lol, so if we find pictures of people looking stupid - it means they really are?

That looks likesomeone who love america.Whatever... McCain CRUSHED Obama last night. We have been so focsued on the economy it was important to see just how much of a difference there is on foreign policy experience. With this economy situation we will be vulnerable, it just has to be McCain.  We certainly need to keep John healthy in the White House but at least Sarah is less of a politician than anyone I have seen.

Viewing things from over seas it just seems funny how this girl has gotten so many people rattled. She's only the running mate.

Besides...she's rockin' the "chip clip"!

Is that the best you can do to make Sarah Palin look stupid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TBNeNHHXEY&feature=related

I could literally post these all day about your democratic vice presidential candidate Biden, it is clear that he is drunk on the campaign trail.

"McCain CRUSHED Obama last night"

Um, your partisan view is not shared by a majority of respondents. But thanks for sharing.

"Biden, it is clear that he is drunk on the campaign trail."

Now Tim, isn't bearing false witness a sin in your religion?

Oops,

Frank

"TPM has the internals of the CNN poll of debate-watchers, which had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. The poll suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness.

Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters. Per the transcript, McCain never once mentioned the phrase “middle class” (Obama did so three times). And Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience."

(www.fivethirtyeight.com)

Biden is the most experienced person on foreign policy of the four people who are being lambasted here.  All want to serve their country well.  It should be about the ideas, not about making fun of the people involved.  I'm more concerned about where these men and woman will take us, rather than if their diction is perfect.  I listened to the debate on the radio.  I didn't have the benefit of TV facial reactions.  On the radio, on the merits of the ideas, Obama seemed the more lucid and intelligent of the two. 

CBS News: Obama won 39%, McCain won 25%, Draw 36%

Insider Advantage: Obama won 42%, McCain won 41%, Undecided: 17%

CNN: Obama "did better" 51%, McCain "did better" 38%

(Source: www.realclearpolitics.com)

Kansas City Star (MO) Editorial, Obama has narrow victory in debate:

"Americans looking for a warrior in the White House surely warmed to GOP Senator John McCain’s scrappy debate performance Friday night.

But Democrat Barack Obama turned in the more statesmanlike effort. He was unflappable even under McCain’s often condescending attacks. While McCain went for punches, Obama scored points with sound arguments.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial, Clear differences:

The topic was foreign policy, with undercurrents of the financial crisis now consuming the attentions of the U.S. Congress. This main topic, woven as it is with national security, was one in which John McCain was thought to have an edge over Barack Obama. He made every attempt to paint the Illinois senator as naïve. He mostly failed."

John Baer, Philadelphia Daily News:

"The much-touted, long-awaited debate that almost didn't happen was a mixed bag, but helped Barack Obama more than John McCain.

I say that because on the issue gripping the nation - the state of the economy - Obama seemed better focused, better armed and more aggressive than McCain."

Oh and last but not least... wingnut pundit Dick Morris:

"Unfortunately, I think Obama won this debate," said Dick Morris on Hannity and Colmes.

--------

I think the only "CRUSH" around here is yours for McCain. :)

@fjblau - 

JOKE, Frank you must have watched a different debate then I, I'm sure everyone here watched the debate and can draw their own conclusions, I definitely don't need the media to decide for me who won the debate. What I saw was Obama fidgeting and on the defensive much of the debate. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the election, that's where it really counts isn't it? Oh we had better watch out for Obama's favorite group ACORN that they don't try to get a lot of dead people registered to vote:):):)

"Now Tim, isn't bearing false witness a sin in your religion?" If he wasn't drunk then he must have something wrong with him because his speech was slurred:):)

No Tim, I watched the same debate you did. And yes, I am confident that people can draw their own conclusions... I was just pointing out that "McCain CRUSHED Obama" is a significantly MINORITY view.

You're really grasping at straws now... desperation?

I can't WAIT for the election. :)

Frank

@fjblau - 

Did I say that McCain Crushed Obama? I'm saying that Obama didn't beat McCain if anything is was a DRAW.

No Tim, YOU didn't say it. But ShooterSteve did.

And I am glad you think it was a DRAW.

I respectfully disagree. Not that it really matters. :)

OBAMA WHOOPED MCCAIN'S OLD DECREPIT ASS. MCCAIN COULD BE THE FIRST AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO RIDE AROUND YHE OVAL OFFICE VIA MOTORIZED SCOOTER

Obama won that! Obama actually answered the questions asked him, all Mccain could do was try to Dog Obama, and actually never answered ANY questions.

And how many times did Obama agree with McCain?  More than once.

"And how many times did Obama agree with McCain? More than once."

Your point?

That they can agree on things is a GOOD thing. It also implies that McCain agrees with Obama.

McCain is still losing.

Frank

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

<TT>MCCAIN
<TABLE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=230 border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width=100 bgColor=lightgrey> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width=68 bgColor=black height=12> <TD align=right width=35><TT>68% <TD align=right width=95><TT>239,361 <TT>OBAMA
<TABLE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=230 border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width=100 bgColor=lightgrey> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width=30 bgColor=black height=12> <TD align=right width=35><TT>30% <TD align=right width=95><TT>105,141 <TT>NEITHER
<TABLE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=230 border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width=100 bgColor=lightgrey> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width=3 bgColor=black height=12> <TD align=right width=35><TT>2% <TD align=right width=95><TT>8,688
<TT>Total Votes: 353,190

As a Canadian, and from my viewpoint, am I mistaken in thinking that Republicans do not necessarily vote for the person representing the Republican political party, but rather what the political party stands for?

In the same vein, would people vote more for the charisma, and seeming leadership qualities of the Democratic Party candidates, more than what he stands for?

I'm looking at the charismatic qualities since Eisenhower: Nixon, Ford, Reagan (he had some, but was he acting?), George Bush senior, George Bush junior, compared to Kennedy, (jumped Johnson for obvious reasons), Carter, Clinton. Seems to me that these guys had more eye-appeal than the other bunch. Mw Obama vs McCain. Some believe that McCain may not make it in his full term. He's not young.

As photographers we know that beauty sells. Knowing this, is Pallin a strategy to increase eye-appeal of the Republicans?

Eh, what do I know? I'm a Canadian...:lol:

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

McCain 68% 239,361

Obama 30% 105,141

Neither  2%  8,688

Total  Votes   353,190

lol, Drudge.

The National Enquirer of political websites.

Have you looked at any OTHER, you know, NEWS sites?

I didn't think so.

Enjoy the echo chamber. :)

WHY IN THE WORLD!!!

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=43468023

I still don't trust a man, who if you dig into (not the media biased approach) his past and backround and also his record while in politics would agree he may have his own agenda! After his term just move out of the country and laugh at our stupidity of believing in him. LOL

He will meet all right with those countries who do not support our views and we will never know what is being dealt. Is he a spy for the Talliban? Who knows, where did he come from anyway in the political sense. I had never heard of him 'till this running. He couldn't answer either about the economy and how to adjust for it!!! This is the reason we want him over Bush??? Bush himself gave out loans to the people who could not afford them causing this mess. ALL HIS fault for everything! I got 1800 bucks back!! Thank you very much!

@fjblau - 

Most, you know, NEWS websites have their own little slant to them anyway. None of it really matters. Facts, that is. You like who you like and neither fact or opinion, opinion which come from both viewers AND your "news" sources, will change it.

@TastyAnonymity - 

All the more reason to look beyond Drudge, no?

What ELSE are you seeing out there?

What "facts" about the state of the election would you like to share?