The poll on CNN website has him as high 60 something too. However, those polls you can vote as many times as you like. Sometimes I have to turn off the talking heads or I get too pissed off because I get tired of the bullshit and have to abosrb everything on my own. Know what I mean? Yet, it's so addictive to watch.

TIS

I watched the debates. It will probably be rebroadcast by one of the cable networks, SB, so that your daughter can catch it. McCain certainly attempted to distance himself from Bush, and also emphasized the experience factor, suggesting that Obama was naive. In response Obama was direct, decisive and articulate, and appeared very presidential. This type of forum favors him, but both candidates walked away, satisfied. It was one of the more gentlemanly political debates in recent memory.

McCain has always been more comfortable in a town hall forum, which gives him more flexibility.

I love watching the talking heads on both sides. ...Despite my clear support now for Senator Obama, I've been a registered Republican most of my life. (I know a few of you just fell out of your chairs.)

WTF?????

Ouch, I just fell off my chair!!!

Yea, I am surprised.


TIS

I started leaning more left back in the 90's when Republican N.J. Governor Christine Todd Whitman pretty much did to N.J. what George Bush did to the United States. When I moved to N.Y. last year, I chose not to enroll in either party.

Honestly not all that different from my story, Lou.

The Drudge Report has McCain at 70%.

In addition to Charles Krauthammer giving Obama a thumbs up, so did (prepare yourself!) Dick Morris. And Fred Barnes called it a draw.

Apparently nobody told McCain he didn't win.




Actually, his campaign put out this ad before the debate!

I read earlier today that this was on McCain's website, even before the debates.



TIS

I missed the debate tonight I had a function to go to. O wanted to watch it Dang IT!!!!

Mind you this is a CBS poll, but look at these numbers:

Who Won?
OBAMA - 39%
MCCAIN - 24%

Uncommitted Voters

Opinion on Obama Improved/Worse?

Improved - 46%
Lowered - 8%

Opinion on McCain Improved/Worse?

Improved - 32%
Lowered - 21%

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/27/opinion/polls/main4482119.shtml

Really, the McCain campaign should be disturbed by the "Lowered" number.

FOX NEWS Focus Group with Uncommitted Voters...



...and they think Obama won!

WOW didn't McCAIN look good. Obama should pack it in right now. He doesn't have a chance.

ds

According to polls....he does.

I'm setting my DVR for the VP deabate. That has 'trainwreck' written all over it. Palin will be a comoplete deer in the headlights, and Biden will say at least 1 thing he really shouldn't have.

With wall street in the shitter and employment up why isnt Obama up by 10 pts in the polls? If hes not up by 8 to 10 points on Nov 4th hes not going to win.

ds

You need to take off the blinders. McCain is sinking in the National Polls, and the Electoral Map. He was unable to win a debate on foreign policy. Now he must face a VP debate that will disastrous, and a debate on the economy that he is going to lose. Unless there's a "game changer" in the next month, this election is over.

New National Saturday 9/27 Polls:

First off, I don't think the VP debate will matter at all in the polls. A train wreck it will be, an entertaining one at that, but not much difference for either ticket.

Second, DS asks why Obama aint higher, and the answer is that many people are still unsure if Obama has the goods or "the right stuff" to be President. Yet if last night's demographic-numbers are to be believed, Obama has narrowed the gap of the "readyness" question and, according to that one CBS poll, he acted more Presidential compared to McCain.

Those numbers that JustLou posted, are a good sign for Obama and perhaps reenforcement that if last night Obama either won or won by default in a draw.

But its 30+ days still left in the campaign, anything can happen.

New Poll from Pennsylvania:

Obama - 47%
McCain - 43%

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a1_5poll.6604193sep26,0,1738520.story

Normally I'd agree with you. VP debates don't mean much. But this one could be different. They're expecting a ridiculous amount of people to watch this train wreck.

You take up smoking crack now?

Oh the viewership will easily make this the most watched VP debate in history, no doubt about that.

But just look at 1988, when Bentsen bitch-slapped Quayle with "You're NO Jack Kennedy!", and Dukakis/Bentsen still went down in flames.

Overall, I say Biden wins by default...if only because despite his assured-gaffes, his opponent was shown to be a flake by Kaite friggin Couric.

That's sad.

Good points. You could be right.

In my opinion, McCain won the debate. The economy talk in the beginning was nothing more than the differences between Republican and Democrat ideologies. As for foreign policy, McCain clearly has way more experience than Obama and has shown that he also has better judgment.

Obviously almost everyone on here is an Obama supporter. While I think he seems like a decent enough guy (despite all his radical associations), there is no way anyone can honestly say that he is more ready/qualified to be president than John McCain. I will be voting for McCain, and I am glad that I live in a toss-up state (PA) where my vote will actually matter, unlike other states which have already been decided.

No matter who wins, I am confident that both candidates will make decisions that they think are in the country's best interest, and that's all that really matters.

Also, I find the negative comments towards Sarah Palin very unfair. You people may not agree with her side of the issues which is fine, but to totally dismiss her as being a legitimate politician is wrong.

I realize I am opening myself up to attacks from some very articulate posters, but you have to agree that this thread needs some opposing views.

Opposing views are fine, as long as such folks BACK UP THEIR SHIT.

For example, you talk of how McCain was better in the foreign policy area....care to give us an example exactly how?

As for Palin, what does it tell you when her own campaign wanted to cancel the VP debate?

-McCain mentioned his experience with countries like Lebanon, Somalia, and Kosovo.
-Obama kept talking about Afghanistan, yet has never even been there.
-McCain said "Obama doesn’t know the difference between a tactic and a strategy". Really, what does Obama know about commanding the strongest military in the world?
-Obama was dead wrong on the surge and still can't admit it.
-McCain made Obama look foolish with his pledge to meet tyrants without preconditions.
-Having known Henry Kissinger for 30 years, McCain obviously knows his positions better than Obama.
-Obama was also proven wrong on the Russia/Georgia conflict.
-McCain was right when he said "I don’t need any on-the-job training. I’m ready to lead now". The same cannot be said for Obama.

Are those examples good enough?

As for the vp debate, it would have simply been rescheduled in the event that the debate last night was pushed back.

Politico.com
GOP concerns about Palin grow
By: Alexander Burns and David Paul Kuhn
September 27, 2008 02:44 PM EST

A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven — and sometimes downright awkward — performances in her limited media appearances.

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.”

Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.”

“I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s—t,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.”

There is no doubt that Palin retains a tremendous amount of support among rank-and-file Republicans. She draws huge crowds, continues to raise a lot of money for the McCain campaign, and state parties report she has sparked an uptick in the number of volunteers.

Asked about Palin's performance in the CBS interview, a McCain official briefing reporters on condition of anonymity said: "She did fine. She's a tremendous asset and a fantastic candidate."

But there is also no doubt many Republican insiders are worried she could blow next week’s debate, based on her unexpectedly weak and unsteady media appearances, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does.

What follows is a viewer’s guide to some of Palin’s toughest moments on camera so far.

Speaking this week with CBS’s Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off-guard by a very predictable question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused by several news outlets of retaining ties — and profiting from — the companies despite his denials.

Where a more experienced politician might have been able to brush off Couric’s follow-up question, Palin seemed genuinely stumped, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to boilerplate language about the “undue influence of lobbyists.”

These missteps could be attributed to inadequate preparation and don’t necessarily reflect more deeply on Palin’s ability to perform as vice president. But when reporters have tried to probe Palin’s thinking on subjects such as foreign policy, she’s been similarly opaque.

In an interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Palin gave a muddled answer to a question about her opinion of the Bush Doctrine.

And given the chance to describe her foreign policy credentials more fully, Palin recited familiar talking points, telling Gibson that her experience with energy policy was sufficient preparation for dealing with national security issues.

In the same interview, Palin let Gibson lead her into saying it might be necessary to wage war on Russia — a suggestion that most candidates would have avoided making explicitly and that signaled her discomfort in discussing global affairs.

Then, asked this week by Couric to discuss her knowledge of foreign relations — in particular, her assertion that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her international experience — Palin tripped herself up explaining her interactions with Alaska’s neighbor to the west.

On the economy, too, Palin has avoided taking clear stances. In a largely friendly interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, Palin spoke in tangled generalities in response to a question about a possible Wall Street bailout — and even preempted her campaign by coming out against it.

On Thursday, Palin finally took questions from her traveling press — but shut things down quickly after Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel asked her whether she would support Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who has been indicted for corruption, and Rep. Don Young, who is under federal investigation, for reelection.

Unlike her other interviews, at least this time Palin had the option to walk away.

Freddie C. - I am so happy that you expressed your POV on this election. You do so in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. I welcome a good exchange of ideas.

Yes, I am voting for Obama. I actually wish that Senator McCain had won the nomination in 2000. I think that we would be in better shape than we are now. I think that he's probably a good, decent man, but I cannot support his candidacy for several reasons.

I think that he represents a continuation of the current administration, and that I cannot support. I also am concerned about his age. This campaign has aged him noticeably, and I can't imagine what a presidency would do to him. I am also concerned that, given his age, there is a very real chance he could die or become incapacitated in office. Therefore, his choice of VP was crucial, and I think he made a poor one.

Governor Palin may be a smart and aggressive woman (which I notice she is praised for, while Senator Clinton was vilified for the same traits), but she is not even close to ready to assume the office. I find her unworldly and unknowledgeable, and I think that she and The First Dude (I find that so trashy, btw) should stay in Alaska a few more years and get some experience under her belt before she tries a national campaign. She also believes in everything I loathe (pro-life, member of the NRA, etc.), so even if I didn't believe the above to be true, I still wouldn't vote for her.

And, btw, if anyone attacks you for expressing your views in such a thoughtful and engaging manner, then they are major jerks.

First off, thanks for actually willing to debate your side, which I can't even say for DoubleJ or Appleonya of late.

As to your points, let me answer a few of them, in order of what you supplied:

(2) FDR never visited Germany or Japan either. Polk never visited Mexico as well. Yeah what do they know about overseeing military ass-kicking?
(3) What he does know is that he called for more troops to be shipped to Afghanistan before McCain or the White House. Using your logic, they don't know jack shit either. Though the last 8 years, that might actually explain some things...
(4) McCain was also wrong about the WMDs, a quick victory & occupation, and other things. Obama highlighted how UNDISPUTEDLY Iran has grown in prominence and in power after Saddam Hussein's downfall, when in fact that dictator helped kept Iran in-check. So Freddy my boy, you liked how Iran has become more powerful as a result partly by us?

Also, I should note Freddie C., unless you're unwilling to admit you're wrong, but General Petreaus refused to used the word "Victory" to describe Iraq, unlike McCain. If anything, the magic word is "Stability"...which is good. But victory? No. More like patching up Iraq using bribes and having such self-controlled local regions to stop the violence out of self-interest.

Tell me my boy, why is it the White House and McCain supported a timeline for Iraqi withdrawal only after Obama, who's plan was endorsed by the sovereign Iraqi government? The word not permitted is "coincidence."

(5) Obama has backed away from that, and yet McCain still presses how we shouldn't meet with hostile rival leaders...yet that is what Kissinger did secretly with the Chinese government in the 70s, setting up Nixon's visit to China.

So tell me Freddy, do we totally not meet with them or not? Does it matter if its face-to-face between the leaders, or between the Foreign departments?

Hell, what about YOUR President having authorized State Department "talks" on and off with the Iranians already?

(6) Same Kissinger that willingly believed that the North Vietnamese wouldn't invade South Vietnam after signing the Paris Peace Accords? Last I checked, his "detente" went out of style with Reagan. Why is Kissinger popular again anyway? Is his ideas good or bad Freddy C.? Do tell me.

(7) Try reading this interesting article from the American Conservative Magazine, about the so-called "Democratic" Georgia that wants us tied with them hand-in-hand in NATO: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00008//

(8) Lead now? Oh yes, like that demand that he won't leave Washington this week until a Bail-Out "fair" agreement was made, possibly missing friday night's debate....then when the talks collapsed (partly due to Congressional Republicans)*,the agreement NOT made, he left for the debate last night.

Yes, looking weak in leading failure, fairly or not, is so Presidential.

I have one more question for you Freddie C.....are you supporting McCain more for him, or more against Obama? Better question, why despite your opinions, the polled people (including a Fox News focus group, video I posted earlier) indicated that Obama won last night? I thought it was a draw in general, McCain refusing to roll over on economics, Obama standing up on foreign policy...though with McCain behind in the electoral polling, that "draw" may be a Obama victory by default.

Anyway, thanks for willing to talk in defending your side. Don't think I'm trying to be a dick with you, but I'm just up for a good spirited but smart discussion on political science and propaganda here.

*=Funny since President Bush and conservative-paper The Wall Street Journal is stressing them to agree to the Democrat/White House-negotiated bailout.