It’s easy to tell when you beat a lefty in a debate.

They start whining.

KosKids are already saying that McCain’s “cross in the dirt” story was plagiarized from a Russian who was imprisoned in a gulag.

They can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that Obama can’t speak well when he’s not reading off of a teleprompter.

so of course they “Nuance” it.

USSR didn’t deny it!

That’s got to be an epic new low for the Obama campaign.

McCain didn’t cheat

Pretty sad that the question even had to be asked in my opinion. Sad that Obama really IS that bad, heh.

Moe – your last line is a perfect summation of Obama, regardless of the context of the rest of the post.

He was chosen. Yet he won’t stand up and make a choice . . . on anything.

McCain had a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Just like Obama’s 40 page rebuttal to Corsi’s book, there’s no better way to draw attention to his lackluster performance than to cry “FOUL” about the Saddleback Forum.

Max: Ahh The old broken cone of silence trick!

is just a start for McCain…
As for Obama…
It says a lot when you go from beating your opponent in the electoral college 320 to 218 in late June, with a 5pt lead in the popular vote…

to trailing him now 264-274 (while still holding the popular vote lead!)
despite having 10x the volunteers, raising 2x the funds,
having your party beating the opposing party 45-30 in generic ballots,

and being coronated by much of the media.

I doubt McCain will crack 300 electoral votes. But if the Obama camp continues to slip up, perhaps this will be a pullaway for the Republican.

You mean he didn’t use his mental powers to determine what the questions were before they were asked?

When you build your campaign around a Cult of Personality, there comes a time when it’s time to pass out the Loaves and Fishes and turn Water into Wine.

“Details, Schmetails! It’s on my Website!”

Turns out Obama’s not Jesus after all. He’s Piltdown Man.

I call it the “there are those who say” approach. Some nutcase posts some wild accusation, and the accused is hit with “There are those who say that (insert lie here)” questions. The MSM assumes the accusation is true unless it can be disproved. If it can be disproved, then someone from the left either offers the typical “That raised more questions than it answered” or else just ignores it and move on to the next lie.

It’s easy for them to play this game when the MSM supports it.

I’m watching and disregarding Rick Sanchez’s story on the “broken cone of silence,” too, and I think it’s useless to doubt the cross-in-the-dirt story, but I’m still bothered that McCain not only thought it relevant to initially say that bit about ancient Georgia being among the “first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion,” but also to repeat and expand upon it last night.

I can’t be alone among RS to feel this way. RS members are too smart to conveniently ignore the fact of 1000 years of Christianity in Russia and the fact that the American way is to have no official religion whatsoever. I just wonder if McCain’s being honest, saying something in league with the Georgia lobbying contract or speaking in contempt of the American voter.

We’ve had so many times this season when, just as we reassure ourselves enough to actively support McCain, he goes and says something to completely undo it. This may be much worse than the previous examples.

I read today that neither candidate was given a list of questions ahead of time other than the first two questions. They were given those. I also read that each of them had a chance to meet with Warren during the past couple of weeks so that he could give them a feel for the types of questions/content he was going to ask.

Last night, when Warren asked Obama about the adoption plan, Obama said that he “cheated” and had read through it the night before.

I’m sorry I don’t have the transcript, but does anyone know why Obama would make that statement? Did he have the questions ahead of time?

When I was in second grade, a girl in my class sat next to me and copied my answers on a test onto her test. The minute I finished my test, she ran to the teacher and accused me of cheating off her. Our answers were identical, so I was put in the corner for a week. I know it’s a silly story and that’s how I met my best friend, (she was in the corner too), but I learned a valuable lesson that day. Cheaters are the first to squeal to divert attention.

All of Obama’s squealing today reminds me a lot of that girl in 2nd grade.

I didn’t see the interviews, but later I looked at redstate and dkos blogs on the topic. Both we’re predictably saying “Yay our guy outdid the other,” so no light shed there. But then I saw some kossaks complaining that McCain must have known what the questions would be, and knew he must have done well.

I’m not a big McCain fan, but this looks like a win for the straight talk express. It’s a lot easier to keep your story straight when you just tell it like you see it, rather than trying to keep track of your previous lies and focus group lines while you figure out what’s the best thing to say.

In any debate, you can tell Obama lost by how loud and angry Obama supporters are in:

1) Attacking his opponent afterwards, and

2) Complaining that it was somehow “unfair”

Judging by the venom of pro-Obama posters on various websites, he lost badly.

remember the Bush vs. kerry debate?
Democrats and the media went wild speculating about a wrinkle on Bush’s back and all but accused him of being wired.

It seems whenever democrats lose an election, it is because the Republican cheated.

The idea that obama cannot lose a debate (or forum) unless his opponent cheats, only legitimzies McCain’s “The One” ads.

…that his people, even in private, are referring to the “cone of silence”.

Come on, how stupid do they think we are? I may not be that old, but I’ve watched Nick At Nite, I’ve seen the old Get Smart episodes… we all know the Cone of Silence doesn’t work, and usually worked perversely…

I’m amused.