37
   

The Presidential Debates!

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 09:04 pm
@Thomas,
I think he's ready to punch him in the nose.
0 Replies
 
barackman28
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 10:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You haven't been to Mississippi lately have you? Last year we went down for a conference AT THE UNIVERSITY. I heard the N word repeatedly. You can't trust those people. I'll bet the vote in Oxford will be solidly for McCain!
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 08:19 am
@chai2,
Yep, I know what you mean, chai.


Came here to post this from Gail Collins:

Quote:
This campaign has been so chock full of excitement, however, that the debate lost some of its normal most-important-moment-in-history sheen. The real tension, after all, had been getting McCain there in the first place. A simple trip to Mississippi turned into a saga featuring many, many rapidly changing story lines:

* Cancel the debate!

* Maybe cancel the debate!

* No debate unless Congress passes a financial rescue bill!

* No debate unless Congress has a plan to pass a financial rescue bill.

* Oh, what the heck.

After all that, when the wandering debater finally showed up Friday night, he just looked like a smallish, grayish, slightly grumpy guy with a grizzly obsession.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 10:07 am
@barackman28,
The reality is that the people in the auditorium were well-behaved; so what's your point?
barackman28
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 11:35 am
@cicerone imposter,
Are you so naive or are you cloistered. If you check the pages of the Oxford Newspapers you will find reports that automobiles of visitors( liberals all) have been routinely painted black when they were parked. Do you really think that Mississippi( even Oxford) is really a liberal state that fully accepts black people?

How naive you are.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 01:12 pm
@barackman28,
"Cloistered?" ROFL I've probably seen more of this world than most on a2k or in the US. You really don't know me! LOL

As for my "naivete," show me where any of my posts reflect that with some credible source.
sozobe
 
  4  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 07:07 pm
This is kind of random placement and has probably already been posted elsewhere, sorry if so (I've been out all day and am out of the loop).

Interesting though!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603957_pf.html

If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's a summary and excerpt from TPM:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220359.php

Basically, it's about what happened at the big Bush/ Obama/ McCain meeting, and how Obama pissed off McCain.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 07:39 pm
@sozobe,
Brilliant! (if true)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 07:46 pm
@sozobe,
Pelosi: "Hank, I didn't know you were Catholic" when he knelt down before her.
LOL

This is the best line, though:
"No one knew where he (McCain) was going," one of the aides said.

A great "potential" leader, that McCain! He can learn his job like Palin as veep. LOL
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 07:59 pm
Quote:

Why So Many Pundits Wrongly Scored the Debate 'Even'

Greg Mitchell

It often happens that the pundit "scoring" of a presidential debate ends up quite at odds from the polls of viewers that soon follow.

We've seen it again with last night's debate, which most pundits (on TV and in print) scored very or fairly even, with perhaps some recognition that Obama made some small gains because he pretty much held his own on McCain's turf. Of course, as we now know, virtually every poll taken by the networks and outside sources gave Obama an edge -- and not a small one. He easily swept surveys of undecideds, even carried a Fox focus group. At least in the polls, it was no contest.

We'll see if and how it affects the head-to-head matchup surveys in days ahead but for now we have to ask: Why did so many mainstream pundits blow it?

Of course, there is always the striving for "balance," the effects of pre-spinning, and in some cases their favoring of McCain from the outset. And, to be frank, McCain gave a pretty good account of himself. But many pundits threw out the window what they, and others, had said beforehand, about Obama needing to appear presidential and seem expert on international matters. When he did just that in the debate, they suddenly forgot the importance they had placed on it beforehand.

But here's the key to the viewer/pundit disparity. It took awhile for McCain to build up to it, but then he hammered it home near the end: Obama, he charged, lacked the "knowledge and experience" to be president.

Pundits highlighted that and said it was the key to McCain gaining at least a tie. But I didn't hear a single person on TV point out: McCain just picked Palin for vice president! How, then, could he make such a charge against Obama?

My feeling is that the Couric interview might have done for McCain what the first Nixon-Kennedy debate did for Nixon in 1960 -- a true watershed moment. The American voters finally "got it" about Palin and so McCain's "best moment" against Obama either fell flat with many of them, or proved laughable. This was made all the more stark with Palin AWOL during the post-debate analysis -- and Joe Biden all over the place.

But the pundits barely recognized this -- and that's why they scored the debate fairly even even as viewers seem to have rated it a landslide for Obama.

Subject for a later column: The many pundits who now have egg on their faces for their early hailing of Palin and/or predictions of how strongly she would help the ticket.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/why-did-so-many-pundits-f_b_129880.html


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 08:16 pm
@JTT,
But how do we reconcile the fact that Palin still enjoys a high favorable rating? What am I missing?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  4  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 09:28 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:

My feeling is that the Couric interview might have done for McCain what the first Nixon-Kennedy debate did for Nixon in 1960 -- a true watershed moment. The American voters finally "got it" about Palin


Hm. How many people even saw the Couric interview?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 09:30 pm
@nimh,
It's been hard for me to measure, because it's being replayed a lot of different ways. E.g. here's Cafferty covering it.

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 09:40 pm
@nimh,
Even the entertainment shows in the U.S have been showing at least clips from the Palin-Couric interview. The comics that are hitting the daytime and evening talk shows have been riffing on it. The interview's probably the most attention Katie Couric's had in a while.

Chris Rock killed me when he was riffing on the interview.

I don't know what 'people' think about it, but that interview is being clipped and viewed, and clipped and viewed.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 09:49 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

This is kind of random placement and has probably already been posted elsewhere, sorry if so (I've been out all day and am out of the loop).

Interesting though!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603957_pf.html

If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's a summary and excerpt from TPM:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220359.php

Excerpt yes, summary no.

From the excerpt and brief characterisation on TPM, you'd come away with the impression of an article that touts the Democrats' role and exposes McCain's impotence. But the full WaPo article leaves you with a completely different impression. The excerpt is from the second half of the article. All of he lengthy first half and then some almost reads like a McCain puff piece.

At length, the article describes how McCain's campaign suspension stunt allegedly spurred the Democrats to hunker down and quickly prepare a deal, spurred the Republicans in the House to quickly hunker down and prepare their own proposal, and in general had everybody moving up their game and rushing forward. Republicans who are annoyed by the dominant media narrative that McCain's campaign suspension was an empty stunt and that McCain was in no position to change or achieve anything anyway will be very happy with this article I think.

Even re the denouement of the article, the full thing at WaPo isnt anywere near the negative characterisation the excerpt on TPM suggests. A conservative reader will come away with the impression that McCain stopped the Senate Republicans from signing on to a bad deal and forced the House Republicans to get their act together and come up with an alternative.

Now I dont agree with this article, in the sense that I think it provides a biased impression. The way it almost entirely leans on the characterisations by Lindsey Graham, McCain's sidekick, and other Reps throughout the first 2/3rds, for example. But I'm glad that I read the full thing so I got to know what the thrust of the article really was, rather than what TPM's excerpt and characterisation suggested.

(Can you tell I've really been irritated by TPM recently? They dont lie and they are really good at digging through, analysing and presenting info, especially if it's incriminating info on a Republican move. But what they present is so selective that I increasingly feel I'm being played. And they'll swiftly shift from one argument to the next too, as with the McCain/Zapatero thing, if that's where the political opportunity lies, consistency be damned. As their name suggests TPM is really more of a campaign tool than a news resource. Which I guess is fine cause you need campaign tools too, but sure gets on my nerves. Anyway, that on a tangential rant.)

0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 09:53 pm
@ehBeth,
OK, fair enough.
0 Replies
 
barackman28
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 09:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
REALLY? Well, try this. Paint your face black and then go to Mississippi. If you don'tknow your way around, you won't last long. It's amazing how people who have never lived in the ghetto, have never been subjected to police brutality, who have never been turned down for a home mortgage and whose children have been able to go to decent schools,all of a sudden know that Mississippi has no racism against blacks.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 10:07 pm
@barackman28,
I'm not clear if you are a real poster, barackman. You do seem to make assumptions about what any of us have experienced.
barackman28
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 10:27 pm
@ossobuco,
Have you ever lived in Chicago? I don't mean the Chicago on Michigan Avenue,I mean the Chicago in the ghetto.

Do you know that at least 20% of the young men in my ward are in prison.

Do you know that the Chicago Schools are the worst in the country and that only 4.% of blacks from the South Side ever finish College.

Do you know that the Unemployment Rate among young black men in Chicago exceeds 25%?

If you don't know,it is you that make assumptions. Check the facts above out--
If you can't, I'll provide you with the evidence.
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 10:31 pm
@barackman28,
On the other hand, isn't Chicago the home town of the illustrious law professor, Richard Posner?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/15/2019 at 12:50:31