***I thought McCain didn't shine tonight and, somehow, Obama came off like he knew what he was talking about. (which, in itself, is no easy feat, let's face it!)
DO NOT GET ME WRONG: I am in no way, shape or form implying I thought Obama's points made SENSE, I'm just saying I think undecideds who aren't clear or informed on the topics and who are as naive as Obama sounded to us tonight might veer in his direction after tonight's debate. He was prepared, even if his tie WAS crooked.
Just a bit disappointed tonight and, though I put little stock in polls, I must admit I'll be eager to see them this weekend. My buddy, Rich, has a different take on it at Mullings.com. Check that out. I hope he's right!
So, cheer me up. Convince me I'm wrong and McCain wowed America tonight...PLEASE?
*** THE PHOTOGRAPH ABOVE: This is a picture of the 1,215 soldiers who reenlisted this July 4, 2008 in a palace in Baghdad. The media barely covered it, as you know. Just to illustrate McCain's point that about 600 had reenlisted last year when he was in Iraq and spoke to them that day. They WANT us to win.
z
70 comments:
My wish for John McCain is that he would never say Obama's name again. I wish McCain would ONLY say what HE wants to do. His superior understanding of the topic was undeniable but it got kind of lost in the negatives and narratives about Obama. Play YOUR game McCain and don't put down someone else's game. Us voters are smart enough to understand the difference and make our own judgement on what we hear. I, too, was a little bit let down.
obama is charming...but he is wrong
kw
I don't know, but where I come from , when the opponent starts agreeing with the one he is debating, then he has lost.
He ( Obama) has a bracelet, but can't remember the guy's name. How utterly childish and pathetic.
Well, what ever.
I say McCain did well.
Obama has already got Kissinger making statements now that he lied about what Kissinger said.
WVDOTTR
I tend to agree with you totally. I ran a review on our blog, go check it out. I said that Obama talks good and that was about it.
Couldn't help but notice Fox News is slowly becoming more of a liberal news source though.
steve, you're right about FOX. Something's up there.
Pops..YOU are SO RIGHT> I just couldn't stand the accusations on McC's part...I kept saying "Tell us what YOU are going to do..don't slam Obama again and again..people really get defensive for the guy getting slammed...it's human nature."
Kris...SO wrong!
WV..I'm sure he did mention the soldier's name, but what was REALLY infantile was the way he said "I HAVE A BRACELET, TOO" (like nanny nanny!) The trouble is, the point about 'this mother said don't let others die like mine did' was pretty darned effective with TONS of American voters, though I totally am on the McCain mom's side, of course.
If Kissinger's already saying this, I HOPE the mainstream media picks it up and not just the conservative blogs.
McCain was just not on his game....I don't put a lot of store in polls except after these big events; tomorrow's should be telling.
I think McCain did really well, especially as the debate ended. Obama did ok but didn't satisfy the viewers with specifics - as he never does. Just his pretty words. He's humorless, too. I enjoyed that Kissinger has already put out a statement saying Obama is wrongly quoting him. He said he totally supports McCain.
Well, Karen, the wrap-up was my biggest beef with McCain! I thought Obama did way better there...I'm glad to hear you feel differently.
I'm just very glad this isn't the last debate.
The polls tomorrow will tell; maybe we'll wake up and be pleasantly surprised!
I think Obama cemented his arrogance and elitism by referring to McCain as "John".
I hope this is one of the small subtleties that comes back to bite him in the rear.
Well, I have to disagree with lots you say here.
A lot of people felt McCain should have slammed Obama more.
The man did out and out lie, Z.
He warned people in the administration of ..pick what you want.
Me too, oooh, me too...I agree...the punk lost, and I noticed how he liked to speak when McCain was speaking.
Totally rude, tryig hard to break McCain's concentration.
I do love that McCain did not look at Obama..that was his POW training.
And Obama trying to diminish McCain by calling him "JOhn".
Please..I bet Obama has a couple of little stains in his bvd's.
Steve H-you are right about FOX NEWs.
Charles K hates McCain, and I know he doesn't like Sarah Palin.
Barnes and that bunch always say the same stuff.
Remember the first Bush -Gore debate?? Oh Gore was wonderful, blah blah.
A couple days later they back peddled.
Us dumb old fly over people notice the facial expressions, the sighs, the movements, the trying to one up the other guy..bad sportsmanship.
Loved what McCain said about the difference between strategy and tactics.
Obama is a not ready for prime time player.
Now, I am not saying he didn't do well, but no way he won.
NO WAY.
ANd I do not care what that clown Luntz says either.
I bet everyone that comes to this blog could've written the so called reviews, same old crap , every time.
And by the way, John McCain is going back to DC to work on things.
CNN has carried Kissinger's statement .
Obama lies like a rug.
WVDOTTR
Hi All,
I think McCain came off less practiced and more genuine.
Obama sounded like someone who had studied for an oral exam. My, he does lie well huh?
I think McCain was McCain, we can't expect he would suddenly be someone else. He did well.
The style over substance crowd probably liked Obama, but they were in his camp already.
Pris
WV, Most of us see those things, too.
I'm sorry; i just see it differently. I am discouraged and, again, will say that I'm delighted this isn't the last debate. And I think McCain's handlers will help him next time with some things.....maybe almost as much as Obama's did him this time, I hope.
WV..I just read your comment again and I got the distinct impression you think that some of us are implying Obama won US OVER???!!!??
It was show and tell.
McCain told us how naive Obama is on many foreign policy points, and then Obama showed us McCain wasn't kidding.
No..I did not mean some of you were won over by Obama.
I just do not agree with some of your assessments.
McCain came off sounding sincere, and genuine.
I watched his eyes and face as he spoke, especially about the veterans.
Obama came off as having crammed for a test and wanting to show off..
suddenly he starts rattling off names from the Balkans .
And he is still smarting on his major screw up of when Russia invaded Georgia.
And no, Obama did not know the name of the fellow on his bracelet..which is pretty darned telling of what flag pins , and other things are to him, mere props.
ANd that is why they call it opinion .
WVDOTTR
I must mention my favorite Obama quote from the debate: (I'll omit all the ummms and uuhhhs to save space) --
"I have never said that I object to nuclear waste!!!"
The whole bracelet thing is getting lot of play.
Talk about a cheap act.
Did John McCain come across as knowing what he was talking about.Yes.
Obama is not ready to be president , he just wants the power.
It oozes from him.
Noticed those really ugly facial expressions he has, not a nice guy.
WVDOTTR
Of course all the headlines tomorrow morning will say that Obama won so as to try and make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. The good news about that -- who reads the Saturday paper???
Here's a good place to fact check the debate:
http://news.aol.com/article/fact-checking-the-first-presidential/190233?cid=3272
As we all would have supposed -- most the lies and distortions are on Obama's part.
As I said, I think most of here could've written the reviews the so called media will make about tonight.
But I did read a few minutes ago that they are now calling it a tie.
How do you like those apples?
That must mean McCain did pretty well according to more people than just me.
I also think John McCain was trying to get over the media's head and talk to independents out there.
WVDOTTR
As someone who stopped paying close attention to politics some time ago and only resumed when Sarah Palin came on board, and really only to the extent of finding out all I could about her, I was pleasantly pleased with John McCain's performance. It may mean I had very low expectations, but I thought he handled himself and the situation very well and said what needed saying, while Obama was mostly irritating and vague. Of course that could be my own bias. The only time I was disappointed in McCain was when I wanted him to say something about the Dems contribution to the financial disaster -- he seemed to go along with putting it completely on the Bush administration.
I thought McCain whipped Obama's rear end.
Morgan
what is it about fox that you all saw? i noticed nothing that would make me feel they were leaning left.
kw
I felt that Brack Obama gave a superficial answers. And McCain was much more well informed and specific!
I also thouth that the moderator gave Obama more time
I thought that McCain did well, but I think “well” is not going to be good enough. I think that he's going to have do much better.
kris, FOX, in general, is leaning more left than it originally did,not necessarily last night.
Bob....I thought Barack gave superficial answers too.
My point is that most Americans don't care and don't even look into the facts, etc.
Yes, McCain's answers were better.....
If most Americans DID care that someone's ill prepared for the office of the presidency, doesn't have the facts correct, is pushing us toward Socialism, and hasn't been pushed by the media to come clean with questionable things about his past, we wouldn't HAVE OBAMA as a candidate right now. They care about STYLE and they're promised freebies and ending a war; most Americans LIKE that, sadly. Obama hammered on leaving the war, which works in his favor with many voters.
I think McCain gave fantastic reasons why we have to stay in Iraq right now, but there are a lot of Americans just plain wanting to GO NOW, A LOT....so Obama would be persuasive to them.
As I've said many times, how they could CONSIDER electing him is WAY beyond me; NONE of Obama's solutions to any of the topics appeals to me.
I just watched the video at Malkin's blog about the bracelet.....I wanted to make sure because I was so certain I did hear Jopek's name.....Obama looks down,thinks for a second, and does say Sgt.Ryan David Jopek. It's at Malkin's blog....But, even she says he 'can't remember the name' as if he never did remember..he hesitates for only a nanosecond. He remembered, to be fair.
The more people here who were dazzled by mcCain's performance, the happier I am.
Greta was supposed to have had some segment on Oprah explaining why she won't have Palin on; I didn't catch it, did anybody see what excuses she's giving? I'd love to know.
Dude...exactly.
one the fox leaning left...i am watching fox and friends now...there is a new show starting tonight..it is called :
Huckabee
maybe they made a right tun
kw
Kris.. We're not saying FOX isn't mostly conservative, but we're just seeing how certain of the 'hosts' are leaning left..Carl Cameron, for example, made some VERY snide remarks about mcCain the other day which were totally unwarranted..he was commisserating with the rarely-conservative Shepard Smith. Geraldo, too, is not conservative.
All of this would be FINE, it makes for interest, if CNN had ONE HOST who leaned RIGHT. JUST ONE. Or MSNBC, NONE. And, every FOX panel includes at least one liberal 'contributor' and CNN rarely does. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the CNN's panel last night after the debate was a liberal. They use David Gergen because he had ties to the Right years ago, but they're all libs.
On MSNBC, they use Pat Buchanan as their conservative contributor because he's against the war! you see?
But, FOX, the ONE cable channel which was finally going to at least be respectful toward the Right has some quite disrespectful comments made these days..they don't have to love everything the Right does or says, I don't either!, but at least don't be snide and sarcastic.
The fact that CNN is not billed as the LIBERAL CHANNEL, as FOX is billed CONSERVATIVE, is laughable..and very UNfair.
Yes, Huckabee's got his own show and, if he uses that sense of humor of his, it could be a good one!
That was a win for Obama. You never really "win" these debates but you can lose them. Foreign policy was supposed to be Obama's weakness.
He was steady, firm and concise. Showed no weakness.
Meanwhile, McCain refused to look at Obama, stood there with a very dumb looking grin and scored nothing but a few jabs.
Advantage Obama. Polls indicate that he scored very well with middle class women. Very bad news for McCain.
Two things were in play, besides Jim Lehrer's obvious partisanship, naked hostility to John McCain and partiality towards Obama.
Obummer appeared more "ready" than he had before. He didn't hem, he didn't haw, and he didn't "ramble" --- at least not very much. He had a quick, well-phrased, obviously well-rehearsed response to just about every question asked.
That made him appear "strong," and "presidential." I have to admit it was scary, because this was a "new" Obama.
But we should ask, "What was the SUBSTANCE of his glib, beautifully intoned answers?"
What we got was a splendid recital of vintage DNC-Enemedia anti-War, anti-Bush TALKING POINTS --- the same stuff we've been treated to for years --- delivered with an aura of arrogant cocksureness that people too easily mistake for "authority."
And then there's the SEX APPEAL factor. There could be NO DOUBT that more people would prefer to go to bed with Senator Obama than they would with John McCain. BO is younger and he has that lean fit look and disarming smile. Therefore, Obummer has the same advantage over McCain that JFK had over Nixon --- greater CHARISMA.
"Charisma" scares the you-know-what out of me. It ought not to have a place in American politics, but it DOES --- thanks to TV.
BO also has remarkable AUDACITY. That is he is not the least bit afraid to be openly rude and patronizing. I agree with whoever said that his frequent attempts to interrupt Senator McCain were rude and completely out of order, but apparently, Mr. Lehrer, who was pretty rude, himself, did not agree.
Now, McCain got off to a weak start, because he felt morally obliged to express sorrow at the plight of Ted Kennedy at the beginning, and then made it worse by referring in his whiniest, most tremulous voice to that malefactor as "our dear friend, the Lion of the senate." If I hadn't been sitting down, my knees would have buckled when I heard that. I really did feel a wave of nausea come over me.
All considerations of "decency" aside, the attitude expressed by McCain towards the abominable Kennedy put the spotlight on everything that is WRONG with American politics --- Republicans constantly toadying up to the worst Democrats, as though it were the only "moral," "decent" and "prudent" thing to do.
I have to say every time McCain tried to make points by saying how often he'd "reached across the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship" another wave of nausea caused my stomach to lurch. It got so bad, I finally took the hard rubber waste can from the kitchen to avoid soiling the carpet and upholstery.
HOWEVER, Senator McCain was just wonderful when laying out the realities of how to conduct the military and how to confront the many international menaces now growing by leaps and bounds.
McCain really knows his onions. Obama has merely been carefully rehearsed and coached in the art of making himself APPEAR stronger and better prepared than he is.
The trouble with McCain has ALWAYS been his fatal compulsion to act the part of the good guy who is "sensitive" to the needs and "considerate" of the desires of America's worst enemies --- i.e. the Democrats.
Whenever he does that, McCain appears weak, indecisive and mealy-mouthed.
McCain's performance had more substance and genuine authority, but Obama well-sustained aura of cocksure arrogance and condescension that passes too easily for competence may have given him The Prize.
As we've known all along, this close relative and descendant of Maniacs and Mau-Maus, is highly skilled in Performance Art.
I went to bad with a nauseous headache last night, and fell heavily asleep before I could hear a word of the Instant Analysis.
And yes, Z, I'm sorry to say that I too was disappointed.
~ FreeThinke
Why am I not surprised that Ducky thinks Obama had a successful night? Beamish has it right.
Elections have got to become more than a beauty contest. We can no longer afford "do over's," and I posted on this today ... stop by and tell me what you think.
Semper Fi
I swear, Beamish SLAYS me!
Mr and Mrs Z cheered right up after we read that one!!
too true
All of this would be FINE, it makes for interest, if CNN had ONE HOST who leaned RIGHT.
Occasionally they have Bob Bennett and they do have Glenn Beck as the token conservative.
Right, Elbro...but they're not hosts on CNN. They do have them on occasionally. You're right.
FOX very nearly never has any panel without liberal representation. And they have liberal hosts and contributors, too.
I've been informed that the bracelets McCain and Obama wear have the names on them.
I thought they were memorial bracelets, somewhat like the Lance Armstrong yellow rubber bracelets, and not name-specific.
I still feel McCain knew he'd use that bracelet to make an (excellent) point,and so he remembered the name (plus, he's probably the kind of guy who'd remember it, anyway) and Obama hadn't thought of it in a while. Again, this is NO nod to Obama!!!
I'm betting even Ducky can't remember anything Obama said last night.
Except for all that stuff about McCain being right.
beamish, that's what I thought.
Except, I'm sure he didn't even take in the "McCain is right" comments...they can't compute.
There was one aspect to last night's debate that no one has mentioned yet.
Personally, I was wondering if it was EVER going to END. Neither party was really INSPIRING, and NOTHING anyone said was the least bit memorable.
The whole thing to me was lackluster and ultimately ANNOYING. The more I think about it, the less I like it.
Politics in America today! PHOOEY!
The Sarah Palin Effect didn't last long, did it?
~ FreeThinke
Ducky - Spoken like a true style over substance kind of guy.
While I'm at it Ducky,
Dodgers win NL West. Hooray!!
Manny Ramirez since joining the
Dodgers:
Batting average - 398
RBI's - 51
Homeruns - 17
All courtesy of the Red Sox, thank you very much.
Pris
Pris..that's GREAT..
FT...it wasn't very exciting, as it!!
Palin/Biden should be more exciting. I'm not sure my finger nails can take much more excitement!!!
I felt like they both had their moments. McCain seemed to fluster at times, but he sure knew more about foreign policy issues than Obama. His experience was clear, especially on the Russia / Georgia issue. Obama looked like a doofus on that one.
There seems to be much ado about their dueling bracelets. But no one seems to have noted that Obama was wearing a flag pin and Sen. McCain was not. Not to mention Sen. McCain rudely avoiding eye contact and stumbling angrily over the pronunciation of Ahmadinejad’s name and stuttering at some other points. Imagine if the reverse had been true: It would be all over this thread–––the venom, the drooling, the giggling.
Sen. McCain should have the knowledge and experience to be able to speak well and be civil when debating.
Psi Bond,
That's odd. I thought McCain was rather courteous, considering that the Democrats didn't bother to field a serious candidate against him.
So, beamish, do you think Sen. McCain should have refused to shake hands with Obama instead of just shaking hands without looking at him. I think a serious candidate is one who wins against Hillary and maintains his lead in the polls despite his Republican opponent’s hijacking the financial crisis for his purposes with drama-queen theatrics and despite his ill-mannered allegations that his Senate colleague does not understand.
Psi Bond,
I think a serious candidate is one who wins against Hillary and maintains his lead in the polls despite his Republican opponent’s hijacking the financial crisis for his purposes with drama-queen theatrics and despite his ill-mannered allegations that his Senate colleague does not understand.
Well considering that Hillary Clinton won primaries and caucuses in 355 Electoral College votes worth of states to Obama's 180; with some half-percentage point or so more popular votes than Obama - saying Obama "won against Hillary" in anything that looks like a fair election is rather dubious and silly. Obama won the nomination by super-delegate affirmative action and telling Michigan and Florida voters to go to hell.
McCain and Obama have been virtually tied since well before the Palin pick.
Obama isn't polling well in any states he won handily during the Democratic primary season.
Dear Mr. Obama,
It is August 30, 2008. My name is Mark Gregg. I am a 50 something conservative white male. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention. I am respectfully providing you with seven simple reasons why I could never vote for you.
I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a the Messiah the media and Hollywood entertainers are trying to make you out to be.
1. I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for.
Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska's quagmire of political scandals.
Which way is it? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of 'change', but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?
2. You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation.
I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority, while their record of blunders and hypocrisy heavily refutes this, I will give help to any person who truly needsit.
I married a minority girl 35 years ago (she's an Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first-hand.
However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self-imposed bondage and move ahead, despite the prejudice they've encountered.
They love our country and do not view themselves any differently than I view myself as a citizen.
Your lovely wife so disappointed me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country.
She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries.
She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make and keep this country free, and who helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler.
She apparently does not remember that she attended ivy league universities with scholarship money that ultimately was paid for at least in part by our taxes.
This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears not to like her country very much. I don't want her representing me to the rest of the world.
3. You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. Nowever, the Bible does not say, or even suggest, that he who CANNOT work, SHOULD not eat.
Yet, your favored policies support people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me.
I know that if you are elected our taxes undoubtedly will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill: 'We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.'
If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, and the many other Democrats like them, a balanced budget will never reach even the status of an impossible dream.
4. During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the origin of nascent life, stunned me:
'Above your pay grade?' Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond?
I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering egregiously. You choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from most of us.
5. If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement could ever be a wise course to take.
Again I revert to the words of Winston Churchill:
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'
6. You and your party appear to believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents approval before the school nurse may provide them with a Tylenol, yet this same girl can become pregnant and the school can ship her off to an abortion clinic without the parents even being notified.
This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Why do you stand for this? It's morally indefensible and contrary to logic.
7. My seventh and final point is your supporters. I have watched some of the Hollywood entertainers who support you embrace the likes of Hugo Chavez. I see the continuous barrage of smut and intellectual garbage produced by the very people who promote you most vigorously.
There's nothing positive for me in seeing these bizarre, over-paid, perverted specimens of humanity fawn over you, while they push you and your socialist agenda as hard as they can.
From where I sit when the devil is for you, we should not question our compelling need to oppose you.
Frankly, you scare me. I cannot vote for you. I do not want you as president.
Please do not claim that my aversion to you is based on race. It is not. Based on your background, your prior career and voting record in the senate I canny believe you have the best interests of our country at heart. I believe you want to be president for reasons largely hidden. Frankly, I find that downright terrifying.
Respectfully,
Mark A. Gregg
I think a serious candidate is one who wins against Hillary and maintains his lead in the polls despite his Republican opponent’s hijacking the financial crisis for his purposes with drama-queen theatrics and despite his ill-mannered allegations that his Senate colleague does not understand.
beamish: Well considering that Hillary Clinton won primaries and caucuses in 355 Electoral College votes worth of states to Obama's 180; with some half-percentage point or so more popular votes than Obama - saying Obama "won against Hillary" in anything that looks like a fair election is rather dubious and silly. Obama won the nomination by super-delegate affirmative action and telling Michigan and Florida voters to go to hell.
Michigan and Florida voters were given their full votes at the Democratic national convention. In fact, Obama urged that that be done.
A serious Democratic candidate is one who wins the nomination in accordance with the rules for primaries established by the DNC–––especially one who wins against a much better known candidate who had the backing of the most populous states and who had been preparing for a potential candidacy for U.S. president since at least early 2003. Obama did that, and Hillary has endorsed Obama.
McCain and Obama have been virtually tied since well before the Palin pick.
The current Gallup Tracking Poll conducted from 09/24 - 09/26 has Obama leading by 5 points. Rasmussen Tracking for the same period has Obama up by 6 points. The RCP national poll has had Obama in the lead since April, except for a ten-day period due to the Palin effect, which is now gone as even members of her own party begin to speak out to criticize her candidacy. Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist, has urged Palin to step down for the good of her party and the good of the country because she is out of her league and not a serious candidate.
.Obama isn't polling well in any states he won handily during the Democratic primary season.
Even if this were completely true, it would not be a rational argument substantiating that he is not a serious candidate, for the undeniable truth is Obama has millions of enthusiastic supporters all across the country.
Psi bond...Obama called John McCain "TOM"....you have nop problem with THAT? NO??
A man of the kind of intellect you feel you have should be ashamed to even promote a man who's obviously so ill prepared for this job, who'd meet with people who've promised OUR demise without preconditions, who'd give every kid in America free college, who wants to start some freakin' NATIONAL SREVICE Hitler YOuth baloney, ...on and on...but we ALL know the rest.
I'd be utterly ashamed. To THINK you know ANYTHING about economics and budgets and could buy into Obama's idiotic typical liberal "I PROMISE YOU'LL HAVE EVERYTHING AND NOT HAVE TO PAY" shtick is positively scary. God help you.
MARK GREGG. God bless you. PLEASE come back to my blog; I'm honored to have a clear thinker here with good values, who loves America as most of us do. THANK you for coming by.
Obama won ?
Most people do not see it that way.
And Conservatives are urging McCain to dump Palin?
Oh please.
These so called Phoney Conservatives.
Sounds like a bunch of whiners wanting to be relevant, and they cannot stand an outsider coming onto their turf.
That's what is wrong with some of these so called pundits, too.
If you aren't in their little club, they try to take you out .
SO far, this has been even more educational than I thought it would be.
( The election )
Nice to see both parties have their power brokers who are screeching like stuck pigs because someone went around them and really does intend to try and work for the people should he be elected.
My respect for John McCain is actually going up , now.
WVDOTTR
psi bond-
I've always had trouble looking people that I don't respect in the eye. I don't hide my feelings very well, and think they will see through the 'act' and notice how little I think of them.
McCain has worked his butt off for years. Obama has campaigned for a couple of years, but hasn't really accomplished anything. You can't blame McCain for thinking Obama is a tool, and not wanting to look at him.
Consider that McCain was just being polite by not looking at Obama, because his eyes would have told Obama exactly how little he respects him.
Z; Psi bond...Obama called John McCain "TOM"....you have nop problem with THAT? NO??
It’s not what I heard, Ms. Z. He called Sen. McCain John. I have no problem with colleagues in the Senate or rivals for the presidency calling each other by their first names. It promotes friendliness. You're making too much of this for your political purposes.
A man of the kind of intellect you feel you have should be ashamed to even promote a man who's obviously so ill prepared for this job,
I think one should be ashamed to post an argument predicated on bogus claims about how well one’s opponent regards his own intellect. I do not promote any grandiose claims for my intellect because, besides that not being in my nature, doing so would be irrelevant to any political argument I want to make. Regarding Obama’s preparation, it is obvious, at least to me, that Obama is much better prepared to assume the presidency than Sarah Palin. Even some Republicans agree on that, including one (Kathleen Parker) who had originally been a gung-ho supporter of Palin’s candidacy. And Obama has more service in elective office than George Bush had in the 2000 campaign, when Republicans preferred Bush in the primaries over McCain, who had three times more experience at the time.
who'd meet with people who've promised OUR demise without preconditions,
Promising OUR demise without preconditions is the wrong thing to do, I think. But you may have actually meant that he would meet without preconditions with people who promise OUR demise (usually for purposes of homeland consumption). I don’t think that is a bad thing to do, especially if the only alternative is using OUR military power to invade the enemy’s country. Rightwingers, however, traditionally oppose any sort of negotiation, condemning it out of hand as appeasement. Nonetheless, Republican administrations have negotiated with countries threatening OUR security–––including Saddam’s Iraq, North Korea, Russia, China, et al. Of course, as Obama has observed, preparations would have to be made, but the truth is negotiation is a reasonable thing to do. It is something morally strong countries do. Morally weak countries go straight to bombing as step one.
who'd give every kid in America free college, who wants to start some freakin' NATIONAL SREVICE Hitler YOuth baloney, ...on and on...but we ALL know the rest.
Frantic Obama detractors merely believe they know the rest. He said he would make a college education affordable to everyone who wants one. He said he would encourage young people to volunteer some of their time and energy to improving our country. McCain is also in favor of volunteer youth service. Though a Hitler reference is never far from the lips of frantic persons, it has nothing to do with Hitler.
I'd be utterly ashamed. To THINK you know ANYTHING about economics and budgets and could buy into Obama's idiotic typical liberal "I PROMISE YOU'LL HAVE EVERYTHING AND NOT HAVE TO PAY" shtick is positively scary. God help you.
Neither Obama nor McCain pretends to know a lot about economics. Every president needs advisers.
Obama did not say, "I PROMISE YOU'LL HAVE EVERYTHING AND NOT HAVE TO PAY". It is not something any reasonable person would say. You have to make that up. God help those who believe he said that.
m.a., I think that not looking someone in the eyes is bullying impudence. And I am sure most people feel that way and prefer that debates be polite. Obama has been campaigning almost continuously for twenty months. He has fought one of the hardest campaigns in modern history and beaten one of the most powerful figures in his own party for the nomination. He has undeniably come a long way. He is an accomplished memoirist, poet, community organizer, constitutional law lecturer, Illinois state senator, keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, U.S. senator, Democratic presidential nominee, leader of his party, one who helped create legislation to control conventional weapons, lobbying, electoral fraud, climate change, and nuclear terrorism, and regarding care for veterans–––not to mention a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, and the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review.
An honest person who disrespects another says so. I don’t doubt that Republicans would be affronted if Obama refused to look at Sen. McCain (who graduated from the Naval Academy fifth from the bottom in class rank, 894th out of 899).
Psi Bond,
Even if this were completely true, it would not be a rational argument substantiating that he is not a serious candidate, for the undeniable truth is Obama has millions of enthusiastic supporters all across the country.
But not enough in every state to gain those state's Electoral College votes.
After California and Illinois, all the "For Obama states" are wavering on the "toss up" bubble.
Neither candidates' lead over the other has broken the margin of error.
psi bond, you are THE most SMUG commenter at FPM OR HERE. Actually, the only smug commenter here.
Obama definitely referred to John McCain as TOM at one point near the beginning....which I don't find damning until someone tries to insult McCain for an innocent slip up and gives his GREAT HOPE a total pass. Hypocrisy stinks, I've never liked it.
Also, in past years, people referred to each other as "Senator.." or "Mr..." I think we should go back to it. Seeing Obama, a young nothing, refer to a man like McCain as "JOHN" was insulting and presumptive.
As far as 'beating' the powerful person and running a campaign; Obama's done this for years, and it's ALWAYS been dirty. Look into his record when he ran in Chicago. It is FILTHY, but your media's not telling you the truth. It's well known that ACORN tactics were used against his female Black opponent and many in CHicago still feel it was dirty pool. ACORN, as you know, is pretty much nothing but a vote-stealing, ballot-stuffing organization which Obama worked for.
"memoirist and POET!?" Now THERE is a reason to vote for someone for president!
I think we should have Maya Angelous run, don't you? There are some who say he never wrote his books. Did you know that? And, by the way, since when has a publisher approached a young graduate of Harvard and said "Hey, YOU're 22, would you write us a MEMOIR?" Many think there is a force behind his rising in the ranks of Illinois, GETTING IN to Harvard on a scholarship he's never detailed, and how he got that book published.
Be very careful what you ask for, psi bond. This man has a life we know very little about. And, his backers are suspect.
"McCain had three times more experince AT THE TIME?" What, he's not got that same experience anymore? !!!! Beautiful, psi bond!!!
Show us a list of his body of work for the Law Review, okay? I THINK there is ONE article that didn't quite make publication..?
Your raving about all he did in Congress is silly. "Controlling weapons"?? Ya, like ON VIDEO, saying he'd get rid of our nukes as an encouragement to nuclear despots "Hey, we're COOL! If WE stop our weapons program, I JUST KNOW they will! KUMBAYA!"
Psi Bond..You're backing a loser who's depending on people like you to cover for him. He knows that, his backers know that; this man is scary and most other people know that.....people who haven't bought into this ridiculous CHANGE and HOPE stuff he can't pay for.
I can't wait to hear more about his Hilter Youth national program, either, can you?
He's a Marxist and you back him. At least tell the truth.
It is difficult to fathom the arrogance of someone who, after 143 days in the U. S. Senate, announces he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency. And what is it exactly that causes this arrogance? It is simply that Mr. Obama believes that he is much smarter than everyone else is in the United States … he alone has all the answers. He is much reminiscent of the individual achieving advanced degrees, but is void of any common sense. He is a person who can quote paragraph and verse of Marxist rhetoric, but who lacks a concomitant real world understanding of the implications of such ideas. Perhaps among the most dangerous things in the modern world is “a little bit” of education … he may know, but he does not understand.
And now I find myself baffled by those who profess deep love of their country, but by embracing Marxist ideology, repudiate everything that America stands for. It goes well beyond the tiring debate between capitalism and socialism … it rather centers on the fundamental differences between American values, and those of everyone else in the entire world. We are only a great nation today because of the devotion to individualism of our forefathers, none of whom deigned to rely upon the government to feed, cloth, educate, and raise their children. They were people who refused to purchase on credit … because paying their own way was at the center of being a good American.
Obama represents the antithesis of Americana; he appeals to those who have been brainwashed and now regard socialism as a laudable attribute of enlightened society … and socialism, like its big brother communism, is purely and factually, anti-American. Obama garners his support from those who think, “Only a village can raise a child,” who have come to think of my hard-earned income belongs to them. It is an underlying scheme that enslaves people to permanent reliance upon government … and in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they believe that government is in the best position to provide housing to lazy scum content to remain entrenched in filthy, crime-infested neighborhoods. If all we ever know about government centers upon our 20th Century experience, anyone who believes that government can best provide our medical care is seriously delusional.
But even with that, the underlying purpose of pursuing Marxist/socialist ideology is power: achieving it, and maintaining it; it is the preferred methodology for stripping people of their individualism, their dignity, the ability to resist government subjugation, even including laws to restrict access to firearms. This is what Obama wants for America. And conservatives are the only voices in opposition to the total suppression of our hallowed traditions … the only bulwark resisting total government control over our society.
How uncanny to recognize so many millions of Europeans came to America to escape Marxism, noting their descendents now embrace it in the persona of Obama, Reid, Clinton, Biden, Kennedy, Pelosi, Frank, Murtha, and Wexler? And isn’t it, finally, extraordinarily pathetic to see this happening to the freest nation on earth? My question to Obama supporters remains unanswered: if they truly love America, why do they seek to changer Her? The horror of Marxism is Obama’s only promise; it is why I oppose him.
MUSTANG, thank you very much. Well said.
This morning, a friend sent an email of an article which includes the following and it emphasizes most of our feelings about the way the media is covering for Obama. Gibson accused Palin of 'HUBRIS' for considering herself ready for the vice presidency...what is it when a man with 143 days in the Senate and 'community organizer' to his name runs for PRESIDENT and nobody asks him to REALLY tell us who he is, and we have a populace who blames those gaps in his background on the RIGHTWING CONSPIRACY!? You can't make this up. We're all Marie Antoinette walking to the guillotine with Obama in charge. Thank God he's so inexperienced he might not be able to wield the blade correctly?
Here is part of the article:
"Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.
The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.
Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."
That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.
The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings."
There are people behind Obama..that is how he rose in the terribly difficult Chicago political atmosphere! a young, inexperienced guy and he's swept up into an ascendency NOBODY quite understands. There are people behind him. There are questions nobody's answering.
And our left loves him because he makes Marxist promises nobody can keep. Marxist promises that Europe is finally realizing haven't worked, won't work and, anyway, they can't afford them anymore. Why aren't we learning from their mistakes?
With McCain, we'd have a chance..with Obama, we're headed down that 0% growth Blair put England in after Thatcher had grown the country's economy. Congratulations, Lefties, PLEASE do some reading, bone up on History...don't make us suffer for your naivitee.
Z: psi bond, you are THE most SMUG commenter at FPM OR HERE. Actually, the only smug commenter here.
The sworn truth is I do not consciously feel one bit smug. In your usage of the word, what exactly does ‘smug’ mean–––is it ‘confident of the correctness of one’s opinions’? If so, almost everyone here, including you, would seem not to be exempt, at least in my humble view. It may in fact be your opinion that I am smug, Z, but you are the only one here who has made such ad hominem remarks and featured them in political arguments we have about national and international affairs. The point that is relevant here with regard to your ad hominem allegations is that I never make boasts about my intelligence (assuming it exists — I know you dispute its existence for political reasons) or about being right (I know you deny that possibility for political reasons).
Obama definitely referred to John McCain as TOM at one point near the beginning....which I don't find damning until someone tries to insult McCain for an innocent slip up and gives his GREAT HOPE a total pass. Hypocrisy stinks, I've never liked it.
What is the innocent slipup of the rightwingers’ GREAT HOPE FOR HOLDING ONTO POWER? Do you mean what I brought up–––namely, his avoiding eye contact? I doubt that that can honestly be described as innocent slipup. Perhaps you meant something else.
Obama definitely did NOT refer to John as TOM. Check the transcript of the debate. The relevant excerpt is provided below:
OBAMA: They did it on the Medicaid prescription drug bill and we have to change the culture. Tom -- or John mentioned me being wildly liberal. Mostly that's just me opposing George Bush's wrong headed policies since I've been in Congress but I think it is that it is also important to recognize I work with Tom Coburn, the most conservative, one of the most conservative Republicans who John already mentioned to set up what we call a Google for government saying we'll list every dollar of federal spending to make sure that the taxpayer can take a look and see who, in fact, is promoting some of these spending projects that John's been railing about.
From this excerpt, it seems ‘TOM’ was a reference not to John McCain but to Tom Coburn. “Tom -- or John”: The disjunctive construction here indicates that Obama was not equating the two but distinguishing between them. It is your slipup––attempting to blow this way up into a point of noteworthy significance. Hypocrisy here means never having to fully acknowledge your slipup.
Also, in past years, people referred to each other as "Senator.." or "Mr..." I think we should go back to it. Seeing Obama, a young nothing, refer to a man like McCain as "JOHN" was insulting and presumptive.
In past years, the influence of the old European model of formality was much stronger in this country. But informality is now the rule in most of America. Even employees in many cases call their bosses and managers by their first names. It is not generally taken as a sign of disrespect, such as calling a candidate for U.S. president “a young nothing” would be. I am sure Obama was meaning no disrespect by calling his colleague and rival John or by trying to look in the eye of THE GREAT RIGHT HOPE (formerly known to angry rightwingers by names too vulgar for me to repeat). Some may be of the opinion that we should return to an atmosphere of strict formality, but, however one feels about it, I don’t believe use of first names among colleagues can be justifiably characterized as a sign of disrespect.
As far as 'beating' the powerful person and running a campaign; Obama's done this for years, and it's ALWAYS been dirty. Look into his record when he ran in Chicago. It is FILTHY, but your media's not telling you the truth. It's well known that ACORN tactics were used against his female Black opponent and many in CHicago still feel it was dirty pool. ACORN, as you know, is pretty much nothing but a vote-stealing, ballot-stuffing organization which Obama worked for.
Was Bush’s campaign against McCain in 2000 not dirty? Not FILTHY? Many including McCain feel it was dirty pool. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, I know is a group generally allied with Democrats and vigorously derided by rightwingers as corrupt, inefficient and a front-group for Democratic efforts on the ground. However, you have a propensity for digression, for wildly expanding the topic to diverse smears and rightwing allegations that are only tangentially related. The unavoidable point that you have nonetheless evaded is that Hillary had been preparing to clinch the nomination for at least five years; she was widely considered the heir apparent; she had a formidable political machine backing her. Obama ran a campaign that beat all the ordinary expectations, including those of experienced pundits. In all fairness, that is a considerable achievement, an achievement of note and an achievement worthy of respect. He has come from behind to beat all the contenders in his party for the highest office in the land.
"memoirist and POET!?" Now THERE is a reason to vote for someone for president!
I think we should have Maya Angelous run, don't you?
I thought that Robert Frost should have been president, not John F. Kennedy, “a young nothing”, who invited Frost to read one of his poems at his inauguration. (Just kidding.) Z, you are once again distorting the intent of my point for your purposes. I mentioned his being a memoirist and poet in the context of substantiating the contention that he was an accomplished person who is worthy of respect. But, of course, what makes one an accomplished person does not necessarily qualify one to be president–––it only qualifies him to be looked in the eye.
I don’t think or want to suggest that a candidate for president should be a memoirist or poet or even a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. I only suggest that he has worked hard to get where he is, and he is respectable.
There are some who say he never wrote his books. Did you know that? And, by the way, since when has a publisher approached a young graduate of Harvard and said "Hey, YOU're 22, would you write us a MEMOIR?" Many think there is a force behind his rising in the ranks of Illinois, GETTING IN to Harvard on a scholarship he's never detailed, and how he got that book published.
Forgive me, Z, for not swallowing every rightwing canard about Obama that is in circulation. I don’t regard partisan insinuation as credible evidence. Obama was asked to write a memoir of how he got to where he had arrived with distinction, because he had become newsworthy and bankable as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, the most highly read publication in the legal community. If he did not write his memoir it would be known in the book industry, not just in rightwing gossip circles. But book reviewers have praised his writing skill. In my humble opinion, his writing style is uniquely his own, one that is consistent with the style of his poems.
Be very careful what you ask for, psi bond. This man has a life we know very little about. And, his backers are suspect.
If we know little about him, it is not any fault of rightwingers. They currently have two “exposés” about him on the Times bestseller list.
Very little is known about McCain’s early career that is not what he and his backers want us to know. Many rightwingers have been passionate in their condemnation of McCain’s bipartisan legislative initiatives. In his current campaign, he has claimed to believe what hardcore rightwingers believe. Rightwingers who strongly opposed him in the past are now backing him in order to keep the White House in Republican hands at any price. But who is the real McCain? Who is the real Sarah Palin? And is Palin prepared to take over on Day Two at 3 a.m., if necessary. If rightwingers think Obama is scary, why do they not think Palin, who is clearly not appropriately experienced, even to many rightwingers, is scary? McCain and the handlers behind Palin, who will not let her talk freely to the press, may have a lot to answer for. Be very careful what you ask for, Z.
"McCain had three times more experince AT THE TIME?" What, he's not got that same experience anymore? !!!! Beautiful, psi bond!!!
You love to pounce on things out of context, Z. Try reading it in context. In the context of what I wrote, it makes beautiful sense. The point I made was that, in 2000, when McCain was competing with Bush for the Republican nomination, McCain had three times more experience than Bush did (18 years vs. 6 years). AT THE TIME, that was true–––not that he had more experience on public office than Bush (he still does), but that the ratio of his experience to Bush’s is as was stated. That is no longer true, since Bush has subsequently gained eight years experience as U.S. president (albeit unfortunately). Hence McCain now has only 1.9 times as much experience in elective office as Bush does. The important thing is rightwingers who make such a big deal about experience in 2008 did not consider it decisive in 2000 when choosing a Republican nominee.
Show us a list of his body of work for the Law Review, okay? I THINK there is ONE article that didn't quite make publication..?
Show us the article he didn’t publish and explain how that definitively disqualifies him for the presidency. The point is that presidency of the Harvard Law Review provided him with his first lessons in managing both bitter electoral politics and the personal agendas of individual people from competing bands of conservative and liberal students. He gained his first position on the Review through high grades, a writing competition, and endorsements from other students and professors. When he was elected its president, he was one of nineteen editors running for it.
Your raving about all he did in Congress is silly. "Controlling weapons"?? Ya, like ON VIDEO, saying he'd get rid of our nukes as an encouragement to nuclear despots "Hey, we're COOL! If WE stop our weapons program, I JUST KNOW they will! KUMBAYA!"
Despite your hyperboles, prevention of nuclear proliferation is one of the most serious problems facing the next president, and its success has nothing to do with winning over cruel despots to our side. Securing and reducing the supply of nuclear weapons helps to reduce the opportunities for their theft and resale.
Psi Bond..You're backing a loser who's depending on people like you to cover for him.
I know that to rightwingers like you Obama looks like a loser. I am not covering for him, Z. No, I am not an agent in the conspiracy. Even if I were, I could not hope to counter all the smears and lies that are being circulated against him. But right now, he looks to me like a winner with an eight-point lead in the Gallup tracking poll, six points above the margin of error. Somehow I tend to believe that the way a person views a candidate has something to do with his political philosophy. I believe McCain is a winner when he is at the craps tables of the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, where he loves to go with the casino’s lobbyist, Scott Reed, and Rick Davis, his campaign manager. With McCain’s help as chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Foxwoods has become the world’s second largest casino.
He knows that, his backers know that; this man is scary and most other people know that.....people who haven't bought into this ridiculous CHANGE and HOPE stuff he can't pay for.
I doubt that many people have bought into this silly new promise that McCain and Palin are going to sweep into Washington to change it so it will, in effect, be turned upside down. McCain has been in Washington too long, worked too closely with lobbyists, and angered too many in the capital for anyone to have much hope of getting Congress to reform itself. In his current campaign, more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests — including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors. His campaign says McCain is proud of his record on regulating Indian gambling.
I can't wait to hear more about his Hilter Youth national program, either, can you?
Wanton use of the Hitler analogy for Democrats’ proposals does not improve the credibility of your argument. Especially since rightwingers condemn in harsh terms the use of Hitler analogies by others. McCain has a similar idea about the desirability of voluntary national service–––but, of course, rightwingers do not brand that “his Hilter [sic] Youth national program”.
He's a Marxist and you back him. At least tell the truth.
The truth is, because of the promiscuous way rightwingers use the word ‘Marxist’, it has lost most of its original significance in political discourse. The truth is: Most liberals in America believe capitalism is the best economic system, but they are denounced as Marxists nevertheless.
Is a Marxist someone who wants nationalization and government oversight of financial institutions? Hence Bush and McCain must be called Marxists–––if truth be told.
beamish:
Even if this were completely true, it would not be a rational argument substantiating that he is not a serious candidate, for the undeniable truth is Obama has millions of enthusiastic supporters all across the country.
But not enough in every state to gain those state's Electoral College votes.
No, not in every state. But neither does McCain. Does this determine who is a serious candidate? If so, no one fits the definition of a serious candidate. However, a large portion of the U.S. population are Obama supporters–––there are tens of millions distributed all across America.
After California and Illinois, all the "For Obama states" are wavering on the "toss up" bubble. .
What about Washington? Obama is up by 6.0
What about New Mexico? Obama is up by 6.0
What about Washington? Obama is up by 6.0
What about Michigan? Obama is up by 6.6
What about New Jersey? Obama is up by 7.0
What about Maine? Obama is up by 7.6
What about Oregon? Obama is up by 9.0
What about Iowa? Obama is up by 9.2
What about New York? Obama is up by 12.4
What about Massachusetts? Obama is up by 13.7
What about Connecticut? Obama is up by 17.7
Neither candidates' lead over the other has broken the margin of error. .
Assuming this contention is true, how does it demonstrate your conclusion that Obama is not a serious candidate worthy of any respect? Once again, if such a status is determined by having a clear lead beyond margins of sampling error, and if your assumption is true, then neither candidate is a serious candidate, at least according to the definition of ‘serious candidate’ that you want to propose.
However, it is not true that Obama hasn’t broken the margin of error. The Gallup Tracking poll for the period Sept. 25-27 shows Obama up 8 points over McCain. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus two points. Obama has been polling above the margin of error for the last three days in the Gallup tracking.
Hi Mama was a Marxist Maniac.
His Papa was near descendant of Mau Mau's. He was raised by Muslims in Jakarta.
His associates have been dedicated Communists, Domestic Terrorists and fake-Christian Marxist Activists who practice Black Liberation Theology. Their theme song is God Damn America.
He's been close to convicted racketeer Tony Reszko.
His own wife has said publicly that he smokes, snores loudly, and has bad breath.
What else do we need to recommend his for the highest office in OUR land?
anonymous: What else do we need to recommend his for the highest office in OUR land?
Besides what brand of cigarette he smokes, we need to know what his timetable is for handing America over to the terrorists.
psi bond. You should be ashamed.
Half of America is hoping a man with no experience, with questionable background that your media hasn't even begun to plumb for the truth, a liar who says a publishing house approached HIM for a MEMOIR at the age of 24? , a man who's changed his mind to mcCain's way of thinking innumerable times... a young Black man who SUDDENLY AROSE TO PROMINENCE in CHICAGO, land of White Mafia corruption...ALL BY HIMSELF !(oh, that's right, he screwed that Black woman he was running agaginst with his ACORN vote-cheating tactics, but you won't read up on that, will you)
And you and others buy into it.
The professors did their jobs well...Americans aren't Americans anymore. And yes, I don't consider people American who are eager to bow to the UN, to meet people who wants US DEAD without preconditions (don't tell me he changed his mind, I don't care..the man makes bad initial choices), etc .....
I pity you...I pity my country much more.
Z: psi bond. You should be ashamed.
Do you know how supremely smug that sounds? And you talk of me being smug! You should be ashamed, Z, for trying to tell me that I should be ashamed of how I choose to vote. And for lecturing me about who is a real American, according to your élitist opinion.
Let me put it simply for you: In my humble judgment, Obama can be the kind of president I want to see. McCain cannot. Ms. Palin cannot.
I don’t believe that McCain’s experience, judgment, or virtue is superior to Obama’s. All the lies about Obama, angry accusations that Obama told lies, insinuations, smears, defamations, distortions, misinformation, adamant denials of his impressive achievements, the malicious snippets out of context, the spitefully cited “ACORN” anecdote (I read long ago of the disputed hardball politics involving Alice Palmer and her fraudulent signatures; McCain got the money for his first congressional race from the younger wealthier woman he married after being unfaithful to his loyal first wife), the over-hyped contention about TOM/John, ominous allegations of a conspiratorial Manchurian force propelling him, FauxThinker’s obsessive little point that he snores, the Hitler analogies, the assorted fears, doomsday scenarios, scare tactics, cynical spin–––i.e., all the voluminous rightwing propaganda furiously boiling over at this time that you throw out here–––none of that extreme manipulative proselytizing can alter the personal judgment I have conscientiouly made.
Yet I know there are many others who, despite the grave reservations they’ve had about him, believe that McCain will become, under the firm hard-right guiding hand of Sarah Palin, the president they want to have. I try to understand that desperate hope, but I would never think or say they should be ashamed of the votes they cast. Every voter no matter which way he votes has my respect.
I pity you...I pity my country much more.
Your gracious pity notwithstanding, America is my country, too. In my distant youth, I honorably fought for it.
Psi Bond,
Obama has spent nearly 6 times as much money on his campaign as McCain in an election where the unpopularity of the sitting Republican president should make a Democrat in the White House a forgone conclusion and he's been wavering along tied neck-and-neck in the polls for months?
And you see serious candidate there?
beamish, McCain has been strenuously trying to disconnect himself from the unpopular sitting Republican president, whom he does not mention and has not asked to campaign for him, and he has had some measure of success in separating himself. Although Obama has been able to raise more money than McCain and has been widening his lead in the polls in recent days, that is no reason for Obama to wind down his campaign and cut his campaign expenditures.
It is worth noting that McCain has been spending millions to make and air ads and cross the country to denounce Obama–––yet he is not spending anything to defeat Bob Barr or Ralph Nader, which candidates he makes no mention of on the campaign trail or in his ads.
If Obama is not a serious candidate, McCain’s huge campaign spending dedicated to defeating his candidacy makes no sense.
PsiBond,
It is worth noting that McCain has been spending millions to make and air ads and cross the country to denounce Obama–––yet he is not spending anything to defeat Bob Barr or Ralph Nader, which candidates he makes no mention of on the campaign trail or in his ads.
Bob Barr and Ralph Nader haven't spent 6 times as much campaign cash to just match or barely scrape ahead of McCain's polling numbers.
beamish, you seem to believe a candidate is not a serious candidate unless the widening lead he develops in the polls threatens to be a landslide victory.
To a rational person, a serious candidate is one whose opposing candidacy cannot be safely ignored. A candidate against whom one has to seriously prepare to debate is a serious candidate.
Post a Comment