Talk:2008 United States presidential debates

TV

Any info on who will air these debates, and on whether they'll be webcast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.232.110.66 (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Use this article for general election debates

Not much to say on the general election yet, but this would probably be the place for it. Until such info becomes available, I've edited the article to simply point to the separate party debate pages. If other political parties hold debates, this is a good place to add links to those articles. Once this article is expanded with general election debate info, these links should end up in the "see also" section. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit by 75.65.164.143

An edit entitled "clarifications" reversed my reference to the CPD debates as being sponsored by the Democratic and Republican parties, and permitting only third-party participants who already meet strict polling parameters. Such an edit is the opposite of a clarification, and needs to be reverted or revised. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed this article's name

Per WP:Naming conventions re simplicity and preciseness. But do revert me if I was overbold. Thx.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You were overbold, and I have moved it back. This article doesn't just deal with Obama and McCain, but also with the vice-presidential debate. It will likely also mention third party candidates protesting that they weren't involved, alternate debates held by third parties, etc. United States presidential election debates, 2008 is the appropriate name and matches up with Democratic Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008, Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008, and United States presidential election debates, 2004. Your move comment made reference to the Lincoln-Douglas debates article, but those are a special case, where they became famous for their eloquence. No U.S. presidential debates in current times are in danger of doing that! Wasted Time R (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-convention joint appearance

I removed this section this this appearance is not really joint, and it really isn't a debate. The candidates are not appearing together on the stage, the pastor is interviewing each of them separately and the candidates will only answer the pastor's questions (no retorts). I still feel that this section should be removed and would like additional input. Jmerchant29 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Democratic and Republican debate pages we show all joint appearances where more than one candidate appears, and some where only one candidate showed up (Tancredo and the NAACP), regardless of whether or not they actually debate. For example, on the Democratic side we show the Yahoo mashup and the Compassion Forum. The same goes for the MTV debate, which was more of a dialogue since the candidates did not respond to each other, and as far as I can tell some of them weren't even in the same room. Therefore, we put in all joint appearances where they took questions from somebody. Since it is unlikely there will be too many more joint appearances, there is no danger of this section ballooning too much.Calwatch (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Saddleback Forum should be included here. It's close enough to a debate to merit coverage, and as Calwatch says, there aren't any more events like this planned that I know of. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since they both appeared in New York for a 9/11 tribute, should that be mentioned here as well. They shook hands and laid a wreath at the twin towers site. Also, since Saddleback has it's own wiki page, how about shorting the paragraphs? Jmerchant29 (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict in sources

The topics of the first and third debates have a conflict between different sources. The one currently used, an AP article [1] says that the first debate will be on foreign policy and the third will be on domestic issues. Meanwhile, the official CPD site [2] says the reverse. I don't have time to dig for any further sources, but maybe someone else who has more time or knowledge can resolve this. When in doubt, I would be inclined to go with the official page, but perhaps there was an addendum somewhere that I missed. Anyway, thanks to the regular editors of this article for attention to this issue. Eric (EWS23) 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The CPD changed the topics of the debate after they announced the dates and topics initially. The AP article is correct. The CPD must not have updated their website yet.Jmerchant29 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Omission

McCain requested 10 debates, Obama refused. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/mccain.town.hall/index.html

Obama countered offered 1 debate on the Friday before July 4th when most people are on vacation. McCain refused http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5837182.html

McCain wants to postpone the debates and work with Obama on the economic crisis. www.cnn.com

Nader wants in but Obama and McCain don't want him. http://media.www.marquettetribune.org/media/storage/paper1130/news/2008/09/09/News/Nader.Seeks.Debate.With.Mccain.Obama-3419690.shtml

Why aren't these facts in the article?

McCain attempt to avoid debating Obama sign of a faltering campaign

On Wednesday, September 24, John McCain invoked the current economic crisis as reason for not showing up for the first 2008 presidential debate. Online versions of USA Today and the Boston Globe cite one possible reason being that his campaign had received disastrous poll results on McCain's ability to handle the economy. Is this approprioate to cite, of course with footnotes. A person dressed as a chciken appeard in front of McCain Palin headquarters in Manchester, NH today, this is reported on WCRB. CApitol3 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN reports that McCain requested the debate be postponed. There is no mention of cancellation. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossett&Elvis (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No but the McCain camp is proposing that it replace the Vice Presidential debate. Which might be the real purpose behind this: to keep Palin from embarassing McCain on live TV. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I saw on the news that McCain would replace the VP debates BUT that the VP debates would replace the 1st debate at a different date. The University of Mississippi was scheduled for the 1st debate but the proposal would be for them to hold the VP debates about 2 weeks later. So the above is misinformation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossett&Elvis (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging withdrawal into first debate

I made an edit adding a withdrawal section regarding today's events, while someone else added individual sections for each debate and a shorter summary of the controversy after I began writing. I am going to delete my section and integrate it into an expanded bit under first presidential debate. Huadpe (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Format

I would prefer this article follow the format of Democratic Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008 with a clear separation of each debate along with its links. I find this new format very difficult to follow. In the meantime, I'll group the External links section, but I don't consider that to be the optimum solution. Flatterworld (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Macain looking not looking at obama

He coud not look at Obama because his neck is stiff, because in Vietnam when he was a prisoner he was tied and pulled at the neck. It is not his fault that he could not look at Obama, We should metion this in the article--Not G. Ivingname (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ifill / moderator

I removed a section added to this[3] and several other articles.[4][5][6] The claim that one of the moderators wrote a pro-Obama book is weakly sourced (a conservative blog, the book itself, a Fox News blurb) and of uncertain relevance. It certainly does not belong in the articles about the presidential candidates or campaigns, or in the bio of Palin herself. This article is the only one where it could plausibly be relevant, but even if true these sources do not show that the moderator's authorship of the book is notable to the debate. So far all we have are a few complaints from partisans, and partisan complaints are a matter of course. Also, and assuming it is done in good faith, this still raises questions of introducing bias into the articles.Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)