ehBeth
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 04:50 pm
nimh wrote:


Is anybody else excited about this idea of Obama and McCain debating each other at small-scale town halls through the summer?




As an over-the-fence observer I think it's a great idea.

If I were a Democrat in the U.S. I wouldn't support it. I don't think Obama's a strong enough debater to benefit from it.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 04:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

NO!

I'm with TNR. It's free advertising for McCain. Why bother?

Same reason I didn't want Obama to debate Hillary the last few times. It amounted to free ads for her. It didn't benefit him. And I doubt that these debates will benefit him much either.

Cycloptichorn



Would it not help to bridge the gap between Obama and the Independents? Or help his cause of reaching across the isle to Republicans?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 04:58 pm
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

NO!

I'm with TNR. It's free advertising for McCain. Why bother?

Same reason I didn't want Obama to debate Hillary the last few times. It amounted to free ads for her. It didn't benefit him. And I doubt that these debates will benefit him much either.

Cycloptichorn



Would it not help to bridge the gap between Obama and the Independents? Or help his cause of reaching across the isle to Republicans?


Who can say?

I mean, on one hand, it's been clear for a while that he's going to embarass McCain on some issues, where Gramps just isn't that knowledgeable.

On the other, it opens him up to coming off as more of an elitist, or gives McCain an opportunity to try and trap him in a gaffe. There are questions that when asked during a debate, are logically unsound, but to the untrained mind sound convincing.

I have judged debates of this type for 7 years, and can tell ya that they aren't as easy to do as you might think.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:04 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

NO!

I'm with TNR. It's free advertising for McCain. Why bother?

Same reason I didn't want Obama to debate Hillary the last few times. It amounted to free ads for her. It didn't benefit him. And I doubt that these debates will benefit him much either.

Cycloptichorn



Would it not help to bridge the gap between Obama and the Independents? Or help his cause of reaching across the isle to Republicans?


Who can say?

I mean, on one hand, it's been clear for a while that he's going to embarass McCain on some issues, where Gramps just isn't that knowledgeable.

On the other, it opens him up to coming off as more of an elitist, or gives McCain an opportunity to try and trap him in a gaffe. There are questions that when asked during a debate, are logically unsound, but to the untrained mind sound convincing.

I have judged debates of this type for 7 years, and can tell ya that they aren't as easy to do as you might think.

Cycloptichorn


And I've observed your guy in debates ... and -- as ehBeth said -- it's not his strength, as you know.

In short, I don't blame you for not wanting to take the chance he will come out scathed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:08 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

NO!

I'm with TNR. It's free advertising for McCain. Why bother?

Same reason I didn't want Obama to debate Hillary the last few times. It amounted to free ads for her. It didn't benefit him. And I doubt that these debates will benefit him much either.

Cycloptichorn



Would it not help to bridge the gap between Obama and the Independents? Or help his cause of reaching across the isle to Republicans?


Who can say?

I mean, on one hand, it's been clear for a while that he's going to embarass McCain on some issues, where Gramps just isn't that knowledgeable.

On the other, it opens him up to coming off as more of an elitist, or gives McCain an opportunity to try and trap him in a gaffe. There are questions that when asked during a debate, are logically unsound, but to the untrained mind sound convincing.

I have judged debates of this type for 7 years, and can tell ya that they aren't as easy to do as you might think.

Cycloptichorn


And I've observed your guy in debates ... and -- as ehBeth said -- it's not his strength, as you know.

In short, I don't blame you for not wanting to take the chance he will come out scathed.


Hahha, he's light-years better then McCain in debates. Clinton is excellent. Obama is so-so, depending on how familiar he is with the topic. McCain is simply bad.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:09 pm
Mame wrote:
And sometimes it takes time to accomplish all your goals. They're up against more than just the opposition. Someone who hasn't been in power doesn't know what to expect when he makes campaign promises. It's easier to believe someone who's been down that road, and this is Obama's first kick at this can. You have to excuse him for his ignorance, should he gain office.


Then perhaps it would be better for us to politely ask Obama to first practice with a few other cans, before he proposes to do ours.

This is the major leagues and amateurs aren't generally used by wise managers in the big leagues.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:10 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:


NO!

Why bother?



Uhhh...because it may help American voters make a reasoned decision?

Isn't this what Obama promises to be all about?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:12 pm
Quote:
American voters make a reasoned decision
well, I suppose that could happen but not on this planet.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
On the other, it opens him up to coming off as more of an elitist, or gives McCain an opportunity to try and trap him in a gaffe. There are questions that when asked during a debate, are logically unsound, but to the untrained mind sound convincing.


Yeah, like repeatedly asking McCain how many years he proposes to stay in Iraq: or Obama why he stayed so long in Wright's church.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:18 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Mame wrote:
And sometimes it takes time to accomplish all your goals. They're up against more than just the opposition. Someone who hasn't been in power doesn't know what to expect when he makes campaign promises. It's easier to believe someone who's been down that road, and this is Obama's first kick at this can. You have to excuse him for his ignorance, should he gain office.


Then perhaps it would be better for us to politely ask Obama to first practice with a few other cans, before he proposes to do ours.

This is the major leagues and amateurs aren't generally used by wise managers in the big leagues.


Ay yii yii, obi1! Everyone's got to start somewhere - you did! I'm reflecting on the politicians here in BC - all grandiose plans to start with and then reality soon sets in... ahhh, we can't do that this year because the previous govt made a commitment which entailed using the money for that, etc... they aren't privy to all the ins and outs of how the money was spent and what was exactly coming in and how. They aren't that familiar with all the people who will throw curve balls at them, nor will they know how those balls will spin out, so... I figure the first four years is a learning curve. You know that as well as I do.

Okay, maybe this is my last post in here Smile
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:29 pm
looking across the border - again .

if obama becomes the next president of the united states , it is not only obama who wins - but the united states and every american IMO .
i think it will have a tremendous impact on how the world sees the united states .
(i still think he will have an uphill battle against john mccain )

see : INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:32 pm
Hamburger - do you really think they will elect a Black Man or a White Woman? Everyone I talk to thinks there's NO WAY Americans will do that. What is your opinion?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 05:34 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
On the other, it opens him up to coming off as more of an elitist, or gives McCain an opportunity to try and trap him in a gaffe. There are questions that when asked during a debate, are logically unsound, but to the untrained mind sound convincing.


Yeah, like repeatedly asking McCain how many years he proposes to stay in Iraq: or Obama why he stayed so long in Wright's church.


Hmm, are those logically unsound questions? Nope. In fact, I believe that both of those are fair questions that deserve an answer.

Instead, I speak more of traditional logical fallacies, such as appeals to authority, begging the question, or the A2K favorite, the Ad Hominem attack. None of these logical fallacies is easily knocked down, and can be convincing to the untrained listener.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 06:15 pm
Doesn't look like ob1 is coming back, Cyclo, so you might have had to discourse with me, but unfortunately (for you), I'm going dancing, so you'll have to just wait for another unsuspecting dude to come along. Don't waste all your wit and facetiousness on one person, now. Have a nice night Very Happy
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 06:38 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It didn't benefit him. And I doubt that these debates will benefit him much either.

What about what benefits US politics, as a whole? You say that Obama is in any case a better debater than McCain. So isnt it worth considering to weigh up the potential harm for him, which would then be relatively small, to - you know - the benefit for American politics as a whole? For political culture?

I mean, jeez, do we really have to immediately limit ourselves to considering exclusively whether something is in the tactical benefit of Obama? We want him to win, but shouldnt the potential political cost for his candidacy of something not at least be balanced with its potential benefit for American politics overall? If the risk for him is relatively limited - as I assume you think it is, if you really think McCain is such a lousy debater - then doesnt that actually free us up to consider a broader interest here as well?

I also dont think your actual argument is very persuasive. You write:

Quote:
it [..] gives McCain an opportunity to try and trap him in a gaffe. There are questions that when asked during a debate, are logically unsound, but to the untrained mind sound convincing.

Isnt that risk actually a lot larger when you only have two or three, high-pressure, national network media debates moderated by a gotcha-chasing Russert or the like?

I mean, in this case you would have them squaring off in forum after forum, locally, in an environment that because of the sheer frequency alone will presumably be less high-charged. Forums organised by either the campaigns themselves or local media or some such. Compare that to those max three debates you see now, where the whole spirit is driven hysterically by the network media's need to score a quotable soundbite from this once-only opportunity.

The national debates now are defined by the ratings-chasing media's drive to get a "moment", a Bush Sr looks at his watch or Reagan says "there you go again" moment, that will go into history. If you'd have Obama and McCain debating at a dozen forums through the summer, the chances of some lethal gotcha moment dominating the whole experience would be a lot smaller, I'd think. A wrong impression in debate 7 could be corrected in debate 9. The stakes, I think, would actually be smaller. And at the same time, the audiences would be liable to hear a lot more from the candidates about concrete stuff, policy stuff - and the whole thing wouldnt be half as much focused on the whole freakshow that national pundits get off on so much, and most ordinary people dont give a F about.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 06:41 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
NO!

Why bother?


Uhhh...because it may help American voters make a reasoned decision?

Yeah, for once - what he said.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 07:41 pm
Mame wrote:
Ay yii yii, obi1! Everyone's got to start somewhere - you did! I'm reflecting on the politicians here in BC - all grandiose plans to start with and then reality soon sets in... ahhh, we can't do that this year because the previous govt made a commitment which entailed using the money for that, etc... they aren't privy to all the ins and outs of how the money was spent and what was exactly coming in and how. They aren't that familiar with all the people who will throw curve balls at them, nor will they know how those balls will spin out, so... I figure the first four years is a learning curve. You know that as well as I do.

Okay, maybe this is my last post in here Smile


Don't make this your last - a little common sense can't possibly hurt the thrread - even with all the BS flying back and forth.

I agree that everyone has to start somewhere, however even in BC I doubt that political leaders start at the top office in the province, or whether for the national election, Prime Minister is the general starting point.

Obama has about four years in the U.S. Senate and about six more in the state legislature in Illinois. No other significant experience in either business, the professions or the military. By normal standards this isn't much of a background for the presidency. He is certainly an uplifting speaker and an intelligent guy, but it isn't clear (at least to me) that he has the endurance and leadership required to really run the show after he is in office. There are also similar deficiencies of the other candidates, but none so great as Obama's (and perhaps Clinton).
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 08:52 pm
okie wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
okie wrote:
So I take it you can't name anything that Bush Cheney did to take away your rights. Please do not post anything you can't support with facts. This forum should be about more than somebody's vivid imagination.

Should be but it isn't! 1. Patriot Act, 2. Calling any person a terrorist and holding them with out charge, indefinitely; see Gitmo, 3. Warrantless Wiretaps, (illegal search and seizure). Just 3 of the most infamous charges of illegality. One more, investigating the backgrounds of the presidential candidates! See: State Department, who claims they know nothing! Anything else?
Rolling Eyes


Oh, one more; thought Congress declared war! Forgot! The dunces gave their authority to the President, who is now the dictator of the US!
Cool

No. 1, holding enemy combatants is the responsibility, not just a right, but a responsibility of any president, to protect the country. There is no violation or usurping of any rights that you have as a citizen of this country. No. 2, the Patriot Act, you need to thank your lucky stars for it, as it has been not only needed, but necessary to fight the war on terrorism. Unless you want the president to do nothing so that you can have the next 911 be dropped on where you live, I would suggest you be grateful, and no rights of yours have been taken away. Gitmo is a place to hold enemy combatants, and I read just a couple of days ago that one person that was released turned up in Iraq setting deadly bombs against our military personnel. By the way, even though we treat prisoners according to the Geneva Conventions, terrorists do not qualify for that treatment, as they do not wear a uniform or represent any country that ever signed onto the agreement. It is only our due benevolence that we treat our prisoners better than they do ours. They sever the heads of ours. 3. - Warrantless wiretaps, this is an errant interpretation of the 4th Amendment, and is not taking away any of your rights. It is entirely within the rights and responsibilities of the commander in chief in the course of protecting the country.

Lastly, investigating the backgrounds of presidential candidates, I seem to remember the Clintons illegally having FBI files on lots of people and nobody seemed to care at the time.


So Okie, they can hold YOU, okay? Accuse YOU of being a terrorist, when you know you aren't is what we're saying! You or anyone they SAY is one! Whatever happened to "probable cause"? You're just Joe Blow and they grab you off the street, okay? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 09:01 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Mame wrote:
Ay yii yii, obi1! Everyone's got to start somewhere - you did! I'm reflecting on the politicians here in BC - all grandiose plans to start with and then reality soon sets in... ahhh, we can't do that this year because the previous govt made a commitment which entailed using the money for that, etc... they aren't privy to all the ins and outs of how the money was spent and what was exactly coming in and how. They aren't that familiar with all the people who will throw curve balls at them, nor will they know how those balls will spin out, so... I figure the first four years is a learning curve. You know that as well as I do.

Okay, maybe this is my last post in here Smile


Don't make this your last - a little common sense can't possibly hurt the thrread - even with all the BS flying back and forth.

I agree that everyone has to start somewhere, however even in BC I doubt that political leaders start at the top office in the province, or whether for the national election, Prime Minister is the general starting point.

Obama has about four years in the U.S. Senate and about six more in the state legislature in Illinois. No other significant experience in either business, the professions or the military. By normal standards this isn't much of a background for the presidency. He is certainly an uplifting speaker and an intelligent guy, but it isn't clear (at least to me) that he has the endurance and leadership required to really run the show after he is in office. There are also similar deficiencies of the other candidates, but none so great as Obama's (and perhaps Clinton).


That's odd, Dubya didn't have any experience either! He was just the Governor and I don't know how he got that! Think Daddy bought it for him? A Repug in a Democratic State, that suddenly went RED?

Why all of a sudden you need exoerience, when the only qualification needed is you be a native American and be at least 35 years of age. Doesn't say you even have to have an education, much less, experience!

Is it because he's Black? Hillary thinks she's entitled! That's mighty "white" of her, seeing that she's playing the "race" card to the hilt! I find it odd, that a credible Black man, highly educated, is a christian, no matter who the pastor is. I know a lot of devious priest out there, although, I'm Roman Catholic and Black! Funny, ain't it? Hillary thinks all blue-collared white folks will vote for her. I hope not, because she doesn't give a rat's ass about them! Do you?

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 12 May, 2008 09:23 pm
teenyboone wrote:
Is it because he's Black?


Yes! It's because he's a black man! That's exactly it! You nailed it on the head, teenyboone. You so smart.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 846
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 02:32:11