85% in poll say Obama won final debate

okay, that is a bit weird indeed.

very well said HolyCity

Hi Jan.

Beforehand, let me say I respect your stance - you are justifiably cynical about both candidates, and call BS where you see BS. Good on you.

Also, this post kinda sprawled, and so is not directed at you personally, though I'm interested in how you feel about what I say.

True, the 'middle class' label seems to play to obama's base - but if the definition of 'middle class' is "earning less than $250,000 a year" - doesn't that cover poor people too? Seems you're confusing the 'branding' with the 'product' itself here. That said, what the tax-cut will eventually amount to is anybody's guess.

Its also difficult to see how Obama will pay for his proposals - he appeals to the "line-by-line" balance sheet approach and 'prioritizing like never before', but hasn't stated what happens if he looks at the balance sheet and finds (as he likely will) that the money just isn't there for many of his proposals. Concrete examples were not forthcoming.

McCain's proposals - well I don't see how they would work at all. For the most part, they look like ill thought out appeals to traditional Republican stances on policy - based more on simple 'faith' that they will work, rather than any knowledge or understanding of the current situation. Regardless of how much of a 'maverick' he continually claims to be, these appeals to 'belief' in policy over 'proof' (in the form of even the most basic explanations) are pure Bush administration tactics. "Trust me, I know what I'm doing - you don't *need* details, because I believe in America.". It made zero sense to me.

What I *disagree* with you on, Jan, is the necessity of the bailout bill. The assertion that Main St. bailing out Wall St. is something that is currently optional - that serves the few over the many only and does not have any bearing on the average American - is to misapprehend the severity of the situation we all face right now.

Every major economy in the world is undergoing some form of the bailout at this time. It is a measure of last resort designed to stop banks from crumbling and leaving us all in the shit. *Everyone*, not just investors and stock traders - needs banks. A modern economy simply cannot function without an efficient banking system. In this instance, failing to bail out the banks would mean companies being unable to pay their employees, people having their savings wiped out, or being unable to access money in the bank that's rightfully theirs.

Anyone who wants to call 'socialism' on this - based on a general resilience toward the idea of giving away any money to anyone for any reason - needs to explain what the other options are, and clearly.

No *we* didn't do this, no *we* shouldn't have to pay for it - but we are going to have to if we don't want the global economic system itself to collapse. What we get in return (though it isn't much to feed, heat or clothe ourselves with) is a say on how these institutions fundamentally operate that we have up to now been denied.

As we've seen, a highly competitive market with few rules and no referee will invariably succumb to the chaos caused by unscrupulous players. Now - with the banks coming 'cap in hand' to taxpayers for capital - is precisely the time to start engaging with the democratic process, informing yourself of the issues, and demanding the regulation and accountability from financial institutions that has been so lacking in the last few years.

Even when it has been justified, I hate to see cynicism turn people away whats in front of them. Yes, we should call politicians out, but we also have to ask ourselves how *we* should act in response to our situation - not simply sit back and bad mouth them whilst ignoring our own role in democracy and society.

Making your voice heard is one thing, making it count is quite another.

I wish people would stop labeling truth as cynicism to validate their own apathy and acceptance of this system.

I think Marshall Rosenberg says it well in his book, "nonviolent communication - a language of life"

"The more people are trained to think in terms of moralistic judgments that imply wrongness and badness, the more they are being trained to look outside themselves - to outside authorities - for the definition of what constitutes right, wrong, good and bad. When we are in contact with our feelings and needs, we humans no longer make good slaves and underlings."

Wait Jan, you're taking a cynical view on others finding you cynical above all else? That's classic. You are obviously intelligent and somewhat informed usually but you'd have to admit you tend to take a cynical view point a majority of the time. Well you'd have to admit it if you were being as honest and objective as you believe you are.

Cynicism definitely has a necessary place in political commentary but it must be tempered with constructive criticism, a balanced point of view and the occasional positive comment and/or viable solution to the problem at hand.

I was quite hoping to see some interesting counterpoints - but no matter.

hell yeah!,
You should post sum info about it on current dot com.

I'm in complete agreement - it was good to see a solid result and not a mixed message; even from a Republican network.

Here's the FOX news poll I see:

Question of the Day
Who won the final presidential debate?

John McCain 37%

Barack Obama 63%

Total Voters:88672
This is not a scientific poll.

Which one did you look at?

there is no such thing as a scientific poll.

what's an unscientific poll compared to a scientific poll?

that's kinda' shitty,
you shouldn't post stuff that plays automatically.

If you really feel the need to post this comment then I would suggest posting something in text and then adding this as a reply.

I feel the same way. even though i was only an infant when Bill, Bush, and Perot got down. All of America needs to see their options, not be so narrow minded.

First of all, fundamentally I agree with you. We should get to hear all sides of the debate from all VIABLE candidates. That's the key - VIABLE. Ross Perot was allowed to debate because he was polling at a significant percentage. Due to time constraints, among other things, we simply wouldn't be able to sit through every single person with designs on the Presidency speak. The question then becomes where to draw the line - 1%? 5%? 10%? What do you think (assuming you agree)?
Personally, I'd probably only allow into the final debates candidates who could conceivably win at least 1 electoral vote.

Ross Perot was included in the debates because he is filthy rich.

Ross Perot was polling at a significant percentage because he is filthy rich.

Elections usually come down to who has the money to spend.

you are not kidding...

and neither am I.

I am with you.

ill be on my way there also...maybe we will all be neighbors lol

McCain kept his cool is the past debates, but then he was labeled as not cool enough. Is there anyone cooler than Obama? I guess being cool is the best quality we can gather these days.

yeah,
I listened to all the debates instead of watching them...

are you quoting Mary J. Blige?

i like that somg.

yea its a good tune!

No more drama...vote obama...i'd buy that shirt!

i want one!!

yeah agree.

I'm watching MSNBC right now, and Pat Buchanan is ripping Obama a new asshole, so I don't know how that fits into your liberal-media-bias-theory.

the funny thing is that the focus group on fox news overwhelmingly were not leaning obama but all of them clearly said that he won the debate. they did also say that they wouldn't vote for him anyway which I think is was expected considering that none of them were obama supporters or leaning obama in the first place.

Let it be known that none of them were leaning McCain either. But you are correct, they overwhelmingly voted that Obama won the debate.

MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and FOX. Now are you surprised? Same results as the other debates. Same results you're seeing in the polls all across the country. Looks like the whole United States is forming a "liberal bias."

The media doesn't have a liberal bias, it has an Obama bias. I am a Democrat (or was up until this year, color me independent), they were in the tank for him right from the start of the primaries.

How so? During the primaries it appeared to me that the media favored Clinton and Mccain. The media's only bias , in my opinion, is to sell advertising and increase viewership, regardless of the candidate they're speaking/reporting about.

Actually, in 2000 McCain was the media darling of both liberal and conservative sources alike. I guess in the past 8 years his Hyde-like transformation into G.W.'s lapdog has had an effect along with his incredibly cynical base-oriented political conversion.

"The Maverick" is running on a reputation that's about a decade old. Its no wonder his campaign is looking threadbare. Unfortunately for John McCain, all the attacks only make him look more exposed. Meanwhile, Obama comes off as truly presidential.

facts tend to have a liberal bias

Very well put. I agree Obama was not going to stoop to the shallow head games of Mccain.I beleive he has positioned himself perfectly for the remaining 2 weeks.

Its a sad race to the finish. Who do you trust, they both lie, they both say thier policies work. Not sure who to vote for!! Any advice??