|
Friday, 26 September 2008 20:51 |
|
 I've got many thoughts regarding the debate tonight with John McCain and Barack Obama, but I'll touch on a few for the time being...
First, as the graphic shows, McCain overwhelmingly won according to the poll taken by Drudge immediately after the debate.
Both campaigns are going to spin it so they feel they've won, but the poll shows otherwise. Drudge is as independent as they come, so this poll isn't skewed by partisan readers.
I watched the full debate on CNN HD and will cover that in more depth tomorrow. What I immediately noticed during this debate was apparantely not only picked up by me. Throughout the debate, Barack Obama made the statement You're right John or something similar. From what I understand, this has already been picked up and turned into a commercial from the McCain campaign...talk about speed! I took notes during the debate and planned on doing one myself, but of course there's no need now...
It will be interesting to see how the media spins the debate. While I feel McCain performed better, I also understand that this debate was essentially a wash, and will not be a game-changer this election. Tomorrow, I'll have a more detailed analysis of the debate, along with audio analysis. For now however, and you won't find this anywhere else - Here is full, unedited audio of the debate, as I captured during the debate. Please note, the audio is a very large file at just under 55mb for the full debate, so it may take some time to load on slower connections.
|
|
Friday, 26 September 2008 12:57 |
|
 Tonight, the debate will go on in Oxford, Mississippi. The economy is on the top of the list of issues for all Americans. Unfortunately, tonights topic is that of foreign policy. While, many accuse McCain of a political stunt, it was anything but that - rather, it was apparent political suicide. John McCain will either be responsible for destroying "the bailout that would save America" or for causing "the largest spending bill in American history" depending on what happens with the bailout.
Here's my thoughts on the bailout - Uggggggggggg. Yes, I said uggggggggggg. The bailout is flawed on many levels, with no real positive outcome. We'll either see a larger government entity with a greater national debt, or a collapse of our economic system - neither which is helpful to the country, either in short or long-term.
The proposed bailout package can be compared to cancer treatment. The economy has cancer. The bailout is the "cure" in the form of chemotherapy or radiation. Unfortunately, there is a very fine line to saving the economy. If we do nothing, the economy dies of cancer. However, if too much is done, we are poisoned by the cure of too much chemotherapy and radiation. From an economic standpoint, too much done via the government is what caused the Great Depression to last for so long. The policies of Roosevelt didn't stop the Depression as many like to think, but rather slowed down the recovery and only got us out of it by increased production from entering World War II.
There should be no question on the theme of tonight's debate. Detailed planning of how to proceed with this debate means nothing when the fate of our country is at stake. Foreign Policy is the strong point of John McCain without a doubt, and by offering to change the topic to one where Obama appears stronger - the Economy - it is an option Obama could not refuse. However, the thought from the Obama camp is that they want to keep the current debate schedule and talk about the economy in the final debate, to maintain any perceived momentum gain from it throughout the final stretch run.
In any event, I urge all to tune into the debate, and with an open mind. Yes, the independents and undecideds are the only ones who will likely be influenced by the debates, but those of us on both sides should watch/listen to the debate with an open mind, and carefully decide who should be the leader of our country for the next 4 years. The best recommendation is to bypass the commentary by pundits on the networks and watch a direct feed or one with no commentary, such as C-Span or XM's POTUS '08. Too many citizens are influenced by the pundits analysis and the standard talking points, without being able to make an educated decision on their own.
I'll be recording the direct audio feed and *fingers crossed* will be able to have it, along with my analysis on here as soon as possible. |
|
Wednesday, 24 September 2008 20:04 |
|
The Obama camp can't be too happy about this...
Typically, presidential candidates have gotten a bump in the polls after naming their vice presidential running mate. Obama apparently received no immediate benefit in the polls from naming Biden as Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews conducted during the day on Saturday still showed Obama and McCain closely matched in voter preferences for president.
While the partisans have followed the talking poins with a unified sense of support for Biden, the historical polling data is showing the average voter doesn't feel the same way. The conservatives won't like any choice, for the same reasons as the partisan liberals, but the moderate and independent voters don't seem to be too impressed. Tuesday's poll which will be the first daily poll with all three days after the Biden selection will be one to watch... |
|
Tuesday, 23 September 2008 17:53 |
|
Mr. Gaffe-o-matic himself, Joe Biden, had some words of wisdom for all of us today:
"Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence, is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this."
Biden then went on to say the following:
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened"
Oops...
Here's the problem Joe - Roosevelt wasn't President when the stock market crashed in 1929 - Herbert Hoover was. However, he didn't specifically refer to the President in the quote, so that's simply a technicality. Except for a couple things - First, Roosevelt was never on television in 1929. The television wasn't available until the 1930s in the United States.
Joe Biden - instilling confidence and demonstrating he knows what he is talking about since 1942.
|
|
Sunday, 21 September 2008 19:51 |
|
 As the election cycle continues, the media simply cannot get enough of Barack Obama. Why shouldn't they however - Obama is a ratings goldmine. He has everything they are looking for in a candidate from his charisma and his liberal viewpoints shared by the general media, to the historical possibility of being the first minority President and simply being someone other than George W. Bush.
Having a preference of a candidate is, in itself, not a problem. Not actually admitting such and acting neutral however is. The media has been playing the PR game for Obama since the Democratic Primaries. As Obama's trip to the Middle East (his first since the surge began) is underway, we are reminded of the preferential treatment given to the mainstream media's chosen candidate.
Not only will his world tour be covered like a sitting President, rather than a candidate, all three network news anchors - Katie Couric (CBS,) Charles Gibson (ABC,) and Brian Williams (NBC) will be traveling with him on stops in Jordan, Israel and Germany, respectively. In the same regard, when Republican candidate John McCain made similar trips, the coverage was non-existent. While this story isn't meant to be a childish complaint about the world being "unfair" it is meant to simply point out discrepancies in journalistic standards.
The non-profit and non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism has done some research over the last month and found that Obama coverage has dwarfed that of McCain. In the same time period, an astounding seventy-seven percent of all stories had Obama playing an important role whereas the same could be said about McCain in only forty-eight percent. As mentioned earlier, there are many reasons for Obama to receive more coverage. However, PEJ's Tom Rosenstiel claims:
"No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama's candidacy, in the end it's probably not fair to McCain."
Looking at the bigger picture, although the press is determined to have Obama elected, having the amount of coverage dedicated to him may turn out to be a bad thing. Even when stories are presented in the best possible light, having more time devoted to him may simply place Obama under the microscope, thereby generating an even bigger target for the opposition. Should he make a mistake while overseas, it may simply reiterate with voters his inexperience with foreign policy. John McCain was the benefeciary of the media in 2000, as was Howard Dean in 2004. The story didn't end well for either candidate those years. |
|
