"The First Debate" NY Times editorial

[tpsbmam]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/opinion/27sat1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

(snips)

Mr. McCain fumbled his way through the economic portion of the debate, while Mr. Obama seemed clear and confident. Mr. McCain was more fluent on foreign affairs, and scored points by repeatedly calling Mr. Obama naïve and inexperienced.

But Mr. McCain’s talk of experience too often made him sound like a tinny echo of the 20th century. At one point, he talked about how Ronald Reagan’s “S.D.I.” helped end the cold war. We suspect that few people under the age of 50 caught the reference. If he was reaching for Reagan’s affable style, he missed by a mile, clenching his teeth and sounding crotchety where Reagan was sunny and avuncular.

Mr. McCain came to the debate after one of the more ludicrous performances by a presidential candidate. With the markets teetering and Washington desperately trying to find a bipartisan solution, Mr. McCain tried to make the biggest question of the week whether he was actually going to show up for Friday’s debate.

Mr. Obama dominated the economic portion of the debate, arguing that the Wall Street disaster was the fault of the Bush administration’s anti-regulation, pro-corporate culture. He called for a major overhaul of the financial regulatory system. Mr. McCain stuck to his talking points, railing against greed and corruption. He showed little sign that he understood the fundamental failures in government illuminated by the market crisis.

It was disturbing to see that Mr. McCain seems to have learned nothing from the disastrous war in Iraq......

............


In short, the NY Times gives McCain the occasional points but without saying it, IMO hand the debate to Obama.

[ixion]

1. I don't really see how calling someone names scores points

"McCain was more fluent on foreign affairs, and scored points by repeatedly calling Mr. Obama naïve and inexperienced."

So... by contrast... would Obama have "scored points" if he called McLame deluded and befuddled?

[tpsbmam]

2. I totally agree with you from my perspective

but if I'm looking at it from the perspective of the uninformed voter the repetition of "don't understand" and "naive" might sink in with some undecided voters -- it's a variant of inexperienced, which concerns some of those undecideds. That's what they were going for -- they simply wanted people to associate the concepts with Obama's name.

(Edited to say I freaking responded to me instead of ixion -- sorry!)

[mucifer]

3. the chicago tribune gave mcstupid the win

[tpsbmam]

4. Good lord. I seriously can't believe we were watching the same debate. Fortunately,

so far polls of voters say the Chicago Tribune is McStupid.

[Jim__]

5. I was watching MSNBC and after the debate they were almost unanimous in giving it to McCain.

I wondered what debate they were watching. By the end of the debate, McCain was rambling and repeating himself while Obama was still sharp and making good points.

[tpsbmam]

6. I was asleep by then (I recorded & finished watching early this morning).....

I'm speechless. Just speechless. I seriously don't think it's my bias (though I can't rule that out) -- there have been other debates that I thought the Republican took and the Dem fucked up. I thought Obama took this one by a mile.

[rainbow4321]

7. Mctroll "scored points"??????????????????????????

You score a point with truthful one liners, NOT by repeating a lie 50 times within 90 minutes. Get it right, NYT.