Who knew that the most hard hitting questions would be on Letterman? Seriously. Check out the video if you didn't watch it, especially Letterman talking about McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP. Letterman also questions him about his attacks on Obama about Ayers and ACORN, and so on. Was it wise of McCain to return to the show after ditching Letterman? Did McCain look good or bad?

Part 1: The Monologue


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Peace,
Mike

I thought McCain did really well and was a lot more likable than in any of the debates. Defense is definitely more his style than offense.

http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends? ... 10-16&sa=X



Further speaks to the idea that Letterman was more direct and hard hitting then any "real" news source. McCain's response to the issue wasn't so good either - almost another "deer in the headlights" look, heh.

Peace,
Mike

Although I have never been to keen on Letterman, his comments in the opening monologue about John Brown and Harper's Ferry and the joke about Michael Jackson were great. The debate recap was good too. Too much Joe.

"The U.S. government needs to buy everyone a kitty."
"America needs a new direction and that's why I'm voting for Senator Obama."

The actual interview was hard to watch in parts for me. I understand the need to make amends, but I don't know if he should have done the interview. At times his defense seems well placed and at others he can't seem to make a straight answer.

Finally watched the entire thing.

First, I must say I'm quite surprised McCain actually went back before the election took place. I mean, it could have been a disaster.

Second, I also have not been too keen on Letterman ever, but I thought he did quite an exceptional job interviewing McCain. He really hit him with the question straight on and he didn't take just anything for an answer.

Third, to me it was an overall positive for McCain. Considering the bluntness and persistence of Letterman's questions, I think McCain faired pretty decent. And when I say that I mean I think to most it will look like he faired pretty decent. Of course, there were alot of things that made him look bad.

I couldn't actually believe he said that he "screwed up." I really don't know if that came off as a positive or a negative. Positive because he owned up to it or negative because he actually admitted he screwed up and was forced to repeat it through Letterman's questioning.

I also hated how he would start to answer a really hard to answer question so you think he's actually answering it but all of a sudden he goes, "now, look..." or something similar. One example (of several) was his response to the use of "terrorists" when they only cite one (William Ayers).

Overall, his body language and mannerisms and overall charm was almost like a different person when compared to the debates. I don't get why he comes off as such a smug buffoon in the debates. He was actually quite on his game with Letterman.