Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That seems to be the central question that arose out of the first Presidential debate. What do you think? Was McCain right? Is Obama naive? Or is McCain somehow off base? Does he miss the big picture? Does his drive for victory impede his ability to think in the long term?

Considering that Obama had more on-topic and non-wandering answers to both the lead questions AND McCain's comments, I'd say he gets it quite well. McCain would say that Obama didn't get it even if Obama agreed line-by-line with him, as long as he is McCain's competition; it doesn't mean it's true.

If anyone's victory tactics are impeding their judgement (or shortcircuiting it altogether), it's McCain. All the one-trick ponies and Rove-style lies, he must find it hard to remember which flip or flop he's supposed to be following on a particular day.

It was almost too civil. Technically that's a good thing, debates should be about logic and not emotion, but I kept wanting one to go on the attack, they kept agreeing whenever it was convenient, they both want to seem like they're bipartisan.

It just comes down to ideological differences. If you are on one side you tend to think the other doesn't get it regardless of what side you are on.

Ahtman wrote:It just comes down to ideological differences. If you are on one side you tend to think the other doesn't get it regardless of what side you are on.

ummm I am republican.... I think Obama is just a better canidate for the presidency this time. I also though Bush was horrible!

Personally I evaluate their motives more then their camps... but then I am the exception not the rule...

Ahtman wrote:It just comes down to ideological differences. If you are on one side you tend to think the other doesn't get it regardless of what side you are on.

True enough, though I am hesitant to regard the break as being so simple. In the past both the Republicans and the Democrats have been bound to the development of self-interest through an appreciation of deeper orders of causality. To my mind the only difference between the two parties has been the extent to which they were willing to submit their motives to transparent consideration. But this election feels very different. The neocons are being ousted from the Republican Party with surprising alacrity, and in their stead populism has taken hold. A populism which represents immediate judgment against average wisdom.

In my mind the transformation of the Republican party has begotten a kind of cultural showdown; pitting 'large' and 'small' worldviews against each other in a struggle for supremacy.

Here's hoping mediocrity falls flat on its face.

Crablezworth wrote:It was almost too civil. Technically that's a good thing, debates should be about logic and not emotion, but I kept wanting one to go on the attack, they kept agreeing whenever it was convenient, they both want to seem like they're bipartisan.

A good sign they're both lying.

Or in cahoots but that's unlikely...

It'll be interesting to see how the new "attack dog" McCain comes over in the town-hall-style debate on Tuesday. I have to wonder, though, why they've decided to go so negative; it's already turning off the centrist undecideds, and an angry McCain is a losing McCain.

He's behind in the polls. When you're behind you often go negative.

Yeah, I agree with jfrazell, he's behind in the polls so this is the necessary move.

Given the only thing that's really prevented McCain from receiving the pasting the rest of the Republicans have been getting in this election is McCain's own reputation, this is more likely to backfire than anything else, but at this stage it's worth a punt.

dogma wrote:That seems to be the central question that arose out of the first Presidential debate. What do you think? Was McCain right? Is Obama naive? Or is McCain somehow off base? Does he miss the big picture? Does his drive for victory impede his ability to think in the long term?

Personally, I think the debate was all about presentation. A chance to compare/contrast the two of them...at the same time. Considering Obamas break with the factory crowd, his limp-wristed early reactions to attacks and how McCain is 'tough'...I thought it was important for Obama to challenge and 'look' like he belonged there. I'm sure the top two bullet points on Obamas prep was

John McBush
Look Presidential

I think that's why during the debate Obama often turned to McCain and addressed him directly (I think this was coming regardless of Lehrer). In short, he needed to be alpha and I think he did a reasonable job. That said, this next month is going to be a bloodbath...

Keating 5
Ayers
Temper
Liberal

That should sum up the ads...

Unfortunately I think a bloodbath plays right into McCain's hands. The man has wanted a fistfight for quite some time. He isn't comfortable being a man of tact and compromise; that's why very few of his bills get passed.

But a fistfight isn't what the electorate wants, and it's their opinion that matters. He can get his knuckles bloody, but it'll be himself who gets beaten up.

I think the electorate would love a good fist fight. I know I would. I think Palin could take, well all of them, in a good fistfight. I could see Biden laying about him with a beer bottle though so he'd be my second choice...

Gods know Palin isn't getting anywhere in a war of words...

Mannahnin wrote:Gods know Palin isn't getting anywhere in a war of words...

Well to quote Conan, that ultimate politician, "Enough Talk!" (hurls dagger).

Just think how many bad presidents we would have avoided with a little brawling.

Kennedy? maybe. He could drink so that counts a lot. Nixon is too Darth Vader for a good bar room brawl. He'd bring a gun to a knife fight.

Johnson? No. He probably invented brawling East Texas.

Ford? No Ford was expert in PratfallDo. No one could lay a hand on him.

Carter? Check. One down.

Clinton? No, he was a lover not a fighter

Bush II? Check. No proof he couldn't take a punch. Two down.

I prefer "If my hands were free," opined Conan, "I'd soon make a brainless corpse out of you."

ummm I am republican.... I think Obama is just a better canidate for the presidency this time. I also though Bush was horrible!

Personally I evaluate their motives more then their camps... but then I am the exception not the rule...

Agree but anymore I can't tell the parties apart. They have flip floped in totally opposite directions that you can't even argue ideology anymore. If you want small government spending and welfare reform vote Republican eerr or is that Democrat. As for a true conservative in this election Palin is just not enough to vote for someone as Liberal as McCain. Palin is a complete idiot all she is missing is blonde hair and she would fit the stereo type. Scares me enough thinking McCain is just old enough to kick the bucket and then look what you would have. The one thing I like about Obama is at least he would be an intelligent president and he seems to have sourrounded himself with competant people and I do believe he would listen to his advisors/advice from Biden. McCain on the other hand seems stubborn enough to just do it his own way regardless and I don't think we need another Bush at this point.

Mannahnin wrote:I prefer "If my hands were free," opined Conan, "I'd soon make a brainless corpse out of you."

Excellent...

Do you have any of the recent Del Ray large-format paperback collections of RE Howard's short stories? They're excellent. I got the Solomon Kane and the Bran Mak Morn volumes first, and I'm in the middle of the first Conan volume (The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian) now. Really good stuff.

Nothing recent. Its been a long time since I read Howard. I may have to take that back up. In turn I'd note the Thomas Covenant has a new (final) series in mid publication.

Let's be honest, Palin wouldn't ever be involved in a fist fight. She'd shoot you while riding in a helicopter with a high powered rifle when you have absolutely no means to threaten her.

..whilst claiming it's for your own good !

CorporateLogo wrote:Let's be honest, Palin wouldn't ever be involved in a fist fight. She'd shoot you while riding in a helicopter with a high powered rifle when you have absolutely no means to threaten her.

You say that like its a bad thing.

dogma wrote:Unfortunately I think a bloodbath plays right into McCain's hands. The man has wanted a fistfight for quite some time. He isn't comfortable being a man of tact and compromise; that's why very few of his bills get passed.

Perhaps. Tonights debate will be telling, as I'm sure McCain is going to be pretty rough. If Obama handles himself well tonight, barring an Oct. shocker...election is wrapped. I predict a landslide for Obama.

Lemartes wrote:As for a true conservative in this election Palin is just not enough to vote for someone as Liberal as McCain.

I agree that the current Republican party aren't conservatives. But McCain isn't a liberal, even by the extremely warped standards of the far right of American politics this isn't true.

This is true. Of course Obama is about as hard left as we have seen a candidate coming out of the Democratic party nomination in some time. Had you nominated a more moderate person, this election would have been over already. With an unpopular war and interesting economy the Democrat candidate should be ahead 15 to 20 points.

Frazzled wrote:This is true. Of course Obama is about as hard left as we have seen a candidate coming out of the Democratic party nomination in some time. Had you nominated a more moderate person, this election would have been over already. With an unpopular war and interesting economy the Democrat candidate should be ahead 15 to 20 points.

Policy wise Obama is only hard left in comparison to the deeply skewed Neocon right. Indeed, I imagine it would be very difficult to find a global political scale where he was anything but right of center.

As to the war. I think that, while it may be unpopular, most people still want to see it 'won'. This plays into McCain's hands on account of the stupidity of the average American. Iraq will not be 'won' in the sense of V-day parades and other nonsense. The troops will return home quietly, and we will all wait and see how long the virgin edifice implanted by the US can hang on in hostile territory. What's really scary is that I'm not sure if McCain knows that there will be no V-day. That there is no proverbial Berlin to storm.

dogma wrote:

Policy wise Obama is only hard left in comparison to the deeply skewed Neocon right. Indeed, I imagine it would be very difficult to find a global political scale where he was anything but right of center.

Er...yeahhh... so who would you consider a leftward leaning politician then?

There aren't any in the US. At least there haven't been in recent years. That's one of the reasons its been so easy for Republicans to define the difference between the parties through social policy. Unless you count 3rd parties, like the Greens.