[courtneybangelcakes]

President Bush is the President of the United States, not just Republicans. Of all the people, and Obama won't subject himself to this.

[Cristofle]

He may not be the best President

No, he's the worst President. He's the worst President in my lifetime, certainly. And will likely go down as one of the worst overall. I don't call Bush my President- I didn't vote for him. I don't have one iota of respect for the man- in fact, I'm utterly disgusted by him. I think he's run this country into the ground. His disastrous health care plans have had a directly negative impact on MY life. I still feel like Clinton is more my President every time I hear him speak. I wish he were, at any rate.

That said, Obama was likely referring to him that way to hammer home the 90% with-Bush voting record, and he was referring to the Republican party.

I seriously doubt that putting down Bush will do Obama any harm, as an aside. Given his whopping 27% approval rating. Obama is pulling ahead in the polls as a result of the economic disaster BECAUSE people blame Bush for it and associate McCain with Bush.

[ceilirose]

Originally Posted by Cristofle (View Post) That said, Obama was likely referring to him that way to hammer home the 90% with-Bush voting record, and he was referring to the Republican party.

Exactly. It's not rocket science - align your opponent with Bush who is at an all time low in approval ratings. If I'm not mistaken it's what Bush did in 2000 when he ran against Gore - aligned Gore with Clinton.

Don't you think there's a reason that Bush isn't out there publically campaigning for McCain/Palin or why there was not a tribute to Bush/Cheney at the RNC convention? No Republican running for re-election wants to be associated with them.

Also what is Obama supposed to own up to?

[Cristofle]

McCain doesn't want to be associated with him! LOL. He acts like Bush is the redheaded stepchild and he's the maverick reformer. That's not the case, which is what Obama is pointing out with the voting record, but McCain tries to distance himself from Bush precisely because Bush is such a public embarassment. Obama needs to hammer home to the independents the similarities in their policies and voting records, and I think that would be why he specifically referred to him lke that.

[collide]

Originally Posted by *Ledi* (View Post) Did we watch the same debate? Because from what I saw, McCain was the one doing that every single time Obama was answering a question. I can back this up with Youtube videos, too.

Honestly. McCain was McSmirk last night. He was totally unprofessional.

The "your president" thing was probably because those two are both Republicans.

[4N6 DNA]

I always love debates. Its always refreshing to hear both of their unfiltered answers to difficult questions and direct retorts to the speculation and accusation.

Something that I feel Obama did and does really well is clarify things. I like that he always uses the phrase "Lets be Clear..." followed by the clarification or elaboration on the thought. Another thing that I think that Obama did a good job with was refraining from completely denouncing McCain and his ideas. Often times Obama would say that he agrees with McCain on the importance of an issue, but then would go on to explain how differently he would have addressed or approached it. I think that this gives the voters (mostly the undecided ones) a sense that Obama understands that republicans and democrats have the same goals, just different paths. I feel a sense of some unity, that we are all worried about the same thing but just differ in how we solve it. I mean republicans are certainly not "against saving lives", as some would accuse because of their opposition to stem cells. They simply have a different approach when it comes to saving those lives. Same goal, different path. I think that Obama reinforced that with some of the things he said.

As for McCain, I think that he did a very good job in distinguising himself from Obama with regards to foreign policy and the economy. He sucessfully laid out the differences in the framework of his and Obamas ideas and kept it open to interpretation of the voters. I think that this is what the debates are all about. I find that helpful. But, I think that he is going to get a bit of flack for his miss-speak on Pakistan as a failed state.

Overall, it was good. I wish they'd talked a bit more about the bailout, and touched on a bit of science and technology. Will we be getting that in another debate?

[metal heart]

Originally Posted by **SuperGirl** (View Post) Maybe it's just me, but I think that it's odd that so many people get worked up over a look that a candidate gives, or no look in McCain's case. It's the first debate, he gave his answers to the 'moderator' when asked, so I still don't see why everyone's getting all worked up about it.

lehrer was the one who kept on insisting they look at each other

[**SuperGirl**]

We have two more debates, right Jessie? So, maybe they'll get to that.

Yeah, he wanted them to look at each other and speak to each other directly. But if McCain wanted to direct his answers to the moderator and people at home, I'm not going to put it past him.

I can understand why you would say Obama was saying "Your President" because McCain is a Republican...but as you've said yourself, McCain has distanced himself from Bush and has made it more than clear that he hasn't agreed on everything that's been done. But again, he is the President of the United States, whether you like him or not. If an American citizen says that they will not associate Bush being their President is one thing. But Obama, someone who's actually running for the position is another. And Bush being the worst President is a matter of opinion.

On a side note, I look forward to more discussion between them about the war in Iraq.

[4N6 DNA]

Yep, I believe we get 3 total. I was wondering if there was a set structure of type of questions they asked on each debate though. This one didn't seem to cover very many topics that are hot topics. Maybe they are saving them for another debate?

Originally Posted by **SuperGirl** (View Post) On a side note, I look forward to more discussion between them about the war in Iraq.

Same with me, but I'd like them to discuss the war outside of simply who would leave with honor or stay with dishonor. Which is what they seemed to have been doing the last debate. I'd like them to talk to the American people about what changes will be made to insure that, whether we are still in this war or not, we will be safe and protected at home both physically and financially. I would go out on a limb and say that many of the American people (particularly the struggling) are not as concerned about our country's honor, as they are with getting by every day without the loved one or financial security for their family.

[UnsilentMajorty]

If we analyze the debate from a strictly mechanical perspective, Obama should not have said he agreed with McCain as many times as he did.

The number one rule of debate is never agree with your opponent no matter what. Instead, he could have said, "Senator McCain, brings up a good point, but I would have handled it differently", or "I'm glad Senator McCain brought that up, because this is what I would do differently..." and then go on to give his answer/statement. Debate is all about language and subtly and I think in the next two debates Obama's people will put a moritorium on how many times he says he agrees with Senator McCain.

Moving on...

If you guys really want to argue semantics about the "your president" line... That's fine, but it is pointless IMO because this is not the most important issue at hand.

In the real world people don't arbitrarily deserve respect. They earn it. This includes the President of the United States. George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. This is not subjective opinion, this will be proven with overwhelming statistical (GNP; Unemployment rate; National Debt vs. Surplus; etc.) and anecdotal (9/11; Iraq; Guantanamo Bay; etc) data. We, the taxpayers, are having to bailout Wall Street, for Pete's sake! If this doesn't tell you how bad a President he has been and how bad things have been under HIS WATCH then I don't know what can. Further more, he has consistently shown disrespect to anybody who is not his "base" (either wealthy, or Evangelical Christian) and is the first president in U.S. history to attack a country which did not attack us first. He and the Republicans have destroyed this country. This is not hyperbole and exaggeration anymore. We are almost at a point of financial ruin that could plunge us into a Great Depression. This is how bad a president he has been and why he has not earned the respect in the minds of many both here and abroad...

[Cristofle]

Exactly. Bush will not go down in the history books as one of the better- or even one of the capable- Presidents. And the great thing about this country is that I can say that, I can say that I didn't vote for him and he doesn't deserve my respect due to what he's done to my country, without fear.

Post-debate polls according to Rasmussen.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday—including the first day of post-debate polling—is unchanged. Barack Obama once again attracts 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet and marks the first time he has held such a lead for two-days running (see trends).

[ceilirose]

Originally Posted by **SuperGirl** (View Post) Yeah, he wanted them to look at each other and speak to each other directly. But if McCain wanted to direct his answers to the moderator and people at home, I'm not going to put it past him.

Yeah and it's his choice. I'm sure what McCain did delighted hard core Republicans. It didn't go over well with independents and he needs them to win the election. We'll see if he made the right decision and if he has different body language in the next two debates.

[4N6 DNA]

Hi UnsilentMajority. It is good to meet you and great to be posting here with you.

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty (View Post) If we analyze the debate from a strictly mechanical perspective, Obama should not have said he agreed with McCain as many times as he did. The number one rule of debate is never agree with your opponent no matter what. Instead, he could have said, "Senator McCain, brings up a good point, but I would have handled it differently", or "I'm glad Senator McCain brought that up, because this is what I would do differently..." and then go on to give his answer/statement. Debate is all about language and subtly and I think in the next two debates Obama's people will put a moritorium on how many times he says he agrees with Senator McCain.

You bring up a good point about the mechanics of a debate. I can see how word choice is important particularly in debating. However, I feel that showing a little bit of common ground could be very helpful as long as you've also distinguised you and your opponent with regards to how you want to handle it. Which is what I think Obama did well. Of course it is political suicide to simply say "I agree with the other guy" without a follow up . I just feel that the American people are getting restless with our strict bi-partisan government. A lot of times I find myself on the fence about issues, unable to really take a side and that is where our bi-partisan government falls short for me. But I believe that many (myself included) want to know how we can work together on the issues, to work on what unites us instead of divides us. For example, as a society I think that we should focus more attention not on whether abortion should be illegal or not, but the roots of the problem, for which we can all agree on. For example, instead of devote all the time to the ethics of getting an abortion, why not spend that energy trying to find ways to prevent teen pregnancy in the first place? This is something that is a common ground for both parties. So why not start there?

I am not naive to think that this could work for all the important issues, but I think we ought to try harder to recognize the things that bring us together and the ideas we agree on while laying out the difference in framework of how each canditate wants to get there. This is what I think that a great debate accomplishes

[vc318]

If we analyze the debate from a strictly mechanical perspective, Obama should not have said he agreed with McCain as many times as he did. The number one rule of debate is never agree with your opponent no matter what. Instead, he could have said, "Senator McCain, brings up a good point, but I would have handled it differently", or "I'm glad Senator McCain brought that up, because this is what I would do differently..." and then go on to give his answer/statement. Debate is all about language and subtly and I think in the next two debates Obama's people will put a moritorium on how many times he says he agrees with Senator McCain.

Great point. I felt the same way. There's a way to agree with your opponent without actually saying it. I hope Obama will remember this in the next debate.

On the comments about the debate, I haven't read nor heard of Obama's smirking and so forth but mostly McCain not looking at Obama during the debate and that people thought it was disrespectful that Obama was calling McCain by his first name. That doesn't make sense since they've known each other since this election started. But from the debate, I felt McCain was strongest in his debate over the war issue but I was more interested in how the economic problem was going to be solved and how our relationship with other countries was going to be healed. Obama addressed that better overall, in my opinion. It's hard to say whether the polls are accurate because certain networks do tend to favor one candidate more than the other (ex. - FOX and MSNBC have reported that McCain did extremely well in the polls). We'll have to see how things go with the next two debates, I guess.

[UnsilentMajorty]

In my opinion, bi-partisan politics itself is not the main problem with what is wrong with our current political system. We are always going to have bi-partisanship since we have the freedom to choose whatever party, or parties we want to elect into office. I can't speak for anybody else, but it is the degree bi-partisan politics are put into effect I am most sick of more than anything else because it doesn't accomplish anything beneficial for the people of this country, regardless of political affiliation.

The degree of bi-partisanship is often determined by the party in power (President; Majority of Congress) and this means they can sometimes force their policy/opinion on others no matter what. This is what I think people are tired of more than it being "bi-partisan" because this directly addresses the two main philosophical differences between the two parties and the beliefs McCain and Obama are running on and promoting.

Republicans traditionally favor a Laissez Faire, "you are on your own" approach compared to Democrats who are more Socialistic if you break down both parties policies and agendas. These are fundamental differences because one approach believes letting the individual (even as a larger group) rise or fall according to their own circumstances whereas the other believes you should help the individual within reason and whenever possible. Taken by themselves, these philosophies embody both sides of the human condition and there is nothing wrong with either of them. Where they become ineffective and even dangerous is when the "you are on your own" approach becomes the more dominant one... Like the last eight years... And creates such a disparity between those who *can* fend for themselves and those who cannot. This is what this election is really about in my personal opinion.

The Republicans, under George Bush, have basically decided to take everything they can and let everybody else... Regardless if they can physically afford it or not... Fend for themselves. They have applied this philosophy to every decision they have made and whom they cater to, mostly wealthy people, big corporations and others who share the same extreme religious views. They declared "war" on anybody who does not think like them, or ally themselves with them. I know these are provocative words, but for our country to be at the point where we are facing a financial collapse of unfathomable proportions because the top 1% basically took all they could get their money-grubbing hands on and left everybody else to fend for themselves... I don't know how else I can state this without being "offensive"... Because *I* find what they have done to this once great country offensive every time I think about it. I am offended we invaded a country who never attacked us; I am offended we have a president and Supreme Court who would make decisions on issues like Roe Vs. Wade on the basis of Religious belief and not judicial precedent; I am offended that if you are Gay, you are considered less than human in the eyes of this administration and will never be able to have the same rights as a heterosexual based solely on personal prejudice and extreme religious doctrine; I am offended we sent thousands of young men and women into a war, ill-equipped, with no real goal other than to establish an American owned Oil company in the region; I am offended our countries greatest enemy is still alive and plotting more attacks because this administration apparently can't be bothered with going after him; I could go on and on, but most of you know what has been transpiring these last eight years, so I don't think I need to?

To bring this back to the point I want to convey, I don't believe it is bi-partisanship people are sick and tired of. I believe a majority of people are tired of this particular administration and what they have done to this country and its people via extreme bi-partisanship that favors a very select few and that leaves the majority of others with little or nothing left to survive on.

I think people are ashamed of what has happened and a majority of them need things to get better because four, and possibly eight more years of the same extreme bi-partisanship and I feel this country will become a third-world country in every definition of the word with a huge disparity between the wealthy ruling class and everybody else who will be struggling just to earn a living wage, let alone advance themselves (Education; Home Ownership; Equity; Retirement Savings; etc.) in any meaningful way. I am trying to avoid melodramatics, but the prospects of four, or eight more of the same are truly frightening because as stated before things *can* get *much* worse if we continue on this same course fueled by extreme bi-partisanship a.k.a greed and arrogance.