Who won? THAT one.
John McCain is a cranky, mean-spirited, frustrated and very angry man. He really should relax before something bursts.
Between referring to the person both he and Bush seem to think actually runs our military policy lock, stock, and barrel, Gen. Petreaus, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (he's not, and never has been.) and his decidedly cringy attempts at lame humor, to his baffling flashes of anger, the really low and bizarre stab at mocking Joe Biden's hair implants, (To this point, none of the dozens of pundits and others have managed to connect the dots on this remark, instead assuming it was just a typical inexplicably odd McCain crack.), to his weird announcement of a new policy goal to buy out the worst morgages of the most risky lendees, even though that very thing is part of the bail-out bill just passed, (Maybe he didn't read this version either.), to his de-humanizing and offensive and just plain out-of-it reference to the next President of the United States as, "that one", John McCain proved once again that he doesn't see America like you and I.
No, he thinks what will get voters hot are references to sending Marines to Lebanon, Bosnia, the first Gulf War, Teddy Roosevelt, (whom he knew personally), and the Crimean War. Well, I made that last one up. But you get the picture. Forward looking he's not.
The entire spectacle was bizarre, up to and including McCain wandering in front of Tom Brokaw's camera shot after the debate to his avoiding shaking Obama's hand even when it was extended to him, and then clearing out as fast as he could while the Obama's spent nearly an hour meeting the people in the hall.
Things look grim for the grim looking guy.
Maybe he regrets not winking a few times at the camera.
Instead, he radiated anger.
I was flipping around in the recording of the debate and came to a spot where McCain looked like he was ready to deck someone. What the heck was that about, I wondered?
I backed up a little and found out he was answering a guy in the audience who had asked him, "Yes. Sen. McCain, how will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?"
As McCain answered, something apparently caused him to get visibly angry at this mild-mannered looking guy. Why? I have no earthly idea. Maybe because he actually dared to suggest that the U.S. could do something to promote peace instead of endless war and constant militarism? That's my guess. Maybe he assumed that uttering the word "peace" made the guy an Obama fan? Who knows?
McCain's answer ended with, "Sen. Obama was wrong about Iraq and the surge. He was wrong about Russia when they committed aggression against Georgia. And in his short career, he does not understand our national security challenges.
We don't have time for on-the-job training, my friends."
I did a quick and dirty recording, just shooting the TV screen. The sound is faint, but just look at McCain's face and tell me that's not the face of anger and agression. Very weird.
Combine that with the dozens of other instances of him really losing his temper and lashing out reflexively in the past, and, well, it's McCain, not Obama, who's not fit to become President.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 10/08/2008
4 comments
4 Comments:
He might have cocked his arm back but he never took the "gloves off" like he said he was going to. He never repeated the crap about Ayers, the lies about troop funding, and the other crap that he and Palin have been spouting the last week. They've incited such lovely acts of compassionate conservatism at their rallies that folks have suggested "kill him" and that Obama is a "terrorist" guilty of "treason". Palin even got a crowd so worked up about the "mainstream media" that someone was compassionate enough to call a black cameraman the N-word and told him to "sit down, boy" in Jacksonville the other day.
Why didn't Senator McCain take this lovely act to the national stage last night - he certainly had no problem reviving it today? Is he scared?
It's over, what can I say. I been at this long enough I know when the writings on the wall.
Personally I thought McCain did much better last night than he did on the first debate. And as I watched it, I really thought he did a decent job. But as I've always said 'you never know what debate the other people will see'. Well when I saw the punditry jump on it, boy was I way off.
But here's something to think about- Dick Morris didn't think that McCain was mean and aggressive enough!
Nobody gave Brokaw credit for doing (what i thought) was such a great job in enforcing the rules and keeping them within time limits. Instead there were even some who actually bitched about Brokaw. Can you believe that? What was he supposed to do, let the candidates just filibuster away? Turn the forum over to all the crackpots?
I am already looking forward to the first book that does a post-mortem on campaign 08, so we can find out the inside dirt on all the "behind the scenes" machinations that are going on right now. Something like that Newsweek reporter wrote, or maybe Woodward will do something.
Have you ever wondered, what will you write about, on TID, after the landslide? Like 6 months or a year from now? Will there be anything to complain about then?
I sensed disdain throughout the debate from McCain,besides the little flashes of anger.
What was really "telling" was that kindergarten voice and condescention when talking to the guy about Freddie and Fannie...wow....combine that with the stories of the nastiness on the Palin.McCain campaign trail from some of their supporters... True colors are sure beginning to show.
Even the republican pundits couldn't gush over this one.
Nico,
It does look like McCain's toast. But I've been saying that for months.
BUT... it's not over 'til it's over.
I'm not sure I'd agree McCain did better overall this debate. Yes, the odd hostile refusal to even acknowledge Obama's presence was gone to a degree, so he didn't come off completely psycho. But he was just as stiff and exuded that air of barely pent up anger as usual.
He did try to give answers with a tad more detail and substance on issues (both did) and that was good, though no so good if you're scoring on what the average arrested attention span viewer would prefer.
Some people, including some pundits, seem to be rooting for nothing but some Jerry Springer style spectacle, with not the slightest interest in anything which might actually inform the viewer. This is pretty sad and really is an effort to turn politics into more of a joke than it is already.
But it's easy, and like gossip mags, people will always eat it up.
It's too hard to actually know the subjects enough to comment on issues. Let's face it, even though they make multiple millions per year, most pundits aren't a hell of a lot more informed about most issues than you or I. But what they DO have that we don't have is constant access to the D.C. social scene and cocktail parties, and therefore a weird obsession over inside gossip, who's up, who's down, who messed up, and so on, rather than doing something like critiquing the candidate's claims for their health plans to let people know who's lying and which plan they'd prefer.
This time around, the press seems to be skewing towards Obama, just as they'd skewed towards Bush the last two times around.
Now, a "balanced" panel seems to consist of one quasi-conservative, one definite liberal, and a liberal leaning journalist, whereas before, it was just the opposite... no actual liberal to be seen.
Turnabout may be fair play, but I wish that instead of trying to attone for their sins with being in the tank for Bush and being willing cheerleaders for war, etc. by skewing towards Obama, that they'd just play it down the middle and tell the truth.
To be fair, I DO think they're doing much better with calling people on lies and sorting it out.
McCain and the Republicans haven't been allowed to spew blatant lies and distortions at will as they were in the past.
At least some pundits and reporters are making an effort to keep people honest. But others still insist on pretending that everything's equal, and if one campaign lies, then the other must be just as bad. (Wrong.)
But on MSNBC and elsewhere, at least some aren't letting the McCain campaign get away with their rank bullshit, and that's a service to America.
And Tiz, yes. The McCain campaign, particularly the shrill weirdo Palin, is clearly going into very dangerous and irresponsible territory when they go out among half-crazed right wing loons and paint their opponent as some enemy of the state, a "terrorist" who must be eliminated.
Someone might just take them up on it.
So much for putting the country first, huh?
Post a Comment
<< Home