Had his fingers crossed. Doesn’t count.
This just occurred to me. If McCain constantly talks about going “against his party.” What on earth could make me think that he will have his parties support in Congress? There is a huge difference between going against your party and brokering an agreement between the two parties.
Why do the Republicans support HIM if he doesn’t support THEM?
Unless of course, he actually does.
Yes, I was sorry that Obama didn’t point out that McCain had reversed his opinion on almost all of his disagreements with Bush policies around or since the 2004 election, pretty much in order to get the 2008 nomination. And he wants to make Obama look like a flip-flopper.
Here’s a video of Dick Cheney answering the question of “Should we have gone to Baghdad”
What changed? Why did he get stupid? Did he join Haliburton in between or what?
Say what you will about Obama, I think one thing is inarguable: He has, all along, been playing out the campaign with total awareness of its lengthy duration. He formulated a strategy at the outset, a grand arc, and has been following it through. He’s had a few bumps, and a few adjustments, but in general, his approach, looking back in hindsight, has clearly been meticulous and methodical.
Which puts this, the first of three debates, into context: it’s the first of three. To follow on the “KO” metaphor, it’s not like boxing, where such a blow in the first round means you don’t have to come back for round two. No matter what, they’ll be having two more of these things. If a knockout punch is needed, much better to save the attempt for the last debate, then to try to throw down in the first one. That would just be showing his hand, and increasing the risk of escalating nastiness over the next month-plus.
Many in the thread have suggested that Obama came off as somewhat defensive in this debate, and that’s not wrong, because, guess what: he’s playing defense. He’s ahead. He’s defending a lead. No sense sticking out your neck and tripping over yourself. He did exactly the same thing in the primaries; as soon as it was clear that he’d pulled ahead of Clinton, he scaled down the offense, retreated behind a repetitive message, and landed punches only when it was absolutely necessary. Why anyone is surprised that he should be doing the same thing now, when he’s in much the same position, is a little baffling.
His strategy (heh) seems clear: Treat this, the first of three debates, as the first of three debates. Show restraint. Be only as forceful as need be. Check the polls, make sure it read properly. Be respectful, but be firm. Verify the calibration of the message. Consider slight adjustments, if any are required, in the second debate. Again, regroup, and assess the situation anew. If it comes to it, an attempt to put one in McCain’s solar plexus can be saved for the third debate. That’s where you close the deal, if it isn’t already closed. But as long as you’re winning, don’t do anything to beat yourself.
It’s well known that Obama is a fan, and player, of both basketball and poker. It seems to me that he’s operating his campaign as a weird hybrid of the two. And he’s pretty damn good at them.
Note that this says nothing about what kind of President he’d make. Only that he has revealed himself to be a formidable campaigner in electoral politics.
I think it says quite a lot about what kind of president he’d make.
ETA: He’s what they used to call “long-headed.”
I quite agree: part of the purpose of a campaign is to show whether the candidate is a good manager, whether he or she can create clear objectives and be able to focus on them, making corrections as needed. These seem like essential presidential skills, and Obama has them.
I’d just like to say Obama is doing very well in the polls. And his numbers are not only getting better, they are increasing in sturdiermore solid numbers.
Thanks! I intend to read the book by Elder Bush and Scocroft(Not sure of the spelling).