Presidential Debate: McCain Fails In Understanding Foreign Policy
By Nicole Belle Friday Sep 26, 2008 9:45am 
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Dave)
You know, for allegedly being his strong suit, John McCain's foreign policy posturing during last night's debate really cannot be counted as anything but an epic fail. He meandered all over the place, confused the Pakistani president's name, and directly contradicted not only his own earlier statements but the Bush Doctrine that he has supported for the last eight years.
I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I'm not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.
Oh, that would be a LIE, McCain:
10:12 p.m.
McCain accused Obama of wanting to stage "military strikes" inside Pakistan, which is a misleading account of what Obama famously said in 2007: That he would be willing to go after Al Qaeda targets inside that country with or without the approval of the Pakistani authorities.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
Obama focuses on terrorists, McCain thinks about civilian targets. Lovely.
MCCAIN: Now, the new president of Pakistan, Kardari (sic), has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.
*Sigh* First you don't know that Spain is in Europe and now you don't know the President of Pakistan's name? (It's Zardari, by the way, and he's not too happy with the strikes the current administration -- you know, the one you've supported 90% of the time-- has been inflicting on his country)
And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it's going to be tough. They've intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.
Kind of like we got the cooperation of the Iraqis? Luckily, Obama wasn't going to take the condescension from McCain without pointing out that McCain has hardly appeared presidential recently:
And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.
Suh-nap!
Transcripts (courtesy of CNN) below:
MCCAIN: Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you're going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you'd better be prepared to pull the trigger.
I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I'm not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.
We've got to get the support of the people of -- of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.
Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.
Now, the new president of Pakistan, Kardari (sic), has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.
I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes.
And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.
And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it's going to be tough. They've intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.
And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don't want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.
So we've got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I'm confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops -- and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.
So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.
OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.
Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.
And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.
Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.
And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.
And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.
That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.
Login or Register to post comments.
Saturday morning frist!
How about the fact that McCain referred to the "Republican Guard" in Iran. That's the "Revolutionary Guard" in the real world.
I'm troubled by how often BO said "John you're right" last night. I'm sure that JM's people are going to weave those statements into their next round of ads. I wish he would have hammered "John, you're wrong" instead.
Mr. Magoo didn't know who the President of Pakistan is.
....maverick
I think Obama has shown poise and intelligence when discussing foreign policy whereas McCain's only ever shown arrogance and staggering ignorance. His belief that the rest of the world simply does not matter, that it's impossible for another country to handle problems by themselves, or even that they have the right to do so, is extreamly troubling.
Don't get overwrought about the agreeing-with-McCain thing. It just amplified the DIS-agreeableness of McCain's personality to many.
You know on a cloudy day there is a sun beyond the clouds? Well that is the way I look at Obama's comments. Yes, there were some key points (the sun) but they were over shadowed by McCains smug smirk of confidence, his few zingers and Obama's all too frequent line..."John's Right". Most of debaters "score" a debate like a boxing match. They look at the facial expression on the candidate who was just hit with a comment thrown at them in a negative manner. And if you guys are a bit honest, McCain was much more negative towards Obama than Mr. Congeniality was towards McCain. Round one to the friggin' old man and I'm pissed and disappointed!
The McCain campaign will use the Vietnam strategy on who won the debates, claim victory and retreat.
Furthermore...if you guys really want to be helpful in Obama's campaign.....then each and everyone of you should put aside 5 minutes of your C&L blog time to e-mail the Obama websites with your chagrin to the crucial areas of his ineffectiveness.
Send in some zinger suggestions, send in some advice. Geezus, it may be any one comment that you send in that lives on in US Presidential debate history like when Reagan said "enough"!
Get your collective asses and minds going!
Becca @ 7:
Yeah sure. Now don't be surprised during the next debate, McCain begins each point with, "during the last debate my opponent agreed with me on....." It's called "I'm using the ACE you gave me and OB gave McCain a mittful".
Go to YOUTUBE and enter in "University Debate Teams"....you'd think his advisors would've done the same.
"I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it..."
WTF?
Paul in Boca @ 3:
It is the "way" Obama phrased his comment. That is, instead of saying "I agree with
John" on ELEVEN(11) occassion, Obama should have said(as most of us learned in
Speech/Debate Classes)..Well, I see that John agrees with me." That is more forceful and effective...and does not sound condesending.
If you thought Mr Magoo was confused, wait until the McBarker debate!
McCain coudn't look him in the eye. Why? Is he afraid of Obama or just trying to control his temper.
I hope Palin has the same debate coach as McCain, to keep repeating the line "Senatore Obama does not understand" was painfullly ridiculous.
I think I know why McC didn't say "POW" the whole time (and only once referred to "when I got out of prison..." On 20/20 right before the debate, a segment was run about "Songbird McCain" while in the Hanoi Hilton. He. Was. A. Snitch. Lots of people remember that. This is a big reason why he interfered with the release of POW records by the Vietnamese later, to the point of other POW kin not being able to get anything at all. Yet last night McC referred to all the help he gave to those families (!)
So anyway, that particular meme isn't working for him any more. --MaryK
In 1999 Pakistan, Musharraf came to power overthrowing a democratically elected government.
It was a Coup d'Etat. OF COURSE IT WAS A FAILED STATE, MUSHARRAF MADE IT FAIL.
That is what a Coup d'Etat does.
McCain has no idea what he is talking about, even though he perpetuates the myth that he has foreign relations bona fides. He has no business whatsoever even running for President.
This should be a campaign ending moment, but it won't be.
Too bad Obama completely missed it.
"He meandered all over the place"..... like a confused old man on a walker looking for the nearest bathroom to dump his catheter bag.
also....continually repeating "I've been there, I know how to fix it" does he need to be on-site for every problem we face?
OT--
Paul Newman dead at 83, per CNN.
Doggiebobo @ 13:
Agreed.
Arthur "two sheds" Jackson @ 18:
True, however, it is the Amercian viewing audience/voters who are even "more confused" as to facts vs. fiction, so being uninformed
and uneducated as to such facts is what is really scary. "They" accept to easily
and readily almost anything McCain says and don't have the intelligence to seek
out the truth.
McPow lost most, if not all of his marbles last night. He was all over the place. On the question of Pakistan for instance, he took it to Russia then North Korea then Venezuela and back, a world tour, without answering the original question. It was just excruciatingly painful to watch him. It's going to be even worse watching Pale-in on Thursday.
Doggiebobo @ 13:
that is brilliant!
Propaganda State says McCain won http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/27/mccain-in-a-walk/ No surprise there. They must not be paying attention to their on network FOX-Pravda who's polling showed Obama won.
While I was watching the debate I was somewhat disappointed that Obama didn't seem to hit back very hard, especially on issues and comments that were obvious. Despite this, I noticed that he was rated higher by all pundits on the screen as shown on CNN. In the tit-for-tat world of politics that we are all not accustome to, this seemed to be a pretty bad strategy and somewhat reminiscent of Kerry.
After mulling it over and letting it sink in, I think Obama actually took a huge risk and it worked. Obama's message was so clear up to this point, that he didn't need to respond directly to McCain's claims. The viewer was able to fill-in the blank on their own. McCain's claims of being against pork and using the tired example of the study of the DNA of bears was an obvious easy response given the history of McCains running mate asking for her own pork to study the mating of crabs and the infamous bridge to nowhere. Obama didn't need to say it, I think the viewer automatically connected the two on their own. Obama seemed to allow the obvious and easy to point out items to the viewer to conclue. It would appear that the connections were made. People who are prone to liking the back and forth arguing will probably not be a fan of this, but I think it worked extremely well.
McCain also came across as extremely Bush like. He interupted Obama numerous times when Obama rarely did the same. He seemed unable to accept that they disagreed and instead belittled another opinion by again and again blowing it off as Obama not understanding something. This made him look arrogant, unable to work with people with whom he did not agree without being condescending and tended to give the impression of an old man who rationalized a different opinion by calling the othe person a young whippersnapper. McCain repeated the same claims that have been debunked and was visibly angered when challenged, even in the least. McCain also used anecdotes to make a point instead of making the point directly. This is classic Bush, use one example of something as proof of your opinion being correct. It is myopic, boring and comes across as story hour, while not really showing any real insight. The most unimpressive part of McCain was his unwillingness or inability to address Obama directly. While both had trouble with this at first, I never heard McCain speak directly to Obama. It was as if he couldn't get out of the campaign ad mode and speak directly to his opponent.
In the end, I think Obama came across as very cool and collected, while McCain gave the impression of someone who is impulsive and quick to dismiss another view as automatically being wrong. Obama was able to stand up to McCain's claims without having to be reduced to ridiculous talking points. It will be interesting to see if the debate changes any opinions, but I think Obama certainly allowed McCain to look less than presidential and more Bush-like than previously.
Don @ 15:
How is he going to look Putin in the eye if he can't even look Obama in the eye?
Not to worry though, Caribou Barbie can handle Putin.
Doggiebobo @ 13:
Precisely! It makes it sound like Obama has taken ownership of the point and that is what debating is. Who scores the most points...who owns the most hits.
OT -- sad to hear about Paul Newman :-(
I hope today begins Obama's serious re-training debate 101 course. There have been so many great suggestions from others on this site: stop say he agrees with McCain - McCain agrees with ME; return lies with voting records, public statements; counter with the truth and be more conscise in your plans; reference Biden at every possible opportunity; and use that rope to tie McCain to Bush (or you can use christmas ribbon for all I care); give the numbers of lives lost in Iraq, jobs lost in US, families bankrupt by mortgage and healthcare costs, oil/energy costs effects to middle America families; and counter any demeaning comments about universal "government run" healthcare with questions on what healthcare policies do McCainuse? [VA benefits as well as government health care via the Senate.]
I'm hoping to see more from the next debate.
McAngry made sure no one would confuse him with Miss Congeniality. That seemed to be very important to him to make that distinction. I guess he wanted to assure Lindsey Graham he wasn't out for his job.
How many people know that JohnSidney ws confused about Spain a few weeks back? How many know what the new Pakistani President's name is? How many people understand that JohnSidney was mischaracterizing BO's positions? How many people who knew these trivial points cared enough to watch the debate?
Poise and intelligence mean shit to uneducated and lazy, willingly ignorant American followers of the Invisible Cloud Being of Zion. You know, the undecideds. Even moderate (undecided) America wants a big angry Daddy to protect them from the brownskins and the Devil's army. Racism and religion rule this country from the near right all the way to the far right, and since most of the the rest of the country is purposely undereducated, ignorant, cowed, disgusted, or too damned busy to get out and vote for change, the middle is where where the votes are.
Most swing voters are too busy trying to tread financial water and, frankly, stay off the streets and out of prison to watch for "poise and intelligence." Without them, and unless massive GOTV efforts occur to bring left-leaning votes to the polls, this "election" will be close enough to steal.
JohnSidney was the big victor last night b/c Obama did his best Kerry impression yet. America wants to see a fighter, someone with "maverick" willingness to stand up and be their security blanket. JohnSidney came in with that rep, war hero and all that bullshit. BO had to smash that image, and failed.
Doggiebobo @ 13:
Swing voters can tell that was spliced and taken out of context. He should have worded that differently though I agree. I think he underestimated how petty, desperate, deceptive and childish the McCain camp is.
Crooks and Liars is certainly correct to note how wrong John McCain's foreign policy is. But please do not attempt to sugar coat Obama's rhetoric. Obama states that if "we have actionable intelligence" concerning terrorists then "we will" act. Obama also said that if "Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act" against whom the United States perceives to be terrorists "then we should take them out."
Let us attempt, if at all possible, to look at this without rose-colored glasses, now shall we? Obama reassures his audience that he will first make sure that the military has "actionable intelligence" before he attempts to wipe out these amorphous terrorists. Would this be related to the same dubious "actionable intelligence" that has wiped out at least four wedding parties in Afghanistan since 2001? Could this highly valued "actionable intelligence" be the same information that directed American fighter planes to recently slaughter 90 Afghan civilians, 60 of whom were children, ranging in ages from 6 months to 16 years. Of course McCain did not bring up this very relevant piece of information since he is just as much of a warmonger as is Obama. Certainly Ralph Nader would have held both of these hawks to account but since the heads of the commission which holds the debates had previously belonged to the Democratic and Republican parties, they made sure that no third party candidates would dare challenge the two corporate and war hawk candidates.
It would also be amiss not to point out that the United States military invaded Pakistani territory a few weeks ago, killing 6 Pakistanis, 2 of whom were children. Curious that Obama never brought up the fact that those 2 children that were murdered by U.S. troops were not terrorists. Obama claims that he wants "the support of the Pakistani people." To do what he is proposing to do in Afghanistan and that is to kill more innocent children and civilians? The Pakistani people, like the Iraqis and the Afghans, will never agree to have their country invaded by American soldiers. Obama has the audacity of saying that "You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops" which he, as the imperial president, will not tolerate. What he conveniently neglects to mention is that he apparently has no qualms about the U.S. sending troops into Pakistan, a country, that as far as I know has never, like Iraq, and like Afghanistan, threatened anyone in these United States.
All this is being done, explains the benevolent Obama, in order to go after the terrorists, which could take, as Andrew Bacevich points out in his extremely relevant book the Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, decades if not generations. Obama raps up his speech by reassuring the people of America that foreign policy in this country "is going to change when I'm president of the United States." No, it is not going to change. Obama's neoliberal policies will mean that more American soldiers and fighter planes will be sent into other countries where they will attack and kill other innocent children and civilians, all in the name of going after the terrorists and because, allegedly, of humanitarian reasons. This [alleged] agent of change only provides more of the same foreign policy that the United States has employed around the world for decades while the [alleged] agent of hope provides no hope at all for the families of those children who will be slaughtered by the [alleged] good intentions of the United States.
As Tip said of Reagan so could it be said of McCain: "It's not what he knows that scares me. It's not what he doesn't know that scares me. It's what he knows 'for sure' that isn't so that scares me."
By the way, I'm leaving home in the next few minutes to go door-to-door canvassing for Obama all day, then phone bank for a few hours after that. I had already put in 25 hours or more last week and should easily top that this week. I personally registered 42 new voters last week. I challenge everyone on this blog to go out and offer some tangible help to the campaign to bring about the change that we espouse here. C'mon folks, it's crunch time, we need all hands on deck right now! Talk is cheap, action is what is needed now. Contact your nearest Obama campaign office TODAY and get busy helping in whatever way that you can. Go to www.barackobama.com and click on your state to find the nearest office, call them or just drop in - trust me, your help will be greatly appreciated. Get away from your computers for a while and let's all go to work!
Obama/Biden '08!
Fact checking the debate
Sept. 27: Both candidates had a lot of things to say, but were they right on their points? Rachel Maddow fact checks both Obama and McCain with columnist David Sirota.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26910327#26910327
Ruthless People @ 32:
and repugs in general.
Neither landed a knockout blow but polls suggested Mr Obama did better.
An immediate telephone poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp found 51% said Mr Obama had won, to 38% for Mr McCain.
A poll of uncommitted voters by CBS News found that 39% gave Mr Obama victory, 25% thought John McCain had won, and 36% thought it was a draw.
I'm just wondering if we watched the same debate last night. McCain was obviously on top of his game and Obama was sweating. I think YOU need to check your knowledge on foreign policy. Senator McCain clearly held the high ground.
Well...after watching the debate, I came to the conclusion that McSpain absolutely has NO respect for Obama.
And Cointreau @ 31....I think you have misread the "swing voters" as well as who the victor was.
Obama maybe could have been more aggro against McSpain...but I think he came across as very well informed, cool under fire, and was quite presidential in tone.
Obama 1...McSpain 0
Erroll @ 33:
This is perhaps the most bizarre blend of taking past events, current events, what-if scenarios and then attempting to make all of them relevant to a few sentences in a speech that I have ever seen. What Obama said was clearly a worst case scenario in which the Pakistani government was not willing to take action themselves. It was what he might do if President if the Pakistani government does not go after the terrorists, not a policy. I don't think any rational person came away thinking that Obama is hellbent on bombing Pakistan.
jem @ 39:
Yeah...in LaLa Land maybe.
I remember McCain referring to the Keating 5 debacle as "an astrix" beside my name. Then I heard him refer to his POW time as "an astrix" beside my name. One good astrix, one bad astrix...apparently.
I wished all night long, Obama would've brought up the Keating 5 and McCain would've referred to the astrix point. This would've left the door open for Obama to come back with "John, you mentioned another astrix for your time as a POW....you can't go through life picking your astrix"!!
This link is in connection with comment #33. If The Daily Show wanted to be truly honest, this is the type of material that they should be doing. I believe that Alexandria's comment at #4 is particularly on point.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/pakistan-invades-america-%E2%80%93...
jem @ 39:
Ok, because you said so? With the depth and insight of your comments and brilliant observations, such as sweat, I really can't even conclude that you watched anything last night.
Both men did some good for themselves last night. First and foremost, neither lost any votes. Obama's people -- as we see here -- are either joyful or slightly distressed, but none of us are going over to the dark side because of what happened last night. Point of fact, our guy looked presidential and, if we had to hire one of the two to lead us, our choice would be very clear, Obama all the way.
McCain's people, however, have to be greatly encouraged. He came across as intelligent and forceful. He stayed relatively focused, didn't lose his train of thought or wander off into non-sequiturs. Most importantly, he stayed in control of himself and appeared elderly, not old.
Obama may well have gained votes from the undecideds last night. But I think McCain gained something more significant -- in numbers -- for his chances: those voters who are completely against Obama but who were sufficiently unimpressed by what they heard, read, and saw about McCain that they were planning on staying home on election day. I think he won them over last night.
I doubt McCain-Palin have enough support to win, but last night will help McCain make it a closer vote than otherwise.
Anyone hearing anything about Palin stepping down to take care of her newborn and being replaced by Hutchison? If that were to happen, the race might be too close to call.
jem @ 39:
He did look a little high. He must have raided Cindy's medicine cabinet. Maybe that is why he made so many gaffes.
Incidently, anybody outside the USA will openly and knowingly tell (inform you) Georgia provoked Russia. You are told otherwise because Russia, like Palestine, Iran, Venuzeula will always be the bad guys because.....you guessed it....they have or want what you have or want. No such animal as "SHARING" for the USA. They are into world dominance...world order. If other countries don't co-operate....santion the f &^%^%& k out of them. Starve them.
Regarding McCain's comment "you have to do things, you have to do things." Is that anything like Ollie North's bargaining with terrorists when Regan said he wouldn't? Is that like the Bush Admin. moving Bin Landin's family out of the U.S. after 911. It wasn't safe for us to fly but it was for them. Is he saying "I have no plans to keep any promises that I make to the American people about keeping them safe?" Or keep any other promises, he may decide he has to do things.
the repug plan to allow some to distance themselves from boosh is taking shape!
and the dems are falling into the trap with all the protests planned against the bailout that are going on, press coverage or no, the dems are forging ahead with a rushed agreement with REPUBLICAN CHANGES.
If boosh concedes anything, it was already planned anyway. mcC*nt didn't mention boosh, bet he did mention reagan. There's a reason. The Dems are looking at 57-61 senate seats and an ovwewhelming house majority and they are squandering it because they are propping up like trained seals. they need to realize that what boosh is holding in front of their eyes is a stinking fish of a plan.
"We must not torture again". McCain.
No play anywhere.
jem @ 39:
you must be living in mcKKKeating5's world with the mcBoosh economy and are happy to fight the boosh oil wars.
Harley @ 51:
I caught that...totally an "OH SHIT" moment for McSPAIN...Olbermann was right on that first thing.
I wasn't able to catch Maddows show, I was tired as hell, I hoped she expounded on all of McSpains gaffes.
jem @ 39:
If he was at the top of his game and foreign policy was his strong point then with most people agreeing that this debate was a tie or at best a very slight edge to Gramps - McCain is doomed for the remainder of the debates.
He had his chance and blew it.
#41-Ashton
"... If the Pakistani government does not go after the terrorists" which you claim is "not a policy" then Obama has the [supposed] right to send American troops across Pakistan. What you are ignoring is that it still means that Obama would send American soldiers into another country's territory which, as I wrote at #33, has already been done by Bush and resulted in the innocent deaths of 6 Pakistani people, 2 of whom were children. I strongly suggest that if have the slightest pretense of empathy that you click on the link at comment #44 to try and understand what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot.
majicman @ 48:
it's kissinger's strategy and the modus operandum is always to use the world bank or IMF or the UN Aid programs against poorer nations and especially their populations.
October Surprise: Palin leaves the ticket to be replaced by Mittens under the 'economic crisis-calls-for-experienced-leadership' umbrella
majicman @ 48:
This statement is very true. Most Nations outside the US fear the US like the rest of the world used to fear the USSR. I hear this kind of statement day after day from travelers I meet here in Chiang Mai.
Another thing that is noticeable is that US-Americans don't get outside the US enough to get a real grasp on the rest of the world. It's hard to see the world through the border bubble without it looking totally blurred or downright warped. The world is very different than it is in the eyes of the average American Joe.
I have a question for the board.....give yourselves a break from being the Poli-Sci majors you profess to be.
In the best interests of world peace....world leaders....what difference would it make, if the USA took the $700 million they've spent since wronfully invading a Soverign country and another $100 million from the recent bailout and openly spent it (with American people) developing other countries or at least helping them feed themselves. Like building irrigation systems or electrical plants?
Don't you think the image of the USA would change. The upside would be seen in the saving that would be made in cutting home security. You wouldn't need it. Who's going to bite the hand that feeds them without the rest of the countries retaliating.
Incidently, that is why Bush had a difficult time forming a decent coalition.
In the eyes of many...America probably deserved it. It's sad to see America's decline as big brother and being replaced with Big Bully.
majicman @ 10:
I don't think you understand how debates work in presidential elections. It's not about throwing red meat to the partisans. It's about swaying independents.
Perhaps Obama could have done better, but the Monday morning quarterbacking serves no purpose. Do you think Republicans are going to bombard McCain with criticisms of his performance? No, that would be self-defeating. They are going to play up his positives and bash Obama's negatives. That's why the focus needs to be on McCain's playing loose with facts, incoherency on many questions, and his angry, contemptuous demeanor.
Winners see positives in their candidates and exploit them. Your suggestion is for losers.
Paul in Boca @ 3:
I know he got hit for that, it makes for bad sound bites, but everytime he did it, he used it to draw McCain in on some minor detail he was right about and then explain the larger area where he was completely wrong. It made Obama look like a more skillfulI think that's what was pissing McCain off so much, he was not up to responding in kind.
I think it came off making Obama look like he could deal even with people he disagrees with while McCain looked incapable of even getting along with a fellow American. McCain couldn't even look at Obama, could you imagine him telling Obama he was right about anything? Could you imagine him bringing anyone with truly divergent views to the table and to an agreement on a complex issue?
He looked so close to a meltdown. For a moment there, I thought McCain was going to do a Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men. And I thought Obama was playing him like a fiddle when he did the, "You were wrong" three times followed up a few seconds later by the attacking Spain reference. If you get a chance to watch it again, check out McCain's face as Obama lands the Spain comment on him. It's priceless. After that, McCain was no longer in control of anything but his temper, and just barely that.
Did anyone else think McCain was desperate sounding about the Musharraf thing ?
When Obama said McCain and Bush had coddled a dictator the Pakistanis didn't want and McCain started sputtering about how Pakistan had been a failed state before Musharref, "It was a failed state. Everybody who was there then knew that." So, wasn't that an admission that America has propped up a dictator for years in a country which now harbors terrorists who hate us?
And so what if it was a failed state then? Why does that make supporting Musharref while he hides Osama OK? I wish that had gotten more attention. It seemed to go under the radar.
McCain kept talking about what seemed like the remote past. To me, (I'm 58), he looked and talked like a WWII vet, not a Vietnam vet. To my daughter (she's 37), he just looked ancient. He looked old and angry. It was reminescent of the Kennedy/Nixon debate - Kennedy was unfailingly gracious, and Nixon looked angry and resentful. The big difference is that McCain doesn't look resentful so much as old and crotchety.
McCain's biggest support from last night will be from angry old white guys - Pat Buchanan types. That's the only demographic that will uniformly see his anger as strength.
robert @ 57:
Or Rudy 9u1li1an1, under the false-flags-call-for-false-patriots sleight of hand.
Was watching that smug Harold Ford on MSNBC. Why is he so willing to give McCain pointers on how he should handle Obama at the next debate? Guess I was mistaken in thinking Ford was a Democrat. He has been hanging around Scarborough too much. He loves being with the "in crowd" on Morning Joe. Such an authority he has become.
majicman @ 59:
Your typo should read BILLIONS not Millions.
♠♠...Bangkok Bob...♠♠ @ 64:
But I agree with your point.
jem @ 39:
Maybe you should check your grip on reality and look beyond your bizzare, NeoCON universe. Your "candidate" is a lying, manipulative fraud who will say anything and do anything to win. Take your lying crap ass RNC talking points elsewhere.
And OT---Paul Newman passed away today from cancer---he was a true progressive who dared to put his money where his mouth was. He raised millions for charity and enriched the lives of the less fortunate unlike Mc Lame and the NeoCONS who selfishly exploit others for their personal gain.
RIP Paul---we sure will miss you.
The BAD news is that I thought that Obama could have done a lot better. I thought that Grampy McCrankypants’ aggressiveness was working.
The GOOD news is that everybody else thought that Grampy McCrankypants was an asshole and Obama did much much better. In fact Barak won hands down. The most important part was that the Independents thought that Obama was much better.
Can’t wait for the Caribou Barbie confrontation next week.
bmw 528 @ 66:
We'll miss ya Paul.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 52:
As long as he can continue to fight that war from Mom's basement as a member of the Flighting Keyboards 101st Yellow Elephant Brigade!
I would have loved to hear Sen. Obama say on numerous occasions:
"Sen. McCain, you can re-write history and make false accusations all you want but you can't change the facts!"
bmw 528 @ 66:
And Joanne Woodward was his true partner and soulmate for over 50 years. Talk about role models!!!
♠♠...Bangkok Bob...♠♠ @ 58:
I realize one person does not represent the entire USA (but I have travelled extensively and spoke to many Americans to make this representive evaluation)
go to you tube and click on Kellie Pickler and hear from this American Recording Artist, how she never heard of Hungary....yes, the country. I can believe it because I've met others who sadly, couldn't get themselves 45 minutes down the road.
From this, you can understand the "I could give a shit about the rest of the world" attitude.
The Republicans are working as we speak on a reason to keep Palin from debating with Biden. That debate ain't gonna happen.
I don't think either one of them showed real leadership in this moment of national crisis.
We are fucked!
I want Biden to be President!
One of the most telling moments of the debate happened shortly after it ended, when Obama left the stage to loud cheering. Even at McCain's campaign events, it looks like people are about to fall asleep.
Another telling debate moment was Sarah Palin declining the invitation to speak, unlike Joe Biden. It's evident just how far the country has slipped that someone like Palin would even be allowed to be this close to the Presidency. I'm almost curious what would happen, but certainly not curious enough to want it to happen. It was classic when Fox's Chris Wallace asked Biden if he was going to be condescending to Palin during their debate and he said "no," he wasn't "going to be like John."
majicman @ 59:
First, I am a poli sci major so I don"t have to pretend to be anything. The programs you cite are already being facilitated through government venues like the Peace Corps and USAID. Should we give there organizations more funding to extend the generosity of America worldwide? Absolutely. It sure beats being an authoritarian, Neocon bully.
That little weasel Tucker Bounds is on MSNBC now. He says McCain DID look at Obama but really looked right through Obama! What a putz!
jem @ 39:
Going for the McMelonoma points? Here's a hint. Dennis was doing that too and he is off trying to cash those points in. I think that the points went the way of Lehman Brothers. Can you say "rain on my parade"?
Ed in NJ @ 60:
Wrong. The worst thing you can do is say you won and that is what your doing. It's like an evaluation of your own job, you probably want to hear all the good things you did during the year, the person who wants to improve is aware of the good things but is interested in understanding the areas of improvement that are needed to get ahead.
It's simple "team leadership 101". But then, I can see you are perfect because it is said, only mediocre people reach perfection!!!
franklinturner @ 75:
I just hope he can keep a straight face. If he so much as grins, he "loses"
Ed@60 It's about swaying independents.
That makes the most sense.
Having no teevee, I'm going from second hand accounts and clips.
The clips show John McCaim as condescending, arrogant and petulant.
I've had enough of Republican arrogance for a lifetime.
I'll bet Tucker is saying, "Who is Paul Newman?"
Erroll @ 44:
Yessir!
Paul in Boca @ 3:
I felt the same way, as did many other C&Lers. But I'm heartened by the post-debate commentary and polls. If Obama could win the debate in most people's minds while being gracious to a fault, then he proved you *could* win without stooping to McCain's level of assholiness.
I look forward to seeing if Obama will adjust his tone in the remaining debates.
Abraham Jackemoff @ 71:
They were an awesome partnership. Newman's Own has raised over $250 million for progressive causes:
www.newmansown.com
Bless them for having the courage to shine the light of progressive leadership when many others would choose to do nothing but curse the darkness.
liberAL @ 82:
Probably thinks he is Alfred E.' s father.
bmw 528 @ 86:
I thought Alfred E's father was GHWB
Mick Piobr @ 81:
Agreed. That's exactly what I thought. I think the people see this, and dislike him for it. The country got that with Boosh.
Been there, seen that. No More.
Watching the debate last night, I think of the Strother Martin line to Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke...."we have a failure to commun...icate". Such an impactful line shared between two dynamic actors..... working as a team.
So when did Henry fuckin' Kissinger become Thomas Jefferson? This fat toad is the master of assassination and torture. And why is Russia the Red Bear, the one we must all fear? I expect nonsense from Johnny "hewhocatchescarriersonfireforfunandprofit" McCain on this, but Barack?? Come on, man. I dunno, maybe he's going to pop out after he wins and save the day ("hope springs eternal"). Another predictable mouth breather funny was by gramps when he said "I looked into the eyes of Putin and saw K G B". That's nice :) If Barack is really on board with all of this Empire Building Inc. shit, all I can say is "I looked into the candidates eyes last night, and saw C F R." Send us a sign! Tug at your ear like Carol Burnett when you're going "off the reservaton". Sweet horney toads on a stick that was painful.
majicman @ 72:
You probably won't believe this, but I swear it's true: In 2004 I did a lot of voter registration work. I got used to the appalling level of ignorance many people have about the issues of their civil rights, but even I was shocked to meet people who couldn't register to vote because they didn't know their own address!
I swear it's true. Usually it was guys. If they had a phone they could call a wife or girlfriend to find out, and apparently they knew how to get home, but that was about it.
We are a nation of Sarah Palins and Miss South Carolina's USA Americans, as such.
I don think that Obama being polite to McCain is going to sink Obama's campaign. Quite the opposite. McCain will have a difficult time being the smart-ass SOB he wants to be, thereby taking away one of his wrongly perceived strengths. BTW . . . did you know that 'strengths' is the longest English word with only one vowel?
mudshark @ 88:
These are good and valued points BUT, you're talking about people who spent 90 minutes watching the debate where really, there's a very large percentage of people who didn't watch the debate and rely on the "debating results for Dummys" type of learning. These people tune into Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly and get their snippits of how it went and guess what????? If they are DEmocratic...Obama won, if they are MCCain...O'Reilly viewers will show he won.
Yes my friends (my McCain impression-yuck)...it will be those programs who do the best in showing the snippits from the debate that will win those "lazy, uniformed" voters. Yes...and ignorance is bliss.
majicman @ 93:
I agree with you on the Olbermann,OReally audiences. It seems the other networks are calling it for Obama. He just might win this. Get ready for the networks to be called"The Librul Media"..............again. That's tired.
majicman @ 93:
Okay, I'm an ignant dummy cuz I gots no teevee.
But I still know that I've had enough Republican arrogance to last a lifetime.
Now I'm going back to pickin' scabs...
I was drinking during the debates, but I remember at one point mcgramps stumbling so badly over Ahmadinejad's name, which he then tried to cover I suppose as a "joke," I wasn't sure if I was witnessing a senior momement, or a joke of such crassness that it was inappropriate for someone who wants to work with world leaders.
At one point in the debate I can't recall, I think when Obama said Iraq can't be the entire focus of our foreign policy, and he was hammering mcgramps hard, and mcgramps looked openly hostile, like he was about to blow, but the camera angle was a profile shot on both of them, so it was hard to tell.
mudshark @ 94:
I agree. However, it is encouraging to read what George Will had to say about the
debate. Obama held his own on "international/foreign policy issues"(Primary subject
of last nights debate and McCain's STRONG point), so that being accomplished, McCain is in deep, deep doo doo w/respect to remaining two debates.
Mick Piobr @ 95:
No teevee=enlightenment, not ignorance.
mudshark @ 94:
For sure.
Doggiebobo @ 97:
WOW, Will said that? They must be all skating in hell today.
Mick Piobr @ 95:
I would never say that about you Mick. In Fact, you're far from it. imo.
McCain spoke some words and did not drop dead on stage. Therefore, he won.
bmw@98 I'd like to think so; spend my leisure time practicing music and reading and gardening.
I read Molly Ivins' book "Shrub" back when.
I knew about GWB and voted accordingly.
Nothing has much surprised me in the last eight years.
Depressed, yes. Surprise, no.
Doggiebobo @ 97:
Link?
"Ahmadine, Ahmadinej, Ahmadinejad!"
"That's bunna be my job."
Not. Bunna. Happen.
bmw 528 @ 98:
I did the debate TV-free as well. Just having audio give a different perspective--maybe not better, but I did get to miss the yellow teeth!
Cointreau @ 31:
Gotta disagree. I would have personally loved to see Obama let loose & kick McLame's ass. But then he would have appeared to be picking on an old man. Smash the "war hero" image? How, without it backfiring? I think staying cool & letting McLame dig his own grave is a good idea. It's been working so far.
I too had hoped Obama would really rock the house but that may have been unrealistic. I think keeping cool in light of McLame's taunts and sarcasm made Obama appear much more presidential, just as he has all week.
shark@101 Why thankee, friend...
One other thing about having no teevee is that sometimes you have to read the books you don't really want to read.
Has anybody read some of these right wing books?!
A head achey measure of syrupy Americana, sweeping generalities, lack of specifics and RAGE.
Anyway, big thanks to blogs like C&L for being my newspaper.
Do the debates get any live coverage online?
McCain should know, he's met Alexander the Great.
fastfeat @ 106:
Geezus...you noticed that too? After looking at Pat Buchannan and then seeing McCain......I don't ever want to hear another American criticize the teeth of the British.
Both look like they are descendents of the SHARK family.
May I remind everyone that most of the swing voters are women and women typically favor good communication over aggressive displays of machismo, ala the shrub & McLame? I think today there was a poll showing Obama is doing really well among women swing voters. That was a major target audience, so that's pretty damn great.
majicman @ 110:
The fact that they are both Hammerheads might be food for thought!
Mick Piobr @ 108:
Yes. I think CNN had it live online last night. Then the follow up.
Mick Piobr @ 108:
Was on CSPAN, but the video feed was f'ed up on my computer. Just got the sound. Curiously, the regular daily CSPAN video is usually fine. (Not sure if CSPAN feeds are available outside US though, much like many BBC feeds are not available here?)
HelenWheels @ 111:
Yes and women do have a bit more compassion and sensitivity too. This could bode well for Obama too. But in saying that and with the anticipated massacree of Sarah Barrracuda in sight, perhaps Biden should plan the filleting of the Barracuda in a very diplomatic and delicate manner.
Like when you tell some one to go to hell, you say it in a way they will try to enjoy the trip.
Mick Piobr @ 108:
You can save yourself some time and listen to about five or six country and Western songs by most C&W "artists" instead. Sort of a "Cliff Notes" of bad rightwing writing, if you will...
HelenWheels @ 111:
I was not aware of that!
If such is the case, McKeating should be encouraged to continue his macho abruptitude.
Having worked with mostly women (criticare nurse) and mostly men (firefighter medic) I've seen these differences.
I think that women tend to be more detail oriented as well, and I think that Obama addresses details better than McKeating.
fastfeat @ 116:
Toby
LynchKeith anyone?Ecch!
This link to Huffington Post is really interesting. Frank Lutz the GOP supporter goes with Obama....and it's on FOX. Can you believe it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/27/paul-newman-dies-at-83_n_129860...
This scares the hell out of me, both candidates will ignore the sovereign borders and preform military strikes even within allied countries.
If a president makes a statement like this, isn't it a declaration of war against the rest of the world?
liberAL @ 77:
There was a whole bunch of cultural subtext going on last night.
I did see McCain look at Obama once, but that's about it. And he was massively contemptuous of Obama. It fairly ooozed off of him. Don't jump down my throat but I think there is racism in there. (This is the campaign that uses race-baiting as both a strategy and a tactic, after all, so I wouldn't assume they would drop the beliefs behind that just for a debate). How long has McCain been consistently against civil rights, Affirmative Action, the MLK Federal holiday? Decades.
Look at it as if you were a die-hard, KKK, David Duke racist, who has to keep that racism under cover for appearences. You are finally getting your shot at the job you think you deserve and have worked for years to get to. And you've eaten some real sh*tburgers on the way to it. And now, what's standing in your way? A black guy with a Muslim sounding name. And that black guy not only acts uppity, and arrogant, (how many Republicans have used these words so far in this campaign to describe Obama?), but he has the audacity to stand there like a white guy and look directly at McCain and call him by his first name, as if they were equals. You really think that wouldn't piss a racist off? You think it doesn't piss McCain off knowing he could lose to this guy, after all this? McCain knows he won't get another chance at this and he thinks it is supposed to be his.
I grew up in Detroit in the 50's and 60's, I have relatives who would have been pissed off at last night and the whole campaign because Obama not only has the audacity of hope, he has the audacity to act on it. Racists don't like that. Do you have any idea how truly furious a real racist will be to have a black man in their White House? But, outside of a white supremacist compound, nobody's going to admit it.
Almost as soon as the debate ended I heard a McCain campaign flack criticize Obama for calling McCain "John". He actually said it was disrespectful of Obama. But the real disrespect was McCain's refusal to really look at or engage Obama, something I have seen in my past as a way to disrespect a black or brown person. I have seen that angry glare on a tight white face refusing to look a man of color in the eyes and acknowledge his existence. And this was in spite of Leherer's insistance that they talk to each other. Obama did it, because he was flexible and able to adjust. McCain was literally too angry to do it, and everytime Obama pegged him, McCain got more and more angry and unable to look at him.
When Obama looked directly at McCain and told him three times in a row, "You were wrong" about Iraq, I thought McCain was going to explode. I think racism was a HUGE part of that.
McCain was chastised by a black man in front of the entire country. I'm telling you that there are black men in this country who got a visceral thrill from that and white men who had an equally strong negative reaction to it. And then Obama called him by his first name and told him he was right about other things. A racist would find that patronizing and condescending.
Does McCain have ANY blacks in his inner circle? I know he has a couple of black mouthpieces for tv, but that's just for the masses, I mean his advisors. Any blacks? Any at all? The Republican Convention was literally over 98% white this time, they picked their veep from a state that is almost entirely white and very racist and they picked a veep that will appeal to exactly that base.
Do you have any idea how pissed McCain and the GOP racists, the party of Trent Lott, Jesse Helms & Strom Thurmond, will be to have this taken from him by a black man? Hillary would have been more acceptable to them, and they've damn near made a religion out of hating her.
We blind ourselves when we don't look at what we don't want to see. Just because we are ready to elect a black man, doesn't mean they are.
And, yes, Tucker Bounds is another GOP toadie, closeted gay, complete asshat.
After watching parts of the debate for the second and third time. It's clear that Obama won. Watch it again for yourself.
One hand on the Bible
And one hand on the gun.
All your olive branches turn to spears
When your flowers turn to guns.
From "Which Way Are You Going"- Jim Croce.
The ultimate anti- Evangelical Right & NRA song.
hey everyone, i know we're all thrilled obama sent the "straight jacket express" into the dustbin of history last night, but i thought i'd recommend sean penn's post from last night.
i knew the guy could act, direct and raise hell as an activist. he's also a pretty interesting writer.
Hard Justice @ 109:
LOL
I just don't know why he kept bringing up his record collection - I have a record, I have a record, I have a record. Damn, somebody get him an mp3
surf (hussein) jac @ 70:
another brilliant point!!!!!!
majicman @ 115:
All Biden has to do is diplomatically get out of her way, maybe feed her some rope, and let her finish off her own self-destruction. She's terminally floundering now.
BobFlash @ 120:
It should scare the hell out of us.
I am hoping that Obama is taking this line just to get elected. Red meat and all that.
I am being audacious enough to hope that BHO can rise to the position of a thoughtful and careful statesman.
It appears that he has that capability.
If nothing else, Obama or ANY non-Republican might be able to stop the bleeding.
If and when the Dems continue their policy of inaction in everything - I go back to voting Communist and/or Socialist.
But I must grudgingly say that the Democratic party offers the best chance to stop the hemorrhaging and keep further fascist/opus dei judges out of the SCOTUS.
One more opus dei on SCOTUS = your daughters, your wife, your sister etc reduced from second class citizenship to Official Breeders of the Empire.
majicman @ 8:
majicman @ 10:
You are right about taking some relevant actions and I am copying this onto Obama's email suggestion site. I am pissed but will probably still send in my monthly contribution. He sounded like a Washington politician. Venezuela a rogue state!
Last night on a different thread, I stated, quite frankly that McCain won. It pained me to keyboard it. I said it looked like a prizefight that had been thrown with Obama hitting the mat.
Here's why I am pissed. I have watched Obama, from about 20 feet, give his campaign speech. I've read, seen, observed on videos enough of McCain giving his talking points. Both candidates responded to questions with canned, campaing speech responses. Yes, I know that last night may have been the first time some in the television audience had a longer than passing observation of the two and therefore it was perfectly appropriate to use campaing talking points. But, there were moments of ad hoc responses and McCain showed that he was the better suited to garnering that on-the-fence-ready-to-vote-but-get-on-with-the-rest-of-my-life citizen's vote, the person that responds to catch phrase commercial jingles and political sloganeering and you know there a many of them.
When McCain came back with that earmark slight, accusing Obama of grossly being in favor of earmarks, Obama had his chance. He had the chance to educate the public. When he failed to address McCain's contention, in spite of being edged-on by Leher to get into a conversation with McCain, he did not deliver a stunning blow to stop the condescending old man's forward momentum. He could have done so quickly, like a sneaky uppercut and McCain would not have known what hit him.
Obama could have pointed out how many earmarks Arizona enjoyed with McCain's encouragement. But then, he could have ended the ridiculous notion that earmarks are evil and taken away from the soundbight queen Palin any future effectivenss in being against them. He could have said that some earmarks are very important, such as those inserted in legislation to address bridges that are falling down, but bad when they are for constructing bridges to nowhere! He could have presented himself as the benevolent teacher.
Instead, he came on as aloof, especially, I bet, to that on the fence voter who will forget about the politics that affect one's everyday lives, unlike so many "politically junkies," as soon as the next day after the election. He lost those votes, as least if they took any interest in watching. Since it was not aired on regular networks, including FAUX, I don't think the damage was widespread. And, there will not be much of a reaction to the fact that McCain failed to look at his opponent, for whatever reason (I believe it is disdain for the only person who stands in the way of his meglomaniac desires!)
(It’s Zardari, by the way, and he’s not too happy with the strikes the current administration — you know, the one you’ve supported 90% of the time– has been inflicting on his country)
The one's which, when he warned against continuing them, brought a suicide car-bomber to a big hotel in Karachi, and i spike in bombings all over his country?
Wonder who was behind those little "demonstrations?" (HInt: Begins with a "C" and ends with "y".)
mudshark @ 122:
when george will concedes obama won the debate, team mccain's 3 stooges -ricky d., black charlie & "the skinhead"- have some serious problems on their hands.
and muddy, take a look at this video from huffpo comparing & contrasting obama and mccain.
STOOOOPID TAXPAYER @ 74:
because no matter what you can't stand Obama, can you Mr. Clinton?!
roooth @ 121:
Well said.
As a white male in my mid-forties, raised in a rather liberal family, I do not share the white perspective of which you speak, but I do agree that there are indeed MANY whites, especially ones of my parents generation, whom I can picture writhing in the way you describe!
Tough shit, assholes--your chickens are indeed indeed coming home to roost. And they're about to eat YOU for dinner! BOO!
McCain’s Hail Mary Stunts
September 26th, 2008 by Ron Chusid
The scary thing is that McCain actually did take a short-lived lead in the polls after he went negative and after he picked Palin. This should only encourage him to try something else in desperation to attempt to move back ahead of Obama. Slate has compiled a list of McCain’s 10 Next Hail Mary Stunts:
1. Returns to Vietnam and jails himself.
2. Offers the post of “vice vice president” to Warren Buffett.
3. Challenges Obama to suspend campaign so they both can go and personally drill for oil offshore.
4. Learns to use computer.
5. Does bombing run over Taliban-controlled tribal areas of Pakistan.
6. Offers to forgo salary, sell one house.
7. Sex-change operation.
8. Suspends campaign until Nov. 4, offers to start being president right now.
9. Sells Alaska to Russia for $700 billion.
10. Pledges to serve only one term. OK, half a term.
Here’s a suggestion for a really extreme change in course: Fire all the Rove people, lobbyists, and anyone responsible for the current dirty campaign and start telling the truth. This might mean he won’t have hardly anyone left working on his campaign and he will lose, but at least he might regain his dignity. For now it looks like he has allowed lust for power to break him more than the North Vietnamese could.
If Obama had at any point last night said: "Senator McCain, you have spent the last 40 years re-writing history--yours and the country's--to shape your own narratives, and it's time you stopped. It does no service to either our country or to the reality and history you seem incapable of acknowledging." I would have transformed from a reluctant Obama voter to an enthusiastic supporter...
But he just left the old, odious lies lie there, stinking up the joint like a runny turd...
so, though I shall likely vote for him in November (I'd rather cut off my arm than pull the lever for a Puke like Cumstain), i shall not actively support him (the fact that I have no money to donate notwithstanding, and my sciatica prevents me canvassing).
It's a small favor, I know...But folks like me have learned to be grateful for small favors, so the mighty might as well settle too...
BobFlash @ 120:
BobFlash
Your perspicacious observations are well stated and my my comments at #33 echo what you have written. What Obama is doing is reminiscent of what Kerry said during his campaign when he did not come out against the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations; instead, he emphasized how, like Obama, he would be better able to manage those ill-conceived misadventures. For Obama to blithely claim that he will, like Bush has done, send American soldiers into Pakistan [as well as places like Iran] based on questionable "actionable intelligence" is to totally disregard the territory and boundary of, as you correctly note, sovereign countries. As the article points out at the link at comments #44, one wonders how the U.S. were to react if the situation were reversed, i.e. if another country had the temerity to send their troops into this country because they believed that they were right to do so, not that they were attacked by the United States. As I stated in comments #33, the "actionable intelligence" that Obama prizes so highly did not prevent American fighter planes from dropping 500 lb. and 2000 lb. bombs on Afghan civilians, 60 of whom were children. Obama is simply another example of American neoliberalism at its finest [or worst].
roooth @ 127:
Yes, I'm not sure who I'd rather be. Sarah Palin in a big-time debate on the world stage or that batter; up with a runner on second, two out, bottom of the ninth, 0-2 count and you're down 1 run.
Either way, those "step-ins" you're wearing are going to need some deep, dip, dip dippin' in the borax!
my george will link is busted for some reason, but go to the abc site, or go to huffington post for a working link. it's a pretty interesting panel discussion.
It was disheartening last night to hear both candidates chanting the Official lines about 911 and Al Qaeda and terrorism. It is like adults chanting about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus--as if they are real.
woody, tokin librul @ 135:
Yeah, maybe I should just increase my support to moveon.org and the ACLU instead.
I don't think it was good for Obama to say "we" did this. It was Bush and Co. He should have said "McCain and the Republicans" did this.
jem @ 39:
yes, we watched the same debate, but you apparently viewed it from bizarro world.
Bullfrog@131 That video contrasting Obama/McCain's expressions says a lot IMO.
McCain is the eighth-grade bully-boy mocking the teacher's lecture.
We the People need to send that disrespectful jerk to the principal's office.
I am fed up to here^ with that friggin' attitude.
tim osman @ 139:
there is no way obama can put 9/11 truth in his platform, unless that debate is clearly won in the american public forum.
ashton @ 26:
What an excellent and rather intelligent analysis.
One thing I liked about what you had to say is that McCain had so many gaffes that viewers could "fill the blanks" on their own. That was particularly true. Even the accounts of my family and friends were filled with shouting back at the screen at the obvious likes and gaps that McCain skipped over in his move to belittle Mr. Obama.
I think that this approach did make McCain look more negative in the long run. But the GOP has started running ads of Obama agreeing with McCain. That's why it peturbed me to no end that Obama had to do it in the first place. Like I said before, it is a debate style. And in some conversations, there are folks who will do that. But on television, it looks deferential--especially to a man who doesn't deserve any respect by virtue of how he ran his campaign.
Of all my comments last night and today, the one I must press the most is that Obama has to be more relaxed and passionate. That is the one thing right now that can help him in spades.
Corrections: #144: "lies", not "likes".
I apologize. :(
fastfeat @ 133:
It's a trip, isn't it? I have relatives who will never speak of Obama without the 'n' word in the same sentence. It's still very real. Part of my admiration for Obama is that I know he is very aware of it and navigates the waters around it anyway. He is masterful at it. McCain thinks temper tantrums are a negotiating skill, Obama's on a whole different level.
liberalNmoderation @ 40:
Basically, all McCain did during the debate was recite lines from his stump speeches that we've all heard a million times. If I hear "Miss Congeniality" one more time, I'm gonna snap.
Regarding the fact that not one time, did he ever even look at Obama, one word comes to mind, RUDE. Now just what would he have done if Barack had agreed to one of his pathetic town hall meetings? Turn his back on him on a little tiny stage in a little tiny room? This is one crazy old man and getting even crazier as time goes on. Add Palin to the mix and it just becomes unbelievable. If these idiots win, do you know how screwed we are?
By the way, I loved Barack's line "I've got a bracelet too". There were a few times that I wished Obama would have been a little tougher in his responses, for example when McCain said how much he loved the Veteran's and how he would take care of them. What a perfect time to question all his votes against the GI Bill. But thinking it over, I realize that Obama is brilliant and he knows a lot more than I'll ever know, so he sure doesn't need my advice. What a truly brilliant and gracious man he is.
I watched this with my in-laws, both whom have voted Democrat since WWII because Roosevelt won the war. They both will be voting for McCain this time after watching the debates. Security and Experience trump Hope and Change in their minds.
roooth @ 121:
Bravo. And thank you for your insight. That's why you can't always pass off John McCain's body language and linguistic behavior as fear.
Login or Register to post comments.