obama. He went in with a comfortable lead in the polls (again, if you want to believe them) and gave the impression that his strategy was simply not to mess up and clarify whatever lies McCain threw at him. If that was indeed his strategy then it made him look rather weak during the first stint, only coming alive when discussing health care and abortion. He completely forgot to answer the energy solution question, instead rambling about 5 different ideas, some of which could be mutually exclusive (McCain's answer in terms of energy was superior in terms of both content and delivery). Obama did stutter often, but then again GWB demonstrated that doing so won't keep you from winning the election. He won the debate thanks to his performance on the second half, but to say that he hit a home run is far from the truth.

All in all, I'm going to be checking factcheck.org to see the real stories behind the lies both of them told. It is sad that they decided to recount the same old points that they have shared in the previous two debates and again I did not see either of them really reaching out away from his base.

In terms of content, Obama's ideas appeal to me more (as a socialist) than McCain's, but I find McCain more trustworthy and far more experienced to run the country. But in my mind, neither of them truly represent the best candidates that we could have (and deserve to) had.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 18): Why should I waste my time with two pathetic twits?

Best post of this thread! Thank you Madame!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29): I WANT an angry president. I want countries like Iran and North Korea to be very worried about the consequences of pushing him too hard.

Have to pick you up on that, Dreadnought.

Neither the United States nor any other country has the military capacity to attack, defeat, and occupy either Iran or North Korea. This is not WW2, during which the Germans, the Allies, and the Russians built up huge armies consisting of tens of millions of men, plus air forces and navies of similar proportions.

So what form do you envisage the 'consequences' you speak of taking?

At the moment, the only feasible military option available to the USA would appear to be a nuclear attack on either or both countries.

Is that what you want?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29): Quoting Baroque (Reply 28): http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm Puts it in percentage increases during terms and national debt on leaving office : You are not an American, so you are forgiven for not knowing this: The president has no influence at all on the budget or the deficit. Responsibility for taxation and spending (and therefore the deficit) falls on the House of Representatives. The president can veto, but considering the difficulty in passing these huge budget packages, that is a big gun that is rarely used.

Humble apologies for only understanding numbers:

Dem Presidents Carter ave annual increase 10.9% and Clinton average annual 4.4%

Dem average 5.75%.

Rep Presidents Reagan, ave annual increase 23.6%, Bush I, ave annual increase 13.9%, Bush II, ave annual increase 9.0%

Rep average 11.1%

If your hypothesis were true, how unfortunate that Rep Presidents must by now have got a reputation for being there at the times of spendthrift Congresses. Enough to make a voter chose another party perhaps to avoid this statistic becoming worse.

I wonder if you are familiar with Conley and Kreppel's study on "The success of vetoes and veto overrides" and if you are up with all the subtleties of the use of the veto tool and the interaction of this with the need and ability of the President to "sway Members of Congress"?

All it would take to win this election, in a landslide, is to promise a balanced budget and then deliver (for once). Only spend what we can expect in revenue, and not a penny more.

How hard can it be? If we need to spend 18% less to achieve budget, then every check that leaves the treasury will be 18% less. If you can't operate your program, or subsidy, with 18% less.....then tough shit really. That is the REALITY.

Sad both (and up to now all) candidates in this race seem to be ignoring the BIG problem, and that's money. 1.5 hours arguing over which clown will give the most to America, while it should have been 1.5 hours discussing which clown's spending cut plan would hurt America the least.

No one won the debate.....but I do know who lost.

The United States of America.

Just a couple of comments from someone that has already voted:
No matter what McCain said this debate was won on the reaction shots. Every time Obama spoke, McCain grimaced, sneered, or rolled his eyes. Showing nothing but disrespect for Obama.
Point #2 - Senator McCain strongly defended his supporters, saying "I am proud of the people who come to our rallies ... Yet again he refused disavowal the comments of some of his supporters regarding 'kill him", he is a terrorist...
Point #3 - I'm still waiting for McCain to say flat out that his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, was qualified to sit in the Oval Office.
and finally Point #4 - I'm sure that McCain attacks on Obama's relationship ( if any) with ACORN, didn't go over with the voters, many which don't listen to right wing radio probably resulted in a big what?

In closing, McCain had to appear be presidential but wasn't, whereas Obama was in control all night with his emotions and looked presidential.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16): And by the way, he greatly exaggurates the cost of health care, from what I can see. Where I get my insurance from, full coverage costs around $4000 per year for a single person up to about $7,000 per year for an entire family with children. I don't know who pays his figure of $12,000.

How old are you? I

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16): Pick your own health insurance company and stick to it even as you go from job to job. It's more efficient for everyone

What about people with pre-existing conditions? Can someone be dropped like State Farm dropped me (1 speeding ticket (70mph on a 55mph) + 1 accident - which was not my fault) from my car insurance? Would i be dropped for more that 3 colds a year?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): You quoted a CNN poll. FoxNews says their poll shows McCain at 87%, to Obama at 12%.

And pray tell, what did FoxNews show for the first two debates?

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 36): All it would take to win this election, in a landslide, is to promise a balanced budget and then deliver (for once). Only spend what we can expect in revenue, and not a penny more.

Fair enough on the face of it, MD80Fanatic. Even a feasible strategy, up to a couple of weeks ago.

But not now - not with a repeat of 1929 staring us all in the face. Whoever gets in in January (if we all LAST that long) will have somehow to keep the economic wheels turning. Even if that means that Keynes' famous analogy - that even paying a gang of unemployed people to dig holes one day, and paying another gang to fill the same holes in again the next, can make perfect sense in a depression - comes true once again.

All reminds me of a joke thing that a (truly great) boss of mine had framed on his office wall. The first two lines were a quote from Rudyard Kipling's poem "IF":-

"If you can keep your head when all about you,
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,"

The last line was all his:-

"YOU PROBABLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION......."

Quoting AirCop (Reply 37): No matter what McCain said this debate was won on the reaction shots. Every time Obama spoke, McCain grimaced, sneered, or rolled his eyes. Showing nothing but disrespect for Obama.

That is a good point AC, I had thought this but forbore to comment - perhaps all that body language had become OK in the US, however it appeared from the outside. Also if you notice right at the end as they got up to go, McC does a rather strange waltz, mostly with his arms. He looked just plain confused.

The hammering away on things like ACORN or being associated with the Weathermen suggests he is not being well advised. If he wants to make accusations like that stick, he really needs better chapter and verse. Absent that, every time he tries, McC loses. The contrast with Obama's lack of dredging for muck is, over the run of three debates, fairly startling.

In slow mo, there are also so rather unfortunate poses in terms of jutting jaw and more a grimace than a smile. Either his coaching is not going well, or they have some rather strange ideas about what will go across well.

Obama almost comes across as too smooth to be true. To the point where he hesitated at some points where the next bit was obvious and I wonder if he has been taught to hesitate a bit so as not to offend with the smoothness.

Interesting for the analysts I dare say.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 18): Why should I waste my time with two pathetic twits?

I did not see the debate last night as I was at work and IAH was buried in weather but I can answer this. Look at the financial situation in the world today. That is but one reason to waste time getting a read on both of them.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 37): Every time Obama spoke, McCain grimaced, sneered, or rolled his eyes. Showing nothing but disrespect for Obama.

As stated I did not see the debate but every clip I have seen this morning when Sen. McCain is talking Sen. Obama is off to the side smirking and shaking his head. Does that count as disrespect? If so why did you not point that out?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 37): and looked presidential.

If that is in any way shape or form why anyone votes for a candiate then we are doomed.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 38): Can someone be dropped like State Farm dropped me (1 speeding ticket (70mph on a 55mph) + 1 accident - which was not my fault) from my car insurance?

In what amount of time did this take place. How long had you been insured? What age were you? Lot of variables there.

In very simple terms without engaging in partisan talk:

If this were an American Football game (apologies to our Soccer fans here) here is what happened:

Obama is up by a Touchdown (I think it's an apt analogy given the 4-7 pt lead) with about 2 minutes left on the clock with the ball on McCain's 40 yard line. it was 3rd down and ten. Obama was most concerned with not giving up the big play or a Hail Mary touchdown.

He didn't give anything like that up.

McCain was trying to do one of two things. He was looking for an opportunity to throw downfield and score that game tying touchdown. Obama's prevent defense was ready for that so McCain didn't get a good shot downfield.

What DID happen is that McCain converted on 3rd down and got himself a fresh set of downs. Obama didn't seal the deal and force McCain to punt. Then again I firmly believe that Obama believes this one is in bag and is just waiting for the clock to run out.

So now it's 1st Down and Ten at Midfield with 1 Minute 30 Seconds left on the clock. Will McCain go down the field and score? Will Obama's prevent defense give up the big play? Can Obama's defense sack McCain or cause a turnover to finish the game? Will the officials make a mistake (Think of all the Acorn stuff and the ligitation surrounding that) Will it be fan interference? (Think October Surprise, the Economy has dropped on McCain's head, will Bin Laden, Israel/Iran, or other national security or disaster happen?)

Too many questions friends. We're not there yet. This election has gotten pretty dramatic in the past few weeks and I think it will remain that way. Either way we're making history..

I know each side wants to believe their candidate won, but we're still going to the wire on this one. Judging from those stupid focus groups and headlines this morning there were knockout punches.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): In what amount of time did this take place. How long had you been insured? What age were you? Lot of variables there.

In a 2 years period. Insured since 1998. Age 31. Single. 2007 Grey Jetta. When it was time to sign up again for the year, i was told i was un insurable. I can see it now " Two colds and a broken leg? sorry you are inisurable. Go find a company in Nebraska that may insure you"

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): As stated I did not see the debate but every clip I have seen this morning when Sen. McCain is talking Sen. Obama is off to the side smirking and shaking his head. Does that count as disrespect? If so why did you not point that out?

Thats because you did not see McCain interrupting like an man at Denny's when the server reaches over for his plate when he is not finished during the early bird special dinner..

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39): Fair enough on the face of it, MD80Fanatic. Even a feasible strategy, up to a couple of weeks ago. But not now - not with a repeat of 1929 staring us all in the face.

To stop the bleeding should be the only game in town right now. That is what builds real confidence in the eyes of investors, that we -can- live within our means and repay our obligations. Currently the country's credit addiction (and the world's for that matter) resembles an aging heroin addict laying about looking for the next fix. Someday we will have to man up and fix this.....we cannot simply erase it from the books in the future.

Until we do, the USA will be steadily dying, and the only thing a President will be able to do is to make it a more comfortable death (I suppose this is where Obama/Biden come in). Fairly pitiful scenario coming from the last beacon of freedom on Earth.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 45): Currently the country's credit addiction (and the world's for that matter) resembles an aging heroin addict laying about looking for the next fix.

Couldn't agree more. Last April I was on a long drive through Western Australia with my son and his partner. It was their turn to fill the tank on the FWD, but they each tried several credit cards, they all bounced, and I had to pay out of my turn. Turned out that one or both of their salaries had not been credited on time.

Had a quiet word with my son later, and discovered that, between them, they owed more just on their credit cards than I've ever paid for a house in my life. They both get high salaries but they 'own' four houses between them, and three cars, and two boats...........all, as far as I could tell, 'on tick.' Every dollar they make between them is 'committed' for at least ten years to come before they can even hope to 'see daylight.'

Made myself a bit unpopular by suggesting that they sold at least two of the houses and one of the boats. I'm afraid that I saw that as more or less my 'fatherly duty.' They protested that I was telling them to liquidate their 'investments'...........

Currently expecting a phone call asking for a 'temporary loan' any bloody minute........

Quoting Baroque (Reply 41): Also if you notice right at the end as they got up to go, McC does a rather strange waltz, mostly with his arms. He looked just plain confused.

I have seen that and if you look at Bob Schiffer he goes one way and Sen. McCain starts to go the other way around the table to shake hands, then they both reverse course, then reverse course again. Nothing that hasn't happen to anyone before.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 43): In a 2 years period.

There are even more variable than that but the fact is you can absolutely control your speed unlike your health so the comparisons aren't very valid.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 44): Thats because you did not see McCain interrupting

I'm glad he did. One thing I detest is how one candidate will sit there and spew a talking point that is obviously false while the other one does absolutely nothing to call them on it. If you know your opponent is lying and have proof to back it up you should jump in and say so immediately and make them either back up their statement with facts, amend the statement so it is true, or be forced to admit that they are wrong. What we end up with in these debates is nothing more than a 90 minute political commercial for both sides.

Quoting JBo (Reply 15): And McCain is still a right-wing nutjob who will also hurt this country in ways that we can't imagine.

But we CAN imagine. We just have to look at the current government to figure this one out.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 47): What we end up with in these debates is nothing more than a 90 minute political commercial for both sides.

I'd say that aptly characterizes the garbage that we saw today, yet again.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 47): There are even more variable than that but the fact is you can absolutely control your speed unlike your health so the comparisons aren't very valid.

What if you break your foot while rock climbing..it your choice to do so...

Quoting Baroque (Reply 41): Also if you notice right at the end as they got up to go, McC does a rather strange waltz, mostly with his arms.

I'm afraid that that underlines the fact that McCain was very seriously injured in that crash in Vietnam, and also (unavoidably) mentally scarred by his long period as a POW.

None of that was his fault. But, inevitably, it calls into question whether he is physically fit enough to take on the enormous, unremitting, day-to-day workload of the POTUS; without either getting too sick to continue or dying in office.......

And, thanks to the (IMO very unwise) selection of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate, it opens up a huge 'What happens if......?" question.

As far as Obama is concerned, to 'speak the unspeakable,' there have been multiple attempts to assassinate all the last ten presidents. One attempt succeeded (Kennedy) - another (Reagan) very nearly did. It's just a 'fact of life' that the election of a black president is likely, if anything, to attract even more attempts.

I reckon that what that boils down to is that American voters, this time, have to give more attention than usual to the risk that the VP might have to take over.

My guess is, further, that if you asked voters how they felt about Joe Biden having to take over, about 80% would say, "I guess he'd do OK if it came to it..." If you asked the same question about Sarah Palin, my guess would be that you'd get the opposite reaction - 80% would be scared about what she might do (or, maybe, NOT do).........

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16): Where I get my insurance from, full coverage costs around $4000 per year for a single person up to about $7,000 per year for an entire family with children. I don't know who pays his figure of $12,000.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

You're fortunate. The information is available if you look for it and I've provided links in more than one thread that you've been active in.

The average annual premium for a single person in 2007 was $4400. The average for a family of 4 was $12,100. These figures are rising at about twice the rate of inflation.

"Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 100 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 24 percent and cumulative wage growth of 21 percent during the same period."

So, if employer based health care falls apart (as many experts predict would happen under McCain's plan), my family would get a $5000 tax credit with which to go buy insurance. My family (and the average) would then have to find about $7000 to make up the difference. Maybe my employer would help, maybe not. Then there's the fact that he would tax any help they provide...

I thought it was particularly disturbing that McCain thinks that only rich (maybe elitists) should have "gold plated" insurance that covers such luxuries as transplants. If my insurance won't cover a transplant, I don't want it. I can afford check ups. I can't afford a transplant. Do you think he maybe meant implants? Maybe he should get some.

...those people who have the gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants and all of those kinds of things.