Comments on: Liveblogging Absurdity

By: ejpa

ejpa — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:08:59 +0000

the best play-by-play I’ve read…I can’t stop laughing. thanks can’t wait for the VP debate.

By: DaveA

DaveA — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:19:36 +0000

Well, McCain’s quick off the draw. Because I gave him $50 8 years ago against W I’m still on his mailing list and his post-debate email just hit my inbox. After the normal “wasn’t that debate great for America” invocation, he warns:

“n a few hours, I will return to Washington to resume negotiations with the Administration and Congressional leaders from both parties to forge a bipartisan solution to our economic crisis.”

Wunneful. Just shoot me. Please.

By: davegnyc

davegnyc — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:17:39 +0000

I thought Obama point at the end about the Bush/McCain lens like obsession on Iraq at the expense of all other foreign policy was strong, and so did others around me.

It really is dead on. Iraq is not the center of the fight against terror, and the fight against terror should not the center of our foreign policy. For some reason we seemed overly focus as a nation on Iraq/Iran and the middle east in general. I wonder why that is…

Bottom line, I think Obama has passed a big test, and while I look forward to the slightly more sane foreign policy he will bring, I do not look forward to his domestic agenda at all.

By: nyx

nyx — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:57:57 +0000

I caught only the last half of the debate but from a *extremely* superficial point of view: its a tie but stylistically an Obama win. I expected Obama to flounder but this is Obama’s best debate to date. McCain was way too condescending – he just looked too mean. Again, this is an extremely superficial read but McCain just looked too much like an “angry old man” while Obama looked more presidential.

By: Balloon Juice

Balloon Juice — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:55:44 +0000

[...] Larison is pretty damned funny, and worth a read, especially on Obama’s weaknesses. [...]

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:39:32 +0000

Maybe Obama didn’t respond enough, but I think he was gambling on the recognition from the audience that McCain kept saying that about every issue where his own answers were not very good. If someone is constantly saying that his opponent doesn’t understand anything, it may be because he is trying to avoid revealing how little he knows about it. Obama will get credit for remaining respectful while being critical, and McCain will be seen as a cranky old man who has no respect for his opponent. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see how that dynamic works for the guy who’s already behind.

By: JBraunstein

JBraunstein — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:30:06 +0000

Obama passed up too many opportunities to batter McCain. He was too passive and conciliatory; even if they have precious little to disagree about, McCain’s constant condescension and belittlement: “Sen. Obama doesn’t understand X” should have bristled Obama a little more–his cool customer persona runs the risk of seeming inhuman if he doesn’t get at least a little indignant over this nut McCain acting like heâ€™s taking him to school.

But then again, maybe I’m vicariously projecting myself onto Obama, because while I only resent Obama, I fear and detest McCain. I was rooting for Obama to clean McCain’s clock, or for McCain to pass out on stage. Bottom line, Obama is afraid to appear as if he’s not showing McCain a certain kind of deference. He’s not confident in his ability to go for McCain’s jugular, even considering the limited room to maneuver, both being establishment shills. But Barak could have hung GWB around McCain’s neck a lot more effectively. Obama still comes across as a professor. He may be calm and collected, but heâ€™s not relaxed.

By: Username

Username — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:24:05 +0000

Whoops, editing issue there. I agree with Daniel about the condescension to Obama. It was a little bit outrageous, especially in light of the fact that Obama seemed anything but naive up there. (Wrong about several things, but not stupid.)

In fact, I got a weird little racial undertone feeling from the entire episode. Not saying McCain’s a racist–he seems like he’s just a complete jerk–but man it didn’t sound good.

My gut fear is that McCain’s tone scored points with racist Democrats–who are probably this year’s soccer moms bloc.

By: DaveA

DaveA — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:23:48 +0000

When I say they both sucked, I just mean I didn’t find any reason to pull a lever for either of them this November in this “debate.” I agree that McCain came off poorly. About halfway through I had a recollection of an old Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck cartoon where Daffy wants some prize or award or something and keeps shouting “Mine! Mine! Mine!” which seemed to sum up McCain’s attitude. And early returns seem to show Independents watching the show breaking slightly for Obama. But after the spin cycle finishes, who knows what will come out of the wash?

PS: thanks for the liveblog, I enjoyed it!

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:20:36 +0000

I liveblogged this for the local paper’s political blog (OC Register, TotalBuzz), along with 5 others.

The moveon.com crowd is going to be sadly disappointed if BHO wins. I see the foreign policy differences between the two as matters of style and nuance.

Anyone who entertains the notion of Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO is a prisoner of folly. A “peacenik” who jabbers about attacking the Pashtun lands of Pakistan is a gibbering fool, a dissembler, or both.

They were both evasive and tentative about the economic crisis, which obviously neither understands (I’m not saying I do). They managed to annoy Lehrer with their evasiveness. Lehrer did a fine job, and I’d prefer Oxford-style debates with no press at all.

From a horserace perspective, they were pretty evenly matched, both pretty coherent and reasonably courteous. I thought McCain’s answers were more accessible to an American audience. Obama didn’t really take him on, and sounded a bit professorial (no offense, I used to be one and my son-in-law is).

This debate was not a game-changer. Because Putin isn’t eligible, I’m still leaning to Barr.

By: Username

Username — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:14:15 +0000

Also, am I correct in understanding that McCain’s Iraq policy is we have to stay there in order not to hurt our soldiers’ feelings? That seemed to be his central thesis on Iraq. If we pull out, feelings will be hurt.

Nonetheless, I’ll bet McCain gets a slight win from tonight. He attacked and Obama defended.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:00:29 +0000

Maybe I am influenced by how poorly Obama used to do when he debated Clinton, but I thought he did so much better than he has before that it has to be scored as a win for him. McCain was more aggressive, no doubt, but it is my impression that it translated into contempt and condescension, which are the things that everyone has been saying that Biden has to avoid when he debates Palin. He used the word naive how many times? He was scolding him as if he were a school master, but it is far from clear in any of the exchanges that he knew more. Obama was not forceful enough, but he was so much more focused than he was earlier in the year. McCain came off, in my view, as a snide, bitter old man. His comments betrayed the sentiment of, “How dare you even think that you can compete with me.” This is what Clinton thought, and it destroyed her. McCain is desperate for something to go right in his campaign, and now that the debate focused on his alleged “strength” is behind them he is going to start flailing even more desperately and angrily.

By: DaveA

DaveA — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:58:17 +0000

I scored it a tie: they both sucked.

By: LibAl

LibAl — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:47:30 +0000

Obama did not close strong. He allowed McCain to claim the offensive that the latter did using lies and employing experience vs naivete. I think overall its a tie although McCain will probably get a poll boost from his performance. Obama did not mess up and passed the presidential test, IMO. Obama’s worst mistake was to not focus on national security in his closing – instead he went into articulating the high-level argument of the connectedness of issues eventually impacting national security. Too abstract to appeal to the independents. He should have hammered the point about national security square on.

By: nathancontramundi

nathancontramundi — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:36:46 +0000

Mark Shields just called foreign policy McCain’s “wheelhouse”.

Apparently these wheels are broken.