McCain-Obama debate liveblog
Our usual fair and balanced coverage. From the crucial swing state of Mississippi.
Posted by Rojas @ 8:59 pm on September 26th 2008
228 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The debate is one minute short of having started, and Chris Matthews is comparing John McCain to Captain Queeg.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 9:00 pm
Lehrer moderating, which is always good. I’d be up for putting him in the role permanently.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 9:01 pm
Kind of curious to see what the crowd is like. Mississippi, college campus, PBS.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:02 pm
Signs point to White.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 9:02 pm
Yeah, I like Lehrer for this.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:02 pm
Obama’s taller. That puts him up three to start.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 9:03 pm
Man he’s white.
Physical contrast: Apollo vs. Gollum.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:03 pm
Amen on Lehrer, Rojas.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:03 pm
It’s kind of critical that Obama gets the first response on this, given the “it was my idea” back and forth. McCain would be wise to let that one drop and not start the show looking like a petty dick.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:04 pm
One question I’m going to have: whether Obama can not appear too professorial, but not get goaded either.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:05 pm
Damn it. I wish he hadn’t gone there with the blaming – counter productive
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:06 pm
Nice on McCain here. I was wondering if Obama was going to mention Kennedy; hadn’t thought McCain might.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:06 pm
Liz 11 – I think it’s appropriate, but it does set McCain up well.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:07 pm
Ha.
Rodney Dangerfield moment.
Otherwise, McCain’s coming out the gate sounding pretty good.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:07 pm
I know but it set up the bipartisan thing for McCain
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:07 pm
Heh. Points for Lehrer.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:08 pm
Don’t pivot this into an attack on McCain…
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:09 pm
Decent answer for Obama.
This is what Obama is setting McCain up for. I lead, you follow…
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:10 pm
How did this turn into an army story?
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:10 pm
It’s an accountability thing. . . He’s told this story before
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:11 pm
Obama wisely doesn’t take the bait from Lehrer.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:12 pm
They aren;t looking at each other. Isn’t this their 5 minutes of arguemnt time?
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:12 pm
“we’ve had years”
You were there Mr, Obama.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:12 pm
Good answers from both. McCain – accountability. Obama – prevention. Classic ideological contrast.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:13 pm
It might be that some description of what’s going on, at which the comment is directed, would make this liveblog rather more useful in the future?
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 9:13 pm
Yeah yeah, Adam.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:13 pm
Q1: WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE BAILOUT?
Obama: long string of “main street” boilerplate. He is in favor of swift, wise action, which is a daring stand. Meat of the answer: oversight, taxpayer returns key, restrictions on executive compensation, keep homeowners in homes. Also: it’s Bush’s and McCain’s fault due to deregulation. Middle class matters most.
McCain: Ted Kennedy’s sick. Bipartisanship is the bright side of the crisis (NO!). Oversight, loans to businesses rather than government taking over loans (???), I brought the House Republicans back into the process. Quotes Churchill. Must end dependence on foreign oil. No real answer to question.
Open exchange: Lehrer wants to know who supports the actual plan before Congress. No clear answer from either, which is fine as they both support modifications. Obama back on the deregulation theme. McCain whiffs–he’s citing Eisenhower on D-Day for at best an incredibly tangential connection to accountability, which he’s in favor of. He’s re-fought WWII twice in the first five minutes. Obama’s point on deregulation goes utterly unanswered, and he keeps pounding on it; McCain is in favor of the American worker(???)
OBAMA 10, McCAIN 7
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 9:14 pm
McCain’s sounding good, but it still doesn’t make sense to me. “When I said the fundamentals of our economy are strong, I meant I believe in the American worker”.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:14 pm
Earmarks. Come on.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:15 pm
3 million dollars of taxpayer money.
We’re talking about 700 billion here John.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:15 pm
McCain attacking Obama on earmarks. I wonder if he takes the Palin-bait. Can’t tell if he should. Probably not.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:16 pm
Yes. This is the right answer. Go Obama.
18 billion in earmarks vs. 300 billion in taxcuts.
Right answer. Great pivot to the fat cat tax cut.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:17 pm
Nice. Obama didn’t go for Palin and called out the earmarks as broken but peanuts
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:17 pm
The first solid A answer. Mitigate the whole earmarks thing, tie the Wall Street fat cat populism McCain is rousing up to the current crisis.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:18 pm
McCain will veto every spending bill that comes across his desk.
“I will make them famous and you will know their names”
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 9:18 pm
Obama should just keep hammering on his last answer given McCain’s tone deafness to it.
I don’t know that “earmarks are a gateway drug” is going to be all that compelling.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:18 pm
McCain’s beating this into the ground. . .
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:18 pm
“He’ll raise taxes” is going to get stomped by Obama.
…and…
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:19 pm
Yup. The danger for McCain now is he gets too bulldog on this point.
Let it go, John.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:20 pm
Nice save from McCain. Obviously, I’m sympathetic to the “business taxes create incentive to ship job overseas” argument…
…and right back to earmarks.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:21 pm
He’s really digging in on these.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:22 pm
McCain is going to attack Obama on his definition of rich?
That’s a softball.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:22 pm
When McCain refers to 4 members of congress who have been corrupted by earmarks and are in prison / under indictment, who is he referring to, and what are their party affiliations?
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 9:22 pm
Where are the foreign policy questions that this debate was supposed to be about?
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:23 pm
And a genuinely nice answer on the business tax thing. “We have high taxes on paper, but tax loopholes are…” This is some elegant, on-point argumentation, mostly.
Obama going to give McCain a pass on McCain’s definition of rich. I would have gone for the big swing there.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:23 pm
I do like the word festooned though.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:24 pm
Earmarks again.
You have better arguments than this John.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:24 pm
Q2: HOW WOULD YOUR PRESIDENCIES BE DIFFERENT WHERE ANSWERS TO THIS CRISIS ARE CONCERNED?
McCain: Kill out of control spending. Earmarking less important in itself than as a gateway to worse spending habits. McCain’s pen is old. I’ll veto earmark legislation (he has no line-item veto, of course). Obama has spent $1 million a day on earmarks for his district.
Obama: My earmarks were justifiable. McCain will spend $300 billion on tax cuts for the wealthy. $300 billion > my earmarks. Tax cut for the lil’ guy better. McCain=Bush.
Open exchange: McCain asserts Obama only suspended earmark requests after opting to run for President. Earmarks are corrupting. Obama supports $800 billion in new spending. Obama: huh? Then he gets back on his tax plan, which McCain has yet to address. I pay for the spending I propose. Obama also pledges line-item vetoes, which he doesn’t have the ability to do. Earmark reform doesn’t address problem of increasing rich-poor gap. McCain: high business taxes drive businesses to Ireland. 2000 earmarks in new budget. Obama: tax cuts for the poor are good. Obama: McCain wants to tax health benefits. The free market is bad. McCain: the energy bill sucks; I opposed it, he supported it. McCain’s first really cogent point of the night. Then he suffocates it with stultifying tax detail.
Me: The earmarks rhetoric is not going to carry the day against the rich-poor rhetoric. McCain is picking the wrong talking points and failing to engage on Obama’s.
OBAMA 10, McCAIN 7
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 9:24 pm
Curious that Obama isn’t bringing up that the biggest reform on earmarks during John McCain’s Senate career was…the Obama bill.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:25 pm
Ohh, nut kick on McCain’s energy answer. Bringing up the energy bill on the floor, and no time for McCain to respond.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:26 pm
I think Obama needs to get off energy. It’s clearly what McCain is excited to talk about, and it was one of…well, one issues that McCain’s ever won on so far this campaign.
…to health care though, which McCain has no answer for.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:27 pm
I should just watch MSNBC. Same shit and I don’t have to read it.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:28 pm
I’m liking this format, btw. Calm, reasonable.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:29 pm
Yes, please, Defense spending.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:29 pm
McCain is not wrong on any of this (ethanol, defense systems, fixed cost contracts, etc), it just strikes me as small-ball sounding compared to Obama’s “let’s educate our children and save the middle class”.
McCain saved the tax-payers 6.8 billion dollars. Man, that sounded weak BEFORE we spent a week talking about 700 billion.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:30 pm
Is the next debate going to be about foreign policy now?
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:30 pm
Obama fumbles. Spending: Lehrer: “Like what?” Obama “…”
Starting to dig himself out of it, but I’m not a fan of digging yourself out by just adding words.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:31 pm
Finally, Obama mentions his bill with Coburn.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:32 pm
Very good line of questioning by Lehrer. This is what I would be asking.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:33 pm
McCain’s “everything but veterans, defense, and entitlements” is starting to get the scope right.
…and Obama goes for Iraq. From a financial angle.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:33 pm
And McCain goes for foreign aid? Be still my beating hear….awww dammit, back to solar power.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:34 pm
Correction: nuclear power.
An emphasis, by the way, that I like McCain on. He’s absolutely right.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:34 pm
Lehrer is doing a great job.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:35 pm
Obama is the artful dodger on this one. “WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENT?” “Well, we might get it back, the 700 billion, but in the short term, it won’t be there.”
Huh?
Starts to save a bit on the “let’s not forget our values” line.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:35 pm
Neither of them mention the real, long-term problems with regard to spending — social security, medicare, medicaid. No one can touch these things. I’m troubled that no one brings them up.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:35 pm
Did McCain just say 700 BILLION in foreign aid? That’s not even close to right…
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:36 pm
Did you catch that “along with Senator Clinton” on the nuclear power thing?
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:36 pm
Yes. Prioritize. As a rule the government and the government agencies have no concept of this in their daily business dealings.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:36 pm
McCain did, Jason #65. He said “I will cut everything but veterans affairs, national security, and entitlements”.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:37 pm
Q3: WHAT PARTS OF YOUR AGENDA WOULD YOU ABANDON POST BAILOUT. Hey, that’s Brad’s question!
Obama: well, I certainly wouldn’t eliminate energy independence. Energy independence is good. Here’s some details on my energy plan. Also, I wouldn’t cut health care. Here’s some detail on my health care plan, which is good. Also, I wouldn’t cut my education plans, because they’re good too, and otherwise China will beat us to the moon. Also, I won’t cut infrastructure spending, because roads and the electricity grid are good. I will cut “programs that don’t work”. Me: a worse answer to that question is almost unimaginable, but will McCain manage to stay on topic and call him on it?
MCCAIN: You know what I’d do? Cut spending. I’ll eliminate ethanol subsidies, institute fixed-cuts contracting. I’ve saved money on bad contracts before. McCain makes his second reference to sending people to federal prison. A much better answer than Obama’s, but it doesn’t sound like he’s cutting things to the bone.
LEHRER: So neither of you is going to give up any damn thing as a result of the bailout, basically?
OBAMA: Well, not me. I’ll cut subsidies to private insurers under medicare; that’ll make up $15 billion of the $700 billion. We should put a database of congressional spending votes on the internet.
LEHRER: WTF, man??? WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE???
McCAIN: Total spending freeze on everything but defense on entitlements and veterans program (!!!!!!!!!!)
Obama: SCREW THAT. NO WAY. Let’s spend less in Iraq instead.
McCain: I like energy independence too.
Lehrer: DUDES! $700 BILLION! WHAT THE HELL WILL YOU NOT DO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE! ANSWER ME, YOU POLTROONS!
Obama: Maybe we’ll make money on the bailout. (???) Hard decisions will have to be made. Yes, hard decisions. I have the values to make hard decisions. The old guy doesn’t.
McCain: His health care plan is bad. The question is about cutting spending. We’re actually, you know, gonna have to do that if we pass the bailout package.
McCain wins this with his amazing (and politically suicidal) spending freeze proposal; Obama loses it decisively by comprehensively failing to answer the question in any way at all.
MCCAIN 10, OBAMA 6
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 9:37 pm
Man, this is pretty disingenuous. Where were you on the budget circa 1998-2008, John? Why do we owe that money to China, John?
And Obama goes right for it.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:37 pm
He said “freeze” everything, not cut it. If we don’t cut the (projected) spending, then we’re deeply in debt, Brad. Very deeply.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:38 pm
Where are the foreign policy questions?
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:38 pm
NON-QUESTION 4: Do you love George Bush?
OBAMA: I don’t, but he does.
McCAIN: No I don’t. Neither does Palin.
No points awarded.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 9:39 pm
Why with the Miss Congeniality thing again?
Ahh! Torture! Did he say was a Maverick on that?
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:39 pm
Points to Obama for saying “orgy of spending.” When has the word “orgy” ever been used in presidential debates before?
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:39 pm
Miss congeniality again? Gaaak.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:40 pm
He was Liz
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:40 pm
I can’t even judge this Iraq answer. I recuse myself.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:40 pm
I don’t know a military leader who didn;t say from the beginning that they needed more troops.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:40 pm
Actually Obama, I think you should start at what we should do now and work backwards from now on, on Iraq. McCain wants to be there forever…and then end with going in there.
The GOP sure doesn’t have any answer to this “distraction from OBL” thing though. It wins every time.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:41 pm
Energy independence is not only a mirage, it’s a destructive one. Presidents have been asking for it since Nixon at least, and it never happens. The global economy is integrated, people. Autarky is so 17th-century economics. It doesn’t work that way anymore. Sigh….
Integrate and trade, integrate and trade.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:41 pm
I won’t entirely recuse myself: Obama has the people on this one, I think. Nobody is going to hate McCain for his answers, but nobody is going to entirely buy it either. Obama sounds genuine and speaking to reality.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:42 pm
Obama is right on Iraq. And he’s knocking it out of the park here. Good for him.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:43 pm
This is the only line of attack McCain has, the surge.
And he stomps on it by talking about visitations and hearings?
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:43 pm
Just got home- does anyone have a real quick summary of this so far?
Comment by Juno — 9/26/2008 @ 9:43 pm
Ha, I have the Joe Biden trump card! You want hearings and visitations? JOE BIDEN MOTHERFUCKER!!!
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:44 pm
Eye off the ball? Heh. Do Obama and his disciples know what the “ball” is?
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:44 pm
Juno: spending bad, except when it’s good, which is mostly.
Now Iraq.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:44 pm
I’m very proud of my vp selection… nice subtle dig there.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:45 pm
This is a better way to do the beginning of the war stuff. “…and you were wrong.”
McCain wins on the surge, Obama wins on the war, edge to Obama on the “resurgant Al Queda, Iraqi surplus, etc.” what to do now stuff.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:45 pm
This has been mostly worthless.
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 9:46 pm
heh.
thanks brad.
Comment by Juno — 9/26/2008 @ 9:46 pm
This is not nice, but more effective than the rest of the stuff, John giving the “soldiers tell me ‘let us win’” anecdote.
I still don’t think, though, that McCain wins when he talks about Iraq being roses and a liberal democracy right around the corner.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:47 pm
McCain, what are our objectives and criteria to determine whether or not we’re winning? We’re occupying, how do you WIN an occupation, by simply refusing to leave?
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 9:47 pm
Where is the audience? Are they in a different room or something? Or in straitjackets?
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:47 pm
(Thanks so much, guys, for letting me liveblog here among a group of people! Much more fun this way!)
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:48 pm
It was a nice attack by McCain (he wanted to cut spending to our troops, etc), but Obama comes in confident and Presidential and nails the context. McCain is now going to do his thing where he just grits his teeth and repeats his attack.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:48 pm
Jason 96 – I think the audience was told to keep their mouths shut – that’s what lehrer said at the beginning.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:48 pm
Petraeus = overrated. I know it’s not PC, but he’s not a god. Not Patton, even. Heaping praise on him had its purpose at one time, but not anymore. Iraq still is a mess.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:49 pm
Anytime Jason.
I think Obama should expand the “It’s time to give Iraq their country back” line of argument.
Throw in Maliki, Barack! Maliki agrees with me.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:49 pm
I remember Gwen Ifill asking for the audience basically to stfu four years ago. She didn’t get them to. What gives now?
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:49 pm
Q4: WHAT ARE THE LESSONS OF IRAQ?
McCain: That winning is good and losing is bad.
Obama: I was against the war and he was for it. We’re losing the overall war and it’s expensive. We should use the military wisely.
Leherer: Um…what are the lessons of Iraq?
McCain: The next President will not decide whether we should have gone to Iraq, but what we should do next. Obama doesn’t care what Petraeus thinks.
Obama: I didn’t meet with Petraeus because that’s not my subcommittee’s job. Petraeus is good, but not as good as not having gone in the first place. You promised us an easy win and you were wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
McCain: Um…
Obama: Wrong! WRONG! WRONG!
McCain: Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. (!!!)
Me: Hmmm…interesting. Tell me what that means.
McCain: (silence)
Me: ???
McCain: I like to meet with troops. He hates troops. He doesn’t think we’re winning. We’re winning. He cuts off funding! Funding good! Troops good!
Obama: I like timetables. He hates them. I know the difference between tactics and strategy! Remember that? I know what it is!
Me: What is it?
Obama: (silence)
Obama: Afghanistan is scary too, ya know.
McCain: Admiral Mullins hates you, ya know.
Obama: No he doesn’t!
MCCAIN 10, OBAMA 9. Just on general comfort level. I still wanna know the difference between tactics and strategy, though.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 9:50 pm
McCain: I know everything.
Snatch victory from jaws of defeat, can’t set a date. See, I just really can’t judge this.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:50 pm
As an aside, I think it may be a good idea to create a page on this site where the principle contributors can have their party affiliations and which candidate they currently support listed — as a means of full disclosure so that people who read the site (but not religiously) can see if/where there may be some favoritism in your comments in the live-blogs and comments.
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 9:50 pm
I’m not watching. What grades do you guys give mid fray?
Comment by Cameron — 9/26/2008 @ 9:51 pm
Mike, there’s an about section, but I think that some people’s positions might have changed. By which I mean Brad, who is now a commie.
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 9:52 pm
Closer than I would have though, Cameron. Obama ahead on the cards. McCain isn’t doing bad, but in boxing terminology, Obama is controlling the fight.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:52 pm
Afghanistan is the one war we should have been fighting all along, the one we have international sympathy for, the one that is clearly tied to 9/11. Obama was lucky to be asked this question first. McCain can only more or less agree with him.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:52 pm
Jason 100 – Petraeus may have more celebrity than he himself would like, but overrated? I don’t think so.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:53 pm
I will say this is orders of magnitude better than the Bush/Kerry debates.
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 9:53 pm
Wait, what lessons is he taking from the Russian invading Afghanistan?
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:53 pm
McCain on attacking into Pakistan: “You don’t say that out loud!”
Hahaha.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:53 pm
Grades: It’s close. No major screwups yet. I don’t know, and most of “victory” and “defeat” in debates comes down to how the press spins it anyway. I’m just here for the football game aspect of it, really.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:54 pm
There are military strikes into Pakistan – aren’t there?
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:54 pm
Yes Liz.
Be funny when Obama brings that up.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:54 pm
Thanks Brad
Thought I was losing my mind there for a second.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 9:55 pm
Man, not only are we already doing this into Pakistan, but Obama tacks to the right, on a War on Terror issue, on this one, and McCain is letting him.
Obama ought to throw the “gates of hell” line at him.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:56 pm
Petraeus is attributed both more influence and more wisdom than I think he has. That’s all I mean.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 9:56 pm
Ohhh, and Obama says “you want our troops to take that shit?”
Ouch. It was a valiant effort from McCain, and he’s not wrong (exactly), but Obama is kicking him in the nuts on this one.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:56 pm
Adam 107: I was thinking something simple so people don’t have to read a half a dozen posts to figure out the basics of where people stand. Links to a more eloquent and complete position would be good as well, but a top level “_____, a registered member of the _____ Party, supports _____ _____ for president” would be a great reference.
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 9:57 pm
Obama is pulling a lot of these punches though, curiously. I think it might be appropriate given the relatively laid back attitude, but he certainly could go for the jugular more if he wanted to. No Maliki agrees with me on Iraq? No Bush agrees with me on Pakistan? No gates of hell?
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:58 pm
And McCain starts talking Bosnia and Somalia?
Seriously, he’s getting lost in the weeds on some of these.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 9:58 pm
The issue with the attacking into Pakistan thing is that it was a mistake for Obama to say it the way that he did. Stuff happens and isn’t talked about, and sometimes there’s agreement from the other government even if they deny it in public and sometimes they might paper over the cracks afterward. There was no benefit to Obama’s declaration and he’d probably not say it again (if he hadn’t said it back then).
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 9:59 pm
Just call Obama the winner, Brad. Jesus.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 9:59 pm
I’m still not sure that bringing up the mothers of dead soldiers is helpful to McCain, as much as he’s wringing these anecdotes. Just the association alone.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:00 pm
Hey, I was already preempted by the McCain campaign at 930 this morning, man.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:00 pm
I don’t think most people know the difference between tactics and strategy. I know, but that’s because I’ve been a tournament chess player. That’s saying something. This distinction is seriously arcane.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:00 pm
I so hate this inference that you don’t love the troops if you want to pull out of the war.
A lot of us have lost people over there.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 10:01 pm
Q5: MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN? HOW MANY AND WHEN?
Obama: Yes. Here are many, many confusing policy details. Afghanistan should be forced to work for its people. We will achieve victory by destroying their only cash crop and replacing it with nothing. Pakistan is bad and has terrorists in it.
McCain: We screwed up by pulling out too soon. I can’t quite remember why it was that we decided to do that; I seem to recall that our troops were needed for some less important issue elsewhere. Never should have done that. Bombing Pakistan might be a bad idea–we want the people on our side. Obama threatened Pakistan, and the one thing we cannot afford is a President who takes unnecessarily bellicose public stances.
Obama: (raises eyebrow)
McCain: We must have the people on our side. Pakistan must understand that the terrorists bombed their hotel because the terrorists don’t want them on our side. (???) He’ll bomb Pakistan.
Obama: No. I said I’d bomb Pakistan if we had OBL in our sights and Pakistan wouldn’t do it for us. Do you disagree? By the way, you threatened to make North Korea extinct and you sang songs about bombing Iran. That maybe was somewhat bellicose. Bush’s strategy=defensive. My strategy involves making decisions. I am in favor of decisions. Our existing Pakistan policy, which you supported, was alienating the entire population in order to impress Musharraf. That was maybe a pretty bad idea even on your terms.
McCain: Musharraf was the best of bad options in a failed state. On the bombing Iran thing, let me tell you a story about 1983. I was against Lebanon. I was for the first Iraq War. I was for Bosnia. I was for Kosovo. I was both for and against Somalia. I have been involved on national security issues, and this is why I will be either for or against attacking Iran. Here is a bracelet somebody gave me. Defeat is bad.
Obama: I have a bracelet! Check mine out!
OBAMA 10, McCAIN 6. Obama really, really good on Pakistan. McCain rambling like grandpa telling war stories.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:01 pm
James 125, that’s pretty much why I’m asking for the reference page.
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 10:01 pm
To be clear, I think McCain is doing just fine. I think he’s just getting a bit staticy on stuff and losing the plot on some of his answers at critical moments (earmarks, Bosnia, etc).
And visitation again?
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:02 pm
Dueling dead troop bracelets. Ugh. I’m sorry, this is so so mawkish.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:02 pm
I am not saying he is winning, Brad. I am saying that you and MSNBC have elected him already. This is all academic here.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 10:02 pm
Obama is basically right that Afghanistan has gotten short shrift because of Iraq. This strikes me as stronger than anything said so far on defense.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:03 pm
James, let it go.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:03 pm
FIRST HOUR: Obama 45, McCain 40. Weirdly, McCain is at his best on the economy stuff, and Obama best on foreign policy detail. McCain REALLY, REALLY must stop talking about things that happened in 1985 or earlier. He is energetic tonight, but runs the risk of sounding like grampa rambling about the good ‘ol days. Obama is poised and confident, but a lot of his answers are evasive.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:04 pm
It might change, though.
Anyhow; current state of play is that Brad and Rojas were Ron Paul supporters; Rojas went more or less to McCain (formally, I think that Rojas is a member of the Libertarian Party) and Brad (who has been a registered Republican forever) went to Obama. I was McCain all through (but am not a citizen, so no vote and I’d only ever join a party to vote in primaries); James was a Paul supporter of sorts (and gave money) but had McCain sympathies, I think, and now backs McCain. Jack is some sort of communist and was a left-Paul supporter, so he probably supports Obama now (he’s only just come back). Not sure who Mark supports.
I may abuse my admin powers to change the names of Obama supporters to something more appropriate, like “Communist Cabbage”, so that people can recognise them easily. McCain supporters could get names like “Lantern-jawed defender of freedom”.
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 10:05 pm
These aren’t bad answers in their single clauses, but the Israeli, holocaust, League of Democracies, Russians, etc…lost in the weeds.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:05 pm
The partner says the same thing about McCain. People don’t remember this oldster stuff. I remember (um… “remember”) the British in Afghanistan, but that’s because I have a doctorate in history. And I realize full well that most Americans don’t.
Damn me, I’m an elitist, aren’t I?
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:05 pm
Me: I was a Ron Paul supporter, kinda, until the awful newsletters. Then I was disillusioned. I’ve recently told my readers to vote for Barr if they are in non-swing states, and to vote for Obama if they are in swing states, to stop McCain/Palin, since I regard them as dangerously unhinged in foreign policy.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:07 pm
Rojas: Actually, I think you’re right. Obama is more on-point on these FP answers, and weirdly more nationalistic.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:07 pm
Adam 138: Thanks! I’m just saying that you should throw something like that up and try to keep it updated elsewhere so people can find it without digging through comments on the debate live-blog :)
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 10:07 pm
Brad 136 : As you command. I am gone.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 10:08 pm
I still think this “he would talk to leaders” thing is just a loser. I don’t know why McCain spends so much damn time on it. He has much better distinctions he can make than that.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:08 pm
Ah-ma-din-e-jad. Right?
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:09 pm
Brad @ 145: If you talk to them, you’ve blinked. You’re an appeaser. You’re Chambrlain in 1938. Don’t you know the talking points?
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:09 pm
Ach’ med een ee jhad. Something like that.
But talking to Stalin was ok in WWII, so why not talk to him?
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:10 pm
Admittedly I am much more sympathetic to Obama’s position on FP generally than McCain’s, but I think Obama is starting to pull away a bit now. He’s won the last five answers or so 10-8. Not a blowout by any stretch, but in a close debate, Obama’s starting to get the momentum and clarity.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:10 pm
Obama just absolutely SLAPPED McCain on meeting with foreign leaders.
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:11 pm
There’s quite a lot to saying you’d talk to leaders of certain groups and countries; it’s basically saying that you’d change a pretty important part of US policy, even if it might sound just like “hey, we’ll talk, see what happens”.
Frankly, I am not sure that Obama will talk to all of those people, because it would make him look weak to a lot of them and their supporters.
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 10:12 pm
And here we go on “even Bush has come to my position…” thing. Was wondering when that was coming.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:12 pm
Agreed, Talarohk. We don’t need permission slips from the rabid right wing to do what we need to do to keep America safe.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:12 pm
I know I’m not objective, but Obama is really doing well right now.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 10:12 pm
Q6: HOW ABOUT IRAN?
McCain: Iran bomb bad for Israel and bad for regional stability. Iran is provocative in Iraq. We need a multilateral response. (best McCain response of the night by a long shot, and his best rhetoric on Iran pretty much ever.)
Obama: I won’t define the IRG as a terror group because that would give Bush a free hand in Iraq (???) Bush is not effectively stopping Iranian prolif. We can’t allow Iranian prolif. We need tougher sanctions–and we need non-democracies like Russia on our side. And we need direct diplomacy, which he’s against.
McCain: Direct diplomacy gives Iran’s President a platform to agitate for genocide. It rewards them for illegal behavior as well. Reagan would not sit down with Russia pre-Gorbachev…
Me: HUH?
McCain: Nixon required preconditions for trip to China. Preconditions are required.
Obama: Iran’s President isn’t pulling the strings. I’ll negotiate with anybody whenever I feel like it, so nyah. Kissinger’s on my side on preconditions. Tea will not be served! No damn tea of any kind! North Korea was a failure and we had to abandon our prior policy–the same one he supports where Iran is concerned. He hates Spain!
McCain: at least I haven’t made a Presidential shield yet. Kissinger’s in favor of low-level diplomacy, not direct public engagement. North Korea is bad, and worse yet, short. Short people cannot be trusted.
Obama 10, McCain 10. They were both very good on this question, actually.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:12 pm
Haha, Spain. Too little people would have heard of that to get it, but it was funny anyway.
Nice answer from McCain about not accepting the presidential visitation schedule.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:13 pm
And James can make that point if he wants. It’s only a discussion (and in any case, there’s a case to be made for his claim).
Rojas is the one looking like the unbiased commentator, I guess.
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 10:14 pm
I couldn’t believe he called McCain on the whole not-knowing-who-the-leader-of-Spain-is faux pas. Ouch.
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:14 pm
I heard some laughter from the audience on the Spain thing, the first reactions I’ve heard from them, which surprises me.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:14 pm
Adam 138: I have not endorsed McCain.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:15 pm
James or anybody else can make any point they like. No need to cry that me, an Obama voter, is more sympathetic to Obama’s broad strokes though.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:15 pm
NASTY EXCHANGE:
McCain +2 He controlled that and Obama came across as defensive.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:16 pm
Overall, this debate is FAR better than anything I saw in the last election cycle. Both candidates are handling this very well.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:16 pm
Yeah, it is a good debate Jason. And above-board. This is a pretty intelligent ideological contrast.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:17 pm
Agree that this is a good debate.
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:17 pm
Did Obama just make the “but we have to look out for our own United States national security interests” regarding the Russia-Georgia thing?
Nice. Me likey.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:19 pm
So why the ‘let it go’ thing? We all get to pick what we care about, after all.
Rojas 160: that’s what I meant with ‘more or less’; I had the impression that you were more for McCain than for Obama but not for him very strongly.
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 10:19 pm
This is interesting because it is slicing along ideological lines.
Fun to watch, but I don’t know that it would sway anyone.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 10:19 pm
Tone of the questions has been very easy: No weird curveball “If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered” kind of questions. They’ve been more like “Russia — what do you think?” Which plays well to the pre-debate preparation of both candidates.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:19 pm
McCain better here, it seems to me.
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:19 pm
Cheers.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 10:21 pm
Do they really make much difference in general? I know that people like to ascribe significant importance to them, but other than some screwups, I’m not sure they’re really as important as we might expect they should be.
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 10:22 pm
Aw, knock it off, James. “Cheers”, indeed. :)
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:22 pm
Because I, the human being behind this typist, is of the personal opinion, speaking for nobody else but I, the human being behind the typist, that he should let it go.
And dammit, now you made me miss the Russia answer. :(
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:23 pm
Liz 168: I think this will be very informative for undecideds and help them figure out who they want to vote for.
— that is, undecideds that will decide based on anything substantial,
Comment by Mike — 9/26/2008 @ 10:23 pm
Indeed.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 10:23 pm
“We” have to rebuild the Georgian economy? Oh please. That just rubs everyone wrong with regard to the U.S economy. Very big mistake by Obama.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:24 pm
Somebody want to sum up the Russia segment for me?
Which candidate is more likely to get me beat up on the streets of Moscow?
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:24 pm
Energy independence is a myth, people. Give it up already.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:25 pm
Adam and Mike – You’re probably both right. Informed undecideds will find it helpful, uninformed undecideds and entrenched partisans won’t.
I’m coming at it as a person who has been paying attention way too long.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 10:25 pm
Maybe he means the Southern US state.
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 10:25 pm
Q7: RUSSIA
Obama, still reeling: No! Kissinger loves me! Um…Russia isn’t awful good. We should deal with them on our own terms.
McCain: Obama’s initial statement on Georgia was mealy-mouthed pap. He hasn’t a clue about the energy issues involved. The entire set of Russia’s neighbors rallied to Georgia’s defense, as I did. We owe them our support. We will be unambiguously supportive of Georgian and Ukranian NATO membership–a membership action plan, as he supports, is not enough. If Russia wants to be treated as a nation-state worthy of respect, they have to act like one. Keep your eye on Ukraine. If we’re not proactive, they’re next.
Me: (Wow. That was McCain’s best moment since the South Carolina primary debate.
Obama (first 10 seconds in a continual stammer): Um…yeah, me too. Uh…I forcefully objected to Russia’s intervention. Violence is bad. Foresight is good. I mentioned Georgia in April–we needed to get Georgia’s peacekeepers out of Georgia and replace them with international peacekeepers. Energy is important, like he said. We should have energy independence. Did I mention I’m in favor of energy independence? I like clean coal, no matter what Joe Biden says. He’s against alternative energy! Boo him!
McCain: I like energy. He’s against nuclear energy.
Obama: No! Wrong! Liar!
McCain: I’m just gonna keep talking.
McCAIN 10, OBAMA 6. That was a clean win for McCain by any standard.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:26 pm
McCain has seized clear control of this debate in the last 20 minutes.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:27 pm
He’s hitting this last answer out of the park.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:27 pm
Where was that McCain for the rest of the debate?
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:28 pm
Yeah, wrong time to be professorial.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:28 pm
I’ve got to admit, McCain seemed much stronger on the questions starting with Russia.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:29 pm
Yeah, McCain got a boost by getting the first response on this question.
Comment by Camillus — 9/26/2008 @ 10:29 pm
Did Obama just say that we need to focus on ports, because missiles aren’t a big threat, and then that we do need missile defense, because Iran might launch a missile at us?
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:30 pm
No no no no McCain. SDI under Reagan, attack on Obama?
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:31 pm
“SDI helped bring about the end of the Cold War. Therefore, we must win in Iraq.”
What?
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:31 pm
Ugh. I wish we could get McCain’s second to last answer encased in amber. He nailed that, and now he’s stepping on it. And gives Obama the opening.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:32 pm
Talarohk 191: The ‘SDI helped bring about the end of the Cold War’ thing is pretty standard Reagan-supporting rhetoric. You can probably draw lines from it to Iraq, but it would take rather more explanation than that.
Comment by Adam — 9/26/2008 @ 10:33 pm
McCain should not talk about stubborness.
Comment by Liz — 9/26/2008 @ 10:35 pm
Whoa, McCain tries to tie Obama to Bushian stubbornness?
Hahaha. Flexibility?! What the fuck is going on here?!
That’s awesome, if for no other reason than the BRASS BALLS it took to even THINK to make that comparison.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:35 pm
I think the SDI thing will go over the heads of most voters, as will Obama’s last response.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:35 pm
And Obama ends on the American Dream.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 10:36 pm
Brad 195: Yeah, that was stunning. An interesting line of attack.
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:36 pm
Q8: WILL THERE BE ANOTHER 9/11?
McCain: 9/11 is bad. Security is good. Torture is bad. Allies are good. I know who are allies are. He doesn’t. Reorganizing government is good when it works, bad when it doesn’t.
Obama: We need to spend much, much more money on domestic infrastructure, because reinforced chemical plants are more secure against suitcase nukes than non-reinforced chemical plants. Nuclear attacks are bad. Expand Nunn-Lugar. Al Qaeda is bad. Soft power is good.
Lehrer: Is soft power good, Senator McCain?
McCain: Missile defense.
Lehrer: Huh?
McCain: He is gonna mess up Iraq with a timeline for withdrawl. Iraq is the central issue of our time (?!?!?!?!?!?)
Lehrer: What?
Obama: There are a whole lot of other places in the world besides Iraq. Iraq is screwing up everything else. That’s not smart.
McCain: Yes it is! I know this, because I am very old. Older than him. He is young, inexperienced, and keeps screwing up, in Georgia, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Me: That was a VERY direct attack for a Presidential debate, maybe too much so.
Obama 10, McCain 8. Only a strong close kept McCain from losing that question by a worse score.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:36 pm
CLOSING STATEMENTS:
Obama: I am a scary foreigner. Ordinary people are good.
McCain: I am a tortured veteran. I am old.
No points awarded.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:38 pm
Rojas 1000. Beautiful summaries.
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:38 pm
No serious gaffes, I don’t think. Do you?
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:39 pm
No, a pretty good debate. This is what I was hoping to see–two intelligent men with different ideas, exchanging them more or less politely.
Comment by Talarohk — 9/26/2008 @ 10:40 pm
OVERALL: My final is Obama 71, McCain 70. You can accurately call this debate a tie in the sense that McCain exceeded expectations and won the most dramatic victories, but that Obama probably exceeded the commander-in-chief threshhold, which is all he really needed to do.
A pretty good debate, really.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:41 pm
Awesome debate. Good for Jim Lehrer. McCain not crusty bulldog (all the time). Obama not to professorial. But no good one-liners, or did I miss one while refilling my drink?
Comment by Camillus — 9/26/2008 @ 10:41 pm
I’m just blown away by how much more intelligent this was than any of the 2004 debates, except for the 04 vp debate. This was quite well done by both.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:42 pm
MSNBC calling McCain the winner. I’m baffled.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:43 pm
Jason, I’m hoping you’ll stick around for our future liveblogs. Your contributions here were excellent.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:44 pm
Rojas — ABC says the same. I don’t understand. It was close, or even, really. I didn’t see a clear winner.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:44 pm
Thanks. This was totally unplanned, by the way, and aided by a few martinis. But it was fun, I’ve gotta admit.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:45 pm
I have to think it’s an expectations issue. And also a matter of overall control and poise; the third quarter of the debate had a lot of dramatically good moments for McCain and poor ones for Obama.
I guess that to the extent that things will stick in people’s minds, it was a good night for McCain.
I just felt that when there WASN’T anything dramatic going on, Obama was going good work in making himself look Presidential, which was what he was there for.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:47 pm
READERS! IGNORE T. BOONE PICKENS!
TCP > TBP.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:48 pm
Drunk is by far the best way to read TCP.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 10:48 pm
Prediction: The real fireworks will come in the next presidential debate. Of course, the VP will be fun, too…
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 10:56 pm
Did Putin kidnap Brad halfway through hour #2 or something?
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 11:05 pm
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 11:08 pm
Final score, on the 10-9 system, assuming 7 rounds.
Obama 66-64.
Probably a split decision too. No knockouts, not even a knockdown really. Nice clean match.
Unlike Rojas, I thought Obama won on the cards on the economic stuff. McCain wasn’t bad exactly, but the earmarks thing, while it can be effective in spots, just does not make sense as an all-encompassing narrative, and Obama effectively capitalized. Obama did lose points on his sputtering about with that spending exchange with Lehrer, but he also effectively countered on taxes and gave a more coherent picture that is closer to the mainstream of America.
On Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakisan, it was kind of bizarro world. McCain is right to pick the surge as the talking point, but he’s walking right up to the line of overplaying that, and he kept getting lost in the weeds (visitation, Somalia, sitting down without precondition, etc), and Obama was generally cogent and probably did more what he needed to do, which is to deflate ideas that he’s some liberal peacenik or doesn’t meet a Commander in Chief threshold. It was close though.
I missed most of the Russia exchange, but will score it 10-8 McCain based on you guys.
On the final chunk, I though the best answer of the night was McCain’s “Will there be a 9-11″. Obama faltered a bit, got a bit wonkish, but then the moderators kept it going and he caught himself again, while McCain went a little too snarly.
On the whole, I think McCain had probably the better moments, but also the worse ones; Obama overall had the clarity and narrative. Both won, in that there were no gaffes, McCain exceeded his expectations, and Obama met his. Good debate all around. Cogent, mostly on-point, and about pretty clean contrasts and emphases.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 11:10 pm
By the way, just because I lost my shit for a minute there, on the “you’re in the bag for Obama” argument we had at the halfway point:
Look, I find it obnoxious when people say “But you’re clearly more sympathetic to Obama than McCain!” Really? What gave it away, my daily posting about how I am more sympathetic to Obama than McCain? Or my pronouncement that I’m almost certainly going to vote for Obama over McCain? Or my chewing over the issues in real-time, in clear, archivable format, and generally siding with Obama more than McCain?
I know of no way to possibly be more upfront about my leanings ands biases than to post about them daily. That is what this blog is about. If you are seeking objective, dispassionate news coverage, look ye elsewhere. I am allowed to have opinions, just like the next guy, and if our opinions differ, that means we disagree, not that one of us is somehow failing or cheating. I’m happy to discuss those disagreements, but just saying I’m biased and thus my opinions are of no merit, use, or value, cheeses me off a bit.
As a programming note, rest assured, all of us bloggers, individually, are going to be writing endorsements this year. I get annoyed too at political analysis sites with pretty clear biases but with the patina of objectivity and the authors being unwilling to put forward explicitly where they are coming from on things, which is why I’ve kind of pushed at this blog for us to put ourselves out there a little more than, say, RCP might. I try to avoid that as best I can—fail sometimes for sure—and certainly do not shy away from coming down on one side or another on issues, on news cycles, on campaigns, on elections. I should hope that I—all of us actually—should get some points for working that out in about as transparent and real-time a format as humanly possible.
But, apologies if anybody took issue at me taking issue.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 11:17 pm
A good carpenter is forgiving of defective tools if they are the only ones he has.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 11:30 pm
Hey! I’m not defective, even if I AM a tool.
Comment by Rojas — 9/26/2008 @ 11:31 pm
Did you just call me a fag?
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 11:32 pm
No. My parable was about tools not cigarettes.
Comment by James — 9/26/2008 @ 11:44 pm
:) Sorry, inside joke with some high school friends, none of whom post here.
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 11:45 pm
(Backs slowly out of the room…)
Comment by Jason Kuznicki — 9/26/2008 @ 11:49 pm
Ha, sorry Jason, that was only partially directed at you. Thanks for joining us, btw. Live blogs are always more fun with people around.
Oh, to answer your question now that the liveblog isn’t flying by:
I’m a Republican, was a Ron Paul supporter in the primaries, have been leaning Obama ever since, finally made up my mind in the last month, barring something extraordinary. In previous presidential elections, I’ve voted Dole in 96, McCain in 2000 (then when it went to Bush v Gore, bolted and voted Harry Browne), Kerry in 2004, and now almost certainly Barack Obama. I consider myself a conservative well put off by Bush Republicanism, though those that have been arguing with me online for ages say I’ve listed left, and they’re probably not wrong.
Adam is a foreigner who doesn’t count.
Rojas is a bit all over the place, but can most accurately be described as a Libertarian (big L), who isn’t really welcome in the Libertarian Party. He was a Ron Paul supporter also, and has since been kind of all over the place. I suspect he endorses McCain and I throw my keyboard out the window when he does, but I’m not certain.
James was a Ron Paul sympathetic, though I can’t remember who he voted for (or even if he said). He’s a pretty strong Republican, and my guess is he’s a solid McCain vote.
Welcome!
Comment by Brad — 9/26/2008 @ 11:56 pm
By the way, an hour or two later, I’m pretty clear that this was, for all intents and purposes, a draw. Both men met expectations. Obama’s expectations were higher, but it was more do or die for McCain.
Where this is problematic for McCain:
This was the national security debate.
Comment by Brad — 9/27/2008 @ 12:11 am
Brad 225: I already explained that in #138. Mr Cabbage Communist.
Comment by Adam — 9/27/2008 @ 7:40 am
Brad #218: I know you guys are very up front with your positions and recognize that it’s a good thing, which is why I was thinking it might be a good idea, and completely consistent with the site, to have an easily digestible page dedicated to that purpose.
Comment by Mike — 9/27/2008 @ 11:47 am