Second Presidential Debate: No Loser But No Winner Either

To those who think Obama won the debate, it was the American people – not McCain — who lost! edwin a. sumcad/10/7/08.


The 2nd Presidential Debate between Republican and Democrat candidates Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama, respectively, belied many partisan knee-jerk judges.

There was a firework of disagreement among members of the hurriedly assembled panel of judges in front of national television, as to who won or lost in the debate.

For posterity, it is necessary to state here that the debate was held at Belmont University’s Curb Event Center, Nashville, Tenn. on October 7, 2008. It was moderated by NBC’s Tom Brokaw. Inside the auditorium the size of the assembled crowd where questions came from, was modest, well-behaved and respectfully mute.

The questions and answers in this public debate with a townhall format were resonant but subdued, in contrast to the noisy exuberance of Media observers that were gathered and polled for their opinion after the debate.

It was clear to TV viewers that each of these instant "experts" who were called upon to render judgment on the fate of the presidential aspirants, wanted the voice of their comments and conclusions heard across the globe, especially as to who between the two debaters did not win and at the same time, did not lose.

These guys showed their expertise in verbal acrobatics, also often times called semantics. For example, one of them said that by not winning, McCain did not lose. Decipher that if you dare. It's a spin.

McCain is trailing Obama in the national polls by about 10%. To catch up, the Arizona Senator was supposed to attack Obama’s devious and dangerous character – his earlier years of association with terrorists, particularly Bill Ayers who bombed America and killed many Americans. By getting personal with Obama, McCain was expected by kibitzers to post a clear win in the debate. But it did not happen. McCain remained calm and presidential.

Inversely, those roadside judges ruled that Obama lost the opportunity to protect his lead when in silence did not rebut McCain’s accusation that the present financial crisis that is now costing taxpayers a $700 billion bailout was caused by shenanigans of credit institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, one of the country’s biggest and notorious Washington lobbyists.

Obama abetted the nation’s financial meltdown when McCain told the nation that in Washington’s breakdown, Obama was the second biggest recipient of grease money [lobby largesse] doled out by these two giant mortgage lending institutions.

Obviously, what McCain meant was that the anomaly in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that Congress investigated sent our ailing financial system to the ICU. Obama didn’t even care. He stayed in the campaign trail and relished on his viciousattacks on the Bush administration and McCain like mad while McCain ran to Washington to help mend the broken financial system.McCain saw to it that to bounce back to normal, the impairedsystem needed a capital transfusion [bailout recently passed by Congress].

If you need a leaderless America, vote for Obama.

That Obama was wrong on the troop surge in Iraq, and Russia’s invasion of Georgia, and the Senator’s immature suggestion as Commander-In-Chief to attack Pakistan if Pakistanis will not go after Osama bin Laden, also eroded tremendously Obama’s lead in the polls. When the public learned that Obama was stubborn to admit his error of judgment on the surge, his margin of "electability" over McCain could have been completely obliterated.

The Senator’s inexperience is his political graveyard. If elected president, there is no such thing as a "training on the job" head of state for Obama, especially at this time when the United States is facing security threats from the Middle East, notably Iran wanting to develop a nuclear bomb to wipe Israel off the map, and North Korea that has already a nuclear arsenal.

If summoned to a jury duty, I would probably render the only correct post-debate verdict: hang those judges who said Obama won and guillotine their counterparts who judged that McCain did not lose the debate. At least it stops the migraine of confusion when the Media spins.

How can a politically rabid Democrat member of the panel of judges say that Obama lost the debate without appearing like a clown? Inversely, how can a Republican McCain campaign strategist sequestered to judge who won in the townhall debate, rule that McCain lost the stage to Obama without appearing in public as a media freak?

These misfits are all partisans! They can never be objective or impartial in their self-serving judgment.

In the situation they were in, had they dared to be neutral and fair in rendering their honest opinion – as judges were expected to do their job that way – they would have lost their bread and butter! They have been fielded by their Media employer with a mission to accomplish.

Except perhaps in the practice of freelance journalism, there are only "neutral" journalists if they do not express their views against their employer or do not practice their trade deemed inimical to the latter’s editorial policy or against their employer’s public agenda.

This is how the American public is badly misled.

In MSNBC and Fox News, the spin is so horrendous TV viewers are sucked into the vortex of fantasy … into the world of those who build castle in the sky for their candidates. Facts about their patronage and protégés are delusional in a TV-reality check where truth is an illusion!

Truth is always a casualty when the Media wags its tail. Thus when a Democrat spinner says that Obama won the debate, what it means is that the truth that McCain won, is sacrificed.

When a Republican castle builder declares that McCain was victorious in the debate, it is actually a declaration of the flight of the imagination from Obama’s victory, which was denied.

In the eyes of rabid Democrats, there was no doubt that Obama was the victor. To the committed dye-in-the-wool Republicans, McCain did not lose the debate!

In reality, there was neither loser nor winner. This is similar to a celebration of that popular truism that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So is ugliness. So is the winner or the loser in this second presidential debate. The loser or the winner is only in the eyes of the partisan beholder!

The only clear loser perhaps is the American people. Those who want Obama to win in this debate will be sending a ruler to the Oval Office who without any doubt is unquestionably identified and associated with terror.

Democrat cheerleaders are pretty much aware that when Obama becomes president, his present lieutenants in the campaign trail and those intensely working for his candidacy will be rewarded either with appointment to the Cabinet or with designation as White House advisers.

Obama is a former associate of American bomber Bill Ayers. The Senator headed the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, described as "a large education-related nonprofit organization Ayers was instrumental in starting [creating]." Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin had started exposing this to the American public only recently.

Obama’s claim that he is fit to be president of the United States because of his experience as a "community organizer" which he drumbeats as a resounding success, is a sore eye opener. He worked for ACORN, a community organization. This was raided by government security agents only last week for fraudulent registrations of voters and other underground activities. Refer to TV’s breaking news headlined "ACORN Vegas Office Raided in Voter Fraud Investigation"[1]

Also try to check on the following: "Bill Ayers Worked to Get ACORN Teaching Schoolchildren in Chicago". [2]

If Obama as chairman of Chicago Annenberg Challenge foundation propped up schools with grants to see to it that no child is left behind, the children of Chicago could have been educated by the support of terrorists, specifically with the money of a notorious American bomber.

Frightened Americans are likely to stretch their imagination into believing that Obama’s and Ayers’ idea of education might have created cells of terror among the now grown-up unfortunate children of Chicago.

That Obama is connected to or associated with terrorists or countries of terror in the Middle East, is more serious than the economic issues that are but specks in the eye in comparison. He was identified with Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko. Hilary Clinton pointed this out earlier. She described this convict as "The Slum Landlord" [3] Barack and his wife Michelle have been associated with. In Chicago, this has been indisputablyof public knowledge.

It was reported that in 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65million (less than asking price) on the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko. [4]

Coincidence? Rezko was born in Allepo, Syria.

Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest aide, is his wife’s boss. She was born in Shiraz, Iran!Loyal to Iran,"Every memory from Iran is a very happy memory," Jarrett declared. [5]

On May 10, 2008, The Times reported that Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was sacked after the press found out he was having regular contacts with Hamas.

Aside from Bill Ayers, other shady and dangerous characters identified closely with Obama are Bernardine Bohm, PLO’s Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Power "who equated waterboarding terrorists with genocide", Rev. Jeremiah Wright, moral adviser whose church newsletter publishes Hamas propaganda materials, Merill McPeak who thinks Iran is a friendly country, and still a host of others whose listing would make this space too small to accommodate.

If Obama is elected president, fearful Americans expect "dirty bombs" to explode that could wipe out New York or Los Angeles. U.S. presidential advisers born in and loyal to foreign enemy countries are expected to be in control of the Obama government. There will be more expensive and larger wars we have to face.

Let’s not be blinded into believing that this presidential election is about the worsening economy. This is not the first time that we are economically down. This is not also the first time that we rise up after we fell. We always ride the wave of economic recession when it batters our shores, and there is no reason to fear that this ship of state is going to go down. This nation is unsinkable!

Only the Democrats benefit from panic, because to get more votes, there is always Bush, the Republicans and the government to blame.

They rise when there is a tragedy. If there is no tragedy, Liberal Democrats and the radical Left would create one to project an image to the American public that they are the savior of the American people. In global warming, even El Nino is Bush’s fault; in their political oracle, tornadoes and hurricanes would spare the American people if George W. Bush is not the president of the

United States

! They insult the intelligence of the American people and they don’t care if they have to. Their blame game is extremely phenomenal!

This explains why Obama is a walking contradiction, an oratorical oxymoron as if to him the listening American public is a bunch of Katzenjammer kids!

In TV interviews, his wife Michelle always reminds the public that Barack has a dream. Well, the public is not stupid. Obama is no Martin Luther King! Martin has never been a protégé of Bill Ayers!

The financial trouble we have was caused by greed and lack of fiscal responsibility in both the Wall Street and Main Street [see preceding editorial published in NWS on bailout].

There is no denying that the system’s breakdown is our failing, Republicans and Democrats. Only Obama denies any fault after receiving the second largest lobby largesse in Washington from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the country’s two biggest mortgage lending institutions that faltered and triggered this financial crisis.

In the debate, nobody lost except the American people. #

© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad. NWS access October 06, 2008.

The writer is an award-winning journalist. Go to NWS homepage, click on the columnist button to know more about the author or you may e-mail your comment at

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply