BTW:

Democracy Corps conducted dial and focus groups with 50 undecided voters in Denver, CO during and after tonight's debate.Prior to the debate, these undecided voters had an* unmistakable lean toward McCain*, giving him strong personal marks (54 percent favorable, 34 percent unfavorable) while dividing evenly on Obama (42 percent favorable, 42 percent unfavorable). In fact, in the focus groups conducted after the debate, many of these voters explicitly said that they came into the evening wanting to vote for McCain.

In the second half of a football game highly successful and winning coaches adjust to what they saw in the first half.  Look at any coach who has a lifetime winning record and you will find a coach with a rich history of capitalizing on what they saw in the first 30 minutes.

Parallel this with McCains candidacy and his future as a president.  An argument can be made that McCain has made many adjustments in this campaign, Sarah Palin, terror, energy and negative.  All of which have fallen flat and in every case save terror and fear, McCain has wildly miscalculated what the American people need.

This debate was the centerpiece of a campaign that did not listen to the voting public.  Despite the medias soft push on his last two debates regarding his anger and message, McCain made no attempt to adjust his message or demeanor to appear more presidential or thoughtful.

The intimidation approach worked in and starting with McCains acceptance speech this year and up until last night he has stayed with the politics of old, which of course roll right into the more of the same theme.

People are scared not angry (anger comes later in the stage of grief) and McCain is so out of touch he doesn't even understand the stages of grief.

I watched briefly MSNBC (vomit fest), CNN (waaay too many talking heads) and FOX (watched the HRC interview she rocked).  None of which derided him regarding his anger. I think they know it is over for him and were giving a pass to a national "hero".  And by the way, an angry hero is still angry and unappealing.  

Gergen did say it best when he said that the best McCain can do is clean it up and leave with his honor intact.

McCain did not have control of his emotions or his campaign and it surprises me (although the campaign is still ongoing and the media is showing deference) that story was not discussed in light of his performance last night, hero worship notwithstanding.

Based on his performance as a candidate, his utter lack of discipline in that regard and his callous regard for the economy and the middle class, John McCain would be a disaster as President of the United States.

For the good of the country and safety of Barack Obama I would hope McCain would tone down the terrorist rhetoric and would instruct his running mate to do the same.  Shouting "kill him" is dangerous.  To that end McCain spent nearly 3 minutes asking Obama to "repudiate" Lewis and did not make a clear and stern statement to those would shout such an obscene and illegal statement.  It is indicative of McCains unrepentant and repugnant campaign and again a clear demonstration of why he would be a disaster as POTUS.

I know, I know; " go get your own blog."

Nevertheless, it really doesn't matter whether Obama promised it or not. Remember, when he promised to take public financing for his campaign if McCain did the same? Or remember, in the primary when he's trying to corner the left wing and activists of the party, he said he'll filibuster the FISA bill. When it came time to vote and the primary almost over, he voted for it.

The point is, can we trust this man to deliver on his promises when his records show he failed, particularly on the important ones? Is he a creature of political expediency?

In one of his unguarded moments, he slipped and revealed his core belief: redistribute wealth. America is the land of opportunity. But you have to, with patience, earn and work hard to get it. America rewards the brave and hard worker. I, too, believe, in helping the less fortunate. And that's where charity comes in. Americans are some of the most generous people on earth.

I have earned everything I've got and it took me a lifetime to get there. Like you, I want my hard work rewarded and not taken away. Let me decide who and what good causes I want to help.

I picked up a second clue on how Obama is going to govern. His principles are on shaky ground. He'll rationalize to operate outside his principles when it's convenient to his personal career. When Obama was questioned about his earmarks of $1B, he dismissed it as less than 1% of the budget. Yes, last year's earmark was only $8B. Was it the amount or the principle? If the project is a worthy one, why not let it go through the budget process with transparency and not slipped it in deceitfully? Big rackets start from small one as he finds what one can get away with.

Didn't Obama say, he was going to do away with pork barrel? The slick one, he just didn't tell at what % of the budget.

In his same dismissive way, he failed to come clean and be opened about his past associations with Ayers, ACORNS, Rezko, Wright, etc. This means that when he governs, he'll be dismissive of what Americans want to know if its something he wants to hide.

Yes, we can forget about any insuanations of his being a muslim (altho I see nothing wrong with being a muslim), a terrorists sympathizer, etc. What we have to look into are patterns of using association with dubious characters to advance his political ambition against the interest of the community, his lack of firm principles, his dismissiveness and slickness to be fortright with the truth, his use of racism and people's miseries to advance his career, and in the few times he slipped, who he may truly be in his core belief.

Candidates for the presidency are not given the benefit of a doubt. If they don't clear their names and be forthright, they're guilty as hell. It's too risky to give the most powerful position in the world to someone unproven. Like to the each of us, even they have to earn it. Obama for one is young, he can go back to the Senate, do hard work, self-negate his personal ambition for the greater good, and earn our trust that next time, it's not like we're taking chances with him.

As an answer, he mentioned his support for "clean coal technology" which puts him on the wrong side of environmental issues. The Sierra Club has condemned it. McCain, of course, is for it - as is Obama.

No one on this side of the issue - people who care about releasing pollutants into the environment - seem to care.
Obama did great in the debate. He looked presidential. He kept calm. Great.

Obama also mentioned his support for "tort reform" - which makes it harder to people who have been injured to sue the corporations that injured them.

No one on this side, presumably on the side of the people who are hurting, seems to care.