Go to INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC
- Add a comment
- Go to McCain Wins Third and Final Debate
The concept of winning and losing seems pretty flexible
as does the whole 'debate' thing. They don't actually debate, they just go on about things.
Who was better received? From the look of the audience/undecideds graphs, Obama was liked most of the time better than McCain by the women, McCain was often preferred by the men. They both got postive response when they said things no one was going to disagree with. McCain lost support when he ranted.
He lost what respect I had for him when he started going on about people who are "Pro-Abortion." Obama said half of the obvious answer: No one is pro-abortion. The other half is: No one is anti-life. It is about choice and freedom of choice, freedom (or not) over one's own body. McCain used particularly inflammatory language designed to manipulate us emotionally. That pisses me off.
For one thing, I am not that easy, and it is insulting for anyone to suggest that I am. This gambit comes from a belief that most Americans are naive enough to be taken in by emotional manipulation, an insult to every American who is not that naive or simple-minded. Republicans and Democrats--politicians of every stripe do it. They are not all as ham-handed about it as McCain was in that 'debate.'
As to one of the comments previous--One might trust McCain or Obama to handle the economy, or any other issue, but neither one will be handling anything alone. Do you trust Palin? Do you trust Biden? Either of them could be the ones making decisions. Do you like the advisors the candidates have chosen to pull into orbit around them? Do you trust them?
And with all the crap thrown at us voters in a campaign, how can any of us claim to know anything about these men, really? We can believe, we can hope, we can fear--but we can't know.
posted by
Ciel
on October 17, 2008 at 7:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Perceptions
I kind of hate it when people decide votes on appearance, but I think some people just have trouble expressing their impressions that often go deeper than their words. In this debate, one thing that struck me was that for the most part, Obama talked about his plans, and McCain talked about Obama's plans. So Obama wins, because he knows more about his own plans, and talks about them with calm assurance. His mastery of detail, even on topics on which McCain attacked, lets him look better informed, and makes McCain's attacks look superficial, however substantive they might be on a closer look.
posted by
mousehop
on October 16, 2008 at 8:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Kingmi
FineYoungSinger, thanks for the update. I think you are a fine young thinker!
posted by
kingmi
on October 16, 2008 at 7:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Kingmi
Justi, the founding fathers intended for the fed to do what Americans could not do for themselves. These decisions about immigration and banking seem too much for the arch-cons. They can't keep their mits off the $ - and they won't share the space. So gov will have to do it.
I can't think of anyone better or more fairminded to do that than Barack.
posted by
kingmi
on October 16, 2008 at 7:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Kingmi
Kingmi, to base your vote on the fact that McCain looks weird and Obama speaks eloquently, let me give you a little history lesson:
Hitler was known for his eloquence and his ability to rally a crowd.
Don't base your vote on appearances. Read their plans, assess how they're going to affect you and the nation, and base your vote on that.
Nothing more, nothing less.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on October 16, 2008 at 6:52 AM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi
I don't agree with you. Today the government bought into our banks. They control the police, the military and our private money. That is scary in a free country. Please rethink your vote. I know McCain is trustworthy.
posted by
Justi
on October 15, 2008 at 10:51 PM
| link to this | reply