First Presidential Debate btw McCain and Obama (8/16/08)

[PhDP]

Obama's answer here was FAR better, where he advised caution, and spoke of how often evil had been done in the name of good, and how we must consider this before blanketly dismissing something as evil and taking action against it

 

I also felt his answers were much better, they were nuanced. Yet, Bush has repeatably shown that a war against nuances could pay off, McCain's answers were short, direct, and simple.

[Pangloss]

"A war against nuances" -- I like that.

[iNow]

I also felt his answers were much better, they were nuanced. Yet, Bush has repeatably shown that a war against nuances could pay off, McCain's answers were short, direct, and simple.

 

I'm afraid you're correct. I can only hope that those who appreciate nuance come out in greater numbers to the vote than those who speak in terms of <cavemen chest thump> us good, dem bad </caveman chest thump>.

 

 

Uhhggg...

 

 

There was an interesting angle discussed this morning on This Week with George Stephenopoulos whereby one of the commentators at the round table stated that it's not so much important that Obama get these people to vote for him, but that he encourages them not to vote at all (hence, a lost vote for McCain since they don't feel strongly for one or the other). It was an interesting take I hadn't considered. While I'm sure many of this audience will choose to vote for Obama, it's important to note that his position might also cause fewer people to come out just to vote against him.

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Thou dost protest too much?!?

 

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/18/mccain_in_letter_charges_nbc_w.html

 

John McCain's campaign manager sent a blistering letter to the president of NBC News yesterday, accusing the network of bias for a report that suggested the senator from Arizona had violated the rules of Saturday's forum at an evangelical church.

 

McCain appeared after Obama at a forum at Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., but he was not supposed to watch Obama's appearance under forum rules, because host Rick Warren planned to ask both candidates the same questions. NBC political reporter Andrea Mitchell reported that Obama aides felt that McCain "may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama."

 

The attack on the media was not unusual for the McCain campaign, which recently blasted the New York Times for not publishing an op-ed written by McCain on Iraq, after it had published one by Obama. The paper's editors say they objected to how the piece was written, but were open to having McCain revise it.

Edited August 18, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[bascule]

Anyone seen a copy of the debate online? I've been looking but can't find one.

 

If not, I guess I'll watch the highlight reel on the Daily Show...

[iNow]

For ParanoiA and Bascule (and all others interested):

 

 

 

The above is a playlist, so the next part will begin as soon as the one being viewed concludes.

[Pangloss]

Thanks!

[bascule]

For ParanoiA and Bascule (and all others interested):

 

Indeed, thanks!

[ParanoiA]

Thanks iNow. The playlist was a nice touch.

 

My initial take on Obama was that he speaks candidly about his past, who he used to be, but remains guarded about who he is. I was impressed with his admission of drug use, and equally impressed with the lack of backlash about it. He really comes across as if he's intimidated about his stands and seems to hesitate with pre-explanation, but he seems to gain confidence once he commits to it and ends up looking strong.

 

It's obvious to me that he's more about nuance than absolutes. This could be good, implying a more flexible, advisable nature. But also could suggest opportunism, popularism. He paid lip service to our miserable dollar and our chinese masters, so that was good.

 

Heh, and I didn't envy him defending pro-choice with that audience.

 

I think what would be the most interesting would be for the two of them to appear at a notoriously strong atheist venue next week and do this whole thing from that angle - I wonder how their answers and verbiage would change.

[iNow]

Thanks iNow. The playlist was a nice touch.

You're welcome everyone. Just to be clear though, I didn't post it to YouTube, I just found it and posted it here.

 

Cheers.

 

 

I think what would be the most interesting would be for the two of them to appear at a notoriously strong atheist venue next week and do this whole thing from that angle - I wonder how their answers and verbiage would change.

I really love this idea, but it would NEVER happen.

 

Also, the challenge is that there's few "atheist" venues since atheist is such a meaningless word. We don't have a word for "non-astrologers" or "non-numerologists," we've just accepted that these things are bogus and let them go. Much like we don't need a word for "non-racist" in todays culture. Regardless, that's too religiously-oriented of a discussion topic for SFN... I'll just say that Sam Harris captures this idea far better than I do at the following:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2089733934372500371&hl=en

 

(If vids aren't your thing, here's an edited transcript: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html )

[Pangloss]

That would be terrific. I'd call all my religious friends and tell them to watch it.

[bascule]

Oh jesus... finally watched this shit (and not in its entirety)

 

My head hurts...

[ParanoiA]

Aside from the religio angle, I did like many of the questions in this format. Your greatest moral failing? America's greatest moral failing? A gut wrenching decision? Something you've thoughtfully changed your mind on?

 

All good questions. I would like to believe they had no idea what the questions would be prior to this.

[iNow]

A great piece today at the Washington Post:

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR2008081902396.html?referrer=emailarticle

For the past several days, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won.

 

Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn't a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town-hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court?

 

The candidates' usual supporters felt validated in their choices. McCain convinced and comforted with characteristic certitude those who are most at ease with certitude; Obama convinced and comforted with his characteristic intellectual ambivalence those who are most at ease with ambivalence.

 

 

The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state.

 

The loser was America.

 

 

For the moment, let's set aside our curiosity about what Jesus might do in a given circumstance and wonder what our Founding Fathers would have done at Saddleback Church. What would have happened to Thomas Jefferson if he had responded as he wrote in 1781:

 

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

 

Would the crowd at Saddleback have applauded and nodded through that one? Doubtful.

 

By today's new standard of pulpits in the public square, Jefferson -- the great advocate for religious freedom in America -- would have lost.

[Pangloss]

A pretty narrow view, IMO. Talking about religion, and recognizing religious values that people hold, doesn't create a religious state.

[ParanoiA]

I completely agree. It was a very appropriate venue. The loser was america because both candidates "played" the venue. I thought Rick Warren was quite good. I liked the way he treated the candidates. I got more out of this event than any of the grand standing BS I heard from these jokers during their "debates".

 

I wanted to hear more questions from the likes of "What is your personal greatest moral failing?" Or anything that catches them off guard, forces them to be honest before they have a chance to gauge the damage from such honesty.

 

I, personally, would have been proud to watch Jefferson say those exact words at Saddleback, and I think that says more about Obama and McCain than anyone that piece was written about.

[bascule]

A pretty narrow view, IMO. Talking about religion, and recognizing religious values that people hold, doesn't create a religious state.

 

That's a bit of a strawman, considering no one was arguing that America is a religious state... until now!

 

America is a religious state.

[Pangloss]

That's a bit of a strawman, considering no one was arguing that America is a religious state... until now!

 

I wasn't accusing iNow of that, I was responding to the author of the piece he was quoting.

 

The loser was America.

 

What would have happened to Thomas Jefferson if he had responded as he wrote in 1781:

 

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

 

Would the crowd at Saddleback have applauded and nodded through that one? Doubtful.

 

By today's new standard of pulpits in the public square, Jefferson -- the great advocate for religious freedom in America -- would have lost.

 

I think that's a narrow view, in that recognizing religious values that people hold, hearing what they have to say, what their concerns are, and responding to them, doesn't create the environment that the above author fears. That takes a further, far more drastic step, in which religious beliefs override legal concerns and rational thinking.