# My thoughts on the Saddleback Debates this past weekend



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

For those of you who missed it,here are a couple of each. There are many, so I just selected a few key points:
















I think both of them did quite well, but there was some fascinating contrasts. They both were on the same stage together for just a moment, but it was striking seeing a young, virile, tall Obama vs. old, stiff, short McCain. It is likely quite intentional that they weren't together for very long, as I'm sure the McCain camp doesn't like that imagery comparison.

As for the meat of the substance of the debate, this was a really interesting discussion-as many people (including *Bill Kristol)* have already noted. I think most of the credit goes to the format: The two candidates sitting down, one after the other, with the same interviewer asking each of them the same open-ended questions, allowing the candidates to expand on a position if they so choose.

This kind of format gets rid of all the stupid interrupting and theater that normally goes on at a debate, but still provides viewers a way to contrast the responses of the candidates on key political questions. (There is, of course, _*the possibility that the person who goes second will cheat and listen*_ to the first person's interview rather than staying in his "cone of silence"- *which it clearly appears like McCain did *-but never mind that. The format was still refreshing.)

*Obama, I thought, came off ok*. He's clearly very comfortable talking about his faith and the role of religion in public life, and I think this is a big part of what's helping him make inroads among Evangelicals. He has a very smooth way of disagreeing on issues such as abortion while not making a religious audience feel condescended to or treated as some alien species. No matter what you think of Evangelicals this can only be good for Obama, electorally speaking.

*McCain also came off well.* Maybe it was because, as mentioned above, he probably cheated and was ready for Rick Warren's questions. Or maybe he was helped by low expectations. But in any case, he was forceful, on top of all the issues, and even sort of funny in moments. If you (like I'm sure many of you NODAK'ers did) paid close attention to the substance of what McCain was saying, you were probably agreeing with most of the interview. You should have been as you were McCain's intended audience. A lot of America really likes it when a white guy talks about destroying evil, lowering taxes, and doing bad things to the still-missing Osama bin Laden ( you know... if he's _ever_ caught.  )

*The most amazing moment, to me, was when McCain told Rick Warren that he doesn't consider a person rich until he or she makes over $5 million annually.* Did you catch that little nugget? (See last McCain You Tube video above) Still think he considers you middle class? I'm still trying to figure out who exactly laughed first that caused McCain to utter *"But seriously..." *regarding his $5 million response?

Initially it seemed he gave a serious answer, but then Warren started to chuckle at the idiotic response, and McCain, realizing he said the wrong thing, added the "but seriously..." part. Had Warren and the crowd not laughed would he have added that part? :roll:

I think we are going to start calling those McCant'isms... :lol:

(Note that Obama put the rich line at $250,000 ... which is still a figure that most working Americans probably can't get their minds around, but at least is only a few multiples of their current salary rather than the fantasy-land sum of $5 million.) For McCain, who is already getting knocked for wearing $500 loafers and owning six houses, the $5 million remark seemed like a sloppy self-inflicted wound. (And *he knew it the moment that figure left his mouth.)*

Overall, I think McCain had a better day, but just slightly. Obama did not have any major faux pas's -- although I thought by answering the names of SCOTUS justices they would not have named, they both demeaned themselves a bit. I would have said "With all due respect, Reverend, each sitting justice represents one of the three equal branches of our government so I am going to respect the fact they are seated and leave it at that."

That way he could have underscored the fact he does not hunger for a dominant "all powerful" Executive branch and show some class. However that being said, by naming Clarence Thomas, he was sending a message to the racist morons that think if Obama is elected, the whole country's gonna be "overrun with elite uppity colored folks."

But I digress, like I said, I personally think that McCain came out best. He had direct forceful answers that smacked of red meat Conservatism which the audience clearly wanted.

Obama is a rambler...he needs to tighten up for the debates.

I agree with *the "Debate Report Card" presented by Time:*

*Authority:* 
Obama: B+
McCain: A-

*Clarity:* 
Obama: A-
McCain: B+

*Credibility: *
Obama: A-
McCain: B+

*Audience reaction: *
Obama: B+
McCain: A-

*Overall: *
Obama: A-
McCain: A-

How is that for a fair objective analysis of both candidates?

Ryan


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Did ya notice how Obama caught himself right in the middle of saying Thomas shouldn't have been seated due to his lack of experience? How cool would that have been


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Gun Owner said:


> Did ya notice how Obama caught himself right in the middle of saying Thomas shouldn't have been seated due to his lack of experience? How cool would that have been


He did sorta say that didn't he?

He said he wouldn't have nominated him at the time due to his lack of experience right?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

R Y A N, I'm glad you found time to watch it, you missed this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7r1lpn4 ... re=related


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

No doubt G/O his mannerisms and delivery of that answer was not very nimble. But that is very much due to the nuanced nature of the issue.

However I fundamentally agree with his answer. There is no firm pat answer on what is right with abortion. If you take religion as a guiding factor out of the decision, and put yourself in the role of the woman making the decision, you see just how gut wrenching a decision it is.

Bad delivery, but perfect response.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ryan you want to talk about credibility. Watch NObamas eyes. When he speaks on substantive issues, he never looks Warren in the eye, compare that to McCain!

I have done countless interviews, been through training in reading body language and posture. NObama was exuding mannerisms that tell me and just about anyone watching that he was insincere and outright deceptive!

So watch it again and watch the eyes. I did and came away the second time even more impressed with McCain!!!!!!!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

some enterprising reporter should ask Obama if he gets paid enough to make a judgment as to when his daughters' lives began.

R Y A N, you missed this part also


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Maybe it was because, as mentioned above, he probably cheated and was ready for Rick Warren's questions.


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

That sounds like the last election where Militant Tiger cried "Bush was wired". Liberals always have an excuse why their man did so poor. I think McCain ate Obama's lunch.



> The most amazing moment, to me, was when McCain told Rick Warren that he doesn't consider a person rich until he or she makes over $5 million annually. Did you catch that little nugget? (See last McCain You Tube video above) Still think he considers you middle class? I'm still trying to figure out who exactly laughed first that caused McCain to utter "But seriously..." regarding his $5 million response?
> 
> Initially it seemed he gave a serious answer, but then Warren started to chuckle at the idiotic response, and McCain, realizing he said the wrong thing, added the "but seriously..." part. Had Warren and the crowd not laughed would he have added that part?


I don't know I laughed just like Warren did. It wasn't an idiotic response, it was humor. I hope Warren and I were not the only ones to get it.



> the $5 million remark seemed like a sloppy self-inflicted wound. (And he knew it the moment that figure left his mouth.)


Only for those with no sense of humor. He also said, I'll bet that gets misconstrued. He was right.



> Overall, I think McCain had a better day, but just slightly.


Well, if McCain sticks to what he says I like him more than I did a couple days ago. I think he wiped his behind with Obama. Obama with his appeasement to evil. "Oh, I don't know we have to approach this with humility. You know sometimes we do things under the pretense of doing good, but it doesn't always work out that way" Just what radical Islam is looking for a candy *** apologist. Pathetic.



> Obama did not have any major faux pas's


We will just have to agree to disagree, because I think he has a faux pas's every time he opens his mouth without his handlers around.



> How is that for a fair objective analysis of both candidates?


I think Obama did much worse than McCain. Time's analysis isn't objective. I think it was more like trying to numb the blow their golden boy took to the chops. I can't wait for the debate. I hope America has the same response as the audience in this interview.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

g/o said:


> some enterprising reporter should ask Obama if he gets paid enough to make a judgment as to when his daughters' lives began.
> 
> R Y A N, you missed this part also
> 
> http://www.youtube.co


Nope didn't miss that part. It was select cut and pastes, and not the entire unedited debate.

Didn't miss it. Included it in both my thoughts, and some moments from my clips. Just go look for Saddleback Parts 1 thru 6 on both Obama and McCain. Don't settle for cut and past "Highlight" jobs.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Obama is a rookie with no center and he will lose, he looked weak and always falls down when not in a controlled situation.

Hes not qualified to be the president of Fargo, much less the USA.

I wonder if the Dems have to guts to admit their obvious glaring mistake and nominate Hillary. She would be 10 times more president than Obama.

Really funny how stuff works out, with the Dems falling victim to their own "PC Sword" . They are really stuck between a rock and a hard spot. If the Iranians keep the nukes stuff up and the ruskies keep fooling around in Georgia McCain will win big.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> some enterprising reporter should ask Obama if he gets paid enough to make a judgment as to when his daughters' lives began.


G/O whats the most confusing day in the ghetto??

:eyeroll: fathers day.


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

R y a n said:


> *The most amazing moment, to me, was when McCain told Rick Warren that he doesn't consider a person rich until he or she makes over $5 million annually.* Did you catch that little nugget? (See last McCain You Tube video above) Still think he considers you middle class? I'm still trying to figure out who exactly laughed first that caused McCain to utter *"But seriously..." *regarding his $5 million response?


*That has got to be a joke right?*


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i agree, as they are amassing huge amounts of money from the far left liberals, trying to buy more air time, some i am sure are beginning to worry that their "new face" has too many obstacles to overcome. they will spend half their convention time trying to paint BHO as a mainstream, average American that want to represent all people and bring the nation together.....they have to keep fighting his image problem, rather than trumpeting the issues...McCain is not only past that, but holds the most favorable image of an candidate, distinguished military service with sacrifices No-bama has no clue about......issues are his to focus on, not so much, or should we say, so easy, for NO-bama.

the dems picked the toughest candidate to market for the office.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

It was a joke, when the dems boy was getting his but whipped, they have to grasp at upsurd ideas, mccain cheated, mccain thinks $5million is the rich threshold, blah blah blah.

The funny thing is, if they would just come out and say hey, barack did crappy and needs to improve it would probably help their cause more.

As it stands they will keep up with the Barack love fest, which he is eating up, and he will continue to falter all the way to second place.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

> The most amazing moment, to me, was when McCain told Rick Warren that he doesn't consider a person rich until he or she makes over $5 million annually. Did you catch that little nugget? (See last McCain You Tube video above) Still think he considers you middle class? I'm still trying to figure out who exactly laughed first that caused McCain to utter "But seriously..." regarding his $5 million response?


The $5 mil response was in reference to Warren's estimated profits from his book "A Purpose Driven Life". A little jab at Warren that, of course, the humorless liberals don't understand.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Ryan you want to talk about credibility. Watch NObamas eyes. When he speaks on substantive issues, he never looks Warren in the eye, compare that to McCain!
> 
> I have done countless interviews, been through training in reading body language and posture. NObama was exuding mannerisms that tell me and just about anyone watching that he was insincere and outright deceptive!
> 
> So watch it again and watch the eyes. I did and came away the second time even more impressed with McCain!!!!!!!!!


Ron

I watched Obama's eyes all thru the second clip from my original post above. He looks Warren in the eye everytime he speaks to him. Are you blind? Are you talking about when he looks away to gather his thoughts and compose words?

I have also done countless interviews, been thru training in reading body language and posture, both in college, and in law enforcement, and am also trained in psycho-social and small group communication dynamics in an interview scenario here at work. With all due respect, we must have been watching 2 different videos, or else you are letting your predispositions affect your objectivity.

As someone who has that training, you should also be paying attention to how he arrives at those answers, the manner in which he delivers them and his awareness of the audience he is delivering to. Obama delivery was calm, measured and relaxed. He was nervous to a degree, but his answers were not deceptive, evasive or "prepared". You should be able to see that when he finally did arrive at an answer it was delivered in a continuous measured way. He looked out at the audience once when answering, but otherwise looked right at Warren.

There was no strain in his voice, and he exhibited no outward display of deception (pupils, sweat). Frankly it is disingenous of you to even insinuate otherwise.

Come to think of it... when speaking to a large group of folks in a meeting, and asked a clarification question, my mannerisms are highly similar to those that Barack displayed.

I guess I must have been lying too...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

tumblebuck said:


> > The most amazing moment, to me, was when McCain told Rick Warren that he doesn't consider a person rich until he or she makes over $5 million annually. Did you catch that little nugget? (See last McCain You Tube video above) Still think he considers you middle class? I'm still trying to figure out who exactly laughed first that caused McCain to utter "But seriously..." regarding his $5 million response?
> 
> 
> The $5 mil response was in reference to Warren's estimated profits from his book "A Purpose Driven Life". A little jab at Warren that, of course, the humorless liberals don't understand.


umm no.

That would be $25 million for Warren's take on his book.

The $5 million quote was directly in response to his question on "What is rich... please answer in a Dollar amount what is rich"

Please go watch the video(s) again.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

R Y A N, I could have post all of them I didn't feel it was necessary. I did want you to hear some of his comments that you should pay attention to. For instance the other day when Ron Gillmore and myself corrected on you on his divorce. Along with his answer about waiting his turn in a prison camp, that shows what kind of person McCain is. Last but not least pay attention to his response on the supreme court. Remember R Y A N, 5 to 4, that was the vote on the gun issue recently. If Obama is elected we will get more liberal judges especially with a democrat congress. If that is what you want go for it R Y A N, sorry but thats not for me.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jgat said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > *The most amazing moment, to me, was when McCain told Rick Warren that he doesn't consider a person rich until he or she makes over $5 million annually.* Did you catch that little nugget? (See last McCain You Tube video above) Still think he considers you middle class? I'm still trying to figure out who exactly laughed first that caused McCain to utter *"But seriously..." *regarding his $5 million response?
> ...


Go watch the video.

I think he was serious for a split second. He then quickly covered and tried passing it off.

I don't think that was a "joke". It wasn't a moment designed for a joke. During other parts of his debate, he kept trying to interject jokes into his answers. This may have indeed been intentional, so that it preserves screw ups like this ...

You see if he is always "joking", that keeps the idea of "plausible deniability" on the table for anything he might have said later that was a screw up. Genius if you ask me.

That way he has an "out" that... "OHhhhh it was just a joke. hahahah", after he has a chance to gauge the reaction of either the host or the audience.

Let's face the facts... McCain has moments of senility. He slips up and is out of touch for just a moment here and there.

You'll see....


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

I guess the NPR correspondent got he $5 mil reference wrong, too.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

g/o said:


> R Y A N, I could have post all of them I didn't feel it was necessary. I did want you to hear some of his comments that you should pay attention to. For instance the other day when Ron Gillmore and myself corrected on you on his divorce. Along with his answer about waiting his turn in a prison camp, that shows what kind of person McCain is. Last but not least pay attention to his response on the supreme court. Remember R Y A N, 5 to 4, that was the vote on the gun issue recently. If Obama is elected we will get more liberal judges especially with a democrat congress. If that is what you want go for it R Y A N, sorry but thats not for me.


Corrected me on his divorce? You may have corrected me, but that is not how the rest of the country views it.

No doubts about the prison camp. We agree there...

Don't blame me for the Democrat Congress. That is a result of the public's dissatisfaction with Bush and the war. If more liberal judges get in due to that, give Georgie a call on his Texas ranch. The same goes if Obama does get elected. R's should be looking at bit further down the road, and contacting their legislators a bit more if they didn't want to see this coming. You sleep in the bed you make.

The recent SCOTUS decision set SCOTUS precedent. You do not have to worry about the Right to Bear arms being removed now that it has been declared an individual unalienable right. Yes there will still be some challenges, and it is highly likely that no matter what, some regulation of arms is likely coming within 10 years. Republicans thought that if they kept Bush in office for 2 terms, that they would preserve the Conservative balance on the Court. They got a major win with CJ Roberts, however unfortunately 1 or 2 more did not retire/die.

To be clear, I have no dog in this fight. My state has already been decided. No matter how I vote it doesn't matter.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I watched the debate and I have watched the videos posted here and elsewhere. I think that both Obama and McCain did well, but I am continually amazed at how McCain continues to come back to his POW years and Christian faith as his only two qualifications to be president.

Oh, save the reactionary comments on how I am being disrespectful to veterans for bringing up the POW issue, because I am not being disrespectful. I am saying that being a POW does not by itself qualify a person to be president.

Give me two unknowns, one old and one young, and I'll go with the young one. I sincerely think that McCain's mind is slipping. Maybe it's age, maybe it's stress, or maybe it's something else, but it scares the heck out of me to think of him sitting in the oval office.

I agree with Ryan in that Obama answered the abortion question perfectly in my opinion.

The debate reassures me that I made the right decision in sending in a contribution to the Obama campaign.

A vote for McCain is nothing more than a vote to continue with the current administration's policies. That makes just about puke.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Give me two unknowns, one old and one young, and I'll go with the young one.


 Wow a liberal self proclaimed age discriminator. I'm impressed you had the nerve to admit it.



> I sincerely think that McCain's mind is slipping. Maybe it's age, maybe it's stress, or maybe it's something else, but it scares the heck out of me to think of him sitting in the oval office.


Oh well senile trumps liberal.  



> A vote for McCain is nothing more than a vote to continue with the current administration's policies.


Oh come now that's just a democrat talking point. How about someting original? He bucked Bush several times. He crossed the isle several times. Not that I approve of that, but no democrat other than Lieberman does that, and the liberals hate him for it.

Try to get over the Florida loss. Also try to understand Bush isn't running.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> No matter how I vote it doesn't matter.


This is whats wrong with this country, to many people such as yourself figure their vote does not count. To many people have felt the same as you over the years. Look how Obama has rallied the blacks in this country. They will be voting in largest number recorded. R Y A N, I'm not worried about the second amendment either but we will other issue come to play.

BigDaddy, McCain at least has 2 more qualifications than Obama does. I've already sent McCain a bunch and will be sending more :beer:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I would encourage everyone to watch the clip in its entirety! If you can say it was not a joke after that then you need to put the kool aid glass down!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> > No matter how I vote it doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> This is whats wrong with this country, to many people such as yourself figure their vote does not count. To many people have felt the same as you over the years. Look how Obama has rallied the blacks in this country. They will be voting in largest number recorded. R Y A N, I'm not worried about the second amendment either but we will other issue come to play.
> ...


Ya, I might even have to break down and send McCain some money. The second amendment might be safe today, but if the last decision is challenged with an Obama supreme court it will not be safe tomorrow. It hurts to send money to a second or third choice, but it will keep America from scraping the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Wow a liberal self proclaimed age discriminator. I'm impressed you had the nerve to admit it.


In the words of Thoreau, "Age is no better, hardly so well qualified for an instructor as youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost".

I stand by my words. With all else being equal, I'd rather have the intelligent, creative, passionate younger person. McCain looks and acts like my father's generation. Obama looks and acts like my generation.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey, what ever trips your trigger, I just was shocked that a liberal would admit to any kind of prejudice.



> but it was striking seeing a young, virile, tall Obama vs.


I looked at the beach volley ball girls on here, but I have never paid much attention to Obama.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:17 pm
> 
> I stand by my words. With all else being equal, I'd rather have the intelligent, creative, passionate younger person. McCain looks and acts like my father's generation. Obama looks and acts like my generation.


That is correct, selfish, me only attitude in a Presidential candidate!

They did not call our fathers generation the *Greatest* for nothing!


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

BigDaddy said:


> > Wow a liberal self proclaimed age discriminator. I'm impressed you had the nerve to admit it.
> 
> 
> In the words of Thoreau, "Age is no better, hardly so well qualified for an instructor as youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost".
> ...


problem is with "all else being equal".....us old guys would rather have our Constitutional Rights upheld, not trampled....we also don't believe in 
the creation of a "world community" or a "socialist regime"..which is currently available in France and some other European countries.

curiously, we still believe in the sovereignty of the United States and not the UN......but then, just call me old fashioned......and fiscally responsible.


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

R y a n said:


> jgat said:
> 
> 
> > R y a n said:
> ...


I watched all of the videos before I left my comment. I was glad you posted them, because I didn't get a chance to watch them this weekend. If you are taking the liberty to claim that McCain was serious, than I guess I can take the liberty to claim that Obama's "rich line" is authors with 25 million in sales (which was also obviously a joke). If it wasn't a moment designed for a joke, than why did your guy insert a joke in the exact same place as McCain did? Guess he is using "plausible deniability" just like McCain is.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> BigDaddy said:
> 
> 
> > > Wow a liberal self proclaimed age discriminator. I'm impressed you had the nerve to admit it.
> ...


 :lol: :koolaid:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jgat said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > jgat said:
> ...


Not even close. Everyone could immediately tell Obama was joking. Heck the way he delivered the line was enough.

McCain was being serious. Everyone was clearly shocked for a split second, and then nervous laughter broke out. Then everyone quickly laughed it off.... and then McCain caught himself.

Either he has a poor delivery of a joke, or he was poorly coached on when to deliver it, or he heard Obama's reply earlier and was trying to recall the $25 million answer and was trying to be cute and witty. All or any of which failed miserably. I simply can't believe that knowing how sensitive people are to his "wealth" and how it came to be, that his advisors wouldn't tell him to steer clear of any discussion of income or wealth, and the appearance of him being out of touch with the lower classes.

Either way it was a faux pas.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I simply can't believe that knowing how sensitive people are to his "wealth" and how it came to be, that his advisors wouldn't tell him to steer clear of any discussion of income or wealth, and the appearance of him being out of touch with the lower classes.


I'm so far down the chain that I can't see the difference in money between McCain and Obama. I got a kick out of it when Michelle Obama was talking about how hard it was to make ends meet when the kids dance lessons were a thousand a month or something like that. Wow, she has no idea where the rest of us are at does she? I'm sure glad I'm not stricken with class envy like liberals are.

Say, a few years ago they listed the top ten richest senators. Nine were democrat. That's always confused me when liberals who are often the rich complain about the rich. I guess they expect us to buy their line. With all those rich republicans around a guy sure has to feel sorry for the Kennedy's. 

I just come back from a party and watching 60 people drinking beer. The funniest thing all day was someone took McCain's five million dollar comment serious. My wife is a light sleeper. I hope I don't keep her awake tonight laughing. I guess I never took it serious, because I don't think anyone is that stupid. I see Obama as treacherous not stupid. I think people really need to ask themselves is anyone that stupid? Maybe people just hope he is that stupid, but I don't think it's so.

Sometimes it works in our favor when people underestimate us. Remember how Egore was going to really wipe out Bush in the debates. He even took alpha training for the event. Then Kerry was going to just demolish Bush. Neither happened, and before we start arguing that, who's in the White House? Guess who will be in the White House next. If the debate is anything like the interview I'll ----- no I don't think I can conger up sympathy for a United Nations communist.

As far as McCain cheating:


> "Senator McCain was in a motorcade led by the United States Secret Service and held in a green room with no broadcast feed."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12594.html


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

drink the coolaid ryan, drink the coolaid. :withstupid:

It is quite comical, when obama pretty much tanks, it's oh, mccain cheated or did you hear that, it wasn't a joke. Just like Obama, *no substance!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> How is that for a fair objective analysis of both candidates?


Here is a far, far better analysis.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com ... th-talker/



> August 18th, 2008
> Analysis of the Rick Warren Presidential Forum: Passion and Conviction Versus Monotone Smooth-talker
> by Rachel Alexander
> | View comments | Print This Post
> ...


Read it all it's worth it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > How is that for a fair objective analysis of both candidates?
> 
> 
> Here is a far, far better analysis.
> ...


Read it all.

It is basically what I stated previously.

Good read though. Thanks


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It is basically what I stated previously.


Oh, OK. Maybe it's just the way each of us interpret things. I thought the Intellectual Conservative drew a more stark difference between the two. for example:



> The other theme Obama kept coming back to was that we don't do enough for the least in society. That also rang hollow because he wasn't referring to encouraging Americans to get active in charitable work, but instead wanted them to vote to raise taxes so we can force everyone, even those who don't want to help in this manner, to turn over their earned money to the government to then dole it out to favored groups.


Also:



> Overall:
> Obama: A-
> McCain: A-


Contrast with:



> McCain easily outperformed Obama in his responses to issues evangelicals care about.





> McCain scored points





> Obama kept repeating throughout the forum that he's come to realize it's not about himself, which was nothing more than a rip-off from Pastor Warren's book (Obama even noted that the first line of A Purpose Driven Life is "It's not about you").





> Obama's example of going against his party? He had a hard time answering





> McCain scored points when he responded to a question on what issue he's changed his mind on within the past 10 years


I could go on, but I would say Obama gets a D while McCain gets a B.

They stuck it to him on his true intent. It leaves you wondering if Obama gives a hoot about the poor, or simply hates the rich, or has pet "favored groups" he wants to give my money to.

I also noticed they said it was clear Warren preferred Obama. After the big hoopla Warren and Bono are making over Africa it's no surprise. I think Warren prefers Obama because he sees billions for Africa.

One of the most disturbing things about Obama is his respect for Mandela. People should dig into history and see why this man was in prison. South Africa wasn't doing bad. Now they are killing farmers for their land. What is it Obama admires about Mandela?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ryan wondering if you went back and actually watched the rebroadcasts of this debate. Did you watch NObamas eyes and body language compared to McCain.

I asked you before if his body language showed that of someone telling the truth or someone who was hiding or flat out lying in his responses.

If the cable news outlets continue to play the Abortion responses like they have. People will soon realize what I am saying in regards to his eyes!!!!!!!

The words do not matter, the eyes tell the tale!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron I agree, and I have had a little training in this myself. One class in college covered the body language that many sales people are trained for. For example when you tell a customer that a specific vehicle is a very good purchase and he crosses his arms you might as well move on. If a customer tells you "yes that's the original mileage on the speedometer", but he will not look you in the eye, or he specifically looks down he is lying to you. 
Any college psychology department worth spit has a class or two that talk about body language. I noticed that on Fox News they often bring in a psychologist who specializes in body language. Interesting take they have on all of the politicians. 
As we go on Obama is getting better. If his aids read the things that are being said on many blog sites they already have told him not to look away or look down. Today he talked to soldiers and looked at them directly. The problem today was he said things 180 degrees of his record. He knows what lies he must tell.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Listen, I have had extensive training on interview techniques and reading body language. In fact, I took part in a 3-day training by ND Bureau of Criminal Investigation on the subject. I have interviewed many, many people, and I think that I am good at it.

Looking down is not an idication of lying and deception, as Ron and others allege. Instead, looking down is an indication of concentration, nervousness, or recall images that are linked to specific feelings. I think that Obama's eyes were an indication that he was nervous and giving his responses a lot of thought, plain and simple.

You guys are grasping at straws.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You guys are grasping at straws.


I would guess that these people (politicians and political handlers) are all trained. In that light he may be trying to convince people of many things through body language. I noticed today that he did look directly at the soldiers he was talking to. However, what his mouth said was not of what his record speaks.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Ryan wondering if you went back and actually watched the rebroadcasts of this debate. Did you watch NObamas eyes and body language compared to McCain.
> 
> I asked you before if his body language showed that of someone telling the truth or someone who was hiding or flat out lying in his responses.
> 
> ...


Yes I went back and reviewed them.

Here was my reply at 2:37 yesterday:



R y a n said:


> Ron Gilmore said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan you want to talk about credibility. Watch NObamas eyes. When he speaks on substantive issues, he never looks Warren in the eye, compare that to McCain!
> ...


Grasping at straws indeed.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

BD what does up and left indicate if right handed? What does non direct contact mean when answering a question? You know the drill, you have been through the training. To say that his body language and eye contact showed concentration is only giving part of the equation and you if you have been through the training know exactly what it means!

I will suggest once again for anyone and everyone to watch the debate again and pay attention to the eyes and body language. Simple observation will tell you that the answers are scripted as well as some very obvious not fully truthful. That meaning he either left something out or changed something to best meet the situation he was in!

I went though two seminars, the one was especially interesting in that we each went through a video session connected to a stress meter. In it we where instructed to deviate from the truth but not completely in responding to questions. Funny how accurate the observers where when we told them when we where not fully disclosing all the information or intentionally misleading them.

Big Daddy we know you are a NObama and DNC cheerleader, as much as I am a anti NObama. But in regards to the debate, one cannot say that NObama did much to sway voters who are on the fence or have uneasy feelings about the choice they are planning on making.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> BD what does up and left indicate if right handed?


Eyes moving up and to the left indicates that the person is using visually constructed images. It indicates that the respondent may be constructing a dishonest answer, especially when it is combined with other clues such as adopting closed postures (such as crossing the arms or legs), leaning away from the questioner, or answering questions in vague, open-ended fashion.

I have watched and re-watched the video. I mostly see Obama's eyes moving down or down and to the right. Again, I see little evidence of dishonesty. I see more evidence of stress and choosing words very, very carefully.

If you want to argue that Obama did not do as well in the debate, then let's debate that. Personally, I think that he answered the questions. However, I don't think it is fair at all to argue that he had body language indicative of lying.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I would say not so much lying as not being forthright in his responses in regards to full disclosure. Such as modest increase in taxes. In that response for example he looked Warren directly in the eye and held himself in a manor of confidence.

Compare that to his response on when life beings and the contrast of the two responses are classic examples of someone withholding or crafting an answer that is not complete or of embarrassment.

The tough issues like evil are another example of this type of body language and eye movement.
If you can watch it with out sound. Follow the


> tells


 that you have been trained to look for. Then come back and defend NObama and his responses!


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

BigDaddy said:


> However, I don't think it is fair at all to argue that he had body language indicative of lying.


I learned at a young age how to tell if a politician is lying........

When their lips are movin'. 8)

Hasn't failed me yet.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

4CurlRedleg said:


> BigDaddy said:
> 
> 
> > However, I don't think it is fair at all to argue that he had body language indicative of lying.
> ...


I was thinking the same thing. We would perhaps be better off leaving the military volunteer and drafting our politicians. I would be a conscientious objector.


----------

