3rd McCain-Obama Debate 15 October

Black Swan

The last debate for the 2008 presidential election between McCain and Obama will be held:

• Date: 15 October 2008
• Time: 9.00PM EST (2.00AM 16 October Ireland)
• Venue: Hofstra University
• City: Hempstead, New York
• Moderator: Bob Schieffer, CBS News
• Topic: Domestic and Economic Issues
• Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table; audience will not participate and remain quiet during the proceedings
• Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment
• Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement.

Moderator background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Schieffer

If you were coaching McCain or Obama, what would you suggest that they need to accomplish during this final debate? What points? How to present themselves to the telly audience?

Sources: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/06/america/debates.php
http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/08/21/official-2008-obama-mccain-presidential-debate-schedule-vice-palin-biden/

yaynay

I would suggest that McCain needs to loosen up a bit, in the 2nd debate he is too wooden and he needs to be more fluent with his language.

Otacon

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If you were coaching McCain or Obama, what would you suggest that they need to accomplish during this final debate? What points? How to present themselves to the telly audience?

Obama needs to keep the focus on the economy. I thought he gave a brilliant explanation of what exactly the bail-out plan entailed and how it would/could benefit the taxpayer, better than Bush had ever done.

He may also benefit from attacking McCain's voting record on reducing regulations and tax-breaks.

If McCain can successfully distance himself from Bush, he may still have a chance.

He cannot avoid talking about the economy right now, so perhaps more details on his economic plans, especially his proposed buy-out of mortgage debts, would help clarify his position to the public.

His negative attacks, when looked at at this stage in the election, seem desperate. He needs to focus on the economy, as he appears to be running from it.

Overheal

McCain needs to focus on what he plans to do in office, not why we shouldn't vote for Obama. After all I dont want to vote for someone just because I dont want to vote for the other guy.

Our man in Havana

Vote for Ralph Nader instead so.

BenjAii

Economy, economy, economy - this all plays to Obamas advantages, especially as the current financial collapse is likely to be getting worse through October.

McCains only good idea economically in the last debate was the idea of buying distressed mortgages and selling them to homeowners at current market values of their properties.

He will badly need to pull a few more rabbits out of hats like that; but somehow I doubt it.

Black Swan

BenjAii wrote: »

McCains only good idea economically in the last debate was the idea of buying distressed mortgages and selling them to homeowners at current market values of their properties.

It sounded great, but he provided no details on what it would cost, or how he expected to pay for it during the 2nd debate? Will he pull out the federal credit card and charge it to the historically high federal deficit, which has now passed $10 trillion? Will he borrow it from the Social Security fund, increasing the likelihood that this programme will go bust sooner, impoverishing many people in their retirement years?

I am also getting very tired of the "good guy McCain, bad guy Palin" ploy of this political platform. Are there sufficient numbers of American voters ignorant enough to go for this obvious ploy to justify losing other, more intelligent voters who can see through it?

McCain and Palin need to stop wasting their time (and ours) attacking Obama, and start providing details on how they can help pull America out of this economic meltdown. Strong, informed, positive, and proactive details, details, details, not weak, negative, reactive, character attacking slurs, slurs, slurs.

Ludo

BenjAii wrote: »

McCains only good idea economically in the last debate was the idea of buying distressed mortgages and selling them to homeowners at current market values of their properties.

And that new policy has got him in trouble with quite a few republicans (the base) as "bailing out" individuals is against everything they stand for...some of the are NOT happy about it.

is_that_so

Not being happy doesn't necessarily make it bad. These are extraordinary times and a potential policy like that gives him scope to make a case, although it needs to be a very, very good one. I also think it's an interesting idea and one of the few lately that hasn't involved digging up the past or digging at the opponent. It also shows that he is trying to change his game plan and is at least attempting to come up with solutions for the economy. At this stage it is looking like occupying most of the next Presidency.

Ludo

But isn't helping out individual homeowners who are in trouble exactly what Obama has been saying needs to be done on top of the wall street bail out for the last few weeks?

I know I heard Obama say it numerous times so for McCain to come out with that plan seems to indicate he agrees with Obama...I wonder will McCain admit to agreeing with Obama as Mccain seems to see agreeing with someone as a sign of weakness (ads he ran after the first debate!!!).

is_that_so

Obama has not really come out with anything more than "we need to help Main Street". He has also been disinclined to say what policies he will have to cut or abandon, no more than McCain. A policy like this at least has an actual cost.

BenjAii

Is it not beyond the bounds of reasons that the dopey financial institutions that gave people these loans they could never afford to pay, might be the ones to take the hit ?

Yeah, what am i thinking; like that would happen, it would be the taxpayers.

is_that_so

Taxpayers are being hit anyway. A plan/policy of this type with a price tag is far easier to understand for an average voter than the merits of central bank intervention/Paulson's plan or any other type of plan will do. It's populist but it shows he is not afraid to/was forced to change focus. Whether it flies is another question but for Joe Six Pack it is something they are more likely to understand.

Black Swan

With McCain still lagging behind in the polls, does anyone expect him to "take the gloves off" in the final debate?

bobbyjoe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

With McCain still lagging behind in the polls, does anyone expect him to "take the gloves off" in the final debate?

I hope so they have been pretty boring so far. Obama should wind him up as much as possible beforehand. McCain has a famous temper make him lose it live on tv.

Black Swan

The bipartisan committee today reported that Palin abused her power as governor when firing Alaska's Commissioner of Public Safety as the result of a family domestic divorce dispute (child custody) and related issues. If McCain in the final debate takes off the gloves and attacks Obama's character, will or should Obama address McCain's judgment regarding the selection of his running mate (Palin), or take the high road and continue to appear presidential? Or what?

Black Swan

Forthcoming 3rd presidential debate moderator Bob Schieffer states:
"By now we've all heard their talking points," he said. "We've heard the general outlines of what they are talking about. The time has come to be a little more specific."

Source: http://www.kansascity.com/402/story/837927.html

"It will not embarrass me, if they go off in a different direction, to say `excuse me, could you focus on the question that I just asked?'" he said.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZKyRzfsLRRC55-YFZY0l9-iCKUAD93P2CJ00

Trojan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"It will not embarrass me, if they go off in a different direction, to say `excuse me, could you focus on the question that I just asked?'" he said.

Good stuff, we could do with a moderator that manages the debate properly.

GuanYin

ARRRGRGRGRRGRG!!

News outlets here currently discussing McCain's terminology when he said he will "whip Obama's ass" in the third debate.

Apparently using the word "whip" when referencing an african american is racist.

Why can't people just be sensible, no wonder policies and specifics never get discussed when news agencies are more concerned with this kinda sensationalizm over drilling the candidates until they give details on their plans. :mad:

Trojan

GuanYin wrote: »

news agencies are more concerned with this kinda sensationalizm over drilling the candidates until they give details on their plans

Boy, does that tick me off...

GuanYin

Trojan wrote: »

Boy, does that tick me off...

You're telling me.

If I didn't think Nader was a crackpot, I'd vote for him.

Overheal

http://www.cafepress.com/irregulargoods.9985019

Ludo

GuanYin wrote: »

News outlets here currently discussing McCain's terminology when he said he will "whip Obama's ass" in the third debate.

Apparently using the word "whip" when referencing an african american is racist.

LOL...that is mad. I still strongly support Obama after originally supporting McCain (at the start of the primaries) as it is not his fault that any of this crap comes out. Not McCains either of course although again he can be his worst enemy at times. He is running for President FFS...who talks about whipping someones ass in that regard...sounds like a loony teenager.

Hobbes

is_that_so wrote: »

Obama has not really come out with anything more than "we need to help Main Street". He has also been disinclined to say what policies he will have to cut or abandon, no more than McCain. A policy like this at least has an actual cost.

Pretty sure he has very detailed plans on his website.

yaynay

GuanYin wrote: »

ARRRGRGRGRRGRG!!
...
Apparently using the word "whip" when referencing an african american is racist.
...

It's a common turn of phrase, albeit not one that should be used by a Presidential candidate.

Scrutinizing an innocent comment to imply some sort of racist overtone is irresponsible of the media and could potentially incite violence.

Black Swan

"After I whip his you-know-what in this debate, we're going to be going out" and hitting the campaign trail, McCain said.

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_promises_respectful_campaign_and_to_whip_his_you_know_what.html

It is a common expression Stateside, and I doubt that racial overtones were implied by McCain when he said it. It is undignified for a presidential candidate to say such things, even before staffers... something more appropriate for a pub night after a few pints and before the big football game airs on the telly?

It does evidence how degenerated this whole US presidential campaign has become in terms of how the media covers events, as well as other statements like this one said by candidates on the campaign trail before mobs that chant rather than think.

Ludo

All this media looking for racial slurs was bound to happen when the first black candidate is involved. Anything and everything said will be examined in these days of 24 hour news cycles and they have to come up with something to talk about.

I do not believe McCain is a racist or has any racism thoughts at all. He just needs to think a bit more before opening his mouth when he is under a spotlight like he is now. He must realise everything he says will be examined. It is not fair or proper but it is the way it is right now and he has to deal with that.

dub_skav

McCain being accused of racism here is very similar to Obama being accused of sexism for his "lipstick on a pig" comments.
Both used common expressions that were perhaps a little base to attempt to articulate a point.
I don't believe there was any malice or anything untoward by either man in those comments.

There will always be people looking to stir the pot and whip up a frenzy, thankfully they are in the minority and are usually ignored by those with more sense.

Love or hate McCain I hope that nobody seriously thinks he was making a reference to slavery.

Tom65

Obama needs to do more of what he did in the second debate - be clear about economics, make McCain look muddled and link him to the Bush administration. He has to make absolutely sure McCain doesn't out-do him on the economy. It's the reason he's winning at the moment and if McCain can show he's as capable (or even almost as capable) as Obama on economic matters, it'll be a big boost.

Obama, in explaining the bail out clearly last time, looked not only like he fully understood the complexities but also came across as presidential. I think at the beginning of the campaign (and the primaries), people had a difficult seeing Obama as president. The last two debates have gone a long way to project that image.

Ludo

dub_skav wrote: »

McCain being accused of racism here is very similar to Obama being accused of sexism for his "lipstick on a pig" comments.
Both used common expressions that were perhaps a little base to attempt to articulate a point.
I don't believe there was any malice or anything untoward by either man in those comments.

You do realise that Obama was repeating a line McCain used about one of Hillary Clintons policies when he mentioned the lipstick on a pig don't you? And then McCain went off and accused Obama of sexism...priceless.

is_that_so

Hobbes wrote: »

Pretty sure he has very detailed plans on his website.

Yep, for all the value they have now. In these last few weeks what is there will come second to what is actually in front of people. I have to say every time I hear yet another plan from Obama, the hapless Baldric and his cunning plans spring to mind. Plans built on quicksand serve no purpose. Neither Obama nor McCain have shown anything that could be remotely perceived as leadership in the current crisis, a crisis that will still be around come Jan 20th and one most likely to dominate the first 100 days of the Presidency and far beyond. If I were American I'd also be swinging towards none of the above.

Black Swan

is_that_so wrote: »

Neither Obama nor McCain have shown anything that could be remotely perceived as leadership in the current crisis, a crisis that will still be around come Jan 20th and one most likely to dominate the first 100 days of the Presidency and far beyond.

Unfortunately, with the American two-party system, you have to chose between unqualified celebrity "R" or unqualified celebrity "D" when picking the next "American Idol" for the White House. And to vote for a token third party candidate is to delude yourself that such an option is realistic.

Just observe the vids on presidential campaign stops. Listen to the chanting, shouting, and mood of the crowd, and you'll see that a large number of these people are acting like celebrity fans, not thinking voters, akin to the hysteria of a rock-and-roll or heavy metal concert or rave (with many fans zoned-out on booze or drugs).

This election has demonstrated how flawed their form of democracy is in terms of selecting candidates for the two highest offices. Just look at who was chosen to be a candidate for the primary elections of both parties, and the flaws really stand out. The average American voter has no real input in terms of who runs for the primaries. Essentially, they are given a choice to vote for this connected candidate vs other connected candidates, but are not invited into the smoke filled rooms that decide who will run in the primaries in the first place.

That's how they get two very under-qualified candidates on the two major party presidential platforms, Obama and Palin? Or McCain, who should really be thinking about retiring at age 72, and will probably have to allow terribly unprepared and weird "Northern Exposure" Palin to take over before the first 4 year term expires? The only candidate that I think is remotely qualified is Biden, but he is so boring that he could not win by himself.

Trojan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The only candidate that I think is remotely qualified is Biden, but he is so boring that he could not win by himself.

Agreed with the first part, saddened by the 2nd. Surely if GWB can win, Biden could do it?

Black Swan

Trojan wrote: »

Agreed with the first part, saddened by the 2nd. Surely if GWB can win, Biden could do it?

I'll have to hand it to you Trojan, GWB is probably one of the most boring presidential speakers I've heard, and filled with gaff "Bushisms." I just cannot wait to see the film "W" directed by Oliver Stone! It will be like a 2 hour SNL and humourous indeed!

Synopsis:
"Josh Brolin stars as George W. Bush in this Oliver Stone biopic that traces the head of state's rise to power from a privileged alcoholic to a born-again Christian whose belief in religious destiny helped move him to the top ranks of political power. Co-written by Stanley G. Weiser, Bush is produced by fellow Stone collaborators Moritz Borman and Jon Kilik, with Elizabeth Banks co-starring as the first lady, James Cromwell as the elder President Bush, Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush and Richard Dreyfuss as Vice President Dick Cheney. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide"

Source: http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-synopsis/w.2/

brianthebard

Ludo wrote: »

All this media looking for racial slurs was bound to happen when the first black candidate is involved. Anything and everything said will be examined in these days of 24 hour news cycles and they have to come up with something to talk about.

Its not something confined to the campaign, I remember a few years ago a government official (I think it was a senator) got in a lot of trouble for using the word niggardly. They are hyper sensitive about that sort of thing. (will search for an article now)

edit: in my searching, I found another McCain gaff tar baby

Manic Moran

I have to say every time I hear yet another plan from Obama, the hapless Baldric and his cunning plans spring to mind.

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, it's not as if his plans are hapless, but I am bemused by the fact that he's coming out with new plans every couple of days. Make a decision and stick with it. McCain's doing it a bit as well, but not to the same extent. Or at least, not that I've noticed, though that might just be because I've heard more Obama on the radio than McCain.

As for the debate, if they keep trotting out the same lines as they used before (especially if they keep repeating figures that independent verification sites have demonstrated to be wrong or misleading), I'm going to hit something. Or shoot something, I just bought a brick of 200 rounds of 7.62mm NATO (My part to keep the economy going). Give us something useful, something specific, and something accurate, please.

NTM

Black Swan

As a reminder, the last debate is Wednesday, 15 October 9PM EST (New York), 6PM PST (California) time, and in the wee hours in Ireland 2AM 16 October. Does anyone think it will be any different than the first two presidential debates?

phoebeclark

Don't really anticipate the last debate that much.

Ludo

Only hope of fireworks is if this happens:

McCain's Transition Chief Lobbied for Saddam Hussein

The person charged with planning the McCain administration, William Timmons, lobbied for Saddam Hussein in an effort to get the international community off his back. Obama challenged McCain to talk about William Ayers to his face at the debate tonight and McCain accepted the challenge. What was Obama thinking? Maybe he will bring up Timmons and point that he (Obama) was 8 years old and living in Indonesia when Ayers was planting crude bombs but McCain knowingly chose Saddam Hussein's lobbyist for an important job in his campaign. There could be fireworks if Obama brings this up.

He could also mention Libby.

FrankGrimes

I'm sure Obama could also dig out McCain's involvement in the Contras in the 80s if he wanted to go down that route, but I'd prefer to see this campaign get back to focusing on policies and ability to be honest.

Ludo

FrankGrimes wrote: »

I'm sure Obama could also dig out McCain's involvement in the Contras in the 80s if he wanted to go down that route, but I'd prefer to see this campaign get back to focusing on policies and ability to be honest.

I fully agree about policies..BUT McCain is not going to win on policies he needs to do something. IF he goes down the Ayers route then he leaves himself wide open to the exact same being said about himself. Is eh that silly...guess we will find out.

Hobbes

Ludo wrote: »

Only hope of fireworks is if this happens:
He could also mention Libby.

I don't think Obama will bring it up at all and I know McCain is never going to put himself into a position now where Obama will be forced to mention it. Especially since any attack on Obama in that regards has been giving a negative result with the voters.

is_that_so wrote: »

Plans built on quicksand serve no purpose.

Can you be a bit more detailed as to what you mean in regards to which plan and you believe they won't work? That website is also kept up to date.

So, where is the reporting of all the HATE on the part of Obama supporters? Let me guess, it doesn’t exist? Hmmmm, I guess Obama supporters are all sensible, tolerant, upstanding people, void of any prejudice and bigotry? I think not!

Oh it exists alright. I even saw a recent picture of Obama supporters with T-Shirts of "Palin is a C**T" on the front.

What sets it apart is that McCains campaign has been (up to recently) actively pushing supporters to be aggressive. That video you linked to just reinforces that.

Where as Obama made it quite clear to those canvassing for him not to do the same to McCain.

Overheal

Ludo wrote: »

I fully agree about policies..BUT McCain is not going to win on policies he needs to do something. IF he goes down the Ayers route then he leaves himself wide open to the exact same being said about himself. Is eh that silly...guess we will find out.

rumours abound that he will do what his voters want, and thats go after the ayers issue tonight.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/15/mccain_hints_he_may_raise_obama_ayers_ties_in_tonights_debate/

McCain will have to be careful not to lose his temper at the debate though. With them being able to directly argue with eachother again that is. In the first debate he spent half his time grinding his teeth and trying to make it look like a smile: that same look your parents might get before they throw the kitchen table across the room after you've embarrassed them in front of guests.

Hobbes

Overheal wrote: »

rumours abound that he will do what his voters want, and thats go after the ayers issue tonight.

Lazy voters! He has already answered this issue months ago.

Overheal

Hobbes wrote: »

Lazy voters! He has already answered this issue months ago.

...when 80% of voters werent paying a blind eye. not everyone has had the time or energy to keep tabs on this 2 year escapade.

Black Swan

"But in recent days, Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin have scaled back their attacks on Mr. Obama, although Mr. McCain suggested he might aggressively take on Mr. Obama in Wednesday’s debate."

Source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27188680/

If McCain is aggressive about economic and health care issues, rather than to attack Obama's character, would it work?

If the recent polls are any measure, it would seem that the Ayers attacks against Obama's character by McCain and Palin over the past couple of weeks have backfired?

Overheal

If McCain does (and I think he will) go after the Ayers issue, he will also have to have prepared a credible defense against all of the questionable associations he has kept over the years as well. Which, according to one comment on the link I posted above:

that means Obama can bring up McCain Transition Chief, William Timmons' five years as a lobbyist for SADDAM HUSSEIN, and McCain's own relationships with Charles Keating, Gordon Liddy - the convicted Watergate felon, the Contras - the murderous Nicaraguan terrorists...to name but a few.
Should be interesting.

Galvasean

2AM? I have work at 8am. Guess I'll have to read up about this one in the papers. Pity, I would have liked to see it. Could be a fascinating encounter.

I think McCain needs to perform much more than Obama. He needs to make a big impact in this debate to turn things around. Obama on the other hand only needs to hold him at bay and not say anything stupid.

Overheal

Galvasean wrote: »

2AM? I have work at 8am. Guess I'll have to read up about this one in the papers. Pity, I would have liked to see it. Could be a fascinating encounter.

early morning? 4AM Powernap??

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

If McCain does (and I think he will) go after the Ayers issue, he will also have to have prepared a credible defense against all of the questionable associations he has kept over the years as well. Which, according to one comment on the link I posted above:

No, I do not believe that Obama will tit-for-tat the mud slinging if McCain brings up Ayers. On the contrary, he will try to appear presidential, as in the last two debates, and rise above such pettiness, pointing out that the American people have serious economic and health concerns not addressed by personal attacks. If Obama does this, Ayers character assassination comments just may blow up in McCain's face, as they appeared to have over the past 2 weeks, if the polls are any measure?

For some reason I am getting the impression that many of the still undecided voters may actually be waiting for one of the candidates to address specific measures of how to pull America out of this financial meltdown, and will vote accordingly? Could they be more of the thinkers, and not the ones that have been hysterically cheering for one side or the other since this campaign began?

Pocono Joe

Two things I would want out of McCain in tonight’s debate (I won’t hold my breath though).

One.
The ban on offshore drilling has expired, which recently happened after Bush lifted the Executive Order banning it. I want McCain to give, and get a commitment from Obama in the event of an Obama win, to allow offshore drilling. As part of our efforts to gain energy independence that will take decades, we must continue to support our needs as alternative energy technology and resources slowly come online. Therefore McCain and Obama needs to commit to using all their powers, including the power of Veto, to stop any legislation that would come from a far-left controlled Congress committed to stopping offshore drilling. In addition, Obama (and McCain) would need to commit to not execute another Executive Order (which comes from the President) banning offshore drilling.

Two.
McCain needs to demand a complete investigation to our current financial crisis. He said he would "name names" when it came to government abuses. As our government did with Enron, we need to go after executives who made off with millions (from questionable business practices) from AIG, Lehman, other public companies, also Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition investigations and legal action need to take place against any politicians who failed to protect the people of the United States by their stupidity, greed, corruption, or questionable political donations. And I’m talking about people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and other Democrats and Republicans who fought efforts from some politicians like B Clinton, GW Bush and J McCain in their efforts for tighter scrutiny and regulation of these lending institutions. They both talk about CHANGE... lets see some!


Side note… Has anybody seen the Drudge special report today? It sort of looks like they confirmed what I have been saying all along – that the mainstream media is merely scribes of the Obama campaign. Seems early today Obama’s Press Secretary Sean Smith issued a set of debate 'talking points' to the media. And the memo oddly mirrors much of today’s press analysis and theme of the current campaign. Looks like the left leaning media has finally found to get back to profitability… fire all their reporters and writers and just reprint the Obama campaign’s information. BRILLIANT! http://www.drudgereport.com/flashotp.htm