They both knew what Rick Warren is all about, and I'm sure both candidates had plenty of time to prepare based on topics important to Warren and his church. The candidates already knew that some topics were not going to be asked. I really don't think it would have made that big a difference. Neither is McCain's, but McCain's comes from somewhere voters can relate to. His thinking just isn't that exceptional. What makes Obama special is his campaign's execution, which speaks well of how he might govern. For all the talk about his wondrous freshness and newness, Obama's positions are pedestrian and third-hand Democratic talking points. The biggest difference between them, which will also manifest during the debates is that McCain can draw direct lines from his life experiences to his issue positions and Obama cannot. I saw Obama also give a good performance, but make two or three terrible, unforced errors, such as the absurd citation of his "vote" against the Iraq war as his biggest crisis. If he cheated, it was probably pharmaceutical - a perkiness and alertness boost. What I saw was McCain delivering a very good but not untypical performance. I love the Obama campaign trying to have their cake and eat it too: Spin #1) Obama was clearly better than McCain and Spin #2) Obama only lost because McCain cheated. His short answers, which Warren commented on, suggests he wasn't prepared to fill out the time. His expressions show he didn't know the questions. Maybe if you argue that he must have heard the questions 40 years ago and so spent the last decades preparing it would make a difference. Nor does it show how McCain shined because of his passion and depth of experience. The "you'd do it too, so there" argument doesn't speak well of showing how, in fact, Obama answered the questions quite well for this forum. It was clear he had prepared answers for expected questions. And if Obama had heard the questions, I very much doubt we would have gotten very different answers. ![]() What I do know is that any criticism of Obama is considered demonization, and so any possible mention of a reversed situation would be considered unmerciless impugning. If you've read this blog you'll know this isn't LGF. ![]() And oddly enough, it's Obama who's is making everyone think of that.ĭoes anyone who has read this blog before believe for a second that Simon and others wouldn't be unmercilessly impugning Obama's character I believe they (we) wouldn't. How does someone respond no matter how the rules were or were not followed? Obama is failing the biggest question of all, the one that Warren didn't even ask. ![]() No one in the world cares about the rules. He's admitted, conceding, the loss and complaining about the rules. Obama needs to be a new kind of politician and talk about his own answers and why they were in fact better. That's the immediate impression and that's now also the spin, a spin the Obama campaign is curiously promoting. Obama's complaints are making us assume Obama did bad and McCain was so incredibly, beyond natural ability, profound. ![]() But he came out with passion, with strong communication skills and expressed his broad understanding. McCain came out and didn't just have good answers, in fact his answers weren't different than whatever else we've heard from him. This wasn't a San Francisco union meeting. For the setting he gave as good as answers as he could. That to me is the biggest assumption of this whole "McCain listened" controversy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |