ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!

[Jamisjockey]

How am I supposed to vote for McCain now.  He just said in the first question, THE FIRST FREAKING QUESTION, in the debates that he wants to have fed.gov buy up troubled mortgages and re-write them to reflect reduced value of the homes.

A pox on them both!

Its a better plan than the 500 pages of porkbarrel spending that the original "700 billion" (which will surely cost more, now) was.  Of course, he signed onto that crap, too.
While I disagree in principle that its the right thing to do, going straight to the source of the problem (the bad mortgages) and taking them off the market is certainly a start, and a better idea that what Bush came up with.

[Al Norris]

Something needed to happen in the debate. Something did, McCain lost.

But then, look at not only who was the moderator, but understand that out of the 80 questions, it was Tom Brokaw that selected each and every one of them. It was Tom Brokaw that "allowed" Obama that extra talking point.

However we may feel about the performance McCain gave, understand that the game was rigged.

We didn't get a "Town Hall Debate." We got the standard political fare from journalists that we've seen since the beginning of this debacle.

[longeyes]

It is worth observing how in a nation of 300 million people so few control the process.

Lehrer, Ifill, Brokaw...?

Whom do they really serve?

We are facing some huge and deep and very difficult and complex issues.  They are worth more than two minutes and one-minute rebuttal.  If that's the attention span of the New American, it's time to start over.

[ctdonath]

The election has now devolved firmly into no more than a question of who sucks less.

[agricola]

Something needed to happen in the debate. Something did, McCain lost.

But then, look at not only who was the moderator, but understand that out of the 80 questions, it was Tom Brokaw that selected each and every one of them. It was Tom Brokaw that "allowed" Obama that extra talking point.

However we may feel about the performance McCain gave, understand that the game was rigged.

We didn't get a "Town Hall Debate." We got the standard political fare from journalists that we've seen since the beginning of this debacle.

He only allowed him it after McCain said he was ok with it, as long as he got one as well - earlier on Brokaw had slapped The One down when he tried to rebut McCain's small business stuff (which of course Obama ultimately ignored and used the next question to respond).  Besides, for anyone to blame Brokaw here is to miss the point entirely - he picked some duff questions to be sure, but even with the inanity of the questioning Obama still ended up giving a whole load of opportunities to McCain that McCain did not even appear to notice.  I mean ffs he tried to suggest we didnt intervene in the Holocaust!  And McCain did not notice!   :rolleyes:

You couldnt tell whether the game was rigged or not because McCain missed so many of the open goals that could have turned this around.  I agree the media is (with one or two exceptions) deeply in the tank for Obama, but when the candidate who doesnt have the media advantage squanders chances like he had last night at precisely the moment when the media advantage is irrelevant, its pretty much over whatever happens.  

[HankB]

. . . Obama still ended up giving a whole load of opportunities to McCain that McCain did not even appear to notice.  I mean ffs he tried to suggest we didnt intervene in the Holocaust!  And McCain did not notice! . . . 

Oh, I think McCain noticed all right . . . it's just that if he responded effectively, he might have improved his chances of actually winning the election.

And I don't think McCain wants that at all. 

[Lennyjoe]

Who knows, maybe McCain doesn't want to win. Maybe the party used him to introduce Sarah Palin. Maybe after we have our first African American we will have our first female President. Maybe its a big ole conspiracy by the repubs. Oh my, I think I'm lookong way too deep. I need a beer......

[longeyes]

McCain gave us Sarah Palin.  That is something.  In the future it could a whole damn lot.

McCain is a confused man and he's stuck on earmarks, maverick, and bi-partisan.  It's becoming a joke.  The man is a bad communicator.  He doesn't know how to concretize and dramatize his information so that it resonates emotionally with an audience.  I've said this before here: paint a picture of what America will look like under an Obama Presidency.

Maybe McCain is too "nice," or maybe he's traumaized in some way or just getting old, or worst of all, complicit in the problems.

I've seen guns with FTF problems but never before a politician with one.  Now I have.

[Manedwolf]

Who knows, maybe McCain doesn't want to win. Maybe the party used him to introduce Sarah Palin. Maybe after we have our first African American we will have our first female President. Maybe its a big ole conspiracy by the repubs. Oh my, I think I'm lookong way too deep. I need a beer......

We won't have our first African American president, we'll have our first Beloved Leader, and the absolute failure, IF we recover from it, will set things back for blacks. Because Obama will give the entire race a bad name among the many who generalize, which is quite unfortunate. If a qualified black Republican had run, then it would be a good first.

[longeyes]

I happen to agree with that dire assessment, M'wolf, but "a bad name" is probably the least of it.  I think the Left has wanted to orchestrate a race war for decades, turning people of color against whites.  The results, if it happens, will be tragic.

Obama is the people of color's candidate, dance around that how he will.  His priority is the underclass.  He hates the idea of our fighting Islamofascists but wouldn't mind sending the military to preserve "human rights" in Darfur.  Why, because they're black? 

All of this will become gloriously obvious in the months ahead if we are so unfortunate as to have BHO in the White House.

[agricola]

I happen to agree with that dire assessment, M'wolf, but "a bad name" is probably the least of it.  I think the Left has wanted to orchestrate a race war for decades, turning people of color against whites.  The results, if it happens, will be tragic.

Obama is the people of color's candidate, dance around that how he will.  His priority is the underclass.  He hates the idea of our fighting Islamofascists but wouldn't mind sending the military to preserve "human rights" in Darfur.  Why, because they're black? 

All of this will become gloriously obvious in the months ahead if we are so unfortunate as to have BHO in the White House.

I think that is pretty wide of the mark - he isnt the "black candidate", he is a liberal who is the latest in a long line of liberals to appeal to black voters and then forget about them until the next election.  The difference is this time he is black himself, but the fundamental results will be much the same for the "black community", underclass or whatever box the liberals put them in.  Who knows, maybe seeing Obama lie to them for four years might end up creating a political version of Clarence Thomas from somewhere. 

As for his foriegn policy, a better debater than McCain would have demonstrated how completely clueless it is last night - and even McCain managed to suggest its pretty clueless.  Obama would not intervene militarily in Darfur, he would probably end up having to keep troops in Iraq (once he realised he was going to probably destabilize the entire Gulf region if he didnt secure Iraq first), and he would attack a nuclear-armed state with or without its consent. 

[longeyes]

Wide of the mark?  No, I don't think so.  Of course Obama is a "liberal," although I would call him a radical, but his radicalism is predicated on the usual leftist nostrums of overthrowing White hegemony.  You think it's an accident that he was in Wright's church or associated with people like Ayers and that there is no racial element in their radicalism?  Please.  Accident that he's written two memoirs about his own confusions and ambivalences about his racial identity?  I was not saying that "race" explains Obama in totality but it explains a lot about him and, I believe, much more than he is really letting on.  Next you'll be telling me he doesn't sympathize with his wife's views on race.

[ronnyreagan]

he would attack a nuclear-armed state with or without its consent. 

I don't get why people complain about this - are we NOT supposed to kill Bin Laden given the chance? McCain says he'll chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell, but not Pakistan?

Also - can we maybe have a topic here where the discussion DOESN'T eventually somehow end up about race for once?  You people! :rolleyes:

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Maybe after we have our first African American we will have our first female President.

Technically, Obama's a Halfrican-American. 

[HankB]

. . . He hates the idea of our fighting Islamofascists but wouldn't mind sending the military to preserve "human rights" in Darfur.  Why, because they're black? . . .

I don't think it's a matter of race; it's the leftist/Democrat Party mindset, in which the only just war is one in which the USA has no compelling national interest; if we spend blood and treasure where there is no national interest, then our motives must be pure.

Darfur certainly qualifies.

As did Somalia.

And the Balkans.

And Vietnam.

[ArfinGreebly]

For what it's worth . . .

McCain is a fundamentally decent guy who has been corrupted by too many years in government.

Obama is a fundamentally corrupt guy who has been groomed to rule us by even more corrupt men.

One could conceivably be salvaged.

The other is beyond redemption.

[agricola]

I don't get why people complain about this - are we NOT supposed to kill Bin Laden given the chance? McCain says he'll chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell, but not Pakistan?

Also - can we maybe have a topic here where the discussion DOESN'T eventually somehow end up about race for once?  You people! :rolleyes:

That misses the point.  The point is twofold - that (a) the best way to get Bin Laden is to win the trust of the locals (as has happened in Iraq), and (b) you do not publicly state that you will bomb a country with or without their support and then expect to sit down and deal with them diplomatically with any hope of success.

[ronnyreagan]

That misses the point.  The point is twofold - that (a) the best way to get Bin Laden is to win the trust of the locals (as has happened in Iraq), and (b) you do not publicly state that you will bomb a country with or without their support and then expect to sit down and deal with them diplomatically with any hope of success.

The original quote by obama is: "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Sarah Palin essentially agreed with that statement on multiple occasions. Nothing in that statement precludes working with the locals. Are you saying the correct thing to do would have been to lie about it and say that Osama Bin Laden is safe as long as he stays in Pakistan and then bomb him there anyway?

[agricola]

The original quote by obama is: "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Sarah Palin essentially agreed with that statement on multiple occasions. Nothing in that statement precludes working with the locals. Are you saying the correct thing to do would have been to lie about it and say that Osama Bin Laden is safe as long as he stays in Pakistan and then bomb him there anyway?

No, Sarah Palin did not essentially agree with what Obama said, much less on multiple occasions.  Here is the report that you appear to be basing your claims on:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/palin-supports.html

Please note this comment from Palin, which the media seemed to omit from much of the reporting.  I am sure even someone as falsely-named as yourself will understand why this statement affects what follows (which was reported, and spun as "Palin agrees with Obama").  I have emboldened it so you have as good a chance as possible to see it:

According to the pool report of the stop, one customer there named Michael Rovito briefly pressed Palin on her position on Pakistan, and how she would handle attacks on American troops in Afghanistan by terrorists based in Pakistan's Waziristan border region.

"It's working with Zardari to make sure that we’re all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border. And we'll go from there," Palin said of working with new Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, who she met in New York last week.

[ronnyreagan]

What about her interview with Gibson?

"GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table." (Interview with Charlie Gibson, 9/11/08)

Now maybe I'm misunderstanding what she's saying (and given that "blizzard of words" who could blame me?), but what she thinks isn't really central to my argument anyway. I'm trying to ascertain what the correct answer is, if Obama is wrong on this. Given the direct quote from Obama that I provided - what is it that you disagree with?

[txgho1911]

Read the leaked transcript of the Gibson interview. What was aired was a hatchet job.

[wacki]

McCain gave us Sarah Palin.  That is something.  In the future it could a whole damn lot.

McCain is a confused man and he's stuck on earmarks, maverick, and bi-partisan.  It's becoming a joke.  The man is a bad communicator.  He doesn't know how to concretize and dramatize his information so that it resonates emotionally with an audience.  I've said this before here: paint a picture of what America will look like under an Obama Presidency.

Maybe McCain is too "nice," or maybe he's traumaized in some way or just getting old, or worst of all, complicit in the problems.

I've seen guns with FTF problems but never before a politician with one.  Now I have.

I agree.

Having a NRA life member in the white house would be a MASSIVE improvement over the current situation... which isn't all that bad for us.  Having the liberal side of the court (anti-Heller remember!) replaced by conservative judges would mean a huge win for RKBA. 

Anyone that can't realize that needs to have their head checked.

[De Selby]

That misses the point.  The point is twofold - that (a) the best way to get Bin Laden is to win the trust of the locals (as has happened in Iraq), and (b) you do not publicly state that you will bomb a country with or without their support and then expect to sit down and deal with them diplomatically with any hope of success.

But if you actually bomb them, then you can deal???  The debate over Pakistan is silly-it's already being bombed, and of course the result is that now the Taliban is taking over large swaths of Pakistan in addition to winning the war in Afghanistan.

The best way to get Bin Laden is past; we have absolutely nothing to offer the locals in exchange at this point, and have so thoroughly bungled past opportunities that no future offers of aid or trust will be credible.

Palin and McCain putting their stock in with Zardari takes it to the level of the absurd-the man is fairly seriously mentally ill (as in medically-he needs powerful anti-psychotics to function and has been hospitalized repeatedly) and widely known as the murderer of his brothers in law (on his wife's orders!)....


But I'm supposed to take their willingness to work with the nutcase in charge of the nukes as a sign of competence?

This whole debate is winding down in Obama's favor largely because McCain/Palin proved that they do not have what it takes to manage a successful campaign.  Poor responses to attacks, poorly timed attacks, and bad decisions on almost every level so far (including picking Palin) have doomed the campaign, not Obama or the media.

[Monkeyleg]

This whole debate is winding down in Obama's favor largely because McCain/Palin proved that they do not have what it takes to manage a successful campaign.  Poor responses to attacks, poorly timed attacks, and bad decisions on almost every level so far (including picking Palin) have doomed the campaign, not Obama or the media.

That has to be one of the most unbelievable statements I've ever read.

To believe SS's statement, you must believe that: a) Obama did not get overwhelming media support while McCain got little support or negative coverage; b)the selection of Palin did not boost McCain's poll ratings at that time, especially amongst self-described conservatives; c)Obama has not had a 2:1 or even 3:1 cash advantage for advertising; d)the "successful" Obama campaign has not engaged in efforts to ban McCain ads, stifle opponents (including the NRA), suggest that every attack on Obama is somehow racially-motivated; e) the "successful" Obama campaign, despite all of the above, was in a virtual dead heat with the McCain campaign until the Wall Street mess.

All of the above is not conjecture, and can be supported by independent sources.

[De Selby]

That has to be one of the most unbelievable statements I've ever read.

To believe SS's statement, you must believe that: a) Obama did not get overwhelming media support while McCain got little support or negative coverage; b)the selection of Palin did not boost McCain's poll ratings at that time, especially amongst self-described conservatives; c)Obama has not had a 2:1 or even 3:1 cash advantage for advertising; d)the "successful" Obama campaign has not engaged in efforts to ban McCain ads, stifle opponents (including the NRA), suggest that every attack on Obama is somehow racially-motivated; e) the "successful" Obama campaign, despite all of the above, was in a virtual dead heat with the McCain campaign until the Wall Street mess.

All of the above is not conjecture, and can be supported by independent sources.

No, you don't have to believe those things-you just have to recognize that, just as with George Bush in 00 and 04, the effect of the media and the mud-slinging wasn't as decisive as the management of the campaign itself.

I don't count cash advantages primarily because the fact that you receive money is a measure of your support, not a conspiracy, although certainly Obama's being able to raise huge sums of money has been an important factor.  But he did that because he knows how to run a campaign better than McCain, not because the deck was stacked in favor of the black guy.

A succint way to put it: All of the above was done by the other guy too....he just didn't do a very good job, and now his poll numbers are slipping because of it.