The First US Presidential Debate - Live
First blood to John McCain -- see the ad on this page which was apparently placed early by mistake!
The best thing about this debate is its open format. I expect McCain to win in the sense of connecting with America. He needs to use humour to leap artfully over the nonsense of the last few days...
2007: Barack Obama moves quickly onto the attack - the suggestion that McCain backed the kind of deregulation that led to the crisis.
2010: When McCain said "I havent been feeling too good recently" it certainly got my attention - but he meant about the country.
2012: Neither answers the question of whether they will vote for the plan - (McCain gets closer with I hope so). I wish the moderator could interrupt them (but that would be un-American).
2014: Mr McCain's line on holding people accountable was sharp - Mr Obama agreed but then got academic and windy.
2016: McCain has a fundamental belief in America - gosh. This would be laughed at in any other western nation as a gambit in a serious debate.
2018: Mr McCain looks highly prepared - the attack on Mr Obama on earmarks had a nice line or two but I am sure I have heard some of it before.
2021: Mr McCain is not looking at Mr Obama - he looks oddly aggressive.
2027: They are talking past each other - McCain on earmarks, Obama on health.
2029: This is a huge disappointment - set piece memorised stuff from both candidates. Nothing revealed about either of them: Obama wants college for everyone in the US - gosh again.
2032: McCain is talking now about the money he saved the taxpayer - people went to federal prison he says. Spenders will be scruubbed - eliminated!
2034: The questioning is limp, pathetic even. How America misses a John Humphrys or a David Dimbleby - someone who stips out this time consuming nonsense!
2042: Now Mr Obama is on the attack with the idea that Mr McCain is a Bush clone and must take responsibility for the Bush years. Mr McCain parries successfully with the fact - and it is a fact - that he and the president have not seen eye to eye on some pretty important questions. Stale. Boring.
2049: On Iraq, Mr Obama makes the case against the war with elegance, but it's an old case against a decision that is gone and finished. Mr McCain equally elegantly suggests that the issue is how to get out now. On that they neither of them sound so convincing. Mr Obama is listing the points on which Mr McCain was wrong. Does this damage him? I suspect not - you can be wrong but of good character. You can be wrong in the past but right on the future. Mr Obama is making a mistake by getting into petty fights about Senate votes: "I voted for this but against that" etc.
2053: Victories: Mr McCain has only said "my friends" once (I think) and Mr Obama has not ummed and arred as much as he sometimes does.
2057: Mr Obama hits a good one suggesting that he won't take lectures on saying unwise things from someone who has sung songs about bombing Iran.
2059: Mr McCain has a slightly patronising tone - I don't think Senator Obama understands etc. Could this work for an older man?
2104: Mr Obama has brought up the old throwaway line by Mr McCain that "we can muddle through" and Mr McCain is angry - again he says Mr Obama "does not seem to understand".
2107: Iran now. To bomb or not to bomb. Mr McCain is talking about his League of Democracies - taking on the world. Would it involve Venezuela? Singapore? Georgia? Russia? (only kidding). Of course, the moderator doesn't ask - that would be rude...
2109: Oops - Mr Obama is defending some senate measure again - it sounds silly and defensive.
2110: Mr Obama on Iran: we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. He makes a subtle point about engaging non-democracies... Mr McCain is having trouble with Ahmadinejad pronunciation (and I am with spelling!).
2113: On talking to enemies it's a tie - Mr McCain doesn't rule it out and Obama doesn't rule it in.
2116: Here is another thing that Senator Obama "does not seem to understand", according to Mr McCain: something to do with talking to ones enemies. Mr Obama hit him with the suggestion that he has refused to speak to the prime minister of Spain - making Mr McCain look angry and silly is a good tactic, though he has failed to use it to much effect.
2118: Great McCain line: "So we sit down with Iran and they say they'll wipe Israel off the face of the map and we say "no you won't" The first time in the debate that Mr Obama looks discomfited and annoyed.
2119: Mr Obama calls Ukraine "the Ukraine" - even the mayor of Wasilla probably knows it hasn't been that for some time...
2223: Mr McCain is good on how nasty the Russians are, but what do to about it? We want to work with the Russians but we expect them to behave. And if they don't? Oh, silly me, nobody asks - this is a presidential debate...
2132: Mr McCain on the likelihood of an attack on the US: we are safer but a long way from safe. Mr Obama says the biggest threat is terrorists getting nuclear weapons. He also talks about restoring respect and gives credit to McCain on torture. With Mr McCain we are back to Senator Obama "not understanding" something. I think he has used that phrase, my friends, too many times...
2136: Mr Obama seems to suggest that America is weaker everywhere - everywhere - because of Iraq. It's a telling point - he is much more successful when talking about the mistakes of the past than about the policies of the future. Mr McCain makes a direct attack on Mr Obama - he does not have the knowledge and experience. In a neat twist, he suggests Mr Obama is as stubborn as President Bush! This is a good line - I have met people who see Obama as another Bush - inexperienced and charming.
Conclusion: All in all a waste of time. I take it back - Mr McCain was quite right to consider ditching it. Flabby and insipid - too long and too unfocused to tell us anything. Obama is cool and McCain is tough. Big deal.
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
The gall of this man.
How can he honestly be a viable and honest candidate for the most powerful man on the planet and yet make mistakes like that
his recklessness has been evident over the last few days.
lets hope Obama doesnt put nails in his coffin in the next two hours
he needs to win for the good of the world
its a shame the americans cant realise that
penny50
Complain about this comment
Justin,
Are we the only two who've stayed up for this?! Let's see how much foreign policy gets covered :-)
Complain about this comment
Given how fed up everyone is with Bush, it's actually quite amazing that McCain has stayed so much in the running....I still think that Obama is just too darn clever for most Americans to warm to him! Surely not 4 more years....
Complain about this comment
He's declared the victory already as you've shown, but he's lost in that he's un-suspended his campaign and is there without solving the financial woes of America. So what's the need for debate, anyway?
Complain about this comment
McBush is sounding vague and indirect
unusual considering his record in the debates
Complain about this comment
The thing that strikes me is how wonderfully populist both are - don't people see the simplicity of some arguments here?
....it's all about the good old American people, keeping jobs in the USA, and making sure the ordinary man on the street can get his petrol ok!
Complain about this comment
This event should not be taking place, given the circumstances.
What are they thinking?
Complain about this comment
Do people actually buy the line on 'ending the reliance on foreign oil'? It's not going to happen!
Complain about this comment
I know we've heard the 90% voting for Bush line from Obama before, but it IS a g ood one, because it reminds the ordinary jo that however hard he tries to say he's a maverick, McCain is still a Republican!
Complain about this comment
How America misses a John Humphrys or a David Dimbleby
Indeed. Most of us wouldn't know how to deal with it.
Humphreys or Dimbledy would delight in exposing illogic, lies and silliness. Our guys just plow on.
Complain about this comment
Someone should get Paxman on them. They wouldnt have a hope in hell
Complain about this comment
This is a phoney war - I'd love to see a REAL debate, rather than rehersed one-liners....so dissapointing (though predictable) to have stayed up to see this :-(
Complain about this comment
I really don't understand the fever pitch excitement for these debates. The chairman is hopeless. He always both sides to grandstand and sprout the same replies, albeit dressed up differently, again and again.
The chairman should put a stop to the endless side stepping and digression into areas that do not answer the question. But he does not, and as such it is more a monologue than a debate and reasoned justification for ones policy.
Still pointless bathos and pathos by both. Not one of them has answered a question directly and succinctly.
So..why bother...why not just have an 1 hour advert for each....as i can see very little difference between an advert and this pathetic excuse for a debate.
All it needs is a chairman with backbone and makes the candidate answer the question without regurgitated deviation...
Complain about this comment
The problem with the debate is that both know that there is more RISK in deviating from their scripts in case it gets used in an attack ad. As a result, they both play very, very, very safe....and it's pretty darn dull
Complain about this comment
How is "..don't let my son die in vein.." answer a question??...this is a serious joke of a debate. It is very insulting to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
Obama is flat and flapping..McC is bring up endless war analogies with pathos.
This is a real yawn...
Complain about this comment
I agree with your comment about the questioning being dull. Bring on Paxman!!
Complain about this comment
Out of interest, does anyone else find McCains use of his hands annoying? It's like he's trying to convince me more with them!
Complain about this comment
What is the treat from Iran.....oh pluuuussseeee, what a biased and irrational question. Ask serious questions for the sake of my TV, otherwise i'll throw something heavy at it to "JIM"....eekkkk
"..their Gov.t is lousy so their economy is lousy..."...Hmmm..great point, not! So the US economy is lousy...ergo.......*****...well you can fill in the blanks.
Complain about this comment
McBush is so unbelievably backward on the foreign policy, particularly Iran - Another holocaust? not if the next president does enough to promote democracy and fight Islamic fundamentalism in a DIMPLOMATIC way.
However, they are both being quite petty - you said this, you said that.
And neither of them are confronting the particular issues that they are debating - they both move on from the point too quickly without going to the core of particular points
we now get to the "not talking to people thing" which could be very interesting
Complain about this comment
Obama just nailed McCain on the 'without pre-conditions issue'.....first proper debate point....and it's actually finalyl livened up!
Complain about this comment
At least Santos v Viddick was entertaining...!!!!
Complain about this comment
McCain is repeating worn out talking points, he's cutting and cynical towards Obama, typical right wing gutter politics. Obama is good enough that he doesn't have to sink that low and can focus on the issues.
The financial crisis is important, McCain tried the old diversion tactic of earmarks. Earmarks are a drop in the ocean and as often as not they are good programs such as science (the Republicans seem to hate science) and higher ed. John - bears are important - Palen might want to hunt them, they're an integral part of the ecosystem you don't mind trashing. On the real issues of the crisis Obama knows what he's talking about and really seems to have the working class in mind since he's part of it. He could have attacked McCain more directly though.
On foreign policy McCain tries to take credit for the reduced violence in Iraq that has little to do with the surge and more to do with the Sunni cease fire and their decisions.
Obama has lead the debate during the whole campaign and is a leader America and the world needs. I hope the Republicans don't manage to hijack another election.
Complain about this comment
McCain's patronising tone is surely not going to down well, is it?
Obama looks and sounds the more Presidential; McCain really looks old beside him, and dare I say, a little doddery.
Complain about this comment
Russia...."..it has everything to do with energy.."
Hmmm..so the war in Iraq, that was/is about...er....um...****....again, fill in the blanks!
Funny how it is different when trying to argue from a different position!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have to agree. McCain keeps repeating "he doesn't understand" and comes across as patronising, and I don't think people will like that. It is making him come across rather smug and self satisfied.
He's also coming across a little hot-headed compared to Obama, whose acting cooler, but is stumbling over his words slightly more. Maybe it shows that he's thinking of what he's saying, who knows?
Its very even overall at the moment when it comes to trading blows, but a little lacking in any knock outs from either side.
Complain about this comment
Justin, I think your idea of a 'great line' is rather limited by the bbc's cretinism in everything political post-hutton. Please try to be serious; we can see what the candidates are saying so giving us rubbish won't pass.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
McBush sound condecending and patronising - this could only work for a 72 year old
Complain about this comment
It's simply incredible the number of times that McCain has said 'Obama doesn't understand'. Does he really think anyone's fooled by these obvious political, vacuous statements?
Complain about this comment
Only 3 things to say Justin:
1. Thank You
2. Watching the 'independent' audience reaction line on CNN, I can only conclude the WSJ ad was premature celebration. Particularly watching the 'close', McCain seems to be throwing Republican red meat, Obama brings all lines together. I am stunned, I expected McCain to smack BO around.
3. I refer the reader to my post on the previous thread regarding sartorial elegance
Good night, and good luck
Tired Sam
Complain about this comment
Obama congratulates McCain, who wanders aimlessly across the floor... harsh but true.
Complain about this comment
PS Michelle looks hot
Boom Chicca Wah Wah!
And so to bed
Complain about this comment
I'd marginally give it to Obama...but only just. Can't imagine those who aren't decided would have been swayed too much by this.
Complain about this comment
Oh Justin, are you serious? You'll meet infintely more people who think that McCain is another Bush if you, umm, meet people.
Complain about this comment
McCain didn't seem to have a strong grasp on the orders of magnitude in several issues. He either doesn't understand the issues or he's using diversionary tactics. Defence is supposed to be McCain's strong point - Iraq was a mistake - we need a president who understands that. Offshore drilling won't lower gas prices. Canceling 3 million on bear research (probably good work) or even all earmarks won't fix the financial crisis. US Corporations don't pay high taxes John! If I remember right Enron hardly paid any.
Obama explains the issues with intellectual integrity, clarity and a new direction that might really help reduce climate change, respect science, advance peace in the world and strengthen the middle class.
Complain about this comment
The debate hasn't changed me very much.
I won't be voting for the McCain bridge to nowwhere although if he gets to the end of it I could help him off.
Complain about this comment
Justin---Sorry mate, but you are historically incorrect on the Ukraine bit. As anyone who is bilingual in English and Russian will tell you, the usage "the Ukraine" is in fact grammatically correct. "Ukraine" means "edge" and in Russia, when you are in that country, you say literally "on the Ukraine" ="on the edge". Ukrainians speaking English will sometimes use "Ukrainia" instead because that feels more like a proper noun. And until a couple of Olympics ago, for hundreds of years, the usage in English has been "the Ukraine". By using this formulation, Obama is showing that he has actually read about the Ukraine, since most books and articles on the subject use this form. Somewhat who knew of the country only from recent TV Olympics coverage--such as a small town mayor who thinks living 3000 miles from the nearest Russian population centre makes here a Russia expert--- would be very unlikely to use "the Ukraine" and would say "Ukraine." As for me, I have thought, read, and spoken of the Ukraine (and even been there) from time to time since starting to study Russian at uni in 1969, and I find it nearly impossible to say simply "Ukraine." In British parlance, "the Ukraine" is U and "Ukraine" is Non U.
Complain about this comment
John McCain did his job. He seems to have been told to say "What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand is..." as many times as possible.
To my mind Obama showed that he understood far, far more than McCain (though McCain wasn't Bush bad). But four years ago Kerry showed that he understood far more than Bush.
Understanding doesn't seem to be what it takes to become President of the USA.
ps. Our blog hosts commented that Obama mistakenly put the word "the" in front of Ukraine. Getting in with the deep observations as usual Justin. What you unintentionally make clear is that Obama will have to be pretty nigh on perfect to make the presidency. John McCain merely has to appear more patriotic.
Complain about this comment
From a policy standpoint both candidates maintained the positions they have been advocating throughout the campaign. Obama showed more knowledge whenever economic matters were discussed, and McCain demonstrated a better grasp of world affairs whenver the discussion centered on traditional foreign policy matters.
What was apparent to me was that Obama looked more composed and presidential than McCain who seemed to have trouble controlling his temper and overt disdain for Obama throughout his debate.
As far as a defining moment, I didn't see one.
Complain about this comment
Jim Lehrer for President.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I agree that the moderator wasn't very effective and that he missed a lot of opportunities to make the candidates state their points more plainly.
McCain looked quite angry most of this debate. It'll hurt viewers' perceptions of him, especially those who see him as a loose cannon.
Complain about this comment
Bush came across as inexperienced and charming at the beginning of his term. But Bush was, and remains, arrogantly ignorant and incurious. Anyone who has read or seen an interview with Obama knows he is none of these. And as for experience---Obama is the son of a single mother, early childhood in Indonesia (which means BTW that he went to primary school not in English), near poverty lifestyle growing up, scholarships to university, and work as a community organizer---these are far far beyond the silvertail origin of G W Bush. Bottom line---your comment is snide, superficial and factually incorrect.
Complain about this comment
"Obama is cool and McCain is tough."
I'd go for cool, calm and collected rather than the tough and impetuous.
With few exceptions, nearly all "debates" are tedious. Unlike Britain, questioners or 'moderators' demonstrate a certain deference to politicians - but you can't blame the candidates for the lack of more penetrating questions.
Complain about this comment
So you are saying, Justin, that the debate had better been skipped? Justin, my friend, you don't seem to understand how important this election is...
Sounds familiar?
Complain about this comment
Ah! I was right about the Punch and Judy show!
The only question now, which was which?
Complain about this comment
McCain Wins
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In my humble opinion:
McCain expressed opinions, and used the kind of language, that befits a small town politician.
He was full of praise for his own experience, as it is to be expected from an elderly person, which has nothing but past glory to bring to the table.
Add brown-nosing his potential supporters shamelessly, and it gets even more pathetic.
He looked, and sounded, old, very, very old. Cold war rhetoric, no lessons learned.
Granted, I'm biased, but Obama seemed to have a much more realistic view on things, an attitude that might actualy get things moving.
Personally, I also liked how he concentrated on the issues mostly, and didn't try to put down his opponnent in every other sentence .
That said, I don't quite understand Justin's comments.
Are you getting soft ?
Yank pc-ness is a virus one can catch - unlike knowledge of foreign affairs. ;)
Complain about this comment
#47
Guns,
I think McCain was the Beretta. Obama had a Browning. I'll leave it at that.
2nd amendment Sam
Complain about this comment
#48
Doug,
That WSJ ad was fun. But I never met a lady who didn't take premature exaggeration as a compliment.
I also never met one who wanted to repeat the experience.
Counselor Sam
Complain about this comment
It is hard for me to cognize how anyone would possibly consider voting for a Republican after what we've been through with Bush. I feel that people think we have the luxury of considering which party to vote for in this election, when I think we really do not. We are in the most dangerous situations we have been in in our lifetimes (global warming, brink of true economic disaster in the US due to the banking crisis, and we already had economic disaster due to the war spending in Iraq). Bush has made our country so fragile, and has deprived us of so many of our constitutional rights, the US as we know it may soon be no more. This is real. We do not have the luxury of voting for a Republican. I do not understand why that is not obvious to everyone. Humans have a fatal habit of thinking things are not as bad as they are: and then the disaster that was seen occurs, all because advance action was not taken. We are living that right now, with replete evidence in so many different spheres. We had advance warning that Bush was not a capable President; we had advance warning that Hurricane Katrina was coming; we had advance warning that global warming was occurring and would increase environmental disasters; we had advance warning that banks shouldn't lend more money than people can afford to borrow; we had advance warning that people should not borrow and buy more than they can afford; we had advance warning that starting a war Iraq would not work. We have had advance warning on all of the problems we are facing. I believe Republicans and those voting for Republicans have ignored some or all of these advance warnings. If anyone is willing to explain why they think, given what I've said, voting Republican is even an option, I would really like to understand the mindset. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
McCain recited phrases replete with bathos.
Obama sought to present pertinent facts.
Which will be most appreciated by the American voters?
[McCain, perhaps?]
______________________
The real issue between them:
Is Iraq the key or an ill-chosen sideshow?
Complain about this comment
My opinion: IT was a draw!
Obama actually looked and sounded like a president and a potential world leader and McCain managed to not completely BLOW IT.
We will see what we will see.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
Respectfully I disagree with your close. We got to see the Senators face off, before being elected and having PM question time in their schedule ( I would love to see the President and 'leader of the opposition' face off, mano a mano weekly a la Westminster).
We saw them defend themselves, and we also (thanks to HD) saw the reaction real time. We see this in the UK post election, not before. Here we do it before not after. I'd rather see both.
That said, this is our one time to see their personalities next to each other. In your face, American style.
This is important for us. We are obliged to vote for one of these guys. This is our only chance, ever, to see them challenged face to face. There was no mind killer moment, but it was important for us wee voters.
Love the blog. Hate the close.
Sad Sam
Complain about this comment
' Conclusion: All in all a waste of time. I take it back - Mr McCain was quite right to consider ditching it. Flabby and insipid - too long and too unfocused to tell us anything. '
Justin, to be frank, that sounds like you need some time off.
What on earth did you expect ?
It's a US campaign, for Christ's sake !
Hardly a waste of time, though.
You still are aware one of those two fellows might have a major influence on world politics for almost a decade ?
McCain once again proved to be a stuttering geezer, Obama the slick, yet promising new kid on the block.
I don't envy you, having to cover a travesty like that takes its toll.
You a drinking man ? Might help if you are ;) .
Complain about this comment
I said a bit earlier that after watching part of this debate I would return to my habit of not watching debates. For some reason, inexplicable to me, the moderators punished me. What is wrong with saying that the debates have no value for me?
Complain about this comment
Hard to believe some of these comments in this blog ... and those I´ve seen from various others Americans re McCain. He is no doubt a nice and friendly old man and he has lived through several wars. They are still what he thinks he understands best, and he relates everything to it. He fails completely on his knowledge of current world issues, and what needs to be done to make the world safer. You are not qualified to lead simply because you think so and say so, as McCain does (and Bush also has done). The average American is no more educated on foreign issues than McCain is, but that´s no wonder given the Bush administration´track-record over the past years. Should McCain (and Palin) become the next president, I truly fear for the future, it would be catastrophic.
Complain about this comment
Generally, the view of the experts is that McCain shone with his foreign affairs experience.
I disagree.
John definitely has more experience in foreign affairs...that's beyond debate.
But who showed the most maturity in highlighting what the future foreign policy of the USA probably should be?
The debate, as a whole, was a draw, but in terms of the psychological winner...goodbye Republicans
Complain about this comment
to Ellabesque (#53)
The reason i offer you on my choice of supporting McCain is because I don't want the house, the senate and the white house to be under the control of 1 party.
Clinton's years when both the house and senate were under Democratic control were very bad. And Bush's, well, were just terrible.
The prospect or fear of veto is important in avoiding tendency to push forward bills rashly.
Complain about this comment
There were a few comments that caught my attention. One asked why the race was so close given how sick everyone is of Bush. Racism is still alive and well in the U.S.
I've heard it suggested, as well, that people in the U.S. are driven to fear by the media and often pick leaders to stave off that fear. 9/11 and Iraq created a lot of fear, so I think that plays into it.
Justin Webb went on about it was an insipid, boring debate. What I came away with was how truly far apart these two men are in their views. I wonder if they were more alike, or more a part of the political mainstream if they would have had enough in common to talk to each other instead of past each other. I have never seen a debate where the two people were so different.
Complain about this comment
This is the first time I've seen Obama struggle to maintain his composure. If he can't handle McCain, how the heck is he going to deal with real adversaries?
Obama was his usual professorial, theoretical self. McCain was his usual hard hitting self.
If anything, Obama had that touch of Kerry, an imperiousness that's a bit of a turn off.
You can tell McCain likes to travel and get involved around the world. Obama travels in his own circles.
As for McCain's arms, they're awkward because he uses his hands to gesture but his arms only go so high. They wind up moving sideways instead of up and down.
But wait! Isn't this the debate that American voters deserved to see. That they couldn't live without just a few hours ago? That was even more important than the bailout negotiations?
Complain about this comment
So let me get this streight, Justin. You think that this debate should not have been held at all because you didn't learn anything new about the candidates positions on issues? Well no offence, sir, but will you please clarify what you specifically were looking for? What were you expecting them to do? Completely re-invent themselves, their positions on issues, policies and ideas? Of course they are going to have the same ones! The point of a debate is for the participants to "debate" with each other in front of the world their ideas and positions on issues, to challenge each other, to (make an attempt) at getting to the truth on where one another stands on problems so that the American (and British apparently) people can make informed decisions on who they'll vote for in November!! Come now you should know this!! Your being naive and over-expectant in what you want out of these debates if you seriously wish for some shocking, jaw-dropping surprise to come out of them!! Frankly, much of your assessment of this debate was in my opinion "a waste of time!"
Now granted the moderator sucked!! He didn't (at times) ask tough questions, and yes, I couldn't agree more with you on his obvious complete and total lack of asking the candidates to clarify their positions on Russia, Iran et al!! However, I think you could've voiced your disapointment in a less insulting and sarcastic fashon!! You Brits believe in being polite and respectful toward one another? Don't you?
Hey! perhaps you could put in a request to moderate the debates in 4 years? Or perhaps Paxman can do it!! Give it a shot! Show us dumber than rocks "yanks" how to really debate!!
Complain about this comment
Engrossing opinion, Justin, as ever, albeit through a distinctly British (and therefore somewhat irrelevant) cultural lens if I may say so. One point of many: what a relief that that in the United States, we haven?t yet got to the stage where we have to endure the personality and ego of the interviewer having to drown out the messages of the interviewees as a matter of course.
All this ?stale? and ?yawn? is definitely fun to read, but don?t forget that this debate probably gets the biggest ratings so far ? i.e. it must have drawn in at least some of the ?swingers? who don?t rake over the minutiae of what the candidates utter, day in day out. The majority of the country needs to hear the key messages, from the horse?s mouth, even if it bores political junkies and even if it?s not much of a key message after all.
It was clearly a draw, folks. McCain emoted compellingly to the vision for Brand America, Obama built solid confidence he?s in sharp command of the detail. McCain geriatrically fumbled his words often here and there, Obama seemed smirkily arrogant and interjected jumpily. The nervousness and unwillingness to directly engage early on in both candidates was endearing and showed humility. This debate won?t matter a jot by the time we enter the last week of the campaign.
In the meantime, Wall Street crumbles?.
Complain about this comment
The first attempt didn't make it through, so here goes again.
Obama was wrong about Kissinger. Here's what Kissinger told The Weekly Standard:
Kissinger Unhappy About Obama
Complain about this comment
Moving right along, let's get to something more interesting than dissecting a tedious ninety minutes. I don't see this thread getting to #500! Far more interesting will be Palin and Biden, if they're still on their respective tickets.
Complain about this comment
67. David_Cunard:
"Moving right along, let's get to something more interesting than dissecting a tedious ninety minutes. I don't see this thread getting to #500! Far more interesting will be Palin and Biden, if they're still on their respective tickets."
I don't even want to think about that.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
I sense you were disappointed from a media's perspective. I commiserate, but you'll just have to wait until next week. I think it will be more interesting to watch Biden and Palin.
But I agree. Tonight was tepid, unfocused, offtrack, nothing decisive. But you know maybe that will come later. It is the economy this election and foreign policy wont matter as much at the end of the day.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with your conclusion...we probably won't be seeing many sound-bites from the debate appearing in the candidates' attack ads. I think the fact that the hype surrounding the debate has been so intense for the last two weeks, made it even more of a let-down. I don't hold out much hope for improvement with the Biden-Palin debate (though we might get a few giggles out of it, at least).
Complain about this comment
67, Sam.
Yes, Palin and Biden should be interesting. His advantage is that he can pronounce all the hard words. Her advantage is that she knows how to hunt meese.
Complain about this comment
I am baffled by your snide and superficial reactions, Justin. The debate was necessary and valuable and Obama won hands down. Perhaps there was no knockout blow but Obama is too much of a gentleman for that -- and thank goodness for decency ar last. I didn't see or hear McCain scoring any points beyond a few cheap and insignificant jabs. The McCain I saw was stuck in the past, clinging to discredited policies, desperately trying to put down his wiser and more gracious opponent, looking petulant, lying about his concern for the middle class and veterans, not understanding the distinction between pre-conditions and preparation and sounding pathetic every time he resorted to trotting out on his Vetnam experience and the countries he's visited and the the wars he's supported. I'm disappointed to find you mistaking bellicosity for toughness and swallowing the line about Obama's inexperience.
Complain about this comment
Justin, you seem to talk as though you expected a British debate. The two political systems are vastly different, and you'll never get the same kind of debate that you get between party leaders at PMQs. It wasn't that their debate that was flabby and insipid - US style debating in general is flabby and insipid.
I have to agree with some of the comments on this blog - the US needs a Paxman or Humphrys or they're doomed to this kind of limp nonsense forever.
Complain about this comment
48, Doug.
There was only one interesting thing in the debate and it was something Obama said. I am very much against expansion of the health-care system because of the all the middlemen taking profits, overheads, corrupt practices, and because of inflated pharmaceutical prices. In fact I would like to do away with health insurance altogether. Then we could afford to go to doctors.
But Obama threw out the figure of $15 billion that the middlemen take in profits. I then remembered that some months ago he said he would sit down with advisors to improve the health-insurance system and that representives from the pharmaceutical houses would not be welcome to join them.
Does that mean that he is preparing to attack the very abuses that I find so reprehensible? I have hope.
Complain about this comment
alikma: except for Pakistan. I expected better
from Obama.
to others: Palin vs. Biden = Bambi vs. Godzilla,
unless Godzilla opens his mouth, too.
Complain about this comment
Read analyses around the US web, then Kevin Connolly's on BBC. Neither Kevin nor Justin seem to understand the crucial differences between US presidential politics and the Parliamentary system of the UK and other Commonwealth members. I am American by birth and also naturalized Australian, and I participate in both systems, and so I see the very different "rules."
Winning debates in Parliament is important, every sharp remark and correct observation counts. But for the US president, who is equal parts monarch and PM, bearing, image and temperament trump finer points of debate. And indeed, you learn heaps by turning down the sound. Obama--the black guy, the son of a single mother, scholarship kid, was cool, level headed, at ease, and engaged opponent, questioner, and audience visually, found some points of common ground with McCain, and marshaled his facts and arguments, but skipped sharp blows. McCain--son and grandson of Admirals, legacy admit to naval academy, married to model turned wealthy heiress looked straight ahead, never deigning to look at Obama, and condescended to him in both manner and speech. "I know, and you don't, you uppity young man " (and toward the end, "I was a POW.") And he was several times visibly angry. He took on the self righteous mantle of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and was still defending their idiotic war. Obama coolly called him out on it--but with real class, did not go for the kill he could have, given that >60% of the public think the Iraq war is a folly based on lies.
McCain may have won the debate by a fraction according to your point scoring, but that means little to nothing. The much less experienced Obama went into the ring with the tough guy, kept his cool, made his pts, and walked out tall. Just as he did with the Clinton machine which was supposed to crush him. Just as in 1980, when the Hollywood B movie actor Reagan did with the incumbent Pres. Carter, who like McCain, had tried to avoid debate.
GOPers loved McCain. Committed Dems loved Obama. Nothing changed for them. But early polls show independents and women tipping Obama for the win by 10-20% points. And barring major surprises, this means that Obama's lead (presently +4% nationally) will grow in coming days. In all elections since 1960, a candidate who came out of the first debate with a lead went on to win the Presidency. History makes fools of us all sometimes, but it looks like win for Obama right now.
Although the spectacle of the US style election isn't there, some of this psychology does play in parliamentary systems when a long reigning party is upset. In the last Australian election, an overconfident, overbearing PM John Howard was bumped off by a first time candidate, Maxine McKew, a former newsreader and interviewer on the ABC. I am sure Howard would have bested Maxine on debate pts, but it didn't make the slightest difference. He was past his time. Just like John McCain.
Complain about this comment
Mr Webb is being unnecessarily snarky. It was a reasonably informative debate. I watched it with a group of about a dozen Americans who were roughly 2-1 pro Obama. Everyone agreed that McCain "won" on points, but not by enough to shift his poll deficit.
On the economy, who you think came out on top will depend on who you agree with on policy - but the difference between them was abundantly clear. McCain supported smaller government and Obama bigger govrnment. On foreign policy McCain made Obama look a little naive at times, but it was a points decision and no knockout.
Obama will be happier with his night's work, because he's overcome a big hurdle without serious damage.
Complain about this comment
I found so much objectionable and somewhat unfair material in your assessment of the debate Justin, that I decided to piece together a little assessment of your assessment.
"2012: Neither answers the question of whether they will vote for the plan - (McCain gets closer with I hope so). I wish the moderator could interrupt them (but that would be un-American)."
Yes this is sad, I too wish the moderator could grow some balls!! But watch the sly sarcastic atacks on being "American." I doubt any "Americans" think that a moderator not interupting a person when they are going on and on in a debate or are viering off topic is either "American" or "un-American." Its just an unfortunate fact of life which I'm sure happens in every country (that is, of course, except Britain!!!)
"2016: McCain has a fundamental belief in America - gosh. This would be laughed at in any other western nation as a gambit in a serious debate."
Unfortunately I'm afraid your right. But come now Justin, what did you expect! I mean this is a nation who's citizens flip out over their presidencial candidates not wareing flag pins!! If they obsess over that, of course they're going to think it ok for one of the candidates to state an obvious, universally held, way over-stated belief in his country!! In fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't find this acceptable!!
"2029: This is a huge disappointment - set piece memorised stuff from both candidates. Nothing revealed about either of them: Obama wants college for everyone
in the US - gosh again."
Granted I agree they need not re-state their positions on the issues quite so much, but if you're looking for a complete change of heart from either one, then I'm sorry, but you won't find it.
"2034: The questioning is limp, pathetic even. How America misses a John Humphrys or a David Dimbleby - someone who stips out this time consuming nonsense"
How America misses them indeed!! Though you mustn't forget, the hosts of '"The View" are pretty good (though of course they don't hold a candle to British reporters!!) But I'm sorry, we can't all be British can we?
"2042: Now Mr Obama is on the attack with the idea that Mr McCain is a Bush clone and must take responsibility for the Bush years. Mr McCain parries successfully
with the fact - and it is a fact - that he and the president have not seen eye to eye on some pretty important questions. Stale. Boring."
Reppiticious again, but again, it is a fact of all debate (yes I'm afraid even to a small digree in the UK as well.)
"2107: Iran now. To bomb or not to bomb. Mr McCain is talking about his League of Democracies - taking on the world. Would it involve Venezuela? Singapore? Georgia? Russia? (only kidding). Of course, the moderator doesn't ask - that would be rude..."
First of all, the debate is not on whether to "bomb" Iran or not!! It is rather on how to deal with Iran in a "diplomatic" fashon! Even the Republicans understand the horible ramifications of military action!! Don't make us seem like a vicious dictator wrapped in Democrocy's clothing anymore than we are already made out to be!! Its rather unsightly!! Second, again I agree that the moderator needs to intrude!! You made your point earlier. Now your just coming off as mean!!
"2223: Mr McCain is good on how nasty the Russians are, but what do to about it? We want to work with the Russians but we expect them to behave. And if they
don't? Oh, silly me, nobody asks - this is a presidential debate..."
This is the third time you've lamented over how rediculous and incompatant our moderator is! I agree! Here's an idea! Instead of venting your thoughts to us, how bout you take it to him!! Now there's an idea that might just be crazy enough to work and produce some positive results!! But some advice...don't take it to him in the way in which you expressed it on this blog...for if you do...well lets just say I doubt he'll take your advice very seriously.
"Conclusion: All in all a waste of time. I take it back - Mr McCain was quite right to consider ditching it. Flabby and insipid - too long and too unfocused to tell us anything. Obama is cool and McCain is tough. Big deal."
My conclusion...way too judgementle, a bit rude, naiev expectations, and the British rule at moderating and compeeting in debates!!!
Complain about this comment
Americans should just be bitter and cynical about absolutely everything regarding politics like the British...perhaps then we'll not worry so much about offending our leaders!
Complain about this comment
lets get this straight, Mccain believes America should talk to Russia but not Iran?
Is he ready to be a leader, or just win an election?
On the debate,this debate was Mccain's to win and obama's to lose-both candidates didn't do neither.
My view Obama got thru the debate without damaging his lead in the Poll and Mccain didn't improve his.
Nxt Palin/Biden- can't wait 4 dat, probably will order popcorns-wat a show to be had
Complain about this comment
For what it's worth, Time graded John McCain B- and Barack Obama, A-.
Complain about this comment
All bloggers on this site who have ever complained about pro-Obama BBC bias should now eat their words.
I watched the debate and whilst I thought that it was more or less a draw in pure debating terms, there was no doubt that Obama in his calm elegance came across as the more presidential figure.
As soon as it was over I was then astonished to turn over to BBC radio and hear the talking heads declare that it had been soundly won by McCain. When ? Why ?
One of them says it was because McCain can reel off a list of obscure eastern-European countries that he's visited. I truly do not think that any undecided American voter is going to choose his next President - at this dreadful time for American voters - on the basis that the man's been to South Ossetia. In fact, Americans might prefer that their President spend more time at home dealing with their own problems rather than worrying about the residents of Ukraine.
And when are commentators going to start weighing up the damage that McCain did to himself in the run up to the debate ? Or was that sort of muddled behaviour OK if you are a McCain - but it certainly wouldn't have been if you were on Obama.
Complain about this comment
#68. AndreainNY: "I don't even want to think about that."
A Clinton-Romney evening would be far more entertaining - and informative - if it ever came about.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone noticed that North Carolina has become a battleground state? I didn't expect that. Virginia I saw as a possible win for Obama, but not North Carolina.
If Obama takes Virginia he takes the election.
Complain about this comment
Very fair observation Mr .Webb ,
I'm glad that I'm not an American who has to vote for their new president . Both choice seem more and more like the Jinx apple , if you choose to eat it your mother'll die ; and if you don't you'll father'll die . So which one will the American citizen will choose ? I certainly wouldn't like to be in their shoes .
Complain about this comment
Another grumpy comment from me about Justin's post : he complains that Obama referred to Ukraine as "the Ukraine" and snipes that it hasn't been called that for years.
For crying out loud !
Was it really worth exercising his fingers on the keyboard to say that ?
This is turning into trivial pursuit.
Complain about this comment
Yeesss, I kinda take your point about Humphrys, but I guess, to be fair, we don't have any 'debates' at all on the telly when there is a General Election. John Major did ask for them, but was rebuffed.
"Mr Obama hits a good one suggesting that he won't take lectures on saying unwise things from someone who has sung songs about bombing Iran." I didn't hear this bit, so can't judge, but it does sound like a 'cheap shot' [maybe he was retaliating for one?] since McCain was, er, just joking..
Shades of the faux-anger at Kenny Everett saying 'Let's Bomb Russia' at a Tory Rally..
Again the 'limp' performance is, in a sense, the only real option and strategy these bruisers can take - if they open up too much of a flank on the other guy, and get floored by a sucker-punch, their race to the White House could be over in a ten-second count..
Taking few risks is, sadly for us, a useful strategy to keep ticking along in the race.
But fortune favours the brave, so what do I know ?
Complain about this comment
wanderingangus..
"And when are commentators going to start weighing up the damage that McCain did to himself in the run up to the debate ? "
A good point, but the contradiction with my earlier statement about the 'debate' is that when McCain is behind in the polls, he does not sit contemplating his navel. Or even his naval career. He does something. Anything.
However chaotic or 'shoot-from-the-hip' or even 'ill-considered', he tries to seize the initiative and has a 'never-say-die' attitude.
My personal preference is to back Obama, but I have no illusions that this fight is a long way from over, and that if McCain did win, would make an effective President.
So why did he have to get mixed up with the likes of Phil Gramm.. Didn't his mommy warn him about the risks of mixing with the wrong crowd..
Complain about this comment
Hello All,
0600hrs start here in the Caucasas and watched the debate live plus the x90 mins CNN debrief.
Just start by flagging the telephone polling results that CNN presented an hour or so after it ended. This fieldwork apparently showed an across the board plus for Sen Obama and hinted other networks seem to be reporting the same findings?
NB - I put aside the now overiding key priority No 1 issue for ordinary American citizens over the economic crisis and how this is going to increasingly impact and hit them head on.
For my part, one thing remains absolutely crystal clear - the place of Sen McCains stance and philosophy on Foreign Affairs and International Relations. This debate has confirmed a number of things for me.
INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION
1. John McCains complete misappreciation and misperception of world affairs and international political dynamics here in 2008 and into the future.
a. It is absolutely vital for the American nation to understand the need to have a President and political masters in office who STOP talking AT leaders and OVER RIDING nations on its behalf. Sen McCain is one of this club - period. The need, more than ever, today and over that hill, is to engage in successful dialogue and communication. Nothing else will do.
b. As the saying goes, you reap what you sow. The position that the USA finds itself in today is entirely of the making and failure of its leaders. Regrettably, I am sympathetic to and understand why so many nations; leaders and particularly human beings currently view the USA as the imperial classroom bully. *National Interests* pretty much forced down the barrel of a gun seemingly where needs must. The cynisicm and double standards are all too often hard to stomach.
c. American leaders have viewed the world as they wish to see it and have showed repeatedly, a breathtaking lack of respect for other nations and peoples of different cultures and religious beliefs. On the crassly termed *war on terror*, I ask to what extent the level of ire in the world against the USA has been fuelled directly as a result of the US approach; the prosecution of military campaigns in other countries and other questionable politico / commercially driven pressure and interventions?
2. International Relationships Building.
a. The personal comments about Prime Minister Putin and the Iranian leadership were outrageous.
b. The comments on the Georgian situation out of kilter with the facts.
c. A most interesting poll would be one taken from world leaders simply asked this. *Which individual in your view, would show the level of understanding, mutual respect and capability to transact effective business with you as the next US President*. I would stake my shirt on an overwhelming result here.
STRATEGY
3. On strategy, if Sen McCain has been so integrally involved, as he purports, with unassailable levels of international experience and know how, then he has failed spectacularly and on two counts:
a. With a c.90 percent voting record in being so closely tied to his Republican Administrations and.....
b. His failure in having made little or no impact in tangibly influencing others on Capitol Hill to change flawed US strategy and direction - especially in regard to Iraq and Afghanistan. The cry *come on, is better than go on* and all to easy to be a back seat driver chirping up when expedient.
4. As an ex Army officer, the *been there; seen it ; done it; got the badge*........ and *I KNOW and he DOESNT UNDERSTAND* quips don't wash. Neither does his treacly pathos and description of assured VICTORY rammed down peoples throats, either. If he had been real walkies on the deck in the border regions of NW Pakistan, as he commented, the locals wouldn't have been hanging garlands. With revulsion, I have seen the JM political photo ops in Baghdad too. By the way, how does the GWB track record of visiting conflict regions before taking office rank?
5. Sadly, as history shows, messrs Bush and McCain need to understand what what they have entrenched themselves in here. They have not. Militarily, in my humble opinion, this is a completely unwinnable conflict. Every local casualty, man, woman, child, will merely generate further untold hatred and spawn tenfold freedom fighters who wish to resist an occupation - for as long as it takes. The house of cards is fragile and, sadly, will remain fragile.
TACTICAL
6. The cross border incursions, as are now being triggered, show the level to which US diplomacy and liaison with a key ally have failed. Yes, there may be scope to conduct joint specific ops in the supposed haven regions, BUT...... arbitary cross border missile; drone and helicopter mounted ops are not the stuff of trust, professionalism and delivery of truly effective long term results. It beggars the question as to how effective the visit of messrs Gates and Mullen concerning agreement on joint operational policy and plans?
............................
In sum, I was going to propose Senator John McCain to head up the US Veterans Affairs Institution and really get to grips with a staggering and serious national human situation on home soil. I fear I cannot do this now either. Barack Obama confirmed today that the sooner he is in situ *sorting out this mess* the better.
Apologies to all for length.
Bill
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Jim,
I do admire your insight into American politics. I will tell you something; one of the reasons Obama stresses education every so often is because he knows that if only Americans were as educated as the Europeans, he would be 20 points ahead of McCain. It's unbelievable that no American network (the BBC did) picked up on the argument that Americans have been enjoying a lavish lifestyle simply on Chinese credit cards. Any curious soul probably heard Obama say this at the debate. As an African immigrant, one of the primary reasons I chose North America (Canada, not the US) was its relative economic superiority. I've come to realise, though, that people here live entirely on what they don't have! How I admire the European/Asian/African way--if you can't pay cash, it ain't meant for you!
Complain about this comment
Bill T, I agree with most of what you said,
but, if you have followed the candidates'
positions on Pakistan which were repeated
in the debate, Obama was the proponent
of unilateral military action there, not
McCain.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
#89 BillTyrone
I agree with #92 gunsandreligion except that I don't agree with anything else you said.
...and...
Is not Barack Obama the man who wants more military effort concentrated on Afghanistan as well ?
Your post contains ambiguities but I believe you are saying Afghanistan is an 'unwinnable conflict'.
Complain about this comment
Johnny Foreigner,
Exactly. Boring. Loved the firefighter image, Sam.Magic loves Faux News - surprised?
An alternative to Justin's 'live blog'
Salaam, etc.
ed
Travels in Iran, Interesting observations.
Complain about this comment
I believe the US model could be improved with more intervention by interviewers to keep interviewees to the point, eliminate speechifying and prevent them from dodging the question. David Dimbleby and some other UK interviewers manage this without becoming too intrusive.
Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys try to force their political views on to interviewees by the use of loaded questions and persistent interruption. They are a disgrace to news and current affairs interviewing. They are an object lesson in what the David Dimbleby, etc. style of interviewing becomes if you employ interviewers whose ego span exceeds their brain power.
Complain about this comment
9:10 CDT:
[Sean] It is striking how much Obama is looking at McCain confidently and how McCain will not look at Obama.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
I am a confused Brit. I wonder if anyone can help me understand the following issue.
On Foreign Policy McCain's main line of attack is - and has always been - that Obama lacks experience. But McCain himself has selected as his running mate a woman who has literally NO foreign policy experience and has only ever left the US once. So if McCain is saying that lack of foreign policy experience is dangerous in a President, then by implication it follows that his choice of Sarah Palin was reckless and irresponsible. I mean, one of the whole points about a VP is that she/he may have to take over as President one day. Surely then McCain has just admitted that he's put America in danger by his choice of running mate.
Why aren't the Democrats making something of this? Or am I missing something?
Very grateful if anyone can shed light on this issue! Thank you.
Complain about this comment
McCain came across as grumpy and mean, and would not even look at Obama though Obama looked at him. Obama seemed to answer at greater depth, and that meant highlighting where there was agreement, as well as where there were differences. McCain mentioned business but not the middle class. Obama came across as Presidential, and that may be the most important takeaway.
Complain about this comment
No. 92 Guns
Re: Unilateral action inside Pakistan - sound point.
Yes, I disagree with Sen Obamas position on this - which effectively supports current unilateral US cross border military operations policy. To be fair, I did not hear Sen McCain make mention of this specifically during this debate.
That said, he backed the Iraq invasion and counter insurgency campaign; more recently the surge plus he clearly seems very much at one with the US military field commanders and tactical doctrine. Showing latent enthusiasm for Gen Petraeus, my conclusion, right or wrong, is that he wholeheartedly backs current operations in Afghanistan too and if not, then surely based on his self promoted maverick approach, we would have heard differently during the Gates / Mullen trip?
But, as currently stands, I certainly disagree with and condone the policy of overt unilateral US military operations inside Pakistan. It is a hearts and minds cauldron in the making.
BTW, missiles launched from drones or aircraft are typically homed in to targets using *other* technologies and 3rd parties. Simply taking out a fixed target, per se, is easily done from the air. Taking out a specific target such as a house in a village with confirmation of a known person inside requires other support. I will leave others to consider what this might be; what is happening at ground level at present and the implications.
Joint Pakistani - US operations in such incredibly difficult operating environments may be viable but no panacea. People should be aware of the size and scope of Pakistan's professional military, too, which numbers c.512000 regulars and 600000 reserves in the Army.
Bottom line for me is that at this time of change, the US needs to urgently get alongside its ally, Pakistan, carefully understanding the ramifications (cultural / regional) for military operations and work up an agreed solution. I suggest Pakistans strategic assessment and combat estimate has already been well thought through.
Unilateralism I believe is not a viable or sound option and the current US administration and both presidential candidates must understand this.
Bill
Complain about this comment
Re:#98. Palin has been shielded from the press by McCain, but the few interviews she has done highlight that inexperience and recklessness. The VP debates will continue the implosion. The trouble with attacking her directly is that many scream 'sexism'. Best to let her talk and it becomes obvious she is out of her depth.
Complain about this comment
Chill,
"Some"??? three quarters of a million!, and half of them BEFORE Israeli UDI. These folk and three or more generations of their offspring have spent the last sixty years in refugee camps, denied their UN-guaranteed right of return, because, as you say, their land "became Zionist land".Thanks for your Ottoman material. I note:
1. Corrupt seizure of land title by absentees.
2. This resulted in the bulk of the land becoming "state" or "public" owned after the overthrow of Ottoman rule.
I commend a reading of the Hope Simpson Report for an understanding of the "facts on the ground" in 1930.
An informative map, and I commend you to this short conclusion
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Bill Tyrone,
Once again I second all your observations. Nuff said.
Peace to all
ed
Complain about this comment
88. lordBeddGelert:
"So why did he have to get mixed up with the likes of Phil Gramm.. Didn't his mommy warn him about the risks of mixing with the wrong crowd.. "
It is Obama who has the most troublesome associations with the "wrong crowd." Bush is the only association Obama dares mention.
98. red_coat_girl:
"I am a confused Brit. I wonder if anyone can help me understand the following issue.
On Foreign Policy McCain's main line of attack is - and has always been - that Obama lacks experience. But McCain himself has selected as his running mate a woman who has literally NO foreign policy experience and has only ever left the US once."
Depends on how you look at it.
Obama has to tread lightly here because it is he, compared to McCain, who is the lightweight. If Palin, as VP, shouldn't even be that close to the presidency, why then should a lightweight like Obama be running for the presidency?
Complain about this comment
Why Voters Thought Obama Won
The whole article is worth reading, as well as a look at some of the best electoral data analysis available.Peace to all
ed
Complain about this comment
96. chill0 :
"I believe the US model could be improved with more intervention by interviewers to keep interviewees to the point, eliminate speechifying and prevent them from dodging the question."
I believe the intention last night was to have more of a discussion and fewer structured responses to the moderator's questions.
The moderator was to initiate the discussion and then get out of the way.
I agree he did not press points, most notably early on about what they'd give up given the bailout.
Complain about this comment
I also feel it is worth pointing out that Iran's President Ahmadinnajacket never actually said 'I'm going to wipe Israel off the map..'. The correct translation is rather more subtle.
Not that I'd exactly recommend him as a baby sitter, but in matters as serious as foreign policy, misquotes and spin can be expensive mistakes. Just ask Tony Blair...
Complain about this comment
AndreainNY - I suspect neither candidate would agree to have Letterman [!] or Jon Stewart hosting the debate, but I suspect that Craig Ferguson could lure them into admitting more than they're willing to let on about their 'real' tax-and-spend, foreign policy
'surprises' for when they are elected..
Complain about this comment
ref #105
I noticed your link was to CNN not the most unbiased source.
But it's irrelevant, both of us had made our decision as has the news media pundits. i would like to see a poll of the undecided voters.
Personally I though McCain won but as I just said I've made my decision prior to the debate
Complain about this comment
For Magic, your poll of "undecideds"
Salaam, etc.ed
Complain about this comment
109. MagicKirin:
"ref #105
I noticed your link was to CNN not the most unbiased source.
But it's irrelevant, both of us had made our decision as has the news media pundits. i would like to see a poll of the undecided voters.
Personally I though McCain won but as I just said I've made my decision prior to the debate"
*********************
A poll on the CNN website gave McCain a "D", making the voters appear almost angry with the debate.
Complain about this comment
For Magic, your poll of "undecideds"
(From fivethirtyeight)[without the pdf link which may fail my previous comment]
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
What I found most interesting in this debate was not what the candidates said, both maintained their stated positions, but their personal demeanor. Obama projected an image of confidence and self-control, while McCain had trouble containing his ire to the point that he barely stared in Obama's direction throughout the debate and was clearly condescending.
On substance, I heard the names of several foreign leaders and foreign countries, but frankly considering the fact that I spent 30 years overseas that doesn't impress me very much, what I found interesting was the difference in vision between the two candidates. McCain came across as a man obsessed with Iraq and the surge, while Obama offered a clear picture of his goal of dealing with OBL, shifting our focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and abandoning the ridiculous policy of not talking to our adversaries unless they first surrender their grievances.
Obama was clearly better prepared to discuss economic matters; the only thing I heard from McCain on that subject was the confidence he has on the American people and our country, which he seems is enough to help us overcome the problems that are destroying our economic and financial systems. Unfortunately, we need solutions, not platitudes. Both Obama and McCain should have articulated their positions on the crisis better and should have provided specificity instead of generalities and solutions that were nothing more than background noise when compared with the magnitude of the problem, but that's politicians for you.
Complain about this comment
Brilliant post by Bill # 89.
I believe we may be seeing history repeating itself in this debate. When Kennedy debated Nixon, people listening on the radio thought that Nixon had come over better. But people watching television considered that Kennedy had won.
Nixon famously came over as sweaty and shifty looking on the screen whilst Kennedy looked marvellous.
More or less the same thing happened last night. With his strange grimacing (I believe one commentator mentioned a demented gremlin) and his total lack of eye contact, McCain did not come over as an appealing character. To many people Obama looked calm, elegant and presidential.
When a debate is held on TV, the visual aspect counts as much as the words.
It will be interesting to see what effect this aspect will have on the next encounter between the potential VP's. It might well help Sarah Palin to climb out of the hole she has dug herself into. But Joe Biden always looks pretty comfortable within his skin so it may even itself out that way.
Complain about this comment
Polls of independents
Enjoy!and
More Polls of independents
ed
Complain about this comment
To continue the Biden theme, he seems to have already started his debate - there is a marvellous clip of him yakking away over at TPM which Ed might like to put up for readers here (sorry, Ed, in spite of yr excellent instructions, I'm not there yet)
Complain about this comment
Gus,
This one?
Thanks for mentioning it
Salaam,
ed
Complain about this comment
113. DominickVila:
"What I found most interesting in this debate was not what the candidates said, both maintained their stated positions, but their personal demeanor. Obama projected an image of confidence and self-control, while McCain had trouble containing his ire to the point that he barely stared in Obama's direction throughout the debate and was clearly condescending."
AinNY: On the contrary, I found Obama to be imperious and aloof, like a professor lecturing his students, which seemed particularly inappropriate on foreign policy, where Obama had no experience to draw upon.
"On substance, I heard the names of several foreign leaders and foreign countries, but frankly considering the fact that I spent 30 years overseas that doesn't impress me very much, what I found interesting was the difference in vision between the two candidates. McCain came across as a man obsessed with Iraq and the surge, while Obama offered a clear picture of his goal of dealing with OBL, shifting our focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and abandoning the ridiculous policy of not talking to our adversaries unless they first surrender their grievances. "
AinNY: McCain's "obsession" with Iraq could also be construed as a determination to get things straightened out there. Obama's comment on our being "overly focused" on Iraq shows he really doesn't understand what it has taken to get things back on track there. Does he think Afghanistan will require any less focus?
The fact that Obama didn't think we should go into Iraq is irrelevant at this point.
Obama's newfound focus on Afghanistan is a diversion from Iraq, IMO. One might argue he was diverted from the Iraqi War by his anti-war position. His focus on Afghanistan sounds like a political strategy of "We should be anywhere but where we are."
"Obama was clearly better prepared to discuss economic matters; the only thing I heard from McCain on that subject was the confidence he has on the American people and our country, which he seems is enough to help us overcome the problems that are destroying our economic and financial systems. Unfortunately, we need solutions, not platitudes."
AinNY: Obama's talking about what he would spend money on, while music to many voters' ears, made him sound like someone who only knows how to spend taxpayers' money. And notice his idea of publishing all government expenditures would occur after the expenditures were approved. Reactive instead of proactive. Very much in keeping with Obama's "stand back and comment from afar" approach to things.
"Both Obama and McCain should have articulated their positions on the crisis better and should have provided specificity instead of generalities and solutions that were nothing more than background noise when compared with the magnitude of the problem, but that's politicians for you."
AinNY: I thought Obama couldn't talk about it because he wasn't familiar enough. Not sure why McCain didn't articulate more.
Complain about this comment
Bill Tyrone
Once again bravo. The really worring thing is, whatever my or anyone else's views on the desirable size of government, McCain's bellicose attitude to foreign policy still resonates with a substantial proportion of the US electorate.
Complain about this comment
You're a star, Ed, and yes, that's the one. Raring to go, isn't he ? And the representative women chez Angus are very keen on him.
Complain about this comment
Our weekly service continues...
If the link above fails, try this oneFrom my favourite financial columnist, Alan Abelson
I can't believe he used the same quote I did! Great minds....;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
It seems the CNN "undecideds" were maybe a bit more decided than originally thought.
?Random? questioner at debate was Arkansas Democratic Party officer in 2003?
I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this if there's any truth to it.
Complain about this comment
From the aforementioned (and linked) article:
Possibly the best stock market tip we're likely to get..."Buy the dips and sell the rallies"
Good luck
ed
Complain about this comment
I have now read every comment on this blog, most of which were intelligent and many of which offered more insight and useful commentary than Mr. Webb. Thank you for the lively and interesting comments.
I have followed Mr. Webb for quite some time, first as an American living in the UK, then after relocating back to the U.S. I have increasingly come to wonder how he manages to maintain his position as "North America Editor".
These blog comments come across as unworthy of the BBC: biased, snide, and unhelpful. How could any enlightened journalist believe that the debate was a "waste of time"? How would he suggest we see the candidates face to face if not in such a setting?
The early leaders of the United States sought to encourage debate but *not* in the style of their former government. (In fact, nor did they intend to polarize citizens through the two-party system.) If we retain any sense of the original intent in our electioneering, it is in a "gentlemanly" debate. No one - from Washington to Adams to Jefferson to Monroe wanted or encouraged anything less than a calm and intelligent debate. Since the advent of television we have had very few debates in the style of our forefathers such as this. I only wish there could be less fact-twisting.
Good job to the candidates and to Lehrer who - contrary to some commenters' beliefs - did actually press for answers on his early economic question, until he found he was just not going to get them!
Complain about this comment
People seem to have picked up that John Mccain rarely or never looked at Obama.
This is a defense against the TV producer using "reaction" shots of Mccain after Obama comes up with a point that gets under his rivals skin.
Mccain is 72, with a grizzled and cancer operation scared face. No matter how practiced he might be, any annoyance shown by Mccain what ever is going to look like the bile of a bitter old man.
If Mccain never looks at Obama, the attempted reaction (showing Mccain looking in a different direction) shot makes the TV producer look stupid every time he trys to use it.
Obama is just a better TV performer. The lowest common denominator in the TV audience will always be swayed by charisma and style of a candidates performance, typically ignoring what is said.
Another poster said "turn the volume down" Obama clearly won.
Its just too bad that Obama otherwise is the Black reincarnation of Jimmy Carter when it comes to policy.
Mccain makes ajoke about bombing an enemy country, Iran.
Obama is serious about bombing an Ally's (Pakistan) territory based on CIA intelligence about Al Quaida leaders/build up.
The same country that has road supply lines carrying 80% of the NATO forces food ammunition, fuel, food and other vital logistic support.
What Obama is saying is increase the US forces in Afghanistan by 3 Battalions (almost a Division) then cut off their supplies by alienating an at best unstable ally.
No wonder Maccain looks away, he must inwardly want to throttle that Civilian Lawyer posing as a potential C in C. I know I do.
Complain about this comment
#106 AndreainNY
I should have said when I made my original comment that I had not seen the debate - I watched it just now through the BBC streaming video thing. My comment was intended for the wider US interviewing ethos.
I was annoyed by the British people here trying to push the kind of ridiculous confrontational circus that happens here all too often because of the importance television interviewers give themselves.
I thought Jim Lehrer did pretty well given the constraints except, as you said, at the beginning where he could have kept them to the question better.
Complain about this comment
Just the FACTS, ma'am!
from both sides.
Complain about this comment
Andrea, Up to date? Your link goes to a comment
;-)ed
Complain about this comment
This matter rests with the voters of the United States.
I have grave doubts about their judgement.
Those who would vote for McCain/Palin would certainly deserve what they get.
But, what of the other half of the USA?
________________________________
I see a corruption that that may be incurable.
The solution would appear to be to organize a civilized World that would function without depending on Britain and the USA.
Can we get started on that project?
Complain about this comment
Ref 118
"AinNY: McCain's "obsession" with Iraq could also be construed as a determination to get things straightened out there. Obama's comment on our being "overly focused" on Iraq shows he really doesn't understand what it has taken to get things back on track there."
On the contrary, Obama's broader scope of what needs to be done in the Persian Gulf region, while disappointingly lacking, was closer to the mark than McCain's. Regardless of the relevance of the original decision to attack and invade a country that was not a threat to us, the fact is that McCain's obsession with the surge is more in line with what a cadet would engage in while attending a military tactics class at a military academy than what a world leader should focus on if the goal is to win the so-called "war on terror". Dominating a culture by force is not a strategy to win, it is a recipe for indefinite continuance of a conflict to satisfy unstated objectives since it does not address the root causes of the hatred that people throughout the world have towards us. In essence, McCain is reacting to tactical symptoms rather than substantive long term goals.
Declaring the surge a success may be true from a military tactics perspective, but it doesn't change the reality that we have failed to help unite that troubled country to ensure stability after we leave, and that our actions have increased rather than decrease the aversion to Western values and goals throughout the Muslim world.
Obviously, we all look at the candidates through the prism of our convictions and values, and I doubt that either one did much to either convince or change the minds of those who have already made up their minds. The main goals of the debates, from a political perspective, are to reassure the party faithful and - most importantly - to influence the decision of undecided voters and the Independents. While I can't say that I was overly impressed with either candidate, I think Obama demonstrated more class, self-control, and a clear vision of what needs to take place than the irascible and condescending McCain with his Iraq obsession and his proposed solution to tackle our economic woes and minimize the effects of the proposed bailout by freezing our out of control spending. In case he missed it, the current borrow and spend policies of the Bush Administration and accumulation of debt, which according to him he supported 95% of the time, is part of the problem. Freezing spending at current levels is nothing short of economic suicide.
Complain about this comment
124. ChickpeaUCB:
"These blog comments come across as unworthy of the BBC: biased, snide, and unhelpful. "
I just attribute it to Webb's attempt at wit. When he descends into nothing but quips, it does get a bit snarky.
Complain about this comment
ref #112
Ed I just heard form CNN that is was 51-49 Obama on the debate.
then in a quite voice the announcer says more Democrats were involved in the poll.
Take what you will of that.
Complain about this comment
ref #114
One thing about the Nixon Kennedey debate you need to remember, Nixon had the flu and injured his knee in a traffic accident.
Complain about this comment
Obama is cool. McCain is tough. And Webb is superb. Justin come back home on Jan 21 2009. We need you to bring your experience of the US to tell us about the new president. Oh year and to teach the likes of Nick Robinson how to blog properly.
Complain about this comment
ref #129
And who would you suggest?
The intolrance of the Islamic fundalementalists?
The authoratarian Chinese and Russians?
The corrupt dictators like Chavez and Morales?
Complain about this comment
Magic,
I can't make much of your #132 because it's too vague.
Here is what CNN has to say,
Take from that what you will.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Magic,
Why not the peace-loving Israelis?Complain about this comment
I agree with what David Gergen said on CNN last night. McCain didn't make any progress and this may have been his only opportunity to change the game.
McCain hardly looked at Obama throughout the whole the debate. That's a terrible insult. Just imagine the reaction if Obama had done that.
In terms of voting intention, little has changed. The McCain people are still for McCain and the Obama people are still for Obama. The Hillary die-hards are still for McCain, but the indecideds may be shifting towards Obama according to the limited polling conducted so far.
By the way, McCain's comment about ethanol subsidies may have nailed his coffin in Iowa!
Complain about this comment
To my mind both candidates seemed to stumble, neither looked particularly fluent, although they had clearly prepared hard.
The debate was generally fairly empty (like PMQ's in the UK), but unlike PMQ's didn't have much humour. I imagine that plenty of people would rather watch highlights and listen to commentators to decide who won that sit through the whole thing.
Anyhow let's wait and see...
Complain about this comment
#130
Who ever said anything about 'dominating a culture by force' ?
US troops are in Iraq at the request of the elected government of that country.
You must have missed this which John McCain referred to in the debate. Sample:
Complain about this comment
#102 Ed Iglehart
Do you have a link to the basis for that number ?
That sounds like all of the Palestinians that left when the fighting started.
There are many reasons why Palestinians left at that time. I saw an Israeli report on them - which was interesting mainly for the scope of reasons rather than the percentages ascribed to each. One was 'a whispering campaign started by Zionists'.
The main reason was probably the escalating violence which always causes civilian refugees.
The difference between the Jews and the Palestinians was that the Jews had nowhere else to go.
Complain about this comment
Paul Newman passed away last night.
Complain about this comment
S.E.C. Concedes Oversight Flaws Fueled Collapse
Horses and barn doors?;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Ref 140
If anything, the Sunni/Shiite divide is worse than ever. The most likely scenario is that civil unrest will characterize life in Iraq after we leave.
While I have no problem with ridding the world of a despot, I think we made a horrible strategic mistake when we removed the Baathists from power and replaced them with Shias aligned spiritually to Iran, our purported nemesis.
As for us being in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government, I must conclude that you missed the statements made by the pathetic Al Maliki government demanding our departure from his country within a year. It took several weeks of "negotiations" to reach an agreement extending our "invitation" to 16 months.
Complain about this comment
Ref 135
"The corrupt dictators like Chavez and Morales?"
Both Chavez and Morales were elected by substantial majorities in their respective countries and enjoy the support of the masses. Therefore, neither one meet the criteria to be labeled a "dictator" which implies they took over the reins of government by force and govern in a dictatorial manner.
Many of their policies are flawed, and will have adverse consequences on the population of their countries, but they are not dictators.
Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart
This is also interesting, since my original reference was moderated out. That reference was to here.
Sample of the first reference:
Complain about this comment
Interesting if true - that more Dems watched the debate than Republicans.
Usually it means that a political party is on a roll if its supporters are happy to get out there to support their man. And bad news for McCain if his party has lost interest in him.
Could be that his muddled intervention in the Senate last week has backfired on him.
Complain about this comment
125. exserviceman
roger to that! I was picked up on this earlier by chillO.
I actually suspect that Sen Obama will have based his position, a wee while back, on whatever military briefing and assessment was doing the rounds and the given options. The fact is that even a fresh insert of x3 combat brigades is effectively a drop in the ocean when one considers the size of area and terrain. Also with a backdrop of some allies withdrawing from combat ops too.
If anyone has some time this weekend then take a quick flight into the current Pakistani mountainous regions being mentioned free, c/o Google Earth. militarily, there are options. For example, *fix or search and destroy* operations against set targets or to clear certain areas; or literally taking and holding ground in a locality or region and maintaining a standing presence and committing to run 24/7 ops there; or the ground intel-based *in and out* air or SF-type mission designed to eliminate someone specifically.
My advice to Barack Obama would be to focus on getting together early with the Pakistani leadership and to pull the military assets together sensibly.
But from the comfort of an armchair, just consider the realities on the ground..........
mega high and inhospitable terrain; time and distance; road and logistics infrastructure; communications; the indiginous population. With respect, simple villagers; goat herders; traders; families; young children - people trying to eak out a living in many cases with virtually nothing.
So you storm in and suddenly realize that there is no Taleban or any other insurgent fighter with AK47 hidden behind every giant boulder. No..... they are way ahead of you and have melted away into the shadows.... until it suits them to punch you on the nose, big time. Just make sure you dont zap the local wedding party, please...........
130. Dominickvila
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
You know, the baddies; the bogeymen, probably view the now exposed power barons on Wall Street and legion corrupt officials worldwide in exactly the same light and with direct equivalence to Taleban leaders...... i.e. hard, unrelenting, men with a similar lust for revenue; power and control - the only difference being the colour of their suit and product.
Bill
Complain about this comment
Further to my post at 147, I may have the answer I'm looking for. It emerges that the Republican candidate said the word "horses..t" twice at the point in the debate when Obama was talking about the Prime Minister of Spain.
Not good. Not the way to make friends and influence people. It looks as though his own people knew what to expect of him.
Complain about this comment
From the sounds of it, I reckon you'll disagree, but I'm going to chalk this one up to an Obama win.
The debates only mean something in the context of the campaign, they're about adding a new dimension to what we already know (and I doubt any American could have missed what's been going on.)
McCain had to show that he was as good as Obama on the economy - he didn't. McCain also had to back up the claim that he is vastly superior on foreign policy - he didn't, because Obama did as well on that as McCain did. The net effect of this debate is the following;
1) Obama is better on the economy; post debate critques show that he was more specific about the needs of the middle classes, which is a big issue. He had much more specific points to make.
2) Obama, supposedly weak on foreign policy, went toe-to-toe with this alledged foreign-policy giant. It'll be hard now for McCain to chide Obama as not being knowledgeable on foreign policy, because he demonstrated that he has a grasp on it that is strong and assured, though different from McCains.
3) Americans are much, much more concerned about the economy than Iran and Israel right now - and Obama won that half of the debate.
Complain about this comment
Exserviceman wrote @ 125: "No wonder Maccain looks away, he must inwardly want to throttle that Civilian Lawyer posing as a potential C in C. I know I do."
I thought you made some thought provoking comments in your post. Unfortunately your final comment demonstrates a rather chilling underlying attitude, which throws a wholly different light on your earlier arguments.
Complain about this comment
It is unfortunate that the strongest message resonating from the debate is McCain's continued assertion that Obama lacks experience and 'doesn't understand'.
McCain continued to drive this point home and while from a message point of view may have been successful his delivery and tone sounded paternalistic and dismissive.
Obama in my view missed a terrific opportunity to return to his message of "change". He should have challenged McCain's 26-years of experience as nothing more than having been a central player in the actions and strategies that have resulting in America being discredited as a world leader, alienating it's allies and foe's alike. Obama should have asked McMcain and the American people quite simply, "how is that working for us?".
Complain about this comment
21. At 9:35pm on 26 Sep 2008, goleooo wrote:
McCain wins Debate!!!?????
HOly Mary mother of God....
Hidie Hoe, Goleoo got it right ahead of time ...
Great call!! You must of read the psychic pages of planned printing, we do the same for the super bowl with shirts and hats.
haha :)
Complain about this comment
ref #145
Chavez stole the last elections and Morales did win his election but is criminally charging his political opponents with bogus charges that makes them both dictators.
Complain about this comment
ref #142
And Newman could be a good example to many of today's self indulgent actors.
Despite the fact I disagree with him politicaly, he should be lauded for his great charity work.
He was also an outstanding actor
Complain about this comment
Both candidates blew it.
Jim Lehrer led with the strong suggestion that
they should talk about the current economic
crisis, but each candidate withdrew into their
zombie-like shells and explicated vague
positions of bluster. Perhaps they are merely
ignorant as to how we got where we are?
I would have said something like this:
"We're at the precipice of an economic collapse
today because the current administration (add
congress if McCain) has run up enormous external
deficits due to extremely bad trade, energy,
budgetary, and monetary policies.
Painful budgetary cuts will have to be made
in the years ahead. We can forget about tax
cuts or universal health care. We'll be lucky
if gasoline doesn't go to $10/gallon. Our
strategic interests will be tested throughout
the world by authoritarian regimes which own
us.
Thank you, George Bush. What were you thinking?"
Instead, both candidates basically ignored the
issue, indicating either an unwillingness to lay out
the truth in front of the American people,
or an ignorance of the consequences of bad
policies.
Jim Lehrer tried more than once to get them
to confront the issue. I guess that this proves
that there is no point in ringing the doorbell
if no one is home. He should have left a note
on the door.
I guess that I would never get elected. That's
why I stick to doing important stuff.
Complain about this comment
Chill0,
Already givenandFrom Mideastweband
From the UNHow much do you want?
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7639102.stm
Complain about this comment
Chill0 (146),
Your reference is for before 1948:
"Absentee landlords in Palestine before 1948" and from Wiki (Caveat Emptor), while the official British Survey shows Jewish ownership by 1943 to be less than 6% of Palestine, so no matter how much was "purchased from absentee" Turks, etc., it didn't come close to the amount seized from "absentee" (fled) Palestinians.
The British Survey (map) and Survey.
FACT: Al Nakba happened, and it was BIG
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Complain about this comment
While you haven't quite come out and called this one for McCain, you do seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt here, and I find it interesting that the BBC as a whole seems to want to put this debate down as a McCain win, in contrast to just about all other media outlets and the responses of the electorate. Is the BBC worried about appearing pro-Obama, forcing the news team to swing bizarrely in the other direction? This was meant to be McCain's easiest debate, and he came across like a funfair ghoul with a case of indigestion. Obama didn't shine, but McCain out and out embarrassed himself?
Oh, and Justin; why these throwaway references to Dianne Keller? Is it important what Dianne Keller calls Ukraine?
Complain about this comment
71. At 06:36am on 27 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
67, Sam.
"Yes, Palin and Biden should be interesting. His advantage is that he can pronounce all the hard words. Her advantage is that she knows how to hunt meese."
That is the funniest comment I have read in a long time. Just how many "meese" have Redneck Barbie bagged?
It is time for Americans to stop the madness and vote for change. Their current direction hasn't worked for 8 years.
Both candidates need to adjust foreign policy or it will be same old, same old. And what exactly is wrong with having dialog with "enemies"? What a ludicrous stance.
Complain about this comment
An interesting analysis of the bailout
So long as the conditions built in are stringent and adequate.Get back to me if the link doesn't work. A sample:
Caveat Emptor!
ed
Complain about this comment
McCain says "Horses--t!" (right near the end)
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
As somebody who was playing a drinking game to this debate (we had a viewing party), this was actually quite disappointing. We were all expecting more of the same from both candidates - a rehash of their greatest hits and quips - but the most we ever got was McCain's "my friends." We had to settle on drinking whenever McCain did his angry smile and Obama glared daggers. In the end, we were still sober. Very disappointing.
On another level - of a voter who's taking the election seriously outside of this debate viewing party - it was disappointing see the economic crisis not really addressed in depth.
Best quip of the night: The moderator slipping up by saying, "When you rule this country...."
Complain about this comment
"154. At 4:19pm on 27 Sep 2008, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #145
Chavez stole the last elections and Morales did win his election but is criminally charging his political opponents with bogus charges that makes them both dictators."
This is not even english.
What does "criminally charging" mean?
It is interesting thaough that Morales is an indigenous Bolivain, is ther a trend emerging here?
Complain about this comment
Late night jokes of the week
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
"Both Obama and McCain should have articulated their positions on the crisis better and should have provided specificity instead of generalities and solutions that were nothing more than background noise when compared with the magnitude of the problem, but that's politicians for you."
How can either candidate provide any "specificity" when the legislation regarding the bailout is still up in the air? Nobody really knows right now where the $700 billion is coming from. I thought it was silly for the moderator to keep pressing the question and I think it's unreasonable for people to expect "specific" answers about what particular cuts the candidates would (or would not) make to their budgets. And...anything they said during the debate could be used against them at some point in the future. Why would they make any definitive statements now? That would be crazy!
This first debate was supposed to cover foreign policy...the economy will be covered more extensively in the third debate, I believe. I can understand that people are scared and want answers, but wait until the dust is settled on the legislation...and some in-depth analysis of the potential impact of said legislation can be conducted. I expect more comprehensive answers from the candidates will be forthcoming.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
ref #165
What Morales did Simon is he push a phony genocide charge against a political opponent.
You and Ed are always talking aboutr Israel giving land and compensation to the Palestinians
How about then letting the 4 provinces that don't seems to have equal rights under Morales leave and form their own country
Complain about this comment
#140. chill0: "US troops are in Iraq at the request of the elected government of that country."
Now perhaps, but how did they get their in the first place? I don't recall anyone in Iraq asking to be 'liberated'.
Complain about this comment
ref #161
You are missing the key variables Biden and Palin
For Biden it is verball gaffes, Joe: Remember there were no TV sets in the 1930's
For Palin it is if she can't answer a question due to lack of knowledge
Complain about this comment
"169. At 5:59pm on 27 Sep 2008, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #165
What Morales did Simon is he push a phony genocide charge against a political opponent."
Genocide is a very serious charge as your extreme-israeli friends will tell you.
One presumes you are not saying it ought not to be investigated?
One wonders how you know it is "phony".
"You and Ed are always talking aboutr Israel giving land and compensation to the Palestinians"
We want the Israelis to recognise the Palestinians as human beings with human rights and human needs.
The only way to do this is for there to be one country with its citizens not distinguished on bogus religious grounds.
"How about then letting the 4 provinces that don't seems to have equal rights under Morales leave and form their own country.
Oh were they excluded from the elections? Do they have to go through checkpoints every 1 mile. Are their sick and ill turned back to die at home?
Is Morales asking Americans etc to come in and take their land?
Odd not what every other sane news source in the world claims.
I think the fact that Morales is a native is the important factor here isn't it?
Complain about this comment
The First US Presidential Debate - Live
Justin Webb 27 Sep 08, 01:28 AM GMT First blood to John McCain -- see the ad on this page which was apparently placed early by mistake!"
Your judgement about the quality of the debate was very acute Justin.
Frankly it was appalling. In the UK it would like a royal interview - supine and ultimately pointless.
Do you think political journalism in the US is in terminal decline and is the reason that muffins like Bush and Palin are even able to run?
It is striking that US journalists seem to treat the high and mighty (celebrities included) like Russain journalists used to treat members of the Politburo.
Complain about this comment
"Bolivia Arrests Opposition Governor On Charge Of Genocide
LIMA - An opposition governor was arrested in Bolivia on charges of killing 30 people during last week's political rebellion in the northern province of Pando, Bolivian President Evo Morales said on Tuesday.
The General Prosecutor's Office accused Fernandez of being the head of a conspiracy, which led to the killing of at least 30 pro-Morales peasants last Thursday."
How revolting. And we know from what ethnic group the peasants would have come from.
Complain about this comment
As Obama is found cool in the debate but McCain looks aggressive excessively there may chance for former to win the debate because to win the debate cool headedness contributes a lot.
However, better it is that the host indicates maximum importance on US's war policy that destroys lives and economy of the US and the world as well massively.
So, for them the most important proposition should be: WHAT SHOULD BE FUTURE WAR STRATEGY OF THE US?
Complain about this comment
My post at #78 was removed, so I'm going to try and post it again. Justin, I found so much objectionable and somewhat unfair material in your assessment of the debate, that I have decided to provide you my own assessment of your assessment.
"2012: Neither answers the question of whether they will vote for the plan - (McCain gets closer with I hope so). I wish the moderator could interrupt them (but that would be un-American)."
Yes I agree, and too wish that the moderator would grow a spine and find the nerve to interupt to demand that the candidates answer the question that was asked or clarify their positions on a specific issue, but watch the sarcastic and insulting comments on the moderator failing to do so as being "un-American!!" I haven't heard of, and don't know of any "Americans" who deam a moderator's inability to keep the participants feet to the fire in a debate as "American" or "un-American", and quite frankly, take offence to your underhanded jab at an utterly shameful aspect of American politics!!
"2016: McCain has a fundamental belief in America - gosh. This would be laughed at in any other western nation as a gambit in a serious debate."
Unfortunately, I'm afraid your right. But come now Justin!! I mean this is a nation who's citizens flip out if one of their leadership contenders doesn't ware a flag pin!! If they obsess over that, of course they're going to think it ok for one of those contenders to express an obvious, way over stated belief in his country! In fact, I'd be shocked if much of America's citizenry (myself not included of course!) acted like the nationals of any other western nation on earth by thinking that a "serious debate" is the most rediculous place to express a "fundimentle" belief in America!! But you see Justin, that is why America is weird! Not exceptional! Not special! But downright sanctimoniously, over reactively weird!! Like India Knight pointed out!! And for that, I am truely sorry!
"2029: This is a huge disappointment - set piece memorised stuff from both candidates. Nothing revealed about either of them: Obama wants college for everyone
in the US - gosh again."
I agree they're being way too reppeticious, but if you're looking for a complete change of heart, I'm sorry, but you won't find it.
"2034: The questioning is limp, pathetic even. How America misses a John Humphrys or a David Dimbleby - someone who stips out this time consuming nonsense!"
How America misses them indeed!! But we can't all be British can we? You should also keep in mind that in the US, we still believe in respect for one another, even if we are most times far too willing to accept the answers given as truth and not probe further for the hard truth in debate.
"2042: Now Mr Obama is on the attack with the idea that Mr McCain is a Bush clone and must take responsibility for the Bush years. Mr McCain parries successfully
with the fact - and it is a fact - that he and the president have not seen eye to eye on some pretty important questions. Stale. Boring."
Again see above! Perhaps if this is so boring you should host a real boxing match between the two contenders next election?
"2107: Iran now. To bomb or not to bomb. Mr McCain is talking about his League of Democracies - taking on the world. Would it involve Venezuela? Singapore?
Georgia? Russia? (only kidding). Of course, the moderator doesn't ask - that would be rude..."
They're not debating whether to "bomb" Iran or not!! My God! I can't believe you think this!! They're debating the best diplomatic way in which to deal with Iran! Even Republicans understand the horible ramifications of military action in Iran!!! Again I agree with you on the moderator being a wimp by not intruding! You mad your point earlier! Now you're just comeing across as mean!! And aren't Georgia and Singapore both Democrocies?
"2223: Mr McCain is good on how nasty the Russians are, but what do to about it? We want to work with the Russians but we expect them to behave. And if they don't? Oh, silly me, nobody asks - this is a presidential debate..."
Why don't you tell him this! There's an idea! Grudges aren't a pretty colo(u)r on anyone!
Conclusion: All in all a waste of time. I take it back - Mr McCain was quite right to consider ditching it. Flabby and insipid - too long and too unfocused
to tell us anything. Obama is cool and McCain is tough. Big deal.
My conclusion: way too judgementle and naive expectations!! If you do tell Gym of your thoughts, I suggest you do it with a bit more respect and calmness than you expressed in your blog. You want him to take your advice right?
Complain about this comment
No. 142 D
Thank you for telling us about Paul Newman. He will be missed. He was an excellent actor. I supported his charity.
b
Complain about this comment
Simon21 (#173), "like Russian journalists used to treat members of the Politburo"? No. The Presidential Debates are a very tiny slice of the interaction between journalists and politicians in the US. They should be judged only for what they are: an opportunity to see and hear the candidates side-by-side speaking to the issues of the day without a script. If you want to make sweeping generalizations about the state of journalism in the US generally, you should get a larger sample to work from.
Complain about this comment
No 89 Bill
Bill,
I can feel your passion through my laptop. How could you possibly sit still long enough to write so eloquently?
If only all soldiers could return home with those wisdoms learned from war. Your in-depth analysis only goes to show that, try as he might to present himself as a wise elder military man and statesman, McCain failed to learn his lessons.
Thank you,
bobbie
Complain about this comment
No. 163 Ed
i can't stop laughing. I understand Nixon also had a really hard time controlling his filthy mouth.
b
Complain about this comment
I am a citizen of the United States and I have to agree with the comment that this debate was quite slow and did not really reveal too much about either candidate. I wish Jim Lehrer had called them out a bit more and not allowed them to play it so safe. This country is being run into the ground and I am still undecided on which candidate is better equipped to fix the numerous problems. Bi-partisanship is a scary thing.
Complain about this comment
I think there is enormous value to the debates for those who have not, for whatever reasons, been tracking all the current goings as thoroughly as many on this blog.
The visuals must have had enormous impact.
I think many who will continue to vote for McCain, against all logic, suffer a fear of smart people.
b
Complain about this comment
We hope that the winner of the presidential election somehow can lead us into a world of more peace and prosperity and less war and poverty. Both candidates are brave enough to face some tremendous odds. Regarless of the choice, I pray that the man who wins can somehow unite us with the world that is disappointed in America and revive the pioneer spirit of hope and adventure in facing the unknown in our future. How can we continue spending resources we have yet to create? Someone needs to become down to earth enough to find the common goals we all have to end the violence, the senseless loss of human life, and economic anarchy. Who cares about party lines when both candidates seem to need to look outside the conventional wisdom and look to alternative solutions-like having the humility to cooperate and negotiate based on common compassion and common sense?
Complain about this comment
Mr. Webb's dismissive remark at the end proves what is evident to any frequent reader of this blog. He not only doesn't understand the dynamics of American politics, he doesn't even respect the process.
The BBC could use a political reporter in the US who understands our political system, who is willing to learn where his understanding falls short, and, above all, who is open-minded and respectful about the subject on which he reports.
Jon Kelly has been doing a fine job with his blog. Hopefully, he will take over this beat eventually.
Complain about this comment
Bravo! It took a while but even foreign correspondents cum cheerleaders finally get around to the inevitable conclusion that applies not only to the mock debates but also to the whole sham election process in America as a whole: "All in all a waste of time". That sums it up perfectly. Only one caveat, both AIPAC lapdogs, Obama and McCain, should look "discomfited and annoyed" talking about Iarael. They both missed a great line. If they had any true 'character', they'd aver, "So we sit down with" Israel and they say they'll attack Iran and we say "no you won't",; and they say we'll build an illegal Wall and we say "no you won't"; and they say we'll have WMD and we say "no you won't"; and they say we'll build more illegal settlements and expropriate more territory and we say "no you won't"; and they say we'll make Jerusalem undivided capital of Israel and we say "no you won't"; and they say we'll violate UN Resaolutions and Geneva Conventions and we say "no you won't"; and they say you'd better do what the Lobby says if you want to get elected - and both Obama and McCain shout in unison: "No, we won't!" (...dream on)
Complain about this comment
ref #174
1. You are certanatly trusting believing Morales and his people. Morales has a problem like Chavez when people dare to oppose his radical policies.
2. 30 people do not constitute Genocide. Murder yes. But Genocide is what is happening in Solmali, Rwanda and yes during the WW2 to Jews and Gypsies.
Complain about this comment
Mr Hill's "The BBC could use a political reporter in the US . . . who is open-minded and respectful about the subject on which he reports."
You mean someone who can only be 'respectful' and not critical? About politicians, of all people?
Reading comments to this blog over the last few months just seems to prove to me that there is a great gulf fixed between some American's attitudes to politicians and British (or European, for that matter) ones. We don't seem to connect half the time.
No wonder Tony Blair liked swanning off to see Dubbya so often. Must have been so nice to be treated "respectfully" by journos for a change. As in not being asked any awkward questions . . .
Justin, it needs to be said, is writing from a British perspective primarily for a British audience. If you want sycophancy or nil humour, I fear you must go elsewhere. But I don't think I'd advise a French or German broadcaster just at the moment . . .
Complain about this comment
I watched the debate . I have seen all the ads . seems that the debates have evolved into the "top hits of the campaign" with each candidate repeating what they have said , and said and said in those annoying ads .
I woud have loved to see some substance and real responses to the questions .
we dont talk anymore let alone really debate . We seem to just posture . How sad .
Meanwhile , the wars goes on, the economy is in the bin and we have not a clue?
Complain about this comment
Hi, Justin!
It is refreshing to hear from a non-American
source like yours about the McCain versus
Obama debate, since I feel, a fair amount of the American media comments about this particular election, seem to be loaded. Although I do not see eye to eye with you on some of your pronouncements, as far as this debate goes, you seem to be in your own element.
Yes, I agree with you, that McCain won the debate on points and not a knock-out punch, but it was a clear and significant win
all the same.
On foreign policy McCain's load of experience
shone through, at the expence of Obama. On economical issues that affect the day to day lives of the average American, it was a tie.
The ploy of using the quotation of an authoritative source like Keisingher by Obama has subsequently been debunked by
Keisingher himself.
All in all it was a good debate with McCain
passionately projecting his stand and Obama rather defensively putting forth his.
Complain about this comment
Justin is ok in my book . Anytime he would like to get together for a pint when he is in Chicago would be fine with me . I'll by the first round ( sorry it would normally be my treat but the dolllar is taking a beating )
cheers,
Complain about this comment
british-is (#187), there is no conflict between being "respectful" and being "critical". Mr. Webb shows no evidence of understanding how American politics works, therefore his criticism is uninformed. And by "respect" I mean merely taking the subject seriously. Reporters who do not take their subject seriously should find another subject, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
Ref 167
You make an excellent point concerning the risk of providing specifics regarding government spending without knowing the extent of the upcoming "debt rescue" plan, however, considering our anual federal government budget exceeds $3 trillion I still think the candidates could have at least mentioned some targets for spending reductions such as Defense and discretionary spending. I think their reluctance to provide specifics has more to do with the need to avoid political minefields than fiscal restraint or caution.
I was a bit disappointed with Lehrer's performance when he didn't question either candidate regarding the NATO membership they seem to champion for George and the Ukraine. Do they understand the implications of those countries becoming part of the alliance? Do they understand we would be forced to go to war if either one is attacked?
Complain about this comment
No. 33 Sam
Yes, Sam, she always looks great! And she's smart, well educated, and looks like she's a supportive wife, great mom, and a working professional. In other words, a great example for all women.
b
Complain about this comment
Of course Mr. Webb is "writing from a British perspective primarily for a British audience." Here's an example a former BBC reporter who did the same on the subject of American politics, but who respected his subject matter, and who aimed to inform:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/964108.stm
Complain about this comment
Justin..not sure what you were watching but to me it was obvious who "muddled" through..McCain!
He spouted the same old boring Bush-like gungho warmongering rhetoric most people are sick of here. "I've visited here, I've visited there".."Did i mention the war?" It was like watching reruns of Uncle Albert in Fools and Horses!
Obama looked a lot like Tony Blair when he first took on Thatcher - cool, well informed and likeable. Compare that to McCain who came across as an arrogant, sarcastic and condescending buffoon, very much like Bush. Does he really think refusing to look at Obama when he was talking to him did him any favours?
Remember McCain tried to get the presidency three times and was rejected by his own party as not being capable. So what's changed? Not a Lot.
Obama needs to drop the nice guy act and show McCain up for what he is. When asked to define "Rich" he should have said "someone who owns 12 houses maybe?" He could have killed this whole thing off last night, so I'm not sure what he's doing..McCain is there for the taking.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the maid difference between the two is who they want to bomb. Obama wants to bomb Pakistan while McCain wants to keep pounding Iraq. He told Obama not to talk about bombing Pakistan....to just do it when the time comes. Neither seems publicaly insterested in bombing Iran or North Korea...which probaby means they both have it high on their agendas. The only difference seems to be that Obama wants to give them one last ultimatum first. McCain thinks it's a waste of time. BTW, Henry Kissinger sent CNN a message after the debate stating publicly that his position was exactly as McCain had state it, not as Obama had interpreted it for what it's worth. Both are clueless about the economy, neither saying where they would cut back in light of the cost of the sub-prime credit crisis bailout. Tweedle-dee....tweedle-dum.
Complain about this comment
potatoman65 wrote at 151:
"I thought you made some thought provoking comments in your post. Unfortunately your final comment demonstrates a rather chilling underlying attitude, which throws a wholly different light on your earlier arguments. "
Ok you have a point, my last remark was over the top, but I am just trying to explain why Mccain is Angry with Obama.
He sees a foolish [from his and my point of view] civilian about to throw away all the sacrifices and suffering of the 4000 dead and 30000 wounded with premature extensive troop withdrawls on a time table, just at the very moment victory is within the Grasp of US forces and the Iraqi people.
In particular the wounded have a far higher % of permanently crippled men and women. Horrendous burns and multiple loss of limbs, sight or hearing are terifyingly common.
Those men and the comrades who dragged them out of burning and IED destroyed vehicles will suffer terrible mental injuries as well, the bad dreams will never stop completely.
Thats where Mccain's seething anger against the criminal incompetence of Rumsfeldt [who sent young Americans to die in Hummvees armoured with cloth material] and the congress that tried to cut of funding to the troops even as they battled for thier and their comrades survival.
In my mind and Mccains that is a stab in the back.
Obama is clueless about military history, that will make him an ineffective C in C at the very best.
He called the Iranian Revolutionary guard the Republican Guard (Elite army units from the time of Saddam's Iraq )- that could be a small slip, but unfortunately in this case it is an indicator of systemic weakness.
He reminds me of Truman in 1950/51 instructing MacArthur to restrict bombing to the north side of north Korean bridges only as Chinese communist troops poured over the border to kill Americans who had just routed the North Korean Army.
Or LBJ with his restrictions on US Forces in North Vietnam [not allowed to cut the NVA/Viet Cong enemy's communications in Laos and Eastern Cambodia with ground forces]
The Best US presidents have been Civilians with important Military experience.
And before you mention it, Bush the youngers alcoholic meanderings in 1960's Texas and occaisional worse for wear visits to National Guard Airbases do NOT count.
The whole reason we got into such a huge mess is because North Carolina picked the wrong republican Candidate in 2000.
Instead the American People are likely [if you believe the polls] to pick the candidate who looks good on TV and utters resonating platitudes.
Thoose who the Gods wish to destroy, they first make Mad.
Complain about this comment
I just really woke up... I dozed off and had this
horrible dream that two wax dummies were talking
at each other without saying anything...
And, as I enjoy my midday coffee, I ran across
this interesting piece which seems to indicate that
women, particularly elderly ones, should seek shelter
in the coming economic storm.
Complain about this comment
exserviceman (#197), can you define "victory" in Iraq? I think the military victory was won quite awhile ago, when the Saddam Hussein regime was taken down and replaced with a new government. What has been going on since then is nation-building and police work. Police work never ends. The question I have is, when will Iraqis be able to police themselves?
Complain about this comment
The "debate" was awful.
Obama muddled along with platitudes and soundbites while McCain was filled with catatonic rage (if such a thing could exist).
Obama won in my eyes by being the less useless rather than anything positive.
A politician would be massacred for such obvious ineptitude in the UK.
I really wish Hillary had won the nomination with all her flaws she still has cojones
Complain about this comment
No. 130 Dominick
Great job!
Do I remember correctly that McCain stated he wants to freeze spending on all except three areas: the war, returning vets, and a third which I don't remember? All left me with the impression they were war related.
While Obama wants to go forward with programs aimed at Americans' neglected health and education, and repair of our infrastructure?
b
Complain about this comment
exserviceman (#197), to say that "the best US presidents have been civilians with important military experience" is simplistic.
Washington was a great general and a great president.
Lincoln was a great wartime president with no military experience beyond the Illinois militia.
Franklin Roosevelt was a great wartime president with no military service.
Grant was a great Civil War general and is considered a poor president.
Pierce was a general and is considered one of our worst presidents.
Whether one or the other of the current candidates will make the better president does not depend on only one characteristic.
Complain about this comment
potatoman65
Your view on "victory in Iraq" is totally erroneous.
Let's contrast WWII. The allies (those other people on 3 of the 5 D-Day landing beaches, plus the USSR) had determined, as an objective, that the German surrender should be unconditional. The allied civilian and military populations were (generally) fully aware of what the war entailed, what defeat would mean at the hands of the Nazis, and were therefore very supportive of their respective government?s attempts to win the war.
Once war came to an end in Europe, the German people knew it was lost. They had taken a gamble on Hitler; he had lead them into a war that resulted in millions of deaths and the ruination of their country. Wherever they looked they saw scores of allied men in uniform, streets of rubble, and a totally destroyed German economy and war machine. Defeat for them was unmistakable, sure as victory for the allies was.
Now let's contrast Iraq.
Without 911 this war could never have happened. Bush and his administration concocted a story in the hope of bamboozling the population. After 911 many people were prepared to believe anything, and still to this day (in contrast to almost all Europeans, Australians and Canadians) many in the US still believe that Saddam Hussein was somehow complicit in the attacks on the US.
So weapons of mass destruction became the phrase. Even though the UN weapons inspector doubted this and many countries decided that it was a blatant lie, off Bush went on his own (angering many friends in the process) and invaded...he was probably looking for an excuse to dig at Saddam anyway.
Well, surprise, surprise, the US Army easily defeated anything the Iraqis could throw at it. "Mission accomplished" espoused Dubya, and all rejoiced. Except, as warned by many of the top US military commanders, there aren't enough troops on the ground to prevent civil disturbances. Furthermore the stated objectives (WMD's) turn out not to be there, as foretold by Hans Blix. Now, admittedly Hans told Saddam of the consequences of not complying with UN resolutions, but that's the way Saddam played things and Dubya knew it.
The next thing, Sunni and Shia decided it was time to resume old enmities. Having a strong dictator in a country (cf Yugoslavia) is not a bad thing when it comes to keeping the peace! Can you imagine how the poor US troops suddenly felt? This wasn't part of the script...we are liberators, what's going on? Not having enough troops to keep the peace obviously didn't help. Then of course, with so many Americans to kill, in steps Al Qaeda. And why wouldn't they, with so many targets to kill and a restive population to feed off?
Well firstly, the US troops never really came as liberators. Sure, many Iraqi's wanted rid of Saddam, but they didn't ask for an invasion. It was therefore easy to paint the US troops as invaders, which is how many Iraqis obviously view US troops. Also, the US military's cursory announcements of "collateral damage" when attacking targets does not help. Iraqis call the collateral other things....Auntie, Cousin, Friend, Mom, Dad.
So the GOP had to change tack. Suddenly the war is all about bringing democracy, liberating etc. And most of the population swallows this crap! The US has dug a hole so deep it doesn't know how to extricate itself. The surge would obviously work for a short time. The US army is well trained and equipped (although you are 100% right about Rumsfeld), it would be difficult to fight such an organized force.
The trouble is, there is no longer any real objective (it's arguable there ever was in the first place), and I detect no vision that will result in a successful conclusion to this stupid war. Furthermore, public support has really fallen for this debacle. The US has opened up a real Pandora's Box here. They have irresponsibly allowed Iran to step into the power vacuum left by Hussein. To make matters worse, if Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon capability, where are the allies we need to help stop them? Who is going to willingly work with the US after the Iraq debacle? Sure, governments may want to, but the people will not and the people are their source of power via the democratic process.
So Iraq is now a fractured country, the US is spending billions of dollars (some estimates up to $2 billion per week), and the economy is failing. A great mess to be in.
So I ask those who say "we must stay until victory", what victory do you mean? When will we know victory has been achieved? What will be the lasting and beneficial result to the US (and Middle East)? WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE??
One last thing...Senator Obama last night said that no great power has ever survived by consistently spending a large percentage of its GDP on the military. Look to history. The Roman Empire, the British Empire just to name two. It becomes a burden, and as the country's relative strength declines people fail to recognize that their strength is ebbing and that continued military expenditure exacerbates the situation.
We need a politician who uses his head and only his muscles when there is no other choice. Iraq was a choice...Saddam Hussein was contained by forces surrounding his country, and as long as he survived Iran would not become a regional power. Bloggers like Bill Tyrone seem to understand this; it scares me to see so many people thinking a continuation of the prior 8 years of so called "policy"
Winston Churchill..."To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war" (1954)
Complain about this comment
94, ChillO
Afghanistan IS an unwinnable conflict. Ask the Russians about this. You would have to flatten every inch of the country and, then, just when you think you have won, someone comes up behind you and clubs you on the ear.
Complain about this comment
97, Ed.
McCain does not look at Obama because he is trying to show disdain. It was calculated. It didn't work.
Complain about this comment
I stayed up to watch, just to see if McCain would ever look at, even toward, Obama. He never did, not even while shaking hands at the end. At times, he almost appeared to be channelling someone or something. When put together with his airhead running-mate, there should be great reason for honest fear in all of us!
My Father lived to be 82, yet never knew how to balance either his own check book or life. So much for "experience"! It is both over-rated and over-valued! Both Cheney and Rumsfeld had tons of "experience". Look at the mess they made!
Complain about this comment
I enjoyed watching the debate last night from start to finish. Both candidates were properly prepared and gave informed answers. The moderator did not suck; in fact he held remarkable control over that debate. The more urgent questions on the financial markets were asked first and then he moved on to the planed topic of the debate. The range of questions was great because the American people got to hear from the candidates on topics ranging from the economy to Iraq, and Eastern Europe.
The issue with McCain using his hands during the debate is nonsense; just about everyone uses their hands when they speak. Not only that, using your hands when you speak helps to convey the sincerity of your message, especially when you?re on TV; the last thing politicians want is to look as stiff as a board. I will also point out, that McCain using his hands when he speaks only shows that he is from Arizona because his type of body language, though stiffened by his age, is more common in the South and Southwest.
I figure the reason some are upset with the debate is because there was no clear winner, everyone wants their side to win right, and there were no real juicy sound bites that could be sprawled across the bottom of TV screens or printed in the papers the next day. I sat and watched the after coverage and the networks literally struggled to find a clear winner and statements that could easily be picked apart. The bottom line is that while this debate didn't do much to sway undecided voters, it rallied the bases after a turbulent week and made for a good start for both candidates in preparation for the up and coming debates.
Complain about this comment
137, Ed.
Your response to Magic ubermensch was wonderfully snide.
Complain about this comment
140, chillO.
"US troops are in Iraq at the request of the elected government of that country."
The elected government of Iraq does not represent the will of the Iraqis. They are puppets of the US.
Complain about this comment
156, guns.
Obama blew a great opportunity. With McCain rambling on about the the people he knew, and what they said, and an ode to himself about his capture, why is that Obama didn't say,
"Hey, John, you are still harping on the 20th century. This is the 21st century and we need 21st century solutions. It doesn't matter what somebody said or did 40 or 50 years ago."
Complain about this comment
203:
While I agree with most of that post, if Obama included Britain as an empire that spent a greater part of its GDP on the military and believes that is the cause of its 'decline', I think that may be erroneous. (If he did?I didn't listen? it would merely give credence to Justin's description oif the debate as flabby, because it's childishly simplistic, too.)
I wouldn't want this to be taken for gospel, but I remember reading that at the height of the British empire, the country had no more than 50,000 soldiers deployed abroad, and that, of course, included India. (Which also included what are now Pakistan and Bangladesh, of course.) That doesn't suggest a huge proportion of GDP of a country that was the first to industrialise.
It may have been different during the Peninsular War or the Boer War and it must have been a fair proportion in the decade before WW1, of course, let alone what the Brits had to spend in WWII. I'm not an expert on Rome, either, but I would question that, too.
Military spending as a proportion of GDP? I suspect if someone knows where to find the real figures, it could well be that only Germany in the decade after 1933 spent more proportionately than the USA has in the last decade or two. It would be interesting to know.
I do agree, however, in that I, and many others, just don't see how it can be sustainable given the quality of life Americans demand, and which shows all the signs of being diminished in the next few years.
Bombing Pakistan? Seems to have become a very popular idea in some quarters. Hmm. Cambodia and Laos, or Libya, or Lebanon, all over again, then? Solve everything, as far as Afghanistan goes, will it? Generals have always been accused of fighting the next war like the last one until it all goes wrong, so I see nothing's changed there.
I despair. And we thought over here, maybe, just maybe, Obama might actually be the kind of guy to come up with a new policy or two. Doesn't look very hopeful, does it?
Complain about this comment
#53, Ellabesque,
Just what I've been thinking for the last four years now.
Am I too much 'European', or WHAT IS IT in the Republican mind that balls do matter more than brains?
Both candidates were talking about the need for 21st century politics.
Brains were emerging in the last decade of the last century already, Glasnost was the invitation!
In 2000, however, Neocon put an end to that.
As far as I understand, McCain opts for 4 more years of balls. Really, he's still living in the past, even though his planned changes are somewhat of an improvement. (But what's the overall direction of 1 step forward, when you've made 4 steps back earlier...?)
Maybe it's just this: Larger countries need more time (and warnings) to understand the importance of change.
(Although the Fear factor should not be neglected either, as Aquarizonagal pointed out several times.)
#54, Xie_Ming,
Due to irresponsible behavior Iraq became the key-factor/burden in America's policy.
I think Obama made that quite clear in the debate (and long before that).
1 cruise missile costs how much..? Could the Intelligence really not locate Saddam and send him such a postcard i.s.o supporting an invasion in which thousands of innocent Iraqi people were killed and billions of dollars and millions of pounds and euros were spent, next to the American casualties?
#55, Aquarizonagal,
I agree, McCain did not make a mistake. I was expecting one, but he managed quite well. Although someone posted that Obama gave at least some evidence of thinking before speaking ;-)
Obama did attack him in his first lines, but became less aggressive after that. It might have been just enough to get McCain in the attack stance for most of the debate. If deliberately done, clever move...?
#61, heryanta,
Sorry, but I disagree. IMHO you don't want MacCain/Palin to appoint the Judges of the Supreme Court.
Conservatism might take a dangerous lead in the juridical system and take it back to the 19th century ;-)
Next to that, your view brings politics to a standstill.
# 64, NRD,
:-) Good post. It's not like The Full Monty 'political style' is going to happen in America. Several posters gave good reasons for that, but I don't have #'s...
McCain did show a pen, however, muttering something about "old". Was it subtle revenge from the University for his
earlier cancellation to give him an empty one, so that he could not take notes and had to do everything by head?
If so, respect to mcCain!
#197, exserviceman.
It's always good to have a leader who is an expert on the ruling policy. But does a war-driven policy always have to be the ruling one? 21st ctry politics...?
Don't get me wrong: I do support a strong army. For defense, not for aggression. And, on a global scale, to stop dictators who invade other countries. How broad was the alliance in the first Gulf War, as compared to the second one..? Diplomats are the penultimate warriors.
# 201, LBB,
McCain:Welfare.
Defense was missing in Obama's priority list, though. Another kind of ruler.
# 210, allmymarbles,
Because he wanted to behave presidential. He will not go in the offense as long as he keeps his lead in the polls.
So, there's a good chance every presidential debate will disappoint you ;-)
Complain about this comment
British-ish
Obama didn't mention the British Empire, but he may as well have. For example, trying to compete with a 2-front navy was too much, especially when Japan became an enemy.
Actually, compared to many world powers Britain never had a large standing army, relying on diplomacy to get much of its way. Something we could learn?
Great powers tend to make a lot of enemies (competitors may be a better word), trying to keep them all at bay becomes too hard. Rome had the same problem.
Complain about this comment
128. Ed Iglehart:
'Andrea, Up to date? Your link goes to a comment
"posted at 11:14 pm on November 16, 2007 by Allahpundit "'
**********************
Yes, the implication was that the "uncommitteds" of CNN were no more uncommitted this time than they were at that time. I should have made that clear.
No evidence of democratic shills this time.
However, that CNN audience was a tad skewed.
Complain about this comment
I forgot to add for PaulnCath: "Victory" is how the retreat of US forces from Iraq will be described by whichever president is in the White House of course. Regardless of what then happens to Iraq and Iraqis.
Nobody seriously expects anything else, do they? The British have simply called it "a withdrawal", but then, as I heard a British officer say once, "the British army never retreats, it only 'withdraws' ". We all know what it means, though.
And I for one am thoroughly ashamed about what has been done. I have Iraqi friends whose families there are now under worse threat and more scared than they ever were under Saddaam Hussein. And that's saying something, believe me.
And then, if the Iranians try to settle the mess, as they will probably have to for their own security, both populations will get bombed by the US, no doubt.
Complain about this comment
PaulnCath: I misunderstood. BTW, Britain still doesn't have a large standing army. Probably never will. We rather went off them after our revolution. Pity some others didn't :-)
Complain about this comment
The die hard Democrats and Republicans simply don't have a clue.
Democrats are suppose to be the union oriented "working man" party .. but Clinton is the guy who pushed and signed Nafta into law.
Republicans are suppose to be the "free market" party but Bush was the first people to back some of the early bailouts.
The die hard Democrats conveniently forget that their party controls both the Senate and the House which means they have control of both the Finance and Banking committees .. which are suppose to do something other than provide the Chairman with low interest bank loans.
The die hard Republicans forget that they accomplished nothing of substance when they controlled the White House/ Senate and the House.
Both parties are in need of significant reform and the "die hard" members of both of these parties need to step back and take a deep breath .. their ideology has apparently eliminated common sense.
Complain about this comment
How come Ralph Nader was excluded from the debate? Considering polls are giving him about 5% of votes without much media attention, surely he should be encouraged to participate!
Complain about this comment
McCain says as President he will only leave Iraq only in "victory" and "in honour".
Someone should ask him what that means.
This fulfillment of his wish could take the Americans a generation or two.
Complain about this comment
218. Ralph Nader has been around so long that he is no longer newsworthy. It may be unfair not to include him (and remember there is also another candidate), but he is not seen as a contender.
The whole debate thing is a scripted bore anyway and not worth our time. It is not as though we would be treated to a knock-down, drag-out fight, with lots of cursing and insults, and maybe a few punches. That is something that would be more informative (and lots of fun).
Complain about this comment
ref #218
How about the fact that either Obama or McCain will be elected President unless there is unforseen tradegy.
Nader is just an annoynace.
Complain about this comment
British-ish
That reminds me And that reminds me of this,Peace to alled
Complain about this comment
NiceBrianM,
Maybe 100 years! Fine with me!;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
196, s. aureus.
I have news for you. Everyone is clueless about the economy. A European was telling me the other night that Europe dumped $500 billion into their failing financial institutions and it made barely a ripple. (I have not checked out this information.) Also what most Americans don't know is that the economy of the UK is worse off than ours. So what we are experiencing is not an American phenomenon.
The lowering of interest rates didn't work. The rebates didn't work. Prediction: the bailout won't work.
Complain about this comment
No You Can't!
;-((
Complain about this comment
Big Mad John
Grrrrrrr!
Complain about this comment
One area not mentioned in the debate was the threat of Venezuela.
Who is promoting terrorism against Columbia, intefered in the Mexican election and now promoting aggresive war games in this hemisphere.
Complain about this comment
Ms Marbles,
You're in good company ;-)Did you check out the Iranian travels I linked earlier?
Peace, Sister
ed
Complain about this comment
To Ed (222)
That country would be Costa Rica, I take it?
Complain about this comment
SO why would Americans want to vote for the Republican party when it represents backwards thinking, non-progressive, narrow-minded, socially backwards - ( when I saw Mccain on Ellen I cringed - it is so obvious that in the future gay people will have ALL the rights of everyone else just like the black population do now... HE just looks so old fashioned. Why does AMerica want this??? It is also OBVIOUS that America needs the democrats to have some credablity in the world again...
Complain about this comment
228. Ed.
What number was your entry?
Complain about this comment
hmmm..dont understand why my posts are not showing????...404 problem again???
Complain about this comment
The most stupidest McCain ad?
You were wrong, John!
Enjoy
ed
Complain about this comment
Ms Marbles,
It was #95
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
not even..refer to moderater...just nowt.....what's going on???
Complain about this comment
Kecsmar, Probably an ampersand (&) in your post.
either get rid of it or add amp; to it, e.g. &
Notes and tutorial
Good luck
ed
Complain about this comment
exserviceman (#197), to say that "the best US presidents have been civilians with important military experience" is simplistic.
"Washington was a great general and a great president."
Yes, thats the point.
Lincoln was a great wartime president with no military experience beyond the Illinois militia.
Just enough to realize the South couldn't win if he eventually picked competent generals - hence his sticking to the War "Anaconda" strategy, eventually crushing CSA resistance and with it slavery.
"Franklin Roosevelt was a great wartime president with no military service."
FDR was in the US Navy.
"Grant was a great Civil War general and is considered a poor president."
True but I meen war presidents, not those in peacetime. The US is in a war with Al Quaida on two fronts. They do not respond to eloquent speaches or film star good looks.
This is not a time for a semi pacifist liberal internationalist to be C in C, Obama would be OK for a peacetime president but now? Not good. The Iranians would be tempted to try it on with him, that could lead to a disaster, one that might not be containable if the wrong cards get played.
"Pierce was a general and is considered one of our worst presidents."
I don't know how anyone who actually believed that slavery should be allowed to expand under certain conditions would look good to the modern eye.
Suppose a better cleverer compromiser had been set in his place, that might have led to a History where the Civil war Never happened and civil rights were set back a century and a half.
Or, God help us, a history where the US joins Nazi-Germany in some kind of nightmare racist Axis.
"Whether one or the other of the current candidates will make the better president does not depend on only one characteristic."
The US needs a war president to lead her military, and someone who puts America ahead of Party interest or personal ambition.
Mccain would sacrifice himself in a heart beat if he thought it would save american lives and win the War against Al Quaida and lead the USA back to "sunlit uplands."
Obama has the taint of Personal ambition, the most common and dangerous vice a politican can have, the more powerful the office the worse it is.
He is just too confident and smug to be thinking about the enormous crushing reponsibility of being president in the right way.
Someone who folds his arms during a public occasion where he is center stage while the US national anthem is played is not a normal American. He is a strange fish and I don't trust him.
Well quite a lot of that is instinctive, gut feeling. That can only be a personal opinion, but there is something actorish and fake about his accent. Unprovable, but does anyone else detect the same thing?
Complain about this comment
Fancy a game of craps?
Well worth reading the whole article....Honest John...;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
236 Ed..thanks for the advice, sadly didn't work, i tried endless permutations...don't know why it wont post, given up ..sigh :(
Complain about this comment
magickirin wrote:
One area not mentioned in the debate was the threat of Venezuela.
Who is promoting terrorism against Columbia, intefered in the Mexican election and now promoting aggresive war games in this hemisphere.
-----------------
Um... you my not believe this but all of Venezuela and Mexico, and the majority of Colombia are in the Northen Hemisphere.
Politically Chavez is irrelevent to the US except... oh yes venezuela gets all its money from the US who are the only people who pay for the Oil they receive. And that lovely oil is so important.
The "terrorists" you mention in Columbia have been in open rebellion against the government throughout my life. You will fnd if you research it a little that they are revolutionaries who yes are unsavoury but then the Columbian government are too. The goernment gets funding from the US and the antigovernment forces from Drugs barons. Do not use the word "terrorist" in such a misleading context.
On the world stage Chavez is only as important as his soundbites take him. Bolivia is far more concerning as the economies of Peru, Brazil, Chile and Argentina could run into serious trouble if there is any long term disruption to gas supplies. It is teetering towards political meltdown and possible civil war which it is not far fetched to imagine its neighbours, including venezuela, might become heavily involved with.
Complain about this comment
230. NETCRUSHER:
SO why would Americans want to vote for the Republican party when it represents backwards thinking, non-progressive, narrow-minded, socially backwards - ( when I saw Mccain on Ellen I cringed - it is so obvious that in the future gay people will have ALL the rights of everyone else just like the black population do now... HE just looks so old fashioned. Why does AMerica want this??? It is also OBVIOUS that America needs the democrats to have some credablity in the world again...
*******************
Let's see if I can understand.
We Americans don't travel abroad, which makes us insular and ignorant of other cultures. So let's elect a man because he lived abroad as a kid and disregard the experiences of a well-travelled senator.
McCain is old. So let's elect someone young and inexperienced.
We can't understand Iraq. So let's elect someone who will get us the heck out of there instead of the guy who actually does understand Iraq.
Soft power and negotiations are the better approach to global conflict. So let's elect someone who has negotiating experience in the Senate, instead of the guy who has actually been involved in negotiations with other countries.
Restoring America's image is paramount, so let's elect someone who projects an image that others will like, instead of the guy who was a POW and then went back to re-establish relations with his one-time captors.
It's taken me a while, but I think I'm beginning to see the wisdom of electing Obama.
Complain about this comment
133. MagicKirin:
"ref #114
One thing about the Nixon Kennedey debate you need to remember, Nixon had the flu and injured his knee in a traffic accident."
If only Obama were another Kennedy, but Obama didn't have the exposure old Joe Kennedy provided.
Nixon knew how to deal with Russia.
A Polish-American friend just returned from Poland. Her relatives there are terrified that Obama will be elected. They have no confidence in his ability to deal with Putin, and they are worried about Russia.
Complain about this comment
170. David_Cunard:
#140. chill0: "US troops are in Iraq at the request of the elected government of that country."
Now perhaps, but how did they get their in the first place? I don't recall anyone in Iraq asking to be 'liberated'.
**********************
I believe he is talking about today, not during the invasion.
You do not believe we are there at the request of the Iraqis today?
Complain about this comment
223. Ed Iglehart wrote:
NiceBrianM,
"This fulfillment of his wish could take the Americans a generation or two."
******************
Yes, it could. Or less depending on who our CIC is.
Complain about this comment
237. exserviceman:
"Unprovable, but does anyone else detect the same thing?"
I most definitely do.
I'm not sure why Obama believes he is qualified to be president of the US.
He is one of the most arrogant, inexperienced politicians I've seen in my life.
Complain about this comment
Magickirin wrote
"Chavez stole the last elections and Morales did win his election but is criminally charging his political opponents with bogus charges that makes them both dictators."
Actually if you r looking for a dictator you can stop at Musharraf, an ally, or Pinochet a former ally. Do not need to parse words and get into definitions.
There are also people saying that GWB stole 2000 elections. I do not think that is true and US is still a democracy, though Gore had 0.5 million more votes than Bush.
Hard to find a perfect democracy, but easy to find a perfect dictator/ship.
Complain about this comment
234, Ed.
One never talks about the beautiful antique mosques and buildings in Iran. Persian architects were famous. One of them designed the Taj Mahal in Agra and another the pink and white sandstone mosque in Lahore.
I went to Istanbul a few years ago with a sister-in-law who had never been out of the States. She was entranced by the mosques and particularly by the Topkapi Palace. I told her that Istanbul was gem, but Iran was the crown.
Complain about this comment
In reference to AdrianNY stances on McCain and the right-wing agenda. I was listening to Imran Khan from Pakistan and what he said in regard to his current administration policies in fighting the terrorists was so correct - You think you are fighting the ?terrorists in a war", but you are turning moderates into extremists - you are CREATING the terrorists.
On another issue I do not understand is healthcare in your country. The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers. Mounting health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. The result is lost profits and lost wages, in addition to pointless risk, insecurity and a wave of personal bankruptcies. Your health-care financing system must change, so why would you want more of the same?? Think progressive ? it is the best of America we all want not the close-minded stance.
Complain about this comment
245, Andrea.
"He (Obama) is one of the most arrogant, inexperienced politicians I've seen in my life."
I believe that distinction goes to Sarah Palin, moose hunter.
Complain about this comment
People keep saying Afgh is not winnable. After 9/11 US had clearly defined "victory".
1. Get OBL,
2. Destroy Al-Queda and Taliban.
After Iraq war it became muddled and even the definition is elusive. However, if they OBL they still might be considered victorious.
Complain about this comment
People say that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing and I agree. What I do not understand is that why as a nation US has to pay > $ 1 trillion for that.
It is kind of naive since Saddam just had aluminum pipes and not WMD.
$ 1 trillion(and counting) could have more than paid for this bail out
Complain about this comment
#243. AndreainNY: "I believe he is talking about today, not during the invasion.
You do not believe we are there at the request of the Iraqis today?"
I don't think the two can be separated; no invasion, no invitation.
Complain about this comment
#237, exserviceman, there is definitely something
about the guy that makes me distrustful, but I
can't quite pin it down.
As you say, just a "gut feeling."
Complain about this comment
228, Ed.
Further to my saying that the bailout won't work.
In all this high finance to-ing and fro-ing and number crunching and theorizing and second-guessing, what no one ever considers is the mood of the people.
Now not only don't they trust the government (with good reason), they no longer trust banks (with good reason). So the problem is not the repairing of the economy, but the engendering of trust. And you can't do that by going on television and saying, "Everything is fine, you sweet dumb people, because we, your benevolent government, tell you it is."
Also now BOTH candidates are talking war. Is this a design to further lower spirits? America is listening, even if subliminally. War - economic collapse - war - ????
What will work? The only possibility I see is a wrenching change in government. Is Obama able to radically shake up the entrenched bureaucracy? We can only hope.
Complain about this comment
So McCain would sacrifice himself for his country in an instant? By challenging Osama Bin Laden to a duel, perhaps?
For all those who insist that the USA is "at war" and needs a "war president" (wouldn't a general just back from Iraq or Afghanistan be better for that anyway than a man whose military experience was over thirty years ago and mostly as a prisoner?) I'd recommend the BBC World Service Owen Bennett Jones interview with a Major at West
Point I've just been listening to. It would, I think, be enlightening to many people who hold that view.
And demonstrate how much thinking has changed in some parts at least of your fabled military (and come closer to that despised European view of the situation) since the Neocons lost much of their influence.
Whoever is elected will have to grasp the implications of what that Major is talking about and formulate a policy or a strategy for the next decade or two. I'm not sure on what they have said so far that either would, military experience or no.
Oh, and if it's so important to have someone with military experience at the head of a government in this situation, why bother with an election? A military coup would surely be the ideal solution, wouldn't it?
Complain about this comment
I write, of course, from the point of view of a citizen of a country which I think has only ever once elected a career military man as Prime Minister; and he ended up loathed, his carriage pelted with rotten fruit and his windows broken with stones. That was the Duke of Wellington, by the way.
Complain about this comment
The "debate" showed Obama as having a better mind, a far higher sense of personal ethics and a better grasp of events.
It showed McCain as an aggressive person without ethics and of fading mental and physical capacity.
It showed those characteristics to an analytical observer.
I would suspect, however, that McCain sounded a better rapport with the American voters.
Ms. M has the same impression that I do- that McCain is physically fading too fast- we have the prospect of President Pallin.
With that prospect in mind, the sane folk in the World need to begin organizing the international situation so that it can function independently of the USA and Britain.
Complain about this comment
karrapavan wrote: "People say that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing and I agree. What I do not understand is that why as a nation US has to pay > $ 1 trillion for that. $ 1 trillion(and counting) could have more than paid for this bail out."
Some of it may anyway. Since the greater proportion has gone to American companies, American security firms, American aerospace and armaments firms, and those that produce Humvees and tanks and Chinook helicopters and suchlike, as long as they are paying any taxes at all (though I admit that may be doubtful) that's where some of the next trillion for the bail out may be coming from.
Complain about this comment
242, Magic.
I most surely agree with you about Nixon. He is a much underrated president.
As for Kennedy, he and his family were corrupt and consorted with the mob. I can think of nothing good to say about him. I can think of nothing good to say about his wife. I leave the Camelot nonsense to others.
Complain about this comment
254: No, the problem that's arisen is not that people don't trust banks, it's that banks don't trust banks. People, as savers or borrowers, are quite irrelevant to the problem except in so far as they will probably lose their houses and/or their savings if something isn't done pretty quickly, and may well do so anyway in the next few months.
Banks are refusing to lend money to each other because they are assuming they might not get it back. That's why the British government has had to nationalise two since this mess started, so that creditor banks will have some assurance their previous loans will be repaid. And so that won't come out of the savings people invested in them, or made up by selling the houses they had mortgages on from under them.
That's why that 'bailout' is essential. Basically, if private banks just refuse to bail each other out in case it damages their usually enormous profits, it's only governments that can afford to do it.
There's been so much propaganda against "big government" in the US (i.e. governments mustn't interfere with/regulate anything) that it seems now to have created an ideological near-impasse, because it looks as though an awful lot of senators and congressmen are too scared to accept that simple truth. Or can't find a way of selling it to their constituents.
It's nothing whatever to do with any bureaucracy, big or small, except in so far as none either stepped in to stop this disaster happening, or none was created to prevent it.
Of course, the US government could do nothing, let every bank of every kind go bankrupt, in which case money will effectively stop circulating altogether and that is the total catastrophe many fear.
If that happens, it's back to bartering; it's what happened in Russia, not that long ago, when people who worked in factories that made wineglasses were paid in wineglasses they couldn't sell . . .
Of course, if you happen to keep cows or grow soya beans or something, you could always swap an animal or a sack for a gallon of petrol, but it's not a system that works too well for most people in the 21st century. But on the bright side, if you have a few hundred dollars under the mattress, you'd probably be able to buy GM or Ford with it eventually. It's how the Russian oligarchs got rich.
Complain about this comment
258, British-ish.
The fact is that the government is not going to pay $700 billion for the bailout. They are going to print more money. Inflation will soar. They will pay will devalued currency. See? I don't have to be a high-powered economist to figure that out!
Complain about this comment
its a shame the americans cant realise that
penny50
---
Penny50, who says Americans don't already?
Which Americans are you talking about?
Complain about this comment
257, Xie.
As for the world operating independently of the US, that will be difficult since our economies are interdependent. However, as it concerns our love of war, I don't think we can expect cooperation from the European community in any future nonsense we initiate.
Complain about this comment
#256, I had no idea. But, here, the military is revered
as the Samurai never were. Of course, it helps that
our military men do not hold that it is the job of
a good soldier to die for his country, but to make some
other poor S.O.B. die for his.
Complain about this comment
#259, Ms. Marbles, you are so cynical. Kennedy
made good speeches and got us out of jams he
got us into. Who cares what he did in the White
House pool?
Besides, he set us up to go to the moon, and we
developed integrated circuits, tang, and velcro from that.
What would the modern world be like without
tang and velcro?
And, judging from my household experience as
a six-year old, every woman in the country voted for him.
Complain about this comment
#260, british-ish, you have just inspired me to
bring to invention a new product - a matress filled
with paper money! What a concept. No longer will
we have to suffer lumpy spots where piles of money
have been stuffed under our beds!
Complain about this comment
260, British-ish.
It is impossible to leave the mood of the people out of the equation. When people get nervous, they don't spend. When they get nervous, they take their money out of the bank. They don't buy that new house. They pull their investments out of the market. Mama decides she doesn't need that new dress.
Banks become distressed and what you say is true. But it looks more like the end result to me.
Complain about this comment
#256. british-ish: re Wellington "he ended up loathed"
But admired greatly since he had the distinction of State Funeral. In modern times, that has only been given to Churchill, who also had a career in the army, if not so distinguished as Wellington.
Complain about this comment
265, guns.
Wrong, wrong, wrong about velcro. I was taking a dress design class in the mid-1950's and we were presented with this new product called "velcro." They were offering prizes to anyone who could figure out what to do with it.
As for tang, isn't that some terrible drink? Off with his head!
Complain about this comment
I'd try the mattress out experimentally in Zimbabwe first; should be easy to fill there. As the inspirer, can I have the marketing rights for the sterling-stuffed model?
Complain about this comment
266, guns.
Buy gold or silver instead. Your paper mattress will grow every year and be worth less every year. You may wind up with a comfy bed - but not a house to put it in.
Complain about this comment
#270, british-ish, Zimbabwe sounds like an excellent
test market. Of course you can purchase the marketing
rights, as soon as we find a bank in the US which
can accept money orders.
#271, I'm way ahead of you. I'm going to be one
of the winners in the New World Order. Soon,
women under 30 will be lining up to make my
acquaintance again.
Complain about this comment
#265. gunsandreligion "Besides, he set us up to go to the moon, and we developed integrated circuits, tang, and velcro from that."
Hate to be so picky, but none of those developments were as a result of the moon programme, although Tang and Velcro were popularised because of it. But they were all in existence earlier, Velcro going back to the 1940s. Kennedy may have lifted the spirits of the nation, but he had nothing to do - even peripherally - with these products.
Complain about this comment
#269, Ms. Marbles, yes all of the pieces for the
Apollo program were in place - but only the
Kennedy administration had the foresight to
bring it all together, which ultimately paid off
in the "High Tack" decade, the 70's.
And, Tang is great with Vodka, when not in
Zero-G. In fact the whole 70's is a blur of
Tang, vodka, and beautiful blonde, brunette,
and red-headed women for me.
That's the problem with good deals, like free
love - they don't last.
Complain about this comment
I noticed people getting nervous about the economy about two years ago. I felt this personally because about five years ago I started up as an antiques dealer in a small way.
It was pleasingly profitable in the first years and then began to taper off. It is not that people did not have the money to spend. They merely felt uneasy. There was no discernable reason for this except for a pessimism about the war. It darkened everyone's mood. Everyone talked of it.
My fellow dealers were all having the same experience. I closed the business. The subprime debacle followed. When trade falls off and money stops circulating there are far-reaching effects. Personally I blame the Iraqi War for our present financial problems.
Complain about this comment
#273, David C, it seemed so at the time.
Besides, in America, marketing is everything.
As a blonde actress whose name I unfortunately
cannot recall said, "Einstein was big once, wasn't
he?"
Complain about this comment
274, guns.
And now, damn, you are just a geezer. Despair not, geezerdom has its benefits. You get to say and do whatever you want and people don't call you crazy - just eccentric. (Also geezers, and geezeresses, laugh more.)
Complain about this comment
#276. gunsandreligion: "it seemed so at the time.
Besides, in America, marketing is everything."
Communications were rather different compared to today and it's easily forgotten that thirty years ago color television had only just become the norm in the USA, and even then a majority of homes had black-and-white receivers.
The last decade, with the mushrooming of cable and satellite broadcasts and the advent of the World Wide Web have made such a difference - the latter directly attributable to the US military and the internet. Marketing - even of politicians - is so much more in evidence, but then so is rooting out the truth.
Complain about this comment
265, guns.
I just figured it out. You don't qualify for geezerdom yet. You are only in your fifties. That means you can't enjoy the freedom that true age brings. You have a lot to look forward to. (signed) Geezeress
Complain about this comment
Good Morning
Last night, after a few glasses of reasonable red wine, the following solution came to mind. One that would be fairly easy to sell to every representatives constituency with the present mood in the country. A massive windfall tax on oil companies to finance the $700 million. It would, of course, be interesting to hear Bush and his cronies squeal to high heaven, but the population as a whole would probably enjoy the retribution.
Complain about this comment
Mmacain is dishonest and confused,i cant believe that few weeks ago he said that the fundamentals of american economy is sound,and just in this last debate he said again that the fundamentals of american economy is good such a man cannot be in the president of america.
Complain about this comment
Just picking up a few points overnight -
1. I watched the CNN x5 Secretaries of State piece. I am sure that what was or wasnt said will be picked up by the media, particularly after quoted feedback offered by Sen Obama was refuted by Sen McCain, and backed by a swift official statement from Dr Kissinger? I was very clear about the message being offered by this group on this point and what they all offered and said. I will be interested to learn if Iam losing my marbles, Ally!
2. Netcrusher - I respect and understand Imran Khans point.
3. Karrapavan. The referral you introduce re *getting OBL equating to victory* raises two serious discussion points.
No 1 - if he is still alive, what would actually happen *if* OBL is either captured or killed?
No 2 - How do people actually envisage the ultimate defeat of the Taleban and Al Qaeda in the *War on Terror*............. particularly related to the recently stated words - victory and honour?
On 2, for me the subtlety is being able to define i) what the drivers and breadth of this *War* are and ii) an appropriate strategy that can successfully draw it to a close as soon as possible in the interests of mankind.
Successful closure? Tell me this. Reversing Clausewitzs famous phrase, precisely where do the bounds, effectiveness and perceived gains of current military intervention and operations stop and gains to be had through the successful application, by the US and others, of *other means* begin?
Mmm, other means, you ask?....... for me this is dialogue and diplomacy, backed by responsibility, understanding and integrity. Should other means become a *new way* at all or merely thrown out the window?
Yes, we all acknowledge history and the incredibly deep seated cultural, religious, perceived threats and hidden national interests involved here. Simplistic maybe, but the bottom line is that there is a clear and escalating divide between x2 groups of peoples right now with other worrying bush fires springing up globally too.
Its starkness may not be as easy to follow as the Berlin Wall, but this divide, I argue, has cataclysmic potential for the human race. As I said last night, I do not agree with current military policy in the Afghn-Pak theatre and unilateral, uninvited, action in sovereign border regions.
I do believe this..... that Barack Obama, well before taking office, possesses the amalgam of required personal and professional qualities to succeed. He has sound footings in place already I feel - both in terms of appreciating and leading in a dramatically changed world and being able to focus a new Administration team to far better effect.
Shrill voices will cry out and say, *hey, he effectively endorsed US military doctrine last Sept over the Afghn - Pakistan border* etc etc! Correct, but I genuinely believe that the US strategic approach will be very heavily shaped and unravel in what will be a unrivalled phase of diplomatic activity. The biggest headache facing his staff will be trying to schedule a litany of meeting requests from world leaders - very keen to be first in the queue.
I put my hand up and offer an opinion that this key interaction will distil down into a complete shaping and fresh direction for US policy and military action. One that will help the US nation achieve far greater success and the re-establishment of respect in the medium term.
Specifically, as key Priority No 1, I want to see the advent of a completely different tone; strategy and novel approach to the cross cultural collision in the Middle East and Asia. All nations, leaders and through them, people, need to take ownership here - the only pre-condition being a mutual goal to work to achieve success - no dictats; bullying; threats etc etc......
Priority 1b? Reversing the relentless divide between rich and poor and poverty; starvation; disease; human rights abuses..... hammering corruption world wide........... global warming......... amen
Enjoy Sunday - Bill
Complain about this comment
#279, you are right, I am in that ambiguous
age bracket known as "middle age." Now I
know what the middle ages were like!
#278, the democratization of the media may
eventually happen, but, judging by the debates
the other night, it hasn't happened yet.
We thought we were going to solve that problem
with the personal computer and, later, the web,
but it hasn't happened yet.
However, it DID help prevent the Soviet coup attempt
from succeeding.
Complain about this comment
Karrapavan,
That reminds me...,And remember "credit"is just another word for "belief" or "faith", both of which as noted are in rather short supply of late. It used to be that the best debt instruments were those backed by "the full faith and credit" of the US government.. How the mighty have fallen.
Invest in wheelbarrows.
Peace to all
ed
Complain about this comment
McCain Wins!
;-)
ed
P.S.
McCain Wins In New Obama Video
RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com
The Huffington Post | Nico Pitney | September 27, 2008 10:58 PM
Read More: Barack Obama, John McCain, John Mccain Wins, Mccain Wins, Mccain Wins Video, Obama Bad News Viedeo, Obama Voter Registration Video, Video, Vote For Change, Vote For Change Video, Voteforchange, Voteforchange.Com, Politics News
Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Buzz up!
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam
*
Share
*
Print
*
Comments
Voter registration deadlines are a week from Monday in many states, and the Obama campaign is taking a dramatic step to encourage its supporters to make sure they're eligible to vote on November 4.
A new video guiding viewers to VoteforChange.com features a mock MSNBC newscast showing John McCain winning the election, 51 percent to 49 percent.
"'John McCain elected 44th president' and 'Voter turnout lower than expected' are the mock captions with an MSNBC 'Breaking News' headline under a smiling Mr. McCain."
Check it out:
VoteforChange.com is an Obama campaign website, but anyone can use it to check their registration status, request an absentee ballot, or find their polling station. Check it out here.
Complain about this comment
Apologies to all. That didn't come out as intended...;-(
[blushes]
Complain about this comment
AndreaInNY,
Claiming that Obama is a lightweight, is wishful thinking on your part. If this was a boxing match, McCain would be holding on and on the ropes; in a nutshell, he is a WEAK candidate (as if you haven't been told often enough).
Also, do NOT make the mistake of comparing Obama's capabilities to Palin's. Palin quite frankl,y is a very bad joke and as I alluded to during the week, this is what happens to the Republicans when they use a small elastoplast to stem the flow of blood from a laceration, in what is nothing more than a quick fix.
Obama is far more intelligent, more adept, and a well travelled individual, compared to Palin, who only acquired a passport a year ago. Please don't be so stupid as to tell me that this woman, who potentially could be president is more of a credible candidate than Obama. Now do you see how insipid your argument is????
Now for my take on the debate:
This wasn't the most dynamic of debates, but there is no doubt that Barack Obama looked the more presidential and also won the debate convincingly. McCain came across as a man who's very much out of touch with reality.
For a man that has previously been in the military, he doesn't appear to be very clued up on the whole Iraq issue and I think Obama's views on said issue are much more realistic and rational.
As for McCain claiming that the U.S. appears to be "winning" in Iraq, bearing in mind that this war was initially seen as a five minute cakewalk, I would say that was somewhat of a hollow victory. In fact, I would even say that the claim that the U.S. is "winning" is questionable.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is so painful it almost won't paste as a link!
Ouch!
ed
Complain about this comment
Does America really deserve this if Obama should win?
This is going against nearly every Presidential norm for the last 40 years.
How will he / they be able to look Americans in the face, if this relationship
is going to be promoted as acceptable behaviour!?
Change you can believe in!
Only acceptable if Barack should hold out the olive branch, and include an
experienced republican hawk in the team for his future planning.
A bipartisan approach- Embrace your opponents
Complain about this comment
ref #242
These Obama and JFK comparisons are flawed in one major way.
Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, JFK was a conservative Democrat.
Don't assume because Ted was liberal his brothers were
Complain about this comment
Following Ezekiel's remarks at 287, there have been various polls across the web asking people to vote for their definining moment in the debate. No one seems to have mentioned the segment where McCain started to squabble on the nuclear waste issue, Lehrer was losing control and Obama stepped smartly in and asked Lehrer to move the debate on as it was obviously going nowhere.
He showed quick-thinking leadership and in those few seconds he was the boss out of the three of them.
Complain about this comment
Re:#289. It was indeed painful, and what was even more so was the actual interview excerpt that Huffington Post had below it showing how close it was to the original. The Obama campaign is saying she is a "terrific" debater having watched tapes from her debates in Alaska. Hard to fathom unless they are being sarky.
Complain about this comment
Ed's posting of last night's SNL skit brings a whole new chapter into the vetting process - never, but never, select a candidate who is a dead ringer for the funniest comedian on the circuit. As Ed says, it hurts.
Complain about this comment
Magic,
And that's a bad thing?;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#157, #102 Ed Iglehart
Sorry to be a pain, but...
In post #157 you have offered a basis for a Palestinian exodus of .75 million. I do not dispute it nor is it far from the number I would have expected.
The problem is that you have related that total to the comment I made that "I do not dispute that Zionists forced some Arabs from their land and that became Zionist land".
Only a part of that number were actually 'forced from their land' i.e. by direct violent appropriation. There were nowhere near enough Jewish people under arms to do it.
The weapon of choice by Jewish gangs like the Irgun Tsvai Leumi was terrorism. Many years ago I worked with an Egyptian. He said the joke in Cairo when Begin was elected was 'at last they have someone who understands the terrorists'.
The UN report says ...refugees either fled from the war or were expelled. It was because of the violence that was going on - there were massacres on both sides, also from a 'whispering campaign' by Jewish terrorists.
The thing that makes this asymmetrical - Palestinians fleeing in large numbers while Jews did not - is that the Jews had nowhere to go. Thus they finished up with a larger proportion of the population. By the way, the Jewish population increased dramatically after the time of the Hope-Simpson Commission, some of that increase at the expense of Palestinians from whom land was bought.
The point about all of the above is that the Jewish terrorist organisations set out to gain land through a campaign of terror. They were not particularly representative of the Jewish population. The UN report you cite says:
Moderators: UN document, no copywright good idea Ed Iglehart
Menachem Begin (who was leader of the Irgun) denies that they attacked Deir Yassin (he would) but revels in the terrorist effect it had.
The point I was originally trying to make is that terrorism / violence has gained people status and property across the world for a long time and it is still going on.
In Northern Ireland, for instance it was routine.
South Vietnam derived from Cochinchina. It was a separate state from North Vietnam and had been since even before the French colonisation. Conquered by North Vietnam through straightforward violent attack in 1975, its people were oppressed and moved around. Sample:
I do not see a lot of the above people demanding their homes back.
The reason for that is that the Palestinian issue has been maintained as a political cause by Arab governments for their own reasons ever since. The Palestinians have been maintained in poverty as well, not least by their own leaders' policies and the attitudes of neighbouring Arab governments.
Many in the West have gone along with that. It is not justice, it is in large part political expediency.
Incidentally, the best quote from that UN document was from the Pakistani representative who said (presciently): "Having cut Palestine up in that manner, we shall then put its bleeding body upon a cross forever"
There are many such bodies on many crosses around the world. There will be until the world looks at them socially and judicially rather than through the lens of international politics.
Who represents Darfur ? Where is their justice ?
Complain about this comment
I watched part of Sarah Palin's interview on CBS with Katie Couric and I found it downright embarrassing. The worst part were her efforts to justify her earlier assertion about her familiarity with the Russian culture and policies because she can see them from Alaska. The new explanations, which included being able to see US jet fighters take off from bases in Alaska, dug a deeper hole for her and the ticket she is in.
I can't believe this person actually met foreign dignataries at the UN as a potential VP of the USA. It definitely doesn't say much for our judgment. If McCain wanted to choose a woman, why didn't he pick Elizabeth Dole or Whitman? Well, I believe the latter is pro-choice which, obviously, killed her chances as one of the goals was to reinforce McCain's tenuous conservative credentials.
Complain about this comment
USA TODAY/Gallup Poll: Obama did better job in first debate
Read on.Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
#216 british-ish
In fact the English Civil War gave rise to the first standing army in Britain.
The problem was, as always, expense. The government wanted to disband it but trouble kept cropping up.
After the Restoration James II maintained it as a large standing army.
Complain about this comment
Chill0,
Not very much proportionally, since thee Palestinian Arabs are better breeders. The census figures are matters of record, though anyone who wishes may challenge them, but with little significant credibility.If you wish to quibble about th exact terms of the Palestinian flight, so be it. the fact remains, seven to eight hundred thousand folk fled and are still denied the right of return. The reason this particularly exercises folk like myself is that it was "our people", i.e. "Europeans" who were at fault, and that it besmirches the noble traditions of Judaism.
Face it. The Palestinians had virtually nothing to do with the Holocaust, but have been forced to pay the blood money because the Europeans (and Americans) didn't want the displaced Jews.
This was all forseen with frightening clarity by over three hundred prominent American Jews in 1919, including the Mayor of Galveston, Texas. Check out the list of signatories.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
A parable?
Complain about this comment
Ref 287
"As for McCain claiming that the U.S. appears to be "winning" in Iraq, bearing in mind that this war was initially seen as a five minute cakewalk, I would say that was somewhat of a hollow victory. In fact, I would even say that the claim that the U.S. is "winning" is questionable."
Focusing on the ability of the surge and our substantial military presence to subdue the population of Iraq physically, while admitting that if we leave Iraq it will fall apart indicates that our mission failed. There is a big difference between controlling a society by force and changing their mindset and opinions.
Short of remaining in Iraq indefinitely, with Westerners and Iraqi officials living in military bases and fortresses like the Green Zone to provide relative safety, our position is untenable. The fact is that we destroyed the law and order apparatus, such as it was, when we removed the Baathists from power, we de-stabilized the region in favor of Iran, and are having trouble extricating ourselves from that quagmire because we know that if we do the whole enchilada will fall apart. If this is what passes for a long term strategy and victory, please spare us defeat.
We must focus on bringing OBL, his lieutenants, and financiers to justice; and on changing the perceptions of the West that exist throughout the Muslim world with positive deeds and by showing respect for other cultures and their values. Military intervention reinforces negative perceptions and increases the resolve of our adversaries.
Complain about this comment
Chill0,
I assume you recognise the "two wrongs" fallacy.Salaam/Shalom
ed
Complain about this comment
#224 allmymarbles
It depends on what you mean by 'work'.
We are going to have a recession. We have to. A large amount of wealth just went missing from the world economy because of falls in property prices in various places, mostly the USA.
The world economy was based on that wealth so some of it is going to fail, businesses are going to lay people off, etc. until that wealth is re-created.
That's why the most fundamental piece of regulation that needs doing is to keep property prices in touch with reality - i.e. in touch with people's ability to repay the loans they base on them.
I believe the bailout will solve the crisis in the financial services sector. All that requires is a degree of certainty. $700B is a lot of certainty.
Complain about this comment
#300 Ed Iglehart
I believe you repeat the error of the US government in dealing with world issues. They give rights to Americans that are denied to others because they are not American citizens.
Now you are denying recognition to the issues of Vietnamese and Africans because they are not Europeans. That is literally racist, although I do not think you are racist.
This is a kind of political trend that I have noticed, especially in recent times. Shoot at the sitting duck and ignore the vultures and birds of prey circling further off.
The Chinese are straightforwardly exploiting the conflict in Darfir for oil. Who protests ? No-one in China. They can't. Some people in the West do but they are dramatically outweighed by anti-Iraq-War protesters who snipe at the sitting duck in their own country.
You are saying in effect that some human beings are more valuable than others and deserve better treatment.
Surely injustices should be treated by their scale and the urgency of their requirement for remedy rather than their political prominence ?
Complain about this comment
Dominick,
For some on-the-spot conversations with Iraqis, try This, from the superb Hugh Sykes (the final eight minutes or so (from 52:35).Enjoy
ed
Complain about this comment
Thanks to ChillO for the comprehensive post at #296 - my only comment is that the history of terrorism is a such a huge subject that it needs a blog conversation all of its own.
For instance, in the only situation of which I have direct knowledge, ChillO states something like "In Northern Ireland, terrorism was routine". It was far deeper and far more complicated than just routine - and dominated the lives of two generations and two sovereign nations, the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
I am not disagreeing with many of Chill0's views, but it can become dangerous to draw differing perspectives of all post World War II (and pre WWII) into a debate about the vital 2008 decision.
Let me put it another way. Chill0 asks in his last brief sentence "What about Darfur ? Where is their justice?" After the brutal wreckage of the western world's financial vehicle that we all saw last week, there will be little justice for Darfur or anybody else unless a more intelligent administration is elected to lead the developed world.
Complain about this comment
#302 Ed Iglehart
Two wrongs ? There are hundreds of wrongs.
You are taking one 'wrong' in preference to all others and promoting a black and white view of it. You cannot, as far as I can tell, offer an explanation for that.
That's tempting. The film director Sam Fuller said something like 'Life is lived in colour but black and white always seems more realistic'.
Complain about this comment
The Debate a la SNL
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#224, allmy, #303, chill0, that's right we are
going to have a recession, but it does not
have to turn into an instant depression.
Unfreezing the credit system should allow most
businesses to function normally, which would
not otherwise be the case. But, the real estate
market will probably continue to fall, at least
by the math that I have seen.
If we did something intelligent, such as investing
in infrastructure which would lower our oil consumption
or increase our productivity in other ways, we would
have a quicker and stronger recovery.
Artificially pumping up consumer demand will
have very little immediate effect, and possibly
just increase our debt, making recovery take
even longer.
Complain about this comment
249. allmymarbles:
"245, Andrea.
"He (Obama) is one of the most arrogant, inexperienced politicians I've seen in my life."
I believe that distinction goes to Sarah Palin, moose hunter."
She is unqualified and not as well educated, but she has more personal grit and understands, and respects, Middle America.
The prize for arrogance goes to Obama. Even his supporters complain about it.
Complain about this comment
Chill0,
Absolute rubbish! I am doing no such thing! Is such an accusation consistent with my support for the rights of Palestinians? Are they somehow honorary Europeans because they have borne the cost of European sins?Get a grip
ed
Complain about this comment
Chill0,
And you are trying to diminish the importance of one wrong by stating that there are many others. This is known as "the two wrongs fallacy" - a dishonest debating ploy.1. I don't see us unconditionally supporting the oppressors in Darfur, China, Burma, or anywhere else, except Palestine.
2. I do indeed concentrate to some extent on the "one wrong" which most exercises me, because I believe it lies at the heart of much of the enmity others justifiably feel towards us. That I don't spend "equal time" on other injustices is IRRELEVANT.
3. I am not promoting a "black and white" view of anything, nor are my references. The Zionists do plenty of that without any help from me.
Get a grip
ed
Complain about this comment
Ref 305
Ed, thanks for the link. I found the discussion in Iraq very interesting and presented with uncharacteristic clarity and objectivity.
It seems obvious, at least to me, that the sectarian schism that led to so much violence and chaos after Saddam and the Baathists were removed from power is still latent and will manifest itself once again as soon as we leave that hapless country.
The al Maliki government has failed to promote political and sectarian pluralism and, as a result, the Iraqi society remains as divided as ever. It is also apparent that there are people who long and hope for restoration of law and order, and social and religious reconciliation leading to a stable and prosperous Iraq. Hopefully they will find a solution before we leave because otherwise we are going to end up with another Darfur in our hands.
Thanks for the excellent discussion that you and chillo had on the subject of terrorism.
Complain about this comment
G&R,
You mean like the New Deal? I wish I wasn't too old to join the 21st Century version of the CCC!Seriously, investing in infrastructure would also raise true property values as well as being far better than spending all that borrowed money on stuff that goes bang and destroys other folks' infrastructure...in the long run, we may yet realise that You Can't Eat GNP!
Happy eating at the "dollar value restaurant"
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
Has she ever been to Middle America before the last few weeks? I reckon she understands it about as well as she does Russia, perhaps even less.;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
287. ezekielthemack:
"Claiming that Obama is a lightweight, is wishful thinking on your part. "
Obama is a lightweight if we're talking about qualifications to be president of the US and its CIC.
Intelligence, an Ivy education, charisma and and oratorical skills are great attributes but they are not enough to have earned him the right to be president.
He seriously lacks governing experience. His "service" to his country is what specifically? The results of his efforts in low-income communities were underwhelming, so much so that they are not publicized.
He also lacks a fundamental understanding of Middle America.
At first, it was the fact that people were suckered into being fearful about terrorism that explained his inability to surge ahead with voters. Then it was the angry Hillary voters who kept him from surging ahead. Now, it's what, racism?
How about this reason for Obama's inability to do what should be a cakewalk, average American voters don't think he's really experienced enough and don't connect to him.
Wishful thinking is to believe that since he's not Bush or the dumb republicans he's somehow earned the right to be president.
Complain about this comment
# 308 - Wicked - and glad to see that at 3.57 they get to the point I have been trying to make in these discussions.
Complain about this comment
Gus,
Hear! Hear! Just like Obama, you bring us back on-topic!Salinte!
ed
Complain about this comment
I've been thinking. I think you all know that its no secret that I admire and wish us to emulate at least the parlamentary system of debate!! But after reading countless blog entries from Justin, and countless responces, I wonder, why can't Britain's journalists (and ashaimidly it seems the majority of its citizenry) accept Americans and the US's political system for who, and what they are, and it is? Why! Just think for a second. If a reporter from 'ABC News reporting in the UK thoughtlessly slammed its parlamentary system or citizens's beliefs-can you imagine the outcry? There would be howls of '"igonrant, holyer-than-thow attitude yanks go home! No one wants to hear your over baring un-intellijant comments on our system!" And etc. Yet Justin can spout such at times ignorant offencive material with no hint of respect for our system, and everyone seems fine with it! Its such a double standard! I haven't yet seen an American bloger, be it a reporter or just a citizen, who has said such disrespectful and vitriolic things about the UK, whether its about their political system or our surprising different culture, because the US is different from it in some huge respects!!! Be it politics, gun controll, health care etc! So why do the British (on these pages at least) feel the right and need to absolutely desicrate the US, be it from culture to politics in this way? If someone could please shed some light on this burning question I would be greatly appreciative.
The US is different from the UK. We all need to accept that! And besides, if UK readers don't, then their constructive and very helpful criticism won't come across nearly as thoughtful and helpful as it could. We badly need this criticism! But just in a respectful and fair mannor! Please?
These other things are just so hurtful to read. So very hurtful indeed!
Garry A Hill #184: Here here! I couldnt've said it better!!
Complain about this comment
315. Ed Iglehart:
"She is unqualified and not as well educated, but she has more personal grit and understands, and respects, Middle America."
Has she ever been to Middle America before the last few weeks? I reckon she understands it about as well as she does Russia, perhaps even less.
**********************
You're missing the point. She is Middle America.
Complain about this comment
For all those complaining about Palin lack of experience and qualification for President.
This questions:
How can you honestly say that Obama's 3 years of Presidential campaigning qualifies him?
I don't think Palin is qualified, but McCain is stuck with her. He is not going to do an Eagleton. But one of my two biggest problems with Obama has been a lack of a resume or proof that he is ready
(The other are many of his positions)
But could an Obama supporter(one that does not throw out the race card) really justify the difference?
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
At the risk of engaging in "two wrongs", I'll just note that it's a lot more than McCain brings to the table.And the "right" to be President is conferred by the voters. It doesn't get "earned" any other way, and certainly not by doing time in prison and marrying into the mob, though that's one possible preparation.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Andrea # 316 says that Obama lacks understanding of Middle America.
Andrea - this man is middle America in all its melting pot, opportunity for people who strive, democratic glory.
Or maybe you don't like him 'cos he is black.
Complain about this comment
248. NETCRUSHER:
"Your health-care financing system must change, so why would you want more of the same?? Think progressive ? it is the best of America we all want not the close-minded stance. "
Progressive policies don't necessarily lead to positive results, as evidenced by the role of well-intentioned credit policies in this mortgage debacle, bloated welfare rolls, etc.
The rants against government actions are never ending because it is inept in many ways. And not just this Administration's.
Why, then, should we assume it is going to be more successful managing health care?
It's naive to believe that a "progressive" is going to manage health care any better than the average American. Were the average American really given an opportunity to select the healthcare he/she wanted, I think we would be better off.
Complain about this comment
An important Endorsement
;-))
ed
Complain about this comment
# 296
Reflects a profound misunderstanding of a deliberate ethnic cleansing to drive the Arabs from their homes.
Uri Avnery ( who was a machine-gunner with the cleansers) and his fellows received order to "kill" any Arabs who attempted to return to their homes.
That sounds like more than "ethnic cleansing" to me. It looks like GENOCIDE.
And, genocide is not a matter of body count, it is a matter of intent!
Concerning Fascism in today's Israel, try this article by Avnery:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1222552857/
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
Meeeeeooooowww! Typical New York view! What? Me miss the point? Rarely...;-)xx
ed
Complain about this comment
And, even supposing she IS Middle America, does that imply she "understands" it...?
Complain about this comment
325 - thanks again to Ed and .... eeeeeek ... that hit a very sore spot.
Unfortunately (and Chill0 may chide me for this) Bill is no longer a material asset to anyone's campaign.
Complain about this comment
Ref 309
Guns,
In my opinion we have been in a recession for a while regardless of what the technical parameters may suggest, if nothing else because of the absence of consumer confidence, which is a lethal circumstance in an economic system that depends on consumerism. There is no question that the "debt-rescue" plan will increase our national debt, the questions I have are where is the money coming from, how are we going to spend it, and how mujch government oversight is going to be there to protect our interests?
Considering the magnitude of our national, corporate, and personal debts, plus the staggering amount of unfunded liabilities, we have very few choices available. We either borrow more money from foreign lenders and investors, or print more money which will further devalue our currency.
If the root cause of the problem affecting our banking and financial institutions rest on bad mortgages and loans, wouldn't it make more sense to re-negotiate those mortgages and loans to prevent foreclosures and personal bankrutcies, instead of just providing funds to improve corporate liquidity?
In my opinion, providing corporations with funds to keep them afloat is simply prolonging the agony, as it would require further disbursements in the not too distant future to keep them from going under. There is no doubt in my mind that something has to be done to solve a problem that could affect every segment of our society, but I don't think we are approaching the problem correctly and I believe the emphasis on a hurried solution is a mistake.
Complain about this comment
Ref 321
"But could an Obama supporter(one that does not throw out the race card) really justify the difference?"
Aside from the fact that, in my opinion, the only relevant experience for POTUS is the one earned while in office - which limits that attribute to only Presidents running for re-election or a VP; I would say that the main difference between Obama's and Palin's resumes is that one has been articulating a vision for America, and proposing policies and solutions to solve our domestic and international problems at a national level since his keynote speech four years ago, while the other only talks about the bridge to nowhere, the Russians she understands because she can see them from Alaska, and other trivialities that belittle the importance of the office she is seeking.
Complain about this comment
British-ish #255: Superb idea that a general surving in Iraq/Afghanistan should be president! However its too late for them to run now. Perhaps one could run in 4 years? Aside from that, the reast of your post smacks of an unhealthy negative view of the US and its electoral process, not to mention its politicions!! Do try to be fair and objective in your future posting, huh? Come now! The US isn't all bad, is it? There's a difference between disagreeing with the Republican position on the whole and not seeing one good aspect of that party's platform!! Not one! The way you write, its as if the Republicans are a disguised Nazi party, and the Democrats are---wait for it---just as bad if not worss!! This is evident in your post at #211, when you said, '"I despair. And we thought over here, maybe, just maybe, Obama might actually be the kind of guy to come up with a new policy or two. Doesn't look very hopeful,
does it?"
Just the fact that you think Obama's (yes I agree somewhat misguided stance on taking out OBL if he had him in his sights) is the same as haveing a policy in foreign affairs where by the solution to any and all international problems, especially conflicts between the US and other nations, or other nations with each other such as the Isralie/Palistine one, is to "bomb, bomb, bomb them all!! as you explained in the rest of that post!" demonstrates your shockingly severe lack of maturity, ability to listen, and clear-eyed vision of US contenders's approach to international affairs!! I can't believe you think these things! I'm not even going to bother to explain the truth regarding McCain's (but especially Obama's) positions this time.
I will leave you with this sound bit of advice, though. Which I dearly hope you'll take! No party in any nation is perfect! Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservitive, Tory or Labour! Always remember that!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just wait until you observe the vice presidential debate on October 2!
Complain about this comment
# 2 ::::
i also stayed up for the debate....
Complain about this comment
Dominick,
I agree. Act in haste, repent at leisureSome detail on the emerging compromise
And McCain claims credit for solution
We shall see what we shall see.
Keep your hands on your ha'pennies...
Complain about this comment
#311 Ed Iglehart
#300 Ed Iglehart
The logic you offer for your position is that the people who did this were people like you - "our people" - and therefore the issue merits more attention. The people who perpetrated the wrongs in Vietnam and Sudan were not Europeans.
My argument is that the issue that deserves most attention is that which is killing and causing most suffering, wherever it is in the world and whatever the ethnicity and religion of the perpetrators and the victims. That is probably currently Darfur.
That included Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in charge.
There is no 'two wrongs' issue here. I am not suggesting paralysis but action on the issue which is objectively worst.
You might note that a good deal of the reason the Palestinians have maintained international attention is their own extreme groups' terrorist activities. Exactly the same strategy as the extremist Jewish terrorists.
I should also point out that I have a great deal of admiration for the North Vietnamese and their sacrifice which led to success in the war with South Vietnam.
I don't much admire the immediate aftermath and their treatment of the South Vietnamese.
Unexpected and unpleasant.
Complain about this comment
I know the feeling!Making Sense Of The McCain Overload
McDramaQueen is imploding. Who's sorry?
Not me
Complain about this comment
#306 wanderingangus
The point I was making was not that 'terrorism was routine' but that driving people from their homes was routine. Sections of Belfast and some other areas were ethnically cleansed so that the paramilitaries could control their own populations more readily.
Those people have not, as far as I know, ever gone back. That's because they achieved economic stability elsewhere.
My mother was from Dundalk and a staunch nationalist and supporter of the Provisional IRA.
She came to London in 1940 and she was supposed to meet somebody from home off the train a year or so later. He didn't show up. He was arrested for IRA membership. That was much frowned upon during WW2.
The 'Troubles' as they have come to be known most recently have dominated Irish politics for many generations.
We tend to forget now that Wolfe Tone was a Protestant who advocated cooperation between religious groups (1790s) to establish an Irish republic - and that probably the first violent action of the Irish Republican Brotherhood - the forerunner of the IRA - was to invade Canada from the USA in the 1860s.
I don't think it worked.
Complain about this comment
#326 Xie_Ming
Uri Avnery was a member of the Irgun.
Characterising all Israeli - or Middle Eastern Jewish - actions by those of the Irgun is like characterising all Palestinian actions by those of PFLP-GC.
Complain about this comment
so..what is the result ?
Lie Fung
Complain about this comment
Chill0,
Quite correct. The issues where WE are at fault, are those we should apply most effort to correcting.Objectivity is always an illusion, and you are trying to diminish the importance of a problem in which our behaviour is a major factor by "objectively" calling another problem greater. If that isn't "two wrongs" I misunderstand rhetorical terms.A pity they had to resort to terrorism to get noticed in all the Euroamerican appeasement of the doughty Israelis.
Salaam, etc.
ed
P.S. The perpetrators of Deir Yassin may have been condemned, but none were punished. Some gained high office. Time does not heal all wounds.
Complain about this comment
322. Ed Iglehart:
'At the risk of engaging in "two wrongs", I'll just note that it's a lot more than McCain brings to the table."
And the "right" to be President is conferred by the voters. It doesn't get "earned" any other way, and certainly not by doing time in prison and marrying into the mob, though that's one possible preparation.'
Obama does not bring more to the table than McCain. You've got to ignore McCain's experience as a lawmaker, his interest and involvement in foreign affairs, and his service to our country to justify that statement. You obviously don't agree with McCain's positions, but, please, let's not pretend his long career doesn't exist.
There is a reason that, when trying to justify Obama's lack of experience, Bush's or Palin's experience is used as the bar that is being exceeded. That should tell you something right there. Just how low are you going to lower that bar?
Voters judge whether someone's earned the right to be president. So, far they're not convinced about Obama.
Complain about this comment
Chill0,
Indeed he was, and who better to know the score?I think his track record speaks for itself.Make up your own mind
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Complain about this comment
323. wanderingangus:
"Andrea # 316 says that Obama lacks understanding of Middle America.
Andrea - this man is middle America in all its melting pot, opportunity for people who strive, democratic glory.
Or maybe you don't like him 'cos he is black."
**********************
Obama may have worked his way up from poverty, but he's not even remotely connected to Middle America. Obama's understanding of Middle America is that he needs to provide them with financial relief. Noble, but I would say there's a lot more to Middle America than their need for an easier time economically.
Your last sentence is childish. If you can't defend Obama's record without resorting to name calling, maybe the problem is with his record.
Maybe you can tell me how Obama has served his country?
Complain about this comment
339. chill0:
"Those people have not, as far as I know, ever gone back. That's because they achieved economic stability elsewhere."
To what would you attribute the fact that the Palestinians have been stuck where they are for decades?
Complain about this comment
"339. At 4:12pm on 28 Sep 2008, chill0 wrote:
#306 wanderingangus
For instance, in the only situation of which I have direct knowledge, ChillO states something like "In Northern Ireland, terrorism was routine". It was far deeper and far more complicated than just routine - and dominated the lives of two generations and two sovereign nations, the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
The point I was making was not that 'terrorism was routine' but that driving people from their homes was routine. Sections of Belfast and some other areas were ethnically cleansed so that the paramilitaries could control their own populations more readily.
Those people have not, as far as I know, ever gone back. That's because they achieved economic stability elsewhere."
Like the jews expelled from europe? Yet we hear claims for compensation and resotration from this quarter.
As it happens numerous people in NI want justice for their suffering.
"
We tend to forget now that Wolfe Tone was a Protestant who advocated cooperation between religious groups (1790s) to establish an Irish republic - and that probably the first violent action of the Irish Republican Brotherhood - the forerunner of the IRA - was to invade Canada from the USA in the 1860s.
I don't think it worked."
Robert Emmet and William Smith O'Brien wre both protestants also.
Complain about this comment
Listening to Obama on CBS today (via radio) I was very impressed with his take on the financial system's problems.
He was fudging a bit on 2 points.
First, that this problem is the sole result of 8 years of the Bush Administration. Of course, he must stay on message that he's running against Bush.
Second, that the reasons for the foreclosures is that middle class Americans were so strapped financially they had to leverage their homes to make ends meet. No responsibility on their part acknowledged.
In other words, they borrowed because they were the victims of policies that favored the rich. That's a good one.
And the republicans were completely responsible. Another good one.
Complain about this comment
"My argument is that the issue that deserves most attention is that which is killing and causing most suffering, wherever it is in the world and whatever the ethnicity and religion of the perpetrators and the victims. That is probably currently Darfur."
No the point is that the suffering of the Palestinians is caused by us our governments condone it .
We did not cause the sufferings of the Darfuris who are in a civil war - a far different scenario.
"There is no 'two wrongs' issue here. I am not suggesting paralysis but action on the issue which is objectively worst."
Palestinians have been dying and suffering since before WWII, how objective do you want to be?
"You might note that a good deal of the reason the Palestinians have maintained international attention is their own extreme groups' terrorist activities. Exactly the same strategy as the extremist Jewish terrorists."
Is this the case? The sight of children being shot by IDF soldiers has had an effect too.
The sight of aged woman being beaten by a bunch of religious fanatics also has had an effect too.
Complain about this comment
"340. At 4:15pm on 28 Sep 2008, chill0 wrote:
#326 Xie_Ming
Uri Avnery was a member of the Irgun.
Characterising all Israeli - or Middle Eastern Jewish - actions by those of the Irgun is like characterising all Palestinian actions by those of PFLP-GC."
With the slight exception that the leaders and followers of the Irgun were greeted into Western Capitals and hailed as heroes in the US etc.
But of course they were the right colour and ethnicity
Complain about this comment
McCain discovers the middle class!
Two days after Obama reminds him.It just gets better and better...
Complain about this comment
ref #331
a fair point although I think alot of Obama's vision is empty words.
And the correctly pointed out naivite in foriegn policy is a concern.
But just as I would not put a first year resident in charge of major surgery at John Hopkins I can't see putting a first term Senator or a first term govenor in charge of the country.
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
Oh, it exists, allright"It exists allright, and it ain't pretty.;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Andrea in NY
245 "I'm not sure why Obama believes he is qualified to be president of the US. /He is one of the most arrogant, inexperienced politicians I've seen in my life."
310 "The prize for arrogance goes to Obama. Even his supporters complain about it."
316 "Obama is a lightweight if we're talking about qualifications to be president of the US and its CIC./Intelligence, an Ivy education, charisma and and oratorical skills are great attributes but they are not enough to have earned him the right to be president....He also lacks a fundamental understanding of Middle America."
Don't be so cryptic Andrea - tell us who you really support...
A few points
1 You seem to me to be in the habit of mistaking your subjective impressions of candidates for facts. For example your stating, in these posts and/or previous ones, that Obamais indecisive, lacks backbone, is arrogant - whatever.
2 In fairness, I'm sure he's not without arrogance. How many modest, humble 'shrinking violets' go into politics and then run for President [against a runaway favourite]?
3 No one has "the right to be president" unless they're elected to the job. [Or obviously unless they're appointed under the constitution - eg the elderly President becomes ill or incapacitated, and the call goes out to VP Palin...]
4 I'm not aware of the evidence that Obama thinks he has this 'right'. For example, in the debate I saw, he wasn't the one who was arrogant, appeared to have no respect for his opponent, couldn't look him in the eye, gave no examples of where they agreed, seemed to think he was entitled to be POTUS, patronised his opponent. [One of the things I hate is people who disagree with me but who can't accept that I reach different conclusions from them, and insist therefore that I really 'just don't understand'.]
5 Two people who seem to think they are/were 'entitled ' to be President are McCain and HRC. At least one has been proved wrong...
6 You and many others bang on about Obama's inexperience. It's your right - obviously - to decide that that's the most important factor when you vote. It's a factor in most appointments. But not the only one - even in presidential politics. [And just for the record, Obama is indeed clearly relatively inexperienced compared to most recent Presidents and nominees.]
7 In essence Obama has 'applied' for 2 jobs - Democratic Nominee and POTUS. Almost all the other candidates for the first job had more experience than he - some far more. [Joe Biden is perhaps the most obvious example.] Perhaps ironically, his main rival was the least experienced, HRC. He beat her, and them. People may disagree with the millions of voters in the Dem Primaries and Caucuses - may whinge on about Kool Aid , Obamamania etc - but that's democracy.
8 McCain clearly has more experience than Obama. If that were all that mattered, the race would be over. Last I heard, Obama seems to be winning, albeit narrowly.
9 Look at some actual presidential elections. Gore - 8 years VP at a time of relative peace and prosperity - lost to Bush Jr [sort of...] Bush Sr - vastly experienced, war hero, lost to relatively young and obscure Gov. Clinton. Dole/Kemp, apparently the most experienced ticket for years, Dole another war hero, with vast experience - again, lost to Clinton. I could go on.
10 As I say, IF all the electorate care about is experience, it may well be a Rep landslide. [Unless they think of Palin.] We'll know soon enough. But somehow I wouldn't bet the mortgage on it...
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
Primarily to the Israeli prevention of the UN-mandated right of return.Not to mention the dozens of other outstanding UN resolutions defied and ignored by the peace-loving israelis, and all the ones Vetoed by us, or, if you prefer a Jewish source, here you go..Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Andrea ~ 345
Please read DomenickVila at 331 and then confirm to us all that your reaction is not the reaction of a bigot.
Complain about this comment
353. Ed Iglehart:
Yes, the NYT is certainly doing its part in uncovering the "real" McCain.
What part of his work with the gambling industry are you having trouble with?
Complain about this comment
Palin says people coexisted with dinosaurs
The answer to Matt Damon's YouTube question
Complain about this comment
#316 AndreainNY,
You say that Obama is a lightweight in terms of potentially becoming a president. Does this make George W Bush a heavyweight??? I think not!
Another of your comments: .
"He also lacks a fundamental understanding of Middle America."
Who was the person who referenced the plight of middle America during the debate? Answer: Barack Obama and NOT John McCain. With all due respect, your argument is tantamount to unfounded rubbish.
You, like John McCain are running out of ideas. I suppose the next thing you're going to be telling me is that Barack Obama is not as adept at running a country as George W Bush is!!!
You are truly very misguided and I do pity you. Your arguments as usual are too insipid and hackneyed to even address on a serious level.
You say that average Americans don't think he's experienced enough, well the polls clearly don't agree with you, and more importantly how do you define "average american"? I guarantee you that Barack Obama is more empathic with "average americans" than John McCain ever will be.
The bottom line is, of the two candidates, Obama is by far the more credible. For you to even suggest that he lacks experience is a joke, as the job of president does not come with an internship; you learn as you go along. Bill Clinton pointed this out last week on his appearance on "The View". This is clearly a concept that you don't comprehend very well.
Have a good weekend, and thank you for amusing me. Please continue to do so, as I'm enjoying this immensely.
Complain about this comment
327. Ed Iglehart:
"Andrea,
"You're missing the point. She is Middle America. "
Meeeeeooooowww! Typical New York view! What? Me miss the point? Rarely...;-)"
Please explain to me how Sarah Palin is different from Middle America. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
#320. AndreainNY: " You're missing the point. She is Middle America."
You're absolutely correct and Ed, et al, are wrong. My neighbours are Middle America and I suspect Ed would be if he still lived here - but does America want my neighbour - or Ed for that matter - to be a potential President? I think not. There's more to being President than knowing the price of a dozen eggs.
I see your point, but it takes someone with more education and raw intellect to lead the USA should it be necessary. On that score alone, both Obama and Biden win hands down. I wouldn't want the man-in-the-street to be leader of the free world
Complain about this comment
351. Ed Iglehart:
Last I checked, this bailout was for main street, too.
Obama was irrelevant to the entire process.
Complain about this comment
352. MagicKirin:
"But just as I would not put a first year resident in charge of major surgery at John Hopkins I can't see putting a first term Senator or a first term govenor in charge of the country."
There is no case to be made that Obama is ready to become president with so little experience.
McCain's experience has to be ground down into dust in order to make a comparison favorable to Obama.
Complain about this comment
328. Ed Iglehart:
"And, even supposing she IS Middle America, does that imply she "understands" it...?"
Why do you believe Palin doesn't "understand" Middle America?
Complain about this comment
360. At 5:37pm on 28 Sep 2008, AndreainNY wrote:
327. Ed Iglehart:
"Andrea,
"You're missing the point. She is Middle America. "
Meeeeeooooowww! Typical New York view! What? Me miss the point? Rarely...;-)"
Please explain to me how Sarah Palin is different from Middle America. Thanks."]
What an arrogant and pompous comment.
Whatever middle America is (and some of it is black,some latino etc) it is not a horde of halfeducated creationists.
Complain about this comment
ref #353
I read the article, the Boston Globe is owned by NYT so no surprise they reprinted.
Two pints:
1. I dont think any McCain supporter thinks he is perfect or walks on water, (you will admidt they are Obama supporters who thinks he does?)
2. NYT lose all credbility when it devoted a front page to a supposed affair McCain had a lobbyist. With no sources to back it up.
Complain about this comment
"363. At 5:50pm on 28 Sep 2008, AndreainNY wrote:
352. MagicKirin:
"But just as I would not put a first year resident in charge of major surgery at John Hopkins I can't see putting a first term Senator or a first term govenor in charge of the country."
There is no case to be made that Obama is ready to become president with so little experience. "
That depends on what you define as experience.
Presidnet Bush had a lot "experience"
Presidents require a host of qualities. Intelligence is generally considered to be good.
And up to now being white, male and christian.
Complain about this comment
"354. At 5:25pm on 28 Sep 2008, john-In-Dublin wrote:
Andrea in NY
245 "I'm not sure why Obama believes he is qualified to be president of the US. /He is one of the most arrogant, inexperienced politicians I've seen in my life."
Again the "arrogance" hmmm now why is this such an issue.
But we know why do we not?.....
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
Its lobbying practices, for a start, but we all know McCain has scant time for "birds of prey";-0
ed
Complain about this comment
Re:#361. Even Kansas managed to ultimately vote out those pressing for the teaching creationism in schools.
Voted the creationists out
Sebelius was among the first to critise Palin.
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
Talk about missing the point....Why do you believe she does? That was my question.;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#326 #396
Concerning the ethnic cleasing of the Palestinians (which began as a genocide). there was a unification among the Irgun, Hagannah, Stern, etc. as they began their drive to eliminate the native Palestinians from their lands and homes.
Uri Avnery has had a well-deserved reputation as a journalist for over sixty years. He was in the operation and has written about about it.
His columns are searchable in either Hebrew or English. Anyone interested should consider him as a most reliable source:
Uri Avnery ( who was a machine-gunner with the cleansers) and his fellows received order to "kill" any Arabs who attempted to return to their homes.
genocide is not a matter of body count, it is a matter of intent!
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1222552857/
Complain about this comment
Do I detect a pause in posting ? Could it be that Andrea's daffy aggression has done to the BBC what the Nazis were unable to do ?
Is anyone out there ?
Anyone ?
Out there ?
Oh well, time to take refuge underneath the bed.
And just wait.
Complain about this comment
McCain lovers why are you bothering to post?
Everything is ok now!
McCain is going to Washington before the election to fix the economy.
Hooray!
I for one feel safer knowing John McCain is in Washington helping poor GW give alot of money to alot of rich companies so they can feel confident again.
What's the rationale?
1)If you give the money to the poor folks who get forclosed then maybe no one will have an incentive to make their payments.
2)If you give the money to the rich companies so they will get movin' maybe they won't have an incentive to trade honestly.
Hmmm- I'm sure glad JMcCain is there to make sure everyone ante's up!
You can put lipstick on John McCain but he's still a worse candidate with poorer judgement in a worse situation than GW was in the last two times around. Add to that he's got GW, the lord of footin-mouth and failure-to-grasp-the-obvious, to help him and I gotta like the superposition of absentee intelligence.
You know it's gonna get better when Sarah Palin comes to town, if you could get her to say anything- like about Putin's head looming over Alaska.
Yeah clearly it's game set and match to the maverick and his one man band of mis-timing, mis-step.
"And ladies and gentlemen don't forget my lovely assistant Sarah!"
Complain about this comment
"372. At 6:17pm on 28 Sep 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:
#326 #396
Concerning the ethnic cleasing of the Palestinians (which began as a genocide). there was a unification among the Irgun, Hagannah, Stern, etc. as they began their drive to eliminate the native Palestinians from their lands and homes."
Most mainstream Israeli historians now admit that tyhe cleansing of the Palestinians was quite deliberate. It is important to remember the early Israelis were European settlers who despised arabs as a matter of course.
Colonists alsways despise native inhabitants.
Complain about this comment
I fear that the coalition of the primitives and their NeoCon exploiters may yet again control what is left of the USA.
Thus, the partisan sniping here will be of no avail
and mental effort could be better spent in organizing a World that lets the USA and Blair/Miliband land sink in corruption and ideology
and moves on to civilized goals.
__________________________
As a first step, concerned folk should learn what "legalism" is as an ethical/moral approach-
and emphatically eschew it!
Complain about this comment
303, chillO
You don't address the question of trust.
Complain about this comment
321, Magic.
Obama has beenan elected official since 1997, first in the Illinois Senate, and then in the U.S.Senate. Don't waste your time comparing him to Palin. Oh, yes, he is also educated.
Complain about this comment
ref #378
The State Senate does not recomend itself to most people.
My observation is that the majority are political hacks.
So Palin is uneducated? I am not a fan of Palin but don't disparage non Ivy league degrees.
Bush has a Ivy League one and the even more clueless John Kerry does too
Complain about this comment
ref #375
Any you both might remember the time between ww1 and WW2 when the Grand Mufti and other Arab leaders were mostly supporting the Nazi's.
Also King Abdullah of Trans Jorsan tried to make peace with Israel and was assinated by fellow Arabs.
Complain about this comment
#315. Ed Iglehart: "Has (Mrs Palin) ever been to Middle America before the last few weeks?"
I'd be curious to know when you last visited Middle America. So much has changed since you arrived in Scotland that, in John McCain's words, "you don't seem to understand" what Middle America is today. Although I've never been to Wasilla, I'd say it fairly represents the 'red' states between the coasts, with simple values and virtues. The vulgarity and values of present day "sophisticated" Britain - for example, as seen in the television production "Little Britain" - simply would not be permitted over-the-air here and the message it represents would be rejected by a majority of red-state voters. If each state had one vote, then the 'blue' states would not, this year, have any chance of success in November.
#365.Simon21: "Whatever middle America is (and some of it is black, some latino etc) it is not a horde of half-educated creationists."
While I don't agree with creationism or the teaching of it in schools, I don't think that believers can uniformly be dismissed as 'half-educated'. Religious belief does not necessarily connote ignorance.
Complain about this comment
378. At 6:55pm on 28 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
Obama has been an elected official since 1997, first in the Illinois Senate, and then in the U.S.Senate. Don't waste your time comparing him to Palin. Oh, yes, he is also educated.
-----------------------------------------
Ah yes, but can he skin Meese? Does he take his kids to hockey? Bet he can't see Russia from his back yard! Has he ever stopped a bridge to anywhere?
You see, Obama is totally unsuited to lead the USA. Man, he even has an ejukashion and can string words together! He's a heretic, I'm sure, and very, very dangerous. Andrea is right, he's a David compared to Palin's Goliath!
My opinion is that Obama's sense of purpose, his view that foreign policy must change, the view that the US needs to talk to people (WHAT!!) instead of preach, or worse, bomb, makes him far, far, far more qualified than McCain.
By the way, let's call Sarah Palin's reaction (along with most of "Middle America") to her daughter's pregnancy what most people really see it as, based on her stated beliefs.
Hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
354. john-In-Dublin:
"Don't be so cryptic Andrea - tell us who you really support..."
Yes, I support McCain. Was I supposed to be impartial?
By the way, I don't disagree with most of your statements. Most of the postings here reflect viewpoints not fact (despite links suggesting otherwise).
371. Ed Iglehart:
You were taking exception with my view that Palin understands Middle America. I'm asking you to explain how she doesn't understand Middle America. Can you?
369. Ed Iglehart:
'Andrea,
"What part of his work with the gambling industry are you having trouble with?"
Its lobbying practices, for a start,...'
What specifically about his lobbying practices?
367. Simon21:
'That depends on what you define as experience.
Presidnet Bush had a lot "experience"'
My, my. There's an awful lot of dancing around the experience issue here.
Either Bush was experienced or he wasn't. Which is it?
Obama is experienced compared to Bush, except Bush was a lousy president because he was inexperienced.
Or only a president's experience matters. So only presidential incumbents have experience?
Or now, experience doesn't matter at all, is that it?
359. ezekielthemack:
'Who was the person who referenced the plight of middle America during the debate? Answer: Barack Obama and NOT John McCain. With all due respect, your argument is tantamount to unfounded rubbish. "
Uh, mentioning the middle class during the debate is not exactly evidence of anything. Senator Obama supports the middle class. He just doesn't understand them beyond knowing that they need economic assistance.
356. wanderingangus:
"Andrea ~ 345
Please read DomenickVila at 331 and then confirm to us all that your reaction is not the reaction of a bigot."
If you are going to accuse me of being a bigot, could you please explain your reason for doing so? Thanks.
Maybe someone else wants to answer my question of how Obama has served his country?
Complain about this comment
361. David_Cunard:
"#320. AndreainNY: " You're missing the point. She is Middle America."
You're absolutely correct and Ed, et al, are wrong. My neighbours are Middle America and I suspect Ed would be if he still lived here - but does America want my neighbour - or Ed for that matter - to be a potential President? I think not. There's more to being President than knowing the price of a dozen eggs.
I see your point, but it takes someone with more education and raw intellect to lead the USA should it be necessary. On that score alone, both Obama and Biden win hands down. I wouldn't want the man-in-the-street to be leader of the free world"
I agree that Palin is not qualified to be VP, never mind president.
My point is that she gets Middle America much more than Obama does.
My other point is that comparing Obama to Palin vis-a-vis experience is not saying much. Ditto for comparing him to Bush.
So much effort to explain away the importance of experience.
Complain about this comment
365. Simon21 wrote:
"Whatever middle America is (and some of it is black,some latino etc) it is not a horde of halfeducated creationists."
Nice.
Complain about this comment
310., AndreainNY:
"She (Palin) is unqualified and not as well educated, but she has more personal grit and understands, and respects, Middle America."
The jury is still out on wether Palin understands anything; her appearances in the campaign so far suggest otherwise.
Also, I'm not sure if 'Middle America' needs to be understood, or rather understand.
Understand that voting Bush seemed a good idea at the time, but didn't turn out too well.
Understand that voting for a man like McCain, with pretty much the same personal qualities and attitudes, might not be wise.
And finally, a President Obama might make Middle America understand eventually , that an educated, black man in his forties can run the US just as well as the usual suspects - thereby understanding that there is nothing to fear from progress and giving up of old habits.
Complain about this comment
#330, Dominick, I agree with everything that
you have said, but there is an issue of timing here.
If we do not immediately fix the credit systems,
then we are toast. The credit system is, essentially,
the circulatory system of the economy. No credit,
no heartbeat. If a bill is not approved this weekend,
then the following could happen next week:
1. any savings that you have in the bank could
disappear. There is not enough left in the FDIC
fund to cover major runs on banks.
2. companies, large and small, will be unable to
make payroll. If you get a payroll check, you'll
have to put it in that special mattress that
british-ish are designing. Do you get paid in
dollars or sterling? We have two different models.
3. The rest of the world will pull all their money
out, which will make the situation even worse.
Think Weimar Republic worse.
The problem is that nobody knows what all
of these CDOs are worth, so banks can't trust
each other and lend each other money. Without
being able to do that, the whole system will go
down.
Renegotiation of mortgages could take a long
time. That could certainly be possible once the
Feds take over these contaminated CDOs,
but it would not happen quickly enough to
save the banking system.
All of that having been said, I would still like to
see the CEOs of these financial institutions
walk the plank into shark infested waters, if
only to improve the diet of endangered predators.
Complain about this comment
#384. AndreainNY - see #381; our posts must have crossed in cyberspace.
Complain about this comment