Here it is folks…the official thread to post your thoughts before, during, and after the debate.
I personally think both John McCain and Barrack Obama are good speakers, but I have to say Obama’s got this. I don’t know if his policies are best for America, but he’s a smart cookie, and I don’t think he’ll have any trouble handling anything McCain throws his way.
I could see McCain having trouble if Obama throws a curveball. But we’ll see soon enough. 
If McCain is smart, he’ll try to focus on international relations. If it drifts into any discussion of the economy, he is screwed. On the other side, Obama will have to point out flawed judgement from McCain. A little difficult, but doable. That McCain had to back down on scrapping the debate already has him on the defensive. His little stunt didn’t work. I’m looking forward to an enjoyable TV night… 
How much more international relations experience does McCain have compared to Obama? Was it just his exposure through the Senate? I don’t think being a military leader or serving has much to do with international relations, but feel free to crucify me for that comment.
JT, I agree, McCain is already behind before it’s even begun. I can’t see him presenting himself as well as Obama, and poise is critical. You can have the most innovative ideas, the best strategic mind, but if you can’t communicate effectively, none of that will matter. And for the record, I don’t think McCain has any of those things, not even close. As far as international relations, does McCain have experience beyond his military service? (I’m not challenging, just asking; I don’t know.) I would guess the majority of world leaders would prefer to sit down with Obama rather than a Bush successor…
McCain already won if his ads are to be believed. What a maverick! He declares victory before an event because he isn’t like those other Washington insiders who have spent their entire career in Washington, just like him . . .
Folks, you have to remember than McCain’s support is primarily with the high school education or less people. That, and the ultra-right conservatives. I do hope the debate is all about economics. If McCain supports the bail out, he loses points with the ultra-right. If he doesn’t support it, he loses with mainstreet. He’s maverick’d himself into a lose-lose scenario. I suspect that tonight’s debate is the pivotal debate where the undecideds will start deciding - and I can’t see McCain doing anything but falling further behind…
Anita, McCain has a bunch of congressional junkets on his resume that he can claim as “experience”. That none of it matters is moot. Most of his experience is in the same category as Palin claiming overseas experience by stopping in Ireland to refuel a plane. I wonder… did she take a pee break while they were on the ground? 
Well, one point that stands out to me is the no preconditions meetings with other countries.
Does anybody believe that meeting without preconditions “legitimizes” other countries economies? It seems obvious to me that you can meet with another country without necessarily supporting what they do.
I also thought the “broadening our scope” point made by Obama was good as well, and how we’ve been hyper-focused on Iraq.
CNN online survey:
54% Obama won
36% McCain won
Fox News text message survey:
82% McCaine won
16% Obama
I’d disagree with that. It is Taylor’s Tawny Port and Dark Eyes. There is a clear winner there even if we’d rather not talk about it.
David Brooks said this on McCain’s behalf:
"He lobbied relentlessly for a change of strategy in Iraq, holding off the tide that would have had us accept defeat and leave Iraq to its genocide. He negotiated a complicated immigration bill with Ted Kennedy. He helped organize the Gang of 14 and helped save the Senate from polarized Armageddon over judicial nominations.
He voted against opportunist bills like the pork-laden energy package and the prescription drug plan. He led a crusade against Jack Abramoff and the sleaze-meisters in his own party and exposed corrupt Pentagon contracts.
I could fill this column with his accomplishments during this period, and not even mention the insights. At a defense conference in Munich, I saw him diagnose and confront Russian hegemony. Week after week, I saw him dissent from G.O.P. colleagues as their party lost its way.
Some people who cover the campaign seem to have no knowledge of anything but the campaign, but I can’t get these events — which were real and required the constant application of judgment, honor and courage — out of my head."
Geeze, McCain is going to “fix” the finanacial mess by across-the-board spending freezes of government programs. That’s going to be a big boost to the economy. It just shows you how little he understands about economic issues. To suggest that government spending is the problem is to miss the point. Yes, the government is spending 10 billion a month to “spread democracy” in Iraq (overseas adventurism), and we all can accept that there is fat to be trimmed from government enterprises. But to propose across the board budget cuts is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is typical McCain simplistic answers to complex issues.
But it does make for great sound bites as long as you don’t stop to look at the consequences. I believe I finally see the McCain political strategy: Don’t think! Just vote for me!
How is it only people with highschool education/less voting/supporting mccain?
How is mccain’s plan to engage in nuclear plant building not hugely progressive? How many people above highschool education feel comfortable with the treasonous religious garbage that Obama has been implicated with? the fiasco with Obama’s Rev is absurd, and lets not pretend that Obama never heard a word of that nonsense before the media did.
Just as nut-case religious.
Iraq has seen improvements in a few short years that are beyond breath-taking, America has a responsibility to be there, if anyone agrees that they had a hand in setting up the dictatorship which largely fractured their country.
Obama is just as militant with his comments about Pakistan.
mccain is no great leader, but i can’t imagine that Obama is even the tiniest bit better.
Whats wrong with the nuclear plant building plans? America is eventually going to need to jump on that horse.
It’d be nice if the majority of us could conveniently hop a fast moving train.
What’s Obama’s solution?
I didn’t see the debate, just read about it in the news.
The economy doesn’t need boosting. It needs overhauling.
Then why talk of government spending as a possible boost to the economy?
Actually, it’s a Thatcherite economic policy. And she was a very successful politician.
Ditto all politicians. Though this issue really is rather simple - you give extremely rich people the means to make themselves richer, they’ll do it. Without the Federal Reserve system, none of this ‘credit crunch’ would have happened.
Like I say, what’s Obama’s answer? More high sounding rhetoric and ‘don’t think, just believe me’ arguments? I really dunno why you’re singling out McCain here. Well, I do, because it’s the American way (at least for some) to decry the political process and the people up for election, all the while repeating the same modes of thought that got the US into this mess in the first place.
Same thing happens over here.
America has more than enough oil and gas, even without exports, to satisfy its energy needs.
Nuclear plants increase the likelihood of a Chernobyl.
I repeat, American has more than enough oil and gas.
Though I take your overall point that a theoretically sound policy is being glossed over by many.
granted meltdown or whatever isn’t good, but the statistics on that, isn’t it massively, massively unlikely? (though I was reading that some of the work in heuristics/biases program display that these predictions are massively under-predicted).
Like, doesn’t france get like 80% of its energy from plants? I know the US may have enough oil or whatever to fuel itself, but it’d be nice to lay the groundwork for a future infra-structure.(sp?)
isn’t nuclear cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient? Maybe some money to be saved? besides, places that can power themselves are still building new energy technologies like solar power or the power of a waterfall or whatever.
Well I mean in the long run, building like 30 nuclear power plants is probably an expensive under-taking.
Here’s the fucked up thing about our nuclear plant situation:
We aren’t allowed to build new ones. So the only ones that are currently operating right now were built back in the 70’s, or whenever they passed the bill that says we can’t build any new ones. Since then, tons of new technology has been developed that would make nuclear plants much safer and more effective, but instead of being able to tear down the old plans and build new ones, we have to keep these unsafe ones. It makes no sense whatsoever. I have no doubt that either candidate would explore nuclear power.
I tivo the debate and came away with a couple of things.
First, MCain said on more than one occasion that republicans spending have been out of control
but he has been “Fighting” to cut back spending: the problem I see is he certainly wasn’t much of a leader
if he was so unsuccessful in his efforts cutting back spending. By his own admission, he failed to make much of a dent
in spending.
McCain flip flop on torture at one point saying he agreed with president Bush efforts on torture
then maybe an half hour later said he lead the fight to oppose torture.
Foreign policy and national defense is suppose to be McCain strong suit and
Obama matched him point for point.
As far as looking presidential, McCain looked a little smarmy, smug, flippant,
Obama looked and sounded better.
McCain was better by the end of the debate. He had settled down a bit.
Overall I would call it a draw and that bodes well for Obama given
the fact this was after all a debate on McCain’s turf.
Kropotkin