At least McCrusty looked at Obama and called him by name.
The experts said this was John McCain's last best chance to turn the tide. The election has been going Barack Obama's way, and his republican rival needed a big win in the third and final debate. Did Sen. McCain get it? The polls say one thing, but do the pundits agree?
The Polls
According to a national poll that CNN conducted after the debate, 58% of people felt Barack Obama won the debate, while 31% felt that John McCain performed better. The poll also indicates that the majority of people polled felt Obama would do a better job on the economy, health care, and taxes. Additionally, those polled felt Obama was more likable and the stronger leader.
While CNN's poll suggests an Obama landslide, the folks at Politico have different results. According to an "exclusive survey" of undecided voters, 49% of folks felt Sen. Obama won, while 46% believed Sen. McCain could claim victory. Politico notes that the 3-point difference is within the poll's margin of error.
CBS News conducted its own poll of uncommitted voters and found that Barack Obama won the third debate by a wide margin: 53% believed that Sen. Obama was stronger while 22% sided with Sen. McCain. A full 25% thought it was too close to call. It wasn't all bad news for McCain, though. According to the poll, more uncommitted voters trust the Arizona senator to handle a crisis.
The Pundits
ABC analyst (and former Bill Clinton aide) George Stephanopoulos wrote that this was McCain's best effort, but that Obama was still the victor. Stephanopoulous credited Obama's ability to stay cool and not grow exasperated during his opponent's attacks.
Fox News asked a collection of in-house experts who won the debate, and the opinions were...well...fair and balanced. Some felt that McCain was feisty (in a good way) and proved that he is ready for a fight. Others believed that McCain didn't score the huge hit he needed to stop Obama's momentum.
Time's Mark Halperin graded both candidates on style, substance, offense, and defense. The columnist felt Obama did well (he earned a "B"), but that McCain bested him in all areas. The Maverick scored an A-.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/91909
At least McCrusty looked at Obama and called him by name.
Palin won.
Bush doubled the debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion.
Proving tax cuts work!
Bush asked for and signed for the TARP money.
The Republican senate leader backed Bush on this.
five... five... five dollar foot lonnnnnng
I agree with Stephanopoulos' comments. I was somewhat dismayed, though not surprised, that McCain completely failed to acknowledge that the ads run by his campaign were personal and negative. Instead he spent considerable time whining about criticism levelled at him for the tone of his campaign by a member of his own party.
Frankly, I don't want a leader who can't recognize and admit his own mistakes and take steps to correct them. The defensive tone of his entire campaign is revolting.
My goal in life is to be as good a person as my dog thinks I am.
But McCain is not Bush! LOL
of course it is all political speak so exempt from the truth in advertising laws.
Last edited by uscitizen; 10-16-2008 at 09:28 AM. Reason: spellink
Bush doubled the debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion.
Proving tax cuts work!
Bush asked for and signed for the TARP money.
The Republican senate leader backed Bush on this.
Thorn go read about rhetoric used in debates during the time of our countrys founding. It makes Obama's and McCain's rhetoric seem like they are lovers. I find the negative stuff appaling too but this campaign is no different than any of the other campaigns in our history.
I read a little in "The Emancipator's Wife" about Abraham Lincoln's opponent's campaign; it was beyond nasty. At least then they didn't have the sort of communications technology that we do now. If you can recommend any readings I'd appreciate it. (Remember I'm a Canadian transplant and haven't had the same exposure to this that you have )
My goal in life is to be as good a person as my dog thinks I am.
I can't think of any one book in particular but I know reading John Adams by David McCoullough (sp) and the Founding Fathers and a book on George Washington and Alexander Hamilton the names and accussations against each of the candidates will leave you aghast.
The problem with negative campaigning is that it's been shown to work so that's why its always used. I guess I'm like you where I don't like it at all and why many people get turned off by politics and politicians.
But from a historical context in our country what you are seeing today is relatively tame compared to past elections.
Negative ads are one thing, but political speeches and ads should be required to be truthful.
Bush doubled the debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion.
Proving tax cuts work!
Bush asked for and signed for the TARP money.
The Republican senate leader backed Bush on this.
I grew up on the southern tip of Nova Scotia, did high school in Toronto and my first two degrees in Ottawa, doctorate in Montreal. Worked a lot in between. I promised myself a trip to Vancouver at every graduation but never made it I'd love to visit Newfoundland! I still keep in touch with childhood friends in NS.
My goal in life is to be as good a person as my dog thinks I am.
Bookmarks