US Election Coverage 2008

[Rev. Kishoka]

Susuviri uko macho ukiangalia finals?

 

[Ogah]

very good Jaluo!!.........ni muhimu kujua chanzo cha tatizo

 

[Ogah]

Yes you don't wait for a crisis to happen to hold someone accountable......Go Jaluo Go!!!

 

[Rev. Kishoka]

"Orgy of Spending"!! Catch phrase of the day!

 

[Ogah]

Kweli kabisa hii "John was Right".....inaboa sana........Obama katika Ulingo wa siasa unatakiwa kum-crush oponent wako.....Obama anajisahau anafikri ni Dermocratic mwenzake yule!!!.........

 

[BAK]

Kweli kabisa hii "John was Right".....inaboa sana........Obama katika Ulingo wa siasa unatakiwa kum-crush oponent wako.....Obama anajisahau anafikri ni Dermocratic mwenzake yule!!!.........

Although he wanted to convey a message of bipartisan, that was wrong and I hope he won't repeat that mistake again.

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

Although he wanted to convey a message of bipartisan, that was wrong and I hope he won't repeat that mistake again.

Bubu,

that is a tactic to woo the independents.Sijui kama ulikua unacheki kwenye
CNN?Ule mstari wa independent voters was appreciating Obama's move... considering it as a bipartisan approach.Unajua kwa sasa we are fishing for independents maanake die hards wameshaamua.Whenever McCain took the condensending approach the line started going down...eti sijui Obama doesn't get,Obama doesn't understand...yaaani mtu anakubaliana nawewe angalau pointi mbili tatu nawe unakataa katakata any contribution from the others side?...mmmmhhhh?

I had though McCain would have hit the ball out of the ball park but it wasn't
so...the son of the lake held his ground.Hii ilikua debate on foreign policy na McCain hakutoboa.Sasa tusubiri ile ya economy..kabla ya hapo unaeza
kununua popcorn usubiri vichekesho vya Palin na Biden.

Hizi kampeni mwisho!!!!

 

[Susuviri]

Jamani, There was a time that Obama said "John you were WRONG"!!!

Obama: So John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the "surge," the war started in 2003. At the time, when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said you knew where the weapons of mass destruction were -- and you were wrong. You said we were going to be greeted as liberators -- you were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shi'a and Sunni, and you were wrong. ...if the question is, who is best equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment

So he did say "You are wrong" in a very intelligent manner.

 

[Susuviri]

Most polls show that Obama won the debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CBS, NBC, CNN polls show that independent or undecided voters went for Obama with double digits margin!
GOBAMA!!!

 

[Ogah]

Nyani ameamua kulala mapema leo.........kwi kwi kwi kwi

 

[Susuviri]

Nyani ameamua kulala mapema leo.........kwi kwi kwi kwi

Lakini alishakiri mapema kwamba Obama will win!! Even though he was trying to lower expectations, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.... hahahaaaaa!

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Most polls show that Obama won the debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CBS, NBC, CNN polls show that independent or undecided voters went for Obama with double digits margin!
GOBAMA!!!

Angalia poll ya FOX...McCain 82% Obama 15% kwa hiyo inategemea....hizi media outlets ulizozitaja zinamkampenia Obama na watazamaji wake wengi ni liberals kwa hiyo flash polls zote wanazotoa zita reflect hivyo...

Kizuri ni kwamba kwenye ratings FOX imewaacha mbali sana kwa ni logical kuamini flash poll ya FOX kwa vile stesheni yao inaangaliwa na watu wengi zaidi.

 

[The Truth]

What exactly did Obantu say on the debate that was so great? I heard the same empty rhetoric he always spews, when asked to give specifics he kept waffling. He tried to sound intellectual but he wasn't saying much. Seriously, how did Obantu get into Harvard? Forget I asked that question, I already have the answer...affirmative action.

The Empty Black Suit
By Joseph Kay
There is a certain type of black student on today's campus who outwardly is smart, articulate, motivated, ambitious, punctual, socially engaging, and all elsthat any professor might want. For both the champions and the doubters of affirmative action, such black students seem to be just what the doctor ordered to banish racial stereotypes. Unfortunately, the performance of such students on intellectually demanding tasks usually disappoints. The anticipated "A" on a research paper, for example, turns out to be a minimal "C," and, to make matters worse, writing style, logic, footnoted references, and all else indicating cognitive talent contradict the splendid outward appearances. Compromise typically resolves the discrepancy. To avoid trouble, the "A"-looking African American student is given a "B" for "C" work. If he or she complains of the unanticipated "B," matters can deteriorate yet further. Discussions may reveal an inability to grasp the assignment's aim or why the performance was judged sub-standard. He or she may claim that similar work always won "A's" elsewhere. It is as if professor and student resided on different planets.

Because these surprised professors only know their own students, and are not aware of the general phenomenon, they seldom dig deeper. The lousy grade is easily attributed to shoddy high school preparation, lack of prior help, and the other liberal excuses that are proffered for low black academic achievement. Moreover, similar outcomes have occurred with white students, i.e., the classroom brain unexpectedly flunks the course. But what makes this "disappointing smart-appearing black" phenomenon interesting is that it is pervasive. When the subject is raised in personal conversations, countless professors say, "Yes, now that you mention it, I've had several like that, but I thought I was the only one."

These disappointing outcomes are predictable, and have consequences far beyond the campus. The problem begins with the fact that few African Americans at a given university, thanks to lowered admission standards, have the IQs necessary to compete with their white classmates. If merit alone determined admission, this mismatch would not occur. All students would vie on a roughly level IQ playing field, and, given overall IQ distributions, few blacks would populate top academic programs.

What can paper over this deficiency is that many black students master the outward signs of "being smart." This is traditional outsider adaptive behavior, regardless of ethnic/racial backgrounds, and is reflected in phrases such as "passing" or "fitting in." For those with above average intelligence, a keen eye plus a gift for mimicry is often sufficient to play imposter. Familiar academic tools include learning fancy words like "paradigmatic" adroit name-dropping, affecting the professorial sartorial style (e.g., a tweed jacket, blue Oxford shirt), certain verbal mannerisms, even a sprinkling of Yiddish in some venues. A PowerPoint presentation with multiple equations bedazzles. A few Black Panthers once pulled off this deception by tossing around a little Marxism. This is no different from a competent actor with a few weeks of observation plus some props convincing an audience that he is a business tycoon though the real tycoon would sense the charade.

There is a scientific basis to this skilled imitation. IQ test data indicate that blacks usually perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items. This is the opposite of popular criticisms of IQ testing, which argue (falsely) that blacks score low because they lack access to the "white" culture underlying IQ tests. In reality, blacks perform worse on abstract, non-cultural sub-tests like spatial relations and better on questions reflecting everyday life (e.g., "What is a bed?" an actual question on the popular WAIS-R IQ test). Thus, a black sociology student who confidently asks about a "construct validity of a multi-dimensional operational indicator" at the department's Thursday symposium will be deemed a rising star and doubters risk being called racist ("Are you hinting that blacks can't do measurement"?). And with actor-like performances rewarded by approving professors, this superficial verbal facility improves. But when lengthy tests require students to evaluate and apply in detail alternative validity approaches to varied statistical indicators, the game is up.

Non-university people cannot grasp just how simple it is to fool those wanting to believe that outward appearances signify intellectual ability. This is particularly the case in soft disciplines that do not require mathematics. The cleaver law student imposter can conspicuously carry around legal tomes, ask "serious" questions whose sole purpose is to name-drop obscure cases, complain about spending too much time in the library, join organizations to build a stellar resume, and otherwise construct a false persona. Success at one level leads to triumph at the next. Few professors have the gumption to flunk a pretender who has successfully fooled dozens of others (con artists use this technique when telling potential suckers about all the others who have bought the scheme). But assuming that the lightweight must be the real thing is painless.

My impression is that it is often even easier to fool so-called conservatives. These folk are always suspected of racism, and when they find that seeming stellar African American intellectual, the fawning can be embarrassing. This, they hope, will convince the world that they are not racists, and they may even exaggerate the imposter's abilities--a mediocrity becomes brilliant. Needless to say, these highly presentable intellectual lightweights are often sufficiently savvy to exploit conservatives anxious to demonstrate their anti-racist bona fides.

What separates real life, including politics, from the academy is that real life seldom requires the individual to pass a tough test to demonstrate genuine mastery prior to being given a position. Only afterwards, when the candidate is elected or the junior executive hired, are there unexpected "surprises." At least initially, superficiality always carries the day. A well-tailored, eloquent black office seeker can easily impress audiences by announcing "the declining yield of each marginal investment suggests a cautionary approach." But the listener can never know if this high-sounding verbiage reflects knowledge, or just a knack for picking up economic lingo. Certainly no media personality will ask if this declining yield still represents a net gain in light of alternative investments elsewhere, or whether the opportunity costs associated with alternatives still warrant investment. If this occurred, the interviewer, not the befuddled black candidate, would be condemned with the withering statement that "No white candidate would be so badgered." Thus no incentives exists to expose the arriviste.

Conflating articulateness with high intelligence invites disaster, since the "smart style" is all too easily acquired. Think of Eddie Murphy playing Prof. Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor. The tip-off is usually the lack of tangible accomplishment, for example, a well-crafted research paper done with minimal assistance. Verbal ability and "white" style is decisive. Again, the fact that many whites, particularly conservatives, desperately want to believe the best, only facilitates the swindle. Perpetrators may even believe their own act since it goes undisputed.

Thus, after decades of failed efforts to achieve racial equality, the market for black empty suits is booming. We've invested billions, perhaps trillions, to get blacks into high-level positions, and to demand a genuine demonstration of intellectual competence, not just mesmerizing appearances, risks exposing massive wastefulness. What you see is not what you get.

Source:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011380.html#professor

 

[fide72]

kama kuna mtu ameangalia mdahalo wa wagombea wa urais wa Marekani ;kweli imejionyesha wazi kuwa, kuna tofauti sana ya uelevu baina ya wagombea hao wawili Barack Obama amedhihirisha kuwa ana kichwa kizuri ,na ameonyesha welevu wake wa maswala ya kidunia pamoja na uchumi. Kituko cha mwaka ukimsikia na kumwangalia Sarah Palin mgombea mwenza wa Maccain mahojiano yake kaatika NBC na CBS kweli Rebublicans wameboronga vibaya sana.Tusubirir debate kati yake na Biden tarehe mbili mwezi wa kumi.Jiandaeni kucheka vituko maana huyo mama ni kituko cha mwaka!

 

[Kitila Mkumbo]

I didn't watch the dabate, but having read various commentaries I can say that the WSJ's assessment of the performance of the two candidates is the most objective and unbiased one. The summary: Obama performed better on domestic matters, while MacCain did better on foreign issues. Somewhere in the article, however, the WSJ argue that Obama's presentation was very close to a presentation given by candidate defending a PhD dissertation!

Read on here:

Round One - WSJ.com

 

[Invisible]

In their first head-to-head debate Friday, Sen. John McCain criticized Sen. Barack Obama as a candidate who "doesn't understand" the key issues the country faces, and Obama linked McCain to President Bush on several issues.

"I'm afraid Sen. Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy," McCain said as the two traded jabs over Iraq.

Obama shot back, "I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there."

McCain drew from his experience overseas as he tried to portray himself as the more qualified candidate.

"Incredibly, incredibly Sen. Obama didn't go to Iraq for 900 days and never asked for a meeting with Gen. [David] Petraeus," he said.

McCain slammed Obama for not supporting the surge, an increase of about 30,000 troops to Iraq in early 2007. Bush sent the additional troops as part of a campaign to pacify Baghdad and its surrounding provinces.

"John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007," Obama shot back. "You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong."

Watch entire debate:

Part 1 »

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/26/debate.entire.part1.cnn

Part 2 »

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/26/debate.entire.part2.cnn

Part 3 »

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/26/debate.entire.part3.cnn

Obama repeatedly criticized the Bush administration and charged that McCain is an endorser of his policies

In describing his tax plan, Obama said, "over time, that, I think, is going to be a better recipe for economic growth than the -- the policies of President Bush that John McCain wants to -- wants to follow."

Obama also said the economic crisis is the "final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Sen. McCain."

Both candidates squeezed in a few cheap shots. Obama brought up McCain's jokingly singing a line about bombing Iran, and McCain jabbed Obama for his short-lived "presidential seal."

Immediately after the debate, both campaigns issued statements declaring their candidate the winner.

"This was a clear victory for Barack Obama on John McCain's home turf. Sen. McCain offered nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies, and Barack Obama made a forceful case for change in our economy and our foreign policy," said Obama-Biden campaign manager David Plouffe.

"John McCain needed a game-changer tonight, and by any measure, he didn't get it," he said.

McCain's campaign said "there was one man who was presidential tonight; that man was John McCain."

"There was another who was political; that was Barack Obama. John McCain won this debate and controlled the dialogue throughout, whether it was the economy, taxes, spending, Iraq or Iran. There was a leadership gap, a judgment gap and a boldness gap on display tonight, a fact Barack Obama acknowledged when he said John McCain was right at least five times," communications director Jill Hazelbaker said.

During the first 30 minutes of the debate, the candidates focused on the economy, even though the debate was supposed to be centered on foreign policy.

For a while, it seemed like the debate might not even take place, because McCain said he would not show up unless Congress came to an agreement on the government's proposed $700 billion bailout plan.

McCain said Friday that enough progress has been made for him to attend the debate, even though Congress has not made a deal.

Here's a snapshot of what the candidates said.

On government spending:

McCain said he would consider a spending freeze on everything but defense, veterans affairs and entitlement programs in order to cut back on government spending.

Obama disagreed, saying, "The problem is, you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.

"There are some programs that are very important that are currently underfunded," Obama said.

He agreed that the government needs to cut spending in some areas, but he said other areas, such as early childhood education, need more funding.

McCain repeated his call to veto every bill with earmarks.

Obama said the country "absolutely" needs earmark reform but said, "the fact is, eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we are going to get the middle class back on track."

On the bailout proposal:

Obama said that the United States was facing its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

McCain said he was encouraged that Republicans and Democrats were working together to solve the crisis.

Obama refused to be pinned down on whether he would support a $700 billion plan proposed by President Bush's top economic advisers, saying the final details of the proposal were not known.

McCain said he hoped to be able to vote for it.

On the likelihood of another terrorist attack:

McCain that another attack on the scale of the September 11 hijackings is "much less likely" now than it was the day after the terrorist attacks.

"America is safer now than it was on 9/11," he said, "But we have a long way to go before we can declare America safe."

Obama agreed that the United States is "safer in some ways" but said the country needed to focus more on issues such as nuclear non-proliferation and restoring America's image in the world.

On relations with Russia:

Obama called for a re-evaluation of the United States' approach to Russia in light of the country's recent military action in the Caucasus.

"You cannot be a 21st-century superpower and act like a 20th-century dictatorship," he said.

McCain accused Obama of responding naively to Russia's invasion of neighboring Georgia last month by calling on both sides to exercise restraint.

McCain said he would support the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.

On Iran:

McCain said Iranian nuclear weapons would be an "existential threat to the state of Israel" and would encourage other countries in the Middle East to seek nuclear weapons as well.

"We cannot allow another Holocaust," he said.

Obama agreed that the United States "cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran," calling for tougher sanctions from a range of countries including Russia and China.

McCain called for a new "league of democracies" to stand firm against Iran.

On Iraq:

McCain said the next president will have to decide when and how to leave Iraq and what the United States will leave behind.

The Republican candidate said that the war had been badly managed at the beginning but that the United States was now winning, thanks to a "great general and a strategy that succeeded."

"Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq," McCain said.

Obama responded, "that's not true; that's not true."

He blasted McCain as having been wrong about the war at the start, saying McCain had failed to anticipate the uprising against U.S. forces and violence between rival religious groups in the country.

"At the time when the war started, you said it was quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were," Obama said, citing the key White House policy justifying the 2003 invasion.

"You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong," he said.

 

[Rev. Kishoka]

It was pancake perfomance from both. It lacked the punch and vigor we saw during Obillary debates.

McCain looked like he needed a diaper change from his body language, while Obama was trying to look a heavy weight!

McCain was mean, old and i know everything, Obama was too soft, nice and extremely amatuer

I was not Impressed!

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

It was pancake perfomance from both. It lacked the punch and vigor we saw during Obillary debates.

McCain looked like he needed a diaper change from his body language, while Obama was trying to look a heavy weight!

McCain was mean, old and i know everything, Obama was too soft, nice and extremely amatuer

I was not Impressed!

Obama didn't impress me either. He sucked....

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

I didn't watch the dabate, but having read various commentaries I can say that the WSJ's assessment of the performance of the two candidates is the most objective and unbiased one. The summary: Obama performed better on domestic matters, while MacCain did better on foreign issues. Somewhere in the article, however, the WSJ argue that Obama's presentation was very close to a presentation given by candidate defending a PhD dissertation!
Read on here:

Round One - WSJ.com

Very true! McCain looked more like commander in chief....and that will go a long way with the voters in november.

 

[BAK]

Very true! McCain looked more like commander in chief....and that will go a long way with the voters in november.

But the American voters have a different opinion. Just see the polls of who won the debate. The McOld's notion that "Senator Obama does not understand" has been rejected by the voters. Now they have to go back to the drawing table, if they have any remaining. 🙂. By the way I watched the whole debate live and I did not see any moment when McOld looked like a commander in chief. Maybe you're talking about the moment when McOld dropped few names of East Europe leaders, I can do that too better than McOld, and I am not a commander in chief 🙂

Round 1 in debates goes to Obama, poll says

Post-debate CNN poll suggests Obama came out on top over McCain

Most debate watchers agreed McCain, Obama would be able to handle presidency

Male respondents split evenly among candidates; Women liked Obama over McCain

OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- A national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top, but there was overwhelming agreement that both Obama and John McCain would be able to handle the job of president if elected.


Most debate watchers agreed both McCain and Obama would be able to handle the job of president if elected.

more photos » The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey is not a measurement of the views of all Americans, since only people who watched the debate were questioned and the audience included more Democrats than Republicans.

Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Obama did the better job in Friday night's debate, while 38 percent said John McCain did better.

Men were nearly evenly split between the two candidates, with 46 percent giving the win to McCain and 43 percent to Obama. But women voters tended to give Obama higher marks, with 59 percent calling him the night's winner, while just 31 percent said McCain won.

"It can be reasonably concluded, especially after accounting for the slight Democratic bias in the survey, that we witnessed a tie in Mississippi tonight," CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib said. "But given the direction of the campaign over the last couple of weeks, a tie translates to a win for Obama." Watch entire debate: Part 1 » | Part 2 » | Part 3 »

McCain apparently failed to get the "game changer" he needed to reverse his deficit in the polls, Silverleib said. Grade the candidates' performances in the debate

Both candidates appeared to exceed expectations. McCain did better than expected in the minds of 60 percent, while 57 percent said Obama did a better job in the debate than they expected. Twenty percent said both candidates did worse than expected. iReport.com: Who do you think won the debate?

More than two-thirds of debate watchers agreed that both McCain and Obama would be able to handle the job of president if elected.

National security has been an issue where McCain has held an advantage, but his edge over Obama -- 49 percent to 45 percent -- on the question of which candidate would best handle terrorism is within the poll's 4.5 percent margin of error. Watch candidates discuss likelihood of another 9/11 »

The economy, which has been Obama's terrain this cycle, dominated the first half of the debate. Debate watchers gave him a 21 percentage point edge -- 58 to 37 percent -- on the question of which candidate would do a better job handling the economy.

By a similar margin, those polled said Obama would be better able to deal with the current financial crisis facing the nation. Watch McCain, Obama discuss the economy »

The real impact of the debate may not be apparent right away.

"The real test will come in a few days when we see whether support for Obama or McCain changes in polls involving all voters, not just debate watchers," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

"In post-debate polls after the first faceoff in 2004, John Kerry got virtually the same numbers as Obama did tonight. Polls released a few days later showed Kerry gaining five points in the horse race."

Good post-debate poll numbers don't always spell success in the horse race, he said.

"Kerry also won the third debate in 2004 with the same numbers that Obama got in tonight's poll, but his support dropped five points after that event," Holland said.

Poll interviews were conducted with 524 adult Americans who watched the debate and were conducted by telephone on September 26. All interviews were done after the end of the debate. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in to the debate. Of the debate-watchers questioned in this poll, 41 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 30 percent as independents.

The best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is roughly 5 to 7 percentage points more Democratic than the population as a whole.