Analysts say

by Ron Coleman | September 28, 2008 5:28 pm

Glenn Reynolds didn’t love the McCain performance at the debate, but finds folks who think the old man did great. His conclusion:[1]

You should never trust my judgment of these things, as I remember thinking that Carter won the Carter-Reagan debates. But Obama clearly won the post-debate spin, anyway.

Well, is there anything — anything? — that McCain, or Obama, could have done that could possibly have resulted in Obama not winning the post-debate spin[2]?

I can just see it…. [make-believe quotes follow]:

The Associated Press:

Obama’s decision not only to engage in the debate while intoxicated, but to bring a paper bag with a brown glass beer-bottle neck clearly extending from the top to the podium, is being hailed by analysts as a paradigm-shifting tack that exemplified Obama’s “change” and “youth” themes and left McCain on the canvas from the early going. “McCain looked old and disoriented — his shock at Obama’s brilliant ‘blitz campaign’ move just reinforced his image as out of touch and doomed to ignominious defeat,” said Chris Matthews.

The New York Times:

Ironically, analysts agreed that the fact that McCain was able to demonstrate a detailed understanding of the Pentagon weapon-systems accession process while enunciating his plan for a theater-by-theater reshuffling of tactical and strategic priorities in tandem with an analysis of the macroeconomic effect of military budget reform over a 14-year period put him at a huge disadvantage compared to his young, radiant adversary. “Obama went to Harvard Law School and turned down the post of Secretary of General of the United Federation of Planets to do community work with nuns and orphans,” said Chuck Todd. “He healed my dandruff just by gazing at a JPEG of my dog!”


Eighty-two percent of those responding to a telephone poll following the debate agreed with the statement, “Barack Obama’s reading answers off a cheat sheet written on the inside of his left lapel demonstrates that he has more in common with today’s youth than that old buzzard John McCain.” This is hardly surprising, as our Keith Olbermann said in his broadcast last night: “McCain’s experience is a handicap, really, because he only spent six or so of his years in the Senate doing what matters: opposing President Bush. That’s about the same as Obama, but with one big difference: Obama is the Word incarnate, and McCain is just a guy who couldn’t avoid getting shot out of the sky by a bunch of guys in black pajamas.”

Um, get my point?
Cross-posted on Likelihood of Success[3], Ron Coleman’s everyday blog, which isn’t bad.

  1. His conclusion::
  2. not winning the post-debate spin:
  3. Likelihood of Success:

Source URL: