Obama About Palin - "You can put lipstick on a pig,"

[Xavier_Onassis]

I imagine that seeing the "debate" will cause most people to see which one of these men is most adept at performing in a "debate". Even though I do not personally believe that this illustrates skills that have rarely indicated who will be the better president, I am pretty sure that the public concensus will be that one of them "won" this debate, that debate or all the debates.

It is likely that Gerald Ford stating that Poland was not under the Soviet thumb when he debated Carter did, in fact, suggest that Carter had a greater expertise in the knowledge of foreign affairs. In that debate, perhaps it was more useful than usual. The strange square blocklike thing under Juniorbush's coat during one of his debates with Gore SHOULD have caused more Americans to realize that this guy was wired fpor sound and that his answers were not necessarily dependent on his knowledge of the facts, but apparently, it didn't. The Democrats should have hammered away at this for months, but didn't.

All in all, I think it is better for them to have debates than not have them, because otherwise, all we will have are stupid deceptive "sound bites" and staged phony "media events", which are worse than useless in helping get the facts out.
 

[sirs]

Yet, when all is said and done, after Obama wins the debate, according to you, it's largely meaningless.  We thank you for that concession

[Xavier_Onassis]

YOu appear to have a habit of deliberately misunderstanding any discussion consisting of more than one declarative sentence, in afddition to thinking of yourself in the plural.


When Uncle Elmo drinks too much moonshine, he says he sees double. Perhape this is caused by a similar stimulus.

What I meant to say about the debates is considerably more complex than your one-sentence summary. You could actually read what I have written and perhaps you would find it more illuminating.

I am just adding this in the event that you actually are interested in learning something, as opposed to appearing to be a snide smartass.

[sirs]

Still no self control, we see.

So, I think what Xo is tripping all over himself in trying to imply is if McCain "wins" the debate, it's largely meaningless.  But since Obama is going to "win" the debate, well....then it's pertinent, relevent, meaningful

[Michael Tee]

<<I dont know where you get the idea that a doddering old D- Annapolis student is quicker on his feet than a young Harvard honor student, but I will giveyou odds that taint so.>>

Well said.  Truer words were never spoken.  The lack of reality that pervades right-wing "thought" is truly mind-boggling.  It's just one step from there to "Where'd you get the idea that a doddering old D- student from a military academy is gonna be a better President than a young magna cum laude Harvard Law grad?" but that's a step they'll never take in a million years.

[Plane]

He will debate McCain. The debate has already been agreed to. And he will win as well. McCain isn't a great speaker.

Not that presidential debates have actually revealed who would make a good president. Debating and leading a country are different talents, and presidential debates are not real debates.

Maybe once , but he is not as good at fast thinking on his feet as McCain , so he would be wise to avoid haveing a lot of debates.

I dont know where you get the idea that a doddering old D- Annapolis student is quicker on his feet than a young Harvard honor student, but I will giveyou odds that taint so.

I get that Idea from McCain being eager for unscripted debates , and Obama acting fearfull of the idea.

[Michael Tee]

<<I get that Idea from McCain being eager for unscripted debates , and Obama acting fearfull of the idea.>>

I see.  So you got it by assuming that there could be only one reason for Obama to "act fearful" of the idea of unscripted debates.

What if I told you that your assumption was incorrect?  That there are other plausible motives for Obama not wishing to enter into unscripted debates with his opponent?

[Plane]

<<I get that Idea from McCain being eager for unscripted debates , and Obama acting fearfull of the idea.>>

I see.  So you got it by assuming that there could be only one reason for Obama to "act fearful" of the idea of unscripted debates.

What if I told you that your assumption was incorrect?  That there are other plausible motives for Obama not wishing to enter into unscripted debates with his opponent?

Go on.

[Michael Tee]

McCain has a reputation as being not too smart, Obama's rep is that he's pretty cerebral.    McCain's supporters are mostly anti-intellectual.  McCain can't lose in a debate with Obama.  If he comes out looking like a jackass, his supporters will stick with  him anyway and just resent Obama all the more for his "arrogance" and "elitism" and even "rudeness" in showing up McCain to be the dummy that he is.

If for any reason Obama should stumble, McCain supporters would get the biggest laugh of the campaign out of it.  "Haw haw haw, he's a LAW PROFESSOR and he said . . . . "  or "Didja see how McCain had that Perfesser on the ropes?"

Obama's expected to win, even by most McCain supporters.  So by winning, he really gains nothing, because he's already got the support of the intellectuals and the McCain supporters are by and large dismissive and unappreciative of education, learning, the law and intelligence generally, so they won't flock to Obama just because he bested McCain in a debate.  In fact they'll just hate Obama all the more.  McCain's got nothing to fear from losing and if for any reason he bests or even appears to best Obama on anything, it'll be a huge plus for him, a psychological triumph that would energize his base and also might bring some uncommitted over.

Long stroy short, debates offer McCain nothing to lose and something to gain and to Obama, nothing to gain and something to lose.

[Plane]

McCain has a reputation as being not too smart, Obama's rep is that he's pretty cerebral.    McCain's supporters are mostly anti-intellectual.  McCain can't lose in a debate with Obama.  If he comes out looking like a jackass, his supporters will stick with him anyway and just resent Obama all the more for his "arrogance" and "elitism" and even "rudeness" in showing up McCain to be the dummy that he is.

If for any reason Obama should stumble, McCain supporters would get the biggest laugh of the campaign out of it.  "Haw haw haw, he's a LAW PROFESSOR and he said . . . . "  or "Didja see how McCain had that Perfesser on the ropes?"

Obama's expected to win, even by most McCain supporters.  So by winning, he really gains nothing, because he's already got the support of the intellectuals and the McCain supporters are by and large dismissive and unappreciative of education, learning, the law and intelligence generally, so they won't flock to Obama just because he bested McCain in a debate.  In fact they'll just hate Obama all the more.  McCain's got nothing to fear from losing and if for any reason he bests or even appears to best Obama on anything, it'll be a huge plus for him, a psychological triumph that would energize his base and also might bring some uncommitted over.

Long story short, debates offer McCain nothing to lose and something to gain and to Obama, nothing to gain and something to lose.

This castes Obama in the role of Nixon in the Nixon Kennedy match up.

Obama looks pretty good on camera and if he gets flustered easy we all want to know it.

As a high scoring student then Lecturer of Law he should have been instructed at some point in how to make an argument , I really don't think your argument is valid because the hardcore on both sides are just as sticky , it is the unpersuaded that the debates are for.

[Michael Tee]

<<This castes Obama in the role of Nixon in the Nixon Kennedy match up.>>

I wouldn't agree with that at all.  I remember the debates very well.  Kennedy went into them with the reputation of the cerebral Harvard man, author of a well-respected (ghost written by Teddy Sorenson, though few knew it then) book and Nixon with the reputation of a sleazy gutter fighter who was going to meet his match in JFK.  As a matter of fact, the editorials of the time praised Nixon, who had much greater name recognition than Kennedy, and much greater hands-on experience in politics, for his magnanimity in agreeing to the debates.  The general feeling was that Kennedy would gain in stature by Nixon taking him seriously and appearing on the same "stage" with him.  Kennedy felt, probably as Obama does today, that he'd win hands-down on his good looks, speaking voice, style, brain-power and wit.

<<Obama looks pretty good on camera and if he gets flustered easy we all want to know it.>>

Since few if any international negotiations have ever taken place on camera, it wouldn't make much difference in job performance if he DID get flustered on camera.  However, what are the odds?  This guy taught Constitutional Law for twelve years to some of the brightest and most competitive law students and future top legal guns in the country, in an adversarial environment where professors are expected not only  to take challenging questions and throw back challenging answers, but to revel in it, every working day.  Law professors generally don't do "flustered" and especially not after twelve years in the game and not at law schools like the University of Chicago's.  If they can't take the heat, they get out of the kitchen.

If I were Obama, my fear wouldn't be that I couldn't beat McCain, a doddering 72-year-old certified A-1 numbskull, liar and cheat, but that I would beat him so badly that it would backfire on me and I'd come out looking like a smartass, fancy-pants professor abusing some poor schnook who had laid his ass on the line for his country.  Even if I won, I'd lose.  So why debate?

<< . . . I really don't think your argument is valid because the hardcore on both sides are just as sticky , it is the unpersuaded that the debates are for.>>

That's a very good point.  I wondered about it myself, and I thought, as I said above, maybe he's afraid of coming off as a jerk if he humiliates some poor old guy who's a wounded vet.  A lot of the undecided probably bought into McCain's phony "torture" story as well, and if they did, then Obama's an even bigger jerk for humiliating some poor old guy who's a wounded tortured vet.

The other possibilities that occurred to me are that Obama's camp has looked into the so-called "undecided" to see WHY they're undecided and have figured (a) they already KNOW that Obama's the smarter man or (b) don't give a shit who's the better debater because they're gonna make up their minds on other factors or (c) are only calling themselves "undecided" because they're racists who don't wanna vote for a black man but don't want to admit it either.  There may be more possibilities that haven't occurred to me and I certainly don't feel that my (a) (b) and (c) are necessarily true, they are just speculative possibilities that could explain Obama's reluctance to enter into debate on grounds other than "Oh shit, McCain's so much smarter than I and such a better debater, he'll beat me like a gong and I will be SO humiliated," which I feel is really preposterous.

[Plane]

"Oh shit, McCain's so much smarter than I and such a better debater, he'll beat me like a gong and I will be SO humiliated," which I feel is really preposterous.

That is exactly how I see it, look over your own arguements , they are mostly good reasons to expect Obama to do well.

If McCain seems like a fool in comparison to the wiser Obama , only the very hard core would show up to vote for him , Obama can't be worried about looseing racist or hard core right or Feminist votes at this point , he has to present himself to the undecided somehow , and by refuseing to debate he is presenting himself as a coward.

[Michael Tee]

<<If McCain seems like a fool in comparison to the wiser Obama , only the very hard core would show up to vote for him >>

I disagree.  McCain's core voters seem impressed with his "patriotism" and "service," the phony "maverick" and "POW torture victim" labels.  I don't think they'll be spooked by poor debating performance, since they're mostly violence-prone rednecks who think an exploding cruise missile is the highest form of diplomacy.  Fools voting for fools seems to be the dominant motif in U.S. politics anyway, from Reagan to Bush II, so why should this election be any different?

<<Obama can't be worried about looseing racist or hard core right or Feminist votes at this point , he has to present himself to the undecided somehow , and by refuseing to debate he is presenting himself as a coward.>>

Some will see it as cowardice and others will see it as shrewd campaigning.  Nixon, for example, was no coward, but had he refused to debate JFK, I think you would have seen the same break-down in public opinion, some alleging cowardice, others shrewdness.  People are selective in who they wish to call cowards, I recall when Bush failed to even mention Saddam's challenge to duke it out man-to-man, nobody was willing to step forward and call Bush a coward, even with his prior record of combat avoidance.