The Mississippi Debate: First Thoughts and Who Won?

“RIGHT on pursuing BinLaden wherever he is…”
===================
Mr. wpost4112, we know where is Bin Laden. He is somewhere in Pakistan; probably he is hiding under Musharraf bed, and he is being protected by Pakistan Gov. and Pak. people. Million $ question is, how do you find him under these conditions? Sen. Obama seems to suggest that he wants to send Americas troops to rummage through entire Pakistan to look for Bin Laden. During the debate Sen. McCain said America is currently looking in Pakistan for Bin Laden, but not in such a bold way as Sen. Obama seems to suggest.

BTW,
* FDR Gov. did not have a Fed. Budget of 3$ trillions or a national deficit of 10$ trillions to deal with. America is in a totally different situation currently.
* Bush/McCain overspending and wasteful spending do not make these things right. Money does not grow on trees.
* Regarding Iraq, no one knew if Iraq had wmd. Also we need their oil.

If you were allready siding with McCain, as many pundits had allready declared they expected McCant to do Very well ,then there's no way to dissuade you from your feelings.
If You put aside your FEELINGS, this was a HUGE WIN for Obama,no doubt's whatsoever.
Obama spoke with style, not the GOP reported "Uppity" or Airy they usually use to describe Obama.He addressed McCain,Lehrer, and the Audience(cameras included) without missing a beat.
As for substance, OBAMA HIT A HOME RUNS> McCain and his camp love spewing everytime they get in front of a camera or mic.
I dont recall, possibly because McCains speaking style PUTS ME TO SLEEP(allmost instantly)any REAL ANSWERS or SOlutions brought up by McCain, just phoney controversy, made up B>S> about OBAMAS SUPERIOR tax plan,and another waste of 5 minutes on story about a bracelet.
I really think Cris got it wrong with his comment about the exchange on foreign leaders, namely country's associated with terrorism.McCain had no response or plan of his own, JUST 4 More Years of Bush's plan, which now seems to be unraveling.
And if John Brings up the whole SURGE thing again, OBAMA should split his skull with the obvious,THE SURGE was a necessary change of Tactic because the WAR up until the surge was a complete FAILURE, it was succesful in stopping American causalties, and stopping further insurgencies,IT took 4100+ sldiers dieing in Iraq Before anyone decided we needed a new course of action.So the only thing the SURGE got right was to stop spilling AMERICAN BLOOD on soil we shouldent even be on.

You have an odd definition of "relaxed," Chris! McCain looked really uncomfortable during the debate. His unwillingness to look at Obama at all spoke volumes, too. In matters of substance, it was a draw, but in matters of style, Obama won easily.

Amended Post
This is the most recent Polls
McCain trailing Obama
McCain did not win the Debate
STOP KIDDING YOURSELVES

Gallup Daily: Obama Moves to 50% to 42% Lead
Obama registers strong performance over Thursday-Saturday time period
September 28, 2008
Barack Obama leads John McCain, 50% to 42%, among registered voters in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday -- just one point shy of his strongest showing of the year.
Debate Watchers Give Obama Edge Over McCain
Obama seen as improving his standing on the economy
September 28, 2008
A USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted Saturday, Sept. 27, shows that Americans who watched the first presidential debate gave Barack Obama the edge over John McCain as having done the better job, by a 46% to 34% margin.
Gallup Daily: Obama Holds 5-Point Lead
Momentum in his favor going into debate
September 27, 2008
Barack Obama leads John McCain, 49% to 44%, in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update. This is one of Obama’s best showings since the Republican National Convention, and suggests he had some momentum going into Friday night’s debate.

Just listening to you who believe John McCain won the debate....here are your latest statistic
Gallup Daily: Obama Holds 5-Point Lead
Momentum in his favor going into debate
September 27, 2008
Barack Obama leads John McCain, 49% to 44%, in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update. This is one of Obama’s best showings since the Republican National Convention, and suggests he had some momentum going into Friday night’s debate.

Obama has reached the tipping point in his campaign. But if he wins the election it will not be because of his skill but because of McCain's associations and mistakes in judgment.
Phil Gramm, Sarah Palin, Rick Davis are McCain's albatrosses.
But his mistakes in judgment on the economy will not be forgiven. Pretending to suspend his campaign is recognized as a transparent stunt. Swing voters know this and will desert him just as he deserted Letterman.

he paid Obama staffers are the only ones on this comments section saying that McCain did not look good, or Obama won - EVERYONE IN THE REAL WORLD SAID MCCAIN WON ISSUE AFTER ISSUE.

------------------

Again, the "real world" is not your collection of action figures.

The real world is actual polling of actual voters, who, by large margins, give the win to Obama.

In today's Sunday NY Post (nypost.com), Nick Gillespie, in one of the most important articles of the year, provides a serious indepth psychological analysis of why Wm. J. Clinton continues to campaign aggressively AGAINST his party's nominee, Barack Obama.

----------------------

The article is neither important, let alone "one of the most important articles of the year," nor particularly analytical.

Bill suffers from pathological narcissism. This is not news.

Obama will win with or without his support.

Do you all really want to know what is wrong with the Republicans - we have an idea. .............
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/09/26/subliminal-bush/

In today's Sunday NY Post (nypost.com), Nick Gillespie, in one of the most important articles of the year, provides a serious indepth psychological analysis of why Wm. J. Clinton continues to campaign aggressively AGAINST his party's nominee, Barack Obama. There is no rational justification for WJC's behavior, so Gillespie concludes the answer must lie in psychology. Short excerpt below:

"WHY CLINTON CAN'T HELP IT
By NICK GILLESPIE
September 28, 2008 --

Back in 1993 - doesn't that seem like a century ago? - President Bill Clinton likened himself to a famously resilient comic book character. "I'm a lot like Baby Huey. I'm fat. I'm ugly. But if you push me down, I keep coming back."

But if recent events have proven anything, it may be that the self-styled "Comeback Kid" is a lot more like Baby Jane Hudson, the captivating-yet-repugnant title character played by Bette Davis in the 1962 camp classic, "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" Like the faded, bitter and spiteful ex-child star, Clinton doesn't seem to know how to share, much less exit, the stage gracefully. Worse still, like Baby Jane, he seems to have little sense of how he's horrifying his audience.
How else to explain his behavior related to this year's presidential election (which, alas, unlike the debates, has no chance of being postponed or canceled)? During the Democratic primaries, Clinton continued to take swipes at Barack Obama long past the point of helping Hillary Clinton's chances at securing the nomination. In January, he derided Obama's derogatory claims about Sen. Clinton's voting record as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." That and similar outbursts were widely viewed as damaging his wife's campaign and causing serious harm to the larger Democratic cause.
In June, Britain's Telegraph reported that Clinton had told friends that Obama would have to "kiss my ass" to garner his support and only a few weeks before the Democratic National Convention in August, Clinton was still pointedly refusing to state unequivocally that the Illinois senator was qualified to hold the nation's highest office.
Then there's recent history. During an appearance on "The Late Show with David Letterman" this week, Clinton lavished praise on his wife and GOP nominee John McCain while mustering little to no enthusiasm for his party's nominee, whose name scarcely passed his lips during a quarter-hour chat. "People will wind up liking both [McCain and Obama]," suggested Clinton, "People will go in that polling booth and say: 'You know, I really admire Senator McCain. He gave about all you could give to this country without getting killed for it. But I've got to have a change, and I'm going the other way.' " Clinton's reticence to unambiguously stump for Obama led the show's next guest, comedian Chris Rock, to comment, "Is it me, or he didn't want to say the name 'Barack Obama'?"
The Letterman appearance wasn't a one-off. During an appearance on "The View," he said the former POW has "given something in life the rest of us can't match" and emphasized that Hillary Clinton had garnered more primary votes than Obama, flourishes he repeated on "Good Morning America." Elsewhere, he praised Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in terms he might have once reserved for a White House intern: "I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there . . . why she's doing well."" END

who won

.

The paid Obama staffers are the only ones on this comments section saying that McCain did not look good, or Obama won - EVERYONE IN THE REAL WORLD SAID MCCAIN WON ISSUE AFTER ISSUE.

Obama did not land one punch or do well with one issue.

McCain won issue after issue - especially making Obama look horrible and not ready for office with the Iranian meeting and Henry Kissinger topics.

McCain won.

The look on Obama's face as he left the stage showed disappointment that Obama knew that he did not do well. It is a wonder that the spinmeisters were able to get the media to write such things after the debate.

.

.

Obama has reached the tipping point in his campaign. But if he wins the election it will not be because of his skill but because of McCain's associations and mistakes in judgment.
Phil Gramm, Sarah Palin, Rick Davis are McCain's albatrosses.
But his mistakes in judgment on the economy will not be forgiven. Pretending to suspend his campaign is recognized as a transparent stunt. Swing voters know this and will desert him just as he deserted Letterman.

Obama has reached the tipping point in his campaign. But if he wins the election it will not be because of his skill but because of McCain's associations and mistakes in judgment.
Phil Gramm, Sarah Palin, Rick Davis are McCain's albatrosses.
But his mistakes in judgment on the economy will not be forgiven. Pretending to suspend his campaign is recognized as a transparent stunt. Swing voters know this and will desert him just as he deserted Letterman.

Obama has reached the tipping point in his campaign. But if he wins the election it will not be because of his skill but because of McCain's associations and mistakes in judgment.
Phil Gramm, Sarah Palin, Rick Davis are McCain's albatrosses.
But his mistakes in judgment on the economy will not be forgiven. Pretending to suspend his campaign is recognized as a transparent stunt. Swing voters know this and will desert him just as he deserted Letterman.

Sen. Obama:

* Wrong on surge in Iraq.

RIGHT ion the Iraq invasion which has bankrupted this country financially, morally and poltically

* Wrong on no preconditions before negotiating with foreign nations.

RIGHT and fully supported by Kissinger and all other former Sectretaries of States.

* Wrong on BOLDLY attacking Pakistan, so we can get Binladen.(With his plan, Binladen/terrorist could seize control of Pak. nukes).

RIGHT on pursuing BinLaden wherever he is and whenever we have actionable intelligence, regardless of whether or not the host nation gives a green light.

* Wrong on energy.

RIGHT on his 10 year plan to get us off of foreign oil, which fills the pockets of the Bushes, Cheneys and other super-rich Republican fat cats.

* His economic plan doesn't fix our overspending and inefficiently spending Government.

His economic plan has the blessing of Buffett and is similar to FDR's plan which increased domestic spending in the midst of our worst economic crisis and led to great prosperity for teh middle class.

* His economic plan is our current problem.(overspending and inefficient spending.)

The Bush/McCain administration has the most overspending and wasteful spending of any administration ever.

Plus huge tax breaks for the supper rich and companies who have taken jobs to other countries and pay not axes because of the many tax loopholes.

Look deeper, my friend.

"Aside from the fact that Mccain has used that line since he started his campaign, someone should call him on that. Do you know what the study is?"

My comment had nothing to do with what I actually thought of the study. I think its important to study natural science. I just liked the line.

I didn't know this was oft-used, though. Its the first time I've heard it.

.

.

Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.

.

Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.

.

Independents really responded to Obama, even when he wasn't saying anything important or significant. Rather, they were responding to the amount of emotion or "personality" he exhibited at times.

----------------------

Politics is all about emotional response...for every party and every voter.

That's the Palin phenomenon. No one knows the least thing about her and they swoon.

The diff between her and Obama is that when they DO finally hear her speak extemporaneously, they stop swooning and sober up quick and reject her, as Kathleeen Parker and other are beginning to so....but not so with Obama...he has substance beyond the emotional attraction.

John McCain won the debate by showing a command of the issues, controlling the topics and keeping his opponent on the defensive. Mr. Obama even agreed with Senator McCain's points on eight separate occasions. John McCain showed real leadership and that he is ready to be Commander in Chief on day one.
http://savetheusavotemccain.blogspot.com

John McCain won the first debate by showing a real command of the issues, directing the flow and constantly putting his opponent on the defensive. Obama even praised McCain as being right eight or agreeing with him on separate occasions. He showed he is the Commander in Chief and ready to lead on day one. http://savetheusavotemccain.blogspot.com

Re:
Independents really responded to Obama, even when he wasn't saying anything important or significant. Rather, they were responding to the amount of emotion or "personality" he exhibited at times.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 28, 2008 9:49 AM

Obama, on the other hand, responded to McCain. That President's Seal thing really got him.

YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE IS SUPERFICIAL LIKE MOST OF THE PUNDITS ON TV !!!! Lets look a little deeper.

Sen. Obama:

* Wrong on surge in Iraq.
* Wrong on no preconditions before negotiating with foreign nations.
* Wrong on BOLDLY attacking Pakistan, so we can get Binladen.(With his plan, Binladen/terrorist could seize control of Pak. nukes).
* Wrong on energy.
* His economic plan doesn't fix our overspending and inefficiently spending Government.
* His economic plan is our current problem.(overspending and inefficient spending.)

=========================================================

Sen. Obama clearly won the debate hands-down! He was crisp and totally composed and in control. While McCain looked testy, arrogant and rude to not even acknowledge his competitor when talking!! He was a total grouch!!

Posted by: maripil | September 28, 2008 3:19 AM | Report abuse

As a resident of the UK, a country that's nearly as indebted as the US, I was amazed to hear those two guys discussing who was going to get the tax breaks. Your government has just agreed to pump $700 billion into the banking sector, with no guarantee that will be enough. You're fighting the same two ruinously expensive wars we are. It's like the crew of the Titanic pausing from the job of rearranging the deckchairs to discuss who they're going to invite to the party when the ship gets into harbour.

As a resident of the UK, a country that's nearly as indebted as the US, I was amazed to hear those two guys discussing who was going to get the tax breaks. Your government has just agreed to pump $700 billion into the banking sector, with no guarantee that will be enough. You're fighting the same two ruinously expensive wars we are. It's like the crew of the Titanic pausing from the job of rearranging the deckchairs to discuss who they're going to invite to the party when the ship gets into harbour.

So did anyone catch McCain's line about the money for studying the DNA of bears and not knowing whether it was a criminal or paternity issue?

Unfortunately, that seems to have been glossed over. It was one of the funniest moments of the debate.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 27, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse
-------------
relpy:
Aside from the fact that Mccain has used that line since he started his campaign, someone should call him on that. Do you know what the study is? It is a more efficient way of counting the bears by collecting the hair they leave on trees when they scratch and putting it in a data base. This was normally done by actually tranquilizing the bears and putting collars on them so they can be identified. This is very time consuming as well as dangerous to the people doing the work, quite a few have been killed over the years doing the work. The reason for doing this is to get an accurate count so the bears so they can be taken off the endangered list. The main reason was that be getting the bears off the list they could do oil drilling on the land as well as use the trees for lumber. It was worth 100 million dollars to the local community as well as would provide thousands of jobs. By the way, they were spending twice as much counting the bears the old way so it saver over 3 million dollars. Mccain is just a idiot to knock such a valuable study, one that was already being done at greater cost and taking much longer..

TINA FEY DOES HILARIOUS "SARAH PALIN" INTERVIEWED BY "KATIE COURIC" OF CBS ON
"SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE"

See the super funny clip from last night's show at:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

Tina Fey does a better "Sarah" than Sarah.

TINA FEY DOES HILARIOUS "SARAH PALIN" INTERVIEWED BY "KATIE COURIC" OF CBS ON
"SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE"

See the super funny clip from last night's show at:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

Tina Fey does a better "Sarah" than Sarah.

"At the risk of being accused of spamming talking points. I really thought Obama won. I was watching CNN hoping to get a minimum of spin. And I found myself staring a lot at the audience reaction graph and it was apparent there that Obama was getting more consistent and higher positives and never hit steep lows like McCain did."

Posted by: atomiccow | September 28, 2008 4:12 AM

Independents really responded to Obama, even when he wasn't saying anything important or significant. Rather, they were responding to the amount of emotion or "personality" he exhibited at times.

Obama won, but on further reflection, O should have done better given that all the issues favored him and he knew his opponent was gruff, snarly, and quick to temper. The economy and the War were fastballs down the middle O knew were coming: some clever verbal zingers from O to cause Mac to blow his stack and this game would have been over for good.

But O didn't do that and the game goes on. By the way, give mucho credit to Lehrer as moderator. No George Stephanopolous trickeration and foolishness (Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do? Why don;t you wear a flag pin?) just solid fair questions about the issues of the day.

The bootom line is, though, O won: all the major public polls, including those of CNN and CBS, and even anti-O'ers like TIME's Mark Halperin and GOP guru Frank Luntz said O won. One outlier poll, though -- The Post's Broder's poll of one (himself) today said O lost. Whatever.

Further good news: no more "campaigning" "for" O by Bill and Hill...perhaps? Could it be Bitter Bill's comically sad "Say-No-to-O" tour and his Missus' parallel "Enshrine the Whine" campaign have finally ended? Could it be they punched themselves out by pounding on O 24/7 for the past month? Have we finally heard the last of their tiresome 127 grievances against O, the media, the system, "the Man," Chris Matthews, Patti Solis Doyle, all men, Bill Richardson, Keith Olbermann, and, of course, the most notorious transgressor--the guy in the front row who, four months ago, asked HRC to iron his shirt.

__

Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize winner Maureen Dowd's take in the NYT today on the debate:

"Given the past week, the debate should have been a cinch for Obama. But, just as in the primaries, he willfully refuses to accept what debates are about. It’s not a lecture hall; it’s a joust. It’s not how cerebral you are. It’s how visceral you are. You need memorable, sharp, forceful and witty lines."

At the risk of being accused of spamming talking points. I really thought Obama won. I was watching CNN hoping to get a minimum of spin. And I found myself staring a lot at the audience reaction graph and it was apparent there that Obama was getting more consistent and higher positives and never hit steep lows like McCain did. So I was confused when so many of the pundits were scoring a slight win for McCain. The snap audience polls scoring like 45 Obama 36 McCain seemed to reflect my reaction to what I saw.

Expected McCain to beat Obama on foreign policy and this was where I parted with the pundits. I thought Obama did better overall with his expertise. I could follow his concepts and remember them more freely than with McCain especially in areas like Russia and Pakistan. On Iraq I agree that Obama did well pinning him on the war and McCain made some gains on Obama's take on the surge. That was very close.

On CNN I noticed the dials drop on two interesting areas. McCain's reference to Senator Palin. They would also drop after McCain would repeat his "Senator Obama doesn't understand" lines right after Obama would give what I thought was an eloquent demonstration of his understanding of world affairs. And I saw Obama's dials rise the highest of the evening when he was talking about restoring America's damaged stature around the globe.

However in reading the pundits comments I did perhaps miss that McCain lead the discussion into areas like earmarks and Obama followed. In discussing repeated Obama's "John is right." comments. I think too much may be made of that as they were usually John is right but here is where we differ strongly.

My impression was it was a modest Obama win on what was expected to be the best debate night for McCain. I was also left an impression I didn't have before the debate, that Senator McCain really dislikes Senator Obama.

DDAWD wrote:
So did anyone catch McCain's line about the money for studying the DNA of bears and not knowing whether it was a criminal or paternity issue?

Unfortunately, that seems to have been glossed over. It was one of the funniest moments of the debate.
---------------

Ummmm...I guess it would be funny if we hadn't heard it a million times. He's been using that "joke" since he started his campaign. Even the people at his rallies don't laugh anymore.

What WAS the funniest moment of the debate was when McCain compared Obama to Bush. Obama laughed openly at McCain.

McCain is a doddering, dangerous old man.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

Just wanted to drop this on you guys, You are funny.....Mccain lost and proved to most thinkers he is a fool.

From "fact of The Matter"
http://www.need4trth.blogspot.com

Sen. Obama clearly won the debate hands-down! He was crisp and totally composed and in control. While McCain looked testy, arrogant and rude to not even acknowledge his competitor when talking!! He was a total grouch!!

"..We want a good balance. Now the backbone of the American economy has been and always will be the entrepreneur. To deny this is stupid. However, there is a role for government to push the values that we deem important as a society. To ignore this role is also problematic and has led to many of the problems we are now facing.
"
I do agree we need a good balance. But the problem now is the balance is way over tipped to the oversize of the government rather than undersize. The problem we are facing now is not due to the size of government not big enough, is due to a culture of greed, a culture of rewarding/toleration of inefficiency and incompetence, a culture that reprimand any attempt to enforce discpline as mean-spirited. Had the pseudo government Fannie and Freddie not given the green light to loosen regulation to promote home ownership irregardless of credit socre of the buyers, the private banks won't attempt to make quick bucks in making the bad loans as they won't be able to sell them to Fannie and Freddie under formal functional governance and regulations. That's the exact example of the consequence of a culture that encourage spending beyond means.
We shouldn't be in Iraq in first place, but now that we are in, we need to think of a smart exit strategy. To pull out without careful deliberation of consequence and set a arbitary deadline is a product of child-like, irresponsible thinking. Iran can quickly fill the vacuum once American withdraw. We should exit, but exit with middle east stability intact. I am sure McCain if elected will consider exit and exit in a responsible way. We should drill oil and not depend on unfriendly nations that could threaten our economic and national security with oil. Plus new oil drilling will create more jobs. In the long term, alternative energies should be encouraged, but to think it can replace oil to meet american demand within a decade or two is an unrealistic dream.

I'm not quite sure what happened to the first comment I typed here, but I shall repeat it in a slightly different way. I wrote an entire commentary piece for a blog called Associated Content. It was right on the money and echoes many here, saying, basically, that the mannerisms that McCain displayed were irritating and made him seem irascible. Also, the "attack dog" role is not one I wish to see us continue in the world at large. I much prefer the laid-back style of Senator Obama, and I think it is the way to achieve consensus in a troubled world. My article was likened McCain to a bulldog, with his teeth sunk in Obama's leg and noted that it will be difficult to dislodge the bulldog's teeth, but it is necessary to do so in order to bring some sanity to this country. Just think how the world, at large, will react if we elect an old, out-of-touch war-monger with a completely unqualified housewife VP when we could have had a Harvard Grad and one of the most experienced members of the Senate on the topic of foreign relations. Wake up, America. Rome (or D.C.) is burning and "W" is fiddling. It is time to act and elect the best man for the job, and it was pretty clear that the man in question is the Democratic candidate. At least, if anything were to prevent Senator Obama from finishing out his term as President, we'd have an experienced individual to pick up the reins...not another Dan Quayle-like no-nothing.

IT'S OBVIOUS SEN. MCCAIN WANTS TO EARN THIS PRESIDENCY WITH DEEDS AND ACTIONS AND NOT WITH WORDS LIKE DEEP THROAD OBAMA.

I wrote about my impressions on the debate here:http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1067111/mccains_bulldog_grip_on_obamas_pantleg.html

It's pretty funny...and accurate. Check it out!

McCain-
Pushed the Surge!
Stopped the Splurge!

Yesterday's Washington Post

"When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to "just touch gloves" with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.

"I appreciate what you've done here, but I'm not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal," McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. "Just like Iraq, I'm not afraid to go it alone if I need to."

For a moment, as Graham described it, "you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable." Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before -- one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans -- was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain's presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day's events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain's arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit -- even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

"If there is a deal with the House involved, it's because of John McCain," Graham, one of the Arizonan's closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain's dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

The Republican Study Committee, an enclave of House conservatives, had already begun turning against the Paulson plan. When McCain announced his return, the conservatives feared he would forge an agreement largely along Paulson's lines, with slight alterations and the GOP leadership's blessing.
******************
9/28/09
WE HAVE A DEAL AND THANKS TO JOHN MCCAIN A BETTER ONE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
While Obama was saying "Call Me", McCain was working in Washington to secure the House Republicans a seat at the negotiating table in the person of Roy Blunt. Frank and Dodd had the deal "all done"- rushed through before McCain landed in Washington-then they blamed him for stopping it! Do you think they'll NOW give him credit for a deal that has much more protection for Americans in it? I doubt they will.... WILL YOU?

McCain was irrascible, erratic and incoherent and seemed senile.

He pushed a simple-minded, two-prong agenda, demonstrating that he lacks the intellect or knowledge to lead this country in this century:

1. Leaving Iraq=defeat. By whom? Where is McCain going to find the money to keep 100,000+ troops in Iraq indefinitely, staving off this "defeat?" And where will he find the men -- the military says the present committment is unsustainable.

2. His solution to everything else was a spending freeze. Nonsensical. The government is running a deficit now. That means the deficit will continue to grow, thus the debt and thus interest on the debt and spending. McCain seems unable to understand that the key is reducing spending as a percentage of GDP by spending in ways that increase GDP (as occurred under Clinton, with the reverse ocuring under Bush). Totally clueless.

McCain was incoherent and seemed senile. He had a two-pronged agenda:

1. Leaving Iraq=defeat. By whom? Where is McCain going to find the money to keep 100,000+ troops in Iraq indefinitely, staving off this "defeat?" And where will he find the men -- the military says the present committment is unsustainable.

2. His solution to everything else was a spending freeze. Nonsensical. The government is running a deficit now. That means the deficit will continue to grow, thus the debt and thus interest on the debt and spending. McCain seems unable to understand that the key is reducing spending as a percentage of GDP by spending in ways that increase GDP (as occurred under Clinton, with the reverse ocuring under Bush). Totally clueless.

====== Sen. Obama = C Sen. McCain = A ====

Sen. Obama economic policies stinks. His solution to all domestic problems is to spend more money. His solution is our current problem. Our Gov. is currently overspending and like all Gov. spending inefficiently. For heaven sake, nations with a billion people are effectively running their government with half our Gov. budget.

As for Sen. Obama foreign policies, his foreign policies also stinks. As we all know, setting preconditions before negotiations is basic and a must. Otherwise, nations will start making all kinds of unreasonable demands on America. I don't trust Sen. Obama to negotiate for America because he would be lucky to walk out of the negotiating room with his shorts on. He doesn't know what the hell he is doing.

"McCain is more likely to stand up to special interest and stop the wasteful spendings, and as a counter balance to the congress."

Problem with McCain is that he takes the other extreme. Government can't solve everything, but it does have a responsibility to pursue an agenda that betters the condition of its citizens. We need schools, we need a strong military, we need healthcare, we need roads, we need to care for senior citizens, we need to invest in basic sciences. We need some regulation over the most critical aspects of services and industry. To deny the role of government in these aspects of American society is also detrimental. Conservatives are too purist in their goals. The real world doesn't work that way. The invisible hand is not just invisible, but also blind. It needs guidance. Now a complete socialist government is also problematic. Its something that plagues parts of Europe.

But we aren't trying to sit an extreme. We want a good balance. Now the backbone of the American economy has been and always will be the entrepreneur. To deny this is stupid. However, there is a role for government to push the values that we deem important as a society. To ignore this role is also problematic and has led to many of the problems we are now facing.

THE MEDIA PUNDITS GAVE VERY SUPERFICIAL ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE.

They never analyze whether these candidates were making sense or whether they were practical. Why is anyone paying these people money?

THE MEDIA PUNDITS GAVE VERY SUPERFICIAL ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE.

They never analyze whether these candidates were making sense or whether they were practical. Why is anyone paying these people money?

seems more people are preoccupied with win or lose as if this is a football game. People need to watch Bill Moyer's interview of Andrew John Bacevich. Andrew told something few would admit. That we don't look ourselves in the mirror. We lived beyond our means and look for the government as the solution. As a result the government grows bigger and bigger, the presidential power grew greater and greater, to a degree people preoccupied more with winning and losing of every trivial tibits of the candidates than looking for a real solution that guides the country back on track, also as a result, the candidates won't take unpopular positions and tried to cater to every interest group to help him get elected. As a result, neither candidate will have the mandate to make the tough call for american to start look within. Kennedy has the courage to ask people to not ask what the country can do for you, but ask what you can do for the country. That's why he's a great president.
Obama is just typical politician, albeit quite smart one I'd say, he shouted hope and change as if the election is an Hollywood drama. Or maybe it is, as he's their favorite and Hollywood (and Oprah, and rest of the media) runs this country. Until we get back to a culture that the candidates can tell the truth that this country cannot continue living on a credit line and fantasize it's unlimited. No election would change anything. Each president just grow the big government machine as people demanded it. Each president just project military power oversea as a way to cover up his incapability to solve the fundamental problem of growing irresponsible indulgence on debt domestically. Bill Clinton did slightly better than others. But nevertheless, the false sense of superiority of american government power, the voters' refusal to admit their own responsiblity and just use the government as the source of problem and source of solution continues nonstop for decades since the 60s. Since majority is duped into this addiction of debt, crooks use the opportunities to corrupt the government into wasteful spending and regulation that creates ever larger gap between the rich and poor. Democrats and republican are equally at blame.
McCain is more likely to stand up to special interest and stop the wasteful spendings, and as a counter balance to the congress. Every time this country have president and congress by the same party, the country fared worse and government grew bigger. One thing I like McCain from the debate is he's straight, honest talk of the need for reducing the military spending that grew under Bush and overshadowed everything else. Wake up from imperial pipe dream, America! Left or right. The government is not the unlimited credit line nor the solution for everything. Or else it's too late, as the day of reckoning is getting closer. This finacial criris is just a precursor.

Is Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin the greatest in the history of SNL?

I mean, she absolutely captures the crazy mannerisms of McCain's choice for VP.

I really thought there was NO WAY someone else could make Palin look more comical and ridiculous than she does herself, but it's hilarious seeing another person so perfectly capture Palin's utter ignorance of basic issues!

WELL DONE TINA!

8:01pm PST 09/27/08

PLEASE try to understand my political party's beliefs and philosophies as they have been demonstrably crucial in elevating the status of this nation to the greatest over all the others on this planet:

"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH"

and

"FREEDOM (including FREE MARKET CAPITALI$M) IS NOT FREE!"

Very proud of the conduct of the Nephilim / Illuminati Warrior $enator McCain tactfully and strategically DEMONstrated last night.

I know all of his Nephilim / Illuminati friends and family in "The Party" are too, including of course, "THE PRINCE", and the current Nephilim / Illuminati Warrior in the White House despite their differences.

The $enator's training showed how strong The Force is with him.

The $enator DEMONstrated that he can be trusted to tow "The Party's philosophy and agenda".

Everyone's children (including The Party's own if necessary) should continue to pay for our enjoyed freedoms and private rights to pro$per, accumulate, and keep our individual wealth with blood if necessary through warfare.

In other words,

Ou individual, GOD-given right to oppress others and exploit the earth's resources, in order to pro$per materially and financially should continue to be defended by the precious sacrificial blood of our soldiers in the United States Armed Forces!

(For this I don't mind paying taxes for! But to feed lazy ass Leroy, his illegitimate children, and "Baby Mama's", because he has aspiration of becoming the next big "Gangsta Rappa" and won't work like everyone else, I do!)

I am eagerly awaiting the $enator's reception of the Sword, Torch, and Baton from the current occupying Knight, so that $enator McCain can solely push "The Agenda" from the Oval Office as planned.

Even though we only need 4 more year$ there, in order to transition to "The Big Event", I believe the $enator has DEMONstrated enough faith for him to continue to hold our position there in the Oval Office for another full 8!

I hope that my family and I will personally be continued to be counted worthy to po$itively participate and continue to benefit as we have the past 8 years.

Everything is proceeding as foreseen and planned!

"The Bailout" will help maximize our profit$ and pro$perity before the coming war with Iran.

Even the liberal media has reflected this in their recent coverage of our orchestration of the current events and their public pollings. I am surprised that they even have the courage to go public with "Our Truth!".

I hope this post will encourage you, the elite, elect, and enlightened in "The Party" as well as assist the undetermined to join u$. If any readers are unsure and need more information, please don't hesitate to ask any Republican Party member for clarification and assistance!

It is such a joy to see things transpire as planned! Thank you for listening.

CHRI$Tian Verde,

Liberty Farms, Solano County, California, USA

This "Country First!"

$upport our troops, keep America free, VOTE McCAIN-PALIN!

"Drill, Baby Drill!"

"Bomb Iran Now!"

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Beloved Founding Father & 3rd American President: Thomas Jefferson

The Obama supporters will of course think Obama is the greatest, just as they thought the Disney Channel was the greatest, because they haven't lived long enough to know any better.

Next they will decide to kill off the elderly because they drive too slow. It's all about them.

Some responses were noteworthy. Regarding a spending freeze, Obama's remark about not using a hatchet when its better to use a scapel-demonstrates the difference between McCain the bulldozer, and Obama the thinker. McCain's plan to give a $300 billion break to corporations puts taxpayers on notice, he's no maverick except in spin. And the plan to give employees a $5000 tax credit to buy their own health insurance??? How much adjusted income would you have to been making to get that check? This was a lost opportunity for Obama to have pounded home the fact that McCain is in the pocket of corporate/insurance lobbyists, just like the current resident. McCain didn't really have any specific details about foreign policy, nor the economy, and Obama could have done better had he presented a more detailed plan relevant to the average citizen. The voters, contrary to the D.C. cult, aren't stupid, and want answers. Jim Leher had the right idea about asking the candidates to debate, and speak to each other, but the debate still looked a whole lot like another campaign speech.

Polls after Kennedy's first debate with Nixon showed a majority who listened on radio thought Nixon "won," while most persons who watched on television believed Kennedy "won." This shows the potential importance of body language, facial expressions and verbal comments in a televised debate.

Kennedy is widely considered a great orator, yet if one actually listens to his answers during press conferences, he often came across as Barack does, with frequent pauses, uhs, etc.

McCain with his self-righteous condescension, rudeness, smirking, sneering came across worse than Nixon did on television in his first debate with Kennedy. Most independents want a president who will actually try to work in a bupartisan way to solve or alleviate problems, through wise, just policies. Barack, though occasionally coming across as somewhat insufficiently assertive toward the end of the debate, overall came across as far more intelligent, balanced in his judgment, respectful of other opinions, showing the right temperament, in short clearly more presidential.

Renu1 wrote: "In the transcript, it was pretty close. Watching on tv, Obama dominated. I read a review by a primatologist who explained that Obama had the alpha male body language and McCain had the submissive body language. The audiences of independent voters confirmed that Obama won. Polling numbers over the next few days will show what effect, if any, there was from the debate."

I can't believe that a literate citizen of the USA would care to decide elections that way. If that's what democracy is about, give me monarchy.

I was looking for an opportunity for voters to hear candidate positions on the issues, and I thought the debate was fairly successful on that level.

In the transcript, it was pretty close. Watching on tv, Obama dominated. I read a review by a primatologist who explained that Obama had the alpha male body language and McCain had the submissive body language. The audiences of independent voters confirmed that Obama won. Polling numbers over the next few days will show what effect, if any, there was from the debate.

Come to think of it, McCain said, during the debate "I didn't win Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate."

Maybe that was why he picked Palin, to fulfill some fantasy of his...

So did anyone catch McCain's line about the money for studying the DNA of bears and not knowing whether it was a criminal or paternity issue?

Unfortunately, that seems to have been glossed over. It was one of the funniest moments of the debate.

Calwineman, McCain hasn't "done" anything...he has been a gigolo Senator forever and his main goal has been to take care of his wife's investments (see Lincoln Savings and Loan-Keating 5), help his friends, and try to get face time in the media by pissing off his fellow Republicans (up until 2004, when he decided to run again in 2008, then he started kissing ass all over the place).
He is far too loose with US troops, I imagine we are going to need a draft to keep up with all of the military entanglements he would get us into.

He was quite the maverick, except when he went along with George W. 91% of the time.
He even voted against improving the GI Bill for the soldiers he wants to fight his wars.

Now that he admitted there was torture committed by the United States under George W (check the transcript, he said it during the debate), what is he now going to do about it? Nothing, nada, zilch. Maybe the odd pardon, but that's all...

And, don't forget, he picked Palin to run the country if anything happens to him.

Let's not forget his sterling work chairing the Commerce Committee, you know, the one overseeing insurance companies and investment houses...

Not to mention that he was born during FDR's first term...

I said:

"McCain as Bush III -- I tend to think Obama uses as part of his post-partisan tactic or stratgy. Rather than attack conservative Republicans, he makes shorthand reference to eight years, four more years and Bush. So, its not as simple as casting McCain and Bush as one in the same. It's much deeper."

Invention13-- You said: "Sorry, but I just don't see it. This is supposed to be 'post-partisan'? Repeating something about your opponent you know is not true? There are just too many instances of McCain publicly disagreeing with Bush. McCain has his faults, but running in lock step with Bush is not one of them."

Obama is running against 8 years of conversative Republican control of government. So you can try to figure out what is going on here a few simple words:

Obama is running against conservative Republican government casting it as "eight years", "four more years" or "Bush III" instead of party philosophy.

Almost everyone knows that he is running against partisan labels so he refuses to run against "conservatives" as a liberal but rather as a change from what was.

McCain is more of the same -- the last eight years, four more years or Bush III.
What you fail to understand is everyone but you know this and that he has constructed a winning argument against consevative Republicans like you.

In foreign policy judgement is a serious subject. After nearly 24 hours of reflection there were two things stood out at the debate regarding judgement.
Senator McCain listed a number of cases regarding judgement; Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnisa, Kosovo, the "Surge" and others. He demonstrated a number of examples of judgement and told us what shaped his decisions.
Senator Obama had one example, he opposed the Iraq war. Period. There were virtually no examples that he used to justify that he has "better judgement". He simply has never done anything big other than run for office.

The drama builds toward the Palin/Biden debate, as prominent media conservatives distance themselves from the former beauty contestant.

It's not so much that she makes Gerald Ford-like "Eastern Europe" gaffes, it's that she spins meaningless, syntactically indecipherable nonsense most of the time - the sort of thing you'd expect from an airhead.

I have made no secret of my disdain for Joe Biden, a largemouthed bass in a tiny pond (Delaware).

I know it never could have happened, but in my dreams tonight, Hillary Clinton (I opposed her for the Dem nomination) will debate Ms. Palin.

I hope Biden can control the demons that regularly hijack his tongue.

:Asper, as pointed out by other posters (obviously to no avail), Kissinger modified his position on "speaking to the enemy" after-the-fact to accommodate his candidate. That's pure Kissinger and understandable. O got Kissinger's stance on this right."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 5:06 PM

Well, now you're talking about Kissinger lying about Kissinger, which I'm not going to get into. Seems like a lot of people are lying now, and Obama's the only one who is telling the truth about he has so much support for his suggestion that something presidents never do is a great idea.

I would be remiss if I didn't say that Obama performed much better than I expected. He wasn't the vacuous empty suit he was in the debates with Clinton or as he was a the Rev. Warren Saddleback Church forum. So he did very well at seeming like a credible candidate on foreign policy.

If he performs as well with a domestic issues or energy programs debate, he might outperform McCain.

Good night.

:Asper, as pointed out by other posters (obviously to no avail), Kissinger modified his position on "speaking to the enemy" after-the-fact to accommodate his candidate. That's pure Kissinger and understandable. O got Kissinger's stance on this right."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 5:06 PM

Well, now you're talking about Kissinger lying about Kissinger, which I'm not going to get into. Seems like a lot of people are lying now, and Obama's the only one who is telling the truth about he has so much support for his suggestion that something presidents never do is a great idea.

I would be remiss if I didn't say that Obama performed much better than I expected. He wasn't the vacuous empty suit he was in the debates with Clinton or as he was a the Rev. Warren Saddleback Church forum. So he did very well at seeming like a credible candidate on foreign policy.

If he performs as well with a domestic issues or energy programs debate, he might outperform McCain.

Good night.

Just an FYI Chris...

Not sure if this has already been noted, but interesting -- and correct -- commentary about your comment regarding McCain's "best moment"...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809270009?f=h_latest

It wasn't a misstatement by Obama, it was an attempt by McCain to misstate Obama's position...one of many last nite. Surely the Fix was aware of the difference...

I really like Joe Biden. He is afable, effusive and knowledgeable. His problem, of course, he sticks his foot in his mouth in such bizarre ways. He will probably do some of that when debating with Palin. Not to worry, the attention is much more on what Palin is going to say. He should just make sure he doesn't do obvious blunders. Also, he has to be mindfull she might play the "sexist" card. Other than that, although she is obviously smart, we all expect her to say at least one or two really dumb things. Will it happen?

It is important that we Americans keep some perspective and understand that Ahmadinejad is not Iran.

--------------------

Of course he's not Iran. Never said he was.

But no way will I give an inch to anyone who denies the Holocaust or calls for any nation's extinction.

He is hateful, admittedly ignorantly so.

Bush is just ignorant. Dangerous in itself but not as dangerous as ignorant hatefulness.

I watched the first half of the debate then had to get in a car and go somewhere so I heard the 2d half on radio. Initially I thought Obama had done well, but thought McCain had held his own. Then I came home and viewed the 2d half on CNN's split screen (which caught all of McCain's nasty grimaces while listening to Sen. Obama) and their instant analysis. To my surprise I reached a very different conclusion: Sen. McCain's constant use of "you don't understand" his refusal to look at Sen. Obama and muttering under his breath seemed angry, dismissive and condescending. It seemed to emphasize his old, cranky side (again, it wasn't even in what he SAID as in the reaction shots). I wish Sen. Obama had crammed that "you don't understand" line back in his face but we've had 8 years of an impulsive cowboy. Don't need that again.

JohnDoug wrote:

"McCain should really be called out on his war mongering towards Iran. McCain does not speak Farsi. Those who do have tried to correct the false interpretations of Ahmadinejad's statements about "wiping Israel off the map". Ahmadinejad himself has tried to clarify his remarks and soften his tone towards Israel in recent months....(Not unlike McCain has had to clarify his own statements about the economy).

"Obama, of course, can't address this directly without looking soft on defense so the lies slide by, but McCain's attitude towards Iran is what gets us into unnecessary wars.

"Ahmadinejad is a punk who should be rebuked, but punkish behavior should be rejected, not emulated by our own politicians."

A punk (your term, not mine) with nuclear weapons, who intends to humiliate the United States and exterminate Israel is not someone I need to know Farsi to know what my duty is where he is concerned.

Obama/Biden '08

The guy is a nut case and a source of evil acts. All Americans agree on that.
Period.

Posted by: wpost4112

-------------------------------------------

And you would have to agree that much of the world views George W Bush in the same light. Fortunately they also understand that Bush is not America. It is important that we Americans keep some perspective and understand that Ahmadinejad is not Iran. He is a somewhat unpopular figure among Iranians whose power and influence increases every time our bellicose leaders make threatening statements. Therefore, McCain and W are Ahmadinejad's best political buddies.

So much for Palin's foreign policy creds:

Opportunities abound for Alaska governors to engage in Russian diplomacy, with the state host to several organizations focusing on Arctic issues. Anchorage is the seat of the Northern Forum, an 18-year-old organization that represents the leaders of regional governments in Russia, as well as Finland, Iceland and Canada, Japan, China and South Korea.

Yet under Palin, the state government — without consultation — reduced its annual financial support to the Northern Forum to $15,000 from $75,000, according to Priscilla Wohl, the group's executive director. That forced the forum's Anchorage office to go without pay for two months.

Palin — unlike the previous administrations of Gov. Frank Murkowski and Gov. Tony Knowles — also stopped sending representatives to Northern Forum's annual meetings, including one last year for regional governors held in the heart of Russia's oil territory.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008174647&zsection_id=2003905675&slug=palinrussia12m0&date=20080912

Ahmadinejad himself has tried to clarify his remarks and soften his tone towards Israel in recent months. (Not unlike McCain has had to clarify his own statements about the economy).

-------------------

The guy is a nut case and a source of evil acts. All Americans agree on that.
Period.

McCain holds on to Missouri, Montana, and Indiana

-------------------

Not so fast. Obama is now within 1 point of McCain in Missouri.

But a day is a year in an election.

Polls come and go and this election will go down to wire (I predict that PA will be the deciding state)...unless Palin self-destructs on Thursday.

But I have a feeling she will not. She will be a rabid attack dog on Obama, regardless of what Gwen asks and conservative America will love it. Biden won't know what hit him.

McCain's numbers will shoot through the roof.

America wanted some energy and passion on Friday and got none. Perfect set up for Palin. That's her strong suit.

Repubs will be foaming at the mouth delirious.

Those who elected Bush and set the bar below ground have allowed someone like Palin to be seriously considered for the White House.

The USA has gone to the dogs.

McCain should really be called out on his war mongering towards Iran. McCain does not speak Farsi. Those who do have tried to correct the false interpretations of Ahmadinejad's statements about "wiping Israel off the map". Ahmadinejad himself has tried to clarify his remarks and soften his tone towards Israel in recent months. (Not unlike McCain has had to clarify his own statements about the economy).
Obama, of course, can't address this directly without looking soft on defense so the lies slide by, but McCain's attitude towards Iran is what gets us into unnecessary wars.
Ahmadinejad is a punk who should be rebuked, but punkish behavior should be rejected, not emulated by our own politicians.

McCain provided Obama with two GIGANTIC openings that Obama did not take advantage of. This is what disappointed me most about Obama's performance.

First, McCain seemed to throw out an off-the-cuff policy statement about a spending freeze for all areas of government except defense/military, veteran's affairs and social security/medicare type entitlements. What an unbelievable opening!! Considering that energy policy is now considered crucial to our national security, Obama should have pounced. He should have immediately argued that not only would new offshore drilling not provide benefits for at least 10 years, but now he is proposing no new investment in energy solutions that could supply much earlier returns. Energy/gas prices is what hits all Americans every day. Obama should have been able to turn "drill baby drill"/"spending freeze" into a major advantage.

Second, just like W, McCain again stated that Iraq was "the central issue of our time". How Obama did not jump all over this shocks me. He had the opportunity to show McCain as a relic of the Bush past with this quote. He could have presented all of these as the central issues of our time:

1) Religious extremism leading to terrorism
2) Energy independence
3) The economy
4) Ramifications of China and a resurgent Russia eventually joining the US as superpowers

Any of these would show Obama is living in the present and looking towards the future, while McCain is living in the past.

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.

Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.

One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

The times are too serious and too dificult, to entrust the numerous and life changing decision coming our way, to a man in his 70s. Nothing personal against Sen. Mc Cain, I actually think he's a good man, who actually believes in family, country, God and being the best that he can and as such, he believes that only he can solve the big problems facing our nation and the world. But just like your body doesn't function the same, the older you get; the same happens to your brain and the sharpness of your decision making abilities. It's just a fact of life and time, case in point, Mr. McCain's bursts and utterly ilogical decisions (i.e. his VP choice). And Sen. Obama's age, temperament, intelligence, and apparent desire to do good, I believe is exactly what the country needs. So America, please, please, please, make your vote count.

I agree with the conventional wisdom: Obama, as the younger, less experienced person on stage won by not losing.

The insta-polls bear this out, and so does the "put your money where your mouth is" market at intrade.com, where Obama's now gained about 1.4 per cent over the past 24 hours while McCain has lost about 2 per cent.

As a very partisan Obama supporter, I personally had the common experience of feeling that Obama won every single debate point - not a particularly useful experience for evaluating the debate's impact on the all-important undecided voters.

I was particularly moved by Obama's refusal to be hoisted on the Petraeus petard, pointing out that the war in Iraq was a mistake in the first place.

Those who argue that McCain's all substance and Obama's just "debating skill" are regurgitating Rovian spin of the sort that allowed a walking, talking malapropism from Texas to occupy D.C.'s most prestigious address for eight very long, very punishing years.

When dinosaurs roamed the earth and college professors were trying to beat some sense into my head, I was frequently told that if you can't state something clearly, your thinking about it is probably muddled.

McCain appeared bitter and angry that he had to debate Obama in the first place. Obama is almost 30 years younger than McCain, and, of course, Obama has never been to war, let alone been a prisoner of war. In McCain's mind this debate shouldn't even happen. Because of that resentment, McCain came across as cranky and patronizing. That is not helpfull to McCain's cause, and it gets in the way of McCain delivering Obama a clean blow. This highstrung exchange about who knows Kisinger the longest was really stupid. McCain "won" that dumb argument, but it was costly, and at the end he made little progress in solving his Obama problem.

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.

Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.

One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

This isn't even going to be close.
Obama 353
McCain 185

Obama wins CO, NV, NM, NH, OH, NC, FL, VA.
McCain holds on to Missouri, Montana, and Indiana

I can't wait until November 5th. The silence from the right on here is going to be delicious.

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.

Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.

One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.

Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.

One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

I missed the debate that Mr. Cilliza watched. Of course, I seem to be missing the election cycle he is covering so I guess that is no surprise.

Cranky. Sneaky. Dangerous.

Cruising through the post-debate analysis this morning, there was much talk about John McCain’s belligerent, dismissive demeanor. Here’s a man previously known for his sense of humor who seemed grim and cranky, seemingly demeaned by having to share the stage with that uppity, over educated young un’.

While tossing off dismissive put downs about Obama’s inability to understand, his inexperience or his naivete, McCain came off as an aging corporate middle manager high on the seniority list who can’t believe the Boss might replace him with some young guy who bothered to learn how to use that new fangled desk top computer that keeps track of the company’s inventory.

One stunning McCain line that got little mention was deep into the night, maybe after the instant analysts were already tapping on their lap tops hoping to get a head start on a post-debate cocktail.

It was during a discussion of Pakistan. McCain went after Obama’s assurance that he would allow American forces to go after Osama Bin Laden and his crew in those mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, with or without the blessing of that guy running Pakistan who McCain could not name. McCain snickered at Obama’s forthright admission that he would go into Pakistan territory to nail the villain of 9/11. Sounding like Tony Soprano coaching his nephew Christopher on the ways of the street, he lectured: “You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

That grandfatherly advice sounds like something Dick Cheney would tell Dubya over those long West Wing lunches when coaching him on how to start a war of aggression. “So what of we don’t have real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Who cares if we can’t link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. What’s important is all that Oil. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.”

Lie. Deceive. Hide. That’s how the Bush team suckered America into what has become a five year war costing more than $500 billion so far, and more than 4000 American lives. They told us our Misson was Accomplished in the summer of 2003. So why are we still losing brave Americans and spending $10 Billion a month, even as the Iraqi government has run up a $79 Billion surplus from the oil industry we have helped rebuild and provide highly armed security to protect.

John McCain made it clear last night that we can’t count on him to tell us what his real plans are, or what country he wants to invade next. You Don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things.

I am an Obama supporter who supported McCain in 2000. The reasons I support Obama are the same reasons that I would be predisposed to believe that he won the debate. So my bias is evident in that opinion.

But I don't find it relevant as to who "won" or "lost" the debate. An objective viewer of this election would see that in the abstract it would take an extraordinary series of events for a Republican to win the 2008 Presidency. Circumstances are so aligned against the Republicans that all the Democratic nominee needs to do is be unobjectionable. What would make Obama objectionable?

To many it would be his color. And this certainly qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance (a minority nominee). But his campaign has completely mitigated this negative by essentially running a color-blind campaign and (for the most part) avoiding/eschewing racial politics. I would argue that Obama's campaign has done a better job of mitigating the possibility of racial voting than McCain's campaign has done mitigating the possibility of ageist voting (and there will certainly be some that will not vote for McCain because of his age).

The other most likely objectionable Obama characteristic is his inexperience. And only Obama himself can mitigate this factor....and only during the debates. IMHO, the question to answer after each debate is not "who won?", but "did Obama allay concerns over his lack of experience?".

I believe that Obama's campaign has succeeded in persuading independent voters to view him as a candidate, not a "black" candidate. And I believe that Obama passed the CIC test, the only thing that truly mattered about last night's debate. If McCain does not somehow make Obama's inexperience truly objectionable in the next two debates I do not see how he has even the slightest chance of victory.

The reason McCain avoided looking at Obama is because they were standing and Obama is taller, and if the camera focused on McCain "looking up" at Obama it's a weak perspective. This isn't rocket science.

--------------------

Talk about nonsense.

It's always weak not to look your opponent in the eye. That's how you make height difference disappear. And the polls are bearing that out.

It's the physical equivalent to Barack's "You're likeable enough" comment to Hillary.

It was a major political miscalculation if intentional; a major leadership defect if not.

The reason McCain avoided looking at Obama is because they were standing and Obama is taller, and if the camera focused on McCain "looking up" at Obama it's a weak perspective. This isn't rocket science.

--------------------

Talk about nonsense.

It's always weak not to look your opponent in the eye. That's how you make height difference disappear. And the polls are bearing that out.

It's the physical equivalent to Barack's "You're likeable enough" comment to Hillary.

It was a major political miscalculation if intentional; a major leadership defect if not.

The reason McCain avoided looking at Obama is because they were standing and Obama is taller, and if the camera focused on McCain "looking up" at Obama it's a weak perspective. This isn't rocket science.

--------------------

Talk about nonsense.

It's always weak not to look your opponent in the eye. That's how you make height difference disappear. And the polls are bearing that out.

It's the physical equivalent to Barack's "You're likeable enough" comment to Hillary.

It was a major political miscalculation if intentional; a major leadership defect if not.

I heard the debate on radio and it seemed a tie to me. However, most pollsters are saying independents think Obama won, and that is what counts. McCain needed to knock Obama out last night, and he didn't do it. Obama showed himself to be acceptable, and that is all he had to do. Since Obama is ahead in the polls, and the public wants to vote for Democrats, Obama wins.

I agree with most of the comments here in that Obama had the edge last night. With his foreign expertise experience, this should not have been the case for McCain. At certain times, it felt like it was McCain who was the professor, on History, rambling on about things that happened in the past, and dropping names that do not address the questions posed. I also found that he was backing up his foreign affairs approach with arguments that that's how things were done, so it must be how it must be done today, whereas Obama appeared to have a more forward looking approach, and an openness to new approaches to emerging problems. McCain very clearly fell flat on his face when he tried to justify his $300Billion tax cuts with a budget freeze that would at most account for $18 billion in expenditure. I felt that Obama did well there, but I felt he should have given more details about how he would now phase out his plans, and which are the broad areas where he would cut, or how the broader economic plan would help offset both the bailout, and his spending plan...

Come on. Putin isn't going to play lawerly word games. That is for domestic politics. Putin will play with troops, tanks, and missiles. Palin will do fine.

"I think that Sarah Palin isn't ready to be attacked verbally and maneuver with people who are maliciously construing her words. She's from a very plain-spoken culture and background. That's a big problem with her interviews and it's going to be a problem with her debating.

--------------
Then she isn't ready to be Vice-President or, God forbid, President should McCain die.

What, is she going to hide when Putin maliciously distorts her words?

Your own words have proven the point that she is not White House material.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 3:53 PM"

Lot's of silliness and immaturity here.

The reason McCain avoided looking at Obama is because they were standing and Obama is taller, and if the camera focused on McCain "looking up" at Obama it's a weak perspective. This isn't rocket science.

Funny how this board, and everywhere else where Obama posters predominate, they try to get you focused on nonsense. This groupthink won't sustain you, or the country, if Obama wins and we are stuck thereby with the second Carter administration.

Another bad day of polling for McCain as we start to get evidence that his theatrics of the last few days has backfired.

-- In Virginia, Rasmussen has Obama opening up a 5% lead over McCain, 50% to 45%. This poll was done yesterday, so it includes whatever the reaction was to McCain's stunt. Just FOUR days ago, Rasmussen had McCain up by 2%. That's a 7% swing in four days. And the most shocking detail from this poll is that Obama now leads among investors. That is flat out unheard of. Republicans usually win investors by a large margin. The fact that McCain has lost that group for now to Obama indicates that confidence in McCain's ability to deal with Wall Street has continued to fall. Just about all pollsters are now showing Obama leading in Virginia.

-- In Florida, Rasmussen has McCain's lead all but gone. He now has a 48% to 47% advantage. Just THREE days ago, Rasmussen had McCain up by 5%. That's a 4% swing in three days.

-- In Missouri, SurveyUSA has McCain's lead down to 2%, 48% to 46%, while Research 2000 has McCain's lead down to 1%, 47% to 46%. SurveyUSA's last poll of Missouri had McCain up 5% while Research 2000's last Missouri poll had McCain up by 4%. These two polls represent the closest Obama has been in Missouri in awhile.

-- And McCain took a hit in today's daily tracking poll numbers, another sign that his campaign suspension gambit didn't help him.

* Gallup - Obama 48%, McCain 45%
* Diageo - Obama 49%, McCain 42%
* Rasmussen - Obama 50%, McCain 45%
* Research 2000 - Obama 48%, McCain 43%

The Rasmussen and Diageo numbers are close to Obama's all time highs in those polls.

I am sure John Mccain would be proud of you since his whole campaign is based on lies. You are his kind of person.

=========
If I could figure out how to edit the clips of the debate, I would make a YouTube video titled :Condensed version of the DEbate;

clip; McCain "Obama just doesnt understand"
clip: Obama " I agree with John"
clip Mccain "Obama is naive..."
clip Obama " I agree with John"
clip Mccain " He just doesn't get it"
clip Obama "I have a bracelet too..."
clip Mccain "benefit to having experience and judgement"

Posted by: atlantaGA | September 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Forget the debates, why isn't anybody covering the Obama campaign's attempt to suppress free speech in Missouri.

-----------------

LOL. Because it's a non-issue.

The Repubs are making noise because today's polls show that Obama now LEADS in Missouri polls.

It's about time someone push back against Republican lies and smears.

ALL ABOARD! The Stop Obama Express. A great site for Anti-Obama Fun, videos, pictures, quotes and more. Check it out at www.StopObamaExpress.com

Asper, as pointed out by other posters (obviously to no avail), Kissinger modified his position on "speaking to the enemy" after-the-fact to accommodate his candidate. That's pure Kissinger and understandable. O got Kissinger's stance on this right.

Re Malkin: once you cite Malkin, a sad case of clinically observable self-hatred, you have no credibility. Just as when you cite noted antisemite Westbrook Pegler (as Palin did at the convention) or cite that German guy who died in 1945.

Also not a good idea to boast, as Palin has, of supporting Pat Buchanan, whose "views" (never referenced on the mainstream shows he appears on) take up four full pages on the website of the respected Anti-Defamation League.

When you refer to Obama as "S-mbo" and Eskimos as Arctic Arabs openly at a restaurant (as reported Sept. 5 by Internet journalist Charley James of laprogressive) as Palin allegedly did, you have thoroughly discredited and disqualified yourself. Don't you think? Huh?

If I could figure out how to edit the clips of the debate, I would make a YouTube video titled :Condensed version of the DEbate;

------------------

It's astonishing how some people take great pride, even delight, in being malicious and deceptive.

Forget the debates, why isn't anybody covering the Obama campaign's attempt to suppress free speech in Missouri.

Video story here;

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

Response for Missouri Governor here:

http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem

If I could figure out how to edit the clips of the debate, I would make a YouTube video titled :Condensed version of the DEbate;

clip; McCain "Obama just doesnt understand"
clip: Obama " I agree with John"
clip Mccain "Obama is naive..."
clip Obama " I agree with John"
clip Mccain " He just doesn't get it"
clip Obama "I have a bracelet too..."
clip Mccain "benefit to having experience and judgement"

In interesting point. I watched the debate with a group and we did a little focus group exercise afterwards.
One of the questions to the group was, "How many times did you think of Obama as a black man during the debate"? The answers were none. Not one person watching saw Mccain and Obama as black and white. It is an interesting trick Obama accomplished. He is now becoming not the "Black" candidate but just the candidate. I think he is going to begin to connect and close the deal with a lot of people who have been hesitant. It has taken a long time but he may finally have achieved it.

By the way this is not lost on Mccains campaign. They had an internal memo about a week ago that said they need to start painting Obama as black again because people are forgetting.

Lets not forget folks, Kissinger had Tricky Dick Nixon's ear for his entire deceit-filled stretch as prez...

Asper, Asper, Asper,
Slow down and read carefully.

Obama never said anything about the President, McCain did. Obama spoke about pre-conditions, which Kissinger did agree about.

Kissinger is very predictably and retroactively adjusting his previous statements to now support his candidate. Why would anyone expect anything else?

I'm wondering if McCain's refusal to look at Obama will be magnified in days to come; not only by pundits, but by Saturday Night Live, Leno, Letterman, Comedy Central, etc. It seems like the kind of thing they would latch on to, and it may even end up being a pretty big deal, politically.

More here, if you're interested: http://policomic.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/is-this-going-to-be-a-thing/

If this is perceived as a draw in the Presidential debate level, then it is basically "doomsday" for the Republicans if they have to depend on Sarah Palin to break that draw in the Vice-Presidential debates. Once the independent voters see that the country is really "one heart beat away" from having Mrs. Palin being the next commander in chief, they will definitely vote base on logic and common sense instead of the "Flavor of the week". I saw the interview of Mrs. Palin with Katie Couric and even I felt sorry for her being used by the Republican party this way. I understand that it takes two to tangle and Mrs. Palin was just as eager to aspire as the next Vice-President, but I blame the Republican party, and John McCain specifically, for taking advantage of a delusional power-hungry woman whose family will now suffer the wrath of the mass public and media scrutiny. If McCain would have had the sense and wisdom to choose the right person for the job of Vice-Presidential candidate (4 or 5 other more qualified women) then even I would have to consider voting for him as an independent voter base on Obama's inexperience. But after seeing his body language and his condescending attitude towards Obama during the debate and his choice for Vice-President candidate based on his fading "Testosterone", I am now willing to vote for Obama and Joe Biden based on how they will enhance the Presidency as a team, instead of being solely dependent on the health of an "average" experienced leader. As Mr. Obama stated in the debate, it is just not the people in the United States who are following the presidency, other countries are watching too and they are neither Republicans nor Democrats.

First a correction: Obama quoted Kissinger CORRECTLY regarding future meetings with leaders of other nations. McCain was obviously wrong, but stubbornly and nervously stood his ground.

McCain showed up and did not dishonor himself by leaving an empty podium with his name on it. However, Obama stayed on point and answered questions directly and in an organized fashion - unadorned. McCain often slanted the question to best suit himself an utilized many stretched historical references...seemingly to add meat to his responses.

When Obama nailed McCain with a few extremely strong points, McCain always responded with "Senator Obama does not understand" or "there's that naivete again". Then he would promptly change the subject.

THe thing was, it was obvious Obama DID understand and McCain could not factually contest his points, so he went back to personal criticism - vaguely defining ignorance or inexperience.

I wanted McCain to respond better than he did, but to be honest...he ended up painting the picture that he once could have beena good president, but that time has long passed.

Obama imprinted a vision that he was forward looking, had planned for the future and was willing to examine what went wrong over the past 7 years.

I think the polling thus far is accurate with about toice as many saying Obama won than said McCain won. However, polls are just polls. I also expect Obama to gain 2 to 4 points nationally among voter polls.

Early yesterday, several polls showed Obama overtaking McCain in NC and tying him in VA, with McCain's lead in FL down to only one point. That is significant progress. One other key demographic, McCain is slipping among senior citizen voters.

I think what will do him in eventually is Palin.

"Aspergirl, citing Michelle Malkin for support is like quoting the late legendary antisemite, Westbrook Pegler..."

Posted by: broadwayjoe

When Michelle Malkin provides a link to a video of Obama himself speaking at last night's debate, along with commentary that is merely observational about his "bracelet" statement and her take on them, saying that Obama didn't say or do that "bracelet" gaffe because Michelle Malkin posted it is pure Alice-in-Wonderland harassment of a poster who doesn't agree with your candidate.

Calling other posters liars, saying that Obama did no such thing, when they provide links to the video of his "bracelet" gaffe, is just the behavior of message board trolls designed to harass other posters.

You have no point except to be a paid troll. Don't bother me with your self-deluded denials of reality.

Half of what you guys are paid to do is sit there and call anyone who points out Obama's gaffes a liar. Example:

"Contrary to Kissinger's suggestion today, at no point during the debate did Obama suggest that Kissinger had previously endorsed presidential-level talks between the United States and Iran.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 27, 2008 3:37 PM "

wpost4112 is trying to call Kissinger a liar for issuing a statement that Obama misrepresented his statements.

Obama has repeatedly cited Kissinger in support of his -- Obama's -- declaration that he -- as President Obama -- would sit down with rogue dictators without preconditions.

DEBATE:

OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition

MCCAIN: Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the PRESIDENT of the United States and the president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.

OBAMA: When we talk about preconditions — and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions — the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.

MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama’s depiction of his — of his positions on the issue. I’ve known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not — he would not say that presidential top level.

So who was right? Obviously McCain. Kissinger made the following statement on 9/20/08

From CNN, (9/20):
Kissinger: “Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it AT THE SECRETARY OF STATE LEVEL…”

After the Debate Kissinger released the following statement:

“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality. “

"DailyKos groupthink"

Ain't no such critter, sweetie.

If you can get 20 Kossacks to agree on any two things, you are Mother Teresa...

DKos is about as ecclectic as a blog can get, but Drudge and Malkin are mainline bigots and provocateurs, with no concern for decency. Like Savage (wimpiest savage I've ever read) they live to hate.

At least I try to be subtle with my insults.

BTW, what shade of lipstick do you wear?

The American Viewer decides the winner. When the debate was over, I don’t think the Viewer expected to see it go in to over time, You see, Viewers don’t play by the rules of debating procedure . So when Joe Biden was interviewed just after the debate, it was still on for us. And Palin as no the show, said it all, not being there and say nothing. Is McCane really the man you want making decisions for the country? Palin is his decision to what he will leave America if he becomes unable to complete his term. Help me here. Some decisions need to be made on economic, foreign policy, national defense, .ect, ect. McCaim decision for his VP shows me he has little for thought to Americas future. That’s like a man leading us down the road, only to find he is gone, and he’s lead us to dead end alley.

McCain was a clear leader last night. Obama spent most of the night on defense and at times was clearly over his head.
The big difference that was clear was McCain spoke from experience and Obama spoke from his rehearsed lines. Obama was well schooled. Since he has no experience that is all he is able to offer. McClain was clearly out in front and came across as a real leader who will not need OJT.

-------------------------------

Experience without good judgment is useless. McCain's recent reckless response to the economic meltdown is ample evidence that the man has zero good judgment in a crisis.

If he can't look his political opponent in the eye, he can't be trusted to stare down our enemies.

McC: s great Senator who has lost his way. No longer Presidential material.

If the Enquirer's reporting on Brad Hanson (as referenced in today's HuffPo ) is on target (and their journalism is actually better sourced than the MSM's), it's game, set, match, and thank you for coming.

On speaker points (i.e., ignoring substance), they both fared equally well. However, where did it get to be the rule that someone is "hammered" when the other one simply says something louder with more repetition? Isn't there supposed to be some correspondence between the response and the original comment? But then, that's substance.

On the foreign policy substance, McCain continued to show his remarkable ignorance of the difference between strategy and tactics. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then a wartime strategy is successful when the political objectives are met. To date, they have not been, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, and certainly not with respect to Al Qaeda. Clausewitz is probably spinning in his grave and Petraeus (who does know the difference) is probably twisting on his chair.

Why isn't McCain on Capital Hill today forging consensus on that bill?? Is the campaign still suspended?? Where is the urgency of the pre-debate "I MUST away to save the nation!"

Theatrics. Curtain is pulled back. Just 'ol John, looking for the next adrenalin rush.

Aspergirl, citing Michelle Malkin for support is like quoting the late legendary antisemite, Westbrook Pegler, in a convention acceptance speech. Oh wait, Palin did just that, didn't she? Oops.

Look, so far she has managed to avoid even a single legitimate question from any legitimate journalist. Her answers to softball questions posed by TV entertainer Katie Couric were considered moronic even by rightwingers, some of whom asked her to step down.

But as Joe Louis said, you can run but you can't hide. Soon at the debate Palin will sit down and answer real questions from a moderator and her answer can't always be "World Peace."

McCain was a clear leader last night. Obama spent most of the night on defense and at times was clearly over his head.
The big difference that was clear was McCain spoke from experience and Obama spoke from his rehearsed lines. Obama was well schooled. Since he has no experience that is all he is able to offer. McClain was clearly out in front and came across as a real leader who will not need OJT.

I'm curious about how inadequate the McCain preparation seems to be, not only for Palin but for McCain's economic preparation this year. There seems to be a curiously amateurish nature to the issue-specific preparation and for-media prepping of the candidates. Who's in charge of getting McCain and Palin ready for prime time? Do they have any professionals advising them, or just their wives and friends giving them advice on how to talk, etc?

----------------------

McCain was thoroughly rehearsed. It seemed amateurish because of McCain's insufficient grasp of the issues. What one would expect from a shoot-from-the hip Senator.

"AspirinGirl; First you use Malkin as a reference (much to our giddy delight at your ever-evident ignorance), THEN you conjur up the effete, effeminate, milquetoast extraordinaire William (I'm NOT Billy!) Kristol as if he's some sort of trump card of respectability. ..."

Posted by: JEP7

Your attack on any reporter who posts embarrassing Obama gaffe links, thinking that it invalidates their criticism of Obama, just by saying "Oh, that's Michelle Malkin", is an incoherent tactic of a DailyKos groupthink idiot who lives in a simplistic rhetorical world of "us good -- them demons". I really don't care how you imagine Michelle Malkin to be some demonized character that, as a conservative commentator, all her work product exists in some invalid universe you can ignore. Why don't you go comfort yourself in the familiar reality of DailyKos instead of venturing out in the world where people exist in reality other than your left-wing bloggers and those who support your world view?

"Can't wait to see what you all try to do with the sow's ear."

No thanks, got nothing to show you. I don't waste time discussing with men that I can obviously beat up.

Go crawl back into your one-dimensional DailyKos world and suck your thumb and pretend the conservative media don't exist.

I think that Sarah Palin isn't ready to be attacked verbally and maneuver with people who are maliciously construing her words. She's from a very plain-spoken culture and background. That's a big problem with her interviews and it's going to be a problem with her debating.

--------------
Then she isn't ready to be Vice-President or, God forbid, President should McCain die.

What, is she going to hide when Putin maliciously distorts her words?

Your own words have proven the point that she is not White House material.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet (see trends). Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, McCain by 54%.

"Aspergirl--you miss the point. Obama was calling McCain on his anecodtal approach to discussing world issues by saying, "And there are also mothers who don't want other mothers to be mourning sons whose lives didn't have to be lost." Look at the big picture."

"As far as Palin...only since Bush took office and the media was portrayed as "the big bad guys" did the American public ever fault a journalist for asking difficult and probing questions. That's their JOB, and if they'd been more diligent in pursuing Bush and his false claims of WMD, we wouldn't be losing our sons and daughters in Iraq. If Sarah Palin is going to have the arrogance to say she's "ready" to be President of the United States and one of the most powerful people in the world, she better be prepared to defend herself when she makes absolutely absurd, nonsensical statements like she made to Katie Couric."

Posted by: writer8856 | September 27, 2008 3:24 PM

I understand that this was the point Obama wanted to make -- that mothers felt they wanted their dead sons honored by stopping the war. However, he was undermining McCain by attacking McCain's bracelet by invoking his own bracelet that was for Obama, clearly a gimmick without real meaning. There's a personal dimension to his gaffe that is symbolic, too.

I think that Sarah Palin isn't ready to be attacked verbally and maneuver with people who are maliciously construing her words. She's from a very plain-spoken culture and background. That's a big problem with her interviews and it's going to be a problem with her debating.

Sarah Palin has to learn rhetorical tricks to answer the rudeness and undermining Q&A tactics, like reporters asking the same question over and over after she ahs answered them. Like, even learning to dismissively say, "Already asked and answered", would help her more than just politely repeating her answer in response to the rudeness. It's like she doesn't understand that the reporter is implying she's lying or defective, by repeatedly asking the same question.

Katie Couric had an excellent question in asking about John McCain's potential as a future banking industry regulator in light of his traditional deregulatory preferences and it was appropriate for her to ask given the current mortgage banking crisis. But she also had a great example right John McCain's record that was a spot-on response to her question: John McCain himself proposed and sponsored legislation to regulate Fannie and Freddie, in his Federal Mortgage Regulatory Act of 2005 (that the Democrats defeated). For Katie Couric to keep asking the same question, as if there were lingering doubts about John McCain's truthfulness when saying he would regulate banking in light of the Fannie and Freddie mess this month, is just rude, undermining, adversarial and prosecutorial interviewing.

Sarah Palin has to learn that the media are snakes, that she can't talk to them as if they are sincerely conversing with her and when they repeatedly ask the same questions after already getting an answer, they are only trying to undermine or attack her implicitly. She has to learn how to deal with the rhetorical snake-handlers that the media and Washington word-twisters and underminers are, or they will continue to make her look stupid.

I'm curious about how inadequate the McCain preparation seems to be, not only for Palin but for McCain's economic preparation this year. There seems to be a curiously amateurish nature to the issue-specific preparation and for-media prepping of the candidates. Who's in charge of getting McCain and Palin ready for prime time? Do they have any professionals advising them, or just their wives and friends giving them advice on how to talk, etc?

geaaronson--well put. And where would we be if Kennedy had not engaged in dialogue during the missile crisis?

As far as what Kissinger said, check out where he said it--one week ago, on the CNN panel discussion with Christina Amanpour and 5 former Secretaries of State: Warren Christopher, Kissinger, Madeline Albright, James Baker and Colin Powell. In that discussion, Kissinger did say--and mentioned that he'd been saying it to the current administration, as well--that the US should speak to Iran. And to Russia. In fact, ALL five secretaries of state said that "reconstituting diplomacy" was of paramount importance and continuing the approach of not talking to our "enemies" was a completely failed policy.

Of course Kissinger is going to immediately issue a statement on McCain's behalf; Kissinger's a party man, through and through. Side note: Colin Powell said McCain was a good friend of his but he hasn't made up his mind on who he's going to support. Nonetheless, much of what he said that night was in agreement with Obama's agenda. And some sources say that it looks like that (i.e. Obama) is who Powell's going to endorse. If he does, it'll be interesting to see the reaction from the McCain camp.

AspirinGirl;

First you use Malkin as a reference (much to our giddy delight at your ever-evident ignorance), THEN you conjur up the effete, effeminate, milquetoast extraordinaire William (I'm NOT Billy!) Kristol as if he's some sort of trump card of respectability.

Thanks for the comic relief, I know you didn't mean it that way, but there are a lot of people LingOL, some of us are actually rolling on the floor with our legs in the air (LOL707LOL707)...

I'm saving some of your stuff for publication in a blogger's synopsis after the election is over, as an example of just how hilarious your wingnuts have become in your attempts to put lipstick on this pig.

Can't wait to see what you all try to do with the sow's ear.

If you check http://www.factcheck.org instead of a conservative Republican source with an agenda, you'd find what Kissinger actually said.

Did Kissinger Back Obama?

McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him:

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.
McCain rejected Obama's claim:
McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
Obama: We will take a look.
McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: Nobody's talking about that.
So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions:
Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Obama was also called out by Kissinger for lying during the debate about Kissinger's endorsement of his statements re: meeting without preconditions. Funny how the press is ignoring that today....
-================

Yes, Aspergirl is at her usual lying tricks again...

"In fact, Obama's comments during the debate accurately reflected Kissinger's comments during a September 15 forum. Kissinger said, "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic -- with authentic proposals." Asked by CNN's Frank Sesno, "To put at a very high level right out of the box?" Kissinger responded:

"Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government."

Contrary to Kissinger's suggestion today, at no point during the debate did Obama suggest that Kissinger had previously endorsed presidential-level talks between the United States and Iran.

"McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming..."

Posted by: geaaronson | September 27, 2008 3:22 PM

Obama was also called out by Kissinger for lying during the debate about Kissinger's endorsement of his statements re: meeting without preconditions. Funny how the press is ignoring that today....

"Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/tws_exclusive_kissinger_unhapp.asp

Neither candidate answered the first question about what they planned to do about the financial failures which is the gravest crisis we've faced in my lifetime and I'm in my 60s.

I'm afraid history will show that this outshines 911 and will, without a doubt, cost more and take more lives in the long run.

I believe that the collapse of the banks and the economy could be the “October surprise” and we don’t realize it -- especially if Congress doesn't agree to put their rubber stamp on on Bush's bailout plan.

Remember that Presidential Directive from May 9, 2007 giving the president total control over the government and the country, bypassing Congress and all other levels of government at state, federal, local, levels? The one where he alone has the power to declare martial law and ensure total unprecedented dictatorial power. It also gives him the power to decide WHAT IS a national emergency.

The financial crisis could be the opportunity for which Bushco planned for when this directive (and some others) were signed.

And don't think it will be our soldiers riding down main streeet in tanks. Most of our National Guard, including my son, are halfway around the world. We now have Blackwater, a privatized army which has the power to institute force that our soldiers are forbidden to use.

If the country shuts down, we won't have an election.

McCain nailed Obama on the economic front and the foreign policy front.
In simple debate scores that's plain. McCain won hands down.

Examples: On spending.
Obama's $932M or 1 Million dollars a day for everyday Obama's been in the senate.

MCCAIN: Senator Obama suspended those requests for pork-barrel projects after he was running for president of the
United States. He didn't happen to see that light during the first three years as a member of the United States Senate,
$932 million in requests.
FYI - what are the earmarks for? Some examples:
Earmarks for ACORN: A leftist group notoriously found guilty of fradulent voter registration drives.
Earmarks for The Chicago Annenburg Challenge founded by terrorist Bill Ayers. An indoctrination apparatus
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=

To paraphrase McCain:
Obama stopped and "saw the light" when he started running for president, rather than doing the job he was elected to do. McCain effectively underscored Obama's lack of qualifications to assume high command.
Obama doesn't even perform his current duties. This was a consistent and effective theme of McCains rejoinders
to Obama and it kept Obama on defense.
Obama's main defense: He lies..
McCain's: His sparse record underscores lack of achievement and his overt liberalism. The record speaks.

On the "truth" about the taxcut for 95%. 60% of taxpayers pay no income tax now. They pay SS/medicaid but re income tax it all comes back plus additional money, by EIC. So on that point Obama really loses.

To any Obama supporter:
Please provide 3 substantive achievements of Obama's that UNIQUELY qualify him to be president.
These qualifications MUST be actual significant accomplishments.

Please provide 3 substantive UNIQUE changes that Obama brings to the table.
These changes must differ from the static Democratic party standard bullets.

I genuinely would like to know.

Here are his own words when pressed to answer: 60 minutes interview
Kroft: But what is there specifically about you. You mentioned disposition. What skills and traits do you have that
would make you a good president?
Obama: I am a practical person. One of the things I'm good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas
who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground, and a sense of common direction. And that's the kind of approach that I think prevents you from making some of the enormous mistakes that we've seen over the last eight years.

Aspergirl--you miss the point. Obama was calling McCain on his anecodtal approach to discussing world issues by saying, "And there are also mothers who don't want other mothers to be mourning sons whose lives didn't have to be lost." Look at the big picture.

As far as Palin...only since Bush took office and the media was portrayed as "the big bad guys" did the American public ever fault a journalist for asking difficult and probing questions. That's their JOB, and if they'd been more diligent in pursuing Bush and his false claims of WMD, we wouldn't be losing our sons and daughters in Iraq. If Sarah Palin is going to have the arrogance to say she's "ready" to be President of the United States and one of the most powerful people in the world, she better be prepared to defend herself when she makes absolutely absurd, nonsensical statements like she made to Katie Couric.

Barack Obama sure liked McCain's answers during the debate:

“I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…”

“He’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…”

“John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right…”

“John is right we have to make cuts…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families…”

“John — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…”

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2E4MmYxZjMxMDgwMDI0NzJhMWM2NDY0ZjRmMWMxODU

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given enough hell to Hitler that Hitler´s rise to world dominance would have slowed.

37th and O;
"honey to flies"

You have flies confused with bees and honey confused with manure...

But your point is well taken, just keep in mind, if you were trying to tell a stranger about Malkin, you sure wouldn't say "she's full of honey..."

Also, Chris, this pandering line of yours really stunk...

"Much is being made on cable of McCain's difficulty in pronouncing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's last name. It wasn't a banner moment for McCain but it didn't strike us as a major gaffe either."

ONLY Johnny could mangle so many important words and names (and thereby display his complete lack of real international understanding or sophistication), and still get a bye from you McCain-leaning poundits...

If Obama or Clinton or Biden or even Palin, ANYONE BUT precious little Johnny continued to commit these persistent, nay, stacatto gaffes, you would consider them unworthy of any respect.

But for McCain, it's not just OK, it is what makes him so "cute." This fits so nicely in the IOIYAR class of hypocrisy.

Have you read Yepsen's blog today? In terms of Mccain enablers being forced to show their true colors, another one bites the dust.

I had hope most of you would climb off the tire swing when the rope started to frey, especially when the logic-challenged Palin plan unfolded, but apparently there is still a partisan influence working on many levels in the good old MSM.

Which brings me back to my favorite parting comment...

Viva la Blogs!

Without them there would be no 4th Estate.

Just a bunch of partisan poundits...

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given enough hell to Hitler that Hitler´s rise to world dominance would have slowed.

So I guess Iran and Spain are in the same boat as far as McCain goes

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given enough hell to Hitler that Hitler´s rise to world dominance would have slowed.

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given enough hell to Hitler that Hitler´s rise to world dominance would have slowed.

McCain's behavior was intentional. He wanted to signify that Barack wasn't fit to be even on the stage. That is, he can't even be considered as presidential material. Unfortunately, it backfired big time. It made McCain look unPresidential and afraid of looking Barack in the eye...an important American leadership value.

Ironically, McCain treated Barack with the same contempt with which Barack treated Hillary in their primary debate. And Barack suffered for it in the polls.

He learned his lesson. McCain didn't. And he will suffer for it in the polls. Strikingly, Barack scored heavily among women...just as Hillary did.

So, McCain lost the Hillary crowd he so desperately wanted.

Advantage Barack.

McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.

Cilliza and McCain either deliberately, or through a lack of insight, have misinterpreted Obama´s remarks concerning his discussion with Kissinger. Nowhere in the entire discussion, nor on the campaign trail, has Obama stated that Kissinger approved of the next president sitting down with Iran´s President. The point that Obama made is that discussions at all levels be conducted without preconditions, and that stipulation met complete agreement from Kissinger, as indeed Katie Couric called Kissinger after the debate to find out what he had advised Obama.
McCain has deliberately distorted Obama´s comments. Yes, Obama has said that he will meet with Iran´s leaders personally, but no, he never said that Kissinger approved such a meeting and so far Kissinger has not made a comment as to whether he approves of such a meeting, (I tend to think not, but that is not the matter of contention). This, again, is another effort by one or the other candidate to obfusucate the issue by making misleading statements about what the other has said and implied.
So judge the issue on its merits alone. Should Obama or any President meet with Iran´s leaders. Keep in mind that Nixon had the famous kitchen talks with Krushev and that man had displayed nothing but antagonism toward the West, in terms comparable to Iran´s leaders remarks re: Israel. Lest we forget, the exact words were, ^^we will bury the West^^. The world is too dangerous a place not to sit down and discuss matters with your enemy. We will not be negotiating, or giving anything away. We will only talk. Simple.
If we adhered to McCain´s reasoning then no world leader should have ever met with Hitler prior to WWII as his intentions were well known as per his writings in Mein Kempf. Yes, we can fault Chamberlain for being a wimp, but had Churchill been the leader and met with the Fuhrer, perhaps the former would have given Hitler enough hell to Hitler that his attempted rise to world dominance would have slowed.
If anything, considering McCain´s deepseated overt anger towards Iran´s leader, McCain should be the one who publicly promise that he will meet with his counterpart. It could clearly be a superior gambit to have such a hothead chewing Iran out for its agressive stance towards Iran. I would hope that once Obama becomes president, McCain tags along for the meeting and when our mildmannered Obama can´t muster the ire to deal with Iran´s shennanigans, McCain gives them holy hell!

37thOStreet, you're right. You know the citation of certain people as authority discredits one's entire post instantly.

The country's most infamous and ridiculous self-hating minority, M. Malkin, sadly, is one of those people.

AsperGirl's reference to Malkin pretty much destroyed any credibility AGirl had forever...
_____

"I've got a bracelet too. Uhh ... uh ... waassis name?"

That never happened. You are covering up your ignorance with lies.

No wonder. You are reading Michelle Malkin. She prints nothing but lies, and her lies are like honey to flies. You have been captured.

Again, there is no shame in admitting "I don't know," Aspergirl. We are here for you.

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 2:52 PM

"As The New Republic's Michael Crowley noted during the post-debate coverage, Palin's absence looked particularly awkward given the fact that Joe Biden was appearing all over the place."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 2:57 PM

Yeah, there's no way for her to win. Joe Biden spouts pure insanity and nonsense half the time and no one pays attention. All Sarah Palin has to do is repeat her answer to a question that is (rudely) asked repeatedly after she already answered the first time, to be panned as an idiot. Or point out that Alaska is next to Russia and trades with Russia, to be called "scary".

At this point, there is nothing she can say or do that will not be bashed except for those statements she executes flawlessly.

On the other hand, Joe Biden is running around spouting what sounds at times to be really scary mentally ill crap, and no one cares.

There is no way for Sarah Palin to win any points any time she opens her mouth under these conditions. The McCain campaign can and should keep her under wraps as much as possible.

Boston Herald:

"And the winner is... Mac by a bracelet. McCain mentions that he’s wearing a bracelet he got from the mother of a soldier slain in New Hampshire. To which Obama responds: “I have a bracelet, too. ..."

news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view/2008_09_27__And_the_winner_is____Mac_by_a_bracelet:_McCain_outshines_Obama_in_battle_of_the_bracelets_/srvc=home&position=also

Video of Obama:

"I've got a bracelet too... from uhhh... suhhh" (reads the name off the bracelet)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgNJmrQj9Bg&eurl=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/obama_emotionally_recalls_fall.html

Obama emotionally recalls fallen soldier: What's his name?
by Ed Lasky
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/obama_emotionally_recalls_fall.html

HEY, ISN'T WEARING THE BRACELET EVERY DAY SUPPOSED TO BE SO YOU DON'T FORGET?

Maybe Obama's got that backward.

Or maybe he's a phony hypocrite. Bet his flag pin is engraved with the word "NOT!!" on the back.

PALIN NOT TRUSTED BY MAC TO GIVE POST-DEBATE SPIN TO HELP MAC

HuffPo is reporting increased media buzz concerning Palin not being allowed by Mac's campaign yesterday to provide post-debate spin for Mac.

Her opposite number, Biden, was all over the place with post-debate support for O. But Palin was nowhere to be found. That doesn't bode well for her upcoming debates with Biden. It was earlier reported Mrs. Palin badly flunked the campaign's practice debates. Also there's reporting that in the third installment of Couric's interview with her, which airs Monday, Palin was far worse than in all of her previous embarrassing, Miss Congeniality-type performances.

When Mac does not trust you enough to say, "Go Mac, go!" there's a problem.

From HuffPo:

"As the New York Times reported before Friday night's debate, Sarah Palin would not be providing post-debate spin for John McCain on the major TV networks:

After Barack Obama and John McCain stop talking on the debate stage Friday night, their surrogates will start spinning. But one high-profile supporter of Mr. McCain will be missing: his running mate Sarah Palin.[...]

Ms. Palin is scheduled to be at a debate-viewing event in Philadelphia, covered by a limited group of reporters, and she is not listed by any networks as a post-debate guest. On NBC and CBS, the former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani will be commenting on the debate performances.

As The New Republic's Michael Crowley noted during the post-debate coverage, Palin's absence looked particularly awkward given the fact that Joe Biden was appearing all over the place." END

"I've got a bracelet too. Uhh ... uh ... waassis name?"

That never happened. You are covering up your ignorance with lies.

No wonder. You are reading Michelle Malkin. She prints nothing but lies, and her lies are like honey to flies. You have been captured.

Again, there is no shame in admitting "I don't know," Aspergirl. We are here for you.

DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHICH PARTY is in charge when it comes to bailing out the Wall Street hustlers whose shenanigans have bankrupted so many ordinary folks? Not if the Democrats roll over and cede power to the former head of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank at the center of our economic meltdown.

What arrogance for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson—who the year before President Bush appointed him treasury secretary was paid $16.4 million for heading the company that did as much as any to engineer this financial travesty—to now insist we must blindly trust him to solve the problem. Paulson is demanding the power to act with “absolute impunity,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who admonished the treasury chief:“After reading this proposal, it is not only our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution as well.”

Clearly, it’s a vast improvement to have Dodd in the chairman’s seat of the Senate Banking Committee, asking the right questions, rather than his predecessor, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, who presided over the committee in the years when the American economy, long the envy of the world, was viciously sabotaged by radical deregulation legislation.

Gramm, whom Sen. John McCain backed for president in 1996, pushed through the financial market deregulation that has brought the American economy to its knees. Maybe this time Congress won’t give the financial moguls everything they want, including a bailout for foreign-owned banks like Swiss-based UBS, where Gramm now hangs out as a very well paid executive when he’s not advising the presidential campaign of McCain, his old buddy and partner in crime. Oops, sorry, no crimes were committed because the deregulation laws Gramm pursued and McCain faithfully supported decriminalized the financial scams that have proved so costly.

Just check out the language of Gramm’s pet projects, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street, the former act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing. The latter legitimized the “swap agreements” and other “hybrid instruments” that are at the core of the crisis.

The legislation’s “Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000,” Title IV of the law—a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the Christmas recess—provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.

One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III, ensured the “Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements,” which successfully divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm’s law is at the very heart of the problem. But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry mergers:“No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000.…”

Even some Republicans on the Senate committee expressed exasperation Monday with the swindles that they had voted for with such enthusiasm in the past, as well as with giving Wall Street yet another blank check. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., condemned Paulson’s proposal as an effort to “take Wall Street’s pain and spread it to the taxpayers.” He added,“It’s financial socialism and it’s un-American.”

He’s wrong on that last point, for what is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state that services the politico-economic elite at the expense of the people is more accurately referred to as “financial fascism.” After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company’s corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler’s bubble burst.

This bailout SHOULD NOT HAPPEN - SHOULD HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED TO BE PUT ON THE BACKS OF TAXPAYERS! But if Congress does help the Bush Admin. to betray us yet again, smell a rat if Congress approves the Paulson plan without severely curtailing CEO pay and putting a freeze on the mortgage foreclosures that are threatening to destroy the homes of millions of Americans.

"Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez signed new energy agreements with Russia on Friday, shortly after obtaining a $1 billion loan to buy more Russian arms. The budding relationship between the two countries is raising concern in Washington.

"Russia, angry at U.S. support for Georgia -- with which it fought a brief war this summer -- has visibly increased its ties with the Venezuelan populist, who calls himself the U.S.'s biggest foe in the Americas.

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez holds a replica of a Tupolev TU-160 bomber during his meeting this week in Moscow with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

"Responding to what Russia sees as U.S. interference in its sphere of influence in the neighboring Caucasus region, Moscow recently sent two long-range bombers to visit Venezuela. Moscow also dispatched a nuclear cruiser, the Peter the Great, to take part in exercises with the Venezuelan navy."

more at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122242592738578617.html

Russia is also reinvigorating its ties with Cuba. It's entirely likely that Russian will be drilling off the Florida coast for oil before the U.S. does. Not to mention increasing military exchanges with Cuba, too.

DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHICH PARTY is in charge when it comes to bailing out the Wall Street hustlers whose shenanigans have bankrupted so many ordinary folks? Not if the Democrats roll over and cede power to the former head of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank at the center of our economic meltdown.

What arrogance for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson—who the year before President Bush appointed him treasury secretary was paid $16.4 million for heading the company that did as much as any to engineer this financial travesty—to now insist we must blindly trust him to solve the problem. Paulson is demanding the power to act with “absolute impunity,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who admonished the treasury chief:“After reading this proposal, it is not only our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution as well.”

Clearly, it’s a vast improvement to have Dodd in the chairman’s seat of the Senate Banking Committee, asking the right questions, rather than his predecessor, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, who presided over the committee in the years when the American economy, long the envy of the world, was viciously sabotaged by radical deregulation legislation.

Gramm, whom Sen. John McCain backed for president in 1996, pushed through the financial market deregulation that has brought the American economy to its knees. Maybe this time Congress won’t give the financial moguls everything they want, including a bailout for foreign-owned banks like Swiss-based UBS, where Gramm now hangs out as a very well paid executive when he’s not advising the presidential campaign of McCain, his old buddy and partner in crime. Oops, sorry, no crimes were committed because the deregulation laws Gramm pursued and McCain faithfully supported decriminalized the financial scams that have proved so costly.

Just check out the language of Gramm’s pet projects, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street, the former act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing. The latter legitimized the “swap agreements” and other “hybrid instruments” that are at the core of the crisis.

The legislation’s “Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000,” Title IV of the law—a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the Christmas recess—provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.

One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III, ensured the “Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements,” which successfully divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm’s law is at the very heart of the problem. But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry mergers:“No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000.…”

Even some Republicans on the Senate committee expressed exasperation Monday with the swindles that they had voted for with such enthusiasm in the past, as well as with giving Wall Street yet another blank check. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., condemned Paulson’s proposal as an effort to “take Wall Street’s pain and spread it to the taxpayers.” He added,“It’s financial socialism and it’s un-American.”

He’s wrong on that last point, for what is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state that services the politico-economic elite at the expense of the people is more accurately referred to as “financial fascism.” After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company’s corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler’s bubble burst.

This bailout SHOULD NOT HAPPEN - SHOULD HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED TO BE PUT ON THE BACKS OF TAXPAYERS! But if Congress does help the Bush Admin. to betray us yet again, smell a rat if Congress approves the Paulson plan without severely curtailing CEO pay and putting a freeze on the mortgage foreclosures that are threatening to destroy the homes of millions of Americans.

"Most of the Obama supporters who commented here tonight probable either did not even see the debate or were in a bar drinking and getting high while watching it. They have no clue about who answers correctly and showing that they were experienced to serve as our president and commander in chief."

WOW.

Did you really say that? Do you really think all liberal people sit around bars drinking beer and watch elections while getting high?

WOW.

And as far as answering correctly... this is A DEBATE. A debate is a conversation of opposing VIEWS.

Apparently you can only see one side of the coin and are unwilling to flip it over. Even at the cost of your country.

This debate was a tie. There are zero articles or posts attacking Jim Lehrer for setting up one candidate or the other. If no one is attacking the moderator, both sides feel as if they got what they needed.

Thanks for coming. Wait up, Dianne72 and Asper"Girl" will be right with you.
______

"I see the Obama spammers are back here again. I'll go find a site where people are actually trading opinions rather than ping-pong volleying cut-and-paste Obama talking points.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 1:18 PM"

BTW if Sarah Palin is going to learn how to debate, now is the time, not next week.

In particular, she has problems in interviews where rude, insulting interviewers persistently ask her the same question. This trips her up every time. She just experiences cognitive dissonance and then repeats her last answer.

Granted, when the interviewer does this, it's rude and disrespectful, like adversarially interrogating a hostile witness like a prosecutor, but Palin has to get used to it. She can't just give the questioner a weird look like, what kind of game are you playing, and stammer out the same response again. That makes her look programmed. She either needs to learn debating tactics to deal with that kind of subtle attack or she needs to just be frank and say, I've already answered that question.

Sarah Palin seems to not be prepared to deal with undermining, subtly adversarial people, coming as she does, from an apparently blunt-spoken world. She needs to get much more sophisticated in her verbal Machiavellian skills to do better in interviews and debates.

"jedmons wrote:
After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain"
---
Posted by: JRM2

Typical fear-mongerer, do you have nothing better to do than hide in your room and worry about being attacked by Venezuela?

------------------------------------------JRM2: No fear mongering here. JUST GOOD AMERICAN FACT! Attacked by Venezuela?? Read the post!

What many Americans don't understand. We are more vulnerable to foreign aggression now. Than at any time in our history. This is due to our current financial crisis and the fact we have no oil. Look at the recent actions taken by Russia..

When in your life time did Russia ever participate in war games in Venezuela? Next will have Russian war ships and bombers in Cuba..

I'll asked you again. Do you really want Obama at the helm durring these critical times. After last night's debate..

I say we need Sen. John McCain.. TATA

------------------------------------------

"jedmons wrote:
After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain"
---
Posted by: JRM2

Typical fear-mongerer, do you have nothing better to do than hide in your room and worry about being attacked by Venezuela?

------------------------------------------JRM2: No fear mongering here. JUST GOOD AMERICAN FACT! Attacked by Venezuela?? Read the post!

What many Americans don't understand. We are more vulnerable to foreign aggression now. Than at any time in our history. This is due to our current financial crisis and the fact we have no oil. Look at the recent actions taken by Russia..

When in your life time did Russia ever participate in war games in Venezuela? Next will have Russian war ships and bombers in Cuba..

I'll asked you again. Do you really want Obama at the helm durring these critical times. After last night's debate..

I say we need Sen. John McCain.. TATA

------------------------------------------

Anyone who continues to believe that John McCain is capable of leading the country in this highly complex world is either so partisan they refuse to see him for who he is or has been living in a vacuum. McCain is temperamental, unpredictable and the exact anti-thesis of what this country needs in these times. In the past, he's described himself as someone who likes to "make decisions fast and live with the consequences." That may work as a tenured senator guaranteed re-election in his home state of Arizona but is disastrous in a world leader who also commands the most powerful military in the world.

Look at his behavior this past week during an extraordinarily serious national crisis. He didn't behave like a leader; he seemed incapable of deciding upon any realistic, consistent course of action. Then, once he decided, chose a course of action that reeked of political motivations and not only didn't facilitate the country moving through this crisis but actually impeded progress.

He's touted himself over and over as the candidate with the experience to be commander in chief, but what in his foreign policy indicates anything different than what this country's been suffering for the past 8 years? He has no clear idea or plan for getting out of Iraq-while we continue to spend $10 billion a month. He continues to brag about the surge but the surge is OVER. He's said NOTHING about the next, best steps to end the war and chooses to ignore that Iraq itself is calling for us to leave. He advocates a continued policy of isolation--only talking to "friends" and countries "like us". He's dismissive of the power of diplomacy and wants to have a coalition of democracies in dealing with Iran--almost guaranteed failure since that leaves out China and Russia, 2 countries we need if we're to put real, significant pressure on Iran to deal. Until recently, he's been virtually silent on the subject of Afghanistan--the real center of terrorism, according to almost every single expert. His response to Russian aggression against Georgia was to proclaim, "We're all Georgians!" which raised eyebrows among even his supporters in the Senate.

If that's not enough, go a little further back in recent history. While it may have helped him in his candidacy and shoring up support from the far right of his own party, choosing Palin was clearly a political move and was done without considering the welfare of our country. When was the last time we had a candidate that literally frightened the public with her inexperience and ineptitude? No one in their right mind could actually believe Palin is even close to being able to handle the intricacies of foreign relations or the current financial crisis. She can't even answer reporters' questions in any coherent, sensible way and seems only able to parrot the same one line responses over and over again.

McCain is a victim of his own ambitions. He's abandoned his former beliefs on Bush's tax cuts, his opposition to offshore drilling, his support of Roe v. Wade and his call for immigration reform, just to name a few. He's hired staffers to run his campaign who are straight out of the Rove camp and has run such a dirty campaign that I seriously doubt his ability to "reach across the aisles" should he be elected. He may call up some of his recent oppositions to his own party (while refusing to recognize that Obama's standing against the war was not only going against his party but against the entire sentiment of the country); he may recall, once again, his experiences as a POW; he may refer to himself as a maverick. He may do all those things, but he can't ignore his own performance in the last several years, let alone the past few months. And there's truth to the old saying: the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. And McCain has NOT behaved as a man capable of leading our country to a restored sense of respect and security in the world and prosperity at home.

I've got a bracelet too. Uhh ... uh ... waassis name?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/26/debate-video-obama-cant-remember-the-soldiers-name-on-his-bracelet/

I would have thought that McCain had an advantage going into the debate because of his inside knowledge of "financial crisis and meltdowns" in the banking industry, but he didn't use it last night. Being at the center of the destruction of the long gone Savings and Loan industry as a member of the Keating Five that helped bring down the S&Ls he has unique knowledge of what is happening today in our financial industry. He should have shared it with the public but didn't.

"I found Senator McCain's continual refrain of "Senator Obama doesn't understand" to be condescending. It's obvious McCain personally does not like Obama - he wouldn't even look at him."

Posted by: miafl48 | September 27, 2008 2:09 PM

I agree with the above remarks. The thing is, it's such an absurdity for someone in Obama's unqualified state of naivete to be lecturing John McCain that McCain's rather straightforward condescension was a fitting and appropriate response.

There is only candidate who appeared and spoke like a President last evening and anyone who couldn't see it wasn't looking - John McCain. The camera loved him last night. He not only came across in control, knowledgeable and secure in his positions, he was also able to speak with details that exposed his years of experience. Obama was defensive, rattled at times, and spoke in 'canned sentences' for the most part. He offerred few if any real 'details' to back up his broad statements. Those of us who really listened with an open mind and who can apply what we know it takes to do our own jobs - it takes experience, details, and skills - found it easy to identify the winner last night. Hats off to Jim Lehr as he did the best job I have even witnessed in a moderator. He was totally impartial, a real newsman, and gave the candidates their time to speak equally. He didn't need to hear himself talk. I ususally end up turning off debates not because of the candidates but because the moderators are terrible and clearly biased Jim Lehr was awesome.

I found Senator McCain's continual refrain of "Senator Obama doesn't understand" to be condescending. It's obvious McCain personally does not like Obama - he wouldn't even look at him. Talk about juvenile! He also seemed like his knee jerk reaction to every foreign policy issue would be to rattle the saber. This country needs someone with more judgment and an ability to see war as a last not a first choice. We certainly don't need another President with a cowboy (or jet pilot) mentality.

The Tom Shales summation works for me: too nasty/too nice. McCrochety will have given cheer to his base, but probably didn't add many voters. Bigfoot parried well but essentially ran out (and probably sought to run out) the clock on another round, disappointingly.

No memorable take-aways here. Probably Sarah Palin is being trained on a hearty regimen of zingers. As a partisan I hope Biden too is being prepared with potent sound bites, if only to minimize his residual ready memory capacity to yield yet more gaffes.

"The next step is to follow through. It is apparent in every post that you have ever made that you do not know what you are talking about, and must lie and distort reality to justify your world-view. Remember, the most important words in learning are "I don't know." ...

Posted by: 37thOStreet

When your only point made to people's posted opinions that cite facts and have ideas in them is "you don't know" (without any amplifying information), you're just a boring troll who insults others. After the first sentence above, I didn't read the rest of your post. Really. Someone who cites no argument in support of their comments that other posters are stupid, is not worth the time.

I think they both showed their true natures: McCain, a bitter, angry old coot who thinks the world revolves around him.
Obama, a friendly, reasonable person who is almost always cool-headed under pressure.

From the "rah, rah, Obama" telemarketers, I expect the scripted responses as to the greatness of "The One" and to point out "flaws" in McCain. McCain won this debate. He was decisive, direct, and knowledgeable.

Obama stammers, stutters, and shoots himself in the foot.

People claiming Obama's agreements, with McCain, was showing efforts to reach across the isle are ludicrous. Obama did the very same thing debating with Hillary. Remember his "I agree with her" statements?

Most pro Obama posts I view with skepticism. His campaign has been so shrouded with deceit, manipulation and brainwashing techniques, how many legitimate posts actually exist? These posts could simply be coming from hacks out to make at buck at the expense of our people and country.

Obama had a Mt. Olympus theatrical show. He has crazy far left Hollyweirdos, Axelrod, Goddess Oprah, Ayers, Farrakhan, Hamas, Odinga, The View, the biased wolf pack media and a long list of others supporting him but still can't seal the deal? Because he can't and won't.

My thanks and admiration to Lehrer. He did an excellent job moderating. Best moderator I have watched!!! Charlie Gibson, The View, and others might want to check out what "journalism" is supposed to look like.

As Obama said last night - McCain is wrong - on several points, including wanting to 'freeze all spending" - sheer madness.
But it is in McCain's body language we can tell that he is an arrogant, lying, rambling old man who is stuck in the distant past. McCain NEVER looked Obama in the eye (sure sign of a liar), and was beyond rude when he refused to allow Obama to respond. Obama proved to be the more gracious of the two and at the end, proved his magnanimity by walking with his wife from one side of the stage to the other side to shake hands with McCain & his wife. How noble, how presidential. As far as good manners and courtesy are necessary for a President, McCain is totally lacking.

Although I prefer Obama, I'll have to admit that these "cut-and-paste-spammers" are not doing any good here. Only those who've already made up their minds are reading that...
Please quit.
Actually; you're not helping the one that you think you're helping, so to speak.

Well, I must say, I was a little frustrated at the beginning. I felt Obama gave up some opportunities to hit McCain on the economics. He did okay getting out his points, but McCain deserves to be called out on his part in how this crisis happened. I thought Obama could have emphasized the middleclass pains more. He's a gentlemen, I know. That's why he agrees where he can (John is right ads already playing) before he gives his points and ideas. Listen, I'm a Hillary supporter, I like a little more fight in my pols. But, even with his own style, Obama wins. And this is why....he held on an equal playing field with McCain on Foreign Policy. He appeared more rational and logical on how he views the world and our place in it. He looked confident, very clear in his beliefs and more importantly I could foresee a path in his words that looked beyond. I realized something I had wishfully suspected...This man is ready to be the President of the United States. And basically, that is all he really needed to do. Even an absolute tie was going to translate into an Obama win. I was planning to vote for him (even though it's been difficult to forgive how the primary went down). Let's face it, we didn't put our best candidate forward...Hill was winning, she had the momentum, and then had to hand the baton to McCain. It's very unnerving to realize that she would have a 15 point lead right now, and that we have put other issues into the voting that we didn't need to worry about this year. But, I feel better today, I think the undecideds were able to see a President Obama. Advantage Obama

I see the Obama spammers are back here again. I'll go find a site where people are actually trading opinions rather than ping-pong volleying cut-and-paste Obama talking points.

CNN's Columbus, OH focus group thought Obama won (61-39). Foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's strong suit and Obama's weak one; if this debate is seen as a draw, it can only bode well for Obama in the next two debates. If Obama is seen as the winner tonight, the race could be over. A knowledgeable friend thinks this race resembles 1980; people don't like McCain but want to be convinced Obama is safe enough to trust. In 1980, Reagan came across in the 1st debate as not nuts, and he won the popular vote 51-41. The same could happen here. Many people have written about this election being a referendum on Obama.

I thought Obama had gotten more time. I thought he edged McCain out last night.

This felt different than any other presidential debate I've seen, and I have all of them since 1992 on tape. I think the pundits were right that neither is a great debater. Both missed significant opportunities. As Tom Shales observed, McCain studiously avoided ever looking at Obama (who mostly looked at McCain while he was speaking), and with one exception I can remember from Obama, both looked at Lehrer rather than the camera (viewing public!) when answering questions. Neither of these guys is Bill Clinton.

McCain reminded me of Gore in 2000 and Dole in 1996--the longtime congressional insider who doesn't even realize when he's so deep in the weeds most people don't know or care what he's saying. When McCain mentioned Nunn-Lugar, it immediately reminded me of Gore pressing Bush on "the Dingell-Norwood bill" (patient's bill of rights). I bet most Americans don't even remember who Nunn is. When he proclaimed that he runs his subcommittees right, Obama should've said, "Tell you what, John. When I'm in the White House, you can run your subcommittees however you want". I thought McCain's remark about not setting the schedule or having a seal yet was weak, defensive, and snippy. I could sense Obama supporters everywhere thinking "Sure you have a seal--Sarah Palin!"

I didn't think the meeting foreign leaders colloquy was a McCain win at all. They seemed to be talking past each other. McCain kept repeating the same things to what I thought little effect--like Bush in 04 who seemed unable to reply with anything but his prepared talking points. He couldn't even pronounce Ahmedinejad. Obama was right about Kissinger and 4 other former SecStates, as video clips showed on CNN post-debate. Obama was very good in reminding McCain he sang songs about bombing Iran.

Obama was not nearly forceful, focused, or passionate enough about ending the war. He mentioned that al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went there, but not clearly enough. Lessons of Iraq should've been a slam dunk for him, but it was weak. Don't cook the intelligence? Don't cherry pick it? Don't fight wars unilaterally or pre-emptively? Don't change the stated purpose of the war when your original one is fully disproven? Don't scare the bejesus out of people so they'll support the war? Don't use a war vote as a hammer over Congress right before an election? Don't pay off people to write what you want them to in the press? Don't go to war when you don't understand the history or human makeup of the country? Don't try to impose democracy on a place with no culture and little desire for it? Don't torture? Don't sh*t on the Constitution? Don't fire military experts because you don't like their advice? The list is endless, but we heard almost none of this.

I thought Obama came across as more presidential; calm, fluent on the substance of important issues, and in control. McCain seemed more like a bitter old man. Though I really wish Obama would've tried to goad McCain into one of his flying off the handle tirades.

Why no opening (I assume--missed the first few minutes) or closing statements?

It's been clear for years that Jim Lehrer is the best debate moderator we have. I remember in 1988 when we had different moderators for each debate, or panels of journalists. There's a reason why Lehrer has done them all for so long.

Missed opportunities:
McCain suggested we should be suspect of Obama's definition of "rich" (an old tactic Bush 41 used against Clinton in 1992). Obama should've pointed out that McCain said you have to make $5M a year to be rich. And maybe that McCain himself is a multi-millionaire with 7 houses, and suggest he's out of touch with working and middle class folks.

Obama noted that even Bush/his Administration, unlike McCain, had come around to some of his foreign policy positions. McCain could've used this to argue that he's not simply a continuation of Bush.

McCain tried to hit Obama with his $923M of earmark requests. Obama should know that McCain has made them too. Obama wasn't clear enough that the problem with earmarks is their corrupting influence, not that they're responsible for the deficits or debt. Obama should've pointed out that roughly 2/3 of economists are backing him, and independent analyses have found his tax and budget policies would be less harmful to the national debt. McCain could've hit Obama for opting out of the public financing system. Obama could've hit McCain for flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts and offshore drilling, among other things (though not if he's going to advocate drilling too--GRR).

Obama said refusing to talk with Iran and North Korea hasn't worked. He should've included the most obvious and indisputable example of all--Cuba. It's been 49 years, and they're still Communist, still ruled by Castros. Fat lot of good the embargo has done.

McCain said every federal agency, department, etc. has useless or inefficient operations that deserve cutting. Then he exempted defense and veterans affairs (entitlements are irrelevant to this discussion since they're mandatory spending, not discretionary) from his across the board spending freeze. Does he really mean to say there's no bloat at DOD?? Has he not seen the audits giving them Ds and Fs? And he didn't exempt Homeland Security. Why cut DHS but not DOD?

McCain noted that Madeline Albright had talked to an unfriendly power as Secretary of State and produced positive results. Obama should've pointed out that was under the Clinton Administration, not Bush.

Problem: both candidates seem to accept as proven that Iran is aiming not at electrical generation, but at nuclear weapons. Yet, the latest Intelligence Document that was made public indicates there is no convincing evidence one way or the other. Iran claims to need nuclear power generation against the inevitable decline in their native oil and gas reserves, so that they are not forced into the role of customer.

Both candidates feel Iran can’t be trusted. The older candidate seems willing to attack first, rather than attempt any negotiations, the “bad guy” theory of foreign affairs. The younger candidate would try negotiations first.

Question. If a nation successfully reaches nuclear fusion, as we have, for power production, does that mean:

a) that there is an intimate connection between nuclear power and nuclear weaponry: the same manufacturing process and equipment used for power can now be used to make nuclear weapons?

-OR-

b) that a totally new manufacturing process would be needed to produce weapons, but the expertise and equipment is now at hand or easily obtained?

Or, putting the issue another way, IF Iran agreed to a permanent freeze of enrichment, would that mean they could never reach a nuclear fuel process for electrical generation because there is an intimate connection? If so, as their oil and gas reserves inevitably shrink to zero, they would be totally dependent on the outside world for power, becoming a customer rather than a supplier. Why would they do that? Are we asking that Iran agree to give up nuclear power generation when we and other countries have nuclear power plants? If so, we should make that clear. I wish the media would explain yes or no about the connection.

McCain's worldview is all about "conflict is inevitable and here's how I will respond". Obama's is about trying to make it so conflict doesn't happen, and is more thoughtful about how he would respond if it DOES so that it's not counterproductive in the bigger picture. McCain is, despite his questioning of Obama's knowledge of the two, a tactical not a strategic thinker when it comes to how we exist in the world at large, and that is what has continuously gotten us into trouble.

McCain kept repeating "Obama doesn't understand." I think Barack needs to tell McCain that the only thing he, as well as the American people, do not understand is why McCain wants to solve the country's problems by continuing the failed policies of George Bush. Barack needs to tell McCain that it is McCain who does not understand our economy, the struggles of the working people, and America's standing in the world.

McCain kept talking about his "history" in the senate. Well, how about McCain involvement the worst ethics scandal in the senate history, "The Keating 5" prior to the S&L bailout which cost the American taxpayers billions. How about his recent turnaround (flip flopping in Rove's terms) in just about every policy contradicting his record? Is that not history?

McCain inquired about Obama’s definition of “rich Americans.” How about McCain’s definition: “…in terms of dollars about $5 million”; he has said. Obama promises to help families that make under $250,000 a year by giving them a tax break. McCain talks about tax reductions that will only benefit the rich while for the first time in America’s history his plan will tax the health benefits of working families.

McCain's "pork barrel" project reform is a political stunt. McCain or his running mate, Sarah Palin, are not "pork barrel" free. USA today reported (5/19/08: "McCain, who has made fighting special-interest projects a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, inserted $14.3 million in a 2003 defense bill to buy land around Luke Air Force Base in a provision sought by SunCor Development." Even though Alaska has enjoyed billions of dollars in state budget surplus starting before Sarah Palin became governor, her administration has the nerve to request $100’s of millions of dollars in “pork barrel” projects from Washington.

McCain is equating earmark projects with "pork barrel" which should not be. According to the Washington post, earmarks include "such items as $4 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which could not be eliminated without halting hundreds of construction projects around the country. Another big chunk goes to military construction, including housing for servicemen and their families. Large spending programs that Mr. McCain supports count as earmarks.

Barack’s earmark projects benefit working Americans and their communities. They are projects that support health care, education, veterans, and infrastructure. Most voters would approve. These are not giveaways to rich corporations like SunCor Development.

It is McCain who does not understand.

"YOU ARE SUCH A GREAT SPOTTER-OF-PEOPLE-WHO-DON'T-KNOW. WHY DON'T YOU GO GRADE SOME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAPERS INSTEAD OF POSTING ON A SITE WHERE PEOPLE GIVE OPINIONS?"

Aspergirl - Press the CAPS LOCK, and step away from the computer. I am glad that you have taken the first step in accepting my truth, by scouring The Fix for other comments made by me, and acknowledging that you, like others, lack the data and analytical skills to make a worthwhile point.

The next step is to follow through. It is apparent in every post that you have ever made that you do not know what you are talking about, and must lie and distort reality to justify your world-view. Remember, the most important words in learning are "I don't know." You have stated these three words implicitly in every syllable you have ever written - now take the next step and say them explicitly.

akhajawall,

Could you expand a little more please?

Supcat714 I think yu need to look at the what the news media are saying mccain is running second

CNN poll = NYT poll = CBS poll = we want you to believe that Obama won!

PLAGIARISM

I thought McCain had a damn nerve plagiarising one of Winston Churchill's most famous quotes and passing it off as his own.

On 10 November 1942, five months after Admiral Nimitz stopped Admiral Yamamoto's expansion across the Pacific at the battle of Midway and one week after General Montgomery's defeat at El Alamein of General Rommel's attempt to seize the Suez Canal and just one week before the great Soviet counter attack at Stalingrad Churchill summarised the War situation thus: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning".

Last night Senator John McCain tried to pass those lines off as his own -even though, as usual, he fluffed them- "Now this isn't the beginning of the end but it is the end of the beginning".

Plagiarist!

--"My overall impression watching the debate was an acute awareness of the contempt being shown to Senator Obama by Senator McCain. He never made eye contact with his opponent, he sneered, and was dismissive of Obama to the point of rudeness. The impression was one of him telegraphing that no way did Obama have any business believing he was his equal or deserving of even a modicum of respect."--

At this level I expect professional grade politics: paste a smile on your face and put your arm around Satan (or George W. Bush) if the situation calls for it. McCain can't choose the other heads of state of the world, but you must ALWAYS treat them with respect and civility whether you loath or like them. He didn’t show me that last night.

Bipartisanship and ? Maverick McCain.

Dear concerned citizens of America and Mass Media of the U.S.A.
As a concerned registered independent voter, forensic psychiatrist, disabled American I made my decision to vote after taking into consideration following joint tickets attributes and characteristics.

1. Has the ticket shown adequate calmness, coolness, and connectedness's under pressure to lead our nation [Presidential Temperament]?
2. Has the ticket shown sustained sound "Judgment and Caliber"?
3. Has the ticket shown adequate understanding of depth and degree to address the crucial challenges in their their purpose, policies, and positions [ Honesty, integrity and sincerity]?
4. Has the ticket sufficient "understanding and knowledge" of inside Washington workings [Experience]"?
5. Has the ticket reservoir resilience, wisdom, and vigor to address the present and future f our beloved "Great-grand Nation"?
6. Has the ticket enough joint foreign policy experience and exposure based on " Values, Virtues, Vastness, and " [American moral soul]"?
7. Has their campaign talk, slogans, ads, plans, and programs based on facts and are they free of fear, fiction, frivolous labels, unfair attacks, negativity, and impulsively? [No "imminent danger to national
security and safety"].
8. Has the ticket genuinely kept on message of country first and politics last and avoided copying [Message change"]?
9.Has the ticket message stayed away from Culture divide and war[ Disaster prevention ]?
10. Has the ticket resisted being surrounded, supported and surrogate's by divisiveness, distortion's, and destructive characters, [ Real patriotism VS shiftiness and shameless parrot-ism]?
11. Has the ticket thoughtful, real non-partisan, & non-impulsive plans to address our current economic crisis or political tactics and temperamental statements.
I have personally and professionally concluded that OBAMA-BIDEN ticket will lift and inspire our greatgrand nation back to its greatness within and restore our global standing with the use of maximum, firm
international diplomacy and minimal force if and when indicated {" Peace thru Strenght "}.
12. The era of responsibility has to replace irresponsibility and unaccountability will change to accountability and transparency. The Wall Street greed will change to Main Street need.
13. Temperamental and Angry McCain is out to play and create a card mistrust and distress around Obama with the Vail of claim that he will bring bipartisanship in Washington DC. He is destroying him claim every by painting Obama naive. It is tragic, sad, and unfortunate that so called Maverick McCain has already generated a disdain and demeaning face off in the debates and bailout suggestion. Obama is real Presidential and he maintained a smile during the debate and while McCain had a constant grin and disdain towards Obama.

Yours sincerely,

COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret] MD.
Forensic psychiatrist, Disabled American Veteran and Iraq
Freedom team. Grass roots California leader per Senator McCain's

PS: It is sad and unfortunate that Hon, Temperamental and angry Maverick McCain had a constant grin and disdain towards his debater.

Who is Neville Chamberlain? What does he have in common with Obama? If Obama was being civil and appeasing to McCain, who does that make McNasty seem like?
Is Iran going to be like Czechoslovakia in 1939?

My overall impression watching the debate was an acute awareness of the contempt being shown to Senator Obama by Senator McCain. He never made eye contact with his opponent, he sneered, and was dismissive of Obama to the point of rudeness. The impression was one of him telegraphing that no way did Obama have any business believing he was his equal or deserving of even a modicum of respect. McCain came across as a mean spirited, nasty old man. I am white, a female, and 73 years of age. I was very put off by McCain's attitude.

Obama more than held his own with McCain

Remember the "SIGH" ?

I believe this insulting and dismissive attitude by McCain will be what viewers will remember in the days to come. And not to McCain's benefit.

"McCain as Bush III -- I tend to think Obama uses as part of his post-partisan tactic or stratgy. Rather than attack conservative Republicans, he makes shorthand reference to eight years, four more years and Bush. So, its not as simple as casting McCain and Bush as one in the same. It's much deeper."
Sorry, but I just don't see it. This is supposed to be 'post-partisan'? Repeating something about your opponent you know is not true? There are just too many instances of McCain publicly disagreeing with Bush. McCain has his faults, but running in lock step with Bush is not one of them.

I just watched the first presidential debate, and I really think that these two men have good strong points about the future for the country. One of the men (not mentioning any names)choked up a little bit on one of the topics. From what I saw both men were trying to suck up on the whole "braclet with honor" thing, involving the war in Iraq. It's funny because the whole question was supposed to be about their plans for the war. What were they going to do about it? Are they going to send them home, or bring in more money to support the war! What would be the future outcome? The future likelihood (sp.???) of the second 9/11 attack, we should be prepared for anything because who knows what would happen next. We really need to nip this thing in the bud and go ahead and knock this thing out.

"Aspergirl, you don't know what you are talking about. You should watch the debates before you comment on them."

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 12:26 PM

(To another poster) "You don't know what you're talking about. Judging by your shallow grasp of foreign affairs, I would guess you are a Sarah Palin sock puppet."

Posted by: 37thOStreet | September 27, 2008 11:22 AM

YOU ARE SUCH A GREAT SPOTTER-OF-PEOPLE-WHO-DON'T-KNOW. WHY DON'T YOU GO GRADE SOME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAPERS INSTEAD OF POSTING ON A SITE WHERE PEOPLE GIVE OPINIONS?

The debate proved that THE OBAMA is Neville Chamberlain reincarnated!

Boy! is this county skrewed if THE OBAMA wins.

PS. Boy is not a racist remark for all you victim wannabes.

The problem I have with Obama is that, despite being obviously bright and articulate, what has he actually done? I would be much more comfortable with him if I were to see a single instance of him bucking his own party or championing some cause (like Hillary with health care).
McCain, on the other hand, has done this numerous times.
I just found McCain more believable.

Whats with these old stories from the retirement home?

How do they fit in with a 21st century America slipping into second place economically behind China and Russia?

McCain is living in the past and can't face the future any more than he could look Obama in the eye.

Jim Lehrer did a great job. Best debate so far this election year in terms of getting a real read on candidates' positioning without setting up one candidate to benefit the other.

Aspergirl, you don't know what you are talking about. You should watch the debates before you comment on them.

I have read several posts on the debates and I flipped between the MSNBC and CNN after commentary last night. Although, as the night wore on, the cable commentators seemed to focus their cameras and have a better view of reality. It appears that maybe Cillizza has not had the opportunity for reflection.

No Presidential (or VP) candidate should get a "by" based on age, demeanor, presentation, intelligence or disability. This is the most important public figure in the nation. Elements of personal style are clearly up for subjective disagreement, but realize they are subjective. Getting that out of the way….repetition of mildly ironic phrases like the litany of Ms Congeniality references strike me as substitutes for substantial thought. The anecdotes that McCain frequently uses do not resonate with me as touching, patriotic, or examples of how he puts country first. For me they are overly sentimental attempts to distract the listener from real problems and to place war, any war, center stage. His voice even takes on the sing-songy tone that signals a “heart tugging” moment. The smile that Cillizza characterizes as “permanent” seemed more like a sneer to me.Those are all elements of style that are objectionable to me and many will disagree. However, they are subjective style points and should be judged in that light.

There are more concrete ways to look at this speech. It is not a sign of strength to refuse to look your opponent in the eye when you are speaking directly to him. Leherer directed O'Bama to do so, but, not McCain. It is a sign of either insecurity or disdain - take your pick, to ignore your debate opponent. If McCain has this depth of negative feeling about O'Bama, be it disdain or insecurity, how will he operate on behalf of the country on the world stage with leaders who are difficult and objectionable to our interests. In the context of building alliances and gaining concessions disdain or insecurity are both ineffective.

Nearly all McCain’s references are toward the past and not just 2 weeks or 2 years ago – way in the past. This is indicative of not understanding that the country and the world are changing dramatically and continue to do so as I am writing. He doesn’t demonstrate an ability to articulate a forward vision that speaks to emerging economies, important world relationships, or regional issues. O’Bama nearly always articulates a forward vision that embraces current and future reality, as well as the complexities and subtleties of our country and the world. In the debate, he spoke about elevating our country’s standing in the world. McCain did not. “Winning the war” seems to be his only measure of America’s standing in the world.

It is not a sign of weakness to acknowledge agreement with an opponent on an issue. It is a starting point for accomplishing a goal. O’Bama actually demonstrates the trait that McCain consistently insists that he has – “reaching across the aisle”. It is clear that a person who can acknowledge points of agreement with an opponent in front of millions of constituents – not behind the closed doors of the Senate – is demonstrating an important strength in a volatile and contentious world.

Although McCain only flubbed twice on leaders’ name ( Pakistan / Iran), he never-the-less flubbed. Look at me, even I say only flubbed twice… Everyone knows that a person’s name carries his or her identity, heritage and pride. Mispronouncing a name is the worst kind of gaffe on the world stage. This isn’t a party where you momentarily forget that the guy’s name is Dick not Dan,.

I need to bring this rather long post to an end. My point – many people in the media ignore the obvious and give McCain a pass based on his status as a former POW, his disability and his age – minimize his numerous significant shortcomings. Not recognizing Zapatero as the leader of our ally, Spain is not excusable, it is way beyond an “oh well” moment. In my mind, people should have the opportunity to compete regardless of their age , disability, etc. Once given the opportunity, they should be judged on equal footing with others, particularly for such a critical position as the Presidency. Come on Cillizza, call ‘em as they are, McCain isn’t your father or grandfather.

Scary news -- Daily Kos reports: "On Saturday, the former first lady [Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton] will campaign on behalf of Obama in Grand Ledge, Grand Rapids and Flint, Michigan."

Re the above, we think we can speak -- on a completely unauthorized and unasked-for basis -- for O's campaign just this once: Mrs. C. PLEASE DON'T!!!! DON'T!!!!!!

O had enough of your generous "help" last week during Bitter Bill's endless Say-No-to-O TV tour.

Please no more "helpful" campaign stops where you or Bitter Bill say not one good word about O, and then gush about your respect for Mac, how Palin is "hot" (at least that was Bitter Bill's stated opinion on "the View"), and how real "hard working" Americans can identify with Mac and Palin.

No more reminders of your 127 personal and totally beside-the-point grievances against O, the system, Patti Solis Doyle, men in general, Chris Matthews, Bill Richardson, the guy in the front row that yelled at you four months ago about ironing his shirt, etc., etc. No more planted media stories that you will replace Biden. ENOUGH.

Thanks, but no thanks. You've "HELPED" quite enough. If you HELPED anymore, O would be on life support.

Fix:

It might be helpful to have a dialog on what set of traits profiles a good "depression president" and how each candidate would measure up to those traits.

Good slasher-of-budgets? Good grasper of new ideas and theories and novel plans of action? Good economic program leadership targeting a demoralized, growing poverty class? Good maker-of-painful-and-unpopular decisions? Good motivate-the-nation inspirational speaker?

What kind of person makes a good president during a depression and how do the candidates measure up?

Your talking points:

1. McCain looked relaxed and smiled naturally -- I disagree. He seemed tense and grumpy, smirked oddly and frequently feel into stump speech lines we have heard too often.

2. McCain as Bush III -- I tend to think Obama uses as part of his post-partisan tactic or stratgy. Rather than attack conservative Republicans, he makes shorthand reference to eight years, four more years and Bush. So, its not as simple as casting McCain and Bush as one in the same. It's much deeper.

3. Speaking to the TV audience -- I don't know if you were watching live or on TV. However, as a TV viewer, I say Obama frequently speaking directly to the TV camera. Rarely, did McCain do so. Most of the time, McCain seemed to be speaking to the right side of the live audience.

4. Preconditions vs. preparations -- The Washington Post's fact-checker concludes that Mcain twisted the record here. Aslo, you may be only person viewing this debate who seems to think this was Obama's weakest moment. Rather, it was his failure to pounce on McCain $700 billion bailout gambit.

5. Experience, Change and Miss Congeniality -- An angry old pitbull without lipstick. Enough said.

6. The "Perfect" Debate Moderator -- Would not be drawn from the ranks of TV news anchors. As a former journalist, I can understand some media self back-slapping but, please.

6. An Ahmadinejad Moment -- I would have hesitated before insulting your readers by suggesting that debates are almost entirely visual. Give us at least some credit.

7. Bonus Extra Credit Reaction -- Great groans went up across America when MCain pulled out his ink marker, lifted his braceleted wrist and uttered the words POW.

Obama seemed poised and the voice of reason.
McCain seemed like a crazed character from a batman movie with his twisted smile and snickering laughter.
However, I may be biased.

I feel as if Obama won this debate because of the fact that he is working within a box. Yes people I am white and I am going to pull the race card that we all pretend to not know exists. If he had beeen hard on McCain he would have been seen as uppity, given that he was in a box he still was able to come accross as presidential and knowledgable without appearing uppity, which I still don't know how he and his wife got labled as elitist when it is Cindy and John who are out of touch with the middle class, I suggest he ran to Washington to save Cindy's portfolio. Pundits even took cause with him referring to him as John maybe he should have said your lordship, even though they are colleagues in the Senate. And I would say it was McCain who was very condescending to Obama whenever he disagreed, trying to twist his words saying that Obama intended to bomb Pakistan, you don't even say that mockingly, this is why we are in this mess with the rest of the world. I guess Sarah Palin is still being schooled on what exactly a vice president does. People wake up Iraq has a 79 billion dollar surplus and we are still funding that war, wake up people, get rid of your prejudices and vote for the person with a clear vision for the future, OBAMA 08.

Verrazzano, you are full of Sh!t.

Posted by: JRM2 | September 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

------------------

Did I hit a nerve? How could he not recognize and give well wishes to the man that gave him such a big boost during the primaries? How do you think the super delegates started drifting towards Obama and away from Clinton? What does that tell you about his character, that he truly is out to look out for your interest? The man is not only an empty suit, he has no soul.

McCain doesn't seem to understand that our country's weakness will never be in our military as long as our financial security remains strong.
Our enemies will attack us on wall street just like Osama Bin Laden.
He seems to be playing right into their hands.

"As for McCain's personal style, Obama is simply a much smoother talker, even when, as last night, he is saying nothing at all. Since I am voting for President and not for a used car salesman, I'll vote for McCain."

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 11:46 AM

I agree with you there. To me, the debate looked like one between an articulate arguer who has been doing his memorizing and studying, and an actual expert.

But my point is that the expert doesn't explain himself well, and doesn't use rhetoric that independents and democrats would find meaningful.

I do think McCain should find a way to talk about deficits and earmarks in a way that uses language that speaks to those who aren't already in his base and already familiar with the theories and ideas underlying his approaches. I.e. sometimes Obama explains his ideas whereas McCain always just argues like an expert. Obama must reach the not-really-informed and independents better than McCain does, for that reason.

McCain should really try to work off a different set of words and imagery, than he has been using so far to debate economics. Hard to see that most people get what his points are. He should explain how spending along with excessive federal debt (in the Bush Administration) and easy-mortgage programs put in place by Democrats and enabled by Democrats to go unchecked, created this problem. He should be able to explain, in a few sentences, what connection there is between the deficits, energy purchases abroad, our interest rates, inflation rates and credit market problems. Using the same "cut the budget" and "eliminate earmarks" mantras don't really mean a lot to most people who aren't economists.

McCain should learn how to be a better communicator. With the media shutting him out and misrepresenting his every move and word, he needs to be a better, clearer advocate for his positions.

Verazzano, it's cool you watched all the major news outlets and comically captured the pundit's facial expressions. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of polls show Obama won the first debate.

You wanna take my bet that McCain's polls are going to spiral further down this week?

Anyone want to take bets on what stunt McCain will come up with to "suspend" the remaining debates?

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

---------------

Are these the same poll that showed Kerry outdoing Bush during the debates?

If you want to look at polls, go ahead. Considering Bush's approval ratings, the economy, the unpopularity of the war, Obama should be ahead in big double digits. The polls are very close. And don't think that this is not disturbing to the Obama camp.

Body language: Did John McCain realize Barack Obama was at the debate?

Why couldn't McCain look at Obama? Watching on several networks it was interesting that McCain had positioned himself to face slightly away from Obama. Even when being spoken to directly by Obama he stared away into the audience.

I was not surprised that the image of the after-debate handshake in our local paper shows Obama shaking hands - making eye contact - McCain looking away. I'll bet he looked at Obama less than 10 times during the debate. How about a comparison count?

It seemed that Lehrer picked up on it - asking them to talk to each other. Obama felt it, answering some of his questions to Lehrer after looking to his opponent for response from McCain.

Compare this with Obama who spoke directly to McCain, and looked right at him even when receiving retorts he didn't want to hear.

Have you ever been so angry with someone that you couldn't even talk to them? Couldn't even look at them? Hard to reach across the aisle from there.

What do you think?

Verrazzano, you are full of Sh!t.

While such a big fuss has been made last night and this morning that McCain never looked Obama in the eye (the podiums were not faced at each other), what was completely ignored was how both men opened the debate. Obama went first, thanked Lehrer, the debate commitee and the school. He then went to his canned opening speech (afterall, he spent a whole week in Debate Camp to prepare). Then McCain came on. First thing he did was give well wishes to Ted Kennedy who went to the hospital that night. Now this coming from a Republican towards one of the most liberal senators in our history. But did not Kennedy come out and give Obama a big push during his primary fight with Clinton? Who gives a crap about looking at someone in the eye? If this is a debate about character, one has it, the other does not.

They both looked Presidential-
Therefore McCain loses.

Verazzano, it's cool you watched all the major news outlets and comically captured the pundit's facial expressions. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of polls show Obama won the first debate.

You wanna take my bet that McCain's polls are going to spiral further down this week?

Anyone want to take bets on what stunt McCain will come up with to "suspend" the remaining debates?

McCain will handle the financial crisis by cutting all spending except for defense, social securtiy and medicare. The hell with the infrastructure, programs for the poor and alternative energy.
Its just drill,drill,drill and kill,kill,kill.
One Bush is enough. Another one will be fatal for our country.

No body wins this debate. None of them answered the question about the bailout nor do they have a clear plan toward stablizing our economy.

McCain does show his strength in the foreign policy but he focused too much into it, since the economy is the main concern at the moment. However, if we lose America, there won't be any economy to worry about.

Obama did succeed in keeping his cool more than half the time, but looking cool and avoiding to answer the question is not a solution. Interrupting McCain to keep the camera pointing at himself is also not a solution.

I am still troubled by Obama raising tax on small business owners with income $250,000 and up. In 2006, the national average salary for small business was $258,400. According to Salary.com ( http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041&part=Par545 ). That is more than half of the small business owners here in the US. Today's amount should be slightly higher. Is that a solution to our economy crisis when we need more jobs avaliability here in the US?

I am looking forward to the VPs debate in October.

Vote for your favorite candidate. This story, thewashingtonpost.com, and other websites at TheWebTitan.com.

The number one website: wikipedia.org

The last vote: youtube.com

Suggest other websites at TheWebTitan.com/phpBB2.

natural smile?

Are you untethered from reality (re: see below)? Every media outlet has stated that he couldn't look Obama in the eye etc etc

McCain, who came into tonight's debate a bit frantic from his failed gambit to broker a deal on Capitol Hill to save the financial industry, looked as relaxed, at home and, well, stable, as we have seen him in any debate during this long election process. He wore an almost permanent smile, which, for the most part seemed natural as opposed the force Joker-grin plastered on his face during the primary debates

"Stategy VS Tactic"

Oddly no-one is discussing this particular point of the dabate that I found rather fascinating yet perplexing. I believe that I possess the expertise to decipher a strategy in comparison to a tactic being a current enlisted member in the Armed Services. I am priviledged enough to have been in service since 2001, served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and will deploy to Afghanistan for the much needed support to Operation Enduring Freeom.

Here are the facts the initial strategy for the campaign in Iraq did not include a surge of troops during the 06-07 years of the war. This is partly due to the fact that no strategy was ever drafted to begin with. My recollection of the early years of the war was the commanders on the ground made the decisions. It was not until after the war's unpopularity and Bush's diminishing approval rating over the death of American soldiers that a "surge of troops" would be necessary. Did I also mention that sectarian violence and the threat of a Sunni and Shia civil war was dangling over the horizon? The sense that way-back in 2002 when congress approved the Use of Force in Iraq, that SEC. Rumsfeld had the insight to determine a surge would be apart of the STRATEGY, to me this is ludacris and insulting. Great Job to Obama.

Ironically his insight disturbs me a little. Indeed, Osama Bin Laden fled to the Mountains of Tora Borah, and US forces are fighting the Taliban, AL Queada, and Pakistani Forces in Afghanistan. He was absolutely 100% correct that reinforcements are needed. I have one question though, Sen. Obama what will be the exit strategy for Afghanistan? I am in support of Sen. Obama but if I am going sacrifice another wedding anniversary, birthday party, graduation from kindergartin and middle school, put my own life on the line by driving on IED saturated roads again, please let's learn from the mistakes in Iraq. Give me a tangible stop sign that will let me know when enough is enough and I can come home to my family.

"The Obama surrogates, whether they were from the media or his campaign, had the look as if their friend went to the hospital (which is telling about Obama's characteristic as a person that he started the debate and said nothing of his supporter Ted Kennedy while McCain wished him well when he opened). Begala on CNN usually has that big grin. It was missing. Palin lover Campbell Brown looked like she was going to puke he cookies. Olbermann had a look as if he has not been able to take a crap for three days. Maddow had those sad eyes as if she just received a Dear John letter (or is it Dear Joan?). The political surrogates were busy trying to fill in the gaps of arguments that perhaps Obama forgot to make during the debate...."

Posted by: Verrazzano | September 27, 2008 11:40 AM

Interesting analysis. Reading the faces of the Obama talking heads works sometimes. After Obama announced Biden as his VP, every single Obama surrogate had a ghastly look of dismay on his/her face.

The media exists in their echo chamber. Maybe by last night all the media & Obama supporters started believing their own make believe stories that McCain was in DC because he was afraid of debating and was desperately flailing for some escape.

From DailyKos, Obama won big.

Drudge's "poll" (which probably reflects his readership more than an objective evaluation of the debate) is the only one we've seen saying Mac won.
___

Quoting a DailyKos diary:

"CNN: Polls Say Obama Won, Disaster for McCain
by EmperorHadrian
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 08:57:55 PM PDT
Somehow, CNN has already conducted an actual phone poll which shows that voters overwhelmingly think Obama won the debate. Apparently, CBS just released a poll with a similar result. One CNN pundit (David Gergen) implied that these numbers, if correct, may be a fatal disastor for John McCain's campaign. This was the night he had to knock the debate out of the park. Even two republican pundits called this a draw. John King from CNN, who apparently had some part in the poll, said something very important after they talked about this. He said that if we start having headlines tomorrow, with polls showing Obama won the debate, it becomes self-fullfilling, and the message reinforces itself. Suddenly, all those who didn't see it, or who did see it and didn't have a solid impression, become influenced by this emerging consensus.
EmperorHadrian’s diary::
David Gergen said:
I cannot emphisize how important I think these numbers are, because this is a pivotal night for John McCain. He needed to take this night, and if these polls are right, that is a major deal in this election, because this is his home turf, because Barack Obama is the younger man, and the issue is 'can the younger man hold his own with the older guy with more experience'. Thats what John Kennedy did in 1960, because that won the debate that drove the election and elected him, because he held his own." "

AsperGirl - a lot of good points, but the other side of the coin for McCain is he kept the conversation on his own turf last night. That is a rhetorical feat in itself, and it's hard to know how much better he did by means of keeping the game on his playing field.

As for McCain's personal style, Obama is simply a much smoother talker, even when, as last night, he is saying nothing at all. Since I am voting for President and not for a used car salesman, I'll vote for McCain.

"McCain doesn't get it either. His only response to ANY international crisis is to start BOMBING someone."

"And if he can't look Obama in the eye once in 90 minutes, how the hell is he going to stare down any of our enemies?"

Posted by: dastubbs | September 27, 2008 11:27 AM

Wow. You really missed a lot of what he said during the debate. You just have your own fixed ideas and are putting them on him. McCain specifically criticized how you talk about bombing and attacking other countries, as opposed to what you would actually do. I.e. you don't talk about attacking Pakistan, even if you might do it under some circumstances.

It's like a whole level of discussion in the debate just flew past you without your even registering it. All you are posting are biased views that are unrelated to the things said during the debate.

About looking at Obama, I'm sure he has his reasons. Obama was attacking him during the meeting at the White House on Thursday, demanding over and over again to know if he backed the House Republicans' ideas about having a federal insurance pool for banks' credit-backed portfolio products, instead of bailing them out. Obama's behavior was inappropriate, confrontational and disruptive and McCain walked out of that White House meeting. Obama's campaign has also been inappropriate and slimy in how it has attacked Sarah Palin.

IMO, John McCain finds Barack Obama to be offensive and actively dislikes him. Judging from his body language and the tone of the statements released by the McCain campaign, I think McCain thinks Obama's a disrespectful man running a personally destructive campaign.

Affordable Housing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

"jedmons wrote:
After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain"
---
Typical fear-mongerer, do you have nothing better to do than hide in your room and worry about being attacked by Venezuela?

>I am watching Rudy on Fox right now. He has a big grin.

Well if Rudy Gulliani is smiling then I guess its clear to anyone McCain clearly won. Hun?

You gave away your partisanship - "watching Fox". It's a classic 101 mistake.

Posted by: Dano111 | September 27, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

--------------------------------

And if you read any of my other posts, you would have seen that I checked all three of the cable networks. The Obama surrogates, whether they were from the media or his campaign, had the look as if their friend went to the hospital (which is telling about Obama's characteristic as a person that he started the debate and said nothing of his supporter Ted Kennedy while McCain wished him well when he opened). Begala on CNN usually has that big grin. It was missing. Palin lover Campbell Brown looked like she was going to puke he cookies. Olbermann had a look as if he has not been able to take a crap for three days. Maddow had those sad eyes as if she just received a Dear John letter (or is it Dear Joan?). The political surrogates were busy trying to fill in the gaps of arguments that perhaps Obama forgot to make during the debate. No one had that look of confidence as if their man hit a grand slam. So as I was changing channels on the remote and came upon Fox, there was Rudy with a big grin. Sure, he is in the McCain camp but considering that none from the Obama side had that look, very telling signs.

WHY WASN"T MCCAIN WEARING A FLAG PIN?, HUH?, HUH?

HE MUST BE A MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mccain forgot his new message

Number of times John McCain mentioned:
CHANGE: 1 time
MIDDLE CLASS: not once

Matt Drudge is a republican hack who writes talking points for Fox News.

Anyone watching McCain's twisted smile and warlike demeanor can see this man is ready to start hostilities with Iran.
His eagerness should be viewed by sane americans as a warning that McCain will not put country first when it comes to the middle class.
Instead, he will continue down the road to financial and moral bankruptcy in war which is George Bush's trademark.

Drudge is trying to game this for Mac. He shouldn't be trying to game this for anyone.

Drudge is publishing his own poll showing Mac won. And he's not reporting ANY of the other polls, including CBS's (which are referenced in HuffPo) showing O won. If you get a chance today, you may want to put in your "vote" in Drudge's "poll."

It has been a horrific two-weeks for McCain, he needed an absolute blow-out with his "home field advantage".

He didn't get it.

More very bad news coming for McCain on Monday when the Katie Couric-Sarah Palin interview airs, I've seen clips and heard that it is a train-wreck for Palin/McCain.

jedmons wrote:
After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain
--------------

You don't get it....we ARE being threatened by Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Al-Qaeda.

McCain doesn't get it either. His only response to ANY international crisis is to start BOMBING someone.

And if he can't look Obama in the eye once in 90 minutes, how the hell is he going to stare down any of our enemies?

The answer, of source, is that he can't. He would continue to be a coward dropping bombs all over the world.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

Yes, and why were we listening to Rudy instead of Palin? Can't she ever speak without rehearsal?

Hope you watched C-span. Wonder if the media will report on McCain's squinting, smirking, bobbing up and down like a school boy, laughing, grumfing, staring into space like a deer caught in the headlights never looking at Obama at all, and did you catch the couple times he shielded his eyes to look out into the audience, then squint and nod? What the heck was that about? Was he getting morse code sent to him with a mirror? Of course, one sigh from Al Gore DESTROYED him in the debates with Dubya....I was switching around to ABC, NBC, CBS from MSNBC and C-SPAN, and mostly ALL OF THEM didn't show the two of them at the same time like C-SPAN did. It was very telling. Obama would look over at McCain while he was speaking, but McCain did everything but listen when Obama was talking. My favorite was at the summation when McCain started gathering up his papers and shuffling them when Obama was speaking: Obama should have said, "EXCUSE ME JOHN. I'm talking!" but, of course, he didn't.  Plus, Palin "declining to comment" after the debate? Excuse me? And ABC inteviews Rudy instead. No. THey should have said, "nope. no rebuttal." Come on. Palin "refuses to comment? " Are we ever going to hear her speak without rehearsal?

Neither man got knocked out in last night's debate. Senator Obama was composed seemed like the "logical problem solver" while McCain, just seemed agitated and "stuck in his old ways". With the failing billion+ dollar blunder of a War in Iraq and our major economic problems here at home, it just seemed to me the guy who voted with Bush 90% of the time was much less convincing last night. It was like "new school" and "old school" thinking on both sides of the stage. (Obama with the laptop, and McCain with the scratch paper). Obama won this debate hands down.

"Why go on and on about Hillary and Bitter Bill?"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 27, 2008 11:04 AM

I'm just saying that, after Hillary Clinton dropped out, we were left with the usual election choice between two flawed idiots.

"Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?"

You don't know what you're talking about. Judging by your shallow grasp of foreign affairs, I would guess you are a Sarah Palin sock puppet.

"McCain stuck to the substance. A little stiff sometimes...",

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:40 AM

McCain could use a little less "straight talk" and a little more rhetorical art.

It was not helpful for him that he kept talking about Iraq, for example. It is useful to hammer Obama on his mistakes with, but, as Obama pointed out, not as a lens through which to interpret the broad world of foreign affairs.

McCain's "sentiment" reader dived when he talked about Iraq outside of a direct question on the country. Surely he knows that is not the most popular hill on which to climb each time he wants to make a national security point.

Substance is one thing, understanding what turns off Independents is another. Surely there is another way he can learn to talk about national security except by way of Iraq.

Similarly, continuing to talk about the economy by invoking federal deficits and earmarks sounds clueless to those who don't understand the relationship between deficits and, say, inflation and how inflation is making it harder for banks to make money lending, etc. If he's going to continue to revert to deficit spending and earmarks talks when asked about the economy, he could at least play the role of teacher and explain the linkages. Instead, he keeps saying the same shallow stuff that doesn't connect to most people.

Here again, he's probably right on substance, but clueless about how to connect intellectually with the broader public, especially independents, on a variety of issues like economy.

McCain could definitely benefit from learning more the art of rhetoric instead of continuing to rely on substance and expecting everyone to be on the same page when he skips providing a tutorial for the whys and wherefores of his ideas. He ends up using tired rhetoric from his base, that probably doesn't mean much to independents & democrats.

Overall, I thought Obama did very well for the first 3/4 of the debate.

He seemed more forceful, and foreward leaning than I expected. He was calling McCain on everything and correcting all of his misstatements. He looked quick on his feet, very confident and in control of the facts.

He was the aggressor. McCain seemed too mild mannered--sort of the reverse perhaps of what expectations may have been.

In the last 10-15 minutes is when McCain seemed to land his biggest blows.

Obama won the first 3/4.
McCain won the last 1/4.

What does that leave people with?

McCain's direct challenge of Obama, saying he was not ready to be CIC because of his experience may have rung a little hollow at the END of the debate, because I think Obama actually showed he WAS capable for the first 3/4.

McCain's arrogance and belligerence with respect to Iran leaves no doubt that, like Iraq for George Bush, bomb,bomb,bombing Iranians is the first thing McNasty will do if elected.

For Americans tired of seeing their money being squandered overseas and disgusted with war corporation fat cat executives like Cheney, McCain is just another George Bush.

I thought they both did well. McCain displayed a depth of knowledge that made clear what most people already suspected: that he's ready to be a great Commander in Chief (far better than the one we currently have) from the moment he's sworn in. Similarly, I believe Obama displayed his full potential: that he may one day mature into an above-average U.S. Senator.

As for Cillizza's dig characterizing McCain's leadership on the rescue plan as a "failed gambit to broker a deal" -- I mean, gimme a break. Given that McCain is back in DC working on improving the deal right now, and given the fact that he successfully brought House Republicans (whose support Pelosi is insisting on) to the negotiating table, it's abundantly clear that McCain's leadership was neither "failed" nor a "gambit."

If the Paulson-Frank bailout as first outlined were viable, they would have gone ahead and done it. In fact, it was wildly unpopular with the public and would have been DOA on the House floor.

If they get a half-decent piece of legislation drafted over the weekend, it will be in no small part thanks to John McCain's decision to assert himself on behalf of the American taxpayer.

And Barack's contribution to the effort? As with the rest of his professional career, nothing of significance.

It was a great night for obama, and he polls of undecided voters indicate he sealed the deal tonight.

Ladies and gentlemen: president Obama.

Let's get out there, vote and finish off the politics of yesterday!

Sarah Palin won.
The Republican Party lost.
Palin won because without a knockout punch on foreign affairs, John McCain's campaign is over with. Because her handlers are keeping her undercover (with good reason after seeing the Couric interview), she is set up to be the leader for the nomination in 2012. The Social/Fundamentalist Conservative wing will proclaim that McCain was not conservative enough and will adopt Palin as their poster child.
The Republican Party loses because this election represented their last chance to attract moderates and independents. In the next election they will be the party of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan.
If McCain had picked Romney, Mitt would have been a brilliant surrogate last night, would have been a reassuring voice in the economic crisis and McCain would be in a tight race. And - win or lose - moderates would have retained respect for the GOP.
The Palin choice and the "I will go to DC and say 14 wishy washy words to show I a a leader" ploy establish that Steve Schmidt is clueless.

During the debate, I thought it remained to be seen who won the Kissinger argument. It depended on who ended up being right when the factchecking was completed.

In the end, McCain probably wins that... slightly. Kissinger in fact HAS said there should be high level (starting with Sec. of State) talks with Iran without precondition, but after the debate he claims at least that he has not proposed or supported starting with presidential level talks.

To Obama's credit, when McCain said Kissinger had not approved presidential talks Obama kept saying "no one has suggested that." In other words, Obama wasn't sayign that.

There were TWO points of contention in their exchange about talks with Iran.
Whether it should be:

presidential

without conditions

Obama was essentially right that all the former Secs of State favor talks with Iran without preconditions. Obama himself has since backed down from emphasizing presidential talks, but since he did say that initially in the primaries, he was forced to defend it. It would have gotten to complicated otherwise.

It was essentially a tie--but because Obama brought up Kissinger, the burden was probably on him to be 100% correct.

Clearly we all see and hear the same thing but our reaction depends upon our preconceived ideas and biases. I felt Obama did well because I favor him. I can see why someone who favors McCain would see him as the winner. Bottom line is that it matters little what we say. Each of us has already decided who "won."
No matter what the candidates say, it comes down to what they will do and no one will know until it is done.
Sadly, our election process has become a popularity contest with the majority of voters.

dyinglikeflies1 wrote:
The "looking in the eye" thing is a silly charge against McCain when you remember that it is McCain who has been pushing for a series of informal, one-on-one town halls with Obama, and Obama is the one who is scared to do that. McCain stuck to the substance. A little stiff sometimes, but get real- first you folks said he was afraid to debate, now you're saying he's afraid to
engage. Both claims are silly.
--------------------

It was McCain who wanted to cancel, remember? His downward spiral in the polls began and people started LAUGHNING at Palin. Unable or unwilling to publicly discuss in detail any of his proposals, he needed a gimmick. The only gimmick he could come up with was to "suspend" his campaign and try to suspend the debate.

Obama's not afraid to meet McCain, whose "ten town hall meetings" would be an incredible waste of time. Particularly since McCain can't clearly explain any of his proposals in even ONE debate. All he would do in ten town hall meetings is precisely what he did last night: drone on about his past experience and stand there like an idiot waving the flag. The American voter is WAY past flag-waving as the sole qualification for president.

Failing to look your opponent / adversary / enemy in the eye, however, is a clear sign of cowardice. Or perhaps, at the very least, a sign of submission. Neither trait Americans want to see in their president. And I understand why you just can't bring yourself to admit that.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

One moment worth noting in the debate: McCain coming out on national TV and affirming his opposition to ethanol subsidies, clearly indicating he's ceded Iowa to the Democrats.

With all respect, jedmons' concern is valid, but... not the choice.

Having to lived in the region and grew up there for many years... you may be wrong with your decision. They are much smarter than incoherent Palin evidenced by Katie's interview - it was a hard pill to swallow. McCain with military experience spent most of it as POW... with respect, could have had a better back up. Personal stubbornness and ego may go contrary to what is best for the country.

Obama handled it well - gentleman and firm. As I am one of the few - decision is made - NOT PALIN for President, but between Obama and McCain...to be made. So far, this one... I am one of 68%...

Be fair and listen... as this is REALLY a crucial... one of the most difficult election for us... Our economy, foreign respect, global status and everything is on the stake. NBC show of Palin interview... it was unbearable... wish we could go back and erase it. It was aired and picked up around the world. Sad...

I was more impressed with McCain's stage presence than I expected to be. He hasn't done nearly as well in debates up to now. That said, I wasn't convinced by his arguments that he would make a good leader. He seemed stuck on the same old talking points about cutting spending, which as Obama pointed out are like using a hatchet to when you need a scalpel. Obama seemed more in tune with how to deal with complex issues, and more capable of leading in a complex, 21st century world.

It would seem that many are interested in who won the Obama McCain get together, but a more important question might well be who lost in this tepid exchange of sound bites. A case can be made that we all lost. It is clear that both candidates offer U.S. war without end. McCain's fatuous alluding to rallying the people of Pakistan is more a symptom of several diagnosis than a workable foreign policy. Except for the fat cats we are not loved in the Muslim world and if you don't believe that why don't you put your American flag pin and take a stroll down the streets of Cairo, Baghdad or take your choice. Such misguided thinking will result in supplying to a politically fragile Pakistan the same benefits we supplied to Cambodia. Obama, with an insistence on building forces in Afghanistan, marches in the historic company of The Great Khan, The Roman Legions, The British Empire and the Russian Empire and will experience the same results. Bomber McCain can't help seeing military solutions as the legitimate substitute for foreign policy as he is a third generation card carrying member of the military industrial complex general Eisenhower warned U.S. about. The presence of American troops in support of a cause alien to the Afghanistan people, while propping up an extraordinarily corrupt regime that shows little or no concern for the lives of the people of Afghanistan is a receipt for continuing bloody disaster. The surge of troops in Iraq that McCain, Obama and others praise so highly was also accompanied with a surge of tax payer money and promises of jobs for those Iraqi's were willing to stop shooting each other for a while. The promise of jobs has already been reneged on and the results are predictable. You will not read about these results in those terms. It will be presented a surge of terrorism. Pulling the surge of troops would be a lot less dangerous than pulling out the surge of greenbacks. Can't say if paying people to stop killing each other is good foreign policy but it does have the merit of working. Http://www.saintpeterii.com

Why go on and on about Hillary and Bitter Bill?

Do you see Mac's side wasting time and energy talking about Huckabee, Thompson, or Ron Paul? No. They lost and you move on. While you're at it, why not ruminate about Tom Dewey and Wendell Wilkie?

The only distinguishing thing about Bill and Hill is that they have made history (if you want to call it that) by actively campaigning AGAINST their party's nominee, as with Bitter Bill's now infamous Say-No-to-O TV road show recently made fun of by Maureen Dowd and Chris Rock.

Let's move on and focus on a bravura performance by O and the issues facing the country...Oy.
____

Earlier post:

"In response to the below poster:
>>Neither McCain nor Obama are "idiots."

They are compared to Hillary Clinton. McCain is an economic and health care-impaired idiot compared to Hillary Clinton and Obama is an all-around empty suit phony who is good at memorizing and speechifying. Obama's a great political animal, but a left-wing-programmed idiot compared to Hillary Clinton.

*********************

Why don't you go talk about politics at church, where I'm sure you put people off there, too, with your combination of ad-hominem, judgmental hypocrisy.""

Neither of the two men got knocked out last night, butit was clear Senator Obama got in the most effective jabs to the face last night. Senator Obama was compoased ans steady throughout the debate while McCain had moments of flailing arms worthy of resrtaints. Obama was clearly the thinker and problem solver of the two, while McCain seemed more stuck in his old ways, as he had great difficulty differentiating himself from Bush's failed policies. it was like "New World" vs "old World" thinking on each end of the stage for the world to see. I'm more inclined to vote for the more convincing of the 2 candidates, and the polls have shown that, that man was Senator Obama.

>I am watching Rudy on Fox right now. He has a big grin.

Well if Rudy Gulliani is smiling then I guess its clear to anyone McCain clearly won. Hun?

You gave away your partisanship - "watching Fox". It's a classic 101 mistake.

"McCain stuck to the substance. A little stiff sometimes...",

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

You're joking right?, if I hear ONE MORE of his (probably phony) corn-ball stories about bracelets and drawing crosses in the dirt I'm gonna hurl.

And I am sick and tired to death of hearing him remind me every time he speaks that he was a POW, I really don't care, it's not one of my requirements for being POTUS.

After this debate. I asked myself one question.

Who would I want as our President if Russia or God forbid, China threatened our security because of issues with N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

There was only one answer.. Sen John McCain

Consensus: OBAMA WON

From HuffPo/according to pundits and the people, Obama WON. Even TIME’s Mark Halperin, a fiercely anti-Obama guy, and GOP strategist Frank Luntz said he won. If Halperin and Luntz said Obama won, he won.

Quoting HuffPo --

““Several positive reviews for Obama. A CBS News instant poll finds:
40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.

68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision
about the economy. 41% think McCain would.
49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.
Two focus groups, one by GOP pollster Frank Luntz and another by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, both declared Obama the winner. Here's video of Luntz, some pretty powerful stuff:
And even Time's Mark Halperin weighs in with his grades: Obama A-, McCain B-.
Update: CNN's poll has all Obama winning overall, on the economy and on Iraq.” " END

It is clear that McCain has overall more knowledge on foreign affairs.

But I think it is also clear that he has shown poor judgment in applying that knowledge.

In response to the below poster:

>>Neither McCain nor Obama are "idiots."

They are compared to Hillary Clinton. McCain is an economic and health care-impaired idiot compared to Hillary Clinton and Obama is an all-around empty suit phony who is good at memorizing and speechifying. Obama's a great political animal, but a left-wing-programmed idiot compared to Hillary Clinton.

>>"My personal guideline: if I would not say it from the pulpit of my church, then I should not say it."

I don't give a damn about your personal guideline. Your religious temperament should tell you not to attack how other people think and express themselves, but rather what their points are, hypocrite.

Why don't you go talk about politics at church, where I'm sure you put people off there, too, with your combination of ad-hominem, judgmental hypocrisy.

::::::::::::::::
"This is true. After she [Hillary] dropped out we were left with a choice between two idiots.

"She beat Obama in debate after debate."

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 8:21 AM

* * * *

It is really time for Aspergirl to take a long walk off a short pier. Neither McCain nor Obama are "idiots." Perhaps Aspergirl can supply us with her credentials for making such a comment. Or is that "it takes one to know one"?

There is absolutely no reason to slander or libel another human being. We may disagree, but being disagreeable is not the answer. Diplomacy is always good and never requires regrets. Where is the civility in discourse with people like Aspergirl? Even Hillary would not approve. My personal guideline: if I would not say it from the pulpit of my church, then I should not say it. Sometimes I step over the line, but this guideline is my single criterion.

Posted by: EarlC | September 27, 2008 9:48 AM |

The "looking in the eye" thing is a silly charge against McCain when you remember that it is McCain who has been pushing for a series of informal, one-on-one town halls with Obama, and Obama is the one who is scared to do that. McCain stuck to the substance. A little stiff sometimes, but get real- first you folks said he was afraid to debate, now you're saying he's afraid to engage. Both claims are silly.

on subject of eyecontact. You have NO IDEA how important it is. (I have a child w/ autism. We struggle to get him to make eyecontact...I repeat DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF EYECONTACT and how it reflects on your ability to empathize, respect, feel compassion and understand your fellow human beings. In battle, it is the eye contact they make before killing that haunts the soldiers afterward.
I'm guessing McCain's advisers will point out these facts.

dyinglikeflies1 wrote:
"In looking through various websites, it appears that the Obama people are indeed spamming the comments sections and insta-polls (same as the Bush people did in 2000 and 2004) but the commentariat is having none of it. They are calling it a draw or a narrow win for McCain."
------------------

It depends which snap polls you looked at.

In those polls where the news organization conducted random samples, it wasn't narrow at all. The CNN poll doesn't look narrow. Nor does the CBS poll. Even the Fox News "poll" wasn't narrow.

Fox News had McCain the winner 86-14. Not surprising since Fox didn't actually CONDUCT a poll, instead asking their VIEWERS to send in their text votes.

It was incredibly FUNNY to watch Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) referring to the Fox call-in results and saying, "I've never seen a blowout in a presidential debate." Well, he still hasn't seen one.

More interesting was re-watching the debate on CNN with the "dial-a-meter" running simultaneously. It was plainly obvious McCain didn't move any independents his way. They went to Obama.

Republicans are going to be out of power for a generation.

McCain likes to call Obama naive. Who was naive in deregulating the banks? .........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/09/27/mccains-problematic-use-of-naive/

McCain showed that he has been trained to not negotiate and always go for the jugular. McCain is a great foot soldier. He is loyal even when his Commander in Chief is clearly wrong and that is what you need in a good foot soldier. Someone who will follow your orders without thinking. McCain has been trained to not look at the enemy. Kill them and move on.

Obama on the other hand is not a foot soldier. Obama is a thinker and a great leader who can can look his enemy in the eye and get a read. Obama is a man who is not afraid to say that even his enemy may have good points with which he can agree, but then go on to articulate where his enemies logic is flawed.

Final analysis? McCain is a foot soldier and not a leader. Obama is a leader and a Commander in Chief.

"McCain looked like Shmegel in the Lord of the Rings. Pretty pathetic."

Posted by: majorteddy | September 27, 2008 10:12 AM

It's funny to see the DailyKos trolls having to use their real logins for a change.

majorteddy - lying? Check the MSNBC website now. Andrew Romano calls it for McCain. It's right there.

(That, and the sad passing of Paul Newman, a truly admirable man).

Though they both stuck to their arguments and defended themselves well, McCain came across as more confident than Obama. I am a supporter of McCain and was a bit nervous for him going into the debate. But McCain relishes it and if in future debates they ratchet up the flak he will pull his seat belt tight and deliver the pay load.

bethillinois said, "Man, if I were that boy's family, I would be livid." leads me to believe that you are NOT a mother.

No, you'd be heartbroken that your boy had been sent to Iraq to die for a lie...and you'd hope other mother's sons would NOT be so poorly served by his country's "leaders," just as Obama noted. He died for his country, but his country's leaders made a horrendous mistake declaring a "preventive" war on Iran...McCain seems to think we can only have peace w/ war, "my friends." scary.

For a man who almost seemed like he was avoiding a debate John McCain was clearly comfortable in dealing with the subject-matter. This debate was to me a tie.
On substance, I give this one to McCain. He clearly knows the regions of the world and their leaders and fits them perfectly onto his conservative view of the world, a very Reaganesque vision.
However, he seemed very condescending in doing so. McCain didnt look like someone who could build consensus with world leaders or even leaders in this country, which runs against his own statements that he's bipartisan. At times he looked almost smug trying to down Obama and by implication the voters who voted for Obama. He had the look of a mean old man like Mr. Smithers in the Simpsons.
Obama was conversational and engaging with Lehrer and his opponent. He had the Kennedy look perfectly. Did he look presidential? yes Did he look like someone who could learn more about international issues? absolutely. He looked very calm, cool and collected.

Apparently, McCain won and won big because virtually all of the left wingnut blogs and sites, including the MSM, said it was a draw. Just like when BHO met with the leadership on the economy at the WH - when he tried to insert himself he was told in no uncertain terms to pipe down because he didn't know what he was talking about, as evidenced further by Harry and Nacy rushing to the mike to blast McCain as they didn't have anything positive about Barack (call me if you need me) Hussein Obama.

Sarah Palin was in a hotel room partying with Republicans and eating hors d'euvres instead of being available to the press for a reaction and comment. Hopefully it was brain food.

I was undecided before this debate and I am even more undecided today. I was hoping one of the candidates would "wow" me but that just didn't happen. Right now I would vote for Jim Lehrer over either candidate. From the very beginning, when neither Obama or McCain answered Lehrer's question on what they were willing to give up to McCain's chiding, Obama's interrupting and smugness, neither candidate showed me anything I needed to see to make an informed decision. As usual, people who already had their minds made up are declaring victory for their candidate when neither distinguished himself. One thing that really bothers me is when Obama supporters run out the racism card when anyone disagrees with him and/or supports McCain. What about all of the African -American voters who will vote for Obama simply because he is half African-American? Before you indignantly fire up that keyboard I have been happily married to a wonderful woman of color for ten years and she hasn't made up her mind yet either. The choice on who to vote for should not be made because of anyone's race, McCain or Obama and shame on anyone who does that.

All these people saying Obama won the debate because he did a better job of making eye-contact -- well, okay, McCain was on top of all the issues, McCain wasn't afraid to say he'd cut the military in order to help us balance our national budget -- as he has ALREADY DONE in the past -- but, hey, Obama did a better job of making eye contact.

Me, I'd rather vote for the guy who knows what he's talking about and who has a solid history of making important (even when frequently controversial) decisions which are consistant with his current talking points.

I can't believe so many posters here think that making eye contact is somehow meaningful to choosing which person best deserves to get our vote.

dyinglike flies===I think you are wrong when you say that Newsweek's guy said McCain won. I just saw Jonathan Alter on Morning Joe and he said he thought Obama came out ahead. That is Newsweek's guy. I think we have some people on here who are lying like McCain.

I thought both men did well and neither was a clear winner. Each won some points.

I thought Obama looked absolutely childish and petulant, however, when he had his "I have one too!" moment, holding up the bracelet of a dead soldier. The clue that it was simply a political prop? The fact he couldn't remember the soldier's name.

Man, if I were that boy's family, I would be livid.

Jim Lehrer was the winner of the debate! He was a professional who stayed where he was supposed to instead of posturing up on the stage. Jim is an example of old time professionalism. Unfortunately Lehrer has been overshadowed by silly, biased posers who are there to show off themselves instead of providing information to the public.

The debate itself started off slowly and finally got going half way thru. There was no clear knock out. Sen. Obama misquoted Henry Kissenger who actually said that we should talk to our enemies at the Sec. of State level or lower.

Sen. McCain should have talked more about cosponsoring Senate Bill 190 (2005) which would have avoided this financial crisis if it hadn't been defeated by the Dems and the large contributions to Sens. Dodd, Kerry and Obama from Freddie/Frannie. Also the Dem. plan to give a large amount of the bail out to Acorn which seems to be a group of footsoldiers for the Dems.

I agree w/ ssgermain's comments about McCain's rude interrupting/bullying/repeated misstatement of facts (and Eisenhower DID NOT write a letter of resignation ... the most annoying thing McCain said last night was the dismissive "oh, please" about Obama's "naivite" re: iran... it's the hypocriscy stupid. McCain offers no respect (or, duh, no "deference") to obama, yet he demands it from media/citizens for his inexperienced/uninformed #2 -- someone who cannot verbalize to Katie Couric ONE coherent thought about foreign policy.

as ssgermaine noted, it is upsetting to witness: "his demeanor and meanness of spirit. He bullied his way through the debate, interrupting, refusing to stop talking when it was time for Obama to speak and speaking in a demeaning and sarcastic way when he addressed Obama. Obama, on the other hand, was, as always, nuanced in his speaking, and open to admitting when he agreed with McCain about things. He treated McCain with the respect one would expect to receive from a fellow debater.

Bottom line: I don't want a bully for president. I want someone who thinks before he acts, and someone who will reach out to others, not try to bully them into submission."

It is just unbelieveable that we will elect another liar who proclaims himself as a "straight talker"...we're in big trouble if people can't see this.

McCain flat out lied about doing anything for the troops, like George Bush, he opposed the GI Bill that would help troops and said that if they done too much for the Gi's they would be tempted to quit the Army and go back to civilian life. He opposed measures that would have rehabilitated amputees and brain injured patients. Obama was instrumental in getting this passed. McCain opposed it, but didn't even show up to vote. He's a liar about helping our boys and showing gratitude. He just wants to burn up the army for war,war,war. Luckily it passed.

McCain did the country a favor, in last night's debate. McCain's sarcasic and bellicose nature emerged, immediately. McCain's refusal to make eye-contact with Obama, or even look his way, made it easy to imagine McCain's refusing to comunicate, negotiate or compromise with foriegn leaders with whom he was not already in full agreement. I''m afraid that Sarah Palin may be a heartbeat away from replacing Dr. Strangelove.

For those too young to remember Dr. Strangelove, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, a 1964 Stanley Kubrick film.The story concerns a mentally unstable US Air Force general who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

Newsweek's guy calls it for McCain. The press in general does too.
"An interesting observation from the Politico's Ben Smith:
The mild consensus in the press file was that McCain won, if not in particularly dramatic fashion."

But the insta-polls, spammed by the Obama maneuverists, go the other way. Not a surprise.

That's bunk. Obama won. Check out HuffPo which today reports a cross-section of the reactions from the media and polling: all say Obama won (or didn't lose -- which was the minimalist goal anyway), NONE that we've seen say Mac won.
__

"In looking through various websites, it appears that the Obama people are indeed spamming the comments sections and insta-polls (same as the Bush people did in 2000 and 2004) but the commentariat is having none of it. They are calling it a draw or a narrow win for McCain.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 10:02 AM"

Obama clearly won the first presidential debate. He was clear, concise, and very convincing as the Commander in Chief. McCain appeared condescending and his refusal to make eye contact with Obama was not only rude, but provides more insight. When a person can't look his opponent in the eye, it gives me the impression that the person is either intimidated, or is not telling the truth.

love234america wrote:
"Most of the Obama supporters who commented here tonight probable either did not even see the debate or were in a bar drinking and getting high while watching it. They have no clue about who answers correctly and showing that they were experienced to serve as our president and commander in chief."
-------------

You are an idiot. A racist idiot at that. I'm an Obama supporter and sat in my very own living room watching the debate. I seriously doubt you saw one minute of it. I suspect the only part you watched was the spin on Fox.

I've seen many presidential debates. The only thing that made this one extraordinary was McCain never once looked Obama in the eye.

McCain is a coward. A scared, confused, eratic old man unfit for the office.

Republicans will be out of power for a generation.

McCain looked like Shmegel in the Lord of the Rings. Pretty pathetic.

It is amusing and amazing to read some of the posts about who won or who lost. At least America wins by having debates of this type.

I, for one, prefer a person who has thoughtful, reasoned responses (albeit a little hesitant at times - just try debating yourself) and who is willing to look at the opposition. Even when McCain was talking about Obama in a personal way, he never looked at him. This even carried on after the debate was over. McCain found it very difficult to look at Obama. There was one brief moment when it looked like McCain glanced over to the part of the audience where Obama may have been.

Yes, I agree with a previous post. If McCain cannot look Obama in the eye, then McCain is not ready for full-time diplomacy. You see, when you fly a plane and drop bombs, you do not have to see your enemy face-to-face, or eye-to-eye. This is why McCain can "bomb, bomb, bomb" Iran without even blinking. McCain is truly a scary man. He has learned nothing from his war-time experiences. "War is hell." To send our youth into any war is to send them to Hell. To rush them to war on false pretenses or hyped-up intelligence is criminal and treasonous. Pre-emptive war or pre-emptive strikes should be outlawed.

I still give Saddam credit for his position that he had no WMD because he did not use anything on a large American army that had assembled at Camp Doha in Kuwait just before our offensive. Had a mad dictactor like Saddam had WMDs, one well-placed weapon would have reduced our forces by 70,000 in one attack in a pre-emptive strike. Think about this. Saddam told Dan Rather more about his capabilities before we launched our war than Bush told Dan Rather about his service in the national guard.

I hoped this debate would help me decide which one to vote for (or whether to write in Hillary).

What I learned from watching the debate:

Obama continues to seem to me to not stand for much of anything BEYOND what the polls tell him would help him get elected -- he was FOR earmarks before polls told him that supporting earmarks would hurt him politically as he runs for president, for example.

McCain already has a long record -- we know he's sincere about his take on the issues at hand. He was right about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being in trouble, and he's right that Cox ought to be fired.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether McCain has finally learned that blanket deregulation is bad policy. If he has, then he has a chance to take our country back from the Conservatives who have been doing their best to ruin it for decades now. (Let him throw them Palin as a bone -- are we really worried that this woman will be a threat to Obama when he or Hillary runs for president 4 or 8 years from now?)

Obama has been financially irresponsible in the past -- that energy bill he signed was an example of poor decision-making on his part -- meanwhile REAL energy progress goes undone. Let Obama have 4 or 8 more years to develop policies he can be proud of -- then he can stand on his OWN record, and at that point, he'll be ready to lead us.

You might say that Obama deferred foreign policy to Biden, but I don't think that was as far out of line as McCain's referring to Gen. Petraeus as though he was some sort of "Mighty Mouse" with magical powers who would win all of the wars. I don't know why this hasn't been mentioned, but his repeated point about how we would win, and why we supposedly are winning, is because of this "great General". Assuming he's even right, what happens if Mighty Mouse leaves, dies, etc.? What if the next General isn't so magical? It wasn't about strategy, it was about the "great General Petraeus"...Yippee! What a great thing to pin your hopes on!

In looking through various websites, it appears that the Obama people are indeed spamming the comments sections and insta-polls (same as the Bush people did in 2000 and 2004) but the commentariat is having none of it. They are calling it a draw or a narrow win for McCain.

"Actually it's just the opposite. McCain trying to stave off the Cold War traits that Russia/Putin are showing.

And he is doing that by standing firm with the countries that have broken off from Russian rule and are trying to live their lives under democratic governments."

I find that a curious attitude. Russian missiles in Cuba almost sparked a catastrophic hot war during the cold war. The US would not stand for having Russian arms so close to its borders. Now the US is doing the same in reverse, trying to plant them in countries around Russia. Admitting Russia's close neighbors to Nato is really provoking the bear and a dangerous policy.

Obama frankly belongs in Hollywood with those that make a living pretending they are somebody else. He'd fit in perfectly.

----------------

LOL.
Given that McCain is spending $5000 a session on a make up artist, I'd say you got the wrong man.

A great Senator, a disaster as President.

"This is true. After she [Hillary] dropped out we were left with a choice between two idiots.

"She beat Obama in debate after debate."

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 27, 2008 8:21 AM

* * * *

It is really time for Aspergirl to take a long walk off a short pier. Neither McCain nor Obama are "idiots." Perhaps Aspergirl can supply us with her credentials for making such a comment. Or is that "it takes one to know one"?

There is absolutely no reason to slander or libel another human being. We may disagree, but being disagreeable is not the answer. Diplomacy is always good and never requires regrets. Where is the civility in discourse with people like Aspergirl? Even Hillary would not approve. My personal guideline: if I would not say it from the pulpit of my church, then I should not say it. Sometimes I step over the line, but this guideline is my single criterion.

OBAMA WINS/OBAMA WINS/THE END OF "BITTER BILL" CLINTON'S ANTI-O ROAD SHOW (MAYBE?)

Obama, not by a knockout, but by a unanimous decision.

All the major dailies gave it to Obama, as did all the legitimate polling. HuffPo's canvassing this morning of the various reactions reflects the strong consensus opinion that Obama won. No mainstream media outlet or commentator as far we can tell thought McCain won. A Paul Molitor performance for O: a couple of doubles and a clean single up the middle.

Mac came across clurish, snippy, condescending, and unpleasant. His constant blinkin' and twitchin' destroyed any attempt on his part to look like the calm thoughtful leader of the free world. O looked great: erect, clear-eyed, well-modulated.

It's his personality, we know, but O does need to rid of the pauses and occasional stammering and develop crisper attack and comeback lines. Like him or not, Reagan was the master of that and, if you can get that right, to be honest, the substance almost doesn't matter to the public.

We thought O could, and should, have knocked the economic issues out of the park, but oddly didn't. A couple of nice vignettes from O about real folks struggling (as he provides in all his stump speeches), and a plea for including working folks in the bailout, would have decked Mac for the count. Why O didn't pull those standing talking points out of his pocket? As it was, O hit opposite-field flair shot doubles.

Best news of the day: "Bitter Bill" Clinton didn't run to the Clinton News Network (CNN) and Faux News after the debate and declare Mac the winner and the gush about him for another twenty minutes. Maybe Axelrod finally DID have that talk with Bill about his recent, somewhat comical SAY-NO-to-O TV road show which, as a practical matter, probably ended any hope of future presidential runs by HRC.

This whole Presidential Election sickens me. I am an unbiased party. At least I like to believe that. The United States has become UNUnited. Splitting up into parties was something that man years ago, George Washington was not fond of and gave his reason as to why, ( from The White House.gov site

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html

"To his disappointment, two parties were developing by the end of his first term. Wearied of politics, feeling old, he retired at the end of his second. In his Farewell Address, he urged his countrymen to forswear excessive party spirit and geographical distinctions. In foreign affairs, he warned against long-term alliances"
and look at Us now.......
BOTH Presidential Candidates have something of value to offer. Obama is MORE aware of today economics, but McCain is WELL more aware of Our need of Military Leadership. We need BOTH of thier qualifications. Why can't We have BOTH?
It's a VERY difficult decision on Whom to choose. We should be going back to the way the Constitution was writen. There's a lot of information in regards to Military Leaderships for a reason. Without Military protection, We are defenseless in Our economy, as well. Realistically, no matter Who is Elected, both need the qualities of BOTH present Candidiates for Presidency.
You know the way I see it, parties have caused a 'segregation', that has caused a racial, smurking, disrespectful, petty 'picking' Campaign. I'd rather hear exactly what each of them are planning to do besides saying "what We need to do is" and start telling Us "What I AM going to do is", and give Us something concrete. The actual plan, not just a lecture on "how We got here in the first place", with NO repricussions for people like the one saying it. I don't agree that the People should be 'taken for' for THE problem that THEY had caused, or had a part of. Knowing this crisis was looking to happen, should have been worked on a LOT harder 2 years ago by BOTH parties, when it was beginning to look grim. Why did neither do anything more apparent THEN to fix it?
There's a lot of questions unanswered. I am curious as to what they are doing now to fix this problem before I make any concrete decision of who I'd want leading me......

Chris I am not sure what debate you watched. I agree with you on one point Jim Lehrer was fantastic. No gotcha questions, no trival pursuit, all serious business.

As for McCain, he wore a major scowl half the time and a smirk the other half. He did not engage the television audience and Obama spoke directly to the middle class many times. Plus you made a major flub on the talking to our enemies enchange. Kissenger did indeed echo Obama's remarks. For McCain we must remember facts are fungible.

I guess you really are a Drugde worshiping protoge of David Broder. Oh, now I understand why you saw a different debate than the rest of us.

Anybody who thinks Obama "won" this debate is one of the tingly-legged Obama Lemmings. He came off as really hollow and smug. McCain was combative and substantive.

I want a President who can look our enemies in the eye. McCain couldn't even look his opponent and fellow countryman in the eye.

It betrays a fundamental weakness.

Obama is made of stronger stuff.

If the race hinges on electing a war/post war leader during horrendously dangerous times, McCain won. But if it hinges on the daily money woes of most Americans at this moment, then Obama won. McCain HAS to make his point more effectively why supporting American Industry is the only effective way to support the American family. I understand the argument, but God knows McCain did not make it very convincingly last night. Americans are willing to suffer in the short term but not without knowing why we must. Obama is offering candy to the scared and the hungry, and they are leaping for it. McCain must demonstrate that it is only candy and what we really need is meat and potatoes. Today I would not bet on McCain winning, and that is a shame.

It amazes me how long Obama can speak without really saying anything, and without providing specific details. Long on style, very short on actual content.

Read the transcript and see for yourself. McCain is clearly far ahead in a true understanding of fundamental economic and global issues.

Obama frankly belongs in Hollywood with those that make a living pretending they are somebody else. He'd fit in perfectly.

Clearly, Obama won the debate on points, clarity, tone, and style. Barack was fairly focused during the debate while McCain often would go off on tangents to avoid either answering or responding to certain questions.

Let me say a few things about McCain's use of "You do not understand," or "Senator Obama doesn't understand," and so forth. At no time did McCain look at Obama. Obama either had already proved that he understood or responded with insightful understanding. McCain, like many Republicans, think that just because you say it, it must be true.

When Obama chose certain specific things that McCain said to agree with, Obama was demonstrating in a real way what bipartisanship looks like. To have bipartisanship, if both parties can agree on certain points in the argument, then consensus may be a possibility. At no time did McCain indicate any agreement at all with Obama. I have observed that Republicans think that agreement with the opposition on any point is a sign of weakness. Democrats think that agreement yields a working relationship upon which major achievements may occur. If Barack had said that the American flag is red, white, and blue, McCain would have said that it was green, black, and yellow. (I chose these colors on purpose.)

Regarding "preconditions." Barack is absolutely correct about not forcing another party in a discussion to accept preconditions, such as the ones that Bush wants imposed on hostile nations before engaging them in diplomacy. I was assigned to a committee once when the CEO established the committee with a set of pre-conditions about the outcome. We dissolved the committee because it was obvious that the CEO already had the answer. He just wanted to use the committee as his excuse for imposing the policy on the company.

Preconditions are akin to when Barack mentioned negotiating with hostile nations, and the Bushies attacked Barack for "appeasement." Negotiation and appeasement are not the same thing. However, this is the word game that some politicians play because they know that many people in their base are looking for reasons to either oppose or "hate" the opposition. This is one small reason for the partisan politics being practiced in America now. And we really want to export this to other countries? Really?

Barack by his responses and his nature last night showed that he can work with all parties in a truly bi- or multi-partisan way. McCain, by not even looking at Obama, demonstrated that he does not really want to engage in any form of real dialogue with the opposition. Just think about this: how would you like to try to talk to your boss, a peer, or a subordinate and he never looked at you?

McCain is a conflicted man. He covers a basic insecurity with a boisterous egocentrism that is not what we need for President of the United States. For those Republicans who just do not like the Democratic platform, they should take a good hard look at their candidate, who has departed significantly from the adopted Republican platform. Perhaps they should look at Barack and the Democratic Platform more closely or look at a third-party candidate. I can assure you of one thing, McCain will disappoint.

People like Verazzano make me cringe. You watch a debate. 99% of the people watching it come away with the correct impression: Obama did significantly better than McCain. Reporters and others analyze the debate and concur. And then there are the dummies: People here who say "Obama didn't have a good night". You have got to be either racist, just dumb or so indoctrinated by your family's Republican stance or hatred for blacks that you just do not get it. Obama RULED and OWNED McCain last night. McCain had to repeat 10 times: "Obama doesn't understand..." and Obama proved he not only understood, he has a perfect grasp of politics and what is needed in the years to come. He took the HIGH ROAD and did not attack McCain. Do not take his class as weakness. He did tell McCain that ALL his choices have been WRONG. McCain was WRONG about voting to attack IRAQ, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, etc, and followed BUSH on every bad decision...Why? McCain is pro BUSH and wanted to make money for the rich. That has been the downfall of this country. People like BUSH, McCain, etc will DESTROY THE USA. Our Dollar is WORTHLESS PEOPLE. Leave your RACISM at home when going to the polls this year or we will SINK FURTHER AND DECAY into a third world country. OBAMA is the ONLY WAY TO VOTE. McCAIN & PALIN ARE AN INSANE CHOICE. I CANNOT FATHOM HOW WE ARE ACCEPTING THIS MOOSE SHOTTING, SOCCER MOM FROM HELL WHO THINKS WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ABORTION IF THEY WANT. IT IS 2009. ARE PEOPLE REALLY GOING TO VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN THIS YEAR? DO YOU WANT TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY? DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE THAT MUCH? BARACK OBAMA WILL BE AN AMAZING PRESIDENT. I AM WHITE FOR THE RECORD FOR YOU SOUTHERN REDNECK RACIST IDIOTS...AND FOR GO-D'S SAKE VIRGINIA - UTAH, WYOMING, IDAHO -- HOW CAN YOU ALL BE SO INCREDIBLY OBTUSE? GROW A BRAIN AND VOTE DEMOCRAT THIS YEAR IF YOU WANT TO SALVAGE THIS COUNTRY. YOU ARE NOT INFORMED OUT THERE IN THE BOONIES WHERE YOU ALL LIVE. STAY IN A REAL CITY FOR A WHILE AND LEARN A FEW THINGS: LIKE THE FACT THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE KILLING THIS COUNTRY. WAKE UP DUMMIES!

.

.

Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.

.

Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.

.

Obama came across as petty and whining as he constantly tried to get the moderater to step in and save him. That's definitely NOT presidential.

I simply cannot vote for Obama who goes to Washington during a crisis only because his opponent did and when he got there he sat back and did nothing but try to look presidential.

McCain at least tried to get the partisans to come together and he succeeded in that they are now talking.

The deal that was announced by the Democrats earlier was a deal BETWEEN Democrats only. The Republicans hadn't been consulted. That's no deal!

Obama doesn't make my leg tingle. He is NOT WHAT HE APPEARS TO BE!

If he had been properly vetted by the media this would be common knowledge.

Obama won the debate. He was focused and made sense. McCain kept saying the same things over and over was all over the place. McCain couldn't stop talking about how the Iraq surge worked but misses the big picture...the enemy is in Afganistan / Pakistan not Iraq.

McCain may have been a maverick historically but he's in-step with the Bush Republicans now. How can the same party with the same lame policies make any difference?

Content: a draw. Style and presentation: Obama by a mile. Neither hit it out of the park, there were no zingers, so you have a takeaway of overall impressions. On foreign policy knowledge and experience which is supposed to be McCain's usp he never looked any better than equal to Obama and that meant it was a relative loss for McCain. On economics we got Republican boilerplate while Obama message was intrinsically more attractive to ordinary people. It was on style and presentation where Obama stood out a mile. A lot is physical presence of course, this guy looks like Othello, Tiger Woods or a king, while McCain looked tense he never stopped smiling it seemed to me. All the focus groups and polls gave it to Obama by various margins and I think it was principally because of presentation although some of the internals suggest on the "looking after you" argument Obama also scored heavily. I'd have said it was a narrow win for Obama overall but the polls seem to suggest he did better even than I thought.

Aside from the fact that John McCain did not offer anything new in the debate, I was appalled at his demeanor and meanness of spirit. He bullied his way through the debate, interrupting, refusing to stop talking when it was time for Obama to speak and speaking in a demeaning and sarcastic way when he addressed Obama. Obama, on the other hand, was, as always, nuanced in his speaking, and open to admitting when he agreed with McCain about things. He treated McCain with the respect one would expect to receive from a fellow debater.

Bottom line: I don't want a bully for president. I want someone who thinks before he acts, and someone who will reach out to others, not try to bully them into submission.

Clearly Obama won the debate. Mainly the expectations were higher for him than McCain and he held his own on both economic and foreign policy. Was much more focused on the issue's asked than 'puffing' up his hero status and travel with lobbyists throughout the World as McCain has done.

Obama stayed on line with the average voter, needing information about his administration goals, McCain could not talk about ordinary people like me, needed something more than his travel diary and leaders that know him well, believe me, leaders and countries around the World have a very negative opinion of John McCain and a positive one for Obama and clearly the reason he kept confirming is war, war, war, leaders and generals in war, lied about everything including his record aligning with Bush, not the maverick he wants you to believe.

John McCain is not a maverick. Yes, he does get angry and buck the system, but that is with everything across the isle, his own party, his family life, his so called professional career and his campaign staffers. John McCain, in my opinion, refuses to give credit to anyone, whether a brave fireman on 9/11, a police officer, his own fellow POW's, the countries young exhausted military, the financial suffering the American people endure each and every day from unemployment and nothing to feed their children with.

It's all about him, his suffering, his knowledge, his heroism, his false dedication, false support of the troops, he exploits every avenue of society to win. That is no hero. That is sick.

.

.

Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.

.

Voted One of the Best Poltical Blogs For the Election of 2008

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

Bookmark It Now !!!

.

.

“ Obama gets The McCain beat down in debate”

No doubt Obama camp is happy they kept lowering expectations for his debate performance because Obama got his clock cleaned by John McCain who kept the young inexperienced candidate looking immature and childish talking in circles. All Obama could do was interrupt with bogus claims of "lying" and looks of frustration and despair. (Not a good performer, unless someone writes a pre-written speech for Obama to study or read on teleprompter) On Iraq and all else, Obama keeps looking to the past instead of the future? Where’s the change Obama? McCain understands the next president has to look to the future and secure not only victory but also stabilizing a fledgling democracy. Obama kept up his all season stupid rhetoric, the war was wrong, the war is wrong, I’m black that makes me qualified to be president!

Especially since he stupidly picked 30 years in Washington, pro war supporter Biden (whose son is a lobbyist) as VP. Slapping the face of 18 million democratic voters, who David Axelrod said he don’t need. Again proves Obama is unstable and does not have the experience to make important decisions or have control over this great country.

Obama said seven times or more that he agreed with McCain. That’s good for McCain because when McCain is President Obama can work with him to get needed reforms through a failed Congress. McCain displayed a thorough knowledge of world affairs. Obama did not! And talked in circles and really had no coherent thoughts other than his main talking points from his pre-written campaign speech.

Bottom line; Obama got “ The McCain beat down” only because of the lowered expectations Obama just barely got across the finish line. Obama definitely finished dead last. No surprise we all know Obama is not good on his feet, as Hillary wiped the floor with him 20 plus times! Bottom line McCain had a great night while Obama is going home licking his wounds. Of course you can expect to hear the tabloid cable news , better known as Obama News Networks CNN & MSNBC media made fairy tales, that he was great, too bad for CNN that voters finally realized these two Obama news networks are not very truthful and bias. They offer voters looking for facts…NOTHING…

I really think Grandpa should put on his jammies, slip on the slippers, and go to bed.

He's starting to look really tired, and lives constantly in the past, If I hear the the line I was a POW one more time I'm going to puke. The country doesn't give a rat's ass how times you've been to Europe or what you did twenty years ago, he is unable to comprehend that American's want their kids to come home from Iraq, they are proud of their kids, but they don't want to lose them.

Iraq is a mistake, an unjust invasion, no matter how you justify it, no weapons, no nukes, no nothing, a dictator leader, yep, but there are lots of those around.

John says the surge worked? worked how exactly, we are still there, Americans and civilians are still being killed, the Iraqi's want the U.S. out of their country.

John McCain has a clear vision of America's past, however that vision is somewhat clouded by his lack of memory.

Tomorrow is what counts, tomorrow is where we are going, where are our kids going to be? Iraq ?

John get over the wars past, holster your six shooter, learn to talk to people, instead of pretending nobody's in the room with you, you were in a debate John, not talking to a blank wall.

Your vision of my future and my kids future, really sucks John!

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

Saturday, September 27, 2008
What A Debate Reveals: Anger, Entitlement and Contempt

What I found shocking reflecting on last night's debate was how angry and entitled McCain was, in a very open way.

McCain's manner was one of that who believed he should not even be on the same stage with this person. This indicates a person of extreme rights and extreme wrongs, not a statesmanlike persona, but an angry and impulsive one.

McCain carries strong ideas of what a liberal is, ideas that very little from his cherished ideas of who betrayed the nation during the Vietnam war. A stock character, driven and created by his own rage, carried, as it has been since the '70s, with a virtual ideological blindness--blinded by a contemptuous rage--that there are others who cannot understand the world the way he can. This is not judgment, but angry certainty. This is not readiness, but a just-contained rage that he should be confronted by such ideas.

You can see it in his constricted "can you believe it" rage at one who disagrees with him. This kind of contemptuous, angry dismissal of others ideas leads easily into the impulsive decisions of the last few months--generated with barely contained contemptuous rejection of those who would reject his ideas--only the most recent forms of those essential constructs--a contemptible media, easily fed with false notions and panaceas, as he believes they were earlier in his life; intellectuals, whose reason and deliberation is contrasted with the sharp, impulsive action that for his life has constituted a certain knowledge, and an angry, certain need to sweep away those who would stand in the path of righteous certainty.

What is beautifully ironic is how McCain maintains this contempt even as he switches from one position to another in the opportunistic second--this is when the look of contempt and entitlement turns, for a moment, to anxiety and panic.

Soon, however, the gaze is back. No matter what the new position is--impulsively determined, desperately grasped--if only "they" knew better. If only "they" knew the truth.

This kind of ideological rigidity and certainty (note how Obama could not contain himself from smiling when McCain attempted to compare him to Bush in that regard) combined with impulsive decision making, from the "gut" of sure knowledge, is what has created the outcomes of the past 8 years.

It was--in a setting where one would not expect it to be, where one would expect McCain to contain it--glaring apparent last night.

This is an amplification of the last 8 years rather than a change.

We do not need to experience this type of decision making again.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

We still don't know Obama and he clearly STILL cannot answer a simple question. Do you know OBama?

http://doyouknowobama.blogspot.com

"the insta-polls (CNN, CBS) and focus groups (Luntz and Greenberg) all had Obama as the winner by a significant margin."

These are never trustworthy. Each election cycle, after each debate, they get spun and maneuvered, or one campaign's people spam the insta-polls. People are getting increasingly cynical about these media "declarations" about who won a debate.

Cillizza seems to be biased toward McCain, but the insta-polls (CNN, CBS) and focus groups (Luntz and Greenberg) all had Obama as the winner by a significant margin.

McCain seemed like an angry old man... like a near-retirement school teacher who is frustrated that his students haven't done their homework. "I've been doing this for too long for you kids to treat me this way."

Temperament issues? I think so.

"Who lost? We did- because Hillary Clinton, the best of the lot, was the one who should have been up there."

Posted by: dyinglikeflies1 | September 27, 2008 8:15 AM

This is true. After she dropped out we were left with a choice between two idiots.

She beat Obama in debate after debate.

Sure seems like a lot of right wingers are trying to fill up this section. Guess that's Rove's plan. As an independent and not living in the US, I found McCain's attitude and posture both rude and childish. I would have voted for him in 2000 but not now. And especially with that wierd VP he picked. I'm no debate judge, but I would give the edge to Obama--he was Presidential while McCain was rather obnoxious.

The answer to "who won" is obvious-
If you were for McCain, it's obvious he won;
If you were for Obama, it's obvious he won.

Who lost? We did- because Hillary Clinton, the best of the lot, was the one who should have been up there.

That being said, Obama gave a better appearance but McCain just flat out won on points, and on facts. If Obama could learn how to give a straight, honest answer instead of spending the night trying NOT to answer, he might have won it.

HEY, I GOT A BRACELET, TOO!

IT HAS ... UH.. WASSISNAME ON IT.

.

.

EVERYONE I have spoken to in the real world believes that McCain threw Obama off balance - McCain was steady.

Obama appeared flustered.

At several times in towards the end Obama was struggling to get a word in - struggling to say something relevant - and struggling to defend himself. Obama kept on talking-over McCain and Jim Lehrer as well.

It seems like Obama was desperate in the second half to score some points because Obama thought he was losing the debate - and he did lose the debate.

McCain won on the issues - this talk about "there was no gaffe" that is sillytalk - McCain slammed Obama on issue after issue last night - McCain looked Presidential.

.

.

Chris When are you going to moderate a debate ???

.

I thought Obama won the discussion over meeting with foreign leaders. McCain seemed to embody the old Bush doctrine of working through "democracies" to force change around the world. Obama explained his plan well and watched with a smile as McCain blustered about Kissinger.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

.

McCain clearly won the debate.

Obama was RUDE he kept on interrupting -

Obama appeared to be flustered several times - "Can I respond to that" he kept on saying - The interruptions were extremely bad for Obama - he sounded like a little kidd trying to talk over.

The media I have no idea where they are coming from. Obama did not look good last night - he was off-balance and many times he appeared to stutter in choosing his words.

McCain showed that he was in command of the debate - unprepared - McCain came in and presented his case that he is clearly the most qualified candidate for the position of President.

.

McCain talked about Iraq too much. The Independent response dove every time he did. He should only talk about Iraq when the explicit topic is Iraq. He shouldn't have started talking about Iraq when the question was about 9/11.

What was with that? Is that truly the only lens through which he views the universe?

If this is the case, McCain should be prepared to teach others why Iraq is so central to the war on terrorism. But the Republicans don't seem to do that outreach.

"Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/tws_exclusive_kissinger_unhapp.asp

As for on content and substance, McCain and Obama dueled to a draw. However, McCain appeared to have lost points with the audience (and most importantly, voters) on the nuances of his presentation and what he did not say.

First, when you're debating your opponent, you MUST acknowledge on some level that your opponent is there in the same room with you. For the life of him, McCain would not even look at Obama when McCain debated each point. That was the whole point of the debate format - debate with each other. Was McCain trying to depersonalize Obama? McCain came across somewhat annoyed - like he had contempt for Obama - maybe, that's why he would not even look at him when he delivered his response. Not an effective debate strategy to treat your opponent as a ghost when a real person is actually standing there talking to you. Some people really find the strategy of pretending the other person is not there really creepy, while others find the depersonalization strategy rather off-putting and offensive. People are real, even though they might disagreed with your viewpoints.

Second, with the focus on the economy, John McCain did not even mention the words "middle class" - NOT ONCE. It's the economy, stupid! McCain - did middle class voters even matter to you? The fact that McCain did not provide any acknowledgement of audience will work to his detriment.

The polls that were taken immediately after the debate suggested strongly that a segment of voters viewed negatively this the non-acknowledgement of middle class voters during McCain's presentation. Remember - it's the perception that counts here.

So, on content and substance, McCain and Obama played to a draw. But, McCain lost some people with his presentation. Although McCain scored strongly on foreign policy, he did not hit it out of the park because Obama mostly held his own on the foreign policy side.

As for Obama, my main criticism is that he did not show more passion on the economic issues. Although some would agree or disagree with the cumbaya moments, that too is a matter of perception. Some might view Obama's responses in agreement as a demonstration of an effort to show common ground (i.e., bipartisanship), Others, on the other hand, were left scratching their heads wondering whether he had any comeback at all that differred with the contrasting viewpoint. Most notably, McCain did not seize this issue to emphasize that he has over the years reached across the aisle. (My note: Although McCain sometimes vote against the GOP caucas, McCain does not bring anyone with him on the other side - maybe, that's why McCain did not seize these moments.)

But, you have to admit that Obama created a "You Tube" moment when he hammered McCain on the fact that he was wrong on the Iraq War, wrong on claiming the war was going to be easy to win and wrong on claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction by declaring YOU WERE WRONG. In other words, Obama in a tactful way called McCain a liar to his face (not to mention, the same goes for Bush and the war supporters, by the way). I would hedge my bets that many voters saw this gravitas as a big positive for Obama. The faceoff in the wrong on the Iraq War exchange will the moment that many will remember from this debate.

WELL PEOPLE "YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG" THE 5 MILL SHOULD HAVE GONE TO CHARITY! I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM REALLY TOOK THE "CAKE WALK" YOU COULD SEE OBAMA'S ANGER IN HIS FACE, YES BLACK PEOPLE DO CHANGE COLOR WHEN THEY ARE MAD, AND AS FAR AS MY CANDIDATE, MCCAIN, HE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER! ALL IN ALL PEOPLE STOP THE LYING, IT WAS A PATHETIC DEBATE! I COULD HAVE DONE BETTER! AND ONE THING FOR BIDIN, WHEN CNN INTERVIEWED HIM, WELL LIKE USUAL HIS MOUTH NEVER STOPPED! PRAISING OBAMA, WHEN IN FACT IN THEIR DAY JOBS HE NEVER HAD TOO MUCH NICEITIES FOR OBAMA! I WANTED OBAMA TO TELL THE COUNTRY WHAT EARMARKS THE DEMS HAVE IN THIS "BAILOUT", BUT HE IS A SHREWD ONE, HE WOULDN'T DARE TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT IS WHY THIS "BAILOUT" WAS NOT APPROVED! I HOPE THE REPUBS HOLD THEIR GROUND ON THIS ONE! I SAY PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND LET THE AMERICAN WORKERS DECIDE IF WE GIVE THE BIG CEOS A BUY OUT! AND DEMS, MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE WEB TODAY TO SEE WHO GOT THE MOST HANDOUTS FROM THESE BIG CEOS SPENDING OUR MONEY! I BET PELOSI, AND RIED, AND SHUMMERS NAME SHOULD BE ON THAT TOO!!!!!!!!!

During the first part of the debate, I found myself wondering when McCain and Obama were actually going to start answering the questions that Jim Lehrer was asking. Neither of them could directly answer the question of where they stand on the $700 billion bailout, as well as what they would have to give up for this crisis in terms of spending if they were president. Lehrer did a good job at acknowledging this problem and often tried to bring the candidates back to his original question.

Both candidates played up what they think they have going for them. McCain constantly talked about his experience, throwing in comments about how he has been fighting against spending his entire career and calling himself independent and a maverick of the senate. Obama tried to focus his attention on linking McCain to Bush while at the same time promoting his platform of change. When Obama mentioned his “Google for government” plan that would allow anyone on the internet to see where federal tax dollars are being spent, he managed to get a discrete jab in on McCain who has been said to not really know how to use the internet.

I thought McCain’s approach to focus most of his attention on the television audience was successful. The TV audience certainly accounts for more of the voters who need to hear from the candidates. McCain addressed the TV audience while Obama addressed McCain, often trying to bring in a more conversational aspect by calling him “John.” Interestingly enough, McCain didn’t use Obama’s first name throughout the debate. McCain often had a goofy grin on his face while Obama was speaking that seemed to bother me at times, but when the cameras showed the candidates side by side, that grin seemed to say that McCain knew exactly what he was going to say after Obama was finished speaking, or he had a point that he just couldn’t wait to make. And usually, he did.

You mentioned that McCain used the word “experience” more than “change.” This is a perfect example of a detail the media would and should pick up that was probably only falling subconsciously on the ears of the average viewer. Most voters know that Obama is running on a very strong platform for change, but when McCain tries to do the same thing, it’s often hard to compete. But his strategy—whether intentional or not—to use the word “experience” was a smart one if he wants to try and stand apart from Obama. It will be interesting to see what sound bytes the media picks out from the debate to play over and over again that will ultimately be the shorter summary of the night remembered by most viewers.

"the country wants to rid itself of Republicans in power"

If that were true, Obama should be up by much more in the polls. The fact that he isn't and in the democrat primaries were he over polled in something like 8 out of 14 contests says a lot.

Also, with the lack of real reporting on Obama's past associations, his high profile Hollywood friends, Obama should be wiping the floor with McCain in the polls .

But yet he isn't.

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

As a fascinated overseas observer (from Australia) of your election debate, it looked to us over here that Obama won very easily. More educated, more measured. McCain just kept hammering the same "I've got the experience" line so ham-fistedly that it became very dull. But that's in general - I just wanted to raise a specific point that caused me to gasp with astonishment. John McCain repeatedly praised Ronald Reagan - obviously he considers him more popular with the public than the lamentably unpopular George Bush. But he also made much of how he would slash Government spending. Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but didn't Ronald Reagan massively increase the defecit in both California as Governor and in the USA as President? The biggest spending President in history, in fact? Until the latest Republican government, of course! Really: does nobody ever pick up these candidates on such obvious pieces of nonsense?

For those voters who are predisposed to vote Democratic, but remained undecided until now because they questioned Obama's knowledge, toughness and readiness on Foreign Policy, tonight's debate likely provided sufficient evidence for Obama to win their support.

As to those voters who were undecided because they were unsure of the two candidates on economic issues, Obama clearly came across as more understanding of the plight of the middle-class, so again he scored.

As to those who want change but were thinking Obama might be too "liberal" the fact Obama was willing to acknowledge points of agreement with McCain was probably helpful in presenting Obama as bipartisan or non-partisan in approach.

McCain came across as angry and rather grouchy throughout the debate, whereas Obama seemed more sharp and concise than in the Primary debates. While Obama was willing to admit to areas of agreement with McCain, that served to make his expressions of real disagreement on Iraq all the more powerful.

In short, there were no real knockouts registered in this debate. However, since Obama now has a clear lead and there was nothing of a game-changer in this debate, Obama benefits. Especially since this debate was on McCain's "turf" of Foreign Policy. If McCain is going to score a knockout, it's going to be in that issue area. Obama displayed Presidential qualities. He didn't allow McCain to rattle him, and he seemed to get under McCain's skin at times.

While Obama probably should have pivoted away from the taxes/spending topic when discussing the Economy to trying to explain why the financial crisis occurred and the way out of it, overall Obama performed well.

McCain is now in a box. He needs events to change or he needs a knockout in one of the two remaining debates. He is starting to look like Walter Matthau in Grumpy Old Men and less Presidential.

McCain's performance overall wasn't bad, but he didn't get the boost he needed. The election is really starting to break for Obama, as it should in a year where the country wants to rid itself of Republicans in power. Some Republicans appear incapable of acknowledging how unpopular they truly are. As I have commented previously, this is 1980 in reverse. Many Republicans refuse to understand, or are incapable of understanding that.

"When moderator Jim Lehrer said at one point that the two candidates had spoken for almost the same amount of time, we were surprised; McCain seemed from our perspective to command more time."

Obama speaks so much but says so little

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

MCCAIN 65% 135,485
OBAMA 33% 67,840
NEITHER 2% 4,725

Total Votes: 208,050

CNN Poll of Debate Watchers:

Who won?

Obama: 57%

McCain: 38%

"Just count how many times he referred to Reagan and his approach with the Cold war.

I'm sorry but how is knowing history and it's effects a policy?

"He does not understand the value of diplomacy."

Bill Clinton just said the other day that he couldn't normalize relations with Vietnam without John McCain. I don't think there is higher example of understanding diplomacy than meeting with your former torturers.

He knows plenty and he also knows when & where to place it at the highest presidential levels.

Obama's "diplomacy speak" and from his followers always sounds a little like a low level UN diplomat's training motto.

Obama's "We Are the World" sloganeering is best suited for perhaps the UN, not the leader of the free world.

"I don't trust him with education"

I do.

It's Obama's education philosophies that are untrustworthy.

Obama's connection to William Ayers, the Chicago Anneberg educational challenge which was basically an indoctrination of William Ayers radical 60's leftist agenda being taught to children.

Also, Obama's behavior regarding this connection has been troubling too. Obama's lawyers tried to block any investigation into the challenge and has tried to halt commercials airing ads that connect him to Ayers.

Obama has lied to the American people about William Ayers. William Ayers isn't just a person who lives in his neighborhood. Their relationship is much closer than that and much deeper.

Let's hope the MSM starts to really doing their job and investigating Obama on his relationship.

And with ACORN too, which I last heard may get up to 20% of any profits the government recovers from these bad loans. It's been written into this 700 billion bailout. Scary!

This would be terrible as ACORN is an organization rife with corruption, radical agenda's and lawlessness.

Good job Chris, when delusion is all around. As a Canadian, I can simply declare the obvious - McCain was Presidential. Obama was not, more like a high school teacher level actually. McCain confidently knew the facts and figure and was sharp as a tack. Obama had the 5 o'clock shadow, the grumpiness, the glares, the whinings; he's put his hand up like some little school kid. I like what the anchoress said, Obama was the little terrier at the side of the Bulldog McCain, as the hand from the vulldog smacks him fown with the words, "Shadddaaap!"
Shew 'em who's a man and who is a metrosexual. McCain: make my day, punk.
Let's see McCain won the Conventions, the VP picks, the Saddleback Forum, and now the First Debate...
Doesn't matter all the shrieks coming (and cutting themselves!) from the priests of Baal; McCain hit it out of the Park like Babe Ruth, while Obama was still tryin' to sell hotdogs....

sheryl7962:

Just count how many times he referred to Reagan and his approach with the Cold war. Apparently that is his raw model.

The guy said that he will not talk to the Spanish prime minister, an ally in NATO and a democratic western country because they decided to pull out of Iraq. He does not understand the value of diplomacy. He only knows that we need to show force. His VP said that we would have to attack Russia to defend Georgia if they were part of NATO. Maybe we need to nuke them too?

It doesn't concern me that pessimistic democrats minimize their candidate's perceived deficiencies any more than it doesn't surprise me that republicans are trumpeting the victory of their own candidate.

What WILL surprise me is seeing republicans posting on November 5th.

I can't wait to see the silence.

"I do not need the views of a guy that is stuck in a cold war mentality."

Please expand on that. Where is John McCain and his policies akin to the Cold War?

Actually it's just the opposite. McCain trying to stave off the Cold War traits that Russia/Putin are showing.

And he is doing that by standing firm with the countries that have broken off from Russian rule and are trying to live their lives under democratic governments.

If anything Obama deferring the matter to the UN in his first response is the world you shouldn't want your children to grow up in.

I am a lifelong Democrat and thought that John McCain was the winner tonight. Obama came off as too-young and inexperienced, arrogant (kept calling McCain "John" as if he was talking to a child), petulant and impatient (kept interrupting). Obama had lots of facts memorized, but he didn't speak from the heart - he spoke as if he was giving a college lecture.
It is typical that the far-left media on TV immediately began slamming McCain after the debate and declaring him the loser.
It is strange that Obama always talks about "finding common ground" with our political enemies, but has never found common ground with Republicans in Congress. For that matter, he never found common ground with the Clintons!
Obama may present himself as a change candidate, but he owes a lot of people a lot of favors for getting him elected if he wins. He will do the bidding of Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, just as he has shown that he will with this $700B bailout of Wall Street. He has no thoughts of his own outside of the straight party line, and he will never do what is right - he will only do what is politically easy.
We don't need a President who says that he is going to let Congress "do what they do best" and "I told them to call me if they need me" re: why he didn't return to Washington for the bailout talks.
I come from Hawaii and know the real story about Obama's upbringing. He was raised by grandparents who spoiled him rotten. He went to a very elite school here in Hawaii where only rich kids go. He came out thinking he was just a little better than those around him. And he still comes across that way...

Energy? Who is talking about energy when we spend billions of dollars on an even bigger pipe dream : Hydrogen, instead we should put our money on efficiency, geothermal, distributed power generation (e.g. windows that act as solar panels - see latest inventions, solar panels on rooftops in big cities etc.)

McCain is an old, grouchy out-of-touch rich guy that does not know anything about the common person. I don't trust him with education, i don't trust him with science and technology. Look what the other smart cookie, Bush, did with EPA, science research etc. Sorry but these guys are and have been total failures when it comes to what it really matters, retaining the competitive, inventive edge of America.
Pipe dreamers. We need new ideas and new perspectives. If the best the republicans have to offer is McCain then we are in serious trouble as a nation.

sheryl7962:

Sorry but the world that a 70 year old sees is not my world and not my children's world. I do not need the views of a guy that is stuck in a cold war mentality.

"I am amazed at the number of responses in favor of McCain."

Then you should have more diversity in your life if you are surprised by how many people are favorable to McCain.

Both these men have legions of voters.

It's very nice for you that Obama speaks to you but he doesn't speak to me at all.

I like America, flaws and all. I don't want such a rookie leading this nation. He doesn't even have a sense of himself let alone what this country stands for.

Which isn't uncommon from a man who was abandoned by three parents, who's mother was a socialist anthropologist with very little kinship with America.

In order for America to stay strong and the most powerful, prosperous country in the world, we need a leader that loves it to his core.

Barack Obama has, too many times, talked about not being proud of Americans e.g we use too much of the world's oil, we don't speak a second language, people cling to their religion and guns.

Heck Obama even ended this debate on a negative note saying nobody in the world likes us anymore.

It just ends up making him sound like he would be better off being the president of the UN, not America.

If media outlets are saying it was a tie, then clearly McCain won. They are so in the tank for Obama, that this is the best they can do for him: lie and call it a tie. All of the angry democrats on here saying how bitter and old and grumpy McCain was, are only projecting their own nastiness upon him. I am a lifetime Democrat, and I just don't see what you saw. These are the same arguments we made describing Bush during his debates with Gore. Gore, naturally, was smarter, more poised, etc., while Dubya was dumb and smirking. Well, he won twice. I loathe conservativism, but I loathe phoney liberals even more. Obama has really brought out the phoney liberal in Democrats. Pathetic.

I am amazed at the number of responses in favor of McCain. From my own experience in watching the debate, I saw a man who would not directly answer the questions, but who add "I have experience with that. I can do that." but wouldn't go into HOW, or what exactly that experience was. I don't buy the cake that's labeled "best" without looking at the ingredients. Half of the time I had to stop and ask what he was talking about now because he trailed away from the subject time and time again.

Obama stuck to the topics in debate and rebutted what McCain brought up. "

You are right." isn't necessarily a defeating statement as the press is trying to make it out to be. How many "buts" followed those comments. THIS is a strategy in debating. But people of America are stopping at the opening of the argument. But again, the attention span of most people is three seconds.

As far as the economy is concerned, Obama spoke to me personally. Meaning, he showed me how he could change my life today. McCain showed me how the CEO's can add another wad to their pile. He also showed me how cutting government spending can affect the lives and jobs of thousands of people that will only increase the cycle we're already in.

As far as foreign policy or at least Iraq is concerned... Bring our troops home. After being sent back time and time again, you can't expect them to have that much more to give. What we should have learned about Vietnam is to get out of a war that we should have never been a part of. Why do we keep falling into the same cycles of history repeating itself.

As Einstein defined, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

McCain is in the past, lives in the past and will remain in the past. How many times did he comment on "being older and more experienced"? Because as stated many times before I will here... we need more of the same, right? Because what has happened and occurred in the past is working for us now.

Obama's eyes are focused on the future. Tomorrow and ten years from now.

What this world needs is change. The entire world is looking at this election and watching where we go from here. Maybe it's time to look in the mirror and see what it is that they all see. It's time to be honest with who we are and where we're headed. It's finally time to be brave enough to take a step forward.

Voting McCain is Insane.

Thank God and all that is good in the world for our Next President, Barack Obama.

"It's been fun decimating you personally"

"Remember, it isn't that you won or lost, it's that you tried"

LOL, these "legends in their own mind" types in blogs are always good for a laugh.

Remember Dixie Wrecked, self love, high mindedness is a cry for help.

"Finding common ground with an opponent is a key to diplomacy and leadership."

Obama rarely strays from the party line, In fact he has a 97% voting record with teh Democrats. Not much of a record of "finding common ground with an opponent".

So these pretty words are just that pretty words. Obama is just filled with pretty words and very little deeds.

how anyone who is backing McCain and the female version of Jethro Clampett, question another's intelligence is beyond me.

Thisisreality,

you were dumb enough to take the bait. Everyone else was smart enough to back off. It's been fun decimating you personally. We should do this again sometime on another thread. In the spirit of things I will be gracious enough to give you the final words in our little tit-for-tat. Nighty-night. Make sure you kiss your mother and say your prayers to Jesus. And don't forget to brush your teeth.
Remember, it isn't that you won or lost, it's that you tried, but next time you should try HARDER!

I am for fiscal conservatism and personal responsibilities. But one thing I think Obama may do better than republican is the world police attitude of GOPs. Seems they have geopolitical blood running in their vein. Though no candidates want to point out as its politically unpopular. The core of many problem with North Korea and Iran nuclear weapon issues has to do with the bellicose, adversary stance that the Bush government took against Russia and China. That push these two former communist countries (China though still communist party ruled but effectively state capitalist) to exploit the situation to counter the US. If US build more alliance than bully the world, we would have to spend much less of our hard earned tax dollars on oversea military operations. Of course, that's not Cheney or many geopolitical camp wants, not the big defense contractors like Halliburton want.
Having said that, I still believe McCain has the maverick spirit and right judgement to make sensible call on these issues.

Finding common ground with an opponent is a key to diplomacy and leadership. Arrogance and condescension are not the traits of a great leader. Neither are they the traits of a great human being. While John McCain's demeanor may appeal to a certain type of person, to me and many others, he behaved with little grace and appeared spiteful, mean tempered and out of touch. I cannot imagine him in diplomatic talks with world leaders, particularly when things are not going his way.

That Barak Obama was kind to this sad, and angry older man only makes me more convinced that he is the right man, with the right temperament, to lead our country out of the dismal ruin of the last eight years of republican rule.

mortfan,I have to disagree with you, a ton of people are making minimum wage or less. This study is from last year, but given the shape this country is in, I doubt things have improved. we started with the most recent Current Population Survey data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (from 2005). From this source, we learned that there are 75,609,000 workers in the U.S. who are paid wages or salaries at an hourly rate (or 60.2% of the total U.S. workforce of 125+ million in 2005.) We also learned that 479,000 people are paid the minimum wage and that 1,403,000 people on average earn less than the current minimum wage level of $5.15.