I don’t think so, Kissinger advises the Republicans most of the time, unlikely for him to clarify things to Obama when the meet of former white house advisers took place recently (frankly if Kissinger did not complain on how his words came out from the meet then I have to blame Kissinger). Obama like many then has to rely on the reports coming from the meeting of the former advisers.
I thought that was a subtle way of pushing away from Bush.
You ignored the last part to then reach for the straw point, Obama is not exclusively talking about the US president meeting with him.
Not the worst, but close. I think the worst (so far) is the McCain ad with that looming shadow.
This new ad is a waste of money, for sure. It shows Obama giving some respect to his opponent, and it’s sorta saying that Obama is right, in saying that McCain is right. And it’s saying that Obama isn’t ready to lead because he agrees with McCain. So yeah, bad ad, if you think about it at all.
But we’re voting on the McCain of right now. And right now, he ain’t doing jack for the country. Has missed almost every Senate vote in six months, hasn’t attended meetings on Afghanistan, hasn’t been a “maverick” in any measureable way. I don’t know what election you plan to vote in, but the only McCain available to me is this current model.
Allow me to Bush that up a bit more:
per·sev·er·ate [per-sev-uh-reyt] –verb --to repeatify something insistingly or over-redundantly: to perseverate in remindifying childrency of their responsibilitations.
That whole “I met soldiers who reenlisted” theme struck MsNito and me as disingenuous for another reason: Many of the re-enlistees got a pretty substantial cash bonus, tax free. My brother got $10K, which is a lot of money for a 19-year-old E4. I’m sure that wasn’t his (or anyone else’s) sole motivation, but it’s a pretty relevant fact to leave out. McCain seemed to be suggesting that they were motivated by nothing more than a desire to Win With Honor.
I am still puzzled by McCain’s statement that if we “lose” in Iraq, that means dishonor to our troops(?). He said it near the end of the debate. He said he had seen how troops were treated post Vietnam when they had lost and that he didn’t want these young men and women to come home, with somethingsomething and dishonor. He paused between the word before and dishonor, attempting to make it dramatic. McCain has more of the ham actor in him then I realized.
It stopped me cold. Serving your country is not a dishonor, unless you act in a way so as to make it such. IOW, following your commander’s orders is your job. Losing the war is not up to the soldiers, IMO. They are tools (sorry, but in a way they are) to aid the leader’s strategy.
I’m sorry I can’t come up with the quote, but I’m not about to sift through the nonsense to find it. It was painful enough the first time through. I think it was around the bracelet nonsense. Right before?
I loved the way Obama delivered that line, “I’ve got a bracelet, too.” Bracelets mean nothing. NOTHING. Neither do yellow ribbons or flags on your car or any of the other impractical, useless acts of symbolism people do. Those acts can only have personal significance to those most intimately involved; in terms of public policy or even to sway public opinion, they are silly. I think Obama realizes that. I think McCain believes the bracelet is deeply significant to us all. It’s not. (I’m not anti-bracelets or stars in the window for servicemen etc; it’s just they don’t prove anything. They don’t solve anything. They don’t matter in terms of getting us out of this mess and helping a country we broke).
I had to laugh re the Obama doesn’t know the difference between strategy and tactics. Seeing as how McCain graduated, what? last or near it, perhaps he wasn’t too clear on it himself. Seems to me McCain is all about tactics, and not strategy, but I digress…
Absolutely. Our son is strongly considering signing up for an assignment in Afghanistan, simply because the MC is waving a $15 grand bonus in his face (he wants to pay his truck loan off). That’s my biggest problem with McCain’s party, historically - they act as if they honor the sacrifices made by ‘troops’ or ‘American workers’ but it rings hollow. They don’t really seem to know or care what’s motivating people so far down the food chain.
I don’t believe them. That’s where McCain is losing voters.
lmfao
This simple thought occurred to me while watching last night re the Iraq war/surge:
After hearing “the surge succeeded…the surge succeeded…”, and Obama’s “John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy.”, it seems like the ordinary citizen would ask: “So this successful surge made the rest of the difficult, mostly failing, lots-of-lives-lost, 5 year war worth it? We got in this war just so we could legitimize it with a good surge? How about if we never went there, then we’d never need a surge, successful or not?”
That made me cringe a little, wondering if (hoping) the simplicity of that thought was sticking with some people.
I think these ads will shape how people remember the debatesand Obama is winning on that.
Has this been aired though?
i like the army/dinner jacket. i picture an army green version of the blinding white dinner jacket. it also makes it easier to remember his name.
I’m in NY. I do not see ANY political ads on TV, so I couldn’t tell you if any of these ads are airing.
Why I think Obama “won”, even though McCain didn’t “lose”.
After last night’s debate, I don’t think anyone came away with the impression that Obama is woefully inexperienced and unfit to be President. That has been harping point number one from both Hillary and McCain for the past year or so.
Yes, McCain has been around longer so it comes as no surprise that he can claim to have traveled to more locations and met with more leaders than Obama. After 26 years in the Senate, I would sincerely hope McCain had traveled more than Obama has to date! But Obama did not look confused at hearing names of places he had never been, nor leaders he had never met. To the contrary, Obama was able to add value to the discussion and seemed well-versed on every subject, location and name of the leaders McCain mentioned.
Foreign policy is supposedly McCain’s strong suit and he proved to have a good background, even if I strongly disagree on his goals and interpretation of policy. And yet Obama, supposedly a light-weight in foreign policy, not only carried his own, he showed total understanding and presented his differences and a clear shift in policy direction.
So, McCain didn’t disappoint his supporters, but Obama most certainly did not come across as any less knowledgeable about foreign policy. At the end of the night, it was clear both have a solid background in recent historical events in foreign affairs - with clear differences in the direction they would lead. Both made their case befitting the policies of their party. Contrary to popular belief by the pundits, McCain did not make Obama look like an inexperienced candidate, unfit to be President.
Ergo: Win for Obama, no loss for McCain.
Illinois here and I never see any political ads either. I understand why and it makes sense but still kinda stinks.
A boring morning, anyway, but I’ve got plans for later today so this will be my last post on the topic. Feel free to have the last word after this if you must. I didn’t intend to hijack the thread.
If it had been a secret insult, the unknown language would be English: shat, but in fact I acknowledged that it could be carelessness on your part.
Good, because I interpreted the 
as meaning you had a sense of humor about it. Thank you for correcting me on that point. Consider me crushed by the weight of your :rolleyes:s. 
Back to the debate - the presidential one:
Unfortunately, taking foreigners’ opinions into account could be interpreted as showing weakness. Obama’s popularity abroad has already been depicted as a bad thing. I would hope that most undecided voters would see past this, but I’m not sure.
I think it was a mistake on Obama’s part to concede that the surge was successful in the first place. The strategic goal behind the tactical surge was to create a short-term respite from violence so that long-term stability could take root. Whether or not it succeeded cannot be known at this point.
Neither is his bid for the presidency.
I can’t see it appealing to “undecideds”* at all. I guess it’s an appeal to the “belligerence first” crowd. In other words, pandering to the base.
*Is anybody really, truly undecided? What are they waiting for, exactly?
This.
I’ve been reading the Political Ticker comments at cnn.com, and this “McCain wouldn’t look Obama in the eye” is dominating the comments – with the reaction overwhelmingly negative toward McCain. Far more than any particular thing they said, the body language appears to have become the tipping point for opinion.
It’s weird. My mother in law called and that was what she commented on. I didn’t even notice, but it seems like this meme has legs. I bet in the next debate McCain will spend so much time gazing into Obama’s eyes there’ll be rumors that he has a schoolboy crush.
Oops.