Debate watch

Matthew Blott

Hmm, I watched the first hour before dozing off which may have been due to a long day and the fact it was 3 am but also suggests it wasn't the greatest debate ever. I thought Obama was cool and performed well but I want him to be President so if I'm honest I couldn't say either candidate shone. I doubt the second half I missed was much different from the first. I certainly saw no killer lines. A nil-nil draw I thought.

Ian C

According to Justin Webb on Today it was McCain who edged it.

Fact is neither has a clear lead. If it is still close on Nov 4, and all the signs are that it will be, it will be Obama if he gets the exceptional turnout in key states. Very possible. It will be McCain if race is the final arbiter, which is also very possible.

The good news is that if its Obama his spending plans are not going to be achievable. There will therefore be nothing for the new president to do on the domestic front for at least 4 years and so foreign policy will get the attention.

TrevorsDen

A bit off topic but as the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for this crisis maybe not.

As a letter in todays Telegraph points out
"But starting in 1992 the Democrat-dominated Congress instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages for low- and medium-income borrowers. The Clinton administration threatened banks with prosecution under such laws as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which outlaw discriminatory lending by reason of race, marital status, religion and so on.

Fannie Mae was investigated for racial discrimination, and the Federal Reserve required banks to treat such sources of income as welfare payments and unemployment benefits as of similar merit to such criteria as income from employment, a good credit history or the ability to make a down payment. "

In case you do not trust letters to the Telegraph here are some links

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people"
This report is dated 1999 - so we can see how off the ball it is to blame republicans.

http://iperceive.net/hidden-clinton-success-story-fannie-mae-subprime-loans-for-minorities/

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28641

There goes that law of unintended consequences again.

Jack R

Some of the UK media seems more interested in blanket coverage of the minutiae of the US elections, that the run-in to e.g. the UK Conservative Party conference gets rather missed.

Never mind the US political opinion polls, what's happening in the UK opinion polls, and why?

'EU Referendum Blogspot' has this:

"After the economy, there can be no doubt that this is the most important issue in the book and, if the current economic crisis is resolved – at least temporarily – there is every reason to suppose that energy will leap to number one, especially if we do start seeing power cuts. In any event, even if the economy does go belly up, the lights going out could be the last straw.

"One is more than a little troubled, therefore, by the silence of the Conservative opposition. A post on Conservative Home today talks of the intended strategy of 'neutralising the economy as an issue', the aim having been 'to encourage voters to focus on the areas of policy where Conservatives are genuinely radical: crime, welfare, education.'

"The policy of downplaying the economy as a political issue is, of course, no longer tenable. But neither is the apparent policy of ignoring energy. While the Conservatives may indeed want to play to what they believe to be their strengths - crime, welfare, education – energy cannot be ignored."

Augustus

Obama's attempt to project McCain's policies as an inevitable continuation of the Bush administration's eight years was, in my opinion, not very convincing, especially as McCain played his maverick card to good effect. He also was able to make use of Obama's obvious inexperience in branding him unsuitable to lead the country. I also can not see on what basis news media such as CNN came to their opinions as regards Obama's qualities, both on foreign policy and taxation. He is surely out of his depth on both.

Nick Kaplan

TrevorsDen; is completely right about the complicity of the Democrats in the financial crisis. McCain co-sponsored a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie (the government created and backed mortgage companies that are responsible for 40% of American mortgages). The Democrats including Obama (whose campaign is being run by 2 people who are former executive members of Freddie Mac, and who has received huge amounts of money from those involved in these banks) repeatedly votes against any reform. This meant that these companies were able to sustain a virtual monopoly over the mortgage market, giving the government no choice but to bail them out, which in turn created a moral hazard meaning that banks could behave completely irresponsibly without facing the risk of their decisions.

The main reason Sub-prime mortgages have been issued is the 1994 community reinvestment act. Proposed by Clinton and passed by a Democrat run congress. This bill forced banks to loan to communities without concern for their credit rating or employment history in order to prevent non-existent discrimination.

This certainly is a great example of unintended consequences. However what really angers me is how the meddling of politicians can be the primary cause of a crisis and then the same politicians can pose as heroes to combat ‘greedy’ bankers and deliver us from their evil.

Verity

Ian C - You are British and have absorbed a lot of garbage from the MSM and Obama's campaign and should not be broadcasting foolish opinions on the strength of it. If he loses, it isn't due to race. It's due to the man. He's inadequate, over-ambitious, sly and not a loyal citizen and his past is murky. I cannot imagine any white candidate with his weird background and total lack of experience getting half this far, so if anything, Obama's being primarily Arab with one black ancestor and one white ancestor has served to inhibit people from saying what they really think of him.

With a couple of exceptions, the American MSM is as lefty and spiteful as is the BBC and you should trust them just as much.

Incidentally, out of ovedr 350 Congressmen, newcomer Barack Obama got more money off Fannie Mae than any other member of Congress except one. Right up there at number two and he'd only been in Congress for a couple of years at that point. Those years of being a Chicago operator certainly paid off for him.

Frank Pulley

It is shocking that American democracy cannot throw up someone better than both these candidates as potential Presidents.

On the one hand the empty barrel (with a queue waiting to hide in it, in order to sneak into the White House).

On the other a man who should clearly be enjoying his hard-earned retirement.

As Matthew observes - a nil-nil draw.

I hope they chose the safe (albeit injured and elderly)pair of hands, rather than those of the dodgy prestidigitarian smooth-talking shill.

The first could at least be trusted to put America and its allies first.

The second is dubious and dangerous.

Then I look at our own government ....

Ralph

It looked a draw to me but if I had to pick a winner it would be McCain mainly because of Obama's inability to score points after a bad few days for his opponent.

Also the 'McCain is right but...' thing doesn't work.

Verity

Ralph, I've posted elsewhere that FIFTEEN MINUTES after the debate closed, McCain's people put out a commercial on youtube of three instance of Obama saying, during the debate, "John's right" and "I agree with Senator McCain."

15 minutes! McCain has some sharp people behind him.

Also, a little girl in Hong Kong spotted that Obama appeared to be texting during the debate. I'd love to believe it, but I don't think Obama is smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.