There weren’t any to cut out. Obama was really making a concerted effort to avoid that. Not that taking a second to actually think about an answer instead of just barking out slogans should really be such a negative.
Kissinger and the McCain camp[ are basically trying to weasel it by saying that Kissinger never said the President, specifically should be at the meeting but that’s a specious distinction.
Plus Kissinger is a war criminal.
I did not explain properly, the thing that bugged me was talking about failed states when Iraq remains one. It is very misleading to just talk about success with the surge when there are other reasons why the US must leave and a time table must be considered. One element of a failed state is:
The majority of Iraqis still want us out, and one can not talk straight when the majority of the people want something but there is pressure (from the outside) to stop the will of the people from being heard.
Care to point out that clause in the article? I can’t seem to find it.
Interesting. I wonder if I’m older than “the older people” because I think it’s more courteous, in this context, to use the official title and last name than the first name alone. It may seem friendlier to go by first names, but friendliness and courtesy are different things and I don’t believe the senators are friends.
I was disappointed in the moderation. Lehrer seemed to waste a lot of time badgering the candidates for not answering his question when it wasn’t all that clear what he was asking or what sort of answer he expected. Also, repeatedly exhorting the candidates to address each other directly gave the appearance he was hoping to stir up a fight.
(BTW, I am a fan of Obama and The NewsHour.)
Absent major gaffes or memorable zingers, I give the to Obama. For better or worse, likely voters know John McCain, but Obama is still an enigma to some. Every time he shows that he has a solid grasp of the issues and can make his points forcibly and without a prepared text, he increases his electability.
magellan01
Quote:
Your post would have more credibility if it had not begun this way.
Would you link to the original quote in which Obama said the president oughtta be sitting down for talks with neither conditions nor preparation? Pardon me for thinking that McCain might be distorting Obama, but a hundred times bitten, two hundred times shy.
Daniel
Nice try again, Obama did mention that so even by your own admission it is grasping at straws to repeat that he was only referring to the president.
Not to speak for him, but the t is next to the y and the = is next to the back space.
That doesn’t take any balls at all. In fact, it’s exactly what they WERE answering on that question - trying to answer the question without admitting that fiscal prudence requires a specific person isn’t going to get their pork. Neither man took a party line; they both weaselled. (Well, McCain, to his credit, did take a shot at ethanol subsidies, a point on which he’s 100% right. But that’s not gonna balance the budget on its own.)
What takes balls is saying what a real leader would say: “I’m going to do X because it’s the right thing for the country. Vote for me if you want the right thing done.”
I shouldn’t throw stones; our election’s a thousand times worse. Every party’s said they’ll keep the budget balanced and every party has made spending and tax promises ludicrously incompatible with a balanced budget.
Eh, looked like a typo to me (like he typed a ‘t’, went for the backspace and hit the ‘=’ instead, then moved on to the ‘y’ thinking he’d made the correction.
John McCain is smug bastard isn’t he. The only real way to argue with him is shout him down. I have no time for his type, he’s shown himself to be exactly they the type of person we don’t need to lead our country.
I’m not Miss Congeniality, indeed.
I’ve just responded to a couple of specific points, but here’s my take on the debate. I think both did pretty well. I thought one theme both candidates should have stayed with was one Obama offered early on. When asked if he favored the bailout bill, he gave the right answer. That it is still being crafted, so it’s hard to know what the final language will be. I think McCain then made a mistake saying that he would sign it. Oh, really. So, you’re willing to sign something without knowing the specifics? Especially on something this important? Disappointing.
I also wish that, as much as people wanted them to talk about the bailout, that they would have refrained from doing so, as to not inadvertently screw up negotiations back in DC.
I do think that McCain did better overall. He had Obama on the defensive more. And when Obama put McCain on the defensive regarding Kissinger, it backfired. You could see after he pressed the point initially, after McCain responded with a confident laugh, that he kind of wish he hadn’t said it.
One thing that I do think hurt Obama was that given his position on the Senate committee, that hadn’t even been to Afghanistan. This did damage I think because it was factual and played well into the idea that McCain is a doer, and Obama a thinker. I also did find McCain impressive on how much he had travelled the world in his role as Senator. I didn’t really hold Obama’s lack of this against him, as much of it is probably a function of tenure in the Senate, but it is definitley a plus in the McCain column.
One point I’d like McCain to make is, when Obama brings up hus “95% of all taxpayers will receive a tax cut” is that iunder the McCain plan 100% will receive a tax cut. I don’t think that the higher number is necessarily better, but Obama is using it in a way that implies that his plan must be great because the number is so high.
McCain was a little annoying for me with how repetitive he was. Also, although he did okay last night, he’s just not a great speaker. Obama is a terrific speaker. and I wish I could align with his views more, because I wouldn’t mind hearing him for the next four years.
I was surprised how McCain increasingly started to talk over Obama and not cede the floor. Obama did this first and kind of shut McCain up, and McCain was polite for awhile. But I think he just said “fuck it, you want to play that game, fine.”
I thought the end was good for both candidates. Before McCain gave the last part of his speech, I was wishing that someone had wowed me with something. McCain’s close was superb. He brought up the POW thing, but in a different way, only to set up how big a move it was for him to participate in normalizing relations with Vietnam. I started to cringe as the letters came out of his mouth, but was glad, and impressed didn’t he didn’t bring up the torture ordeal again, for it’s own sake.
Yeah, because I hurled an insult in an unknown language.:rolleyes:
My thanks to Shayna and ArizonaTeach for applying common sense.
And TWDuke, let me just say, uh37r4&3=34djd^ddw= dd-=dideeiu!!!
I think McCain goes to the earmarks theme way too much. He is basing so much of his campaign on it and it is such a monor issue when it comes to the larger issues. And while I think it is a popular issue, I also think most people think it is not THE issue.
Disclaimer: I did not watch the debate.
I mentioned before that I did not really “see” the debate. I have to crane my neck to see the TV from where I sit, so I didn’t see the not-looking-at or the blinking thing everyone was talking about.
That’s what’s striking me now. EVERYBODY is talking about it. Apparently, it was very off-putting.
The first Debate Ad has hit youtube. I’m all up in Obama’s grill, so maybe I’m seeing it with Barack-colored glasses, but is this not the worst ad ever?
One point of Obama’s that I haven’t seen really addressed was about the reputation of the US in other countries. That’s a pretty major concern when talking about national security and international relations. The actions of the US government in recent years, particularly during the Bush administration but also before hasn’t done them any favours when it comes to winning friends. International politics isn’t just about military power and strategy, it’s about working with others towards common goals. Obama seems to get that, while McCain doesn’t. And now more than ever the US needs to be aware of how other countries see it.
Not sure if this has been linked previously, but here is an AP Fact checking article:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gADGK1dtPMQ5bMNUHc70I2fLYGGwD93EQLEO0
I thought they both did very well, both were good speakers. I didn’t like many of the early questions on the bailout that didn’t seem to get a good answer from either of the candidates. Probably because both candidates prepped for a foreign policy debate, and because the bailout isn’t over yet. How can you know what changes you’ll have to make in your presidency if the final scope and numbers from the bailout aren’t established yet?
I thought McCain rambled a bit but he really does know Washington procedures and wastefulness inside and out. Obama for his part made his points well, although I don’t agree with much of what he said. His ideas seem to be more, well in McCain’s word, “naive.” Obama may be have been right about not going into Iraq, but if so the president, congress, and United Nations were wrong. Either way, we are where we are, when it came right down to it McCain and Obama each had one vote each when it came to getting us into Iraq. The president has to deal with where we are.
A distinction without a difference.
“Doer”?
Perhaps McCain has traveled the world but the work is done in Washington and McCain is doing less work than Obama. I was disappointed that Obama did not nail McCain on this one. While neither can point to stellar performance in this area McCain was worse.
It falls to Obama and his supporters to find where Kissinger said what they claimed. Remember, that the issue is Obama’s original statement in the primary debates that, as President, he would meet with those leaders without pre-conditions.
As I said earlier, he should simply say he misspoke. Until he does so, he will be beat about the ears with it.