I’ve seen better debates in high school. I’m serious.
Mostly, I think, because high school debaters don’t have to pretend they actually believe the stuff they’re saying, nor are they saddled with absurdities dredged up out of their more or less weighty records of off the cuff public pronouncements.
Gah.
Update: Plus, X-Plane 9? Rocks.
How screwy is it, by the way, that the C-172SP cockpit made more initial sense to me than did the SR-22? Or that the only model I crashed was the F-22.
Full on screwy, that’s how.
Update 2: Obama is spouting disconnected platitudes (with an admirable paucity of his characteristic “ah’s” and “em’s”) while McCain continues to circle around on apparently invincible certitudes. Leaving your correspondent to wonder, once again, how a country with the intellectual capital and talent of this our home, our native land, could once again be left such a poverty of choices.
Jim Lehrer did his accustomed good work, I thought. Long after memories of Kooky Keith Olbermann are left on history’s dust heap, serious students of television journalism will be taking notes on how you make a story without being a part of it.
Update 3: Oh, good. NBC is bringin’ Gaffin’ Joe Biden up to give us his read. Might be the best part of the night.
Update 4: So, who do the rest of you think won?
I’m watching it and I need a freaking drink.
I was afraid to watch. If McCain spontaneously combusted, I was going to stroke out. I just need these elections over with…
Nothing outstanding. This debate is not a game changer. The polls will not be changed significantly. If McCain is to have a chance, he needs two knockout blows.
I think McCain comes across as more knowledgable. More substance.
As I watched most of this debate between McCain and Obama, I found myself pondering the theatrics of both men over the whole week. I was NOT overly impressed. As I see it. if the electorate was given the option, “None of the Above”, that would receive a landslide victory.
McCain started weak, finished stronger. But I thought an opportunity was lost early on to clearly win it.
I thought Jim Lehrer was terrible. Just kept trying to goad each of the candidates into attacking each other.
“Talk to him”
“Do you want to respond directly to Sen Obama/McCain?”
a) The reason that this is the best we can do in this country is because no sane, intelligent person would subject themselves to the intense media scrutiny public figures go through.
b) I watched it, and drank through it. I highly recommend the Debate Drinking Game. Fun stuff.
c) I though Biden sounded slightly silly, but at least he showed. Palin hiding out looked really bad.
I actually thought it was better than debates of yesteryear-and I thought McCain warmed up as the time went on. He did not hit one out of the park-but he did what he wanted, he got Obama angry and flustered him.
That’s all he had had to do. Obama had the steeper hill to climb and he missed a couple of chances to nail McCain and did not.
McCain wins on points. IMHO. Now we will see how the spin machine kicks in. Obama had to win-while McCain only had to not lose. McCain succeeded, Obama did not.
Funny – I was more angry with Obama after I clicked on the C-172 screenshot, and saw a Meigs-less Chicago.
I really do not like Chicago pols.
So is that a 172 cockpit view of the park formerly known as Meigs Field?
I think McCain won it, but it would have been nice to have seen Palin post debate also.
What TV?…
X-Plane is now out for the iPhone/iPod Touch.
Works surprisingly well, too. (Even if you’re stuck with flying around Innsbruck.)
I need a vacation. That, and for November to have come and gone.
McCain had a chance from the very beginning to cut Obama off at the knees. He could have calmly mentioned the CRA, Fannie/Freddie and efforts for 5 years to fix it, in the face of opposition from his opponents party. Would have made him look good. But he waffled.
Not a disaster, but O! wins on points.
Obama had the steeper hill to climb…Obama had to win-while McCain only had to not lose. McCain succeeded, Obama did not.
Respectfully, I disagree. The bar was set low for Obama because he was expected to be weak on foreign policy. All Obama had to do was not make a fool of himself. McCain had to hit it out of the park for it to be considered a win, which he didn’t.
I think that both Lex and Flatlander have accurately described what happened.
1) Lehrer won the debate, i.e., he was an excellent moderator and the debate format was the best I have ever seen.
2) McCain did not clearly and forcefully lay out his position on the economy in the first half hour. Very unfortunate, for that sets a tone amongst viewers.
3) McCain did much better in the foreign policy area, and he got under Obama’s skin. It was Obama who got angry, but he was able to obscure all but the body language.
4) The MSM will declare Obama the clear winner.
5) The so-called undecided voters in Las Vegas were far too emphatic and emotional for people who were supposed to be undecided. Several even parroted democratic talking points.
6) We should have a better choice. But then I have always told myself that a nation gets the government it deserves…and I absolutely fear what we might deserve.
Great minds and all that…My wife and Skippy it seems, immediately picked up on Obama’s irritation and body language way before I did. I, like Lex, was TOTALLY disgusted by the over-all spectacle for all the same reasons Lex mentions in his initial comment. I was searching for the correct term to encompass my overall gloss on the affair, and Lex’s “Gah” is a shack.
Oh, I also think XBradTC zeros in on exactly what I mentioned to my wife at the time about Fannie/Freddie when Obama broached the subject, McCain is absolutely madding that way….I don’t know if he didn’t want to give his critics ammo on the “temper” bit or not, but he could, as XBrad says, have been far, far, more aggressive on that point. My opinion is that his critics are going to continue pounding that theme anyway, so might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb on the “feisty” scale.
Also kudos to Edwards, also, about the body language bit–which is the first thing my wife picked up on, unlike insensitive Cro-Magnon types like me who were focusing on the verbiage.
Gotta go with Skippy-sama here. I’ve seen only some clips, plus live/drunk-blogging, but it seemed that Mac did manage to get under Barry’s skin on a regular basis. That demonstrates a touch of inexperience on Barry’s part, I think. The pros don’t let the little stuff fuss them.
It’s a pity, really. Barry could have been an excellent choice for 2012, or (better yet) 2016. Right now I think he’s at about 1st lieutenant; just bumped up from the butter bars. He’s got some chops and background, but not much hands-on experience.
I think he started his run as a “what the heck” kinda thing, then was gobsmacked by his own success. After that he had the proverbial tiger by the tail.
It’s too bad he didn’t have the time to develop a depth of experience and judgment.
I agree with Casey. And it shows why the primary process is broken that the Democratic party did not recognize that. This is too early for Obama.
Casey, as I looked this whole week, I do not believe McCain has shown himself to be a leader. His behavior during this week was that of a petulant little brat. He “ceased his campaign and went back to Washington to fix the ‘economic crisis’ situation.” In reality, two things, it was a glorified campaign stop. The second thing, whatever you want to call it, a bailout or “Invest in America” as some have called it. We need to do something.
This financial correction reminds me of the infamous, “Fickle-Finger Test” or to be correct, “The Digital Rectal Exam”. One day, I had my physical and this was part of it. When the time came, I said to Doc, “I HATE this!” Doc replied, “That’s good, you’re not supposed to love it, but you submit to it.”
As I look at the behavior of John McCain, not the man, but the behavior projects an image. What does the image project? He is neither fast, nor slow, he’s just HALF-FAST.
I agree that McCain was weak at the start; I was cringing with worry. I was very frustrated also that he didn’t hit back on the regulation issue – he had a golden opportunity to showcase his efforts in 2005 and he let it go.
That said, I think overall they both did well. But given the original focus on this debate – foreign policy – I give it to McCain. He was very statesmanlike – focusing on the here and now instead of being drawn into the endless debate over why we went into Iraq in the first place. When he finally fired back that the next President needs to worry about how we are going to leave and not why we were there – I cheered.
It’s also clear that Obama’s “study time” must have included quite a bit of extemporaneous speech training.
Except for that whole bracelet thing. That was a cringe-inducing moment, Obama looking for his 3rd grade validation – “I have a bracelet too” – then not knowing the name on the bracelet. If the mother of that soldier was watching last night, I wonder how she felt.
Grumpy — I’m not sure that half-fast isn’t what we want in a leader of the free world. Flight Lead is genetically impatient, I am of the “there are only six immediate action emergencies — sometimes the best action is to wind your watch” school of thought — we make a complementary pair. It seems the democrats, genetically, want to take action, even if it is the wrong action. Maybe we are better off with a guy that knows when to execute the bold faced items, and when to wind the watch.
On the finger wave — a guy in “the business” (as Lex would say), known as “Hawk” — gets to that part — asks the Doc, “Is this for my good, or yours?” Doc laughs, and says, “Well, Sir, of course it is for your good.” Hawk says, “In that case, could you move it in and out a little faster?” Skippy’s right — JO’s don’t know what they are missing.
This show might have been more interesting if Jeff Gordon and Tiger Woods were debating.
Let’s get this election over and get back to business!
Obama is, I think, an empty suit, overly self-impressed. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that for all his soaring rhetoric, and facility behind a teleprompter, the reason we can find so very few things in his past is because he hasn’t really said or thought anything. This reflects in his disparagement of the past eight years and his insistence for “change” as though that were some talisman you could wave. Change *to* what?
McCain is a decent, honorable man, who – should he be elected – will no doubt go down in history as one of the middle quintile gentlemen to hold that office. As the “experience” candidate, he runs on things he has done and places he has been without once communicating to us his vision of government, the unifying theories behind which he will ask us to align.
I guess I grew up spoiled. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton – for all their faults – were generational politicians. They were capable of communicating right to us, making us believe. (The real rage many on the right felt at Clinton was in the realization that even he didn’t believe what he wanted his supporters to believe – that he was winking over all of our heads. To who? Nevertheless, no one can deny the man’s enormous political skill.)
I guess that’s the nub of it: I think we could do so much better, and yet no good names come to mind. How can that be in a country as blessed as ours?
Also, I’m distressed that McCain’s operatives may be “breaking” Palin by trying to force her into an uncomfortable Madeleine Albright/Condi Rice pretzel. Let her be herself, apologize (if necessary) afterwards. Everyone forgives Biden his burblings because they at least have the advantage of being authentic.
Ah, well.
Ronnie and Billy in the same sentence? If Ronnie had any faults they were jelly bean cravings vice Billy’s…well…you know.
Ya gotta watch that egalitarian streak Lex.
b2
I missed the first part, coming in towards the end where foreign policy was on the table. Poverty of low expectations, I guess, but I was comfortable with both guys. McCain was definitely on home turf, but Obama rope-a-doped nicely ala Bush II back in 2000 against Gore, when I kept saying “I agree with Senator Gore.”
I’m getting bracelet.
b2 –
You have a problem with cigars?
I mean, I know they’re bad for you and all….
I thought the first hour was awful. I felt like I needed to start doing shots at one point to quell my angst. Every sentence seemed too carefully crafted, and neither were actually answering the questions Mr. Leher asked. I was reminded of Dorothy Sayers’ speech “The Lost Tools of Learning” where she asks, “Have you ever, in listening to a debate among adult and presumably responsible people, been fretted by the extraordinary inability of the average debater to speak to the question, or to meet and refute the arguments of speakers on the other side? Or have you ever pondered upon the extremely high incidence of irrelevant matter which crops up at committee meetings, and upon the very great rarity of persons capable of acting as chairmen of committees? And when you think of this, and think that most of our public affairs are settled by debates and committees, have you ever felt a certain sinking of the heart?”
The last half hour was pretty good.
Lex and friends … interesting discussion notes from you all. I agree with Lex that Obama parses out as pretty much of an empty suit — showy, smooth, but covering up vast areas of ignorance about the US, its past history, and its basic national character. Our reasons for being, as it were. The unusual quality that Reagan had was his ability to reach out directly from his heart and mind to yours. His wonderful facility with language meant that nothing impeded his thoughts from touching yours.
Neither of our candidates can do that. McCain is more of a warrior than a talker, and Obama is more of a talker than an achiever. But McCain has a great advantage … amazing personal courage, high ethics, deep devotion to our country and its welfare, and a clear vision of what it needs right now.
I think he won in last night’s debate. On character and on points.
Marianne
Yes, McCain is far above Obama in personal courage, ethics and devotion to our country. Unfortunately, people can be hoodwinked—and the press has not served the public well. Tony Blankley has a great article in the Washington Times on the 24th about this:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/24/media-chronicles/
@Scott, RE:#22, I enjoyed your comment. THANKS. McCain is not a bad man or a poor leader. It was just that, in this circumstance, he made a poor choice of action. It is the same thing in advertising, it only takes one bad message to overcome a great number of positive messages. This is exactly what, I believe, happened this week in the supposed stop of the campaign. The questions about McCain, that were muffled in the background are now LOUD & CLEAR! The big question is this, can they be overcome? Yes, but not with words, but actions, consistently.
About, “HALF-FAST”, I liked your observation about “winding your watch”. Did you ever notice, there are times you find yourself in a crisis. It can be localized, personal or even global, I’ve been there. In all of those situations, I have always found a group around me yelling, “Don’t just stand there, DO SOMETHING!” But wisdom whispers in your ear, “Don’t just do something, stand there.” Not every involvement is beneficial to the solution of this financial crisis.
Either of these teams of people can win, but it is not assumed for respect. Everybody needs to earn it. Let there be no doubts, Obama/Biden team also need to earn my respect.
I have always suspected that Obama threw his hat in the ring to practice for a future run. Hillery was apparently so locked in that he did not expect to win. This was just a run for experience.
They underestimated the anti-Hillery faction in the Dem Party. And now he has to keep going. Sometimes I suspect he wants to throw this race because he knows he is not ready…
I will be among the first to confess to a bilious nature, and a fair degree of intolerance. But then, I have spent a lifetime trying to discern the difference between valid criticism, slander, and calumny. And thus, what are we to say to this persistent charge that Obama is a empty suit? To wit, Lex’s comment at 7:29 AM (#24) in this thread:
In a dying thread I presented time line of Obama’s career (Sept 22 #47). In that time line I mentioned that Obama has written two books. When Lex states” the reason we can find so very few things in his past is because he hasn’t really said or thought anything it just indicates that Lex has not read Obama’s books, studied his formative years, or examined his positions on the issues.
When I was knee high to a grasshopper my teachers regaled me with stories about a tall thin man gifted with a silver tongue. He was a self made man they told me, but failed at business, and put bread on his table because he was a skilled lawyer. His credentials were that he was a member of his states legislative branch. He never served in the Armed Forces, never served in the Federal Government in any capacity. But that silver tongue, in debate would attract crowds from near and far. It is said that that man saved the Union. One has to wonder whether that man, given Obama’s time line, would dismiss him as an empty suit. Certainly if he read Obama’s books he would say he was a writer of uncommon skill. Writers after all, tend to recognize skills they aspire to…
Golly, OP, your man’s chief accomplishment in life is that he wrote two books about himself. By age 46!
By which time he’d gone to a couple of good schools, harried all of his state senate competition (Democrats all) off the ballots – including the incumbent – for one or another technicality, rode 130 “present” votes to the US Senate by cracking open the seedy divorce records of an otherwise shoe-in Republican and has spent three of his four senate years running for president. He hasn’t done anything of note but write about himself. Emending, along the way, all the naughty bits about racist preachers and bomb hurling mentors. Bravo!
As for his positions, they hew admirably to the left wing of his party’s orthodoxy with never once an original thought. He published nothing of note as an academic – nor for that matter as editor of the Harvard Law Review – and has never taken a stand that any of students or peers could remember as a law professor. He has sponsored little significant legislation while as US Senator and never once hosted a meeting of the Senate sub-committee of which he was chairman.
Hurl yourself into that breach, good man, but don’t expect the rest of us to follow you.
I’m impressed that anyone can muster the enthusiasm to energetically defend either candidate. If this were the short-list in one of our job searches, we’d declare the search a failure and start over. The debate was a depressing display of mediocrity on both sides.
Comparing Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln is…well…I don’t know what it is except that it is wrong.
Very. Wrong.
OP, you really are full of yourself. There is absolutely NO comparison between Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama. That was disgraceful!
If we truly are who we associate with, then Obama’s short list should tell us quite a lot:
1. Bill Ayers
2. Jeremiah Wright
3. Tony Resko
4. Frank Rains
5. Jimmy Johnson
These are not just people he has known, but, with the exception of jailbird Tony, currently associates with and from whom he receives counsel!
Obama has accomplished nothing good for this country, goes about daily spewing dismissive rhetoric about how we are the late, great U.S., and then has the unmitigated arrogance to claim having been a significant part in this weekend’s Congressional plan for the financial bailout while, again, dismissing his opponent as having done, and I quote, nothing. Pretentious, arrogant, condescending. OMG, the list goes on.
Obama repeatedly remarked during the debate that McCain espoused 20th century policies, as if they were policies that are akin to being stuck on stupid. Please, somebody, identify just what the hell a 21st century policy is! To lay aside so much that is good from the last century is to throw away many a good policy and to disregard an untold number of great achievements.
As for continuing on with GW’s failed policies, that’s a barroom brawl in and of itself. Never mind that GW’s predecessor initiated a great deal of what have we experienced during the last couple of weeks and months. Never mind that a Democratic Congress has stymied every effort by the current Administration to rectify a situation going to hell in a handbasket. Never mind that, even now, we have Democratic leaders of Congress trying to sabotage efforts to prevent matters from getting worse.
As for the debate, I believe that McCain did let slip by some opportune moments to drive home a point or three. Obama may have won over some on presentation and energy, but for others of us there was still lacking any substance in what he said. McCain nailed it when he used the word Naivete to describe his opponent, and Obama just couldn’t refrain from his typical snide remarks. That first name thing he kept doing with McCain was more than a little disrespectful, especially given McCain’s persistence in responding with “Senator Obama, …”
Hope this doesn’t double post…apologies if it does.
Our Paul,
You wrote:
“But then, I have spent a lifetime trying to discern the difference between valid criticism, slander, and calumny.”
Tough iddinit. A jury question, I’d say.
But I agree with you that Barack Obama is EXACTLY like Abraham Lincoln. In every particular. It’s uncanny, the resemblance.
As you wrote so eloquently:
‘When I was knee high to a grasshopper my teachers regaled me with stories about a tall thin man gifted with a silver tongue. He was a self made man they told me, but failed at business, and put bread on his table because he was a skilled lawyer. His credentials were that he was a member of his states legislative branch. He never served in the Armed Forces, never served in the Federal Government in any capacity. But that silver tongue, in debate would attract crowds from near and far. It is said that that man saved the Union.”
Describes Obama to a T, except for the tall ‘thin’ talk. Because that is a racist code word.
And you know it.
I grew up in the same Illinois farm county where Lincoln came of age.
He worked on farms, ran a small business, served as an officer in the Illinois State militia, and was elected to state government before the age of 30. He then became a self-taught lawyer, and later won election as an Illinois congressman.
Many educated people saw Lincoln only as a bumpkin, an ignorant and uneducated backwoodsman. He didn’t talk the same way they did back east, and he didn’t dress quite right for a president. He was tall and thin and wiry strong.
I don’t see a great deal in common with either of the presidential candidates, and certainly not with the over-educated under-experienced Obama.