Hold....hold....
the elections are still about month away. McCain had to prove that he understood the economic concerns of the struggling middle class. "I feel your pain." They needed a reason to vote for him instead of just against Obama.
Posted on 10/08/2008 8:22:39 AM PDT by steve-b
In the land of instant television punditry, at least, the ayes had it when it came to the second debate between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain last night. It was summed up perhaps most directly by George Stephanopoulos of ABC: "Obama is two for two, he definitely won tonight."
Where the night of the first debate between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, and the debate last week between Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Gov. Sarah Palin, seemed to bring initial mixed reviews – which eventually evolved over time to largely favor the Democratic ticket — this one did not.
"Barack Obama did better overall,'' said Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist, as he reported the results from his dial test focus group in Virginia on Fox News Channel.
Chris Matthews of MSNBC declared, later, "The results are in, the viewers have spoken, Obama has won the debate."
Roger Simon of Politico, who gave a favorable review to Mr. McCain at the first debate, told Mr. Matthews, "Because McCain didn't win, he lost."...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
We knew that before the debate began.
Chris Matthews got yet another tingle up his leg. He will play the Monica Lewinsky role in an 0bama White House.
Just an edge? Why not a landslide victory?
Obama on the edge.
Pundits give the Democrat the edge after a debate..ever since I can remember.
Herr Goebels would be proud.
The United States is going to be a case study just like the Roman Empire. And, undoubtedly, there is going to be something to be said of so much power of the press. This is propaganda pure and simple. These people need to pay the price, but we are all going to suffer and go down in this disaster if they succeed.
I just read an article on Yahoo that said neither candidate distinguished himself, but Obama won because McCain was supposed to make some game-changing move. Try figuring out the logic in that statement, if you can.
The New York Times, liberal mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, quotes a former senior Clinton advisor to validate their opinon that the mumbling extreme leftwing Marxist won the debate.
All this effort to convince their lockstep leftwing audience of something that they positively knew happened before it happened and whether it happened or not.
The MSM gave the Democrats Obama and now they are trying to give him to the rest of us. I wonder if, after he gets elected, they will go after him on Ayers, Rezko, Citibank, Fannie/Freddie, and Wright/Black Liberation Theology to set up an impeachment and give us Biden. Whew, that was a stretch.
If he said this, he's a moron. He's clueless about business, the economy, and just how this country works.
That, my FRiends, is a summation of the election--not just the debate.
The camera stayed on Zero after the debate. Same on all channels.
To me that was bias to the max.
Here is a columnist (from Canada) who called it right.....
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5442
Thanks media! Again and again, I’m so impressed with the hard work you do. All the talking. It must be so hard.
But the idea that McCain needed to make a game changer came from Team Obama. True story.
It made one think that McCain and his wife had left the set. The media is shameless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.