Debate 2: M v. O - Who won?
 

I thought we should have a poll. I hate to say it, but I think McCain did much better than I expected. That said, he still got beaten rather severely, IMO.

There wasn't really any new policy announced or anything. Except this "the government should buy up bad mortgages" plan, which, WOW.

Obama came across as the more steady, reliable, level-headed, and trustworthy. McCain looked desperate and whiny. There were some places he seemed like his feet were on the ground, but most of the time he sounded like he was pleading with the voters to come over to his side of things. "I really DO know how to fix the economy! No SERIOUSLY! I really DO know how!"

I thought that the town hall format gave both of them an opportunity to flex their room-working muscle. It's a McCain strength, which Obama topped. Aside from the physicality of it, I thought it was a fairly unremarkable conversation.

Ha, I got that too.

The one thing that really tipped this to Obama to me was that he demanded to defend the truth. In the previous two debates, candidates just went along with whatever the other ended up saying last. He said that he needed to refute what McCain had said, and he did. I don't like that people just listen to McCain statements about Obama's tax plan. Like saying that he didn't say how much the fee was. Well... yes he did... ZERO. Different times I realize, but it edged on seeming a bit more like a debate for a minute.

The flip side; McCain did seem to be on his game. Although I don't agree with his agenda, he seemed to stick to it fairly well. He seemed to be genuinely pumped up about persuading people sometimes, and generally he seems tired and old to me.

Given that very little substance was offered, I think Obama came across as looking and sounding more confident, more likable, more concerned about voters concerns and generally more "presidential"
-----Added 7/10/2008 at 11 : 51 : 31-----
I'm a little surprised that the spread was so wide on the network "insta-polls" of undecided focus groups:

NBC's focus group of undecided Pennsylvania voters had Obama winning by 60-40

CBS's focus group of independents had Obama winning 39-27, with 35 percent saying it was a tie.

CNN's focus group of undecided voters in Ohio had Obama winning 54 -30.

Picking Warren Buffet (I wish one of them would have said Ron Paul) for Treasury Sec was a good move. Building nuclear power plants isn't a bad idea. He had some other good ideas and points too.

Neither of them will do very much to create surpluses. They should be asked, if there is a surplus, what should be done with that money? And I loved the question about trusting them with our money.

If McCain wants to sway voters, he and Palin should make a movie about what life will be like in the US in 2012 after 4 years of his leadership. Where were people in 2008 and where are they now. Sell me on your vision and show me that it will work. I know regulation things work, but it has some downsides. But I am having trouble understanding how my life and society will change under his presidency.
-----Added 8/10/2008 at 12 : 00 : 55-----
There are plenty of people who feel that there should be a fine equal to the amount that healthcare costs federal employees. Therefore, anyone who wants to hire someone in this country (legally or not) will need to pay for healthcare coverage. I'm sure companies will raise prices to offset the new expenses, but at least they are competing on fair terms and not taking away health care coverage to compete in the marketplace.

oh how I wish that would have happened.

@Asus - For sure, I'm not even sure I would argue against those fines. My point is that Obama did answer the question McCain posed. "Maybe we'll here about that tonight?" or something to this effect. He said NO FINES!, only a 50% tax break to companies that do. I can see how this can be misconstrued as a fine. None-the-less, health care=good entirely private health care in a failing economy where people are getting screwed by insurance already=not as good.
-----Added 8/10/2008 at 12 : 11 : 49-----
That would have been spectacular. I've said a million times(ok less) that a people like Paul Buffet, and the late Milton Friedman are the only hope for the economy.

This is pretty much how I felt about the entire thing. McCain seems to be an old man automaton that repeats the same thing over and over. Obama, at the very least, mixes up the phrasing of what he says (though the content may be the same), and chooses different words to express himself. The result is that he comes across as more intelligent and presidential.

The debate or should I say series of mini-speeches was probably technically a tie from a debating judge standpoint. But since Obama is still somewhat unknown he benefits from more public exposure rather than being defined by the opposition so I give the edge to him. The more people see and hear him the more comfortable they are supporting him. I think this has been the case since the early primaries.

Miltron Freidman is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in. What would he do to save us? More deregulation? More tax breaks for the wealthy?

I will note that the establishment of a Miltron Freidman Inst. is now controversial even at the University of Chicago. 5 years ago -- even two -- the Miltron Freidman Funhouse would have steamrolled through with nary a peep. I quote from a campus visitor last week:

“The Milton Friedman Institute is going to be the academic equivalent of a big yellow Hummer parked in the middle of your beautiful campus: a two hundred million dollar dinosaur gone extinct before the paint is dry,”

Wow. Friedman's neoliberal policies of deregulation, cutting taxes and hollowing out the government are the foundation of our current financial crisis.

To ask for more of the same is a bit odd.


I am not asking for a the opposite (i.e. heavy regulations, more taxes and more government) just a balanced approach.

There is a lot more to Milton Friedman's meme than you both suggest. He is very thoughtful. I don't want more deregulation, either. However, I do want the people making the decisions to understand the damned system. Just because our current economic situation is totally craptastic doesn't mean that capitalism is out of the question.

If you haven't read it, I strongly suggest Capitalism and Freedom. It is his only work I've read, but I found there to be volumes of logical thoughts about the way things should work. I believe that perhaps if the government hadn't been so vital in increasing the gap between wealthy and poor our state of capitalism would be much, much better, but I'm hardly even a novice on the subject. There is a lot more at work in our financial failure than deregulation... Like this wonderful story "dooH niboR" where all of the poor people are raped of their money so that the upper 3% can buy more hummers and Hummers.

Either way, he's dead now, so no go. This guy can put things in terms that are logical and articulate, something I've yet to see from anybody in D.C.

McCain did a better job in some areas but in all the flash polls I saw he was beaten pretty handily.. especially when it came to the economic issues. Obama had a 20% margin in that area. Also, watching some of the dial tests going on, people (especially independents) were not fond of McCain's "that one" remark or his remarks on the government buying up bad home loans. Umm.. I don't want to get started on that issue, but that is absolutely stupid.

This debate however did nothing for either side. It was like one long stump speech for both candidates. I wish the campaigns would just say fuck the rules and let the two go at it for a bit.

McCain is in serious trouble. He knows it. He can't connect anymore and he's going to pay the price even more with his disdain and condescending attitude.

herk--you have got to be joking. while it's the case that friedman's most influential document is an article in the ny sunday times, it is nonetheless the case that the bulk of his non-specialist writing is an extended argument for the separation of profit generation from any and all ethical frameworks, the assumption that profit generation IS an ethics...the argument from specialization is weak, the separations at the base of his conceptions untenable. but the main thing is that friedman is at the source of neoliberalism, which is an IDEOLOGY within capitalism and not capitalism itself. to argue as you do is like actually believing some evangelical protestant group which claims that it and it alone IS christianity. it's stupid, self-serving nonsense.

guyy--the fate of the mfi is funny stuff. i wonder what uc will repaint it as. maybe a coffee house.


as to who won the tedious debate, i don't see much of a contest. i watched the cnn coverage for a little while so i could see the goofy little reaction ekg box twitch about, but it seemed mostly to flatline (then i got sick of it)...flatline is what i thought of the whole thing, but not in the way cnn would have one imagine the term.

I knew I wasn't the only one watching that graph flatlining.
I almost expexted the trauma squad to come out,
with the paddles, and yell "clear!"

The tediousness of the whole charade, was shocking indeed.

That wasn't a debate. that was one guy mentioning how the OTHER one wanted to do things.

Obama: I Know McCain wants this and that.

McCain: Well Obama wants this and that.

how about they tell us what they want, not what the other one wants.

when asked questions, then never really stated how they will do this, and what real plans they do have.

They never really stated the basics: Who, What, When, Where, Why!?

the How even.

Just remember all, they are not the only two to vote for.

There was a "third party candidates debate" in Nashville sponsored by the Coalition for October Debate Alternatives the night before the "big guys" debate....but the next "biggest guys" - Nader, Barr, McKinney - didnt participate....leaving the Boston Tea Party to battle the Socialists

Alternative debate has its own issues

I would still like to see it, but cant find a youtube....not that it would change my vote.

I read back through what I said over and over again, and I do not see myself equating neo-liberalism to capitalism. I mean to distinguish between the two. You can have the rhombus without a square. That is the point. There is a lot more to capitalism than regulation vs. deregulation. I certainly don't mean to offend people or support deregulation. Either way, he makes a some points that I think are intelligent. I can understand why you call me stupid, I suppose, but self-serving... I guess I don't understand.

I'd rather not continue this because it does force me into a bit of a corner. I yield.

I guess I'm stoopid, D'oh. I never heard of Paul Buffet. Friedman I've heard of, and I agree seems odd timing to START deregulating. At some point don't we reach the equivalent of monkeys flinging feces?

But, seriously asking for some balanced approach in the US on any political issue anymore is a pipe dream. The media (with a whole lotta help) turned the whole process into a three ring circus. Oddly enough it only has two rings- us and them. And it doesn't matter which side your on- you're right and the other side's wrong... period. Middle ground is for pussies and losers and more importantly they don't do anything for ratings.


As for the debate I think it was close, maybe even a tie. But Obama did more tom help himself, IMHO. McCain needed to knock one out of the park and I don't think he ever even got any wood on the ball.

I intended a comma between Paul and Buffet. I am NOT asking for deregulation. Can we leave my posts regarding the issue alone? I've already yielded. I lose.

What I find the most ludicrous is that most Proud Republican Americans don't seem to know is that what they support isn't just capitalism, it's abject enslaving of the masses to the whim of corporatist interests as a subset of capitalists, who they themselves don't even realise they're spewing nonsense, even as they drive their nation over a cliff, then hit the gas.

Free Markets != what we* have now.
Free Markets !(have to)= chaos (as they surey would with the invisible, non-existant hand guiding them)

Please.

Mutualism.
Cooperatives.
Individual Enterprise.

Please please please.

The ideology of corporate entities being supreme has NOTHING to do with capitalism, and EVERYTHING to do with something verging on Leninism or Stalinism (I await my correction from rb). ;)

Forget this model. Forget the illusions the tv pumps out at you while those who delude you buy your representatives. Forget it all.

Governments provide or organise for basic needs.

Education
Healthcare
Defence (not empire building)
Social support

They should need no direct taxation of workers to support any of that.

The 'property/corporate' party, no matter who wins this election, will still be in power.

*we as in all those nations who have accepted and extolled the virtues of the neo-liberal agenda. Look at Iceland for the idea of where that will lead. Probably has already led.

Pretty much anyone under the age of 40 was raised in a US culture that was awash in the free market neo-liberal meme. As roachboy points out, it's difficult to see the ideological preconceptions when you are soaking in it. It usually takes something traumatic (like the current financial crisis) for people to take a hard look at what they are doing... even then its likely they won't see the forest for the trees.

(can I *use* any more tired cliches?)