McCain and Obama Debate


It is a study in perception and expectation to hear what the debate “seemed” to those who watched it.

I read a bit on one of those often silly fluff pieces put up on the WordPress home page, being stunned that someone turned their sound off and examined how people “looked”.

If we think there are qualifications for the president, one can almost wish there were some for citizens. Do we know the difference from style and substance? Do we know the dangers of getting any more of those 18th century fantasy land “Originalist” on the Supreme Court, in a time when corporations are considered superior to the individual? Unlike back in the Old Day’s, when one of its champions, Clarence Thomas, would now be carrying wood instead of judicial briefs if his fantasy land imaginations were realities. Or are we just looking for style and who seems to score points even if they are false premises or contexts?  Short attention span theater favours ad hominem scoring over truth.

I’m afraid many of us do not realize the bias our corporate individual paradigm holds we regular original people under. We are secondary citizens, from access to government, to responsibility and accountability to the Commons. Many of us here in the good old USA are test-tube citizens, unable to discern the nose on our own face from the one on the TV that seems more, well, real.


I thought the debate was about even, a solid slight Obama advantage, a larger one if one bases their opinions on the use of actual facts and more than might makes right. That is the big invisible creature existing between what is coming across and what the viewer accepts as relevant or even valid. If a certain contemptuous sure style is thought of as strength (a la Cheney) then McCain seemed more certain of his accurate or not absolute conservative buzz notions. If sticking to talking points and phrases are “strong”, then he may have seemed to be more of it. No thinking on ones feet being required, is not a strength to me.

I was glad to see Obama at least look at the person he was talking to at times. That seems one of those fundamental connections that should not be considered voluntary when it comes to governing a nation in a complex world. We’ve had way to much of that ignore your non identical viewpoints already. It was a bit disconcerting to have McCain always looking at the notes of his apparently somewhat scripted presentation. Since he did not read the recent economic two and one half page proposition by the administration days after being submitted, what else will he not bother with once we are not looking. That is scary. Too busy with his lifelong dream of sitting in the oval office? Oligarchical families such as his tend to have grand entitlement expectations, like the Bush’s and Kennedy’s.

I’m glad Obama was not afraid to credit McCain when McCain was right. McCain seemed disabled to go to that factual reality complement. His script was that usual conservative one; lots of false fronts as diversions form real underlying issues. His use of that maverick tag seems intended to excuse those few times he goes off on his own, but after the last convulsive weeks of his campaign, I’m beginning to wonder if being a “maverick” is just another cover for being uniformed, but stubborn enough not to accept anyone else’s ideas.


Obama has proved himself to be one steady character, especially next to the erratic McCain lead up to this event. That is now McCain’s challenge. He has to keep his temper and contempt under control. If focus groups determine his ignoring his opponent is not a good thing, he may suddenly seem all “I’m in your face”, come next meeting. This credit could then be chalked up to maverick unpredictability’s.

McCain may well go more towards his warm and fuzzy people stuff. It has been part of the reason he is so accepted in alternative and more youthful areas such as the Daily Show. That, and how he was once a kind of real maverick, refreshing in a cult party of conformity. This sort of TV congeniality is what seemed to help George Bush amongst those who have not much of an ideological clue as to what these degenerating two parties represent, beyond personality type casting.

I would not have let George Bush watch my house over a weekend, not now, or in 2000.  I can see he is a scammer and playing off of American vulnerabilities in perception.  Yet many Americans were ready and eager to trust him.  Thanks a lot.  Now I am feeling these next two in that party have no right to oversee even a small business.  But failure never stopped these conservatives from failing again, even while allegedly succeeding.  The current scammer and chief is one prime example.  But I digress…

Obama has a more engaging world view. Most conservative types tend to keep their ideological blindfolds on until something rips them off; such as being held prisoner. Then, such as in torture issues, one might go against the stream of the blind following the blind. That is, until blindfolds are required anew.

Why Obama is so adverse to representing progressive ideals clearly, beyond the Iraq war issue and generalized economic ones, is quite possibly his wobbling crutch. Those can be quite populist, with strong emotional identity’s to average Americans. I imagine he does not completely share them, feeling they are a false dichotomy or such. Or he is like that centrist trend in his party, bending the individuals interest to the fate of globalising corporate ideologies.

Unfortunately for America; pandering to the wishy washy middle of the road undecideds, has morphed into the position both parties tend to go for come elections. This tendency may quite possibly be one that only furthers corporate horse race preference over truth in context fact… And so the world slides down the merging slippery slope to the One World Corporation. Once the world is a kind of prison, if there are elections for psychological reasons, perhaps the robots will give us food if we vote for the right one. Probably the smiling one.