First Debate

[Sam Donaldson 0]

Here are some observations from an undecided (unlike most of you clowns) voter in a swing state. I’ll number them for your reading pleasure.1.) I have no strong distaste for either candidate. I can say I’ve never had this opinion in prior elections.2. Obama did much better than McCain on the economy, both are sub-par, but Obama is the best of the worst. Maverick, not very well liked, Miss Congeniality, whatever. Obama simply communicates better on this issue.3.) McCain is very knowledge on foreign policy. He’s a walking dictionary on names, strategy, tactics, and historical references. He used names I’ve never heard of before, and couldn’t possibly enunciate, and I also liked this little swipe: "So let me get this right, we sit down with Ahmadinejad and he says 'we're going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' and we say, 'no you're not.' Oh please." This was very good, and it tilted Obama a little.4.) Jim Lehrer has black, soulless eyes. 5.) I give McCain a slight edge in this debate, simply because the majority of it focused on his greatest strength. 6.) The economy is the number one issue in this election. Neither McCain nor Obama is prepared to deal with it or ever will be. This means I’m still undecided and will probably end up writing in an obscure name like Ludwig von Mises, Randy “Macho Man” Savage or Queen Noor. I like cats.

[CaneBrain 95]

I agree with this except that McCain should have killed Obama in this debate. The fact that it was close is a loss for McCain IMO. Wow, I just picture in my head how much better Guiliani would have been. If McCain can't dominate a debate on Foriegn Policy and the economy, then how bad is he going to be on the other issues. I know it has already been said, but there have been better points made on the economy in this political forum. Very disappointed, the only I hope I have now that people can really see what a socialist Obama is and reject him on that basis.

Trust me, you are better off with McCain. The only reason this race is a contest is that McCain does have a legit history of being a centrist and being able to cross party lines. There is a reason Guiliani started out hot and then imploded like a dying star. The more you hear him and see him the less you like him.As for the debate, I would call it a tie.....but I think ties favor Obama. McCain really needed to win this debate decisively and I just dont see it.

[AmScray 355]

namedropping isn't "pwnage" or whatever you think it is.

Way to be mindlessly dismissive of whatever shows up your/our boy.Yeah, that's what it was. Just "namedropping". Obama was taking the 'high road' by not engaging in 'namedropping' while McCain, well, what appeared on the surface to be an intimate understanding of the issue? Nah, it was was just 'namedropping'. L. O. L.Obama got his face ripped off by McCain on foreign policy, and it will continue. Just as McCain won't be able to "pork barrel spending" his way out of weak stances certain social policy issues, Obama won't be able to "hope and change" his way out of his inexperience and limited understanding (beyond the ideological) of foreign policy. All he can hope is that the aggregate outweighs everything else and he comes out a net winner.

[Marchione 0]

most of the americans abroad are military, and that scored nothing with them. If their votes get counted of course.

you are wrong with this info ~ over 20 million americans live out side of the USA ~ and 7 million are registered with dems abroad -

[copernicus 0]

this is a hopelessly retarded statement.

I bow to your superior knowledge.NOT

[loogie 115]

I bow to your superior knowledge.NOT

Not what? Not 1992?

[copernicus 0]

Not what? Not 1992?

7with checky more like 1867

[checkymcfold 0]

Way to be mindlessly dismissive of whatever shows up your/our boy.Yeah, that's what it was. Just "namedropping". Obama was taking the 'high road' by not engaging in 'namedropping' while McCain, well, what appeared on the surface to be an intimate understanding of the issue? Nah, it was was just 'namedropping'. L. O. L.Obama got his face ripped off by McCain on foreign policy, and it will continue. Just as McCain won't be able to "pork barrel spending" his way out of weak stances certain social policy issues, Obama won't be able to "hope and change" his way out of his inexperience and limited understanding (beyond the ideological) of foreign policy. All he can hope is that the aggregate outweighs everything else and he comes out a net winner.

i'm honestly a bit weirded out that you could possibly think that mccain put forth more substance when it came to foreign policy tonight. as i said before, i didn't think that part of things swung wildly either way at all. mccain talked about shit that happened before, as would be expected, and took a little too much credit for stuff that involved a lot more than one former pow senator, as would be expected, and obama talked in specific terms about a timetable for withdrawal from iraq and the movement of 2-3 brigades to afghanistan, focusing on the future because he hasn't been around to do a whole lot in the past, also as would be expected. but neither guy sounded as if he understood anything the other didn't, neither sounded more vague than the other, and both were able to articulate their views fairly well. it was two different messages on some things, but they actually said a lot of the same stuff. despite the silly "so you'd sit down with ahmadinejad and tell him not to bomb israel" line, they were actually articulating quite the same stance--diplomacy, then military action if necessary. mccain telling obama that he was going to go in as president before less important people did was dishonest and a mischaracterization of obama's stance, as obama himself said.both were weak on the economy tonight. neither was weak on foreign policy, and outside of iraq, they really weren't very different at all. obama may talk more about the diplomacy side of things, and mccain may name more names, but it's not as if either is at all unaware of the part that they're not focusing on to rile up their respective bases.

[checkymcfold 0]

I bow to your superior knowledge.NOT

just to be clear:it's a bigger mistake to disagree tactically with an increase in troops that led IN PART to a decrease in violence than it is to begin a preemptive war on false pretenses and faulty intelligence. riiiiiight.at least obama knows what a good war is and what a bad war is. mccain may not pick the right wars, but he sure can kill him some a-rabs on the third or fourth try.it's utterly retarded, as i said (well, i said "hopelessly" before, which may not be quite the right adverb), to suggest that after ****ing up royally for four years, that doing one thing right makes you a champion. that's revisionist history, and it absolutely hurts our troops in very concrete ways and hurts america similarly.

[johns76222 0]

Obama rambling on the war.... he needs to stop... blah blah blah. And I agree with him more than I do McCain on this issue, but Obama needs to know when to say when.This is the first time I've seen Obama unscripted for any length of time, and I don't see where all the "great speaker" stuff comes from. Is it just his ability to deliver pre-written speeches? Cuz he's not showing it tonight.

Ahh ... you are clearly figuring Obama out -- Here is his health care plan -- Make any sense to you ?

Obama is an empty suit without experience and has no clue on what to do except give out money to whom he considers needy.Obama was on the defensive in this debate the whole night.

[copernicus 0]

just to be clear:it's a bigger mistake to disagree tactically with an increase in troops that led IN PART to a decrease in violence than it is to begin a preemptive war on false pretenses and faulty intelligence. riiiiiight. Good thing that didnt happenat least obama knows what a good war is and what a bad war is.Thats the problem. He doesnt. mccain may not pick the right wars, but he sure can kill him some a-rabs on the third or fourth try.He wasnt CIC. guess you didnt realize that. He called for more troops from day 1.it's utterly retarded, as i said (well, i said "hopelessly" before, which may not be quite the right adverb), to suggest that after ****ing up royally for four years, that doing one thing right makes you a champion. That didnt happen and what didnt happen wasnt McCain. that's revisionist history, and it absolutely hurts our troops in very concrete ways and hurts america similarly. Youre wrong, and hes dangerously wrong, Karl.

[Sheiky 0]

Well, I sure no one thing by now, McCain will doesn't like earmarks and will goddamn veto any pork barrel spending bill that passes the house.

[Loismustdie 0]

After thinking about this I thought for the most part it was a draw, except for three things that really gave it to McCain. One, Obamas refusal to give examples of things he may have to cut because of the bailout bill. He was afraid to say the wrong thing, and really anything. McCain just whipped out,"How about a freeze on spending?", and Obama wanted to argue why that couldn't be done, but the point wasn't to actually do that, the point was it's a starting point, and idea. Obama is supposed to be about change and ideas, and he couldn't think of one? Two, Obamas tax cuts vs. his spending plan, which ends up being a net zero. Obama, while trying to put Bush hand in hand with McCain on spending, is really pushing it if he thinks no one will notice what he is looking to do, especially the undecideds. For the Ron Paul crowd, this is a deal breaker in my mind. The meeting with Iran thing. McCain made Obama just look bad, especially with the fake conversation he had. It made Obama look silly, which was neccesary. Obama is wrong on this by so much it's sad he won't just say, "You know what, having thought about that, bad idea. I should in no way legitamize him as a President." Obama has a very, very hard time admitting when he is wrong. I also did not like how many times Obama said,"John is right." I mean, he was, and it should be "Senator McCain is right," but it's a bad tactic to affirm what your opponent is saying, just restate it and make it your own. McCain wins here and if it had not been for the economy questions it's not even close.

[fatman 1]

I really thought that McCain made Obama look really unprepared to lead this country in regards to foreign policy. I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the line when McCain told Obama that you "don't say those things out loud" when referring to Obama stating that he would take military action against Pakistan. While the economy is #1 on everyone's mind right now, as it should be, I just can't see voting for someone who will be such a disaster in foreign policy.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Can't wait to hear what Negreanu thought of this. I'm sure had a "rescue plan" been finalized words would have been spoken. Really would have hit hard if they verbalized what they thought would be an acceptable plan. But then again, McCain would side with whatever Bush presents...

If I was either of them I would have been extremely careful discussing the economy also since the outcome of this bailout is so uncertain and it's dangerous to take a strong position either way. Frankly, I might have expected McCain to take a shot at taking a strong position since he's shown more gamble with his political decisions and it could work out amazingly well for him if he turns to be right. McCain really did only have one train of thought in terms of the economy, cut spending. He didn't get into any specifics on how he plans to do that outside of him saying he'd take his pen out and veto the first earmark that came across his deck. He also mentioned that he might consider a spending freeze.

[85suited 0]

Don't worry, Obama said that is why he has joe biden.........................for foreign policy

[85suited 0]

McCain really did only have one train of thought in terms of the economy, cut spending. He didn't get into any specifics on how he plans to do that outside of him saying he'd take his pen out and veto the first earmark that came across his deck. He also mentioned that he might consider a spending freeze.

Daniel, do you not think these are good ideas? Hid did say they would look for waste in every department in the govt!

[85suited 0]

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/816036-p4.htmlHere is the section where McCain and Obama debate earmarks and spending

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I wanted to add one thing that was brought up in this thread: No politician in his right mind that is running for president would even answer the question, "What programs will you cut" and get into specifics. It's akin to shooting yourself in the foot. Neither candidate was specific about that. McCain said he'd freeze spending, not singling out any specific programs. Obama, also spun the question and explained which programs he did not want to cut. You don't alienate a group of voters by telling them in the first debate that you are going to cut off funds to their programs. I can't imagine a politician being dumb enough to do that. It's a win for the other side, as the other side could now go to those voters and tell them, "This guy will cut you guys off. You can't vote for him."

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Trust me, you are better off with McCain. The only reason this race is a contest is that McCain does have a legit history of being a centrist and being able to cross party lines. There is a reason Guiliani started out hot and then imploded like a dying star. The more you hear him and see him the less you like him.As for the debate, I would call it a tie.....but I think ties favor Obama. McCain really needed to win this debate decisively and I just dont see it.

I didn't vote for Guliani in the primaries, I just think Guliani would have done better in the debate. McCain let too many things go.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Daniel, do you not think these are good ideas? Hid did say they would look for waste in every department in the govt!

I wasn't commenting on whether I thought it was a good idea or not, only that McCain didn't get specific on how that would work. As for my take on it, I think it's too broad a statement to put a freeze on ALL spending and I don't agree that it's a feasible option.

[85suited 0]

I wasn't commenting on whether I thought it was a good idea or not, only that McCain didn't get specific on how that would work. As for my take on it, I think it's too broad a statement to put a freeze on ALL spending and I don't agree that it's a feasible option.

Ok, but do you think the govt wastes taxpayer money?

[hblask 1]

I wasn't commenting on whether I thought it was a good idea or not, only that McCain didn't get specific on how that would work. As for my take on it, I think it's too broad a statement to put a freeze on ALL spending and I don't agree that it's a feasible option.

Really? Because that's what many of us have had to do every year because the govt keeps taking more of our money. So I have to live on deflated dollars every year so politicians can buy votes with my money?

[85suited 0]

Congress and the President decide they want $1.7 trillion dollars to fund this bloated pig called our government. We know that 100% of all personal "income" taxes extorted by the IRS goes to the "Federal" Reserve Banking System and does not fund a single function of the government. So, let's take the people's blood and sweat off the table.What other revenues does the government collect? Corporate taxes, social security taxes, constitutional revenues such as excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tires, etc., tariffs on trade, military hardware sales, and some minor categories. Let's say that those revenues will total $900 billion dollars. The politicians want $1.7 trillion to spend on their favorite welfare programs, wars and foreign welfare, but have a short fall of $800 billion dollars. This is called the deficit and the deficit, created by the spending of Congress, creates the "national debt."How? Because the politicians are $800 billion dollars short, they simply call up Ben Bernanke and borrow your children's and grand babies' futures. The "Federal" Reserve Banks don't loan anything of value to Congress. They aren't banks; they're really an overpaid, powerful, private accounting service. When that $800 billion dollars worth of ink is transferred to the Treasury, it gets piled on top of the existing "national debt." This is how the magical money machine works. Congress overspends. It borrows from this accounting firm called the "Fed" and then turns around and tells you to pay for these crimes against the people. In other words, Congress basically pays the bills with social security and borrowed ink from the "Fed." Pretty slick scam, wouldn't you say?The people of America are also responsible to a large degree for this out-of-control spending. Americans have been bred to a welfare dependent mentality. Special interest groups who have no interest in the U.S. Constitution, demand that billions of dollars be spent on their pet interests. Billions upon billions of dollars have been unconstitutionally thrown to foreign governments, some days our friend, a week later our enemies. They are only our friend as long as the U.S. throws money at their corrupt governments

[DanielNegreanu 141]

OFF TOPIC: I did want to add one more thing to the whole Palin discussion. Last night CNN asked to interview both Biden and Palin. The Obama campaign allowed Biden to do the interview, the McCain camp did not allow Palin to do the post debate interview. I don't believe it's media tainting that makes it look like the McCain campaign is shielding Palin from the media. They are (can't say I blame them). She is simply doing far less interviews than a typical VP candidate. She's done three formal sit down interviews and spoke to reporters one time. They are shielding her, as much as possible from unscripted discussion If I was running the McCain campaign and saw the Katie Couric interview, I likely would take the same approach. Biden is a total gaffe machine as proven in the last 10 days, but at least they allow the American people to hear him speak. I wanted to clarify something also that Bob mentioned to me and might not be clear. I may have said, "I hate Palin," but I wanted to make clear that I don't hate her as a human being, I hate her as VP. I hate what she stands for and I hate that she was picked because she was a woman. I hate that she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency because I don't feel that she could handle the job. If they don't let her speak to the media and she can't handle the pressure of a Katie Couric interview, then I'm not comfortable with the idea that she could lead the most powerful nation in the world.