I don’t believe there was a profound winner or loser in this presidential debate. However, I believe Obama came out looking best. He looked more calm and presidential than McCain did. McCain did alright, but he often seemed annoyed, and his body language towards Obama was dismissive. In contrast, Obama often attempted to interact with McCain and tried to engage him directly. However, McCain was resistant. A president shouldn’t be resistant. The Bush Administration was resistant. This YouTube clip illustrates John McCain’s rude and seemingly above-it-all behavior:
I very much liked how Obama kept reiterating the importance of science, math, and education. Contrarily, McCain criticized research regarding bears, and seemed hostile to scientific research in general, since he noted that he would veto such spending bills. Certainly, it is hard for some folks to understand the importance of biological, conservation, or scientific research, so I believe McCain would not be an advocate of funding conservation research. Personally, I believe in science, the advancement of knowledge, and the evolution of civilization, so I don’t believe McCain will progress our country in the right direction. Post debate poll data from CBS News, Insider Advantage, and CNN can be found at the Real Clear Politics Blog:
CBS News: Obama won 39%, McCain won 25%, Draw 36%
Insider Advantage: Obama won 42%, McCain won 41%, Undecided: 17%
CNN: Obama “did better” 51%, McCain “did better” 38%
A Fox focus group gives the debate to Obama:
The remaining schedule for the 2008 presidential and vice presidential debates:
October 2, 2008: Vice Presidential debate, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
October 7, 2008: Presidential debate in a town hall format, Belmont University, Nashville, TN
October 15, 2008: Presidential debate with domestic policy focus, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Regarding the debate over bear research:
Scientists, however, are not amused: They insist that the study is not only worth every penny but that the $3-million price tag cited in the ad is, in a word, wrong.
In fact, Congress over the past five years has forked over a total of $4.8 million to study the genetic material of Montana’s grizzly bears, according to Katherine Kendall, a research biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Kendall heads the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project, which is aimed at obtaining the first accurate population estimate of grizzlies living in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—eight million acres of land in northwestern Montana that encompasses Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex.
“This is not pork barrel at all,” says Richard Mace, a research biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP). “We have a federal law called the Endangered Species Act and [under this law] the federal government is supposed to help identify and conserve threatened species.”
The grizzly has been listed as a threatened species since 1975 and scientists say that it is essential to get a handle on the population to preserve it. But, according to Kendall, until the feds decided to invest in this grizzly bear DNA study, researchers lacked the funds to conduct research at the scale necessary to get a reliable measure.
You honestly think the government spending nearly 5 million dollars on studying bear DNA is worth it?
Yes I do.
We’re in the middle of a war and on the brink of a depression. There’s no room for wasting money.
I don’t think funding bear research represents our problems or why our country is going broke. I think it is the war, and several other factors. As a result, government funding and so many other things suffer from poor decision making (e.g., evading Iraq). Funding bear research is not the reason why we are “in the middle of a war and on the brink of a depression.”
No one said bear research caused any of those problems. The bear research is a waste of money that could be going to programs to help the American people.
The bear research is required by federal law, so bear research $$$ should go to help the American people? LOFL. People are the reason why some animals and plants are endangered. A healthy environment = a healthy society.
It is not a waste of money.
Amend the law. It did absolutely nothing to help us.
Believe it or not, people’s lives are more valuable than animal’s. If it wasn’t a waste you’d be able to tell me a benefit.
Whatever. Seriously? Personally, I rather not benefit from such deregulation, and don’t poorly reason that just because I support conservation and the environment that I don’t care about people. I have actually worked to make lives better, and I have great compassion or empathy for people. I just happen to understand that a healthy environment results in healthy communities and people. I’ve seen this firsthand in Africa and here in the United States. Certainly, you don’t know me well enough to make such judgments.
Pingback: 2008 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: Some thoughts on the final presidential debate « The Conservation Report