10/16: The Final Debate

Once again, the majority of liberal bloggers thought that Barack Obama won last night's debate, whereas the majority of conservative bloggers thought that John McCain had the better night. Lefty bloggers were relieved that McCain (in their view) failed to create any game-changing moments that could potentially change the dynamic of the race. Moreover, a number of liberal bloggers believe that McCain may have actually hurt his candidacy with his performance. They believe that McCain alienated swing voters with his "surly" demeanor and his aggressive attacks on Obama. Nate Silver writes: "McCain [treated] this debate as though all the undecideds were Fox News viewers."

As they did after the first two Presidential debates (as well as after the VP debate), liberal bloggers pointed to snap polls to bolster their argument that their candidate won. Many liberal bloggers are mocking the cable news pundits who initially seemed to believe that McCain had the better night until the results of the snap polls were reported.

On the other side of the blogosphere, most conservative bloggers felt that McCain won the debate handily, although they're not convinced that his performance will be enough to close the polling gap between him and Obama. Several bloggers complained that McCain "lacked the killer instinct" that was necessary to really hurt Obama. That said, most righty bloggers were pleased with McCain's performance and feel that he "gave independents and centrists some reasons to reconsider their choice".

DEBATE: Obama Goes 3 For 3

Once again, liberal bloggers thought that Obama had the better night and that McCain failed the change the dynamic of the race:

• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "McCain needed a game-changing debate. It's not just that he hasn't had that. It's that Obama has owned him like he didn't in those two previous debates -- both of which Obama roundly won."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Obama won by not losing -- and by not allowing the campaign's dynamics to change."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Another win for Obama. Clearly. The best word to describe McCain tonight is 'cranky.'"
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Tonight was John McCain's last best opportunity to change the direction of the race, and as was the case with the previous three debates -- the two featuring McCain and Barack Obama, as well as the Vice Presidential debate -- the Republican just plum came up short."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "This debate didn't matter in the scheme of things, it was a calm and collected centrist debating a mean and sarcastic old man."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Bottom line? McCain needed a game changer and didn't get it. He got in his attacks, Obama parried. [...] McCain smirked, rolled his eyes, interrupted, and was generally an ass. Standard McCain."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "Holy crap, I actually agree with [NBC's Tom] Brokaw. He declared Joe The Plumber to be the winner of the debate, and I really can't argue with that. Obama came in a strong second, though. Very poised, while McCain came across as dickish and angry, with lots of blinking and interrupting."
• Ezra Klein: "McCain scored the most points, and lost the debate. He was looking to land shots, and often succeeded. But the effort to find openings and vulnerabilities left him with little time to appear presidential. And if he connected with jabs, he never found his knockout blow. Worse, the attacks came at a cost: The angry energy showed on McCain's face as clearly as in his answers. CNN, at least, had the split screen, and McCain was grimacing, twitching, blinking, sighing, smirking, eye-rolling. Scores of YouTubers are, as we speak, constructing videos that will be nothing but a three minute collection of McCain's angry tics. They will make Gore's affectations in 2000 look mild. He looked like nothing so much as a man enduring acute gastrointestinal discomfort."

DEBATE II: Who You Gonna Believe -- The Pundits Or The Polls?

Liberal bloggers are mocking the cable news pundits for offering excessive praise (in their view) to McCain when post-debate polls conducted by CNN and CBS found that Obama won the debate handily in the eyes of undecided voters:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "If it wasn't for the snap polls, the pundits would be proclaiming this night a glorious victory for McCain. [CNN's] John King, who gave McCain an 18-15 victory in his debate scorecard, was just on ranting against the snap polls, saying they were bunk because people are answering just after watching the dabate, while being too 'emotional' ... unlike the pundits who are all about reason and logic. Whatever. I love how the American people don't give a shit what John King thinks. They can decide for themselves who won. And that's why John King hates them."
• MissLaura: "[NBC's] David Gregory repeatedly proclaimed McCain's 'I'm not [George W.] Bush. If you wanted to run against him, you should have run 4 years ago' to be The Line Of The Night. He clearly wanted it to be a defining moment of the campaign. But something held Gregory and his colleagues back. That was the knowledge that snap polls were coming, and the likelihood that those polls would show Obama to be the winner. [NBC's] Andrea Mitchell articulated it directly -- and sniffily -- saying that McCain had won on points, whether the polls would reflect that or not. They didn't like it, but polling technology is one more way their role as gatekeepers has been diminished."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I got the sense that quite a few of the on-air pundits wanted to side with McCain last night. Obama's support from actual voters seemed to mess up the media's preferred narrative."
• TPMCafe's Todd Gitlin: "If almost all the postgame pundits thought McCain had a good night; but the snap polls show that overwhelming percentages thought Obama 'won'...what does the discrepancy tell you? Either (a) the pundits had some extraordinary insight denied to ordinary benighted Americans, or (b) the pundits' snap judgments are worthless -- in fact, a negative indicator."
• Singer: "Don't listen to the pundits -- it's the people who matter. And so far, they think Obama swept the debates."

Several liberal bloggers are speculating about why the pundits were more impressed by McCain's performance than were undecided voters:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "McCain had some okay jabs at Obama that I think impressed some of the CNN panelists and, especially, got the conservative ones jazzed up. But he used a lot of right-wing echo-chamber jargon, never explaining what he meant about trial lawyers and scare-quote 'health' and so forth. He doesn't really speak to problems in people's lives. Nobody's laying in bed, nervous about their situation in life, pondering the threat of pork-barrel spending. It's an issue purely for political insiders."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Conventional pundit wisdom seems to accept that a vigorous attack shows strength. But that's not true. Think of all the genuinely strong people you've known in your life. What sets them apart is that they stay calm when other people are attacking. McCain doesn't seem to get this, and neither do the conservatives who were insisting that McCain needed to haul out the heavy artillery tonight. Obama does."
• Mark Kleiman: "All the numbers are in, and it's clear that Obama won this debate even more decisively than he did the first two: e.g., 2-to-1 among independents on mediacurves. Which leaves the puzzle of why the talking heads scored it for McCain until they saw the numbers. [...] At least in the CNN discussion, the theme was that McCain was 'on offense' and Obama 'on defense.' That leads me to a guess about what was going on. The chatterers were judging a dominance contest among bull elephants, with points awarded for trumpeting, stomping, and slashing with tusks. The voters were selecting a President. Since the two groups were scoring different contests, it's not surprising that the scores were different."
• Sudbay: "The pundits so badly wanted McCain to do well....they still like their old pal. But, they know him too well to understand how badly he comes across."

On the right side of the blogosphere, NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez was confused by the post-debate polls: "I just don't get any of the insta polls, which seem to give it to Obama."

Moulitsas mocks Lopez: "There's nothing like befuddled conservatives wondering what happened to their 'conservative America'. [...] Who is most in tun with independents and the American people? Hint: Not the deluded folks at the National Review, fresh off kicking their founder's son off the magazine."

DEBATE III: Comeback Kid?

Many conservative bloggers thought that McCain won the debate handily:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Tonight we finally saw what so many of us have been waiting for. John McCain mopped the floor with Barack Obama. Throughout the night, Barack Obama looked distant, like he did not want to be there, like he was annoyed. He really looked annoyed all night. McCain on the other hand looked like the comeback kid -- the guy who knew he had to do well. And he did."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "McCain has cleaned Obama's clock. The question is whether it will help the growing perception that an Obama win is unstoppable. But McCain came across as strong and confident -- without a whiff of the flop sweat that would have doomed him."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "McCain upped his game a couple of notches while Obama didn't. Because of that, McCain thrashed Obama handily, even though he still missed some rather obvious points he could have hit. Will McCain's performance be enough to make up the whole gap between Obama and McCain? No, but it should help him a bit and I wish we had seen this McCain in all three debates, as opposed to the McCain who sleep walked through the first two debates."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "It's still an uphill battle for McCain, because he didn't land a knockout blow and had only one truly memorable line ('SenatorGovernment'), rather than a Reaganesque line that will be played over and over again for the next 30 years. But McCain started a comeback tonight, and gave him a chance to claw himself back into the match before reaching the finish line. Obama, meanwhile, lost a little bit of his air of invincibility. Short version: McCain won."
• The Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes: "The winner, and in my view quite decisively, was John McCain. From the very first question, McCain seemed certain of himself and his answers. While he wasn't as polished and articulate as Obama has been in the first two debates, I thought McCain had several winning moments. [...] In the end, there probably was no 'game-changer' -- the measure by which many analysts will judge the outcome of the debate. And it may well have been John McCain's last chance to generate one with such a major audience. But he won the debate and if it doesn't change the game, it might be enough to change some minds or at least get voters to give him another look."
• CBN's David Brody: "John McCain put a dent in the Obama persona. There's no doubt that out of all the debates this fall, John McCain had his best one at Hofstra University. He was able to pokes some holes in Obama's armor. He nicked him with [William] Ayers, ACORN, public financing, negative advertising, abortion and yes, Joe the Plumber."
• Michelle Malkin: "No, there weren't any knockout punches. But John McCain was still standing at the end of the night -- doubts about his fortitude adequately quelled -- and Barack Obama ought to be wiping the smirk he borrowed from Joe Biden off his face."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "McCain kept Obama on the defensive, hit him with abortion, Fannie/Freddie (more of a glancing blow, really), Ayers, and on inexperience and his tax-and-spend philosophy all night long. He clearly won, but was it enough? Did he get the game-changer he needed? I'd say that McCain missed a few opportunities last night, but overall did as well as anyone could have hoped. With the race already starting to tighten, McCain gave independents and centrists some reasons to reconsider their choice. We'll know in a few days, but I think this gives McCain a boost heading into the final stretch."

DEBATE IV: Good...But Good Enough?

While most conservative bloggers believe that McCain did well, some aren't sure whether his performance will be enough to close the polling gap between him and Obama:

• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "I have to agree with Charles Krauthammer on the final verdict: McCain won, but he didn't finish. He landed several jabs and flurries, but always backed off or allowed the subject to change before ever landing a knockout blow."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "McCain was much, much better than in previous debates, but I don't know how much good it will do him."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "McCain was certainly a lot stronger in this debate than in the last one, though I do worry that his demeanor may have been a little too aggressive for a lot of swing voters. Was there a moment that A) will be remembered and replayed and B) helped McCain significantly? I can't think of one. (No, I don't think 'Senator Government' qualifies.) Did McCain win on points? Yes. Will it matter? I'm not so sure."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "John McCain opened strongly in his debate with Barack Obama tonight, but he faded in the second half. Ultimately, it seems unlikely that McCain cut into Obama's lead through this performance. And Obama may have taken another small step towards making Americans comfortable with the prospect of his presidency. That Obama accomplished this by taking considerable liberties with the truth is, I suppose, beside the point."
• NRO's Jay Nordlinger: "Did McCain do what he 'needed to do'? No, not by a long shot. But that might have been impossible."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "McCain, in my estimation, 'won' the debate -- yet he still did not do enough to change the trajectory of the campaign. McCain started off very strong, putting Obama on defense for much of the first half of the debate. But having backed Obama into the corner, McCain consistently failed to deliver a death blow. On at least two instances (John Lewis and Bill Ayers), McCain allowed Obama to escape what might have been 'game-changing' events, unscathed."
• Glenn Reynolds: "McCain seemed more improved than Obama over last time, but scored no knockout punches. This time McCain looked like he was having a better time than Obama; Obama's smirking was unattractive, but his closing statement was strong."

NRO's Mark Steyn complains that McCain "lacked the killer instinct": "McCain was never able to cast aside the Senatorial collegiality and really stick it to Obama. Why couldn't he have used the s-word -- 'socialism'? [...] Why couldn't he have pointed out that Barack Obama would be the most left-wing president ever elected in the United States? McCain lacked the killer instinct. A man who cheerfully crashes planes and survives years of torture appeared nervous that clobbering his opponent might dent his image as Mister Bipartisan. You look at the way he sneered at [Mitt] Romney in the primary debates and compare it with his tentativeness toward Obama. His reluctance to whack the Democrat wound up, by default, elevating Obama. When a veteran Republican who's been on the national scene for a quarter-century and a Democrat whom nobody had heard of 20 minutes ago appear to be equal in stature, then by definition the Democrat wins."

DEBATE V: We Want More Joe!

Conservative bloggers loved the debate's emphasis on Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, and they are urging McCain to continue talking about "Joe the Plumber" during the final three weeks before the election:

• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "My humble advice to Sen. McCain -- talk about 'Joe the Plumber' all the way to Nov. 4th. Whether it's taxes or health care or ACORN, explain to the voters how 'Joe the Plumber' will be affected if Barack Obama is elected. Talk about government intrusions into 'Joe the Plumber's' life. Talk about the hopes and dreams of 'Joe the Plumber' and how Obama will get in the way. Talk about 'Joe the Plumber's' family. Joe, Joe, Joe."
• Malkin: "Someone from the McCain camp better have Joe's phone number and arrange a joint appearance pronto. Joe made Senator Government squirm. Let's see more. Better late than never."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "If there is any winner in tonight's debate it's Joe the Plumber and that should put McCain closer to the 'W' column than Barack Obama. By speaking directly to Plumber Joe John McCain was able to explain why 'Senator Government,' a welcome Fruedian slip for Obama, is wrong for the economy during these turbulent economic times. [...] The race is still on. And because of that we'll have a lot to keep talking about for the next 20 days of the campaign and beyond!!"
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Hey, Joe. Not you, Joe Biden. You, Joe the Plumber -- Joe Wurzelbacher. You were the center of attention in last night's debate. Both Barack Obama and John McCain invoked your authority and sought your approval. You proved yourself to be a very powerful man. You made your name when you told Barack Obama you were afraid he would raise your taxes and Obama responded that he wanted to spread 'the wealth' (i.e., your wealth) around. In American political lore Abraham Lincoln sowed the seeds of his victory over Stephen Douglas in 1860 with a single question that he put to Douglas at Freeport in the course of their 1858 debates. You may have had a similar effect. Whether or not you choose to step forward and make your own case, your expression of concern and Obama's response will serve as a marker in the days to come. With your expression of concern you may have become the most famous critic of Barack Obama in the United States."
• Geraghty: "Whatever the outcome of this election, Wurzelbacher is making sure the country knows what it is getting into when if it says 'okey-dokey' to Obama's tax plan. For this he deserves our salutes. If Wurzelbacher keeps this up, maybe the GOP ought to run [Sarah] Palin-Wurzelbacher in 2012."

MCCAIN DEBATE: Alienating Swing Voters?

Unsurprisingly, most liberal bloggers were critical of McCain's performance:

• Benen: "I thought this was the worst of McCain's three debate performances. On the substance, McCain had nothing new to offer. On his demeanor, McCain seemed angry and dismissive (did anyone count how many eye-rolls we saw?). On rhetoric, he was clumsy and repetitious."
• Drum: "I know I'm partisan, but McCain seemed completely out of his depth tonight. He was flitting from point to point all night without ever putting together a coherent argument, and then grabbing miscellaneous attacks from the rolodex in his head whenever some bright idea popped into his mind. His energy level was weirdly erratic, tired at times but then suddenly perking up whenever he got annoyed by something and remembered some zinger that he wanted to fire off. McCain also interrupted a lot, and when he did he seemed clearly upset. That really didn't sound presidential. I'm sure McCain thought he was 'scoring points' all evening, but his points were disjointed and often inappropriate. I really don't think this kind of thing goes over well, especially when it's sustained for 90 minutes."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "John McCain was in a tough spot tonight. He's tanking in the polls as he ramps up the personal attacks on Barack Obama, yet the base was clamouring for a knock-out punch. He had to throw them some red meat, even if it meant alienating the non-insane. There were landmines everywhere and McCain stepped in all of them. His smirking, snarky tone was decidedly un-presidential, and his bitter, whiny complaining performance probably satisfied no one."

Many liberal bloggers thought that McCain's performance was directed at the GOP base instead of swing voters:

• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "McCain is treating this debate as though all the undecideds were Fox News viewers."
• Yglesias: "[This was] a weird performance that seemed directed at people already inside the conservative bubble -- people who think that when the public says it doesn't like Bush, they mean they think Bush has spent too much money."
• Benen: "McCain positioned himself as a far-right Republican at precisely the time Americans want to move away from far-right Republicans. How did McCain present himself to Americans? As an anti-abortion, pro-voucher conservative who wants to slash federal spending and talk about how mean television ads and t-shirts hurt his feelings."
• Moulitsas: "While McCain seemed better prepared than in the previous debates, tonight was also the wingnuttiest McCain has looked all campaign. All the veneer of being a moderate was stripped away as he derisively tossed aside the notion of 'health of the mother'. The notion was a insult to his sensibilities!"
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "In general-election debates, it's a losing strategy to 'rally the base.' That's what your own campaign events, and your fund-raisers, and your targeted ads, and your running mate are for. Especially by the time of the second and third debates, the job is to 'rally the center.' That's where most of remaining persuadable and undecided voters are. Everything about Barack Obama's approach to this debate, and all debates, was consistent with this reality. Almost nothing about John McCain's approach was."

MCCAIN DEBATE II: The CNN Split Screen Was Not His Friend

Many liberal bloggers thought that McCain hurt himself with his facial expressions and demeanor:

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Nobody, other than the conservative base, liked McCain's smirking and condescending manner tonight."
• publius: "I thought McCain was at his most unlikeable tonight."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "McCain was angry, annoyed, frustrated, and cocky. The snorts, the heavy breathing, the eye rolls. McCain didn't go on the attack enough to hurt Obama, and didn't come back home to his former maverick status enough to convince the middle that he's not a risk. Watching CNN, undecided women hate McCain. And they may very well be the group that decide this election."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I think that in formal debating terms McCain definitely did better than in the two previous debates. Often, in formal terms, he had Obama on the defensive. But McCain was just surly and contemptuous through the whole 90 minutes. He looked angry. I mean, let's not kid ourselves: he was angry. That was obvious all the way through. I think that voters will not like that. And just as important it tends to confirm the current narrative of the campaign, which is that McCain is negative and angry."
• Klein: "McCain looks angrier and more petulant than any participant in any major debate I've watched. Watching him try to stay seated is like watching a furious child try and obey a timeout. He can hardly hold still."
• Singer: "If there is a historical precedent for tonight's debate, it was the debate between Al Gore and George W. Bush when, at least according to the post-debate meme embraced by the establishment media, Gore sighed and was generally disrespectful of Bush in the background while the Republican was speaking. McCain seemed plain mean. He was huffing and puffing in the background like he was James Gandolfini in the final season of 'The Sopranos.' He looked angry and disdainful while Obama was speaking. He even rolled his eyes at the recitation of the situation in Colombia, where labor leaders are assassinated. As Paul Begala put it on CNN, 'The reaction shots just killed John McCain.'"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "The split-screen isn't doing McCain any favors. His harrumphing and blinking and impatience remind me a teensy bit of Gore in 2000. Obama has smiled much more. And he has been positive more often. I know McCain had to get a little testy to get back in the game. But it still feels off to me."

MCCAIN DEBATE III: So Much For The Women's Vote...

Liberal bloggers thought that McCain turned off female voters when he put the phrase "health of the mother" in finger quotes during the abortion exchange:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "This is a moment, as many have said before, that John McCain will come to regret."
• Marshall: "The part of the debate where Sen. McCain seemed to mock the issue of a woman's health was weird and ... well, kind of disgusting. It's hard for me to see how's he seriously pushing for the women's vote."
• Yglesias: "Here's McCain deriding women's health as some kind of ruse. He doesn't even try to spell out the argument conservatives make on this point, he just kind of asserts it as if (a) everyone is familiar with the argument and (b) it's obviously correct when in fact neither is the case."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "McCain, believing he was at a Palin rally rather than a debate, threw up air quotes around 'health of the mother,' as though this was some kind of elaborate trick that women pull just so they can kill their babies. But of course he was just impatient with an argument he feels like he's had a million times. He wanted to be dismissive of Obama, and instead he sounded dismissive of women in general. He did this throughout the debate -- seeming more interested in making Obama feel bad than earning any votes, and probably ended up alienating people who might be inclined to agree with him."
• Hamsher: "The most memorable moment of the debate -- the one that should come back to haunt McCain -- was when he sneeringly dismissed concerns for women's 'health' with regard to abortion. Contempt for women just oozed out of every pore of his being, and it was no stretch to imagine the same man turning to his wife and saying 'at least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c**t.'"

OBAMA DEBATE: Cool As A Cucumber

Most liberal bloggers praised Obama's performance -- particularly his calm demeanor:

• BooMan: "In the contest over who the American people would rather have a beer with, it's no contest. The answer is Barack Obama. Barack Obama exudes cool."
• Daily Kos' Trapper John: "Nothing can get under [Obama's] skin. Nothing. No attack can cause him to lose his equilibrium, to cause him to squint or gawp or stare like McCain seems to do three times every minute. Barack Obama is a fundamentally cool cat -- and that's one of the reasons he's not just going to win this election, but win big. Americans respect a person who won't get thrown off his game, who won't let his enemies and opponents rattle him."
• Hamsher: "[This] was Obama's best showing yet. His answers were poised, direct and sincere -- especially when he dealt with the difficult subjects of Ayers, John Lewis and the ugly mob that Sarah Palin has been stirring up at her public events. He addressed the accusations of being a terrorist head on, and didn't try to dismiss the ugliness of it. It's the first time I've heard him speak quite so unflinchingly about something so personal and vicious, and he did it in a way that was grounded and made him appear totally confident and calm in his conviction. It inspired a lot of confidence that he has the maturity and the gravitas to address really complex and difficult situations. He definitely showed grace under pressure."
• Benen: "Obama has cornered the market on stature, temperament, and control. Where McCain was nasty, Obama was unflappable. Where McCain was angry, Obama was confident. On the substance, Obama was on message, and just as importantly, made personal connections on the issues he cared about. I also noticed that Obama seemed to go out of his way to appeal to centrists and independents. While McCain reached out to his base on abortion and vouchers, Obama sought out middle ground on practically every issue."
• Aravosis: "Obama was smart, calm, collected, even feisty when necessary -- at his core, Obama was presidential."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Media Loves Internal Fights

Moulitsas:

"[...I'm] having fun with another recent trend, which NRO's Mark Levin bemoans here: 'Let's be honest, [David] Frum was invited on CBS because the producer knew he has expressed repeatedly his dislike of Palin. He represents a tiny fraction of conservatives but makes for good liberal TV.'

K-Lo responds: 'No question about it, Mark. I never got more media requests than the day I criticized the campaign for holding Palin too tight, overcoaching her, and not setting her free.'

The media loves internal fights like nothing else. It has nothing to do with 'liberal TV', as Levin fantasizes. Like K-Lo says, nothing will generate more media requests than one of my pieces blasting Democrats. Those requests are certainly ignored, since there's a place for our dirty laundry, and it ain't on some bullshit cable news show. But for years it's our side that has had to suffer Harold Ford, Joe Lieberman, Lanny Davis, and the whole lot of 'Democratic strategists' who do little but criticize and undermine our own party. Conservatives haven't had to deal with that annoying media tic because 1) conservatives had little to complain about, they had the trifecta, and 2) conservatives have always been able to keep their people in line better than us.

That's all changing. And while I sympathize, all I can say is 'welcome to our world'."

LEST WE FORGET: Cool McCain Supporter Wears 'McCain 2000' Shirt To Campaign Speech

From The Onion:

"COLUMBUS, OH -- According to attendees at a rally held in Columbus' Capitol Theatre Monday, a John McCain supporter in his early 30s was envied and admired by onlookers for wearing an original navy blue 'McCain 2000' T-shirt with a peeling logo, frayed neckline, and several holes in the sleeves. 'When I saw his shirt, I was like, "No way! That's totally vintage!"' said 24-year-old David Bennett, noting that it was not a pre-distressed 'McCain 2000' shirt like the ones available at Urban Outfitters. 'This guy's been a McCain fan since the beginning. He said the campaign kickoff speech in Nashua in '99 was fucking mind-blowing.' Sources reported that the hip McCain backer knew all the words to the Arizona senator's speeches, and silently mouthed McCain's entire energy policy while waving a cigarette lighter."