First real debate: McCain "shines", Obama underwhelms

[mccafferty cat]

The first real debate (well, of sorts) between McCain and Obama took place last night, in a religious setting, covering many of those kinds of issues. (Abortion, "evil", personal morals etc.)

The reviews of it this morning should give Obama supporters some cause for concern, and certainly seem to explain why Obama has refused to take part in a series of Town-Hall style meetings with McCain between now and November.

One review, on the non-partisan RealClearPolitics goes so far as to say that McCain "shines" in such a setting. It paints him as sunny, frank, honest, and sharp - whereas Obama seemed to come across as pompous, verbose, and eager to discuss both sides of an issue without taking any decisive stand.

Obama also came close to making a very serious gaffe on the Abortion issue, by seeming to indicate that he didn't have an opinion on when "life" began..............which if he repeated it would enrage even his own hardcore liberal support, while also obviouisly obliterating any small amount of evangelical support he can count on.

With the GOP already quite surprised that they are almost at level pegging with Obama at this point, could this forum bode very ill for Obama's performances in the debates proper, which had such an enormous impact on the last 2 presidential elections?

[Leftfemme22]

One review, on the non-partisan RealClearPolitics goes so far as to say that McCain "shines" in such a setting.

Are you have a laugh? Non-Partisan?

'RealClearPolitics is a conservative run, Chicago-based political news aggregator, polling data aggregator, and blog founded in 2000 by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan'

[mccafferty cat]

[Are you have a laugh? Non-Partisan?

'RealClearPolitics is a conservative run, Chicago-based political news aggregator, polling data aggregator, and blog founded in 2000 by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan'

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Many users of Politics.ie follow RCP, and I think they will agree that they publish material which is unbiased and gives a fair innings to both sides

[Kerrygold]

Non-partisan? Have you read any of that guys other articles. He's clearly a McCain fan. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...of_mccain.html

All reports I've heard was that it wasn't a debate at all and that neither candidates did anything really amazing. It was more a case of don't make any boo-boos!

[smitchy2]

One review, on the non-partisan RealClearPolitics goes so far as to say that McCain "shines" in such a setting.

Are you have a laugh? Non-Partisan?

'RealClearPolitics is a conservative run, Chicago-based political news aggregator, polling data aggregator, and blog founded in 2000 by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan'

If you have a look at real clear politics it is the most non-partisan website I have come across.
Cuttings are taking from all American press and polls are taken from all surveys to give an average running poll.

Obama was always going to struggle in this debate as he is on the pro-choice side while McCain sits well with many church goers as he is firmly against it in principal.
Hopefully it will dispel the stupid rumour that he is a Muslim though.

[Leftfemme22]

[Are you have a laugh? Non-Partisan?

'RealClearPolitics is a conservative run, Chicago-based political news aggregator, polling data aggregator, and blog founded in 2000 by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan'

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Many users of Politics.ie follow RCP, and I think they will agree that they publish material which is unbiased and gives a fair innings to both sides

Ok, lets pin this down.

The review was written by Michael Gerson who is a columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, and as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006. He is not a non-partisan commentator and to portray his analysis as such is a tad disingenuous.

What he have here is a review of the debate written by a conservative for a conservative web-site being cited as impartial.

Thats not going to fly.

[lowtaxireland]

Obama......hahahahahahahahaha.....the public gets what the public deserves.

[smitchy2]

[Are you have a laugh? Non-Partisan?

'RealClearPolitics is a conservative run, Chicago-based political news aggregator, polling data aggregator, and blog founded in 2000 by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan'

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Many users of Politics.ie follow RCP, and I think they will agree that they publish material which is unbiased and gives a fair innings to both sides

Ok, lets pin this down.

The review was written by Michael Gerson who is a columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, and as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006. He is not a non-partisan commentator and to portray his analysis as such is a tad disingenuous.

What he have here is a review of the debate written by a conservative for a conservative web-site being cited as impartial.

Thats not going to fly.

The point is it takes clips from lots of different perspectives eg: today- the Washington Post, the FT, the Politico, USA Today, Time, LA Times, NY Times, Bloomberg, the Daily Telegraph, Wall St. journal, The London Times are all represented.

The poll averages are taken from Rasmussen, Gallup, USA Today, CBS, Fox, Pew Research, NBC, ABC, Newsweek, Time, CNN, Reuters/Zolby, IPOS and the LA Times.

For me that is a fair and balanced sample. There will be extreme views from both sides but there is no need to isolate 1 article and state that what the website stands for.

[Thac0man]

It does not matter what RCP thinks, and I am not going to argue over sources. The venue, the audiance and indeed and questions suited McCain better. Obama showed himself to be all fur coat and no knickers yet again. The 'elitiest' tag should stick to him even better after some of the answers he gave.

Obama went there to reach out to Evangelivcal Christians. In the event the platform provided much wider exposure for both candidates, and I do not think Obamas' 'high concept' thinking came across well or even coherently. McCain by comparison definitly hit home with the Reagan Democrats. The gulf in experiance between the two was all to clear, with Obama trying (and I think failing) to bridge it through long winded rhetorical answers. He did not impress.

[Leftfemme22]

[Are you have a laugh? Non-Partisan?

'RealClearPolitics is a conservative run, Chicago-based political news aggregator, polling data aggregator, and blog founded in 2000 by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan'

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Many users of Politics.ie follow RCP, and I think they will agree that they publish material which is unbiased and gives a fair innings to both sides

Ok, lets pin this down.

The review was written by Michael Gerson who is a columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, and as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006. He is not a non-partisan commentator and to portray his analysis as such is a tad disingenuous.

What he have here is a review of the debate written by a conservative for a conservative web-site being cited as impartial.

Thats not going to fly.

The point is it takes clips from lots of different perspectives eg: today- the Washington Post, the FT, the Politico, USA Today, Time, LA Times, NY Times, Bloomberg, the Daily Telegraph, Wall St. journal, The London Times are all represented.

The poll averages are taken from Rasmussen, Gallup, USA Today, CBS, Fox, Pew Research, NBC, ABC, Newsweek, Time, CNN, Reuters/Zolby, IPOS and the LA Times.

For me that is a fair and balanced sample. There will be extreme views from both sides but there is no need to isolate 1 article and state that what the website stands for.

The article in question is the one cited as being a non-partisan appraisal of the Debate.

That is clearly not the case. The author of the piece is a conservative and would therefore be naturally biased toward the conservative participant. Whether the site itself was Liberal, conservative or impartial doesn't change that reality.

As for the site itself, it calls itself a conservative website. If it where truely impartial, why the need for the label?