I think McCain actually won by a slight amount on this, but I would qualify why. McCain was more on the offensive by attacking Obama's policy and history. This forces Obama to go on the defensive to "correct" the bombs lobbed. Are the bombs true? During the debate, you may not know, but the act of the person "correcting" the other person's statement makes that person look defensive regardless. This is where the moderator should step in and have fact-checkers immediately on the staff. He should then be the one to confront the person making the assertion if it is in conflict with the known facts. I don't think it would be too much to ask of the moderator.
McCain had one of his best debates, no doubt. But that doesn't mean that it was enough to win him the election. Obama didn't need to win the debate. He simply needed to show up and not stumble to win the votes. He did accomplish that.
I don't undersatnd why obama get a pass. In this debate all his knowledge is learned in the past year, from books and mentors. Before his on-the-fly trip to iraq how many foriegn leaders had Obama met? Yet Palin is doing the same thing and she is called dumb about world politics. You could tell Obama' answers were all from study and not experience. I have no problem with that but credit should be givin to Palin for learning the same way
Obama got a pass because he is with the majority on the issues. This is made so by McCain's attack "Is he ready?" The implicit message is, that if he is ready, he is the man. If Mccain wants to change tactic and attack Obama on issues instead of experience, then people would be looking for different things in the debate. McCain made sure that this election is about Obama. That means that no matter how brilliant McCain is, he cannot win the election. The election is Obama's to lose.
Again, this can be a debate tactic - it's hard to tell unless the moderator interjects to correct misstatements. Like, I can attack you in a debate as a wife-beater, embezzler, etc. That leaves you in a position to constantly respond to my attacks, whether or not what I am saying is true. At that point, the moderator should step in (with his team - like in "Jeopardy" ) and state the facts as they are known, correct any misstatements by reading quotes from the record. Otherwise I can attack you relentlessly, have you backpedaling through the whole debate, and never really discuss much of anything important.
No problem, MB. I am not as hung up on who 'won' or 'lost' the debate as it would appear (although it's clear from the scientific tracking polls that Obama won - Fox News online or telephone polls notwithstanding). I find the who 'won the debate' debate humorous, and just like getting a reaction from the extreme right wing nuts. Their worst fears were realized last night: A half black man who only is alleged to be liberal only because the White House has moved to the right of Genghis Khan the last 8 years, and who has common sense, intellect, sincerity and centrism oozing out of every aspect of his persona, proved to the country that he is presidential, capable to be president, and has a more accurate take on the world and the country - and he impressed the hell out of a LOT of people who only knew of him because of McCain attack ads at ease. It was 'the earth is 8,000 years old,' 'stem cell research is evil,' 'the United States should be a fundamentalist Christian Republic, 'cuts taxes and increase spending because national debt doesn't matter,' 'screw the Jews, they don't vote for us anyways,' 'I make 900 times what my secretary makes but pay less in taxes as a % of my income than her (as Warren Buffet has stated in support of Obama)', 'let's teach creationism in school and disregard the scientific method,' 'let's start trillion dollar wars against nations that did not attack us while underfunding wars against those who did,' 'our party just doubled the national debt from 6 to 12 trillion dollars in 8 years' crowd's worst nightmare - they now know that Obama may very well win, as he should, and their little dream of a Christian-Taliban like state will crumble. Instead of articulating intelligent policies, and rather admit that the policies he has articulated won't solve our problems, and after picking Palin as his running mate, McCain has lost any semblance of credibility. He's a rigid, out of touch, angry and now beholden to the least rational part of his base candidate, who can't advance our nation. Face it, any intelligent person knows the Republican Party is in disarray and shambles, and that it takes a completely fresh and incredibly intelligent leader such as Obama to bail all of our asses out after 8 years of McBush and the Congressional Republican Gang that can't shoot straight had free reign for 8 years.
In truth it is not the moderator's job. It is the audience's. If the audience checks out and verifies the facts, then it becomes clear that the one making the accusations is either telling the truth or not. In my view the one on the other side of the accusations job is to make it clear enough that the accusations are baseless to raise the question in the audience's mind so that they bother to check. In any debate or polemic, ANY argument can be made to sound at least remotely plausible. It is when you try to apply it to real life that false arguments definitively fall apart. It is my observation, however, that many people seem to hold great value in the ability to make ostentatious and aggressive offensives not backed up by fact. A crowd that values image over substance will favor such displays. One that values substance will be unmoved and even penalize such tactics. The battlefield equivalent is the leader who likes to attack and is thus popular with the troops who are sick of waiting and are eager to get on with it but whose tactics are fundamentally unsound. In the end people get the leader they deserve and should not be surprised where such a leader ends up taking them.
Thanks for the knee-jerk rant, moonbat. I stand by what I said earlier: The ZZZztroll is a bullshit artist and a coward that panders to the lowest common denominator of moonbats on this site, like you.