Don't accept McCain's invatation!

[BT]

my advice to Obama is to avoid face to face debates with McSame as much as possible.

if he can't go mano y mano with McCain, how in the world will he be able to go head to head with leaders from the enemy du jour?

[Plane]

<<LOL......scary question here, but what "facts" pray tell?>>

Just that Obama's had to back-track on some of his statements when faced with the demagogic rejoinder.  He wasn't able to hold  his position and in fact it would have been very stupid to have tried, so he had to back-track which of course makes  him look bad.  (Examples?  "bittergate," Michelle's "proud of my country for the first time in my adult life . . . " and talking to bad guys.)  The alternative is worse - - tell the truth and piss off legions of moronic red-neck thugs.  It is virtually impossible for a man who is honest, dignified and principled to hold his own in a face-to-face public debate with a demagogue.  The demagogue is pitching his "argument" to the morons in the crowd, who "think" i.e., respond, emotionally and (becuase these are gut reactions) very quickly.  He's also able very easily to keep Obama on the defensive with a lot of irrelevant issues (flag pin, "supporting" the troops, etc.) where Obama can't win.  A guy on the defensive is never attractive in a leadership race, and if he goes on the offensive, he'll offend all the rednecks who for other reasons might be prepared to give him a chance now.)

A reasoned and logical reply doesn't break the redneck audience's committment to the first (emotional) response.  IF Obama were smart enough (almost nobody is) to come up at lightning speed with a reply that is intellectually honest AND emotionally appealing, then he might have a chance of regaining lost ground, but that's really expecting too much of almost anyone.  Fortunately (I hope) Obama will be to smart to be lured into that kind of a trap.

So for the foregoing reasons, my advice to Obama is to avoid face to face debates with McSame as much as possible.

Ever hear the one about the two guys running from a bear?

One says Hey we can't out run a Bear , the other says Don't need to outrun the bear just you.

In a side by side comparison Obama would not have to seem smarter than Einstien , or smoother than James Bond , or more virtuous than Leo Tolstoy or more pious than Jesus , these worthys will not be debateing.

He has only got to outperform John McCain ,which you and I agree he can't.

But what advantage would a demagogue have in a face to face comparison?
Could McCain pretend to be clever?

[Michael Tee]

<<if he can't go mano y mano with McCain, how in the world will he be able to go head to head with leaders from the enemy du jour?>>

He CAN go mano-a-mano with McSame, only in a forum that favours him, not McCain.  At the end of the day, through forums and formats that OBAMA chooses, his message will beat - - will TROUNCE - - McSame's.

When he goes mano-a-mano with a foreign leader, the forum is NEVER in a town-hall meeting.  Usually it's behind closed doors.  All the advantages that a demagogue gets from the town-hall format are eliminated. 

Also, keep in mind the objectives are totally different.  IN the town-hall meeting, two citizens are competing for their fellow-citizens' support.  They have to at least pretend that everyone is all on the same team.  That's where the demagogue has a huge advantage - - he can put the good, honest, principled man on the defensive merely by questioning whether he's really on the team.

In negotiations with foreign leaders, nobody pretends, for example, that the two leaders are on the same team.  So a demagogue can not put Obama on the defensive.  Also, they are not playing to an audience, primarily they are negotiating one to one - - there isn't a hell of a lot of room for a phony like McSame to wrap himself in the false flag of false patriotism at the expense of the other party, before an electorate many of whom are dumb enough to fall for McCain's cheap demagogic tricks.

Big difference here, BT.

[Michael Tee]

<<But what advantage would a demagogue have in a face to face comparison?
<<Could McCain pretend to be clever?>>

Sure he could, with good speech writers and coaches.  But that wouldn't be his biggest advantage.  The biggest advantage would be to put Obama on the defensive with cheap shots at his patriotism.  Stay off the issues as long as he can keep Obama in defence mode.

[BT]

I hate to tell you this but Obama is the demagogue in this election. Thus far all he has done is appeal to emotion.

[Plane]

<<But what advantage would a demagogue have in a face to face comparison?
<<Could McCain pretend to be clever?>>

Sure he could, with good speech writers and coaches.  But that wouldn't be his biggest advantage.  The biggest advantage would be to put Obama on the defensive with cheap shots at his patriotism.  Stay off the issues as long as he can keep Obama in defence mode.

How would speech writers confer an advantage to Senator McCain when McCain had to answer a direct Question from the Audience or from Senator Obama?

A Senator who does not know how to debate effectively is missing an important job qualification , why do you have this incredibly low confidence in Senator Obama's debate skill?

[Plane]

I hate to tell you this but Obama is the demagogue in this election. Thus far all he has done is appeal to emotion.

Oh great, now we have to define "demigogue".


Half a gogue.


Obama has (according to some) a carefuly crafted ambiguity , can he maintain this long enough to get elected?

[Michael Tee]

They all appeal to emotion.  The question is which emotion do they appeal to?  McCain to the thirst for blood and the quest for military victory at whatever cost in innocent civilian life.  Hillary to xenophobia and racism in the ugliest campaign of all of them.  Obama to hope for a better world, which is to say love of one's fellow man (or I guess more politically correctly, one's fellow human beings)

We believe in Obama.  You believe in whoever you want to believe in, probably McCain, I don't give a shit.  He's evil as hell, but he's just a not-too-bright little worm.  You are going to lose and we are going to win.

[Michael Tee]

<<How would speech writers confer an advantage to Senator McCain when McCain had to answer a direct Question from the Audience or from Senator Obama?>>

I believe my reference was to good writers and coaches.

[Michael Tee]

<<A Senator who does not know how to debate effectively is missing an important job qualification , why do you have this incredibly low confidence in Senator Obama's debate skill?>>

Quite simply, there hasn't been a real debate in the Senate or elsewhere with George Bush or Reagan, where they had to face off against a political opponent.  Reagan dodged debate at all costs and Bush couldn't even answer Congressional questioning without Cheney beside him whispering into his ear.  Went into the Presidential debates with a radio hidden in his suit for instructions on what to say.  Who are you kidding, Important job qualification?  What's the last debate Bush ever participated in on the job?  Do you make this stuff up as you go along?  What important debate did Reagan ever participate in on the job?  Who debated him?  He wouldn't even answer reporters' questions, just pretended he couldn't hear them.  Get real.

[Plane]

<<How would speech writers confer an advantage to Senator McCain when McCain had to answer a direct Question from the Audience or from Senator Obama?>>

I believe my reference was to good writers and coaches.

     How would speech writers and coaches confer an advantage to Senator McCain when McCain had to answer a direct Question from the Audience or from Senator Obama?


    Do you have no confidence at all in your man?

[Plane]

<<A Senator who does not know how to debate effectively is missing an important job qualification , why do you have this incredibly low confidence in Senator Obama's debate skill?>>

Quite simply, there hasn't been a real debate in the Senate or elsewhere with George Bush or Reagan, where they had to face off against a political opponent.  Reagan dodged debate at all costs and Bush couldn't even answer Congressional questioning without Cheney beside him whispering into his ear.  Went into the Presidential debates with a radio hidden in his suit for instructions on what to say.  Who are you kidding, Important job qualification?  What's the last debate Bush ever participated in on the job?  Do you make this stuff up as you go along?  What important debate did Reagan ever participate in on the job?  Who debated him?  He wouldn't even answer reporters' questions, just pretended he couldn't hear them.  Get real.

Reagan debated well , Carter Debated well , George Bush was not so good but was better than his opponent Al Gore , which surprised many because Al Gore had been a Seantor and Senators debate for a liveing . Bush had been a govenor, senators get many times the practical experience with debate than does a govenor, so the Bush Gore Debate was an upset.


Do I make this up as I go along? That Senators need to know how to debate to do their job?

Both Obama and McCain are Senators, if either of them is a poor debator ,he is a handicapped Senator.

[sirs]

Still looking for those so-called "facts", Tee.  Or is this your standard rationalized opinion that you're declaring as fact?

[Michael Tee]

<<How would speech writers and coaches confer an advantage to Senator McCain when McCain had to answer a direct Question from the Audience or from Senator Obama?>>

A good coach knows what questions are likely to come at his man, what various forms the same question might take, how to deal with the question and what to say.  Doesn't tell the guy just once, he DRILLS him on it, just like you would drill your multiplication tables.  The response has to be automatic, but it has to seem sincere and original.  So you coach the guy not only on what to say but how to say it.  Believe me plane, I know what I'm talking about.  I've done this.  Some people are naturals, most aren't.  The ones who aren't need coaching.  If they can afford to campaign, they can afford coaches. 


    <<Do you have no confidence at all in your man?>>

I've got a lot of confidence in my man.  But that doesn't mean that I'm blind to his strengths and his vulnerabilities.  I believe he's smart enough to know them too.  I know he'll whip McSame's ass, but he'll whip it on HIS turf and HIS terms, not McSame's.  He's a lot smarter than McSame and he just needs to find the best showcase for that smartness and also for McSame's dumbness.  Basically, Obama's a life force and McSame's a death force.  And this is gonna show big-time before it's all over.  People probably know it already, but they'll know it in a much more immediate way in a few months.

[Michael Tee]

<<Still looking for those so-called "facts", Tee.  Or is this your standard rationalized opinion that you're declaring as fact?>>

I already gave them to you, sirs.  In this thread, you want to return to:

1.  my post 7:54;03 PM (in which I referred to "the facts" showing that Obama would be at a disadvantage
     against McSame in a "town-hall" debate;
2.  yours of 8:33;39 PM, "what facts, Tee?"
3.  my reply10:00:35 (where I gave the facts you asked for)
================================================================