Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: McCain might well have won if he didn’t seem like such a jerk

By: Aaron F

Aaron F — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:45:57 +0000

I listened to the audio of this debate without picture a couple hours after it first transpired. I’m glad I took that step, as I knew I would be more impressed by the body language and poise of Barack Obama. Observing in this manner guaranteed I was focused on the words, and because of that I was more impressed with John McCain than I thought I would be.

I’m about as leftist as one gets, but McCain was more lively in this debate than at any moment in debates past. His aggression also seemed to be part of the reason why the candidates finally moved beyond offering soundbites – as much as I agree with Obama about McCain’s voting record mirroring Bush’s agenda I didn’t need to hear it again.

That noted, once I moved on to perusing various fact checking blogs I was horrified at how much mischaracterization of fact McCain blatantly engaged in. Obama made his fair share of gaffes also, but McCain did nearly everything in his power to outright lie about the policy stances of Barack Obama.

I attempted to come into this debate with an open mind to the thoughts of both candidates. I have been a decided voter since the end of the Democratic primary, but John McCain just squandered the last chance for me to respect his campaign or his candidacy.

By: Sarrellec

Sarrellec — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:48:44 +0000

Thank you. McCain “won” this debate?!?!?
Obama had facts and figures and McCain had eye-rolls and stuttered around his own policies.
Of course, to those in the top 5% who would benefit from McCain’s continuation of the transfer of wealth from those that can least afford it to those that least need it, then McCain’s policies would definitely be a win.
It slays me when Repugs whine about wealth transfer. AS IF government corporate give-aways AREN’T transferring wealth.
And as for Obama campaigning against Bush: Why not? All we’ve heard for the last 8 years is how Clinton’s policies are responsible for Bush’s administration’s failures. AS IF Clinton and not Bush has been President for the last eight years.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:45:11 +0000

Perhaps he was coached on debating style by his running mate…

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:11:39 +0000

I’m disheartened by the level of misinformation being put out by BOTH campaigns and the ignorance of misinformed people who are blaming the entire economic scenario on the Republicans and don’t research the issues in a non-biased fashion. BOTH parties are at fault for this economic mess. Democrats controlled congress, while Republicans controlled the white house while this mess transpired and neither did anything to stop it (except maybe write a few warning letters or introduce doomed legislation, both actions to try to cover their political butts). Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D) were over KEY committees in congress that regulate key sectors in our economy and they did nothing. President Clinton signed into law the law that pushed sub-prime lending, and key Republicans supported it. President Bush was asleep at the wheel for whatever reason. If you truly believe one party or another is at fault, then you have fallen into the sickening hypnosis of either party’s rhetoric to lull you into blindly voting for them.

BOTH PARTIES are at fault…period. To blame it on one party or another is just more political scapegoating that is the same old thing we’ve seen in Washington for years.

I have heard people on both sides talking about the arrogance and mannerisms of both candidates, and frankly, I think it’s more a matter of personal bias toward who you are leaning toward than true analysis. It’s fairly obvious to anyone who doesn’t have leanings either way that they both have mannerisms that were learned more in kindergarten than in adulthood.

Personally, I’d prefer to vote out all the politicians and start over, but we don’t have that choice. We have had a second severe economic crisis in approximately 80 years after the Great Depression, and we should all be alarmed at the leadership of all our leaders, not just one party or another.

And frankly, I don’t believe either of these candidates has the leadership potential to truly pull us out of this crisis. I hope I’m wrong.

By: HappyGoLucky

HappyGoLucky — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:36:55 +0000

McCain did run in 2000. He lost the nomination.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:29:52 +0000

Strange, I keep hearing that this election is about the issues. But when McCain wins on the issues, you guys say it’s actually the personal stuff that matters most. Hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:16:09 +0000

So, McCain tells Obama he should have run four years ago to oppose Bush. Why didn’t McCain do that if he’s the socalled “maverick”, which he isn’t and never will be. He voted with Bush more than 90% of the time, that qualifies him to be a maverick? NOT!

If neocons hate anything resembling socialization of programs, then I guess they’ll have to remove their kids from the public school system and send them to private school, stop allowing them to use public libraries, privatize social security, medicare, medicaid, police force, the military, you name it. Another thing….if neocons lost their jobs, wealth, possession, health insurance, how would they get access to health care? They would not be able to access medicaid because they don’t believe in socialized medicine now can they? They are champions of the doublestandard and idiots to boot.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:55:40 +0000

McCain ‘won’ the debate on content?

Really?

I counted at least FIVE major outright ERRORS on his part:

1. Simultaneously advocated cutting spending while approving massive new bailout programs.

2. Was completely taken abck by Obama’s ‘Zero.” response to the question of penalties for those who fail to provide health insurance. McCain erroneously (though the information being available both online AND during the last debate) that Obama’s health plan does NOT penalize small businesses.

3. Claimed that Obama voted against a Supreme COurt justice who was confirmed during the CLINTON administration – a time when Obama was not in ANY OFFICE.

4. Downplayed the ‘health of the woman’ is the abortion question – denigrating the value of the life of a living, breathing human over a fetus.

5. Misstated the history of ACORN and Obam’s ties to William Ayers.

If this is what some of you call a ‘win on points’, I would hate to have you as MY fornesics judge in a competition!

By: bud clark

bud clark — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:15:15 +0000

McCain smiles like Cheney … sca-RY! I agree … he was, by turns, petulant, arrogant, sarcastic, rude … but above all, just plain untruthful. It’s like somebody said … he snuck out the back door of Congress and ran around to the front, claiming to be the maverick … the new guy … the reformer … the “classic” small-government Republican … when in point of fact, it was HIS REPUBLICAN PARTY, HIS REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN CONGRESS, and HIS REPUBLICAN pRESIDENT, George DUHB-yah Busch, who spent the last eight years getting us INTO this mess. You have to hand it to Busch … no other US President has managed to SINGLE-HANDEDLY crash the WORLD economy. And, Sen. McCain, I don’t need a $5K tax credit for healthcare … I don’t HAVE $5K to SPEND on healthcare … so your healthcare plan is useless to me, and to MOST people who make under $50K per year. Republicans just don’t seem to “get” that a HEALTHY work-force is a PRODUCTIVE work-force.

Cheers,

Bud Clark
San Diego CA USA

By: John

John — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:58:55 +0000

Although he technically “won” on debating points, this was not a good night for John McCain. Intentionally or otherwise, McCain pretty much embodied every negative stereotype people have about old white men in this debate. He was arrogant, sarcastic, and seemed to have major entitlement issues. He has truly become a symbol of the “old guard.” It is rather sad, really, watching him morph into Bob Dole.