Top this
Sep 28, 2008 Medialites, Politics and Poker
Glenn Reynolds didn’t love the McCain performance at the debate, but finds folks who think the old man did great. His conclusion:
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?
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.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I never watch political debates. They’re very misleading. You always find, when you see the news the next day, that it was nothing like what you saw.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:02 am
One of the easist ways to determine the winner of a dabate is to see how strongly the media plays up its darling. The more detailed in their discripton of the why’s and how’s of their candidates “win” the less chance that their candidate actually won. I think Keith Olbermann created new words with this one…
September 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Priceless parody of media bias…
From Likelihood of Success via Freeman Hunt:Well, is there anything