Debates of all ilk

[innerSpaceman]

The reason the polls always tilt toward Obama even when, as happened last night, McCain does reasonably well ... is that more people just plain like Obama's demeanor and what he has to say better.

A debate is won or lost on more than just "points."


McCain got angrier and testier as the debate wore on. He may have been more controlled this time, but his 'tude is obnoxious and viewers don't like it.

The section about their respective campaigns did McCain no good. His protestations to the contrary, public perception is that his campaign is far more negative than Obama's. And perception is everything.

Obama pwnzored him about Bill Ayers and ACORN, and McCain looked like a fool when he just wouldn't let it go.


But, yeah, most damaging (imo) was his belittling of women's health concerns when it comes to abortion. Can you see him putting men's health concerns in litlte finger quotes and dismissing that as some far left radical agenda? (And John, that "agenda" happens to be the agenda of the United States Supreme Court and the Law of the Land ... not some far left radical plot. You, Sir, are a DickWad and, may I add, a FvckTard to boot.)

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm sorry, but f*ck Joe the Plumber.

Re: Obama

"And unfortunately I asked the question but I still got a tap dance... Almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr," he said.

Speaking to Fox News, Mr Wurzelbacher said Mr Obama's plan to raise taxes to redistribute money was "kind of a socialist viewpoint".
"Robin Hood stole from greedy rich people and redistributed it to the peasants, so to speak, so if he's calling us peasants, I kind of resent that," he said.

Uh, did Obama compare himself to Robin Hood? Or is this Joe's analogy? It sounds to me that Joe is calling himself a peasant and blaming Barack for it.
Source

Not to mention that Joe isn't even in the income bracket Obama is talking about.

COURIC: Well, he supposedly will raise taxes only on people who make over $250,000 a year. Would you be in that category?

WURZELBACHER: Not right now at presently, but, you know, question, so he's going to do that now for people who make $250,000 a year. When's he going to decide that $100,000 is too much, you know? I mean, you're on a slippery slope here. You vote on somebody who decides that $250,000 and you're rich? And $100,000 and you're rich? I mean, where does it end? You know, that's - people got to ask that question.

Source