September 27, 2008

US Presidential Debate 1

4am. Stayed up for the first McCain-Obama debate. No-one won. That was probably the biggest surprise, Obama really didn’t wipe the floor with McCain as some predicted.

McCain was erudite and seemed to know what he was talking about, no “I don’t know”s. Obama seemed more Presidential but McCain seemed more down-to-earth which might help him in characterising Obama as elitist.

I noticed a long time ago that in Obamas early interviews he tended to “err” a lot and seem unsure, and while he’s a lot better now you can still see a bit of it – he’s brilliant with prepared rhetoric and speeches but he’s not so great at thinking on his feet. McCain seems to be the other way around so they turn out more evenly matched in a debate.

Final verdict: not worth staying up for.

- 4 comments by 0 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. Sue

    I haven’t been following it at all but I did read in the paper a week or so ago that Obama was at a disadvantage because he is so slim and people don’t tend to trust very slim people so much. I thought John Kennedy was very slim but perhaps I’m mistaken. Come to think of it I don’t think he was as slim as Obama. I think the headline was “Is Obama too Slim to be President”.

    27 Sep 2008, 09:44

  2. Sue

    On second thoughts I think I should have replaced “slim” with “thin”, which seems to be a more derrogatory word when it comes to describing people.

    27 Sep 2008, 15:54

  3. Lewis Henson

    Don’t Americans always vote for the tallest guy?

    27 Sep 2008, 22:39

  4. Sue

    I suppose they have all been pretty tall. I always find it quite intriguing the way that in families the oldest one is usually the shortest working up to the youngest one who’s usually the tallest. Just taking the men in my immediate family, the youngest is 6ft 4ins., the next one is is 6ft 1ins and the oldest one is 5ft 11.5 ins – I always tell him that everyone who’s that height always claims to be six foot but he won’t have it. With me and my sisters it’s 5ft 6ins., 5ft 5ins. and 5ft. 4ins.

    28 Sep 2008, 22:10

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

September 2008

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Aug |  Today  | Oct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30               

Search this blog


Most recent comments

  • Oh, I forgot to mention that I am attending an ALPHA session today (hence the research) partly for i… by tony moore on this entry
  • I totally agree with Max's philosophy list (blog#72) and use the same except for the other–dimension… by tony moore on this entry
  • Excellent point, that I hadn't seen expressed before, and a convincing one. I'm not convinced that C… by Chris on this entry
  • (I note they similarly dodge answering the question in that old Arnold movie from 1990, by fading th… by Unfrozencavebear on this entry
  • Immensely late ( 8 years) congratulations on writing fuller, better resolution to 'Life on Mars' "To… by Unfrozencavebear on this entry

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder