Obama's win was impressive. Unlike McCain, who often tried to mask displeasure with an uncomfortable 'smile', Obama refuted McCain consistently and deftly turned refutations into rapier-like attacks.
Presidential Debate. Obama Winds Decisively
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 (UPI) -- A post-debate poll indicates Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Barack Obama won Friday night's first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss.Obama seized the offensive and never lost it. In response to McCain, Obama did not merely 'refute', he countered and charged.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, conducted shortly after the debate ended, showed 51 percent thought Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, did the best job, while 38 percent said Republican opponent Sen. John McCain of Arizona won.
Only people who watched the debate were questioned and the audience included more Democrats than Republicans. Some 524 people were polled by telephone Sept. 26 after the end of the debate.
There were big differences by gender. Men were nearly evenly split, with 46 percent giving the win to McCain and 43 percent to Obama while women voters gave Obama the win, preferring him to McCain 59 percent 31 percent, CNN said.
"It can be reasonably concluded, especially after accounting for the slight Democratic bias in the survey, that we witnessed a tie in Mississippi tonight," said CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib. "But given the direction of the campaign over the last couple of weeks, a tie translates to a win for Obama."
--Poll: Obama won presidential debate
From the outset of the 90 minute debate, which was almost called off because of the economic crisis, Mr. Obama was on the offensive, mocking his rival for having said that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” when it is in freefall. He accused him of promoting a failed Republican philosophy of deregulation that had caused havoc in the financial marketsA high point of the debate was Obama's devastating assessment of the GOP's Iraq war:
“This is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies, promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain,” Mr. Obama, said. He described it as “a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections, and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.” --Obama and McCain clash in first televised debate
“You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003. And at the time, when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni and you were wrong.” Barack Obama, Presidential Debate
Published Articles- Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part I, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks
- Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part II, A Climate of Fear is Maintained
- Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part III, In Fascist Dictatorships Telling the truth becomes a crime
- Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part IV, the state forces an 'existential' choice
- Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part V, Public Opinion Becomes Irrelevant
- Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VI, The government places itself above the law
- Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VII, The Government Denies 'Due Process of Law'
- Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State Part VIII: Atrocities are justified with lies, myths or propaganda
GOP, Bush, Evil, TyrannySpread the word
10 comments:
I watched some of the coverage on CNN post-debate. Shameful. They started out with the premise that the result was a dead heat, then argued about whether that was somehow to the advantage of Obama, who had gone in with a healthy lead (common wisdom says it was.) How they could even countenance the idea that McCain could come in trailing and take any advantage from staying inn second place is beyond me.
SadButTrue said...
How they could even countenance the idea that McCain could come in trailing and take any advantage from staying inn second place is beyond me.
By the time I 'exited' the MSM, it had been taken over by ratings experts and 'programming gurus'. Any resemblance it may have to 'news' or to 'journalism' is either entirely coincidental or the result of a careful staging studied to death by a focus group.
Fuck the MSM. Fox is --of course --the worst of the bunch. But focus group journalism ensures that we will NEVER AGAIN see the likes of Eric Severeid, Walter Cronkite or even Dan Rather.
Len;
You said;
By the time I 'exited' the MSM, it had been taken over by ratings experts and 'programming gurus'.
Do you not believe this is how most lazy viewers allow the ‘rating experts’ do their thinking for you? Like my friend that tried to tell me abortions were the number 1 threat to Social Security, he let a TV preacher do his thinking for him.
I have not watched TV since 1999 and probably won’t ever again. So, I get my news from people like you. One thing I did hear about was when McCain referred to the Revolutionary Guard as the Republican Guard, (wrong country). But, Obama agreed that the Republican Guard was terrible, etc. Please, if they are going to talk of Iran, (especially about attacking that country), have some knowledge about Iran.
I do not believe in Obama’s assessment;
“You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni and you were wrong.”
I do not know if Obama was referring to the extremist on both sides, but among the general population, there was no violence. As far as history goes, no violence within the last 4 generations, at least. As one Baghdad Iraqi put it; ‘My father is a Sunni, my mother is Shia, and our next door neighbor is a Kurd. Why should I fight against Iraqis. The Iraqis had become so intra bred, that differences in religion and even tribal lines had become blurred.
Iraq was the most progressive Arab country in the Middle East and this administration destroyed it with the blessings of both these Senators.
We are still voting for the lesser of two evils, just as we have for the past 60 years. Obama is definitely the lesser.
Len, your blog is great - entertaining and educational but I must take exception to "Obama Wins Debate".
If either Obama or McSame "wins" the Presidency there will only be 300 million losers.
The Democrat and the Republican parties are two sides of the same corporate coin. Voting for the lesser evil can only have one outcome...
I had not been a big Obama fan until the debate.
Trust me...Obama did not merely win -- he kicked McCain's sorry ass on 1) points not refuted 2) being right and factual 3) presentation
McCain was shifty, vague and appeared to be ill at ease.
His 'smiles' when pinned down looked fake because they were fake. What he was really thinking cannot be repeated.
In the end --Obama FRAMED McCain as just more of the same Bush shit! That's really ALL Obama had to do to win the debate.
I was a debater in high school and college. Some much, much better than Obama/McCain. But what counts in a political debate is "who wins". McCain got his ass kicked.
Good article Len, great series of posts altogether.
Gallop today: Obama 46% McCain 34% (on the debate win)
That is a significant difference, especially since the primary topic being foreign policy, was where McCain allegedly dominated (that is by "media accounts" frankly, I have not heard much out of McCains mouth that would prove that claim...for Christ sake, he even confused the Sunni and Shea just a few weeks back on national evening news) Not to mention he believes there will be more al qaeda in Iraq if we leave...that statement alone shows how out of touch he is with the actual politics of that region, unless of course he is being disingenuous with his public assessments. it has been my understanding that the al qaeda types that have been in Iraq were most certainly drawn there by our presence, that has been mentioned by some of our commanders in the field.
McCain also continues to refer to definitions of this conflict as in "winning" or "losing"...there is no winning or losing in occupation, just a continual long standing commitment and investment that may break your bank, just ask Russia, or we can all also look in the mirror with the way things are going in this country these days.
The other thing I noticed about McCain was his hostile body language and attitude, also some of his "tics" were coming to the surface, he was clearly ready to lose it a few times. This again goes to the issue or question of his temperament, does this man have the ability to remain under control during crisis? Just being able to pull a throttle and hit a firing button ain't gonna cut it as Commander in Chief.
Anyhow, I also think Obama did fine. Although, I thought he "agreed" with "John" a few times to many, superficially or not...but, he also made the important distinctions about the differences between the ideological approach to leadership between the two candidates. no, Obama is not by any stretch an answer and end all to the deep rooted problems this country faces, but he is a damn good start to the road back to sanity, recovery. Of course the status quo is the same, and we also are apart of it, cogs in the system. So, we may have a chance of progressive reform, if in fact we do get enough true reformers in place, but there is much to do and time appears short.
benmerc
benmerc sez...
Obama is not by any stretch an answer and end all to the deep rooted problems this country faces, but he is a damn good start to the road back to sanity, recovery. Of course the status quo is the same, and we also are apart of it, cogs in the system.
At its worst the system gives us a choice between two evils from which we are expected to choose the lesser. It is in this way that the establishment always wins!
Were we (the mere people) given REAL choices, we might just elect a socialist, a liberterian, an anarchis, a philosopher-king! In this country, this system, those options are pruned early on.
Alas! The 'establishment' has hedged its bets and controls the 'table'. Those 'cards' are never on the table.
Given the situation, the best we can do now is vote Obama and work ASSIDUOUSLY to bring about the 'revolution', at first, from within the system.
The 'disaffected' left is disaffected because it perceives that it lacks the infrastructure around which it might change the direction and substance of government. This is self-defeating and self-fullfilling.
By swelling the ranks of the Democratic party, it will have gained an apparatus, a base and a platform.
By swelling the ranks of the Democratic party, it will have gained an apparatus, a base and a platform.-LH
My thoughts on that are push the centrists out, or grab enough ground to form a real third party...sure, embody some of the tenets of the Greens, Libertarians and Progressive parties...but get rid of the deadwood, gasbags & myopic idealogs. Then, put some realistic planks together that will engage a majority of Americans, (universal health care, REAL new energy resource investment, sustainable industry and market development) I do not think these items would be so hard to do. All of this should start during the Obama administration, and with all of the "bail out" hoopla, maybe a populist agenda will fly. What is your take on the bail-out? Is there opportunity to be had, or will it all be just more theft?
benmerc
benmerc...
My thoughts on that are push the centrists out, or grab enough ground to form a real third party...sure, embody some of the tenets of the Greens, Libertarians and Progressive parties...but get rid of the deadwood, gasbags & myopic idealogs.
Your point is well-taken. Indeed, I fault Clinton's 'triangulation' for having emasculated the Democratic party. That was so because the GOP has already moved so far to the 'right' that the center was, in fact, right of center. Sort of like 'red shift' among quasars.
As long as there is a bell-curve, politcians will try to get the big bulge in the middle. That's only natural. What keeps the 'big bulge' from skewing rightward, however, is a VIABLE left, an active left, a REAL choice.
I think Clinton denied us that choice at a time when the GOP had moved the entire nation to extremism.
Until very recently, American politics was a one-legged man: it was the left leg that was missing. The nation wobbled --out of control because the balance had been subverted by design.
Of late, I see signs of life on planet earth, evidence that the balance of nature is trying to right itself.
I totally agree on the Clinton damage, not to mention he took way to much crap from Helms, Gingrich and the rest of those ass holes, that certainly helped undermine the word "liberal".
I admit I was not that aware when that bunch rode in ( nose to the grind stone, just the way they want you), I had no idea what "triangulation" or "neo-liberal" meant...but before his first term was out, I had seen enough of Bill Clinton...my dad wryly told me the reason why the republicans hate Clinton, is because he had achieved much of what they could not, typically in the business world, he said Clinton was the best republican (lite) to come down the pike in decades. I have to say the old man has a few more years of experience and perspective, as he grew up during the depression (poor).
benmerc
Post a Comment