COMMENTS: 363
Six Short Takes on Why Obama Came out Ahead in the Debate
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Election 2008 headlines via email.
In the first head-to-head debate of the 2008 campaign, the financial crisis dragged what the McCain camp had hoped would be fought in the GOP nominee's comfort zone -- foreign policy and national security -- squarely into the realm of domestic policy.
Moderator Jim Lehrer made a smooth transition to the voters' top concern in this election, saying that we were facing a potential meltdown of the global economy, which was by definition a matter of "national security."
What followed was a microcosm of the 2008 race: Barack Obama dominated John McCain when the focus of the debate was on the domestic sphere and a fast-deteriorating financial sector, but ceded an enormous amount of political space to McCain on national security, accepting much of the Arizona senator's overarching neoconservative narrative that the United States is surrounded by mortal danger and evildoers and has a moral duty to maintain our forces in Iraq and elsewhere in order to defend the homeland.
McCain appeared twitchy and out of touch as the debate began with the banking meltdown and the Bush-Paulson plan to reverse it. He blinked rapidly and avoided eye contact with Obama, Lehrer and the audience as Obama came out swinging against McCain for enabling the "root causes" of the crisis to develop during decades in the Congress, including a long stint on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Obama articulately condemned what he called a "philosophy that says that regulation is always bad," and blamed its pervasiveness for the economic mess. McCain, moments before saying that we have the "greatest workers in the world" (and that the United States is simultaneously the "greatest importer" and "greatest exporter" in the world), tried to shift blame from Wall Street to Main Street -- from predatory lenders and fast-and-loose brokers to those who find themselves with a home on the bubble today.
It's a losing strategy.
Obama, on the other hand, must be extremely confident that this election will be decided on the economy, as he failed to challenge McCain on his belligerent stance toward the rest of the world.
He conceded that the "surge has worked" -- it has not. He tried to go toe to toe with John "Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain on the evils of Iran. He called Venezuela a "rogue state." He engaged in a bit of fearmongering himself, saying that while he supports missile defense -- a boondoggle if ever there was one -- the greatest threat we face is from suitcase nukes.
As Obama agreed with so much of McCain's worldview, McCain's discomfort disappeared, and he landed several good knocks on Obama. He repeatedly called him "naive."
But, in the final analysis, a day after Washington Mutual went down in flames, I doubt that it'll be enough to get McCain out of the hole in which he finds himself.
Don Hazen:
If you were an Obama champion and wanted McCain to fall flat, you were disappointed. McCain is a tough, pugnacious debater, and he tried to control the talk time, going on and on. He's knowledgeable, and as we know, he whipped all of the Republicans during the primaries. But the big picture is that McCain probably had to do better since he is behind on the momentum and had to beat Obama with his supposed strength -- foreign affairs -- and there is a consensus among the commentators that he didn't do that.
If you reflect more on the meta or emotional level, McCain spent most of his time talking about the past and focused on Iraq -- making sure everyone knew that we had to win. That was the most important point he needed to make. But if this election is about change, then McCain reinforced his role as part of the problem. For most of the public, Iraq is past tense. Sixty percent think the economy is the key issue. And in terms of bread and butter, the numbers that people are likely to remember are not the $18 billion earmarks discussion, but rather the fact that 95 percent of the population will get a tax cut with Obama -- everyone who makes under $250,000. Meanwhile, the figure associated with McCain is likely to be $300 billion in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, while we have a huge deficit. Obama had to make kitchen table points stick, and he seemed to achieve that, repeating these points several times.
The pundits were also speculating that independent voters didn't like McCain's condescension and repeating that Obama "doesn't get it." Here McCain could be seen as the cranky older guy, sounding a little insecure, while Obama didn't rise to the bait. In fact, Obama agreed with McCain a number of times, suggesting that Obama was more capable of working across the aisle.
McCain, by repeating that he wasn't Mr. Congeniality, seemed to undermine his message that he was a conciliator, something the independent voters seem to want more of.
Jane Hamsher from FireDogLake:
McCain controlled the debate tonight. He came off as a brittle, grumpy, mean-spirited old coot, but on the economy -- which should have been Obama's strong suit -- McCain managed to divert the conversation to tax cuts and kept Obama off the kitchen table issues, where he excels. McCain was allowed to paint himself as a crusader for reform, and no mention was made of the Keating 5 -- though Obama did manage to tie him to voting for all of Bush's budgets. (McCain's only rejoinder was to refer to himself repeatedly as "no Miss Congeniality." Huh?)
But the biggest problem for me was that McCain had a grab bag of adjectives he consistently used to characterize Obama -- "naive, inexperienced" -- and every time he repeated them, it was like money in the bank. He worked them in at every opportunity, and their cumulative effect wore into Obama as the evening went on. Obama missed the opportunity to do the same and characterize McCain as brittle, rash, impulsive and out of touch. His critiques were all over the place, and his failure to tie them together into a coherent narrative about McCain meant that he never really grazed the old buzzard.
The good news? Well, McCain sounded bitter and looked hunched over and mean. He wasn't likeable, and most of the Monday morning quarterbacks on my TV seemed to agree. Obama can definitely recover in the next debate -- he didn't have any kind of major falter. And on the plus side, I've had the feeling that up until now, Obama really didn't dislike the man -- not the way he did Hillary Clinton anyway. But behind Obama's superbly controlled mien tonight you could see that McCain's patronizing tone and open distortions were really pissing him off.
The anger seemed to focus Obama. His "ums" and "uhs" stopped, and he delivered his points with more conviction. Even if he doesn't give it full expression, being a little hot under the collar suits him.
The idea that you can run against a Republican for national office and remain above the fray was a nice one, but it isn't realistic. Obama needs to stop agreeing with McCain and reinforcing his message. It doesn't make him look statesmanlike; it makes McCain look right.
McCain really has nowhere to go except to get more obdurate and bellicose. If Obama can get his footing in the next debate and decide on a tactic for getting under McCain's skin, the cranky old hothead won't be hard to pin.
The Nation's John Nichols:
A blistering economic crisis may be the all-encompassing issue of the moment.
But the war in Iraq still defines the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama.
McCain remains the true believer in that occupation, the man who really does want to carry it forward until some ill-defined "victory" is obtained -- even if that takes a hundred years.
Obama remains the doubter who -- as he went out of his way to note in Friday night's first debate between the two men who would be president -- spoke out against launching the war six years ago and remains committed to drawing it down.
These were the bottom lines of a debate that could have been all about economics but that ultimately ended up being a very serious, and at times very edgy, discourse about war and peace. McCain called Iraq "the central issue of our time."
At the very least, it was the central issue of the debate.
The Republican said his Democratic rival "just doesn't understand" the importance of staying the course in the Middle East.
Obama argued that McCain lacks "the broader strategic vision" necessary to make the United States a functional player on the global stage -- and at home. And he suggested that the Republican's misread of the Iraq question all the way back in 2002, as well as his ongoing refusal to recognize his error, confirmed McCain's deficiency.
Read more of Nichols' take.
Blogger Taylor Marsh:
From the start of the debate, John McCain wouldn't meet Barack Obama's eye. At the end of it that hadn't changed, even as Obama gave McCain his due time and again, which the McCain camp has already turned into a video. It was the difference of someone being small, compared to someone revealing his confidence, while showing presidential temperament. On that alone, Obama "won" hands down.
Hillary Clinton weighs in:
Tonight Barack Obama displayed beyond a doubt that he understands both the gravity of the financial crisis facing America and the challenges we face in Iraq and around the world. Senator McCain offered only more of the same failed policies of the Bush administration. America deserves better.
I stood next to Barack Obama in 22 debates, and tonight epitomized why millions are joining me in standing with him and working hard to ensure he is the next president of the United States.Obama's goal tonight was to simply become an equal to the "legendary" foreign policy man McCain. He accomplished that (live blogging here) while showing unending patience with his opponent, who continually displayed the politics of condescension, bordering on petulance that is unbecoming of anyone at this level of political prowess. I can't imagine that independents appreciated McCain's sniping, and I bet they also saw that he was about to pop about half of the time.
McCain needed a win, in my opinion. This was his "issue" night. He didn't get it.
Obama needed to stay even with the "legendary foreign policy expert." He did that and more, while remaining unruffled throughout.
McCain didn't get the knockout he needed. Obama held his own and showed the right stuff. Plus, McCain looks like yesterday. Obama represents the future. Good night for our side.
Musician Sheryl Crow from the Huffington Post:
I am still slightly dumbfounded by what I feel was an out-and-out victory for Barack Obama. Anyone who knows me knows I am an Obama supporter, but knowing I would be blogging for the Huffington Post tonight, I tried to watch this debate with complete objectivity. However, if I were to grade this debate on clarity, leadership qualities, values and a vast understanding of foreign affairs, I would have to give Obama a far higher grade. I think I feel the same as most Americans when I say I am beyond tired of hearing John McCain sell this war and passing it off as great leadership. Even on the issue of Russia, McCain tried to paint Obama as being unknowledgeable on foreign issues. It is clear that McCain is well traveled outside of the United States and has a vast understanding of foreign affairs; however, Obama did not give an inch.
On every question, I felt Obama answered with clarity and thoughtfulness. I felt McCain gave us a lot of his stump quotes when talking about the war and the failing economy -- quotes like "I'm not known as Miss Congeniality," and the two letters Eisenhower wrote illustrating accountability, and his reminding us that he is known as the "Maverick."
Obama clearly illustrated his in-depth understanding of foreign affairs. While McCain has an immense amount of experience in the military, there was never a moment that I perceived him as a level-headed peacekeeper but instead looked like the same kind of defensive leader we've had for the last eight years. While Obama was talking about Afghanistan, McCain was still selling the surge and the idea of "winning the war," a war that no one feels can be won. McCain's entire message revolved around Iraq. He seemed to be in complete denial that our country is in a much less secure status than before 9/11, while it is clear that we have thrown a rock into a beehive.
I never once heard McCain mention our failing educational system. He kept his mantra that Obama does not understand, which I felt only showed that McCain simply doesn't understand. McCain tried to wrap up the debate by saying Obama doesn't have the experience that McCain has or what it takes to lead this country. At that point, McCain talked about how we cannot have another leader who is not flexible; he completely disqualified himself. It was a cry of desperation from a man who has been historically linked to the failing policies of George W. Bush.
I think while both candidates successfully argued their positions on sitting down with leaders of rogue nations, I felt that Obama proved his point that the policies of the past have not served us. McCain seemed to promise more of the same, which continued to illustrate his "stubbornness and inflexibility" -- the words he later warned the nation about in choosing Obama as president. To me, McCain proved himself as the stubborn one. It felt like he was simply stuck in the past.
Stay up to date with the latest Election 2008 headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 27, 2008 12:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Published on March 27, 2008, the article by Butler, an ex-Navy pilot and U.S. Naval Academy graduate who spent more than eight years in North Vietnam as a prisoner of war, explained why he would not support Senator McCain for the presidency.
Here is part of Butler's op-ed piece.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60’s
and 70’s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate
than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and
malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s
age (71) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to
serve as our President for four or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot
head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have
experienced firsthand. Folks, quite honestly, that is not the finger
I want next to the red button.
I especially agreed with Butler after McCain called Obama dangerous. This from Mr. Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran -- an intemperate politician who picked a dumb shit hockey mom beauty queen for his running mate and heartbeat-away commander-in-chief.
Should McCain win in November, his victory will prove to the world what many foreigners suspect-- that the U.S. electorate has a collective IQ equal to Alaska's average wintertime temperature.
That horrifying outcome may well happen if voters judge Obama by his skin color and not what he says.
Old Man McCain and Stupid Sarah -- wrong for America, wrong for the world
For reasons why JM and SP should not be elected
in November, click on: Vote Against McCain
(HOTTEST anti-McCain/Palin site on the Web)
For more damning revelations about Songbird McCain,
click on: Vietnam Vets Against McCain.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unfit for command
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Unfit for command [the message is there, it seems well annotated, IT WORKS
Posted by: Squarehead
» My links are for the HUNDREDS of NEW readers who visit AlterNet daily -- NOT you, Rolomax!
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» RE: My, my, red links are excessive.
Posted by: Lauren
» Okay, Lauren, because you've been so nice, the RED goes. Adios, rojo.
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's over, I'll never comment on AlterNet again!
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» RE: Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's over, I'll never comment on AlterNet again!
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's over, I'll never comment on AlterNet again!
Posted by: PandaBear
» Thanks, Panda, but I'm serious. I've got better things to do than argue with GOP trolls (jerks).
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» Promises, promises!
Posted by: Rapunzel
» Bet on it, Rapunzel! Me not commenting on AlterNet after the election is a WINNER. Instead...
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» RE: Bet on it, Rapunzel! Me not commenting on AlterNet after the election is a WINNER. Instead...
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's over, I'll never comment on AlterNet agai
Posted by: bornxeyed
» Hey, let's have an election on HUGH!
Posted by: war_on_tara
» also - which one is the former "LionHeart"?
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's [Bollocks!
Posted by: Squarehead
» Empty barrell
Posted by: Karl.Ben
» RE: Empty barrel [It is very well attested that McCain co-operated with his NVA interrogators,
Posted by: Squarehead
» Drop-ship McCain's
Posted by: weathered
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Sep 27, 2008 12:23 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: raiders757
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: maestra
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: PandaBear
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?..and bye bye blue-collar repuglicans
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» This poster is a long-standing Hillary troll
Posted by: brunowe
» Troll
Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: EJLima
» You gest! RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: sallyride
» RE: all foreign aid must STOP. That is what Americans wanted to hear
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: You gest! RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: abqavgjoe
» RE: You gest! RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: sallyride
» RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: AnIndependentThinker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: adp3d on Sep 27, 2008 3:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for the "success" of the 2007 escalation, Obama needs to stress the failure of all but 3 of the 18 benchmarks as well as the other factors unrelated to the surge that reduced but by no means at all quelled the violence. He would do well to talk about the rise of American casualties during the surge. In other words he needs to take back his idea that the surge was a success and stress the fact that it was an unqualified failure.
Another thing Obama needs to talk about is McCains involvement with Charles Keating. I know it was already mentioned but if he wants to take votes from McCain this is a good way to do it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama scored...
Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Obama scored...
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Karl.Ben on Sep 27, 2008 4:00 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for Obama, seemed poised but didn't really say much we didn't now.. I saw no knock out punches but McCain did seem to control the discussion, Obama looked the bit of the junior senator. Obama agreed with McCain way too much He also doesn't do well without a teleprompter.
If you're "explaining", you're losing. 10-9 McCain! BUT - McCain has Palin and after her last interview, a big time liability. I think she will hand the election to Obama.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Obama Pounced
Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: 'Old man Yells at cloud', old man yells at old man yelling at cloud
Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: 10 round decision..
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: 10 round decision..LOL
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: 10 round decision..LOL
Posted by: Karl.Ben
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Squarehead on Sep 27, 2008 4:08 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get your heads back to a happier place; as someone once said: "Free your mind, and your ass will follow"
Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running involvement in community activism, fits the profile of the first para?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running i
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running i
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Yup, I do
Posted by: setterwoman
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running i
Posted by: DEBKAMAINE
» RE: Also rhymes with failin', failing Palin.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running i
Posted by: Bob Horn
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long runni
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long runni
Posted by: orwellturns
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Sep 27, 2008 4:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shit the Pussy couldn't even look up and face his opponent, even looked once or twice like he was about to cry. Probably was since the FBI have begun investigating the Wall Street Bail out- Deja Vu all over again Johnny boy?
Who would want this tempermental vindictive coward on the other side of any significant International negotiations- Reason why Mac doesn't want to meet with Foreign leaders (even SPAIN-LOL)He's afraid he'll either break down and Cry or Break their nose- Neither is Presidential behavior.
They must Have jacked up his Aricept ( alzhiemers med) thoug he seemed a bit more Oriented than Ususal- although it's hard to tell the difference between him lying and just Deluded.
Who did he remind me of....the last paranoid president- Nixon. But then again not being able to go off scripted talking points is Classic Ronny. His Self congradulatory, back patting causing him to nearly dislocate his shoulder was eeriely similar to W's level of Arrogance. Of course we all know he's rolled over and taken up th eass to get to this point- so he's cheney's Bitch and Butt boy just like HW! Cheney's perfected Manchurain Candidate.
HEY JOHN IF YOU CAN'T EVEN LOOK ACROSS TO THE OTHER PODIUM- HOW CAN YOU EXPECT US TO BELEIVED YOU COULD WORK ACROSS THE AISLE?
that Debate was the epitome of John McCains Career- Lies, Confusion, vindictiveness and Temper tantrums.
How do you determine Who wins a debate- turn down the sound and watch their expressions and Body language- John would have lost even if he was debating a 5th grader. And his Face, lack of eye contact and posturing was an admission of a forfeit!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: lively56
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: Blink
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: Blink
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: jwverez
» And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: jwverez
» Crybaby blinky is just another David Horowitz clone paid to lie.
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: jwverez
» Crybaby blinky is just another typical foam-at-the-mouth Republican who plays the victimization game
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: Blink
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: maxpayne
» Rightwing troll.
Posted by: jwverez
» Alternets Most Un-Wanted
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» Alternet needs to step up to the plate and start banning conservative trolls for moderation's sake.
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: Karina
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: kahuna_2bears
Comments are closed-
Posted by: americansheep on Sep 27, 2008 4:28 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Agreed, Great Points- but Obama actually listens
Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: Agreed, Great Points- but Obama actually listens
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» TOTALLY AGREE RE: Obama's "Sarah Palinesque" View
Posted by: sallyride
» RE: TOTALLY AGREE RE: Something's wrong with McCain
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Obama's "Sarah Palinesque" View
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» RE: long-term cocaine effects
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: long-term cocaine effects
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» RE: Obama and McCain share the same policy goals, but difference in approach may save lives
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Obama's "Sarah Palinesque" View
Posted by: djnoll
» Exactly right. We want change of policy. He has none.
Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GeraldD on Sep 27, 2008 4:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
******************
See The Jim Angle Report on Fox
*******************
Watch The Clinton Interview On ABC News
*********************
-
Hear Barney Frank On Video Stating That There Is No Crisis At Fannie Mae -
I think there are 2 former CEOs of Fannie Mae, one former assistant CEO, at least Two United States Senators, and at least one member of the US House of Representatives who should GO TO JAIL for this! BRIBING Members of Congress To Hide Accounting Abuses And Loan Abuses Should Get Them Permanent Social Security.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Clintons ARE Disaffected Republicans from 1984
Posted by: Purple Girl
» Nice try.....watch your own video next time.....
Posted by: Diecash1
» Clinton, a "democrat"? In what alternate universe?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The church will keep the little people in line - but no rules for the rich
Posted by: Smackback
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hans B on Sep 27, 2008 4:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain doubled down on the US vs THEM attitude, firmly giving Russia back its Empire of Evil status, misrepresenting Iran's policies, and generally creating an image of an adversarial (not to say warlike) future. That will be appreciated, too, in certain quarters, but in times of economic fear people may not want to see even more bogeymen under the bed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It wasn't a debate~that's the moderator's fault RE: It's not a contest
Posted by: sallyride
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EJLima on Sep 27, 2008 4:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was inspired to send $100
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Democritus on Sep 27, 2008 5:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's what I would have said to McCain--and I would have said it right at him, not channeling it through Jim Lehrer (who tried unsuccessfully all night to get both of them to talk to one another).
"John, you say that you and Governor Palin are mavericks. Just what do you mean by that? Strictly speaking, a maverick is an unbranded calf that has been separated from its mother. Clearly, you're not that sort of maverick, are you? So what you must mean is that you take an independent stand, apart from your associates. But John, you've been taking a stand with your associate, President George W. Bush in 91% of your votes. And recently, you've changed your mind on the other 9%, so that means you're now in 100% agreement with President Bush. Tell me how that translates into any sort of a "maverick." Tell me that Bush's branding iron hasn't seared your hide?"
If he had said that, they would still be counting over McCain's supine body.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So he's a maverick, is he?
Posted by: DEBKAMAINE
» RE: So he's a maverick, is he?
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» His prison: Unlimited Power
Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: His prison: Unlimited Power
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: So he's a maverick, is he?
Posted by: thealltheone
» McCain, a "maverick"? No, no, no. Wrong.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» YESSS!!
Posted by: Ahimsa
» Rove: Attack your Opponent's Strength
Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: So he's a maverick, is he?
Posted by: boing007
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FMABBI on Sep 27, 2008 5:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, I sure wish that Obama would speak more slowly and more forcefully! I think most Americans are upset right now about these last 8 years and the ruins we find ourselves in. Obama should articulate these sentiments with force and make it clear that REPUBLICANS brought us these problems!
Go Obama!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: FMAinMass
Posted by: Ahimsa
» Yes, but you're missing one thing.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Sep 27, 2008 5:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jiff
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sallyride on Sep 27, 2008 5:38 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He can't focus long enough to answer anything, which clearly indicates he's being programmed - lest we forget Bionic Reagan who's wife ran the country for at least 3 years. Does anyone want McCain's trophy running America? Or, worse perhaps, Palin?
No, this must stop soon - Obama has to learn to call the shots, and he should have stopped the debate until actual debating regulations were enforced - they were seriously ignored.
The moderator was a disappointment: did not call him on his total disregard for the questions presented.
Staging a debate without enforcing debating techniques is a serious lack of ethical conduct against the common good. Wake up, CNN!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: VEALED: MC CAIN'S A WAR-MONGER BUT - CNN ERRED
Posted by: Lauren
» Very possibly medication RE: VEALED: MC CAIN'S A WAR-MONGER BUT - CNN ERRED
Posted by: sallyride
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 27, 2008 5:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Apocalipstick Now!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: Diecash1
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: Tim Chadron
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: boing007
» RE:I can't wait either...
Posted by: thealltheone
» RE: I can't wait either...
Posted by: 113121
» RE: I can't wait either...
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: Diecash1
» Gov. Palin will wipe the stage with Biden
Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maestra on Sep 27, 2008 5:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: BBC
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» RE: BBC
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: BBC
Posted by: Thucy
» RE: sounding like Dan Quayle.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: BBC
Posted by: sallyride
Comments are closed-
Posted by: The Old Hippie on Sep 27, 2008 5:42 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Independent Voters On FOX Said Obama Won - That’s It, He Won.
by This Old Hippie Because Sometimes They Simply Can’t Hide The Truth.
So Sayeth FOX - So Believeth the Majority of American Voters
You know... the ones that never come to our blogs, never read us, nor watch us, nor listen to us. And FOX could not hide, or misconstrue, their independent voters’ reactions to this first debate. It doesn’t matter what any of the ‘experts,’ or talking-heads, liberal or conservative, say about it - FOX was forced to openly admit that - - -
“Obama won the debate.” Therefore the FOX-Sheeple believe it, and they are, currently, sadly, insanely, unfathomably, and in unreal reality... the majority of the voters in this nation.
So - There may be some hope yet?
“It really is true what they say...
Those who do not study the past, get an exciting opportunity to repeat it.”
You have got to watch this, because Jon & Staff really did great on this one. Enjoy...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yeah, and they're STILL not voting for him...
Posted by: kimbari
» What makes you think Fox is for McCain?
Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PJAW on Sep 27, 2008 5:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People need to get past this bullshit idea that a performance at a debate bears any relevance to what we need in this country or how a particular individual will perform as President. But..., if that's a criterion you choose to employ, I damned sure prefer someone who behaves respectfully toward an adversary and speaks with intelligence and honesty. McCain is a huge loser in that regard.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who won the deabte?
Posted by: Romans1
» RE: Who won the deabte?
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Who won the deabte?
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Romans1 on Sep 27, 2008 5:49 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» because McSame repeats this line on every campaign stop
Posted by: counterpoint
» RE: because McSame repeats this line on every campaign stop
Posted by: Romans1
» RE: because McSame repeats this line on every campaign stop
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: because McSame repeats this line on every campaign stop
Posted by: thealltheone
» RE: because McSame repeats this line on every campaign stop
Posted by: Quannah
» So?
Posted by: kimbari
» RE: The knee-jerk social conservative is back.
Posted by: Jasonix
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 27, 2008 5:49 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GOD IS SEVERELY PUNISHING THE USA TO ETERNAL DAMNATION AND THE COUNTRY IS GOING DOWN IN FLAMES FLAMES FLAMES !! BURN BABY BURN !!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This debate was meaningless without Nader, Mckinney, Barr, Paul, etc ...
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: This debate was meaningless without Nader, Mckinney, Barr, Paul, etc ...
Posted by: sallyride
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on Sep 27, 2008 5:50 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either they are liars or they believe what they say. Not good either way.
Tomorrow re-read the transcript and look at the BS they both put forth about Afghanistan, 'Terrorism', Russia/Georgia, Nuclear Power, etc...
Appalling.
Pretty weird to conclude that mush-mouth madman McCain came across with a better grasp of things than Obama. Of course both their conclusions on everything is based on being in total agreement with Empire.
If you are interested in social justice, health care, reduced military spending, homelessness, an end to foreign aggression by the US.... you just witnessed a debate between two faces of the same enemy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: They're both corporate lackeys
Posted by: Bellwether
» RE: They're both corporate lackeys [ Looking for a totality of 'moral correctness' (or read that as
Posted by: Squarehead
» Hey squarehead
Posted by: chlamor
» RE: Hey squarehead
Posted by: Bellwether
» RE: Hey squarehead [Which is fine.
Posted by: Squarehead
» this is what is known as "branding"
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: They're both corporate lackeys [ Looking for a totality of 'moral correctness' (or read that as
Posted by: Tim Chadron
» I have to admit...
Posted by: whathaway
» RE: I have to admit... [Maybe you are.
Posted by: Squarehead
» Vote your conscience, and you will never be on the losing side
Posted by: cthelyt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: otto on Sep 27, 2008 6:08 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean, does either candidate realize that we were helping the Taliban fight Russia in the 80's? Now we're fighting them and they're fighting us for the same reasons: They oppose a U.S. controlled Empire just as they opposed a Soviet Empire.
McCain seems ready to begin World Wars Three, Four and Five now - with Russia, Korea,
Iran and Moslems in general. But Obama does seem more naive in that his positions are leading down the same path. He too can only find fault with Russia, Iran, Palestine, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc...but at least he's willing to talk with them first, before fighting breaks out. He sees nothing wrong with the positions of the U.S. and allies, with Israel, with our setting up military (control) bases all over the world.
And if Obama wanted a knock-out blow last night, why not point out that off-shore drilling will take ten years to have any effect, and that we're not using half the reserves we already have? Why not question why McCain has opposed care for returning vets, if he's so loyal to them? Or why has he helped cover up records about other Vietnam prisoners of war? And why McCain's staff is filled with people who have been officers in the Bush economic revolution and "war on terror"?
Why give so much deference to the military, when Eisenhauer pointed out the great danger of the military-industrial complex? Why not honestly disagree with the policies of the "great Ronald Reagan" - which started this disastrous slide for the poor and the common worker 25 years ago? Political expediency?
Finally, for those who seem convinced that Obama won, I recall how much better Kennedy's positions were than Nixon's back in 1960, but most voters weren't impressed. It was a short clip of Kennedy laughing while Nixon was pontificating about restoring dignity to the White House that won over the average American voters.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Obama already pushes the limits of what a candidate WHO WANTS TO WIN can say
Posted by: counterpoint
» RE: Obama already pushes the limits of what a candidate WHO WANTS TO WIN can say
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: taxidriver on Sep 27, 2008 6:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guess what, John? Private means private. If you're wearing a bracelet, keep it to yourself. That goes for you too, Barack. You're both cheapening the memory of the sacrifices of those troops.
This is hypocrisy of the first order. It's even morally corrupt, since it's people like McCain who started the war, and want to continue it for some illusive "victory" and "peace with honor." How Nixonian.
McCain, besides pandering, is still fighting the Vietnam War, and that is very, very dangerous, because he's living forty years in the past.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: McCain's pandering offended me; as a veteran's wife, it offended me, too, but didn't
Posted by: Beck
» RE: McCain's pandering offended me
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: counterpoint on Sep 27, 2008 6:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urstrly on Sep 27, 2008 6:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After McCain bragged about all the places he has visited in the course of his career, Obama never asked him why he picked someone as his running mate who just got a passport and clearly needs a geography lesson. Obama could also have talked about the international experience of his own childhood.
McCain kept dropping the names of Nixon and Kissinger as if they started some grand tradition. Obama might have mentioned that it was Kissinger who helped Nixon get elected with the false promise that he'd end the war in Vietnam. Even today, Kissinger can't travel without worrying about getting picked up by the International Court. And BTW, didn't Nixon leave office in disgrace? Instead, Obama claimed that Kissinger agreed with HIM about negotiating.
What, he might have asked, would winning in Iraq look like? And, didn't anyone notice all those generals and admirals lined up at the Democratic convention because they disagree with what Bush has done? Even Susan Eisenhower spoke in favor of Obama. He has bragging rights he didn't use.
Jim Lehrer did a great job, but he never got either one of them to tell us about the potential consequences of this bailout. Maybe someone will succeed at a later debate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urstrly on Sep 27, 2008 6:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: riley on Sep 27, 2008 6:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on Sep 27, 2008 6:24 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But within their narrow context, I watched McCain's eyes, and I think if elected he would instigate World War Three in less than a month, if not sooner.
Meanwhile, neither candidate said anything about the organized crime behind the present financial crisis. I guess they both assume the people can't handle such a terrible truth. Maybe so. Everyone I know is in some sort of fantasy dream state, unable to face what is happening to the United States and the World.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No, but they weren't asked about the environment.
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Will The Next Debate Discuss The Environment?
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Will The Next Debate Discuss The Environment?
Posted by: Last Chance
» This one was sponsored by Exxon. I can't say the rest will be any different.
Posted by: maxpayne
» Environmental Sponsors?
Posted by: Last Chance
» Both candidates are "fighting against overpopulation"
Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Sep 27, 2008 6:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama gave smarmy lip service to once being against this corporate program of blood money genocide madness but neither poseur would put a brake to the absurd horror show. You know that old sham con job based on a thousand lies ?
And of course the retread brainwash deception about AL-CIAda (alias "Al-Qaeda" starring deceased patsy cum CIA asset Bin Laden) created by CIA and funded by the U.S. with the House of Saud out of Pakistan's ISI. So, the boogey man "Al-Qaeda" terror lie was trotted out and repeated no end just in case the more gullible had not been fed their quota of status quo red herrings.
In fairness, McCain had to be the more transparent corporate marionette for the insanity of global war on a noun but then that was expected.
On the issue of Russia, both men lied about the FACT Georgia attacked South Ossetia in the dead of night on August 7th, as good as destroying its capital and killing up to 2000 people. And Georgia did so with full U.S. approval and material assistance. In other words, Russia under Putin had every reason to move against a Georgian puppet state virtually bought by George Soros for the west's usual oligarch ruling class. That and another billion to prop up the puppet made this another heavy dose of Washington-MSM lunacy by deception.
But then, these are just samples of the string of nonsense regurgitated throughout.
In the end, it was all rehearsed talking points for both selected establishment actors that were chosen to defend Fascist paymaster agendas. This became quite obvious when both were asked what the impact of the Wall Street so-called "bailout" (i.e. trillions dollar ruling class giveaway) would be on their "vision" of America.
Clearly neither underling had been given their talking point on this vital question. The one about America's future drew nothing but a blank.
And yet another blank from the main stream media with Alternet on all of the above.
What a surprise...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's AMERICA that LOST BIG-TIME at the Faux "Debate"
Posted by: chlamor
» RE: It's AMERICA that LOST BIG-TIME at the Faux "Debate"
Posted by: BST
» RE: It's AMERICA that LOST BIG-TIME at the Faux "Debate"
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: It's AMERICA that LOST BIG-TIME at the Faux "Debate"
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: It's AMERICA that LOST BIG-TIME at the Faux "Debate"
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps
» RE: It's AMERICA that LOST BIG-TIME at the Faux "Debate"
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: It's AMERICA that LOST BIG-TIME at the Faux "Debate"
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps
» RE: It's AMERICA that LOST BIG-TIME at the Faux "Debate"
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 27, 2008 6:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
arguments his elders gave for staying in Viet Nam.
Remember?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'd say Iraq is even worse than Vietnam at this point.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: X-POLYGAMIST WIFE on Sep 27, 2008 6:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: realdem08 on Sep 27, 2008 6:46 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can't I or when can I hear, we will NEVER stabilize the region with military presence? That the Muslim world will always kill one another over thousand year old grudges and we think we can somehow change that?
Let's find a candidate that offers real change. Change our economy, our education system, our entire way of dealing with the world.
Hope? I have NONE after last night
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Simply Horrible
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Simply Horrible
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Simply Horrible
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Simply Horrible
Posted by: realdem08
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pearce on Sep 27, 2008 6:50 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2) Third party candidates were excluded;
3) McCain is a warmonger & deregulator;
4) Obama is not much different: He supports the violation of international law, indicating his administration would "kill" someone in a foreign country without a trial. He called for "more troops" in the middle east, like McCain.
5) The moderator, Jim Lehrer, aka Jim Liar, claimed he, and he alone, wrote all the questions! What a joke. Is he KING? Why would that jackass get to write all the questions? What sort of dog and pony show is this? More likely, he was handed those questions by a committee from the Council of Foreign Relations--and they rehearsed his sorry ass for days.
6) Foreign policy? What about CLIMATE WARMING and the fact the US has refused to sign any treaty on limiting greenhouse gases? What about LAND MINES and the fact the US has refused to sign world treaties to stop their use?
7) Commentators on Alternet, pretending to be 'progressive' are just cheerleaders for fascism light. Good luck. I will call for your trial after the revolution for being scoundrels tied to corporate fascism while pretending to be 'progressives'--nothing more despicable. I prefer honest fascists. You love corporate-controlled debates? You like Pepsi? You like Coke? Good. See you on trial, traitor. You better hope Bush is wrong and that this "Sucker" doesn't go down.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Elephant in the Room
Posted by: Bellwether
» RE: The Elephant in the Room
Posted by: pearce
» RE: Revolution? What revolution?
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The Elephant in the Room
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: The Elephant in the Room
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Squarehead on Sep 27, 2008 7:16 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looking for a totality of 'moral correctness' (or read that as 'fits my prejudices') is just not very realistic. You think Obama would be this close to power in USA if he had a program of which you 'approved'?
In the real world, 'nuance' is sometimes as much as you get. THEN you build on that. Life, politics, conflict; its always a continuum of struggle.
To hold the views you do does not change anything; real change is incremental, organic and (usually) slow. Your airing of your deeply negative opinions gives succour to the staus quo. Which in this case is the McCain- Palin candidacy.
So please, the next time you want to be 'so clever'; try canning it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: America, back to our goals.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: America, back to our goals [ If I was someone like Rove, I would be trying to sway the center
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: America, back to our goals [ If I was someone like Rove, I would be trying to sway the center
Posted by: Lauren
» Try "canning" your own Spineless Crock
Posted by: PointMan
» RE: Try "canning" your own Spineless [Only one of your sentences contains a positive exhortation
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on Sep 27, 2008 7:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry I must have been wretching in the toilet whilst our big business candidates spoke about the $$$$Trillion/Yr War Budget and how that needed trimming to fund all the social/energy/infrastructure programs they have in mind.
Could someone please send that part of the debate my way?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Anyone hear about the trillion dollar War Budget?
Posted by: boing007
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Sep 27, 2008 7:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Kucinich, or Paul, or Nader, or anyone with a head on their shoulders would have been allowed to speak in this debate, both McCain and Obama would have looked positively foolish. It simply disgusts me that the media, and these two political parties, control things to the point where we can't have a debate that includes thinking outside of the normal political box.
My overall take was that although I felt Obama was more presidential in his presentation, that he also began to sound more and more republican as time went on. Even McCain at times tried to move more to the center, although his droning on about Iraq about drove me nuts. Obama wasn't even prepared enough to call bs on much of what McCain presented.... Or maybe it's just that he really didn't think it was??
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If Kucinich, or Paul, or Nader...
Posted by: Lauren
» This media fixing of our elections ... just will not stand...
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: war_on_tara on Sep 27, 2008 7:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is just aiming to be likable, to be (at least) JFK to McCain's Nixon. He can't be The Angry Black Man -- wouldn't work politically, not in his temperament anyway.
I do wonder why Obama didn't bring up the Keating Five, which could have been a good hit. And I can't figure out why Obama pronounces Afghanistan in the usual Midwestern way, then three words later when he has to say Pakistan, he's suddenly Christiane Amanpour: PAWK-ee-STAWN.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Romans1 on Sep 27, 2008 7:39 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No matter which Senator is in the White House, YOU LOSE.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: No matter which Senator is in the White House, YOU LOSE.
Posted by: Romans1
» RE: No matter which Senator is in the White House, YOU LOSE.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: No matter which Senator is in the White House, YOU LOSE.
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: NOT
Posted by: thealltheone
» Who Are You Posting To ?
Posted by: Last Chance
» Oh, for crying out loud.
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 27, 2008 7:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jreal on Sep 27, 2008 7:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No hard swings.
Nothing to remember.
Yawn.
I had to turn off the TV.
Obama defending himself and McCain trying to and failing to make those good old Rovian sound bytes.
Round 2 Please!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» At least Palin vs. Biden should be entertaining
Posted by: cthelyt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: curiousdwk on Sep 27, 2008 7:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is the Issue Spending or Deficit?
Posted by: JSquercia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sawdust on Sep 27, 2008 7:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The guy on the left kept saying the guy on the right was inexperienced and naive. He said that about seven times. The guy on the right kept saying, "You're right, John". He said that about 13 times. When both guys were asked (by the only guy who was really "on topic") what they would both do without (as President) because there would be no money in the bank, they ignored him and played more ping-pong. They did that three times.Back and forth, back and forth.
Afterwards, some other guy on TV said the guy on the left was "contentious". I just thought he was being old and gnarly. Then someone said the guy on the right was "too nice" and "missed a few openings". I just thought he was showing respect for his elders. You have to go easy on old people, especially when they work for the government and crashes planes in swamps for a living
There was some chit-chat about oil drilling and alternative energy sources and resurgent surges of terrorists, and the guy on the left denied ever being Miss Congeniality but said he and his new girlfriend were both Mavericks. At that point I thought maybe the guy on the right would start a real argument over how to pronounce the name of the president of Whatsitstan, but instead he talked about tax loopholes for the drilling people who already had more money than the alternative energy people who needed tax breaks to pay for health insurance for the people installing the alternative energy equipment. And for a moment I wondered if while that was going on, the guy on the left was thinking about drilling his girlfriend.
It was all very exciting. It was something like the thrill I experience when I watch my instant oatmeal heat up in the microwave every morning. Then Keith Olbermann made some jokes, and Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan yelled at the microphone about who went 15 rounds without a knockout, and I had some ice cream and went to bed.
Nobody ever did tell me what the hell they plan to do with that $700 billion. Maybe it's not important in ping-pong.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Outspokengrandmother on Sep 27, 2008 8:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: BOOOOOORING
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BST on Sep 27, 2008 8:05 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The portrayal in some posts here of McCain as a buffoon are just plain unfair. He has a record that in some ways has been quite liberal and he is a man who is accorded great respect by foreign leaders.
The man has distanced himself in many ways -- and a NYT magazine piece covered this in depth -- from Bush and many of his policies. The men are not carbon copies, nor is McCain simply a successor to the Bush administration.
Obama needs to warm up, seem to like himself and the people he's talking to -- or hazard losing this election.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That's because Obama threw his base under the bus a long time ago.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: That's because Obama threw his base under the bus a long time ago.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: That's because Obama threw his base under the bus a long time ago.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BST on Sep 27, 2008 8:05 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The portrayal in some posts here of McCain as a buffoon are just plain unfair. He has a record that in some ways has been quite liberal and he is a man who is accorded great respect by foreign leaders.
The man has distanced himself in many ways -- and a NYT magazine piece covered this in depth -- from Bush and many of his policies. The men are not carbon copies, nor is McCain simply a successor to the Bush administration.
Obama needs to warm up, seem to like himself and the people he's talking to -- or hazard losing this election.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: McCain prevails
Posted by: thealltheone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bob Horn on Sep 27, 2008 8:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The financial meltdown will KO McCain--if it happens
Posted by: cthelyt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Geek_Gal on Sep 27, 2008 8:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He was dripping with comtempt towards you and couldn't even look you in the eye.
Stop offering up platitudes to the jerk. Every time you say "You're right, John" you just feed his arrogance and help him convince himself that he is correct and that you are wrong.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Exactly. George Lakoff warned Democrats for falling into "conservative" frametraps.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Don't give McCain credit for anything.
Posted by: thealltheone
» "He showed he is more willing to work across party lines"
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Don't give McCain credit for anything.
Posted by: aonghus36
» McCain's Insulting Behavior
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Don't give McCain credit for anything.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grkjr on Sep 27, 2008 8:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
!. How many distinctions between them are there when both still think the idea/strategy fo the surge worked... When did it become a yardstick to measure success' that if you can contain the number of citizens being killed then you have won.. By such a ridiculous notion, all any superpower would have to do is remain on foreign soil with enough fighters to overwhelm the enemy and she wins, (much like the roman empire did for so many years or any other superpower) as she has curtailed the violence(as long as she stays put) Both buy this notion.
I guess that is why obama was incapable of calling mccain on vietnam.. after all if we choose to send more troops who knows we might have also won that war.. of course we would still be there, winning even today.. absurd.. No wonder as they years go by we are rewriting history...to soon to forget the lessons of imperial aggression.
2. And the distinctions for foreign policy are sadly lacking of any substance.. when you begin by callid any nation that seeks what we seek a rogue nation... we are heading down the same track of arrogance.
3. The democtatic stragegists are constantly amazing me.. I can only conclude that when ones comes from cowardace, it frames their thought patterns and results in a loss of consistency as you struggle with what must "sound best for the moment" while the republicans can substitute grit and certainty for policy, the democrats are too busy running and hiding from their perception of the all powerful administration which sets the agenda.. They seem incapable of ever acting like a majority because they are more afraid of how the enemy will paint them versus taking a stand.
NO WONDER THE PARTY OF POWER CAN OUT-PLAY THEM, FOR COWARDS NEVER REALLY GET IN THE GAME.and
3. A game played for a debate club is not the same game played in the rain and in the mud.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: what difference--DemocRATS or RepubliCONS
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» go ahead..vote third pary.
Posted by: thealltheone
» RE: go ahead..vote third pary. YES I WILL!!!
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: what difference
Posted by: thealltheone
» RE: what difference
Posted by: grkjr
Comments are closed-
Posted by: moonerone on Sep 27, 2008 8:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mac is no more the hero, think wet starting his jet on the USS Forrestal and killing 167 sailors in the process just for gettin' his jollies off, than the man he works for, Dubya (another joke of a "hero", read that "Mission
Accomplished" and AWOL [deserter].) Obama better read up on the Federalist Papers and start shouting out those truths about government gone greedy, power-drunk, out of touch with reality and just plain lying 24/7. Maybe he'd be well off rethinking whom he has picked for advisers. He needs just one little Rove in there, an attack dog if you will, to remind him of what's a stake, and the results thereof, if he doesn't succeed in taking on Washington and the world. This is no time for Mr. Niceguy coddeling. Macs not gonna stop muddying the waters. Obama needs to realize the he is one of the two men who will become the leader of the free world... And that takes one tough bastard to carry off.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Where's your street smarts, Odama???
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: roncypert on Sep 27, 2008 8:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Float like a butterfly; sting like a bee".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on Sep 27, 2008 8:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“I sit on a man's back choking him and making him carry me. And yet assure myself and others, that I am very sorry for him and wish to lighten his burden by all possible means. Except, by getting off his back.”
- Leo Tolstoy
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Barack Obama and Modern Liberalism
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Barack Obama and Modern Liberalism
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Barack Obama and Modern Liberalism
Posted by: ATH
» Barack Obama and "neo-liberalism"
Posted by: Last Chance
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on Sep 27, 2008 8:59 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To say that the “latest-greatest” Obama (for example) is being rejected because he is not quite perfect is to imply that he is kinda sorta there, or “in the right direction” or presumed to be an ally. What is being pointed out here is not that Obama and The Dems fail some perfection test – an imaginary test that suggests that he/they are mostly OK but has a few flaws that only perfectionists would notice, and a test that the people being accused of using it are not using - but rather that these people are not at all, in any way, remotely, or vaguely aligned with any of the working people and that the notion that they are aligned with us is all a carefully created and totally false illusion. What are presumed to be "flaws" – which a few of us are supposedly unwilling to overlook in our stubbornness and obtuseness – are actually accurate glimpses through the camouflage at the whole picture, not minor peripheral and insignificant flaws.
They aren't minor flaws in an otherwise perfect gem – they are indicators as to the true nature of this chunk of manure painted up to look like a gem so as to fool people. Looking through the holes in the fancy paint job at the interior of the object, and saying it is not a flawed diamond, it is a chunk of manure with a coat of paint hastily slopped on to make it look like a diamond is merely pointing out the hypocrisy and unreality of the liberal fetish.
On another level this assault is wrong-headed and destructive, and that is in the implied assumption that politics is a matter of personal taste - “well that is what YOU want but not very many people agree with you.” Politics is about the greatest good for the greatest number, not about “what I want.” The narcissistic belly button lint gazing is completely antithetical to working class solidarity, and is nothing more than an amusing little hobby for the pampered and spoiled latte' liberal.
Beyond the question of whether or not this particular person is perfect, I also reject the assumption that we are all looking for a person to begin with, and that looking for a person is the essence of politics.
Barack Obama is the enemy. Looking for a person is the problem, not the solution. Insulting, frustrating, and silencing the most perceptive among us is what is destroying the possibility of a strong Left emerging, and is the tawdry and amoral House Negro work that keeps the ruling class in place. THAT is the problem, and that is a LONG way from the snide and demeaning accusations that critics of Obama and others are being a prissy little perfectionists, carping and fault finding for the sake of irritating people or being a party spoiler.
This “you are being a perfectionist” propaganda is infinitely more destructive to the Left than anything that ever comes from the right wingers, and is one of the most important bulwarks of ruling class power.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A word about "ideological purity"
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: A word about "ideological purity" [Your post here is certainly interesting (& your immediate pri
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sallyride on Sep 27, 2008 9:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jim blew it with these two this time; he disappointed me.
Had the moderator kept their noses to the grindstone, the world would have known who the best candidate was by the end of the program.
In a debate, one must know all aspects of the topics, in order to debate, period. Had Jim kept them on topic, it would have been absolutely clear, without any questions, who was the most capable, informed, honest, and purposeful person on that stage to be our next president. CNN SCREWED US, AGAIN.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ATH on Sep 27, 2008 9:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This truly is a choice between two evils and always has been. The last good President we had was Carter. Unfortunately, republicans arranged it so that the hostages wouldn't be released until after the election--right on the day of the inaugaration of Reagan (aka the Anti-Christ:). Carter had started us toward getting us off our addiction to oil; and we should have started 30 years ago, when U.S. oil production peaked. It could have been a smooth transition.Carter even had solar pannels installed on the W.H. But when Reagan came in, he had them ripped off. He had no foresight--just because oil was cheap then, didn't mean it would always be..in fact, since it's a finite resource, any thinking person should have been able to figure out that one day it would become very expensive, and wars would be fought over it! I don't think people realize what a truly enormous under-taking it will be to transform our entire transportation, and food production systems, plus remaking our infrastructure to support alternative fuels. We're already past the tipping point. There's no way, even if we didn't have this economic crisis, and there was enough will to change to overcome the oil corporation's constant roadblocks against change, that we would have enough time to achieve this transformation before the effects of global climate disruption are such that they will exacerbate our current problems. Civilization itself is unsustainable. There are simply too many people on this earth--especially when we have countries like ours, who are less than 6% of the population, yet consume 25% of the world's resources. The government doesn't even truly run things, anyway-it's the corporatocracy, these multi-national corporations and their lobbysists who call the shots. We are hopelessly lost, and civilization is going to collapse, because we are not living in harmony with the earth. The earth's resources are finite, yet we exploit them as if they will never run out. If you use a resource, you must make sure you help replenish it. It's simple--you eat an apple, plant an apple tree. But we haven't done that.
And nature is going to show us what wrath truly is...to the earth, we are a parasite that's killing it and all its other species.
Call it God, or Nature, or Nature's God--we have spat in the face of the life-giver.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ATH
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: ATH
Posted by: ATH
» RE: ATH
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: ATH
Posted by: boing007
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Sep 27, 2008 9:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama definitely qualifies as the lesser of two evils, but after the FISA vote and the continued reassurance that it will be business as usual with Israel, I feel sick. Sure he won the debate and is a very impressive diplomat and speaker, but he sure spends a lot of time trying to create the impression that the violence and international deception will continue under his watch. Oh, but in his mind, and he's sadly probably right, if he started telling the truth about things like Georgia and Palestine, the american people would probably turn him off as fast as they did Kucinich. I hope Obama is just deceiving now because he knows how stupid the undecided voters who always determine our destiny are. Hopefully once he gets in he's more like his honest preacher he had to disavow for political reasons.
Either way, at this point he's only convincing me he's the lesser of two evils.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You pegged it- Obama can't tell what he's thinking
Posted by: civilsociety
» RE: Anybody notice
Posted by: redbird30328
» Glad I could help
Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ATH on Sep 27, 2008 9:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Open the door
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: Open the door
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Open the door
Posted by: civilsociety
» RE: ATH
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: ATH
Posted by: ATH
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jacks12 on Sep 27, 2008 9:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack looked him in the eye when talking, had clear and concise answers and generally tough but fair. McCain, on the other hand, was angry and judgemental. He NEVER looked Obama in the eye, which I still can't understand. Maybe he needs to hate his opponent to get into MR MAVERICK character.
I wish Barack had confronted McCain more, though it's not his style. For instance asking McCain why he voted AGAINST increasing the GI Bill would have been interesting to hear.
Barack needs to stop saying "I agree with you, Sen. McCain." I understand why he does this but you know they already have this spliced together for an instant ad.
Overall, Barack was prepared and appeared presidential, while McCain came across as a guy auditioning for Grumpy Old Men, Part 3.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama Edges McCain
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kahoneez on Sep 27, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And this bumper sticker canard " they took their eye off the ball " crap is getting real old, after billions spent for MEGA BASES , installing CIA op. Karzai as pres. to ensure that the Caspian Oil Pipeline gets built, tens of thousands of CIVILIANS BLOW UP by B2 bombers & apache helicopters, wedding parties reduced to piles of flesh and bones, and what looks like a planned effort into turning Afghanistan into a NARCO STATE, supplying all sides w/ an endless amount of CASH, " WE TOOK OUR EYES OFF THE BALL". What a sick and perverse sense of reality , by all who make this ridiculous claim and no doubt faithful supporters of the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX .
Ask the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and DEAD Afghans if we " took our eyes off the ball" or their widows or orphans .
If their were a TRUE independent choice running for president, he would have said a long time ago, the OCCUPATION of Iraq must END , (not bring home combat troops, which comprises about 25% of troops in Iraq, not EVEN mentioning the thousands of MERCENARIES murdering people with immunity, otherwise OBAMA will allow an Embassy that is really a fortified CITY with the most sophisticated High Tech Surveillance System to spy, record on every cell phone in Iraq , allow a foreign occupation force to operate an unjust prison system , in a supposed " sovereign country, occupy palaces stolen by the U.S. , off limits by the people who paid for them , the Iraqi people, allow U.S. corporations such as JP MORGAN to "manage" their foreign loans , profiting in the millions , if not billions .
And lets not forget the dirt deals, bribes and threats that will allow U.S OIL Corps to monopolize Iraqi oil industries .
The COLD hard REALITIES are the U.S. will not completely leave Iraq and as Naomi Klein has said , " even if all U.S. troops leave tomorrow , their would still be an ECONOMIC occupation ".
Look up Monsanto's devious role in destroying thousands of years of farming, turning farmers into patent beholding slaves to their SEED monopoly. Soon Monsanto will own the patent of the majority of SEEDS, the use of , the Fertilizer requirements ETC. ETC ETC.
No the NEOCONS and War profiteers had their "eyes ' firmly on the maps of Iraq and Afghanistan , prior to both immoral invasions .
Obama knows DAM WELL, the U.S. will occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for many years to come, an occupation that have costs that are socialized and profits that are privatized .
The system won't allow Kucinich , Ron Paul or anybody to make it to the top or anybody that opposes the grand schemes of U.S. Imperialism .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Excellent post
Posted by: chlamor
» RE: xcellent post
Posted by: Lauren
» grow up already!
Posted by: 6399
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Landbaron on Sep 27, 2008 10:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: With McCain's explosive personality disorder coupled with a white hot temper
Posted by: vasumurti
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on Sep 27, 2008 10:32 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq.”
- Barack Obama
Obama’s handlers and supporters place considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois has voiced a “consistent position against the war” and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama has publicly questioned the Bush administration’s case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his “antiwar position” shows that the supposedly “pragmatic” and “non-ideological” Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire. In Obama’s carefully crafted rhetoric, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) has been a “strategic blunder” on the part of an essentially benevolent nation state. Given his presidential ambitions, it is unthinkable for him to acknowledge the invasion’s status as a great international transgression that is consistent with the United States’ long record of imperial criminality. It is equally unimaginable for him to acknowledge that the war expressed Washington’s drive to deepen its control of strategic petroleum resources—an ambition in direct opposition to the alleged U.S. goals of encouraging Iraqi freedom and exporting democracy.
Consistent with his denial and embrace of Washington’s imperial ambitions, Obama has refused to join genuinely anti-war forces in calling for a rapid and thorough withdrawal of troops and an end to the occupation of Iraq.
Obama’s November speech to the CCGA advocates a vaguely timed Iraq “scenario” in which “U.S. forces” might remain in the occupied state for an “extended period of time.” Obama advances a “reduced but active [U.S. military] presence” that “protects logistical supply points” and “American enclaves like the Green Zone” (site of one of the largest and most heavily militarized “embassies” in history) while “sending a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in the region.” U.S. troops “remaining in Iraq” will “act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists.” This is part of what Obama meant when he told a fawning David Brooks that, “the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq.”
It gets worse. Obama has repeatedly voted to spend billions on the illegal invasion since his arrival in the U.S. Senate. He inveighs against the “Tom Hayden wing of the Democratic Party” and has told congressional Democrats they would be “playing chicken with the troops” if they dared to actually (imagine) de-fund the Cheney-Bush “war.”
Obama has repeatedly and absurdly claimed that the illegal invasion was launched with the “best of democratic intentions.”
His belated calls for withdrawal are hedged by numerous statements indicating that an Obama White House would maintain a significant military presence in and around Iraq for an indefinite period of time. And Obama has refused to support taking a reckless (possibly even nuclear) U.S. military assault on Iran off the table of acceptable U.S. foreign policy options.
Barack Obama reacts to the world's response to imperialism in precisely the same way as his counterparts; he proposes more war. Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military, to alleviate the shortage of manpower that Iraq attrition has wrought. In his speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Obama gave away their destination: Waziristan. Obama wants a more aggressive approach to the so-called "war on terror," to take "the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
So what we have in Barack Obama is an alternative War Party.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama/McCain 2 Pro-War Candidates: Pick One
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Obama/McCain 2 Pro-War Candidates: Pick One. Okay, I did.
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Obama/McCain 2 Pro-War Candidates: Pick One. Okay, I did.
Posted by: 6399
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 27, 2008 10:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rematch will be different. Rested and better trained, Young Obama will punch out Old Man McCain's lights.
I can't wait!
Finally, shown below is my revised comment sign-off for NEW readers who visit AlterNet
for the first time each day, NOT the old crowd -- to be discontinued after November 4th.
----------------------------------------------
For a laundry list of reasons why Old Man McCain should not be elected,
click on: Vote Against McCain (HOTTEST anti-McCain site on the Web!)
For damning revelations about McCain's dishonorable POW record,
click on: Vietnam Vets Against Songbird McCain.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: redbird30328 on Sep 27, 2008 10:42 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It doesn't matter because either way, the American People LOSE !
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: symcokid on Sep 27, 2008 10:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the next quandrary that we can address with a whole bunch of taxpayer money - bring 'em on.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CUnknown on Sep 27, 2008 11:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's make this moneybomb a historic day that marks the beginning of the end of the 2-party duopoly. Go to www.thirdpartyticket.com and sign up!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let's get our own debates - www.thirdpartyticket.com
Posted by: maxpayne
» The debate idea is a good start, and at least some of you are finally doing something
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Sep 27, 2008 11:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He should have hammered home again and again the Difference in their Tax Palns and cemented it with showing how much John and Cindy would SAVE under McCains Plan .
As for the surge working BS point out that it was supposed to produce Political reconilliation which it hasn't .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sinibaldi on Sep 27, 2008 12:07 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
behaviour, the light
of a blackbird
and a luminous
farm; I listen
to you when
a care disappears
and then, in the
sound of a new
day, a magical
dreamland invites
me to cry....
Francesco Sinibaldi
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CJC on Sep 27, 2008 12:29 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for Obama spouting much of the same rhetoric about "being strong" and saying he'd follow the Taliban, for example, into Pakistan (from whence most of them come anyway) etc., the reality is that talking calm good sense is impossible in our political environment.
Yesterday afternoon, hours before the debate, I heard a book talk by Andrew Bacevich, a former army officer, a Vietnam vet, and now a prof of history and international relations at Boston University, on his new book, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism." End of American exceptionalism?? You can't say that on the campaign trail! Bacevich acknowledged as much. So when Obama makes "tough" and even bellicose statements, really what else can he do.
Bacevich's book is excellent, if gloomy about how "glorious" our future is going to be.
If your local bookstore doesn't have it you can order it from buzzflash.com for a modest donation above the cover price and with free shipping.
Andrew J. Bacevich, "The Limits of Power," Metropolitan Books, New York, 2008
(Bill Moyers interviewed Bacevich on Aug 15. There seems to be a transcript available and probably also a video link through pbs.org.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jacksmith on Sep 27, 2008 1:18 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What ever congress does to try and fix our stunning economic catastrophe needs to be done very carefully. Congress needs to take their time, and be sure of what they are doing. Whatever is done needs to be sharply focused at helping, and protecting the best interest of the ordinary Americans. In particular the vast American middle class. 700 billion dollars is a lot of the peoples money to spend to bail out a bunch of corrupt Bush loan sharks.
My fellow human beings, just as I warned you ahead of this catastrophic economic meltdown, I must now warn you that what is ahead has the potential to be even more catastrophic than what we are going through now. The worlds geopolitical landscape has been booby trapped by the Bush McCain administration and their republican allies in congress. These booby traps are poised to spring at any time.
Fortunately the Worlds Nations have been blessed with many excellent leaders (except the US) who have been careful, wise, strong, and self-restrained in dealing with the provocations, and antagonism's of the Bush, McCain administration.
Barack Obama and the democrats are your best hope now. Tell your family, friends, and everyone you know to support them as best you can, and vote for them like your life, and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. Because it does. You will not survive 4 more years of Bush McCain.
JACK SMITH - WORKING CLASS...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Your Money And Your Life
Posted by: grkjr
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Truelass on Sep 27, 2008 1:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
movie in the 1940's. He looked and talked like yesterdays' man Obama shone like the future and showed that he can handle the job. It is time that we placed an age limit on our politicians and avoid them the embarrassment of drooling over their memories.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Henry Greenwood
Posted by: Quannah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: manor-tom on Sep 27, 2008 2:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
defensive counteractions. He should have told McCain that there is no military solution to the problems the world is facing to-day and that precisely much of these problems stem from erroneously perceived military actions and will inevitably result in ever more
"terrorism". But "terrorism" is war waged by the poor and "war" is terrorism waged by the rich. The difference is in the weaponry being used. What should be recognised is that the
"poor" of the world are waging a gurrilla war against the rich. But than an adverse indoctrinated public will find then find that
"unpatriotic". Sometimes we will have to take a psychological hurdle to find the truth and that might hurt.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: the debate
Posted by: boing007
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Sep 27, 2008 2:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what millions of people heard. McCain had no significant rebuttal and made no significant countercharge. He took up the same amount of airtime, but McCain sounded mostly like a word weasel.
The same 10 second bytes were shown at 8:00 and at noon, and will be shown again on the 6:00 and 6:30 news.
The reporters are scared of sounding like Democrats when the major networks are owned by Westinghouse, GE and Disney, and Fox is worse, so they'll never report this effect.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: whathaway on Sep 27, 2008 2:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was hoping to hear something, anything that would help me believe that I was voting for something more than just the lesser of two evils. Is it wrong to expect more from those running for one of the most important positions on the planet?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Seems like we are trying too hard...
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cori on Sep 27, 2008 3:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cori on Sep 27, 2008 3:50 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» YOU GOT THAT RIGHT AND THAT'S WHY GOD WILL CONTINUE TO PUNISH THE USA !!!!
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: YOU GOT THAT RIGHT AND THAT'S WHY GOD WILL CONTINUE TO PUNISH THE USA !!!!
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Sep 27, 2008 4:43 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before this debate, pundits were saying over and over again that Obama had to appear to "tie" with McCain to win, and McCain had to score a KO. Funny, how nobody seems to remember this now. By their own standards, Obama exceeded all expectations; he knocked one out of the park, cleaned Mr. McGoo's clock, and if he does as well in the next two meetings, he and Michelle can start measuring for new curtains in the Oval Office.
I look forward to McCain's concession speech on November 4!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» WHAT ?!?!?!?
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 27, 2008 5:03 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And when Obama votes along with Mccain YES to bailing out Wall $treet, GOD WILL FINISH PUNISHING AMERICA EVEN MORE !!! RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR !!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I gave Obama one more chance last night to prove his courage and he FUCKING BLEW IT !!!!
Posted by: whathaway
» RE: I gave Obama one more chance last night to prove his courage and he FUCKING BLEW IT !!!!
Posted by: maxpayne
» Gus Hall was head of the CPUSA back in the day
Posted by: whathaway
» Gus Hall was my first vote for president back in 1976!
Posted by: cthelyt
» RE: Gus Hall was my first vote for president back in 1976!
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT
» Going BACK to voting for Nader?
Posted by: Beck
» YES !! At this point, what's to lose? NOTHING MORE !
Posted by: maxpayne
» Conservatives never really think for themselves. They expect to be spoonfed.
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT
» Maxpayne, your post is very IMMATURE ! GROW UP AND GET REAL !
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Sep 27, 2008 7:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on Sep 27, 2008 7:47 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Americans have to understand is that this may be the start of ginning up a new cold war (perhaps the war on terror isn’t producing enough bodybags and $$$$$?). The war machine does need constant enemies to throw on the fire. Those bombs collecting dust on the shelf probably need to be used. This is a great example of where the Democratic Party is no different from the Republican Party. Did anyone notice how Obama fought so hard to prove he was as hawkish as McCain on this issue? This is a peace candidate?
Nader and McKinney supporters know that’s not true, but others who are still entertaining that illusion are really suspending disbelief.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnJlws on Sep 27, 2008 8:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brittle, crotchety, disrespectful, mean, arrogant, condescending, caustic, out-of-touch, dispirited, politician.
Who won the debate?
From the outset Obama epitomized the first list of descriptors and "the Maverick" the second.
"The Maverick" tried wrapping himself in the flag, mom's apple pie, war/security and even trotted out the tried and true "but I'm a P.O.W." Hands down, Obama won.
And can anyone, anyone tell me what that allusion to the Governor/Mayor, his running mate was that "the Maverick" made. It just sort of popped out and hung there and then he trotted off to something else. Weird.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on Sep 27, 2008 8:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
did mention the Middle Class once show me the title and I will read that person's comment.
Otherwise you all missed Obama's strategy (which did follow Bill Clinton's ( who did know how to get elected even though I disagreed with his policies)advice because you are not middle class but a bunch of generation x's or y's who don't know yet what hard work is about and a tax cut doesn't mean a damm bit of difference being so well heeled.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Sep 27, 2008 8:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JIff
Privacy Center
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cori on Sep 27, 2008 9:52 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nothing will save us but ourselves
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joni50 on Sep 27, 2008 10:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may or may not apply to McCain. I don't think he is Asian, Native American, Hispanic, or Autistic. He seems pretty WASP to me, and I am opposed to him for the same reasons as many of us here are. I'm just saying, lets not perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices against the norms of other cultures.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ye contact
Posted by: orwellturns
Comments are closed-
Posted by: orwellturns on Sep 27, 2008 11:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MR. OBAMA, when you go on stage with McBush next time, just shake his hand, NO HUGGING, don't say you agree with anything McBUSH says, you might say something like: "Be that as it may be but I would etc, etc, etc."
Other than the above criticism, YOU WON THE FIRST DEBATE. Keep it up. GO WIN NOW!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AnIndependentThinker on Sep 28, 2008 6:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As one commentator wrote, Barack Obama could not have possibly come across as the "angry black man," because that would have turned off voters. Sleazy, slimy tactics are not his style. He rose above his contendor and demonstrated a calm, cool demeanor.
On the other hand, McCain came across as condescending, disrespectful, rude, inferior, intimidated, angry, cowardice, and yes, even whiny. We've already heard about his sad, poor little 'ole me story regarding his POW experience. Sorry, I don't buy it anymore. You can't win a presidency based on a pity plea.
Additionally, ANY man who cannot look directly into the eyes of another man is DISHONEST. If someone spoke AT me in the fashion in which McCain did to Obama, I would've discarded anything this man said and would've done exactly what Obama did. He chose the high road and refused to get into a confrontation with an individual who could not even face him.
On another note, I've read that some commentators were "disgusted" and "frustrated" with Obama's responses not being "strong enough." I've never been in a debate, and I can't say how I would react in a scenerio like this. But I can say that I've spoken in public in front of hundreds of people; which Obama has done in front of thousands. In a debate forum, individuals are SUPPOSED to adhere to the rules of the debate. Despite this fact however, none of us have ever been in the "hot seat" so to speak.
I imagine that Barack was focused on positioning himself in future mode, and genuinely demonstrated his knowledge regarding foreign policies -- which was the topic of debate. One time, citizens scream that he is inexperienced and doesn't know enough about foreign policy and when he does exemplify that knowledge, he's downed for not being "mean enough" to McCain.
If anyone had exercised and demonstrated knowledge, patience, tolerance, and level-headedness, it was Barack Obama. Period.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: disfasia on Sep 28, 2008 6:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Argument for argument, McCain won this debate. Sorry, but Obama came off as way too weak, indecisive and inexperienced and it showed badly. McCain, sure he could have looked at Obama, but he showed that he knows the score and that he does his own research--not that I agree with his conclusions.
McCain could have nailed the debate by calling out Obama for his support for a government bailout. Sadly both men are really cut from the same cloth.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mjinterest on Sep 28, 2008 8:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Sep 28, 2008 11:23 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mgw711 on Sep 28, 2008 12:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only Obama showed this strength of character in the debate. Without that, we're doomed not just four more years of Bush, but deeper crises that we haven't even imagined yet. Anyone who cares needs to give what time we have available to campaign for Obama.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kmcd on Sep 28, 2008 1:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain reminds me of the old elementary school teacher who the principal needs to say "It's time -- it's time to retire."
McCain isn't even in the same league as Obama. Not even the league.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bobtr900 on Sep 29, 2008 3:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would have thought that Obama being a lawyer would have far superior debate skills. If he does, they didn't show. If Obama's courtroom strategies are the same I would want another lawyer, one who is more vehement, aggressive, exuberant and confident. Humility does not work in Republican party politics. PC just doesn't work. Repub voter want a president who is an attack dog. They are fearful and want to be protected. Bush and the Repubs guarantee them protection. And they believe the Repubs can protect them, while we lefties know that no one can guarantee any such level of protection. The Bush controlled Dept. of Energy proved that our borders are so porous that they could just walk in with the fixins' for suitcase sized bombs.
The two key issues that Obama should have crucified McCain on are the war and the economy. McCain won on the war by using the standard Repub talking points of national security and the supposedly successful surge. Repubs are very fearful people and think the only way for America to act on the world stage is to crush everyone who is or MAY be our enemy. Hence McCain won on the national and world security issues.
On the success of the surge issue, Obama never attacked, in fact he conceded that it was working. The only way one can think it is working is to believe that the American taxpayer can forever pay the insurgents huge sums of money to not fight us. And that is another frame Obama should have used to scare the always scared Repub taxpayers, PAYING taxes for protection. That is one way Obama should have dealt with the supposedly 'successful' surge issue. It is another Repub party myth.
Repubs are scared people and they makes them mean and aggressive people. That's why they are thugs and bullies. Obama must stand up to their thuggery and bullying.
Repubs are equally fearful people on the economy and once again they are mean and aggressive on that issue as well. The Repub party understands their people very well or they 'created' along those lines, I do not know which, but ibelieve it to be the former. In eitercase the Repub party knows their constituency very well.
I think we and Obama need to face it, Repubs are just plain fearful people and thus their fears can be used to manipulate them quite easily. I cannot begin to stress enough the great fear that seems to emanate from the skin of of every Repub, they almost reek of fear.
Their fears are so deep and profound that they must be taken into account or the Dems may once again lose another election. Pro-life and Family Values are only very secondary issues, FEAR is the main and totaslly overrriddingissue.
As regards Pro-life and Family Values Repubs must feel like they are the fetus, their fear is that palpable. Repubs only feel safe within their own families where they can really create a world that is less fearful and thus far more tolerable to them. We lefties are far less fearful so we do not need to retreat to the small world of family because we do not fear so much as they.
There is a concept in physiology and a similar concept in psychology that some people are almost too sensitive. They are hypersensitive to personal safety issues and thus have are insensitive to issues that impinge on the lives of others when they themselves FEEL threatened. Make a Repub personally feel threatened and you got them. Make a businessman feel threatened, via their profits, and you've got them. Those are lessons from the Civil War.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: salt-of-the-earth on Oct 1, 2008 6:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congress has been covering up for Bush from the beginning, Repugs and Democrats both. The Dems were elected to stop the war and instead they have escalated.
None of them care what the people want. We've been handed candidates who are not even talking to America, but playing some silly parts they have been scripted by their handlers. Meantime, the people are scared and frustrated and angry because nobody is talking about what's really on our minds, which is avoiding turning this planet into a radioactive parking lot so the foreign bankers can make more money.
That's all we want, to live to see another day.
We don't want to hear about more wars to keep us safe. This is what we DON'T want to hear. Obviously, nobody is listening -- not Congress, not the two major presidential candidates.
We should be concentrating on Cindy Sheehan, who is likely to unseat Pelosi -- IF they do not steal her votes, and they MIGHT steal them. Cindy will speak up loud and clear, and she is the ONLY one in Congress who will have the courage to do that. Either Obama or McCain will run the bombs anyplace on the planet they are told to by their handlers.
Palin was a wild card that got inserted in. She is not controlled, but trying to be cooperative, and perhaps naive because the church has been duped into believing the Jews are God's chosen and that Israel's enemies must be America's enemies. But since she is prolife, I believe she will see the light. At the least she is not a bloodthirsty sadist who loves to see death and destruction as Obama, McCain and Biden.
Too bad America can't get behind one of the third party candidates and not split their vote there.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Both Parties to Blame -- [She looks pretty bloodthirsty, judgemental and DANGEROUS to me.
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hewjrtaken on Oct 3, 2008 4:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of these qualities will do any good in fixing the mess of the last eight years.
Biden clearly won on substance and breadth of knowledge and showed that he would be more than ready to be president. This is in comparison to Palin who was a rambling wreck of a debater. I was unimpressed with her weak grasp of the issues.
If we want to view our presidential/vice presidential debates as beauty contests, what's the point of debating at all? This attitude is what has given us eight years of Bush: most people who elected him saw in him the same qualities that are now being seen in Palin.
We have had eight years of incompetence and mismanagement in the executive branch. I would hope that the American people and the media heads would take the issues of the day more seriously than whether or not a candidate appeared more "folksy". We already know how far down in the hole this folksiness (read: "compassionate conservatism") has gotten us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dpouliot on Oct 3, 2008 6:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought for sure that at the end of the "debate" (whether this was really a debate is actually debatable, since questions were merely viewed by Palin as 'optional') that all my media friends would jump at the chance to point out that Palin's BS apple pie schtick is so transparent that NO ONE, not even Joe Six-Pack, would buy her load of rehearsed, condescending, tripe.
What a farce.
This election will be a measurement of how many tragically gullible, flag-waving, Nascar-racing, homo hating, head-in-the-sand crackers live in this country.
God help us all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 27, 2008 12:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Published on March 27, 2008, the article by Butler, an ex-Navy pilot and U.S. Naval Academy graduate who spent more than eight years in North Vietnam as a prisoner of war, explained why he would not support Senator McCain for the presidency.
Here is part of Butler's op-ed piece.
Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60’s
and 70’s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate
than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and
malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s
age (71) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to
serve as our President for four or more years.
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot
head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have
experienced firsthand. Folks, quite honestly, that is not the finger
I want next to the red button.
I especially agreed with Butler after McCain called Obama dangerous. This from Mr. Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran -- an intemperate politician who picked a dumb shit hockey mom beauty queen for his running mate and heartbeat-away commander-in-chief.
Should McCain win in November, his victory will prove to the world what many foreigners suspect-- that the U.S. electorate has a collective IQ equal to Alaska's average wintertime temperature.
That horrifying outcome may well happen if voters judge Obama by his skin color and not what he says.
Old Man McCain and Stupid Sarah -- wrong for America, wrong for the world
For reasons why JM and SP should not be elected
in November, click on: Vote Against McCain
(HOTTEST anti-McCain/Palin site on the Web)
For more damning revelations about Songbird McCain,
click on: Vietnam Vets Against McCain.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unfit for command
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Unfit for command [the message is there, it seems well annotated, IT WORKS
Posted by: Squarehead
» My links are for the HUNDREDS of NEW readers who visit AlterNet daily -- NOT you, Rolomax!
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» RE: My, my, red links are excessive.
Posted by: Lauren
» Okay, Lauren, because you've been so nice, the RED goes. Adios, rojo.
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's over, I'll never comment on AlterNet again!
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» RE: Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's over, I'll never comment on AlterNet again!
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's over, I'll never comment on AlterNet again!
Posted by: PandaBear
» Thanks, Panda, but I'm serious. I've got better things to do than argue with GOP trolls (jerks).
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» Promises, promises!
Posted by: Rapunzel
» Bet on it, Rapunzel! Me not commenting on AlterNet after the election is a WINNER. Instead...
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin
» RE: Bet on it, Rapunzel! Me not commenting on AlterNet after the election is a WINNER. Instead...
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's over, I'll never comment on AlterNet agai
Posted by: bornxeyed
» Hey, let's have an election on HUGH!
Posted by: war_on_tara
» also - which one is the former "LionHeart"?
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Also, Rolo, because I'm not crazy, when the election's [Bollocks!
Posted by: Squarehead
» Empty barrell
Posted by: Karl.Ben
» RE: Empty barrel [It is very well attested that McCain co-operated with his NVA interrogators,
Posted by: Squarehead
» Drop-ship McCain's
Posted by: weathered
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Sep 27, 2008 12:23 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: raiders757
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: maestra
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?
Posted by: PandaBear
» RE: Obamarama bye bye?..and bye bye blue-collar repuglicans
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» This poster is a long-standing Hillary troll
Posted by: brunowe
» Troll
Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: EJLima
» You gest! RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: sallyride
» RE: all foreign aid must STOP. That is what Americans wanted to hear
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: You gest! RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: abqavgjoe
» RE: You gest! RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: sallyride
» RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: Obamarama bye bye
Posted by: AnIndependentThinker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: adp3d on Sep 27, 2008 3:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for the "success" of the 2007 escalation, Obama needs to stress the failure of all but 3 of the 18 benchmarks as well as the other factors unrelated to the surge that reduced but by no means at all quelled the violence. He would do well to talk about the rise of American casualties during the surge. In other words he needs to take back his idea that the surge was a success and stress the fact that it was an unqualified failure.
Another thing Obama needs to talk about is McCains involvement with Charles Keating. I know it was already mentioned but if he wants to take votes from McCain this is a good way to do it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama scored...
Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Obama scored...
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Karl.Ben on Sep 27, 2008 4:00 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for Obama, seemed poised but didn't really say much we didn't now.. I saw no knock out punches but McCain did seem to control the discussion, Obama looked the bit of the junior senator. Obama agreed with McCain way too much He also doesn't do well without a teleprompter.
If you're "explaining", you're losing. 10-9 McCain! BUT - McCain has Palin and after her last interview, a big time liability. I think she will hand the election to Obama.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Obama Pounced
Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: 'Old man Yells at cloud', old man yells at old man yelling at cloud
Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: 10 round decision..
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: 10 round decision..LOL
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: 10 round decision..LOL
Posted by: Karl.Ben
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Squarehead on Sep 27, 2008 4:08 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get your heads back to a happier place; as someone once said: "Free your mind, and your ass will follow"
Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running involvement in community activism, fits the profile of the first para?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running i
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running i
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Yup, I do
Posted by: setterwoman
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running i
Posted by: DEBKAMAINE
» RE: Also rhymes with failin', failing Palin.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long running i
Posted by: Bob Horn
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long runni
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Do you guys REALLY think that a Professor of Constitutional Law, for 12+ years, and a long runni
Posted by: orwellturns
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Sep 27, 2008 4:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shit the Pussy couldn't even look up and face his opponent, even looked once or twice like he was about to cry. Probably was since the FBI have begun investigating the Wall Street Bail out- Deja Vu all over again Johnny boy?
Who would want this tempermental vindictive coward on the other side of any significant International negotiations- Reason why Mac doesn't want to meet with Foreign leaders (even SPAIN-LOL)He's afraid he'll either break down and Cry or Break their nose- Neither is Presidential behavior.
They must Have jacked up his Aricept ( alzhiemers med) thoug he seemed a bit more Oriented than Ususal- although it's hard to tell the difference between him lying and just Deluded.
Who did he remind me of....the last paranoid president- Nixon. But then again not being able to go off scripted talking points is Classic Ronny. His Self congradulatory, back patting causing him to nearly dislocate his shoulder was eeriely similar to W's level of Arrogance. Of course we all know he's rolled over and taken up th eass to get to this point- so he's cheney's Bitch and Butt boy just like HW! Cheney's perfected Manchurain Candidate.
HEY JOHN IF YOU CAN'T EVEN LOOK ACROSS TO THE OTHER PODIUM- HOW CAN YOU EXPECT US TO BELEIVED YOU COULD WORK ACROSS THE AISLE?
that Debate was the epitome of John McCains Career- Lies, Confusion, vindictiveness and Temper tantrums.
How do you determine Who wins a debate- turn down the sound and watch their expressions and Body language- John would have lost even if he was debating a 5th grader. And his Face, lack of eye contact and posturing was an admission of a forfeit!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: lively56
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: Blink
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: Blink
» RE: loser McCain
Posted by: jwverez
» And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: jwverez
» Crybaby blinky is just another David Horowitz clone paid to lie.
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT
» RE: And what have Republicans done for you anyway? YOU'VE BEEN FUCKED !
Posted by: jwverez
» Crybaby blinky is just another typical foam-at-the-mouth Republican who plays the victimization game
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: Blink
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: maxpayne
» Rightwing troll.
Posted by: jwverez
» Alternets Most Un-Wanted
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» Alternet needs to step up to the plate and start banning conservative trolls for moderation's sake.
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: Karina
» RE: His OWN Face and Body language alone Defeated Mac
Posted by: kahuna_2bears
Comments are closed-
Posted by: americansheep on Sep 27, 2008 4:28 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Agreed, Great Points- but Obama actually listens
Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: Agreed, Great Points- but Obama actually listens
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» TOTALLY AGREE RE: Obama's "Sarah Palinesque" View
Posted by: sallyride
» RE: TOTALLY AGREE RE: Something's wrong with McCain
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Obama's "Sarah Palinesque" View
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» RE: long-term cocaine effects
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: long-term cocaine effects
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» RE: Obama and McCain share the same policy goals, but difference in approach may save lives
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Obama's "Sarah Palinesque" View
Posted by: djnoll
» Exactly right. We want change of policy. He has none.
Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GeraldD on Sep 27, 2008 4:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
******************
See The Jim Angle Report on Fox
*******************
Watch The Clinton Interview On ABC News
*********************
-
Hear Barney Frank On Video Stating That There Is No Crisis At Fannie Mae -
I think there are 2 former CEOs of Fannie Mae, one former assistant CEO, at least Two United States Senators, and at least one member of the US House of Representatives who should GO TO JAIL for this! BRIBING Members of Congress To Hide Accounting Abuses And Loan Abuses Should Get Them Permanent Social Security.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Clintons ARE Disaffected Republicans from 1984
Posted by: Purple Girl
» Nice try.....watch your own video next time.....
Posted by: Diecash1
» Clinton, a "democrat"? In what alternate universe?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The church will keep the little people in line - but no rules for the rich
Posted by: Smackback
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hans B on Sep 27, 2008 4:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain doubled down on the US vs THEM attitude, firmly giving Russia back its Empire of Evil status, misrepresenting Iran's policies, and generally creating an image of an adversarial (not to say warlike) future. That will be appreciated, too, in certain quarters, but in times of economic fear people may not want to see even more bogeymen under the bed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It wasn't a debate~that's the moderator's fault RE: It's not a contest
Posted by: sallyride
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EJLima on Sep 27, 2008 4:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was inspired to send $100
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Democritus on Sep 27, 2008 5:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's what I would have said to McCain--and I would have said it right at him, not channeling it through Jim Lehrer (who tried unsuccessfully all night to get both of them to talk to one another).
"John, you say that you and Governor Palin are mavericks. Just what do you mean by that? Strictly speaking, a maverick is an unbranded calf that has been separated from its mother. Clearly, you're not that sort of maverick, are you? So what you must mean is that you take an independent stand, apart from your associates. But John, you've been taking a stand with your associate, President George W. Bush in 91% of your votes. And recently, you've changed your mind on the other 9%, so that means you're now in 100% agreement with President Bush. Tell me how that translates into any sort of a "maverick." Tell me that Bush's branding iron hasn't seared your hide?"
If he had said that, they would still be counting over McCain's supine body.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So he's a maverick, is he?
Posted by: DEBKAMAINE
» RE: So he's a maverick, is he?
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» His prison: Unlimited Power
Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: His prison: Unlimited Power
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: So he's a maverick, is he?
Posted by: thealltheone
» McCain, a "maverick"? No, no, no. Wrong.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» YESSS!!
Posted by: Ahimsa
» Rove: Attack your Opponent's Strength
Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: So he's a maverick, is he?
Posted by: boing007
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FMABBI on Sep 27, 2008 5:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, I sure wish that Obama would speak more slowly and more forcefully! I think most Americans are upset right now about these last 8 years and the ruins we find ourselves in. Obama should articulate these sentiments with force and make it clear that REPUBLICANS brought us these problems!
Go Obama!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: FMAinMass
Posted by: Ahimsa
» Yes, but you're missing one thing.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Sep 27, 2008 5:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jiff
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sallyride on Sep 27, 2008 5:38 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He can't focus long enough to answer anything, which clearly indicates he's being programmed - lest we forget Bionic Reagan who's wife ran the country for at least 3 years. Does anyone want McCain's trophy running America? Or, worse perhaps, Palin?
No, this must stop soon - Obama has to learn to call the shots, and he should have stopped the debate until actual debating regulations were enforced - they were seriously ignored.
The moderator was a disappointment: did not call him on his total disregard for the questions presented.
Staging a debate without enforcing debating techniques is a serious lack of ethical conduct against the common good. Wake up, CNN!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: VEALED: MC CAIN'S A WAR-MONGER BUT - CNN ERRED
Posted by: Lauren
» Very possibly medication RE: VEALED: MC CAIN'S A WAR-MONGER BUT - CNN ERRED
Posted by: sallyride
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 27, 2008 5:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Apocalipstick Now!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: Diecash1
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: Tim Chadron
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: boing007
» RE:I can't wait either...
Posted by: thealltheone
» RE: I can't wait either...
Posted by: 113121
» RE: I can't wait either...
Posted by: boing007
» RE: Less fun than you might think...
Posted by: Diecash1
» Gov. Palin will wipe the stage with Biden
Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maestra on Sep 27, 2008 5:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: BBC
Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» RE: BBC
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: BBC
Posted by: Thucy
» RE: sounding like Dan Quayle.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: BBC
Posted by: sallyride
Comments are closed-
