One down, three to go...

Even after McCain's ridiculous threat of delay, the debate went on as planned.

No huge arguments, no huge gaffes, and not much new. Both candidates stuck with what they have been saying throughout the course of their campaigns (if you don't count McCain's flip-flops from his earlier stances on torture and the treatment of Veterans).

What disappointed me most about the evening was the media coverage of the "results" of the debate. As it ended they were already saying that Obama appeared weaker, and that he agreed too much with McCain. WHAT? The CBS instant poll of undecided voters clearly showed that Obama was more well received then McCain. So why was the coverage saying otherwise?

"Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw.

Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight. Thirty-two percent said their opinion of McCain got better.

Sixty-six percent of uncommitted voters think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy. Forty-two percent think McCain would.

Forty-eight percent of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. Fifty-six percent think McCain would."

Lets pretend for a minute that all of these numbers add up (66% + 42% =100%?). Overall, the largest percent, 39%, thought that Barack Obama won the debate. Bringing up the rear was John McCain at 27% - even less then those who thought it was a draw (37%). If this is the case (even though it adds up to 103%), Obama clearly "won" the debate, so why was the media portraying it differently?

Many people who are less informed about the candidates turn to the media to find answers. When they watch the debates and struggle to understand what the candidates are saying they depend on the media to help them decode it. This is why I can't stand the media reporting who "won" the debate before people have even vocalized their thoughts.

Another thing that bothered me about the media coverage was that there was not much mention of McCain's refusal to make any kind of eye contact with Obama, well that is except for the wonderfully liberal MSNBC.



That really disgusted me. No matter how much you dislike someone, when you are having a debate or discussion, you need to show them enough respect to at least make eye contact with them. It is just common manners. In the video, if you watch the clip from the debate and ignore Chris Matthew's rant, you can see that Obama was genuinely trying to make eye contact and connection with McCain - but McCain was just standing there smirking, shaking his head, or looking blankly into the audience. It is really hard to try and have a discussion with someone who won't even look at you.

How can we trust McCain to have meaningful talks and discussions with foreign leaders if he can't even look his opponent in the eye? As President, he would face many situations where he would have to talk to someone he doesn't care for. The kindergarten, game-like approach of refusing to make eye contact does not work in the real world. It would be embarrassing and completely unproductive for America to have a president that handles himself in that manner.

The media was focused on what they saw as weakness from Obama. Many media outlets were saying that Obama agreed with McCain too much. They were even showing videos that McCain supporters had put together of all the times that Obama said something to the effect of "I agree with Senator McCain on..."



There is a key word missing in these sentences - BUT. I agree with Senator McCain, but...

Here is an example of one of these sentences in context (from a transcript of the debate)

"And I have to say, Senator McCain and I, I think agree on the importance of energy, but Senator McCain mentioned earlier the importance of looking at a record.

Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel.

And so we -- we -- we've got to walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to energy independence, because this is probably going to be just as vital for our economy and the pain that people are feeling at the pump -- and, you know, winter's coming and home heating oil -- as it is our national security and the issue of climate change that's so important."

Why is this looked on so poorly? Obama was clear and honest about where he agreed with John McCain on some of the issues, BUT then he would say where their opinions differed and explained his plans to solve the issue. Why do they have to be complete opposites on every issue? I think they can both agree that we are in the midst of a major economic crisis and action needs to be taken, BUT they have different ways of dealing with it. This is how you have a productive conversation. This is talking with someone instead of at them. This is basic respect and the first step at creating solutions. This is what we need in a leader.

I will end this entry with one of my favorite McCain quotes from the debate. It has nothing to do with the rest of my post, but it supplied at least minutes of amusement to my friends and I as we watched the debate.

"And we fixed it and we killed it"

Fixed it AND killed it?

4 days until the Vice Presidential debate (I can't wait!) and 37 days until the election...