The Presidential Debates

[Mikelus]

I think is better to ignore lazur, he runs away when he gets owned (quite often lately) and justifies anything from Reps, he is not objective at all.

[redfirebird2008]

I know one thing. McCain blatantly lied on the Kissinger issue tonight.

[Gilpesh]

There is no need to go after lazur like that. Just because he doesn't agree with your candidate gives you two no right to just simply be rude and arrogant towards him :o

Hippie. Maybe you should level that criticism at Lazur also. :whatever:

[redfirebird2008]

There is no need to go after lazur like that. Just because he doesn't agree with your candidate gives you two no right to just simply be rude and arrogant towards him :o

No, I read his post and it was pure spin. Neither candidate dominated the other tonight. The only thing where there was a major difference was demeanor. Obama had class and McCain lacked it.

[lazur]

I don't think anyone would have expected any other answer from you. I only have one question for you Lazur - Did you approve of John McCain's demeanor throughout the debate?

I don't think it's any secret that McCain and Obama do not like each other. The difference that *I* see (and this is just MY opinion) is that Obama could pretend to be your friend and really not be, while if McCain doesn't like you, he'll be respectful, and he'll be a gentleman, but he's not going to treat bring you a rose or take you to dinner.

I thought McCain was somewhat rehearsed, but oddly statuesque at times, probably because, well, he's old. However, he held up and remained on message. At first I thought it was odd that he didn't look at Obama during the debate. However, Obama was the same way through most of the debate himself, so how he could expect McCain to just know when now was the time to converse when the moderator had been trying to get them BOTH to talk to each other for the first 30 minutes at least.

But at the end of the day, the two candidates weren't speaking to each other. They were speaking to us. And that is okay with me.

[danoyse]

There is no need to go after lazur like that. Just because he doesn't agree with your candidate gives you two no right to just simply be rude and arrogant towards him :o

I agree, but in all fairness, that's how lazur has been treating anyone who doesn't agree with him.

[Gilpesh]

while if McCain doesn't like you, he'll be respectful, and he'll be a gentleman, but he's not going to treat you like a child.

That's it. You didn't watch the debate.

[hitmanyr2k]

There is no need to go after lazur like that. Just because he doesn't agree with your candidate gives you three no right to just simply be rude and arrogant towards him :o

I'm not going after him. I'm telling him the honest truth. He's the last guy that should be saying "fact" on anything when he's void of doing any kind of research or reading on anything before posting something ignorant.

[The Senator]

So I assume lazur was very centrist in that long post of his?

[redfirebird2008]

I don't think it's any secret that McCain and Obama do not like each other. The difference that *I* see (and this is just MY opinion) is that Obama could pretend to be your friend and really not be, while if McCain doesn't like you, he'll be respectful, and he'll be a gentleman, but he's not going to treat bring you a rose or take you to dinner.

I thought McCain was somewhat rehearsed, but oddly statuesque at times, probably because, well, he's old. However, he held up and remained on message. At first I thought it was odd that he didn't look at Obama during the debate. However, Obama was the same way through most of the debate, so how he could expect McCain to just know when now was the time to converse when the moderator had been trying to get them BOTH to talk to each other for the first 30 minutes at least.

But at the end of the day, the two candidates weren't speaking to each other. They were speaking to us. And that is okay with me.

At no time tonight did McCain "respect" or even attempt to show "respect" towards Obama. Refused to look him in the eye when they were shaking hands for crying out loud. If he takes that kind of tactic into foreign relations as President, he'll be even worse than GWB.

[hippie_hunter]

No, I read his post and it was pure spin. Neither candidate dominated the other tonight. The only thing where there was a major difference was demeanor. Obama had class and McCain lacked it.

I do agree with you that neither candidate dominated tonight, but I don't see you attacking excel for going off on how Obama "owned" McCain when really no ownage of either candidate occurred.

It really just proves my point that McCain supporters are going to see McCain as the winner (like lazur) and Obama supporters are going to see Obama as the winner (like excel).

[danoyse]

OK, before this turns into an attack-fest: let's keep the arguing to the debate, and not at each other.

[Hole Shot]

OK, before this turns into an attack-fest: let's keep the arguing to the debate, and not at each other.


boring.:oldrazz:


EDIT: had to put the smiley in there before the mod thinks I might be a real rabblerowser or whatever the hell you call it.

[hippie_hunter]

Hippie. Maybe you should level that criticism at Lazur also. :whatever:

lazur wasn't attacking other posters in his post. If he did I would have.

He was presenting his opinion the way he sees it, just like you do. He has the right to post it as long as it doesn't attack other posters and you have the right to not agree with it.

[redfirebird2008]

I do agree with you that neither candidate dominated tonight, but I don't see you attacking excel for going off on how Obama "owned" McCain when really no ownage of either candidate occurred.

It really just proves my point that McCain supporters are going to see McCain as the winner (like lazur) and Obama supporters are going to see Obama as the winner (like excel).

I didn't attack Lazur. I called him a Spinmeister. That's not an attack, that's the truth. And if it makes you happy, I feel the same way about Excel although I did not see his comments. If he was trying to claim Obama dominated, he's full of crap except on the demeanor "issue," which it is an issue. McCain's behavior tonight was not Presidential and would NOT be acceptable as a representative of our country meeting with foreign leaders.

[Gilpesh]

lazur wasn't attacking other posters in his post. If he did I would have.

So you have never read any other post by him ever?

[lazur]

I think is better to ignore lazur, he runs away when he gets owned (quite often lately) and justifies anything from Reps, he is not objective at all.

LOL, now that's some spinning. I haven't backed down yet. Perhaps if you'd been around longer than, what's that, November of last year?... maybe your commentary would carry more credibility.

[danoyse]

Time.com grades the candidates:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1845106-1,00.html

John McCain

Substance: His arguments were hard to follow at the beginning, but he found his voice as the debate progressed, although he never seemed fully in control of his message. He had plenty to say about the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia, but often bogged down his own answers when trying to unfurl quips and soundbites. Stuck with bumper sticker slogans on the economy, and while he got a bit more detailed on foreign policy, he stayed at his usual level of abstraction. If he truly knows more about the world than Obama, he didn't show it in this debate.

Grade: B-

Style: Cluttered, jumpy, and often muddled. Frequent coughing early on helped neither his arguments nor his image. Jokes about being deaf and anecdotes about Normandy and George Shultz seemed ill-advised — even his pen was old. His presentation was further hindered by his wandering discussion of the differing heights of North and South Koreans and his angry assertion about how well he knows Henry Kissinger. Fell into the classic politician's trap of inserting familiar stump speech applause lines into debate responses — which only works if done with enthusiasm and clarity (and if received by applause — a big No-No in Lehrer's auditorium, which the audience obeyed seriously and silently). Keenly aware of the grand, grave occasion, McCain wavered between respectful and domineering, and ended up awkward and edgy.

Grade: C-

Offense: Emphasized his bread and butter issues of taxes and spending, and hit Obama on his failure to visit Iraq and his expressed willingness to meet with dictators. But while mocking his opponent on a few occasions, which reflected his acute disrespect for Obama, he did so in an insufficiently sharp and detailed manner — and unevenly worked elements of his rival's record into his attacks. Still he was utterly confident about his own experience, knowledge, and policies, even when tripped by his own tongue and distracted by the strains of debate practice. The main problem: Obama's obvious preparation and sharp answers contradicted McCain's frequent claims that the Democrat was uninformed and "didn't understand" key issues.

Grade: C+

Defense: He managed to ignore most of Obama's jibes, but was eventually baited into giving an extended answer about his policy differences with President Bush, after his opponent repeatedly mentioned McCain's regular support of Bush's budgets. Was visibly riled when clashing with Obama over a variety of issues, including Iraq, sanctions, and spending. He also chose to boast about Sarah Palin (although not by name) as his maverick partner, who, after her shaky week, may no longer be his ace in the hole.

Grade: B-

Overall: McCain was McCain — evocative, intense, and at times emotional, but also vague, elliptical, and atonal. Failed to deliver his "country first versus Obama first" message cleanly, even when offered several opportunities. Surprisingly, did not talk much about "change," virtually ceding the dominant issue of the race.

Overall grade: B-


Barack Obama

Substance: Quite manifestly immersed in the past, present, and future details of policy, and eager to express his views, which have been expanded, honed, and solidified during the last 18 months of hard campaigning. Still, he did avoid the nitty-gritty details of policy positions in favor of broad principles and references to working Americans, thereby not presenting the kind of specifics that some voters are waiting to hear from him.

Grade: B+

Style: Polished, confident, focused. Fully prepared, and able to convey a real depth of knowledge on nearly every issue. He was unhurried, and rarely lost his train of thought even when the debate wended and winded — and uttered far fewer of his trademark, distracting, "ums." At times, however, Obama revealed the level of his preparation by faltering over a rehearsed answer. He seemed to deliberately focus on the moderator and the home audience, with McCain as an afterthought — except when on the attack. Chose to avoid humor, for the most part, in favor of a stern demeanor, and in the process, came off as cool as a cucumber.

Grade: A

Offense: Linking McCain to Bush in his very first answer, he kept it up as his primary line of attack. Forcefully hit McCain for his early support of the Iraq War. Though he never drew blood, he did keep McCain a bit off balance, often with clever references to McCain's recent statements.

Grade: B

Defense: Had a reasonable answer for every charge that came his way — with little anger, bluster, or anxiety. Often interrupting McCain attacks with swift explanations and comebacks, he managed to spin accusations of being liberal as evidence of his relentless opposition to George Bush (in replies that were clearly planned). Offered a rather clumsy alternative to McCain's well-known, moving story of wearing the bracelet of a soldier lost in Iraq (a gift from the soldier's mother), with a story about a bracelet of his own. Fearless, without condescension, he attempted the gracious move of agreeing with or complimenting a McCain position, occasionally to his own detriment.

Grade: A-

Overall: Went for a solid, consistent performance to introduce himself to the country. He did not seem nervous, tentative, or intimidated by the event, and avoided mistakes from his weak debate performances during nomination season (a professorial tone and long winded answers). Standing comfortably on the stage with his rival, he showed he belonged — evocative of Reagan, circa 1980. He was so confident by the end that he reminded his biggest audience yet that his father was from Kenya. Two more performances like that and he will be very tough to beat on Election Day.

Overall grade: A-

[ShadowBoxing]

Most initial polls in debates had Ron Paul winning by a large margin as well. Or Obama doing well against Hillary Clinton when he clearly didn't. I wouldn't take them seriously.
Interesting Hippie_Hunter, although I think Obama's performances against Hillary were not as good as polls suggested, I think Obama does look more Presidential than McCain. The funny thing is, I got half of the debate on TV, half on the radio. McCain came off much better when I wasn't looking at him.

[lazur]

I didn't attack Lazur. I called him a Spinmeister. That's not an attack, that's the truth. And if it makes you happy, I feel the same way about Excel although I did not see his comments. If he was trying to claim Obama dominated, he's full of crap except on the demeanor "issue," which it is an issue. McCain's behavior tonight was not Presidential and would NOT be acceptable as a representative of our country meeting with foreign leaders.

Then please do tell what I was 'spinning.' If you're going to make the accusation, at least bestow upon me the courtesy of the specifics.

[hippie_hunter]

I agree, but in all fairness, that's how lazur has been treating anyone who doesn't agree with him.
I'm talking about that particular post though. Instead of just properly dissecting it on why they disagree with it, it is automatically dismissed as spin or just go off insulting lazur as a gullible Republican fool.

It's just going to lead to arguments and there's no need to have another pointless lazur vs. liberal Hype posters argument.

[ShadowBoxing]

At no time tonight did McCain "respect" or even attempt to show "respect" towards Obama. Refused to look him in the eye when they were shaking hands for crying out loud. If he takes that kind of tactic into foreign relations as President, he'll be even worse than GWB.
I think that hurt him a lot, and in the long term undermines his "bipartisan" record he keeps going back to.

[Excel]

You know, wtf happened to McCain? At the 9/11 debate he came across smart and likeable, tonight he came across like an arrogant *****; I kind of ignored yall comments when I read em earlier but its pretty damn shocking.

The vibe he reeked was just so....bad.

[redfirebird2008]

Then please do tell what I was 'spinning.' If you're going to make the accusation, at least bestow upon me the courtesy of the specifics.

Every single point you made about how McCain was loaded with facts, etc. while Obama was supposedly vague, etc. isn't really backed up by what they were actually saying in the debate itself. You can bust out with politicized talking points all you want to try to spin what went on, but I thought it was mostly a stalemate. Both guys got in some good shots at the other, both showed some pretty good knowledge on some big issues, and neither one backed down. That does not spell a significant victory for either.

[danoyse]

I'm talking about that particular post though. Instead of just properly dissecting it on why they disagree with it, it is automatically dismissed as spin or just go off insulting lazur as a gullible Republican fool.

It's just going to lead to arguments and there's no need to have another pointless lazur vs. liberal Hype posters argument.

I totally agree. :up:

[hippie_hunter]

Interesting Hippie_Hunter, although I think Obama's performances against Hillary were not as good as polls suggested, I think Obama does look more Presidential than McCain. The funny thing is, I got half of the debate on TV, half on the radio. McCain came off much better when I wasn't looking at him.

I'd agree with that statement for the most part. McCain does come off a lot better just simply listening to him.

Though looking, I think they both failed on account you could easily tell that they both go on each others nerves quite easily.

[lazur]

Time.com grades the candidates:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1845106-1,00.html

Yeah, that's objective. Sounds like one person's opinion to me. In other words, of no more use than my own, except mine wasn't riddled with exaggerations ("even the pen looked old") and other commentary. I could easily point out, for example, that Obama looked old himself, or very tired - though I suspect that they were both tired, which even further makes even bringing it up against one and not the other 'biased.'

It would be nice of these 'commentators' would do more than issue opinions on posture and whether or not someone is 'old.' It would be nice if they started paying attention to what's actually being said...

[bunk]

I tried to view this debate as an uninformed American (I heard a co-worker today ask another if McCain was that "congressman guy"). I've decided, it's impossible to do that though. I simply don't know what it's like to be so completely oblivious. I truly have no clue what on the fence Americans will take away from this. I guess there are some snap polls that show Obama has taken the win. I still think most will make their decision based on the out of context punchline type sound bytes that reveal only a shadow of the actual debate. I can imagine countless American citizens going to bed tonight in anticipation of which candidate they will be informed has won the evening... I'm probably just being pessimistic though, I've been drinking since 9.

[ShadowBoxing]

I'd agree with that statement for the most part. McCain does come off a lot better just simply listening to him.

Though looking, I think they both failed on account you could easily tell that they both go on each others nerves quite easily.I feel the massive diss McCain did to Obama at the beginning though could haunt him down the line. He has to prove he's a little more gracious. I think Obama ultimately "won" (if you could even call it a "win"...not really) in so far as he did not become the nervous or overly thoughtful child people wanted him to be. He stood his ground next to a far older, and far longer served Senator.

[Hole Shot]

The funny thing is, I got half of the debate on TV, half on the radio. McCain came off much better when I wasn't looking at him.




Here's the weird thing IMO.



Leading up to this debate I always thought this was going to be a revisit of Nixon-Kennedy because Obama has a significant advantage over McCain on the appearance level.



It sorta happened, but not because Obama is younger and a better speaker than McCain. It happened because McCain just projected this negative and angry demeanor.

[jaguarr]

I'm talking about that particular post though. Instead of just properly dissecting it on why they disagree with it, it is automatically dismissed as spin or just go off insulting lazur as a gullible Republican fool.

It's just going to lead to arguments and there's no need to have another pointless lazur vs. liberal Hype posters argument.

I would like to applaud you for recognizing lazur as his own special class of social ideology. :D

jag

[hippie_hunter]

I feel the massive diss McCain did to Obama at the beginning though could haunt him down the line. He has to prove he's a little more gracious. I think Obama ultimately "won" (if you could even call it a "win"...not really) in so far as he did not become the nervous or overly thoughtful child people wanted him to be. He stood his ground next to a far older, and far longer served Senator.

Oh most definitely. While still his weakest area, Obama has certainly gotten better in debates and was able to stand on his own.

[Marx]

I don't think it's any secret that McCain and Obama do not like each other. The difference that *I* see (and this is just MY opinion) is that Obama could pretend to be your friend and really not be, while if McCain doesn't like you, he'll be respectful, and he'll be a gentleman, but he's not going to treat bring you a rose or take you to dinner.

I thought McCain was somewhat rehearsed, but oddly statuesque at times, probably because, well, he's old. However, he held up and remained on message. At first I thought it was odd that he didn't look at Obama during the debate. However, Obama was the same way through most of the debate himself, so how he could expect McCain to just know when now was the time to converse when the moderator had been trying to get them BOTH to talk to each other for the first 30 minutes at least.

But at the end of the day, the two candidates weren't speaking to each other. They were speaking to us. And that is okay with me.

I'm not sure we were watching the same debate. In no way was John McCain respectful to Barack Obama. Not one time that I saw. McCain didn't look at Obama once during the debate. Whenever Obama spoke, McCain looked down and away or out into the audience with his jaw clinched. He laughed, scoffed, and spoke down to Obama like he was a naive child who needed to be educated on 'how the world really works.'

To the second point that I bolded - Even if you do not like someone on the national or world stage, you have to show some kind of professionalism. McCain, unfortunately, was severing lacking in that department tonight.

Overall, as I have said many times now, the debate was even. Both candidates did what they needed to do. The edge, in my view, goes to Obama on the account of McCain's arrogance.

[ShadowBoxing]

It sorta happened, but not because Obama is younger and a better speaker than McCain. It happened because McCain just projected this negative and angry demeanor.
Funny story though, that's what happened to Kennedy. Kennedy isn't the brightest bulb on the tree, he was only a C average student who couldn't pass an economics or language class to save his life. While he was young and charismatic, and that took him far, most who listened to Nixon on the radio thought Nixon commanded the facts and was much more qualified. Those who saw the debates noticed how sweaty and uncomfortable Nixon was on stage and thought Kennedy was the clear winner.

[Excel]

Time hit the nail on the head.

[Doomed_hero]

i listened to the debate on radio and even without seeing the reactions, its seemed like Obama was more on top of things. McCain seemed bitter, like he really didnt want to be there and Obama was below him . yet he seemed ill prepared while trying to paint Barak as a ill prepared canidate.

[ShadowBoxing]

i listened to the debate on radio and even without seeing the reactions, its seemed like Obama was more on top of things. McCain seemed bitter, like he really didnt want to be there and Obama was below him . yet he seemed ill prepared while trying to paint Barak as a ill prepared canidate.
I would say I agree with that for the first half, when Obama kept on the economy and some of the Iraq questions. Though when we got into Russian and Iranian questions I thought McCain proved slightly more informed, however in the end both those countries are uncharted territory and I don't think Georgian politics influence voters that much.

[danoyse]

Yeah, that's objective. Sounds like one person's opinion to me. In other words, of no more use than my own, except mine wasn't riddled with exaggerations ("even the pen looked old") and other commentary. I could easily point out, for example, that Obama looked old himself, or very tired - though I suspect that they were both tired, which even further makes even bringing it up against one and not the other 'biased.'

It would be nice of these 'commentators' would do more than issue opinions on posture and whether or not someone is 'old.' It would be nice if they started paying attention to what's actually being said...

It was an opinion piece.

[ShadowBoxing]

It was an opinion piece.There is no way to analyze a debate and NOT have it be an opinion piece. There are still people out there, I imagine, who feel Mondale, Ron Paul and Bob Dole won every one of their debates

[Hole Shot]

Though when we got into Russian and Iranian questions I thought McCain proved slightly more informed, however in the end both those countries are uncharted territory and I don't think Georgian politics influence voters that much.


OK I have question right here. I missed something because they were talking about Russia and then Obama suddenly started talking about alternative energy. I missed the segway there. What was that about?

[Excel]

If it was an opinion, piece, its hard to tell.

[Gilpesh]

OK I have question right here. I missed something because they were talking about Russia and then Obama suddenly started talking about alternative energy. I missed the segway there. What was that about?

The point that Russia is somewhat supported by oil money. So to take that away, alternative energy blah blah blah

[ShadowBoxing]

OK I have question right here. I missed something because they were talking about Russia and then Obama suddenly started talking about alternative energy. I missed the segway there. What was that about?
Obama just went off on a tangent. Although I don't think tying things back to domestic issues is necessarily a bad thing with him.

[Doomed_hero]

I would say I agree with that for the first half, when Obama kept on the economy and some of the Iraq questions. Though when we got into Russian and Iranian questions I thought McCain proved slightly more informed, however in the end both those countries are uncharted territory and I don't think Georgian politics influence voters that much.

but i thought we where all georgians.

[lazur]

Time.com grades the candidates:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1845106-1,00.html

Yeah, that's objective. Sounds like one person's opinion to me. In other words, of no more use than my own, except mine wasn't riddled with exaggerations ("even the pen looked old") and other commentary. I could easily point out, for example, that Obama looked old himself, or very tired - though I suspect that they were both tired, which even further makes even bringing it up against one and not the other 'biased.'

It would be nice of these 'commentators' would do more than issue opinions on posture and whether or not someone is 'old.' It would be nice if they started paying attention to what's actually being said...

[Carcharodon]

Yeah, that's objective. Sounds like one person's opinion to me. In other words, of no more use than my own, except mine wasn't riddled with exaggerations ("even the pen looked old") and other commentary. I could easily point out, for example, that Obama looked old himself, or very tired - though I suspect that they were both tired, which even further makes even bringing it up against one and not the other 'biased.'

It would be nice of these 'commentators' would do more than issue opinions on posture and whether or not someone is 'old.' It would be nice if they started paying attention to what's actually being said...Um...did you build a time-machine or something? Or are you just confused? :huh:

[Doomed_hero]

I agree it was a opioin pieice, which is hard not to write when its politics, but i still feel most the points to be right. Obama seemed like he had a better temperment, and while tired, really wanted to answer the question. McCain seemed like the entire debate was a waste of his time.

[souvlaki]

Yeah, that's objective. Sounds like one person's opinion to me. In other words, of no more use than my own, except mine wasn't riddled with exaggerations ("even the pen looked old") and other commentary. I could easily point out, for example, that Obama looked old himself, or very tired - though I suspect that they were both tired, which even further makes even bringing it up against one and not the other 'biased.'

It would be nice of these 'commentators' would do more than issue opinions on posture and whether or not someone is 'old.' It would be nice if they started paying attention to what's actually being said...


What the hell... did we just enter a time warp here? At any rate, in response to lazur, maybe it sounds like one person's opinion because it was one person's opinion.

[bunk]

Obama just went off on a tangent. Although I don't think tying things back to domestic issues is necessarily a bad thing with him.

McCain mentioned petro-dollars.

[DACrowe]

I thought the debate was okay. I was disappointed Obama did not dominate. He separated himself and came off with a good temperment. I think Obama pretty much dominated the economic and domestic issues, albeit I think neither struck the right tone and were talking more about policy issues involving spending and taxation and did not push enough of their views on what is going on in Washington and Wall Street right now (but that could be because neither have the guts to take a stand on the bill as of yet).

On foreign policy it came to a stand still with differing views. If you are more conservative I imagine McCain hit home really well there and if you are more progressive or focused on changing how things are done in a globalized world, Obama probably came off slightly better. But neither took it away there.

So it comes down to style. Obama simply passed. He was confident, sturdy, steady and seemed presidential. McCain seemed assertive and when he got on an issue he liked (troops and pork barrel spending) he was dynamite. When he was in an issue he wanted to avoid (macroeconomics or his connection to Bush tax cuts) he was passable, if not reassuring.

The main thing, as others have mentioned, is McCain's obsession with speaking condescendingly to Barack Obama. He kept saying "He doesn't understand," and it got to the point where I thought he was going to call him "boy" and get in some real **** for that. :oldrazz:

I don't think that will help him. Obama seemed frustrated and annoyed by McCain, but McCain just seemed snide and angry and bitter.

I'd say the debate was even and a tie, but maybe McCain's ELITISM will hurt his ratings. I don't know what regular Americans thought.

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU

Anything to this?

[Hole Shot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU

Anything to this?

hahaha! honestly I wish they would let loose and cuss a little more. Both of them. I don't hold politicians in a higher regard so I have no problem with either them reacting like any of us would. I know I said bull**** a few times to both of their responses and a couple "what the f*** are you talking about?" 's.

[kainedamo]

I feel dumber for having watched this new McCain ad...

Ec3aC8ZJZTc

[Superman]

This thread needs a poll on who we thought won. Any mod want to put one up? :yay:

[rdh007]

Obama will only win because there is no objectivity on this board and everyone loves him and nobody likes McCain!

*stomps out*

[comicgirl]

Obama will only win because there is no objectivity on this board and everyone loves him and nobody likes McCain!

*stomps out*Obama WILL win, because McCain doesn't even know why he's running anymore............period

[ShadowBoxing]

I feel dumber for having watched this new McCain ad...

Ec3aC8ZJZTc
Then you'll really like the next ad; "Barack Obama is a massive poopie-head".

[Lobo]

This thread needs a poll on who we thought won. Any mod want to put one up? :yay:

Done.

[BlackLantern]

I question the validity of this poll.....and there isn't a third option for a "draw" which is what the debate was....

[Sentinel X]

I thought Obama won.
He tackled this issues while McCain seemed to try to resort to more personal attacks (which I think is the wrong approach). This is not a personality contest, I need to know what the next president of the united states is going to do for ME and I thought the points Obama made were a lot more relevant to me then what McCain had to say.

Btw. I cannot wait to see Biden v Pallin. That is going to be awesome...and maybe even a little bit...funny? :hehe:

[rdh007]

I question the validity of this poll.....and there isn't a third option for a "draw" which is what the debate was....

I voted Obama for the same reason I posted several pages back. What George Will said--Obama barely wins but only because he looked like he belonged and that was the major question.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5898364\

[Captain Planet!]

What was that "fan reaction" thing on CNN for? Was that John McCain's heartbeat?

[Showtime]

I was disappointed in this debate. I ordered in to watch it. As an "unenrolled/indepedent" voter I really wanted to get a better feeling on the directions of these candidates. I walked away wanting to vote for myself.

[BlackLantern]

agreed Showtime...not a lot is being done to court the undecided voters....both sides seems to be focused on rallying their base to get out and vote and hope the undecideds fall in their lap

[Captain Planet!]

Obama stuttered too much.

[ShadowBoxing]

Obama stuttered too much.
I watched the debates and actually most have praised Obama for NOT doing that.

[ShadowBoxing]

I'd like to see a "draw" option added to the poll.

[lazur]

I'm not sure we were watching the same debate. In no way was John McCain respectful to Barack Obama. Not one time that I saw. McCain didn't look at Obama once during the debate. Whenever Obama spoke, McCain looked down and away or out into the audience with his jaw clinched. He laughed, scoffed, and spoke down to Obama like he was a naive child who needed to be educated on 'how the world really works.'

Depends on what you classify as 'respectful' I think. He was there to make his points in a short period of time. I don't think arguing would have accomplished anything. Besides, as I said before, Obama did the same thing MOST of the debate, only looking at McCain when he felt he had accomplished a famed 'gotcha' moment, even though McCain had far more of those on Obama.

And if you ask me, it was more disrespectful that Obama forgot McCain's name ... twice. Obama was calling him 'John' while McCain always referred to him as Senator Obama. They aren't friends and for Obama to give off the impression that they are or should be is ridiculous.

To the second point that I bolded - Even if you do not like someone on the national or world stage, you have to show some kind of professionalism. McCain, unfortunately, was severing lacking in that department tonight.

It seems to me like you're confusing professionalism with being suave. Obama is very suave, I'll give him that, but McCain certainly was Presidential in the way he laid out the facts and his beliefs, which are founded upon years of experience, whereas Obama stuck to the ideology whether it was sound or not since he has no experience to speak of.

Overall, as I have said many times now, the debate was even. Both candidates did what they needed to do. The edge, in my view, goes to Obama on the account of McCain's arrogance.

McCain wasn't being arrogant. He wasn't disrespectful. He did what he went there to do.

As for my 'general' opinion, Obama is an idealist (like some on these boards) and McCain is a realist. Obama has no record to speak of, and every time he brought up one of the left's talking points about foreign policy or taxes, McCain drove home the unrealistic and dangerous reality of what he was seeking.

[rdh007]

If McCain were a realist, he wouldn't have chosen the Mayor of Wasilla to be a 72 year old heartbeat away.

[lazur]

If McCain were a realist, he wouldn't have chosen the Mayor of Wasilla to be a 72 year old heartbeat away.

And if Obama really believed in what he claims to stand for (change coming to Washington), he would not have chosen a tired, angry Senator who himself goes against the very ideology Obama believes in, and who himself said (agreeing with Obama) that Obama is not experienced enough to be President.

[rdh007]

I look at the Biden pick a lot like Bush's pick of Cheney. The guy who is claiming change picks an insider to help him get it done.

[BlackLantern]

I look at the Biden pick a lot like Bush's pick of Cheney. The guy who is claiming change picks an insider to help him get it done.

Exactly...Washington is a machine and to get things done you have to know how the machine works.....

[Showtime]

agreed Showtime...not a lot is being done to court the undecided voters....both sides seems to be focused on rallying their base to get out and vote and hope the undecideds fall in their lap

If I remember correctly, it was like this the last two elections at well to some extent. I feel like I am stuck on an island with Parker Posey at this point.

[BlackLantern]

If I remember correctly, it was like this the last two elections at well to some extent. I feel like I am stuck on an island with Parker Posey at this point.

If you give her some pot, she might **** you.....so there's that

[Showtime]

Yeah. I guess there is that.

[jaguarr]

You know, I've been thinking more last night about McCain's responses on the foreign policy issues in the debate last night, and something about them is really starting to bother me. Nearly all of his responses on foreign policy revolved around military action and/or conflict. Everything he spoke of was in terms of fighting with other nations on one level or another, save for the part about how we'd convince our allies it was okay or to help us. I didn't hear him talk at all about reaching out to other countries that perhaps we aren't on such great terms with and trying to see if we can improve those relationships. That bothers me. A lot. He seems fixated on being a warhawk at a time when the U.S.'s regard in the world by the people of other nations is at an all time low. It's something that desperately needs to be addressed but he really gave me the impression he doesn't give a rat's ass about that and is just spoiling for a fight. Scary.

jag

[lazur]

Exactly...Washington is a machine and to get things done you have to know how the machine works.....

Sorry, I prefer a president who is ready on 'day one' and doesn't require ramp up time or on the job training.

[Franklin Richards]

Like Sarah Palin?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[jaguarr]

Sorry, I prefer a president who is ready on 'day one' and doesn't require ramp up time or on the job training.

Hate to tell you this, but McCain doesn't fit that bill. He's past his expiration date. Ten years ago he might have been good for the job, but not anymore. He's not the same guy he used to be. Not even close.

jag

[lazur]

You know, I've been thinking more last night about McCain's responses on the foreign policy issues in the debate last night, and something about them is really starting to bother me. Nearly all of his responses on foreign policy revolved around military action and/or conflict.

Unlikely, imo ... There were very few times when he referenced using military as a catalyst to change. He spoke of military power as a last resort. He talked about diplomacy, but NOT direct diplomacy between a sitting President and the the nutcase president of Iran without preconditions, which Obama then tried to excuse (another example of OJT). He spoke about Russia without bringing up military power. He spoke about Pakistan and actually slammed Obama for wanting to use military power in a very fragile sector of the world, which would FURTHER disrupt efforts in the middle east.

Everything he spoke of was in terms of fighting with other nations on one level or another, save for the part about how we'd convince our allies it was okay or to help us.

If you heard that, then you heard what you wanted to hear. McCain was not touting 'military solutions' to everything the way you're claiming. It was Obama who spoke of 'going into Pakistan' whether the government there agreed or not, and it was McCain who stated that we need the cooperation of Pakistan in order to navigate and root out terrorists in a region of the world with horrible terrain challenges that hasn't been occupied since Alexander the Great.

Also, as a member of NATO, we are obligated to help our allies just as they are obligated to help us. There is no 'convincing' going on...

I didn't hear him talk at all about reaching out to other countries that perhaps we aren't on such great terms with and trying to see if we can improve those relationships.

Yes, he did talk about diplomacy with other countries. He also corrected Obama when Obama stated that we never talk to those nations. It would appear that diplomatic missions to Iran, N. Korea, Vietnam, Russia, Georgia and all of the other places we're having difficulty with are nothing new, though this appeared to be news to a very naive Obama. While that might fly on a message board against people who don't know that diplomacy is happening despite the media (and the left) saying otherwise, but it doesn't fly with McCain who does know better, and now so do the American people.

That bothers me. A lot. He seems fixated on being a warhawk at a time when the U.S.'s regard in the world by the people of other nations is at an all time low. It's something that desperately needs to be addressed but he really gave me the impression he doesn't give a rat's ass about that and is just spoiling for a fight. Scary.

jag

Being firm and applying pressure around the globe where necessary is not being a 'warhawk.' In fact, there was nothing he said that I took as being overly aggressive to other countries, unlike Obama who said he would bomb Pakistan.

Seems as if you heard what you wanted to hear, or maybe we both did.

[Raiden]

Sorry, I prefer a president who is ready on 'day one' and doesn't require ramp up time or on the job training.

Was W Bush ready on Day One? Even after 8 years I still don't think he's that ready, but then again he has Cheney doing all the works for him.

[lazur]

Was W Bush ready on Day One? Even after 8 years I still don't think he's that ready, but then again he has Cheney doing all the works for him.

He was as as ready as Bill Clinton if you're looking purely at 'qualifications.' That said, we haven't been hit again in seven years so the man is doing something right.

Of course, I realize that the left doesn't give credit where it belongs, but I also know that if we HAD been attacked again, the left would be crucifying Bush for not protecting us...

[jaguarr]

Ugh, wrong. There were few times when he referenced using military power to entice change. He talked about diplomacy, but not diplomacy between a sitting President and the the nutcase president of Iran. He spoke about Russia without bringing up military power. He spoke about Pakistan and actually slammed Obama for wanting to use military power.

He ALWAYS spoke in terms of CONFLICT! Since you failed to read that part of my post. His foreign policy revolves around CONFLICT.


If you heard that, then you heard what you wanted to hear. McCain was not touting 'military solutions' to everything the way you're claiming. It was Obama who spoke of 'going into Pakistan' whether the government there agreed or not, and it was McCain who stated that we need the cooperation of Pakistan in order to navigate and root out terrorists in a region of the world with horrible terrain challenges that hasn't been occupied since Alexander the Great.

"Fighting" does not always entail military action, since you are unable to read subtext. Nowhere in what I wrote did I indicate that fighting entails military action. It is VERY possible to fight with other countries in a diplomatic fashion (and some would argue it's just as if not more damaging as military conflict). But thanks for droning up McCain's "Alexander the Great" soundbite from last night for no damn reason.


Also, as a member of NATO, we are obligated to to help our allies just as they are obligated to help us. There is no 'convincing' going on...

What does that have to do with anything I wrote? I'm talking about McCain's attitude towards foreign policy in general, not our commitments to our NATO allies.

Yes, he did talk about diplomacy with other countries.

ALWAYS in terms of conflict. He never once spoke in terms of seeking better relations with other countries that we are lacking them in or how he would maintain the good relationships we do have left.


He also corrected Obama when Obama stated that we never talk to thosee nations. It would appear that diplomatic missions to Iran, N. Korea, Vietnam, Russia, Georgia and all of the other places we're having difficulty with are nothing new, though this appeared to be news to a very naive Obama.

Haha! You completely missed the subtext of that entire dialogue, didn't you?


Being firm and applying pressure around the globe where necessary is not being a 'warhawk.' In fact, there was nothing he said that I took as being overly aggressive to other countries, unlike Obama who said he would bomb Pakistan.

When a Presidential candidate frames all of his answers on foreign policy around the concept of conflict with other nations, that's a concern. It speaks volumes about how he regards the world and how he would represent the U.S. to other countries. McCain thinks in terms of fighting. That is bothersome.


Seems as if you heard what you wanted to hear, or maybe we both did.

Thank you for your extreme centrist viewpoints, no matter how much I disagree with them.

jag

[Matt]

Seemed like a draw to me. Neither candidate performed exceptionally well nor did they do particularly poorly. It was a draw.

[Matt]

I was disappointed in this debate. I ordered in to watch it. As an "unenrolled/indepedent" voter I really wanted to get a better feeling on the directions of these candidates. I walked away wanting to vote for myself.

Welcome to my world :csad:

[Armand Z Trip]

Turn on the television and MSNBC has this Obama rally in North Carolina. A sea of people cheering and chanting, dude has to wait to start speaking. Obviously acting on the debate criticism already Obama comes out guns blazing, I am intersted to hear this. MSNBC then goes back to the studio for Nora O'Donnell, I don't want to hear what this Stepford wife has to say, can you let Obama talk please, could you please show the speech by one of the guys running for president, that is happening NOW. No. Check both CNN's and both CSPAN's, no speech. O'Donnell interviews some guy about the bailout, the brave congressional Repbulicans are working on their own plan for a bailout, not the evil liberal (President's) plan, an FDIC like organization. Yep, that's the best solution, the maverick conservative plan, another government agency. The tracker at the bottom of the screen reads - McCain says Obama lacks experience has poor judgement, Mr. T pities the fool, won't take no jibba jabba, Pizza Hut new Tuscani pasta and five bread sticks $11.99.

Nora then runs McCain's new ad, then interviews a woman from the McCain campaign saying what a great victory this was for McCain, didn't look at him? Contemptuous? (big word Nora!) Well McCain can see through his lack of experience. One was a president the other a politician balh blah blah yada yada yada. McCain's great week of campagining, not mentioned. Go liberal media. The polls show Obama slightly ahead nationally and in the debate, many undecided so the debate was a knockout for neither, many saying it was draw. I just think when a sitaution gets tense the usual phrase is "the gloves are off", to American political media it is "on our knees". The media's mission is to make McCain the undisputed debate victor as soon as possible, it has begun. I haven't seen such an epic work of fantasy since Tarsem's The Fall.

[souvlaki]

And if you ask me, it was more disrespectful that Obama forgot McCain's name ... twice.

Okay, this is the third or forth time I've heard this and it's really starting to get annoying. He didn't forget McCain's name, he was talking to Jim Lehrer, the moderator. Seriously people, pay attention during the friggin' debate.

[The Senator]

Okay, this is the third or forth time I've heard this and it's really starting to get annoying. He didn't forget McCain's name, he was talking to Jim Lehrer, the moderator. Seriously people, pay attention during the friggin' debate.

Exactly. Had Obama said "Frank" when he was talking directly to McCain, I could understand if someone said that Obama deliberately forgot McCain's name. But Jim was the moderator, so it was just an accidental slip.

[metr0man]

Sorry, I prefer a president who is ready on 'day one' and doesn't require ramp up time or on the job training.

I prefer a president who knows what the f-ck he's talking about:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

Obama, a state senator in 2002, proving he knows more about the world than John McCain

[souvlaki]

Exactly. Had Obama said "Frank" when he was talking directly to McCain, I could understand if someone said that Obama deliberately forgot McCain's name. But Jim was the moderator, so it was just an accidental slip.

Well the funny thing is he only made an actual mistake once, and if I remember correctly he corrected himself immediately after. I've heard people say he made the mistake like four or five times during the debate, but every single time he was looking directly at Jim, and was talking to him. People grasping at straws. "See, your candidate can be senile too".

[The Senator]

He was as as ready as Bill Clinton if you're looking purely at 'qualifications.' That said, we haven't been hit again in seven years so the man is doing something right.

Of course, I realize that the left doesn't give credit where it belongs, but I also know that if we HAD been attacked again, the left would be crucifying Bush for not protecting us...

In all fairness, how many times had we been attacked on U.S. soil before 9/11? It's not like the terrorists were blowing up marketplaces and decimating buildings on a regular basis. Terrorist attacks were rare, and they came when we least expected them. Intelligence shows that Al Qaeda is still strong, and considering our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems very likely that they are still planning an attack against us.

And if we are going to be attacked, I highly doubt that it will be with airplanes or conventional explosives. All the loose nuclear material out there seems likely to be involved in the next attack on U.S. soil, and I want a president who will realize that nuclear terrorism is the next escalation point in the terrorists' war on us. Neither Bush nor McCain have shown that they understand the potential for nuclear terrorism (NOT nuclear war, those are two different scenarios).

Additionally, I would not go out on a limb to say that Bush did everything he could to protect us, considering the goals proposed by the 9/11 Commission were not passed until January 2007, when the Democrats took control of Congress.

[jaguarr]

Turn on the television and MSNBC has this Obama rally in North Carolina. A sea of people cheering and chanting, dude has to wait to start speaking. Obviously acting on the debate criticism already Obama comes out guns blazing, I am intersted to hear this. MSNBC then goes back to the studio for Nora O'Donnell, I don't want to hear what this Stepford wife has to say, can you let Obama talk please, could you please show the speech by one of the guys running for president, that is happening NOW. No. Check both CNN's and both CSPAN's, no speech. O'Donnell interviews some guy about the bailout, the brave congressional Repbulicans are working on their own plan for a bailout, not the evil liberal (President's) plan, an FDIC like organization. Yep, that's the best solution, the maverick conservative plan, another government agency. The tracker at the bottom of the screen reads - McCain says Obama lacks experience has poor judgement, Mr. T pities the fool, won't take no jibba jabba, Pizza Hut new Tuscani pasta and five bread sticks $11.99.

Nora then runs McCain's new ad, then interviews a woman from the McCain campaign saying what a great victory this was for McCain, didn't look at him? Contemptuous? (big word Nora!) Well McCain can see through his lack of experience. One was a president the other a politician balh blah blah yada yada yada. McCain's great week of campagining, not mentioned. Go liberal media. The polls show Obama slightly ahead nationally and in the debate, many undecided so the debate was a knockout for neither, many saying it was draw. I just think when a sitaution gets tense the usual phrase is "the gloves are off", to American political media it is "on our knees". The media's mission is to make McCain the undisputed debate victor as soon as possible, it has begun. I haven't seen such an epic work of fantasy since Tarsem's The Fall.

I was laughing through this whole post, man. Nicely done. :D

jag

[BATZARRO WWD]

There wern't any points, moments or opinions that could sway much opinion in there. I'd say it was a tie. Both wanted to go for the jugular, but neither wanted to look like a jerk. Especially Obama, who was for some reason, on the defensive, wich is strange, because his whole angle should be to attack McCain on his similarity to current administrations.

Can't wait until both outright crazy vice President candidates square off. Sarah "The Bridge" Palin vs Joe "No, really, I didn't mean it in a racist way!" Biden. I'm fully expecting it to de-evolve into "Police Academy" type shenanigans.

[Thinkton]

You know, I've been thinking more last night about McCain's responses on the foreign policy issues in the debate last night, and something about them is really starting to bother me. Nearly all of his responses on foreign policy revolved around military action and/or conflict. Everything he spoke of was in terms of fighting with other nations on one level or another, save for the part about how we'd convince our allies it was okay or to help us. I didn't hear him talk at all about reaching out to other countries that perhaps we aren't on such great terms with and trying to see if we can improve those relationships. That bothers me. A lot. He seems fixated on being a warhawk at a time when the U.S.'s regard in the world by the people of other nations is at an all time low. It's something that desperately needs to be addressed but he really gave me the impression he doesn't give a rat's ass about that and is just spoiling for a fight. Scary.

jag
The world change since 9-11-01. There are terrorists that wants to destory us and meaning us I mean US, England, Spain, Israel, Canada, Russia, etc. I know John McCain is ready to be commander in chief.

[metr0man]

You know, I've been thinking more last night about McCain's responses on the foreign policy issues in the debate last night, and something about them is really starting to bother me. Nearly all of his responses on foreign policy revolved around military action and/or conflict. Everything he spoke of was in terms of fighting with other nations on one level or another, save for the part about how we'd convince our allies it was okay or to help us. I didn't hear him talk at all about reaching out to other countries that perhaps we aren't on such great terms with and trying to see if we can improve those relationships. That bothers me. A lot. He seems fixated on being a warhawk at a time when the U.S.'s regard in the world by the people of other nations is at an all time low. It's something that desperately needs to be addressed but he really gave me the impression he doesn't give a rat's ass about that and is just spoiling for a fight. Scary.

jag

McCain doesn't really understand anything other than war.

[The Senator]

The world change since 9-11-01. There are terrorists that wants to destory us and meaning us I mean US, England, Spain, Israel, Canada, Russia, etc. I know John McCain is ready to be commander in chief.

Those two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.

Terrorists wanting to destroy us, and John McCain being ready to be president don't go together.

McCain has no more experience than Obama when dealing with terrorist threats, and as I've mentioned already Obama has already set his sights on dealing with what it likely to be the next step in the terrorists' war on us: nuclear terrorism. Obama has passed legislation which deals with securing loose nukes, and he has worked closely with former Senator Sam Nunn, an expert on nuclear proliferation, in drafting what will be the "Obama Doctrine" on foreign policy.

I trust Obama's judgment more than McCain's, especially on the global war on terror.

[jaguarr]

The world change since 9-11-01. There are terrorists that wants to destory us and meaning us I mean US, England, Spain, Israel, Canada, Russia, etc. I know John McCain is ready to be commander in chief.

It's a little more complicated than just terrorists that want to "destory" us at this point, I'm afraid. There's a lot happening on the diplomatic, political and military fronts in multiple nations. It's not just terrorists we have to worry about (and it never was). And then there is the problem of the economy, our deficit, the health care crisis and an education system that is falling apart. McCain is not ready to be Commander In Chief. Sorry.

jag

[The Senator]

There wern't any points, moments or opinions that could sway much opinion in there. I'd say it was a tie. Both wanted to go for the jugular, but neither wanted to look like a jerk. Especially Obama, who was for some reason, on the defensive, wich is strange, because his whole angle should be to attack McCain on his similarity to current administrations.

Can't wait until both outright crazy vice President candidates square off. Sarah "The Bridge" Palin vs Joe "No, really, I didn't mean it in a racist way!" Biden. I'm fully expecting it to de-evolve into "Police Academy" type shenanigans.

Joe Biden was 100% correct when he said that Obama was the first articulate, clean African American presidential candidate. He was not implying that the other candidates were stupid and unkempt; it seemed to me he was implying that people could relate to Obama, and he had clean record. Unlike Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Alan Keyes.

To me, that isn't so much of a gaffe as saying "I said thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere" without telling the second half of the story, which was "I only said thanks but no thanks when it became politically inconvenient to support the bridge."

[jaguarr]

Joe Biden was 100% correct when he said that Obama was the first articulate, clean African American presidential candidate. He was not implying that the other candidates were stupid and unkempt; it seemed to me he was implying that people could relate to Obama, and he had clean record. Unlike Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Alan Keyes.

To me, that isn't so much of a gaffe as saying "I said thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere" without telling the second half of the story, which was "I only said thanks but no thanks when it became politically inconvenient to support the bridge."

And AFTER Congress had already killed the bridge project anyway. :whatever: But let's talk about the second bridge and the "Road To Nowhere", Sarah.

jag

[SentinelMind]

I'm surprised many of the Obama supporters in this thread concede the first debate was a draw, not a gamechanger. Yet, Obama is declared winner by most who voted in this thread.

On purely superficial level, Obama held his own and showed that he belonged there at the debate. However, John McCain came across as more confident in his answers. I agree that McCain smirks and his demeanor may not be appealing to many voters. Obama stuttered too much, didn't come as confident in his answers and record as much as McCain did. Overall I think voters prefer genuine confidence bordering on arrogance over mildly eloquent awkwardness.

Now, on content....its a bit hard to judge. McCain would make one claim, Obama would say its not true.....Obama would say its this, McCain would say its that. For an independent, nonpartisan voter...who are you going to decide which claim is true?
What attracts voters is one-liners and home-hitting points of character, not minute differences of legislation A and B "well we voted for this bill in subcommittee C of committee D because rules and regulations say that the Iraq War should have a deadline with troop funding.....".

I think McCain had more one-liners and jab punches. McCain won the debate portion on Iraq......Obama opposed the surge, then claimed it was a victory, then said he'd still have voted against the surge....Obama looked perturbed at that point, but didn't give a good response to that point. McCain hammered Obama more on earmark spending, that Obama voted for nearly a million dollars of earmarks each day he's been in Senate...and McCain associated earmark spending to character issues/indictments....it made the character issue even more compelling in people's mind.

In the end, Obama looked liked he belonged there (McCain didn't knock him out entirely or make him look like a complete joke), but didn't get the message across that he's the savior the America has been hoping for. Even Obama's most ardent supporters in this thread agree with that. And that's the message Obama needs to convey in order to get elected.

[Marx]

Depends on what you classify as 'respectful' I think. He was there to make his points in a short period of time. I don't think arguing would have accomplished anything. Besides, as I said before, Obama did the same thing MOST of the debate, only looking at McCain when he felt he had accomplished a famed 'gotcha' moment, even though McCain had far more of those on Obama.

And if you ask me, it was more disrespectful that Obama forgot McCain's name ... twice. Obama was calling him 'John' while McCain always referred to him as Senator Obama. They aren't friends and for Obama to give off the impression that they are or should be is ridiculous.



It seems to me like you're confusing professionalism with being suave. Obama is very suave, I'll give him that, but McCain certainly was Presidential in the way he laid out the facts and his beliefs, which are founded upon years of experience, whereas Obama stuck to the ideology whether it was sound or not since he has no experience to speak of.



McCain wasn't being arrogant. He wasn't disrespectful. He did what he went there to do.

As for my 'general' opinion, Obama is an idealist (like some on these boards) and McCain is a realist. Obama has no record to speak of, and every time he brought up one of the left's talking points about foreign policy or taxes, McCain drove home the unrealistic and dangerous reality of what he was seeking.

I wouldn't expect any other viewpoint from you Lazur. I do appreciate you answering it though. :yay:

[Matt]

I'm surprised many of the Obama supporters in this thread concede the first debate was a draw, not a gamechanger. Yet, Obama is declared winner by most who voted in this thread.

On purely superficial level, Obama held his own and showed that he belonged there at the debate. However, John McCain came across as more confident in his answers. I agree that McCain smirks and his demeanor may not be appealing to many voters. Obama stuttered too much, didn't come as confident in his answers and record as much as McCain did. Overall I think voters prefer genuine confidence bordering on arrogance over mildly eloquent awkwardness.

Now, on content....its a bit hard to judge. McCain would make one claim, Obama would say its not true.....Obama would say its this, McCain would say its that. For an independent, nonpartisan voter...who are you going to decide which claim is true?
What attracts voters is one-liners and home-hitting points of character, not minute differences of legislation A and B "well we voted for this bill in subcommittee C of committee D because rules and regulations say that the Iraq War should have a deadline with troop funding.....".

I think McCain had more one-liners and jab punches. McCain won the debate portion on Iraq......Obama opposed the surge, then claimed it was a victory, then said he'd still have voted against the surge....Obama looked perturbed at that point, but didn't give a good response to that point. McCain hammered Obama more on earmark spending, that Obama voted for nearly a million dollars of earmarks each day he's been in Senate...and McCain associated earmark spending to character issues/indictments....it made the character issue even more compelling in people's mind.

In the end, Obama looked liked he belonged there (McCain didn't knock him out entirely or make him look like a complete joke), but didn't get the message across that he's the savior the America has been hoping for. Even Obama's most ardent supporters in this thread agree with that. And that's the message Obama needs to convey in order to get elected.

Good summation.

[bunk]

I laughed when pundits said it was unlikely to see a whole lot of bickering between the two since it was only the first debate and they'd be "feeling each other out".

Hmm... taxes and Iraq. Yeah, not much there to get heated about lol.

[Marx]

THE SMIRK: COULD MCCAIN'S FACIAL GESTURES DEFINE THE DEBATE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/27/the-smirk-could-mccains-f_n_129831.html

[Marx]

NEXT UP: BIDEN AND PALIN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/campaign.wrap/index.html

[Marx]

I wonder why John McCain wasn't wearing a flag pin last night? :huh:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.friday/art.mccain2.ap.jpg

(I wonder if anything will be made out of that by those who so vehemently condemned Obama for not wearing one? Hmm...)

[BlackLantern]

I wonder why John McCain looks like a hobbit?

[SentinelMind]

I wonder why John McCain wasn't wearing a flag pin last night? :huh:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.friday/art.mccain2.ap.jpg

(I wonder if anything will be made out of that by those who so vehemently condemned Obama for not wearing one? Hmm...)


The issue was that Obama made a declaration that he refused to wear an American flag pin because of what it represents (which he thought the pin represented jingoism). If he had simply said "I didn't put it on today" ...or "that's a stupid question, next"....he'd be fine. But Obama said the absence of pin was a symbolic point in itself.

[souvlaki]

I wonder why John McCain looks like a hobbit?

Chris Matthews said he looked like a "troll" last night.

[Marx]

I wonder why John McCain looks like a hobbit?

Chris Matthews said he looked like a "troll" last night.

:hehe:

[Marx]

The issue was that Obama made a declaration that he refused to wear an American flag pin because of what it represents (which he thought the pin represented jingoism). If he had simply said "I didn't put it on today" ...or "that's a stupid question, next"....he'd be fine. But Obama said the absence of pin was a symbolic point in itself.

I thought the whole thing with Obama was ridiculous. I just posted this about McCain because it was something that I noticed. :cwink:

[bunk]

I wonder if the Biden/Palin debate will just become Biden/McCain.

[souvlaki]

The flash polls all have Obama winning.

And the internals are BAD for McCain:




Initial Polls Show Obama Winning The Debate

By Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld - September 27, 2008, 12:21AM

Okay, we thought that McCain had a slight upper hand tonight (though we also said it wasn't a game changer, which is basically another way of saying that McCain didn't do what he had to). But the initial polls suggest that viewers give the nod to Obama in a big way.

Here's the CNN poll, conducted among debate-watchers:

Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the best job in the debate -- Barack Obama or John McCain?
Obama 51%
McCain 38%

Did _______ do a better or worse job than you expected?
Obama: Better 57%, Worse 20%, Same 23%
McCain: Better 60%, Worse 20%, Same 18%

Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think Barack Obama or John McCain would better handle each of the following issues:

• The war in Iraq: Obama 52%, McCain 47%

• Terrorism: McCain 49%, Obama 45%

• The economy: Obama 58%, McCain 37%

• The current financial crisis: Obama 54%, McCain 36%

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:

• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%

• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%

• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%

• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%

• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%

• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%

• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%

Based on what _______ said and did in tonight's debate, do you think he would be able to handle the job of president if he is elected?
Obama 69%-29%
McCain 68%-30%

And the numbers released so far from the CBS poll of undecided debate-watchers: 39% said Obama won, 25% said McCain won, and 36% said it was a draw. Forty-six percent said their opinions of Obama went up, compared to only 31% who said the same about McCain. On the economy, 66% said Obama would make the right decisions, compared to 44% who said the same for McCain.

[jaguarr]

I wonder why John McCain looks like a hobbit?

The Eye of Sauron wants to destroy our freedom! :cmad:

jag

[Excel]

I dont see how anybody can try to say that McCain on Iraq, that was flat out embarassing.

"You were wrong, you were weong, you were wrong"
"John Likes to imagine the war began in 2007"

The debate on points was a draw, but if you include body language, confidence, ect. its an Obama win all the way. Obama didnt seem rattled, nervous, or perturbed at any point of the debate; McCain clearly got flustered when talking about Russia "Just go look Russia in the eye oh please". I was pretty damn surprises at Obamas agressiveness and confidence; if McCain is the stronger, more expirienced, and more confident of the 2 he did not show it all, both were equally confident in their answers except Obama came off so much more friendlier and likeable. McCain did the majority of stumbling this debate to my surprise. His "Senator Obama doesnt understand" just made him look like such a damn fool because Obama made it so blatantly obvious he understood exactly what was going on, which just makes McCain look worse.

McCains body language was such a massive turnoff from everything he was saying that it was laughable.

Even more, as David Gergin pointed out, that fact this is a clear Obama win (or draw at worst) on McCains home turf with McCains best subject at a time following McCains disasterous week is NOT good for McCain at all. The consensus is Obama got a big lead early because they were talking about the economy, and, Iraq aside, McCain got stronger the debate went on.

Just wait for an entire debate on the economy.

[The Senator]

The issue was that Obama made a declaration that he refused to wear an American flag pin because of what it represents (which he thought the pin represented jingoism). If he had simply said "I didn't put it on today" ...or "that's a stupid question, next"....he'd be fine. But Obama said the absence of pin was a symbolic point in itself.

He actually said that he didn't believe he needed a flag pin to represent his patriotism. Which I think is a valid point, considering politicians in this country have worn their patriotism on their sleeves by dressing up in nonsensical "Pro-American" garb in previous presidential elections, whether it is a flag pin or a cowboy hat. The flag pin debate is one of the silliest, most ridiculous things I have seen emerge from this election.

[SentinelMind]

^So we agree....Obama suggested that wearing the flag pin was an example of empty jingoism, so he actively refused to wear it, until the general election. It was a ridiculous question, but Obama made the issue bigger than it needed to be, equating wearing a flag pin with empty patriotism or support for Bush foriegn policy.

[The Senator]

^So we agree....Obama suggested that wearing the flag pin was an example of empty jingoism, so he actively refused to wear it, until the general election. It was a ridiculous question, but Obama made the issue bigger than it needed to be, equating wearing a flag pin with empty patriotism or support for Bush foriegn policy.

We don't really agree.

You believe it was entirely Obama who perpetuated this issue; I believe the media made it bigger than it needed to be. Much like the "Is he a Muslim???!" bull **** we've had to endure more than enough times on networks such as CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News.

[Matt]

He actually said that he didn't believe he needed a flag pin to represent his patriotism. Which I think is a valid point, considering politicians in this country have worn their patriotism on their sleeves by dressing up in nonsensical "Pro-American" garb in previous presidential elections, whether it is a flag pin or a cowboy hat. The flag pin debate is one of the silliest, most ridiculous things I have seen emerge from this election.

It was silly, but easily avoidable and shows that Obama is a novice in politics. Why make an issue of something, when you can just put on a damn pin. When you are trying to court voters, if a pin makes a difference to even a small group, you put it on.

[Golgo-13]

Dammit, we had a power outage in my area at around 9:35, EST. Lasted for 3 hours. What highlights did i miss?

[bunk]

It was brutal. Both candidates are in the hospital now.

[luke1234]

Im surprised no one mentioned Benhazar Bhutto during their Pakistan discussion, she is a well-liked figure and it could of helped either candidate if they mentioned her

[luke1234]

It was brutal. Both candidates are in the hospital now.


It wasnt brutal, its gonna get a lot worse by the time we get to the 3rd debate

[BlackLantern]

Im surprised no one mentioned Benhazar Bhutto during their Pakistan discussion, she is a well-liked figure and it could of helped either candidate if they mentioned her

well...she's dead and not a factor on the world stage anymore....add to the fact that 7 out of 10 Americans have no clue who she is...how would that have helped?

[luke1234]

well...she's dead and not a factor on the world stage anymore....add to the fact that 7 out of 10 Americans have no clue who she is...how would that have helped?


It wouldnt of hurt. People should know more about her and what she stood for. She was a stable figure in a instable country. If she didnt die things would be different in pakistan. I just think a mention wouldnt of hurt for the 3/10 americans who knew about her and might stir the curiosity of the 7/10

[BlackLantern]

It wouldn't stir any curiousity....she's dead....Pakistan isn't at the forefront of the national consciousness right now....

[souvlaki]

I feel dumber for having watched this new McCain ad...

Ec3aC8ZJZTc

This ad is ridiculous.


'John is right there needs to be more responsibility"
"John is right the earmark process is abused"
"John is right, taxes are high, on paper"

"No John, I think that is incorrect. I think we need more irresponsibility. I simply cannot agree with you."

They are things any sensible person would agree with.

[The Senator]

It was silly, but easily avoidable and shows that Obama is a novice in politics. Why make an issue of something, when you can just put on a damn pin. When you are trying to court voters, if a pin makes a difference to even a small group, you put it on.


Because it is the nonnest of the non-issues?

A reporter asked him why he didn't wear a flag pin, it's not like he got up on stage and said "I don't wear a flag pin, look at me!"

[Matt]

SO why not just say something like "I don't have one," or "I forgot it?" Why grandstand and put yourself in a position where your opponents can use something so silly against you? When asked, Obama tried to grandstand and it bit him in the ass. It was a silly, novice move to begin with and he never should've let it come to that.

[luke1234]

It wouldn't stir any curiousity....she's dead....Pakistan isn't at the forefront of the national consciousness right now....

again im not saying go on a 15 min rant on bhutto, im just saying if your gonna mention the role pakistan plays in foreign politics "it wouldnt hurt" to mention her name.

[The Senator]

SO why not just say something like "I don't have one," or "I forgot it?" Why grandstand and put yourself in a position where your opponents can use something so silly against you? When asked, Obama tried to grandstand and it bit him in the ass. It was a silly, novice move to begin with and he never should've let it come to that.

That isn't grandstanding. That's saying something which should be an obvious point, that wearing a flag pin doesn't denote patriotism, it is actions which speak louder than attire. The fact that the media made an issue out of it shows what kind of horse **** they value, debates on silly things such as flag pins and faith, instead of actual issues which are of some merit to this country as a whole. If the majority of Americans aren't able to see through that schtick, then so be it, maybe we need to have IQ tests in order for some people to vote.

[BlackLantern]

What if Obama wore one of those Tuxedo Tshirts? You know...it says I can be formal, but I like to party

[Showtime]

Chris Matthews said he looked like a "troll" last night.

Doesn't Chris Matthews have the democratic party in his "Fav Five"?

[StrainedEyes]

I hope Obama continues talking directly to McCain during the next 2 debates. I know it has to be difficult to continue addressing someone who refuses to acknowledge your presence, but him saying "John, you were wrong." just has a much better sting to it then "Senator McCain is wrong about this issue."

I really did not like McCain's lack of interaction. No eye contact, never saying "Barack". never saying "You", audibly laughing at him (Obama just smiled), backing away. It was ridiculous.

[The Senator]

Obama's post-debate ad (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/obama_ad_zero.html)

[The Senator]

Doesn't Chris Matthews have the democratic party in his "Fav Five"?

Chris Matthews is a political independent who has voted for Reagan and George W. Bush, but lately he has been more "biased" towards the Democratic Party. Then again, he is a pundit, not a journalist, so it doesn't really matter.

[redfirebird2008]

McCain wouldn't even look Obama's wife in the eye when he shook hands with her:

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/galleries/1414993/0150229250085.jpg

John McCain acted like a 10 year old last night, not a statesmen. Not a Senator. Not a President. The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of how he acted last night.

[BlackLantern]

Mrs. McCain, Elizabeth Kucinich, and me in a hot Republican angry love sandwich

[Marx]

McCain wouldn't even look Obama's wife in the eye when he shook hands with her:

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/galleries/1414993/0150229250085.jpg

John McCain acted like a 10 year old last night, not a statesmen. Not a Senator. Not a President. The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of how he acted last night.

I noticed that as well. It seemed to me the only people he actually looked at were his wife and the moderator Lehrer. Sad.

[hitmanyr2k]

I watched the debates twice and really came out of it without a clear winner. This favors Obama though. He was supposed to get trounced in this area and held his ground. I think starting off on the economy got him off to a strong start and gave him confidence at the start. He dominated that area forcing McCain to play catch up. They both got their little jabs in but neither delivered that knockout line that would play out in the media for days and sink inside the voter's heads.

On style points you have to give it to Obama. He never appeared flustered and addressed McCain repeatedly looking directly at him. I also thought he made a point to never appear condescending which is something that got Kerry in trouble when he debated Bush back in '04. Kerry appeared smug and arrogant which played right into the "elitist" tag that the Bush campaign painted him with. Obama had the poker face going more often than not (giving way to a few exasperated expressions) and he looked more presidential that way.

This is where McCain lost (or gave Obama an edge). He didn't look presidential for most of the night. He was condescending and had this arrogant/annoyed vibe about him all night. Couldn't even look his opponent in the eye. What was that all about? When Obama was hitting McCain with talking points he would look out into the crowd and blink obsessively and offer this "I'm not playing with a full deck" grin instead of keeping a poker face. Someone in his campaign has to tell him that these expressions don't make him look presidential. They make him look like a sleazy mad man. Every time the guy smiles like that I can't help but imagine him hovering over the "red button" with the same expression. They better work on that because he can't afford to lose any points with economy coming to the forefront in the next debates.

[Marx]

OBAMA AND BIDEN TOGETHER AGAIN FOLLOWING DEBATE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/27/obama-and-biden-together-again-following-debate/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/27/gall.ap.biden.obama.927.jpg

[redfirebird2008]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

[kainedamo]

Huh, I completely missed that when watching it live.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Joe Biden was 100% correct when he said that Obama was the first articulate, clean African American presidential candidate. He was not implying that the other candidates were stupid and unkempt; it seemed to me he was implying that people could relate to Obama, and he had clean record. Unlike Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Alan Keyes.

To me, that isn't so much of a gaffe as saying "I said thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere" without telling the second half of the story, which was "I only said thanks but no thanks when it became politically inconvenient to support the bridge."

Yeah, I was just trying to point out that both Vice's are a bit unweildy in their statements sometimes. Wich makes the prospect of them debating more interesting. The Presidential candidates are threading carefully. Perhaps TOO carefully. In the debates they essentially tried to stray as little as possible from their ussual campaign. Biden and Palin are less restrained in their statements.

[Matt]

That isn't grandstanding. That's saying something which should be an obvious point, that wearing a flag pin doesn't denote patriotism, it is actions which speak louder than attire. The fact that the media made an issue out of it shows what kind of horse **** they value, debates on silly things such as flag pins and faith, instead of actual issues which are of some merit to this country as a whole. If the majority of Americans aren't able to see through that schtick, then so be it, maybe we need to have IQ tests in order for some people to vote.

and how can anyone think Democrats come off as elitist? :cwink:

[The Senator]

and how can anyone think Democrats come off as elitist? :cwink:

Well these people obviously don't know the definition of the word "elitist" if they're using it in that context :cwink:

All the more reason for that Voter IQ test :hehe:

[redfirebird2008]

Yeah, I was just trying to point out that both Vice's are a bit unweildy in their statements sometimes. Wich makes the prospect of them debating more interesting. The Presidential candidates are threading carefully. Perhaps TOO carefully. In the debates they essentially tried to stray as little as possible from their ussual campaign. Biden and Palin are less restrained in their statements.

Palin is about as restrained as it gets. All of her lines in every speech she gives are carefully written. Her problem is, she's like a deer in the headlights when she gets interviewed and doesn't have a speech to read from. Hell, even in the Couric interview she had notecards but completely butchered her answers because she is clueless on the issues. It's not about being less restrained so much as it's about being clueless. When you ask Biden a question, he might fly off the handle but at least he can answer the question. Palin just sits there with a really dumb look on her face for a while and then answers in an incoherent fashion. That Couric interview was absolutely embarrassing.

[hitmanyr2k]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

That was kind of a WTF moment for me as well but I let it slide. I'm surprised Obama held his poker face there. I probably would have laughed or at least smirked.

[redfirebird2008]

That was kind of a WTF moment for me as well but I let it slide. I'm surprised Obama held his poker face there. I probably would have laughed or at least smirked.

Obama should have said, "What I don't understand, and I don't think the audience understands, is what the hell you're talking about right now, John."

:hehe:

[hitmanyr2k]

Obama should have said, "What I don't understand, and I don't think the audience understands, is what the hell you're talking about right now, John."

:hehe:

Now John Kerry would have probably done that if he were in this debate. Or he would have smiled smugly with that "this guy is an idiot" expression like he did with Bush. Obama did the right thing and kept the poker face all night even when McCain went off on one of his senile grandfather moments. I find that to be more presidential than trying to make your opponent look like a fool.

[JackMercy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EsYbhpmjLA

1:01 - 1:11...What is McCain looking at??

It's bad enough that he blatantly ignored Obama the entire evening, and giggled like a 5 year-old whenever Obama spoke, but seriously, what the heck is going on here?

Is his wife mouthing jokes to him?

Is he trying to find Palin in the audience?

Is he just so off-the-planet from Obama that he's more interested in what tie Jim Lehrer is wearing?

:huh:

[sasquatchs]

Short North Koreans! Dehydrated babies! Obama just doesn't understand

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EsYbhpmjLA

1:01 - 1:11...What is McCain looking at??

It's bad enough that he ignored Obama the entire evening, but seriously, what the heck is going on here?

Is his wife mouthing jokes to him?

Is he trying to find Palin in the audience?

Is he just so off-the-planet from Obama that he's more interested in what tie Jim Lehrer is wearing?

:huh:

That is frickin' hilarious! Notice how he tilts his head and has this "WTF?" look on his face. I'm very curious what he was looking at that made him start cringing and looking like that. We know he wasn't looking at Obama, and judging by the look on his face, he seemed focused on something in the audience to the point that he wasn't even listening to Obama. What a joke. Presidential, my ass.

[rdh007]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

What was that? Even if he had a grand point, that would've taken too long to make I might add, that was just odd.

I love the end of the video. In what respect, Charlie?

[StrainedEyes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EsYbhpmjLA

1:01 - 1:11...What is McCain looking at??

It's bad enough that he blatantly ignored Obama the entire evening, and giggled like a 5 year-old whenever Obama spoke, but seriously, what the heck is going on here?

Is his wife mouthing jokes to him?

Is he trying to find Palin in the audience?

Is he just so off-the-planet from Obama that he's more interested in what tie Jim Lehrer is wearing?

:huh:

There was one point during one of Obama's answers, that shuffling papers could clearly be heard and were competing with Obama. Much later in the debate you could see McCain flipping a paper over on his podium. I doubt the moderator would have had a paper shifting-a-thon while one of the candidates spoke.

It's weird how obvious McCain was with his distaste for Obama.

[Marx]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:hehe::hehe::hehe:

I still don't understand what the average height of South Koreans has to do with anything. It was definately a 'WTF' moment.

[StrainedEyes]

Kissenger was on Fox not too long ago, declaring that he never said there should be meetings without preconditioning. So I guess we'll just ignore the stuff we have on record.

[SentinelMind]

^That's disappointing news for Obama. Do we have any evidence that Kissinger ever said the President of United States should meet with leader of Iran directly without preconditions?

[sasquatchs]

Last week Kissinger said the US should open high-level talks without conditions. During the debate Obama said there should be talks without preconditions. McCain attempted to refute that by saying the president shouldn't be the one to do it, something Obama never suggested anyway. Now Kissinger's simply repeating McCain's irrelevant point

[danoyse]

That isn't grandstanding. That's saying something which should be an obvious point, that wearing a flag pin doesn't denote patriotism, it is actions which speak louder than attire. The fact that the media made an issue out of it shows what kind of horse **** they value, debates on silly things such as flag pins and faith, instead of actual issues which are of some merit to this country as a whole. If the majority of Americans aren't able to see through that schtick, then so be it, maybe we need to have IQ tests in order for some people to vote.

It was something I completely agreed with Obama on, too. Patriotism is how you hold up the ideals of this country every day...it shouldn't matter how big the flag is on your lawn, or how many magnetic ribbons you have on your car, and I certainly don't vote for who's wearing a flag pin and who isn't.

I don't think it was a "novice" mistake to point out what patriotism really is.

[redfirebird2008]

^That's disappointing news for Obama. Do we have any evidence that Kissinger ever said the President of United States should meet with leader of Iran directly without preconditions?

Yes, actually we do. Direct quotes from him to the media from last week.

[tzarinna]

McCain was supper hostile and defensive. Total turn off. I came into the debate still very neutral and McCain suggesting a freeze on all funding except veterans. I know he wants to have his homeboys back and all but what about the other seniors, HIV patients and so on and so on. Lack of composure really threw it all away, I know it's been stated before but he truly didn't act like a president. I was actually a little embarrassed for the guy. I think he'll look back at this and realize what a mess this was.

[redfirebird2008]

McCain was supper hostile and defensive. Total turn off. I came into the debate still very neutral and McCain suggesting a freeze on all funding except veterans. I know he wants to have his homeboys back and all but what about the other seniors, HIV patients and so on and so on. Lack of composure really threw it all away, I know it's been stated before but he truly didn't act like a president. I was actually a little embarrassed for the guy. I think he'll look back at this and realize what a mess this was.

The problem here is that McCain's actual voting record on veterans is pretty shameful. He panders to them on the campaign trail by saying, "Hey, I'm one of you" but then turns around and votes AGAINST significant legislation designed to help veterans. Most recently, he voted against a new G.I. bill for veterans.

[Kurosawa]

Now John Kerry would have probably done that if he were in this debate. Or he would have smiled smugly with that "this guy is an idiot" expression like he did with Bush. Obama did the right thing and kept the poker face all night even when McCain went off on one of his senile grandfather moments. I find that to be more presidential than trying to make your opponent look like a fool.

Exactly. McCain has that under control anyway.

He came off half senile/half insane at times.

[Franklin Richards]

The problem here is that McCain's actual voting record on veterans is pretty shameful. He panders to them on the campaign trail by saying, "Hey, I'm one of you" but then turns around and votes AGAINST significant legislation designed to help veterans. Most recently, he voted against a new G.I. bill for veterans.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/AuntPetunia/votesagainstvets.jpg


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Superman]

Done.Thank you. :up: :yay:

[SentinelMind]

Yes, actually we do. Direct quotes from him to the media from last week.

Go any links?

[redfirebird2008]

Go any links?

Here's one:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/palin-kissinger.html

[Superman]

Obama's post-debate ad (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/obama_ad_zero.html)Ouch! :hehe:

[Superman]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hXa4h7k26QQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:hehe::hehe::hehe:I saw that when it happend but I never did understand what the hell he was talking about or what it had to do with anything.:huh:

[ManofmyWord]

:woot:
1:01 - 1:11...What is McCain looking at??

I think it was some political stunt to try to catch the eye. If you notice McCain was more jumpy and making more expressions, probably to try and draw attention away.

Just my Opinion.

[Superman]

Kissenger was on Fox not too long ago, declaring that he never said there should be meetings without preconditioning. So I guess we'll just ignore the stuff we have on record.

Here's one:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/palin-kissinger.htmlSo in other words, Not only did McCain lie lastnight about what Kissinger said but now he's got Kissinger lying for him too.

Well there goes what little respect I had for Kissinger.:whatever:

[Gilpesh]

So in other words, Not only did McCain lie lastnight about what Kissinger said but now he's got Kissinger lying for him too.

Well there goes what little respect I had for Kissinger.:whatever:

Yeah... really sucks that we have liars being backed up by liars.

[ManofmyWord]

I'm sorry, but I've never fully cared for or liked Kissinger, Sure at the time Détente was probably the best Foreign Policy stance we could have. But he got off way to easy on Watergate.

[SentinelMind]

No where in those links does Kissinger say the President of the United States should meet with leader of Iran without preconditinos.....it just says he thinks US should talk with Iran over its nuclear programs, doesn't say the President of the United States should do it directly.

[squeekness]

I still don't understand what the average height of South Koreans has to do with anything. It was definately a 'WTF' moment.I can venture a guess -- starvation can cause a lack of growth. One side of Korea is healthier than the other. It could be a dig at a totalitarian governement making life bad for its people.

[Gilpesh]

No where in those links does Kissinger say the President of the United States should meet with leader of Iran without preconditinos.....it just says he thinks US should talk with Iran over its nuclear programs, doesn't say the President of the United States should do it directly.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-kiss.html

ABC News' Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday's presidential debate saying he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."

"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," Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.

During the debate, Obama pointed to Kissinger to defend his position because the former secretary of state supports direct talks with high-level Iranians without preconditions. Kissinger does not, however, support the U.S. president personally engaging in those talks, a point which McCain sought to drive home during the debate.

While it appears Kissinger and Senator Barack Obama disagree on what level those talks should occur, they do agree talks should begin, in Kissinger's words, “at a very high level” and without preconditions.

During the debate, McCain said that Kissinger would not endorse Obama's position that he would meet on a presidential level with leaders of enemy countries. "I guarantee you he would not say that," McCain said of Kissinger.

Obama took issue with McCain's characterization of the former top diplomat's position, but just last week Kissinger said that, while he broadly agrees on the need to negotiate with Iran, he "preferred doing it at the secretary of state level."

When asked if high level talks with Iran should begin right out of the box, Kissinger replied "Initially, yes."

According to Obama's official website he supports "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."

On preconditions the two appear to agree. Last week Kissinger also said that "I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."

Now keep in mind. Those are before McCain made an ass of himself and Kissinger had to completely flip flop on the issue just to make McCain look good.

[Marx]

PALIN TAKES QUESTIONS ABOUT DEBATE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/27/palin-takes-questions-during-cheesesteak-run/

'McCain did awesome!'

'In Pakistan?'

:dry:

Wow...

[Marx]

I can venture a guess -- starvation can cause a lack of growth. One side of Korea is healthier than the other. It could be a dig at a totalitarian governement making life bad for its people.

Possibly...

[Gilpesh]

I like how SNL is putting the stuff people care about up first.

Presidential pie eating contests :up:

[Gilpesh]

PALIN TAKES QUESTIONS ABOUT DEBATE


"How about the Pakistan situation?," asked Rovito, who said he was not a Palin supporter. "What's your thoughts about that?"


"In Pakistan?," she asked, looking surprised.


Yes... Governor Palin.... Pakistan... is in Pakistan. You did good... you answered those mean reporter's tough questions. Now you get your sandwich, enjoy!

[Fading]

Just watched the debates, I'd give the win to Obama. Neither was outstanding, but I felt Obama did what he needed to and McCain didn't. Obama's experience has been called into question, and he showed he could stand on an even lvl with McCain. McCain however did nothing to sway me or make himself stand out.

I felt McCain came off as angry. He tried to attack Obama often, he refused to let topics go despite being asked to, he interrupted, he muttered, and wouldn't look anyone in the face. Also some of his "facts" seemed off.

As for the issues, I felt both came off near even. They both played to please everyone. However Obama got me with the bit about focusing on America's reputation, and talking. Truth is, we're a very hated country, ppl may not care here, but making sure future generations don't want our heads will go a long way to making the US safer. McCain on the other hand seemed more focused on attacking Obama rather than laying out his policies or addressing the issues.

[Fading]

PALIN TAKES QUESTIONS ABOUT DEBATE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/27/palin-takes-questions-during-cheesesteak-run/

'McCain did awesome!'

'In Pakistan?'

:dry:

Wow...

News reporter - So Ms. Palin, are you ready for the vice president candidate debates?

Palin - Ya, like, totally ready and stuff. It's gonna be like....sooo awesome to talk and junk. After the debates I'm going to a party, and then I go to a peace conference in Japan Japan.



Heh, I can understand being caught off guard, but she is trying to go for the second highest office in the land. You have to be on guard in a situation like that at all times. "Awesome" and thinking Pakistan is in Pakistan....yeah, I worry about not only her geographical knowledge, but about her ability to make quick and rational decisions when confronted unaware.

[Superman]

Kinda like Bill Maher said, If you put a map of the Middle East in front of her without the names of the countries printed on it I doubt she could point out Pakistan let alone any other country.:whatever:

[redfirebird2008]

Kinda like Bill Maher said, If you put a map of the Middle East in front of her without the names of the countries printed on it I doubt she could point out Pakistan let alone any other country.:whatever:

Well I'd say she's pretty representative of average Americans then! A lot of people out there can't even look at a blank map of the U.S. and name all the states correctly. :hehe:

[rdh007]

Well I'd say she's pretty representative of average Americans then! A lot of people out there can't even look at a blank map of the U.S. and name all the states correctly. :hehe:

Who has that Stewart quote in their signature? I'd like to credit them.

"Ahh, war. It's God's way of teaching Americans geography." or something like that.

[sasquatchs]

USA Today/Gallop Poll: Obama Did Better in First Debate

A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.

Obama scored even better -- 52%-35% -- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country's problems.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5902766&page=1 Surprising, thought opinion would even out as usual

[lazur]

He ALWAYS spoke in terms of CONFLICT! Since you failed to read that part of my post. His foreign policy revolves around CONFLICT.

I didn't get that from what he said. Maybe you did, but I didn't. He did speak to the fact that there is a lot of conflict around the world, but he didn't speak in terms of our worsening that conflict.

He also touched on the notion that if we give Presidential audience to Awkmadeajihad (don't care to look up the spelling), which Obama said he'd do, it would give him credibility and may embolden others to do what Iran has done (funding terrorist groups with millions of dollars, and training the Iranian Guard to enter Iraq and kill Americans) because it'll be seen as effective. This would cost MORE lives around the world.

"Fighting" does not always entail military action, since you are unable to read subtext. Nowhere in what I wrote did I indicate that fighting entails military action. It is VERY possible to fight with other countries in a diplomatic fashion (and some would argue it's just as if not more damaging as military conflict). But thanks for droning up McCain's "Alexander the Great" soundbite from last night for no damn reason.

Sounds like semantics to me. You say fighting and anything I say will be wrong because you apply the word to so many different things, including diplomacy. You spoke of McCain seeming to lean on the military as an option, referring to it as 'fighting,' and that's the context under which I'm operating. I will also assume that when we mean diplomacy, we will say diplomacy. Let's try to not twist the language. That way we can actually get through this discussion and make our points without having to talk about context and misunderstandings and all of the other garbage that gets in the way of the meat of the topic at hand.

Anyway, I understand your point. But someone with McCain's history and knowledge also knows that there are certain people around the world whose time has ended for 'talks' because our country is talked out. We've been to 'talking' Iran for years, and it hasn't helped. Russia is returning to her old ways, but I haven't heard Bush or McCain say they won't talk to Putin. In fact, they have in the past.

Speaking of Russia, McCain has a much better understanding of Putin and the Russian government than Obama could possibly have, simply due to the experience and knowledge he's accumulated over the years that would be impossible for Obama to have matched in his shorter time on Earth and his significantly shorter time as a politician. McCain has more knowledge on foreign relations, how to succeed in wartime, and not only how to keep this country safe, but more importantly from whom. That kind of knowledge cannot be gained only from reading the headlines and listening to the American people, most of whom are also skewed by the media (present crowd excluded of course, since by virtue of being active on a political discussion form, it's assumed that most of us do our homework, even if we do occasionally slip up now and then). But the point is that Russia may not like us, but they do respect us for our power. They respect men more than women, for example, which doesn't bode well for Palin, imo, but they respect anyone who exerts authority and the kind of knowledge that Obama just doesn't have, despite his other qualities. I mean, if Obama had been through even 25% of what McCain has been through in terms of experience, developing a world view similar to McCain's, I'd be voting for him right now.

I guess I'm really not sure of what you believe Obama could accomplish over McCain? McCain speaks their language. Obama does not. Obama has this false notion that he can negotiate his way through anything, even if he doesn't have all of the information he needs. And I certainly do admire the man for his charisma, charm, eloquence, and I'm sure the ladies admire him for that and his good looks, and I wouldn't mind having a beer with the guy and listening to his reasoning on his world views, because it sounds like it could be very interesting. The problem for me is that he's just unrealistic. I mean, if I could hear the guy speak out against some of the Democratic 'tenets' of late, I may still be a swing voter. But he doesn't. He talks about raising taxes, increasing the size and authority of government in our lives, and I still do not believe (because I've heard nothing from him to the contrary) that if he gets in as President, he won't shred our military. I'd *welcome* a statement from him on that subject. I want someone to ask him that question - "Senator Obama, if you become President, will you reduce the size of our military and/or cut defense spending?"

He's very much an idealist, and he's very presentable and neat, but you cannot replace knowledge with any of those things.

What does that have to do with anything I wrote? I'm talking about McCain's attitude towards foreign policy in general, not our commitments to our NATO allies.

Because you implied that we have to ask other countries for help when in reality we don't. It's all part of the membership.

ALWAYS in terms of conflict. He never once spoke in terms of seeking better relations with other countries that we are lacking them in or how he would maintain the good relationships we do have left.

Um, yes he did. He spoke about better relations with Pakistan. He spoke about improving relations with allies.

But out of curiosity, who is it that Obama spoke of bettering relations with? The only one I heard him talking about was Iran, and we've all seen what a jacka** that guy is. (Did you catch him last week on the news when he was in New York?) Obama said that Bush finally sent some diplomat to Europe (note he didn't say Iran) to begin planning, apparently for low-level talks with Iran, but Obama wasn't clear and it could have meant anything. And then McCain corrected him and stated that we've been talking to these countries - ALL of these countries - even citing a meeting between military leaders and Iranian officials in Iraq.

The argument of foreign policy centered around Obama's desire to slap a date on Iraq and call it done regardless of the situation on the ground, something Petraeus and Gates BOTH call disastrous - they are both on record as saying that Obama's plan for Iraq will fail miserably, and that we'll have to go back to finish the job later on, costing even more resources, time and lives. Obama didn't back down, though. He talked about needing more troops in Afghanistan, and he's right, but then McCain countered that 20,000 more troops have been sent there, over and above the normal allocation, but that the fight is different than in Iraq, and that it would require a new strategy in order to be successful. Obama couldn't possibly understand what McCain understands about the situation on the ground. He didn't even bother going there until this past July, and only because of political pressure, while McCain has been going regularly (before and while running for President) to spend time with the troops and develop a first-hand understanding of what's going on, and THEN to weigh it against his first-hand knowledge of past conflicts in order to come up with a solid strategy. People fault McCain for 'living in the past' when it's the past that teaches us about the future. That is, if we care to learn from our mistakes. And McCain has been CENTRAL in turning the situation in Iraq around. Has Obama?

It's not Obama's fault that he's inexperienced, but he is. So you may call me partisan, I really don't care. I have to choose between two parties. No other choice, unless I write someone in, but why would I do that when there's zero chance of my vote meaning anything? I guess that whatever one I choose and defend, the other will call me partisan, so it is what it is. If there were an independent running who shared the perfect mix of left AND right views, you know a BALANCE, then I'd vote for that candidate. But for me, social issues have to take a back seat to defense against foreign enemies - people hellbent on killing us, all of us, including Barack Obama. This world is a dangerous place. Over the years, we've beat back brutal regime after brutal regime because if we hadn't, the world would be a far worse place today, despite our shortcomings and mistakes. Obama does not get that. I may be wrong, but it sounds like you don't get that either.

There's a part of me who wants to believe that we can live in a peaceful, harmonious and prosperous world, but the other part of me - the guy who has been living on this Earth for 37 years - knows better. If we're going to get to that point, we won't get there by showing weakness, hesitation or ignorance of the facts and of history and of proper strategy, which can only be gained from first-hand knowledge and experience. We will get there by maintaining our powerful presence in the world and ensuring stability, as we have for the last 100 years.

Right now, today, as the world is, I believe we need someone in there who knows what they're doing, but who more importantly understands and accepts that the role of the United States in the world IS and HAS TO BE the guarantee of world peace, or at least the one nation on Earth with the power to stop the brutal regimes and dictatorships that have always existed in the past and present, and which will always exist in the future.

We need a President who will govern the country in the world as it IS, attempting to make it a better place for everyone. We do not need a President who will govern the country based on how the world SHOULD BE. It's dangerous and it'll destroy this country.

[jaguarr]

I'll just make this short; lazur, I disagree with everything you wrote above. Have a nice day. :)

jag

[Gilpesh]

We need a President who will govern the country in the world as it IS, attempting to make it a better place for everyone. We do not need a President who will govern the country based on how the world SHOULD BE. It's dangerous and it'll destroy this country.

I was just about to say that about McCain.

You can't govern this country based on how the world should be (America is the World Police and everyone loves us). It's dangerous and it'll destroy this country.

[souvlaki]

Surprising, thought opinion would even out as usual

Apparently, according to a poster on another board I go to, someone from Gallup was on MSNBC this morning and said that when Gallup posts their daily update today Obama will be up by 8. If that turns out to be true, things are looking up for Obama going into the Biden/Palin debate. Speaking of polls, does anyone know what the hell is up with GW/Battleground Tracking? They are the only pollster to have McCain up by 2 (or for that matter even have McCain within the margin of error), and as long as I've been following the RCP presidential tracking polls it seems they've had McCain up.

[Matt]

McCain's campaign is imploding. He better have the October suprise of a life time or he is going to lose by 10 to 15 points.

[souvlaki]

McCain's campaign is imploding. He better have the October suprise of a life time or he is going to lose by 10 to 15 points.

After reading that article that was posted about the Palin wedding, I'm starting to wonder if that was McCain's idea of an October surprise. If it is then McCain is screwed.

[Marx]

I'll just make this short; lazur, I disagree with everything you wrote above. Have a nice day. :)

jag
:hehe:

[ShadowBoxing]

McCain's campaign is imploding. He better have the October suprise of a life time or he is going to lose by 10 to 15 points.I think it's because they chose Sarah Palin and just now are started to realize how damaging she is to their campaign.

[DorkyFresh]

my favorite part of the debate...

xG1aOORf8Pc

...Obama needs to put more pressure on McCain instead of agreeing with him every 10 minutes. i'm hoping this is part of Obama's strategy and is just saving the juicy stuff for the last debate.

[StrainedEyes]

my favorite part of the debate...

xG1aOORf8Pc

...Obama needs to put more pressure on McCain instead of agreeing with him every 10 minutes. i'm hoping this is part of Obama's strategy and is just saving the juicy stuff for the last debate.

I think now that Obama knows how McCain is during a debate, he'll bring up the heat.

[Excel]

I disagree, agreeing made Obama looked good.

McCain is standing here saying how bipartisan, ect. but he wont even acknoweldge his opponent is there, let alone right about something.

[The Senator]

Lazur, if you're going to make nonsensical claims about Obama's foreign policy, at least make sure you can at least spell "Ahmadinejad" correctly.

[lazur]

Lazur, if you're going to make nonsensical claims about Obama's foreign policy, at least make sure you can at least spell "Ahmadinejad" correctly.

Yeah, I said in my post I didn't feel like looking it up. But I realize that spelling is more important to you than the issues. :rolleyes: Thanks for not disappointing with your insightful response...

[Excel]

Obaama's Iraq rant was brilliant; perfectly executed.

[DorkyFresh]

I disagree, agreeing made Obama looked good.

the first few times Obama agreed with McCain, i thought it was a good move. i was thinking to myself "at least, he's giving credit where it's due" but then he agreed with him a few more times and i thought to myself "now he's being too nice" and i knew the Republicans would use those clips against Obama.

[lazur]

Obaama's Iraq rant was brilliant; perfectly executed.

Obama is perfect in every way, isn't he? Why so surprised?

[lazur]

the first few times Obama agreed with McCain, i thought it was a good move. i was thinking to myself "at least, he's giving credit where it's due" but then he agreed with him a few more times and i thought to myself "now he's being too nice" and i knew the Republicans would use those clips against Obama.

Yeah, when McCain basically explained the history of Russian and border nation conflict and how things escalated to where they are today, Obama was like, "Uh, yeah I agree with whatever John just said" or something like that. Was quite revealing. :)

[Excel]

Lazur I read your post and it makes sense.

If your an Obama supporter.

[DorkyFresh]

Yeah, when McCain basically explained the history of Russian and border nation conflict and how things escalated to where they are today, Obama was like, "Uh, yeah I agree with whatever John just said" or something like that. Was quite revealing. :)


so what do you think about McCain being wrong about the war in Iraq?

[Excel]

Yeah, when McCain basically explained the history of Russian and border nation conflict and how things escalated to where they are today, Obama was like, "Uh, yeah I agree with whatever John just said" or something like that. Was quite revealing. :)

We can all take in comfort in McCains perfect response to Obama's comments on how McCain was wrong on Iraq.

[Excel]

Lazur, no personal crap aside, lets hear it.

You claim McCain has more expirience, and I would agree. The problem is, in his expirience, he has nothing impressive. His failure on all things Iraq is just one of them.

If John McCain cant even acknowledge Obama in a debate, what am I to expect him to do talking with world leaders?

McCain clearly has an alpha male attitude; a short temper, and a hot head. He did not stay cool under pressure. That much is obvious from watching the debate to anybody.

When the pressure is on McCain to deliver on anything, do you trust him or his judgement, knowing how shockingly off he was on Iraq?

If Russis battle ships in Venezuala somehow turns into a a new cruban missile crisis sort of thing, I dont see ANYBODY could possibly want John McCain in charge. There is no logic behind that whatsoever; McCain has no history of being right on anythign national security wise or military wise. He is a risk taking gamblers, and as Sarah Palin pick shows, that effects his judgement on national security isssues.

Talk abotu a loose cannon.

Or even better, if McCain dies, are you honestly satisfied with Sarah Palin in charge?

Seriously think about.

President Palin.

President Palin going to meet with world leaders, making economic decisions, making tough military decisions.

Again, would you want Sarah Palin running the show if Russias ships in Venezuala turns into a CMC 2.0?

I am sorry, but I do see how anybody can honestly say YES. I would love for somebody to explain to me why they would say that, becuase I cant figure it out.

[The Senator]

Obama is perfect in every way, isn't he? Why so surprised?

никакое смещение здесь :yay:

[hitmanyr2k]

If Russis battle ships in Venezuala somehow turns into a a new cuban missile crisis sort of thing, I dont see ANYBODY could possibly want John McCain in charge. There is no logic behind that whatsoever; McCain has no history of being right on anythign national security wise or military wise. He is a risk taking gamblers, and as Sarah Palin pick shows, that effects his judgement on national security isssues.


Going by the way they handle things if McCain (or Bush) were president during the Cuban missile crisis there's a good chance many of us wouldn't be here today lol.

[rdh007]

никакое смещение здесь :yay:

I translated that as "Any Displacement Here"

http://translation2.paralink.com/

[The Senator]

I translated that as "Any Displacement Here"

http://translation2.paralink.com/

Technically it should read as "There is none of bias here," i.e. "there is no bias here."

But I believe смещение is more commonly used for "displacement" than "bias."

Silly languages.

[The Senator]

ANYWAY, the point I was trying to get across is that lazur calling Excel on his bias is just... hilarious. :yay:

[EdRyder]

Yeah, when McCain basically explained the history of Russian and border nation conflict and how things escalated to where they are today, Obama was like, "Uh, yeah I agree with whatever John just said" or something like that. Was quite revealing. :)

When McCain was talking about Russia/Georgia? Or When McCain was talking about Russia/Afghanistan and the emergence of the Taliban?

Ironic that when Obama spoke on the Poppy explosion in Pakistan and what conditions are starting to emerge there that parallel the Taliban regime suddenly ,"he just doesn't understand".

Its borderline retarded. Stand there and explain to me the mistakes of the past and then tell me how you refuse to learn from them.

[Marx]

ANYWAY, the point I was trying to get across is that lazur calling Excel on his bias is just... hilarious. :yay:

That is pretty funny. :funny:

[lazur]

Lazur, no personal crap aside, lets hear it.

Agreed. I'll do my best. But please keep in mind, this is simply MY opinion on things.

You claim McCain has more expirience, and I would agree. The problem is, in his expirience, he has nothing impressive. His failure on all things Iraq is just one of them.

I'm not sure how to qualify what McCain has done as something you personally would find impressive. But for me, I believe that McCain making intense efforts to keep our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq rallied by visiting them and taking interest in how and what they were doing, I'd say he's accomplished. I would also think that the number of foreign leaders he personally knows from his years and years of interest in foreign policy make him exceptional not only at understanding the world and its leaders better, but also understanding the tragic reality of the world at large. That kind of experience and knowledge in today's world is, in my opinion, a requirement of any President. We are sailing the most treacherous waters our country has ever seen. All politics aside, I believe we need that experience and knowledge right now.

So no, I disagree, I do not see McCain as having an unimpressive past. Regardless of political affiliation, I fail to see how anyone could.

Now let's talk about Iraq for a minute (and this will hopefully serve as Dorky's response also).

What do we know about Iraq? Well, we know that Joe Biden was in favor of the Iraq War, since he voted for it. We know that Hillary Clinton voted for it. We know that Barack Obama did not vote for it, but did (he claims) express opposition, and as he said in the debate, he foresaw all of the problems that would occur if we went into Iraq. Except that he didn't know if Iraq had WMDs or not. Had he been in Congress, he would have believed they did, just like everyone else who voted for it, but is now against it.

Whatever the case, McCain is no more guilty for voting for Iraq than Obama's own VP, which makes this issue rationally irrelevant.

After we went into Iraq, McCain was the first person to speak up and state that the strategy was wrong. He visited the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he fought with his own party and the President about what was going on. It was McCain's voice of opposition over the handling of the war that got everyone else to take notice. His party HATED him for it. The Democrats LOVED him for it. McCain pushed for the surge when everyone was calling him a loon ... yet we all know the results, and so does Obama, who said that it succeeded beyond his 'wildest dreams.'

The past speaks for itself. Revisionists are not needed.

If John McCain cant even acknowledge Obama in a debate, what am I to expect him to do talking with world leaders?

John McCain and Barack Obama were addressing the American people. Obama himself spent much of the time looking at the camera and not at McCain, despite the moderator asking him to do so first. The only time Obama looked at McCain when he was speaking was when he made an accusation.

But what do we know about John McCain? We know he's not afraid of confrontation. We know he has no problem getting in someone's face and telling them when he believes they're wrong.

So my conclusion is that he didn't want to engage in direct communication with a suave speaker like Obama, who would ultimately derail the discussion into some other exaggeration. They went the whole debate and I think they both made valid points. It's just that I found McCain's valid points to be the more important. By agreeing with McCain eight times during the debate, I suspect that Obama recognizes McCain's experience as well.

McCain clearly has an alpha male attitude; a short temper, and a hot head. He did not stay cool under pressure. That much is obvious from watching the debate to anybody.

Of course he's an alpha male. I'm not understanding why that's a bad thing in a world filled with not only alpha males, but dangerous ones hellbent on bombing the crap out of your country in the name of some religious deity. An alpha male gets things done in Government. You know who else are/were alpha males? Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Kennedy, etc.

As for the debate, I didn't note any time when he appeared to have lost his temper. At least, no more than I noticed Obama exhibit the same type of 'frustration' which is probably normal under the circumstances for both candidates.

When the pressure is on McCain to deliver on anything, do you trust him or his judgement, knowing how shockingly off he was on Iraq?

Shockingly off? Are you still referring to his vote?

Of course I trust his judgment. Prior to this campaign season, John McCain was known by BOTH parties as the guy to get things done. He was respected and admired by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and by the American people as well. Suddenly, because he's running for President against a Democrat, he's Satan incarnate? Why would people prefer to look at a candidates campaign as a measure of qualification, instead of a candidate's history, knowledge and experience?

If Russis battle ships in Venezuala somehow turns into a a new cruban missile crisis sort of thing, I dont see ANYBODY could possibly want John McCain in charge. There is no logic behind that whatsoever; McCain has no history of being right on anythign national security wise or military wise.

Actually, there's no one else I'd rather have in charge. This guy knows Putin. Does Obama?

And, seriously, you're actually claiming McCain hasn't been right about anything militarily, nationally or internationally? Why don't you look at the man's documented record of achievement for crying out loud. There's no one in Congress that has achieved more than he has with respect to bipartisanship, foreign policy and a deep understanding of those countries the entire world needs to worry about. Does Obama know this stuff? Was Obama right about the surge? Did Obama even know before McCain informed him (during the debate no less) that they already had increased troop numbers in Afghanistan by 20,000? Did McCain have to explain to him that you can't just 'bomb Pakistan' because what Obama sees as 'just taking out some bad guys,' Pakistan sees as 'invasion?' Do we really want yet another enemy in the Middle East? Apparently, Obama does...

He is a risk taking gamblers, and as Sarah Palin pick shows, that effects his judgement on national security isssues.

I'm not going to argue your point, because I think it's valid. I really want to see how she does in the debate. If she sucks, I think McCain should replace her (I'd go with Condi Rice), but if she doesn't then the game is on.

Talk abotu a loose cannon.

Or even better, if McCain dies, are you honestly satisfied with Sarah Palin in charge?

Here's where your point will be lost to a McCain supporter. Palin doesn't represent 'inexperience' or a 'loose cannon' to anyone, even Obama supporters, because if she represents it, then so does he. Thus, the argument can be rationally dismissed.

What Palin represents is the ideology of McCain, and that's why he chose her.

Seriously think about.

President Palin.

President Palin going to meet with world leaders, making economic decisions, making tough military decisions.

Again, would you want Sarah Palin running the show if Russias ships in Venezuala turns into a CMC 2.0?

I am sorry, but I do see how anybody can honestly say YES. I would love for somebody to explain to me why they would say that, becuase I cant figure it out.

The presence of Palin does not obscure me from still supporting McCain. Unlike you, I don't believe McCain will die of natural causes during his first term of office. He exercises and he keeps healthy. For a 72 year old, he can still stand and hold his own, so his age to me is irrelevant, and I believe that if I were to actually consider his age a factor, then I'd view myself as being petty.

That said, if you're asking me if I'd prefer a proven reformer with executive experience over and above a career Washington DC politician (Biden), my answer is yes.

[Matt]

ANYWAY, the point I was trying to get across is that lazur calling Excel on his bias is just... hilarious. :yay:

I don't think so. I have debated Lazur many times on these boards as we are usually on different sides of a debate. He may have biases, but he is capable of putting them aside and conceding when wrong and even being empathetic to another view point.

Excel on the other hand's views are based on his biases.Excel admitted in January to knowing nothing about politics and not caring about politics but only wanting to see a "brother in the White House." Any view Excel has, is therefore tainted by this. His biases have shaped his views. If Collin Powell were running, Excel would likely be a Republican. Lazur may be biased, but at least his views are his own. Excel's biases are a whole different level.

[Fading]

Well I'd say she's pretty representative of average Americans then! A lot of people out there can't even look at a blank map of the U.S. and name all the states correctly. :hehe:

Lol true, but normal Americans don't meet with official representatives from these countries to promote bills and put off wars. Bill the construction worker doesn't need to know the capital of Pakistan, or where it is, but Palin needs too...it's a part of her job. I'd like to joke a bit more, but the thought of her in charge if something happens to McCain, let alone her being in charge of anything is scary lol.

[Fading]

Going by the way they handle things if McCain (or Bush) were president during the Cuban missile crisis there's a good chance many of us wouldn't be here today lol.

That's definitely something to worry about in all honesty. McCain does come off as aggressive. Hell...I remember a video where he made a woman (think it was a congress woman) cry, and that was in a formal non aggressive envinronment. Imagine him with pressure on his head, and an impending fight on the horizon.

I think you need to be strong, be unwavering, and be willing to hold your position. However you can also be stubborn and too aggressive. Before 9/11 we were seen as strong, no one wants to mess with us. However now that we've been attacked, and now that we look a bit weaker after having so much trouble with Iraq, I think more countries would be willing to call us out rather than back down. I think in this case we need someone with a cooler head who's willing to talk rather than someone who will threaten.

[redfirebird2008]

Lol true, but normal Americans don't meet with official representatives from these countries to promote bills and put off wars. Bill the construction worker doesn't need to know the capital of Pakistan, or where it is, but Palin needs too...it's a part of her job. I'd like to joke a bit more, but the thought of her in charge if something happens to McCain, let alone her being in charge of anything is scary lol.

Yes, it is scary:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vukDeNoCDYw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vukDeNoCDYw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The funny AND sad part about that is there is no exaggeration in it! Sheesh. Frightening to think this person could be President. :csad:

[The Senator]

I don't think so. I have debated Lazur many times on these boards as we are usually on different sides of a debate. He may have biases, but he is capable of putting them aside and conceding when wrong and even being empathetic to another view point.

Excel on the other hand's views are based on his biases.Excel admitted in January to knowing nothing about politics and not caring about politics but only wanting to see a "brother in the White House." Any view Excel has, is therefore tainted by this. His biases have shaped his views. If Collin Powell were running, Excel would likely be a Republican. Lazur may be biased, but at least his views are his own. Excel's biases are a whole different level.

But lazur has said that Obama has called for the destruction of the U.S. military, has vaguely implied that Obama wants to work with the enemy, and has stated that he will consider moving to another country if Obama wins the presidency. His rationales are rooted in as much nonsensical gobbledygook as Excel's. So both of their biases seem to consist of insurmountable taint, just on opposite ends of the spectrum.

[redfirebird2008]

But lazur has said that Obama has called for the destruction of the U.S. military, has vaguely implied that Obama wants to work with the enemy, and has stated that he will consider moving to another country if Obama wins the presidency. His rationales are rooted in as much nonsensical gobbledygook as Excel's. So both of their biases seem to consist of insurmountable taint, just on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Political bias can be just as bad as racial bias. Bias is bias, no matter what arena it is formulated in.

[jaguarr]

But lazur has said that Obama has called for the destruction of the U.S. military, has vaguely implied that Obama wants to work with the enemy, and has stated that he will consider moving to another country if Obama wins the presidency. His rationales are rooted in as much nonsensical gobbledygook as Excel's. So both of their biases seem to consist of insurmountable taint, just on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I approve of your use of the word "taint" in the context that you have and find it fitting of the conversation. Carry on.

jag

[lazur]

But lazur has said that Obama has called for the destruction of the U.S. military, has vaguely implied that Obama wants to work with the enemy, and has stated that he will consider moving to another country if Obama wins the presidency. His rationales are rooted in as much nonsensical gobbledygook as Excel's. So both of their biases seem to consist of insurmountable taint, just on opposite ends of the spectrum.

It's not 'political bias' - it's that I"m biased against Obama for many of the reasons I've already stated. I would take Biden over Obama. I would take Hillary any day over Obama.

As for my saying that 'Obama has called for the destruction of the U.S.' you are obviously wrong and I never said that. What I said was that I don't know the man well enough to trust him and I don't know what he's capable of doing. The funny part of this whole thing is that none of you know him either. He's brand new to the scene, and based on that he's charismatic, suave and able to give good speeches filled with content you can't possibly know will actually happen since the guy has no history or record to work from, you're willing to take that chance. But I can't. Sorry, but I don't want to hand the keys to the most powerful country on the planet to Obama. He's incapable and has no idea what he's getting himself into, and he will cause a lot more harm than Bush ever did. But hey, that's my opinion. Call me 'partisan' for having it all you want, but it is you who are partisan if you hold the belief that just because the nearest candidate to my ideological beliefs in this case is best suited by the Republican candidate, automatically makes me a Republican. If you haven't noticed, other than the Democratic and Republican candidates, there is no one else to vote for.

[The Senator]

It's not 'political bias' - it's that I"m biased against Obama for many of the reasons I've already stated. I would take Biden over Obama. I would take Hillary any day over Obama.

As for my saying that 'Obama has called for the destruction of the U.S.' you are obviously wrong and I never said that. What I said was that I don't know the man well enough to trust him and I don't know what he's capable of doing. The funny part of this whole thing is that none of you know him either. He's brand new to the scene, and based on that he's charismatic, suave and able to give good speeches filled with content you can't possibly know will actually happen since the guy has no history or record to work from, you're willing to take that chance. But I can't. Sorry, but I don't want to hand the keys to the most powerful country on the planet to Obama. He's incapable and has no idea what he's getting himself into, and he will cause a lot more harm than Bush ever did. But hey, that's my opinion. Call me 'partisan' for having it all you want, but it is you who are partisan if you hold the belief that just because the nearest candidate to my ideological beliefs in this case is best suited by the Republican candidate, automatically makes me a Republican. If you haven't noticed, other than the Democratic and Republican candidates, there is no one else to vote for.

Wow, you just went on a long-winded rant about nothing, considering I said that you said Obama wants to destroy the U.S. military... which yes, you did indeed say.

And no, I never said that just because you support McCain, you are a Republican. I said that you certainly are not a centrist, nor are you non-biased as you have asserted on numerous occasions, when you adamantly support John McCain. I do not care, at all, who you support; what I care about is the double-standards you have projected time and time again on these boards, that you call posters "biased" and criticize sources for being "biased" and "opinion pieces" when YOUR posts aren't any better than theirs.

[Visionary]

Obama causing a lot more harm than Bush, what's he planning to do, release our own nukes on ourselves?

[kainedamo]

Obama causing a lot more harm than Bush, what's he planning to do, release our own nukes on ourselves?

Worse - he wants to use diplomacy :(

[Visionary]

EDIT: Inappropriate comment.

[Marx]

BIDEN GOES HOME TO PREP FOR DEBATE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/biden-goes-home-to-prep-for-debate/

[Marx]

PALIN IN 'DEBATE CAMP' UNTIL THURSDAY
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/palin-in-debate-camp-until-thursday/





(In other words...she's in lockdown. :hehe:)

[rdh007]

When hasn't she been in lockdown? She made a great speech at a convention and went away. Hell, Obama parlayed that into the nomination.

Also, Granholm is playing Palin. The fact that she's won two elections in the worst economic times we've ever seen should tell everyone else that she's no slouch. She's also reasonably attractive (though she needs to get a mole removed--Granmole) and isn't stupid. Her problem will be that no one's seen Palin since the convention.

[Marx]

When hasn't she been in lockdown? She made a great speech at a convention and went away. Hell, Obama parlayed that into the nomination.

Also, Granholm is playing Palin. The fact that she's won two elections in the worst economic times we've ever seen should tell everyone else that she's no slouch. She's also reasonably attractive (though she needs to get a mole removed--Granmole) and isn't stupid. Her problem will be that no one's seen Palin since the convention.

She's been on work release, that is way different than a complete lockdown. :cwink:

[Fading]

Earlier on I watched a few youtube videos of Palin interviews. I think she's a script person, I'm not necessarily convinced she's flat out dumb as much as unable to think outside of the material she's covered, and any narrow minded views. She had an interview with Katie Couric and she went completely off topic as if she was trying to say line for line a speech prepared for her prior to the interview.

I'm not saying I don't question her intelligence, as a few things have worried me. However I think with a weeks worth of cramming she'll come off as atleast semi-competent at the VP debate. Unless confronted with something she didn't prepare for, then I expect a lot of "Um's", "Like's", and "Awesome's", trailing off topic, or just a general grasping for words. I think she'll lose the debate, but won't end it setting in the corner with a dunce cap.

[redfirebird2008]

She's been on work release, that is way different than a complete lockdown. :cwink:

LMAO. Marx, you're always good with the euphemisms. :woot:

[The Senator]

Palin's not dumb... she's just bat-**** insane.

[Marx]

LMAO. Marx, you're always good with the euphemisms. :woot:

I try. :cwink:

Palin's not dumb... she's just bat-**** insane.

:lmao:

[redfirebird2008]

Palin's not dumb... she's just bat-**** insane.

I'll go with "all of the above." Took her 6 colleges to get a degree and she's dumb enough to believe humans walked amongst the dinosaurs...:woot:

[ShadowBoxing]

PALIN IN 'DEBATE CAMP' UNTIL THURSDAY
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/palin-in-debate-camp-until-thursday/





(In other words...she's in lockdown. :hehe:)
Yeah, she's f***ed.

[Knives]

PALIN IN 'DEBATE CAMP' UNTIL THURSDAY
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/palin-in-debate-camp-until-thursday/





(In other words...she's in lockdown. :hehe:)

Oh good lord. Guess that mock debate they had her in really was a disaster.

[Excel]

Guys for real, stop lowering expectations of her. Expecting her to suck and then she is just bad means she over preformed.

[redfirebird2008]

Guys for real, stop lowering expectations of her. Expecting her to suck and then she is just bad means she over preformed.

The polls show that average voters think Biden and Palin are equally strong debaters, so I don't think there's much to worry about lowering expectations. A lot of people out there simply don't know who Biden is.

[The Senator]

The polls show that average voters think Biden and Palin are equally strong debaters, so I don't think there's much to worry about lowering expectations. A lot of people out there simply don't know who Biden is.

Which is hi-larious, considering Palin has never debated [except for during the gubernatorial election in Alaska, which I'm sure was broadcast here in the lower 48 :whatever:] and Biden has.

Which again, goes to show that more Americans care about how *cute* she and her family look on national television than they do the fact that she can't seem to answer any tough questions. Oh well, I'm sure we'll see how much of a bimbo she really is on Thursday-- even if the rest of America is too busy gawking over which color outfit she's wearing.

[Marx]

Which is hi-larious, considering Palin has never debated [except for during the gubernatorial election in Alaska, which I'm sure was broadcast here in the lower 48 :whatever:] and Biden has.

Which again, goes to show that more Americans care about how *cute* she and her family look on national television than they do the fact that she can't seem to answer any tough questions. Oh well, I'm sure we'll see how much of a bimbo she really is on Thursday-- even if the rest of America is too busy gawking over which color outfit she's wearing.

Hey! Stop man. Just stop! You should know that it's all about the color! :hehe:

[The Senator]

Hey! Stop man. Just stop! You should know that it's all about the color! :hehe:

And whether she wears her hair up or down, can't forget that ever-so-important political position :o

[danoyse]

Hey! Stop man. Just stop! You should know that it's all about the color! :hehe:

And the glasses. Don't forget the glasses.

[Marx]

And whether she wears her hair up or down, can't forget that ever-so-important political position :o

And the glasses. Don't forget the glasses.

NOW you're talkin'! :funny:

[redfirebird2008]

Which is hi-larious, considering Palin has never debated [except for during the gubernatorial election in Alaska, which I'm sure was broadcast here in the lower 48 :whatever:] and Biden has.

Which again, goes to show that more Americans care about how *cute* she and her family look on national television than they do the fact that she can't seem to answer any tough questions. Oh well, I'm sure we'll see how much of a bimbo she really is on Thursday-- even if the rest of America is too busy gawking over which color outfit she's wearing.

Polls like that are proof of why Bush was able to get elected. People just aren't informed. It's pathetic that this woman comes out of nowhere and is more well-known than Biden, who has been an influential member of Congress for decades. Granted, the same can be said of Obama I suppose but at least he has been on the national scene for 4 years. Palin's time on the national scene? Ahem, roughly 2 months.

[danoyse]

Which is hi-larious, considering Palin has never debated [except for during the gubernatorial election in Alaska, which I'm sure was broadcast here in the lower 48 :whatever:] and Biden has.


And her defenders keep saying how strong a debater she was in Alaska, but there's a poster on another board I read who's from Alaska (who voted for Palin as governor but won't vote for her as VP because she thinks Palin isn't qualified for the job) said she did well in the debates because they were all about issues concerning Alaska. That's her turf and she knows it well.

She's clearly shown that her knowledge on world news doesn't go much further than talking points and whatever she's seen on the news. She's got 4 days to learn it. Good luck with that.

[BMM]

The polls show that average voters think Biden and Palin are equally strong debaters, so I don't think there's much to worry about lowering expectations. A lot of people out there simply don't know who Biden is.

That's disturbing, but, hopefully, it will work in Biden's favor.

[Fading]

Which is hi-larious, considering Palin has never debated [except for during the gubernatorial election in Alaska, which I'm sure was broadcast here in the lower 48 :whatever:] and Biden has.

Which again, goes to show that more Americans care about how *cute* she and her family look on national television than they do the fact that she can't seem to answer any tough questions. Oh well, I'm sure we'll see how much of a bimbo she really is on Thursday-- even if the rest of America is too busy gawking over which color outfit she's wearing.

Heh. It's a combination of that and ppl looking at political affliation rather than her. She looks like an all American soccer mom. She's cute kinda. A lot of ppl only see political lines anyway, so a large portion of the republican base will stick up for her and deem her the winner no matter what. A lot of ppl won't even watch it tho so any mistakes probably won't hurt her rep too badly outside of those who watched.