A Debate On Iraq Benefits Obama

posted by John Nichols on 09/26/2008 @ 10:58pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (72)

Subscribe Now

A blistering economic crisis may be the all-encompassing issue of the moment.

But the war in Iraq still defines the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama.

McCain remains the true believer in that occupation, the man who really does want to carry it forward until some ill-defined "victory" is obtained – even if that takes a hundred years.

Obama remains the doubter who -- as he went out of his way to note in Friday night's first debate between the two men who would be president -- spoke out against launching the war six years ago and remains committed to drawing it down.

These were the bottom lines of a debate that could have been all about economics but that ultimately ended up being a very serious, and at times very edgy, discourse about war and peace.

McCain called Iraq "the central issue of our time."

At the very least, it was the central issue of the debate.

The Republican said his Democratic rival "just doesn't understand" the importance of staying the course in the Middle East.

Obama argued that McCain lacks "the broader strategic vision" necessary to make the United States a functional player on the global stage – and at home. And he suggested that the Republican's misread of the Iraq question all the way back in 2002, as well as McCain's ongoing refusal to recognize his error, confirmed his opponent's deficiency.

"The fundamental question is whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place," Obama declared.

"If the question is who is the best equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military," the Democrat continued, "then I think we can take a look at our judgment."

McCain, who constantly tried to suggest that Obama was naïve, argued that, "The next president of the United States will not have to address the issue of whether or not we should have gone into Iraq."

"The issue is when we leave and how we leave," said the Republican.

McCain was right about that, as was evidenced by a poignant clash between the candidates over the meaning of the bracelets they wear to honor soldiers killed in the conflict.

McCain said he wore a memorial bracelet – given to him by the mother of a soldier in New Hampshire -- to remind himself that deaths would be in vain if the war was not seen through to "victory."

Rejecting the notion that any soldier's death should be seen as having been in vain, Obama said he wore a memorial bracelet – given to him by the mother of a soldier in Wisconsin – to remind himself of the need to bring the conflict to a rapid conclusion in order to save more mothers from having to bury their sons and daughters.

McCain and Obama did not disagree on every international issue. Both men offered indications that they buy into much of the current consensus in Washington with regard to foreign policy -- a consensus that agrees on bloated defense budgets and over-the-top rhetoric especially with regard to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

But rarely in modern years has a presidential debate exposed so many clear distinctions on global concerns – about Iraq, Iran and the value of diplomacy – and this is what made Friday night's clash memorable.

Not to mention surprising.

Debate moderator Jim Lehrer opened the first of three debates between the two contenders with a little bit of lip service to the agreed-upon area of discussion: foreign policy. But the moderator acknowledged that they met at the close of a week of wrangling over failed banks and bailouts with a declaration that any discussion of international affairs in a moment of domestic economic turmoil "by definition includes the global financial crisis."

Lehrer really did try to get an economic debate going.

More than a half hour passed before anyone mentioned Iraq or Afghanistan.

The discussion turned to infrastructure renewal and extending access to the internet before it did to China, Russia, India, Georgia, Israel, Palestine or other global hotspot.

Again and again, Lehrer steered the discussion to the financial crisis.

That was appropriate.

But Lehrer didn't have much luck getting either McCain or Obama to scope out visions for domestic economic regeneration, let alone the interplay of the U.S. economy and that of the world.

The moderator tried, repeatedly, to get the candidates to identify ways in which the economic crisis was going to influence how they would govern. But the candidates kept dancing around the questions. McCain was against "unnecessary and wasteful spending." Obama told McCain that "your president" (George Bush) had presided over "an orgy of spending" that, he noted, the Republican nominee has usually supported.

McCain toyed openly with the notion of a spending freeze but, when pressed, refused to formally propose one. Obama acknowledged that the cost of a Wall Street bailout might make it tougher to launch new domestic initiatives, but as Lehrer noted the senator from Illinois did not seem to be willing to abandon any of those initiatives.

Finally, 33 minutes into the discourse, Obama suggested that he would be more inclined to steers some funds be out of Iraq and back toward the U.S.

Obama only devoted a few seconds to the notion before steering back to the domestic debate, however.

It was not until almost half way into the debate that Lehrer actually asked the "Iraq" question.

Then, finally, the candidates diverged.

Recalling his own opposition to the war, Obama rapped McCain for getting everything about the run-up to the war wrong.

"At the time when the war started, you said it was quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were," said Obama. "You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong."

McCain said Obama is getting it wrong now. "Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq," announced McCain.

"That's not true, that's not true," countered Obama.

Repeatedly, the candidates clashed.

And they clearly did disagree.

John McCain debated as the man who wanted this war six years ago and who wants it to continue even now.

Barack Obama debated as the man who won the Democratic nomination in large part because he had the wisdom to oppose launching an unnecessary preemptive war, and who scored points throughout the primary fight by promising to renew America's commitment to diplomacy.

The two men were speaking to a country that is rightly worried about a stumbling economy.

But the country worries, as well, about foreign-policy stumbles.

And the invasion and occupation of Iraq remains the worst of those stumbles in recent American history.

There will be plenty of spin about what was said in the first presidential debate.

But the focus on the war in Iraq, a war that most Americans think was a mistake and want to see finished, means that -- while the night saw no knockout blows -- it was Obama who got the debate he wanted and needed.

Comments (72)

The Republican 'folksie' and eternal Cold War machine has McCain keeping it simple and focussed on a senior Commander-in-Chief model. Most folks in your country would know Eisenhower left office decrying the "military-industrial complex". That was before Hollywood Patriotism returned late 2001, just like its role during the HUAC Committee witch-hunts against celebrity artists. The "Entertainment/infotainment" part of that equation is most evident in the spectre of (Brit) tabloids, Fox News and the type of media mugging of common decency that Berlusconi, Murdoch, (maybe Shinawatra in Thailand) and others represent.

So McCain's advisors had him winning the "warm impression" tally of voters. Obama ran a solid race and must maintain his momentum among educated, or well-informed and engaged voters. His discipline was astounding.

There are some problems. He was caught in the hunter's spotlight on US attacks on Pakistan soil. Such drone-led violence plays into the strategy of the ideologues of Al Qaeda.

Obama was also dragged into muted support for nuclear power. OK, is it a certainty that all forms of new nukes will have secure supply? If "proliferation-resistant" nuclear fuels (from thorium, via monazite mining in mineral sands) are to become a future complement to uranium etc, then US Energy needs to ensure supply from India and Australia is uninterrupted, especially if Cold War III McCain gets in. Nuclear power may become a huge and divise issue, despite the trenchant PR campaign to polish it as clean in the Greenhouse (CO2).

From where I write, which to you may as well be Quebec, Wellington, Cornwall, Dublin or Sydney, Pres. Obama would mean renewed love for USA and its people, even with his likely compromises. The global South will be drawn back in, and smiles appear

Posted by bazdicoot at 09/26/2008 @ 11:21pm
The debate seemed to avoid clear reference to the bail-out package being pored over in Congress. Obama won clear ground pointing out the economic basics of who wins under a Republican administration: the minority of elites whose connections by birth, postcode, alumni or to privilege lobbyists.

A thousand pardons Mr President, but without detailed accountability and oversight, super-grants to failed gamblers may appear where perhaps warrants would do a better job. One wonders who will make G.W. Bush's Pardons list once the dust settles on Wall St.

Posted by bazdicoot at 09/26/2008 @ 11:31pm
The Obama campaign should pay close attention to what John McCain said about losing in Vietnam. It still galls him and he clearly thinks we lost because the country bailed on him and history be damned.

Most young people of draft age do not realize what small potatoes 4000 dead are to men like McCain who watched more than 50,000 die in Vietnam and still honestly think we could have won if we had stuck it out and put more boots on the ground. When on earth would he ever leave Iraq? When it has achieved an uneasy co-existence dependent on our presence? We lost over 30,000 soldiers-many of them drafted-achieving that poor outcome and are still protecting South Korea half a century later.

Obama can't win without the youth vote and it isn't just their economic future on the line.

Posted by Pogge at 09/26/2008 @ 11:34pm
Too bad Ralph wasn't there.

Posted by Freewheelin_Franklin at 09/26/2008 @ 11:36pm
Posted by Pogge at 09/26/2008 @ 11:34pm

"Obama can't win without the youth vote and it isn't just their economic future on the line."

Even with a McCain presidency and a draft, if people - particularly young people - choose jail over military service, it ties his hands. There's only so mercenary contractors one can buy when you have no budget.

One out of every six people in Federal prison during World War II was a consciencious objector - and there were only 40,000 of them. Imagine what would happen if you had to imprison a sizable chunk of the population.

I think things are a little less dire than you want to pretend here.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/26/2008 @ 11:47pm
Pogge is right. Obama should ask McCain to define "defeat" and "victory" because the Arizona senator seems to have only an emotional response to these ideas.

I noticed how riled McCain seemed, how rapidly he blinked, and I was hoping he would turn purple and throw a temper tantrum.

Posted by redemma at 09/26/2008 @ 11:48pm
I lived through the Viet Nam war. A lot of good men came home without feet for boots or hands for gloves. one of my buddies says his feet are always cold. He doesn't have feet. A lot of families have the flag that was on their son's, father's, husband's coffin. A lot of vets still can't face daily life. I'm not a pacifist, but I am against stupid. You can't fix stupid. By the waqy kiki as the french call him Kissinger just came out with a statement calling Obama a liar. KIKI did say that he would meet without preconditions with leaders at the secretary of state or higher level with Christiane Amanpour discussion

Posted by lachatte at 09/26/2008 @ 11:52pm
reagans:

mccain 4

obama 0

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:01am
'Pogge' reminds us that McCain did evoke that old 'staying the course' logic Nixon (and LBJ) supporters clung to about troop withdrawals and winning the peace.

Four more years would just be a continuum of the good ol' boy empire Reagan and co retrieved from the likes of Johnson and Nixon. Note how affectionate was McCain about Reagan, and even Kissenger!

He did say he would not go back to the Cold War conditions, but outside US political debate the horrors of the Cold War 1947-1989 seem like more of the same Imperial dynamics England and France played early in the century (with Russian uprisings 1905 and 1917). Militarised diplomatic machinations in the Caspian region, Persian gulf, Latin America, Diego Garcia, etc all seem perfectly consistent with the ugly prospect that a US Cold War never ended, and now the Russians have come out in agreement.

Surely Obama's team can find a way to leverage US foreign policy out of such a mess.

Posted by bazdicoot at 09/27/2008 @ 12:02am
al-qaedas:

mccain 2

obama 13

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:03am
porks:

mccain 4

obama 0

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:04am
tax:

mccain 18

obama 35

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:06am
main streets:

mccain 2

obama 2

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:07am
spendings:

mccain 27

obama 14

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:10am
not trues:

mccain 0

obama 9

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:12am
I agree with 'srjenkins' and 'lachatte', although one boosted conscientious objectors during the sainted WW2 and the other would not agree with. Mass anti-war civil disobedience is just one of the non-weaponed dispersals of direct democracy that would greet "4 more years" of Republican admin. It is wretched what happened to all sides in the McNamara/Kennedy war on French Indo-China. Well, perhaps not the French foreign policy...anyway, the doctrine of "Pre-emption" set up all that A-symetric warfare and "collateral damage". The key players still have a voice (McNamara's amazing spin in "Fog of War", and Kissenger/Kiki still free despite his roles in Chile's Sept 11, 1973; or bombing Laos and Cambodia, or green lighting Suharto etc ). The most rotten thing about such policies, and the local militant reaction (landmines, bombings etc) is that civilians get caught inevitably in the crossfire, be it metallic and lethal, or harsh propaganda battles.

Posted by bazdicoot at 09/27/2008 @ 12:18am
"BAGHDAD, Sep 25 (IPS) - Not even the elevators work now at Baghdad Medical City, built once as the centre for some of the best medical care.

One of the ten elevators still does, and the priority for this is patients who have lost their legs -- and there are many of them. The rest, the doctors, patients and students at the four specialised teaching hospitals within the building complex, just take the stairs, sometimes to the 18th floor.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:18am
Lehrer mentioned "the lessons of Vietnam" and tied it to a new question, "the lessons of Iraq," and you could see John McCain's wheels spinning. Oh, right, other lessons.

And it is very obvious in all that McCain says about Iraq and returning with honor and victory that he is still mentally fighting the war in Vietnam. He is still trying to redeem that.

But a lot of voters weren't even born in 1974, and to them, the lessons of Vietnam are as relevant as the lessons of WW1 or the Civil War. To them, the meaning of Iraq is: don't start the wrong war. That was Obama's message.

So the bitter old Vietnam vets will mostly support McCain, but those under 50 will wonder what the heck he's going on about.

Posted by EvelynU at 09/27/2008 @ 12:21am
Early polls show McCain 82% and Obama 16% in the debate! Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/27/2008 @ 12:14am

snap poll of 500 uncommitted voters commissioned by CBS News just after Friday night's presidential debate:

Obama won: 40%

Tie: 38%

McCain won: 22%

46% of independent voters said their opinion of Obama had improved

55% said McCain would make the right decisions about Iraq

49% said Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:25am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/26/2008 @ 11:47pm

No one wants to believe it isn't as dire as all that, but I live among the McCain crowd and while they are warming to Obama on the economy seven years of FEAR, FEAR and MORE FEAR have taken their toll.

They fear terrorist attacks and a reconstituted Soviet Union. They fear God's wrath for the abortion "holocaust". They fear becoming a minority. They fear being marginalized and direspected by elitists who are better educated and more sophisticated than they are. They fear losing their home, their job and their community because it is happening and while they may understand that Obama's economic plan is better the fear has created a seige mentality. McCain with all his blustering makes them feel safe.

Young people are emotionally, financially and physically resilient. They feel more confident about taking chances and more welcoming toward change. They need to step up and show the world that they aren't just observers and participate fully if we are going to secure their future.

They are our children and grandchildren. How can we do less than encouraging them to help protect themselves?

Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 12:26am
Maybe I'm not getting the picture, but from my perch here on "Main Street" what I heard in the debate was a lot of McCain talking about what he thinks he did do, and very little about what he will do. And for a candidate whose belated mantra is "Real Change" he didn't show this voter any change at all in his dated "mine is bigger than yours" political stance.

Posted by satchiesmom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:27am
Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/27/2008 @ 12:14am |

Were those FOX News polls because I sure haven't seen anything close to that anywhere.

Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 12:28am
"Obama's constant interruptions belayed his rude obstinate discourteous elitist style. He completely came off as arrogant and naive and totally undisciplined." 'redriver'

I am guessing the 'frosty zoom' tallies are word-counts rather than unilateral scores. Did Obama interrupt a lot? There was vigorous baiting going on, under the actual debate, such as McCain's expected "what the Senator fails to understand" etc. The polemics and tactics to draw a misguided or quotable reaction were flowing both ways, but any correcting of the record that went on, even with muttered interruptions, seemed in proportion to the pre-deigned baits set in play, especially by McCain. I leave that to more informed experts.

Will Joe Biden repeat as many times references to his opponent's perceived lack of experience? Probably not, given the way media commentary would chase that attitude up (as the article suggests).

Posted by bazdicoot at 09/27/2008 @ 12:31am
the wheels on the poll go round and round..

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:34am
Point number one:

McCain's ship is listing badly under the strain of Sarah Palin's baggage. If he needed a virtual miracle to win the presidency at an earlier juncture, he needs a miracle times ten now.

Point number two:

If Obama is a temperamentally cautious politician who exists under the shadow of innate American racism, condemned to walking the tenuous tightrope between appearing dignified versus the now scathing demand for vigorous action against a Washington culture gone essentially psychopathic, he at least won this "debate" in a smooth walkaway --the contrast in the body/facial language of McCain versus Obama was the ultimate tail of the tape.

What is needed now is a populist agenda to attack the fundamental corruption that is dragging our once proud nation under the waves.

Crisis is indeed a harbinger of opportunity.

Will America execute the necessary 180 degree turn?

History will be the judge, but the indications are not positive.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:38am
Early polls show McCain 82% and Obama 16% in the debate! Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/27/2008 @ 12:14am

This is the poll by Fox News by text message from their viewers. All other early polls show Obama by a slim margin.

Posted by kerrithomas17 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:39am
There was "the Senator fails to understand" and the word "naive". Obama has to find a charming way to say "hidebound old goat". I shall ponder it. Part of my job is telling appalling people they are appalling in the nicest possible way.

Joe Biden should be practicing smiling indulgently and a little fondly and saying "Now Governor, that is a rather simplistic view" or "Governor, I know you are sincere, but we need to think this through" and "I am sorry Governor but you are dangerously oversimplifying the issue".

Sarah Palin is a simple person, clever, but not deep and she sure as hell is dangerous primarily because she is a simple person, clever, but not deep. Throwing in a few "I'm sure the average man or woman out there watching could grasp these issues without a team of experts to coach them. Every American may not have a degree in economics (foreign policy, immigration law etc.)but they understand the issues".

I'm just saying......

Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 12:46am
I have to confess, I popped into a right wing site and when someone asked whether I was a feminist hag I told him(presumably it was a male) that I was a childless thirty-one year old catalogue model who, while I wasn't Vogue material, had appeared for Sears, Kohls and Macy's. Then I added, BTW, the modeling is paying for my and my fiance's last year at Harvard.

I am surely going to hell for lying.

Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 12:58am
I'm out.

Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 12:58am
McCain is a foolish & bitter old man.

Posted by DeezNats at 09/27/2008 @ 01:02am
Joe Biden should be practicing smiling indulgently and a little fondly and saying "Now Governor, that is a rather simplistic view" or "Governor, I know you are sincere, but we need to think this through" and "I am sorry Governor but you are dangerously oversimplifying the issue". posted by 'pogge'

That looks as good a preview of next week's debate as any...good tips.

IF this debate featured neo-Cold War dynamics and a dangerous posturing towards inappropriate campaigns along the Pashtun and Wazeri border badlands, then I fear some awe-ful Biblical Policy Belt tub-thumping from next week's debate. I'm just saying: "reasoned responses..." "extreme religious views"..."a nation founded on Rights, including a woman's right to choose" hmmmm How would you debate Gov Palin? Maybe pretend she is Michael Palin, left behind in Anchorage by the camera crew on one of his travel shows.

Posted by bazdicoot at 09/27/2008 @ 01:03am
fair go for sleepers, I'm out too.

Posted by bazdicoot at 09/27/2008 @ 01:08am
The Palin/Biden debate might just be the most watched debate of all times.

Biden will have to of course not have to be concerned about defending his experience and/or policies, he will however have to be on guard to how is perceived as treating Ms Palin.

Palin has had the luxury of protection via the Republican party and McCain himself. On her own, without script and facing a debating opponent who clearly shadows her in experience in every way that can be described, should be a telling moment.

The Obama/McCain debate clearly has shown American's that McCain is stuck in the past and has zero ideas for the future.

We are tired of his Vietnam references and his "war hero" bullshit, (as though he was the only boy captured). Although his hero status is debatable in it's self, his self proclaimed fighter for POW/MIA's is total BS to anyone who followed the hearings and investigated his strange involvement.

Obama won do doubt and the polls are evidence. McCain's condescending references were not lost on American voters.

Bottom line; McCain does not represent the change that America needs and American's want. McCain represents the same war hawk, BS that we have lived with for the past 8 years.

McCain's grasp of the economic issues we are faced with as a result of abuse at the hands of his party during the past 8 years should be more than enough to send him back to Arizona and Palin back to the frozen tundra where she can keep an eye out for Russian attacks

Posted by Hoot at 09/27/2008 @ 01:49am
Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/27/2008 @ 12:14am |

Were those FOX News polls because I sure haven't seen anything close to that anywhere.

Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 12:28am

Rio likes to live in his own "reality" - utterly divorced from the objective reality that so many of us inhabit. I thought that McCain showed himself to be the utter asshole that so many of us know him to be throughout the debate. The funniest thing was listening to him talk about looking people in the eye, while he never once had the balls to look Obama in the eye. Really, it's time to stop pretending that the guy has honor or courage, or that he's had any of those qualities in decades.

Posted by jmusolino at 09/27/2008 @ 02:35am
Just wondering...is "redriver" a proud member of the KKK?? I hear so much hatred and disdain from this person...can't help but think it is nothing less than racism in it's purist form. When we can all see a person for who they are and what is in their heart and soul, and not the color their skin, hair, weight, height, etc, then maybe, just maybe this counry can unite and move forward to true prosperity and peace. By the way "redriver", I am a white woman, and a proud Obama/Biden supporter.

Posted by tanmax at 09/27/2008 @ 02:59am
Re skin shades ... check out Maher's last new rule, if you didn't catch it last night after the debate ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3XZmbBBXLQ

And Chris Rock's comment re his parents' advice: "You cannot beat a white man. You can only knock him out."

Posted by sloper at 09/27/2008 @ 04:03am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 12:25am |

If Fox is getting flooded with "McCain won" text votes, it's obvious that...

Obama won!

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 07:57am
Shabbos Boy chicken hawk

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...day/index.html

The debate last night demonstrated the entire process is, and has been all along, illegitimate and deformed.

The most important national issues skirted (pun intended) were

#1. US-Israel relations. Zionist Jews gave McCain the Surge, which deformed the democractic process by reversing the expressed will of the people in the 2006 election.

#2. Cut military, instead of domestic spending; deploy personnel to clean up and repair hurricane damage/substructure in this country

#3 NO BAILOUT OF WALL STREET MONEY MONKEYS WITHOUT NATIONAL CONTROL (planned ecomony; socialism);

#4 Purge of Jew -Catholic G-d privatizers in our government

#5. Punishment with penalties of death by public hanging of those who profit off blood sacrificed for our country.

To skirt these issues deligitimizes the entire process as undemocratic, using the voting procedure to manipulate the majority. As Ahmadinejad pointed out to Larry King, Iran is actually freerer.

McCAIN IS PSYCHOTIC.

Posted by jones at 09/27/2008 @ 08:58am
Palin came across as adorable and fluffy on her "World Leader Tour". That disturbed a lot of her supporters who expected more-particularly men, many of whom I suspect are realizing that Jenny MCCarthy is far prettier, smarter and nicer than their VP candidate and carries a lot less baggage.

All Biden really needs to do is let her talk. She won't be able to say "that's really all I know" so the fumbling for words and repetition will go on and on. Be solicitious Joe. Speak directly to her, respectfully refer to her as Governor because one of the charm school tricks she loves is calling you by your first name and she will probably do it a few times. Gently suggest she is confusing you with Senator Joe Lieberman if she tries to hang you of something you haven't said or done.

Yes this would be easier for Hillary because the Sarah Palins in this world are a constant source of irritation to smart women and we know how to play their insecurities and believe me Palin needs desperately to be reminded of hers. She is George Bush--with lipstick!

Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 09:13am
As Ahmadinejad pointed out to Larry King, Iran is actually freerer.

McCAIN IS PSYCHOTIC.-----Posted by jones at 09/27/2008 @ 08:58am |

Thank you Mr Pot for that in-depth analysis of Mr Kettle!

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 09:19am
frosty_zoom that's a way cool parsing methodology you have. It can bring out some truths.

"Biden" McCain: 0 Obama: 1

"Palin" McCain: 0 Obama: 0

"Bridge" McCain: 1 Obama: 0

Posted by Nowhere_Dude at 09/27/2008 @ 09:22am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/27/2008 @ 09:30am

Gee Darin, surprised you're not citing the Fox News "text poll" or the "poll" on the Drudge Report today!

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 09:38am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/27/2008 @ 09:53am

Maybe, but it's a pretty hard case to make that after 8 years, Bush was "innocent" of what's happening and it's the fault of Dems (only in power since Jan. 2007) or...as SOME have tried...Bill Clinton!

BTW, even if last night was a "tie"...we still have the up-coming debacle of Sarah Palin....and a domestic policy debate (McCain's worst subject) and a town-hall (which is SUPPOSED to be McCain's "favorite forum").

This is the first quarter of the Super Bowl....and I think Obama got in a field goal, but that's it.

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 10:23am
This debate seemed like a rehash of pseudo-policy positions pre-Sept. 2008 financial crisis.

Obama.....well, I am going to have to scale back;

McCain.....cut spending, except of course to the military which will only be reined by in forcing contractors to deliver pursuant to contract...geezzz what a notion.....;

This was a pitiful Alice in Wonderland walk in the park by both candidates who didn't talk of the new reality - no money. Obama still talking about tax cuts for 95% and McCain talking about tax code in theory 35% corporate tax rate as being one of the highest in the industrial world.

Lots of hogwash....couldn't even watch it through to the conclusion of the debate.

Posted by OneVote at 09/27/2008 @ 11:09am
darin-America is quite aware that the current administration is republican and that republicans had power during Bush's term and attempts to blame those not in power won't fly except with most partisan of people.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 11:16am
Above are references to McCain "being stuck in the past"

- Every competent professor, foreign policy expert, business manager, sports coach, and leader relies the successes and failures of the past to help shape the immediate and long-term future. - For personal reasons (i.e. "I'm important too") there is a tendency among the inexperienced to ignore the validity and importance of past lessons. - The inexperienced tend to jump to hasty conclusions, since they are not likely to have time to learn the lessons of the past that older and wiser people have already learned. Wiser people often have witnessed and personally tested their ideas. They are likely to be humbled by experience and embarrassed by their former hair-brained, idealistic theories. - The inexperienced often mistakenly think their experiences are unique and their ideas revolutionary. Naturally, one would think so if they are unfamiliar with the past.

I'm no big McCain fan. But his is certainly far more knowledgeable, informed, and realistic than Obama.

The media and the liberals used to love McCain. Now they hate him. I guess that is because he might get in the way of electing someone even more liberal.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 11:16am
How can the senile old warrior keep repeating that stupid line " The surge has worked"? I watched the debate and there isn't any doubt that senator Obama won. I felt that Obama was at times being kind and holding back, while our dear POW hero sounded condescending and preachy. He, McCain never once addressed senator Obama by name, but rather addressed Obama as (he) while Barack addressed McCain as john. Not only did Mccain sound angry and petulant, but he didn't always seem to have control of his facts or he seemed to truncate truth.

Posted by lachatte at 09/27/2008 @ 11:21am
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 11:16am

By what metric is spending a hundred years in Iraq, realistic? Could it be driven by a hair-brained, idealistic theory about remaking the Middle East and bringing "democracy" there - a stated objective of the Bush administration?

Not much of a critical thinker, are you?

Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 11:26am
LaChatte I'm sure that there is no doubt in your mind that Obama won. Just as I am sure I am the smartest, and most handsome person on earth. I will agree that Obama is a better speaker and has more charisma. It stops there. Of course, charisma and presentation skin-deep thoughts will do quite well in our modern sound-bite culture. Especially when aided by a media comprised of 75% democrats.

By the way, how long before you are senile? Or are you going to somehow skip that?

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 11:34am
Posted by lachatte at 09/26/2008 @ 11:52pm

Yes, but the bottom line is you always have a choice to go to jail over going to war. That's my point.

Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 12:26am

The problem is that McCain and Obama do not have different foreign policies. They are only arguing location and scale.

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/27/2008 @ 09:53am

Let me get this straight. Your argument is that Republicans are going to be able to use claims that Democrats didn't want to regulate Fannie Mae, and that's why they failed?

Do you actually believe that people aren't going to ask questions like:

1. Haven't Republicans been talking about how they favor deregulation for decades?

2. Who's been in the White House and Congress? Couldn't they have done it if they want to do so?

3. Why didn't John McCain fix it?

And now you are trying to reach back and blame it on Democrats?

By the way, I don't disagree that Democrats are AS culpable. However, I think the Republicans ability to sell this argument are damn near zero - particularly given the fact they are led by McCain. McCain, we will recall, has been in the Senate and presumably could have done something - if Mr. Keating Five weren't in industry's pockets.

Good luck with that. I'm sure it will play with the believers - everyone else, not so much.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 11:42am
Darin

I can tell there is little I would agree with you on. Your loaded words and tendencies seem to be left-leaning while my words and tendencies tend to be right. (Oops, I guess I should have said "right-leaning")

This said, I too agree that the blame for this mess falls on both sides... and the middle... and the current administration.

The issue today is tied to the housing market. We are all collectively regretting raising a stink about it earlier.

Hmmm, meanwhile the next sleeping giants include Social Security and Immigration.

But, we can disagree about that later. Hopefully not too much later, and not in hindsight. One battle at a time.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 12:11pm
Correction "not raising a stink about this earlier"

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 12:13pm
refused to regulate Fannie Mae and that you ignore it at your own peril, just like Kerry ignored the swift boad vets.

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/27/2008 @ 09:53am

c'mon darin

look at market share of subprime.

por favor.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 1:16pm
Immigration.

But, we can disagree about that later. Hopefully not too much later, and not in hindsight. One battle at a time.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 12:11pm

immigration?

hahaha

what, and lose the slaves?

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 1:17pm
I'm no big McCain fan. But his is certainly far more knowledgeable, informed, and realistic than Obama.------Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 11:16am

Yes...voting with Dubya 93% of the time sure proves that!

/sarcasm off

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 1:31pm
Perhaps too obscured was Obama's great visual metaphor that was only reiterated by McPOWhowmanyCARSMANSIONS every time he emphasized the 'serge'-- and that being that McPOWhowmanyCARSMANSIONS sees everything through a single lens... and he proved it over and over again-- like he didn't get that he was only damning himself by constantly coming by to that.

That was great insight given to voters. Now if even that single lens is also warped and wrong...

I do think most picked that subtlety up, if not consciously, surely intuitively.

(Now on a little off subjectiness: it's coming out that 100B could've bought all the defaulted mortgages-- so way 700B?

Obviously much much more lies to be had coming out of the hsuB/McPOWhowmanyCARSMANSIONS admin.)

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2008 @ 4:41pm
er, ...coming 'back' to that.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2008 @ 4:44pm
ha-- "so 'why' 700B?"

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2008 @ 4:45pm
Maskdelta "Yes...voting with Dubya 93% of the time sure proves that!"

I know this type of argument tends to score points, however, just because many people are on the Dubya bashing bandwagon, it really doesn't hold water, in terms of logic.

Many people went out to get ARMs. It was the in thing to do. Does that mean it was right?

See http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Bandwagon and http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Appeal%20to%20the%20People

To persuade those who do not already agree with you, I might recommend something a little less emotional and little more factual or at least conceptually challenging. Anyone can emote.

But then again, who am I to set the rules.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 5:06pm
John Nichols wrote: But the war in Iraq still defines the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama.

I find another, more important difference between them: Obama is the more subtle deceiver. He is probably the more dangerous person as president. I know these are not commonly expressed opinions, but in listening to Obama in the debate yesterday, his forceful statements on pursuing war in Afghanistan, pieces fell into place for me.

True, he opposed invading Iraq before he became a senator. Since being in the Sanate, he has voted for every funding of the Iraq war. He has behaved just like Hillary Clinton, and I now believe that - had he been in the Senate in 2002 - he would have voted the war-power to Bush as she did. Why? He would have recalculated that his opposition could deny him future opportunities such as the one he successfully seized to be the Democratic candidate.

He recalculates on matters of high principle, not just matters of practicality. He voted for the new FISA, even less protective of the 4th amendment than the old. He voted for immunity for telecom criminals who were complicit with federal spying agents. These are matters of the Constitution and the rule of law, and he was a professor of constitutional law. He recalculated on drilling in the coastal waters, though no mitigation of the current petroleum problem could come from it. He talks well about solving our economic problems, but he takes advice from Robert Rubin and from former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives.

He is dangerous because he would commit us to an intensified war in Afghanistan, a very costly venture. How he intends to do this while keeping his implied promises to fix our domestic problems is not explained. He is less trustworthy than simple McCain

Posted by goedel at 09/27/2008 @ 5:39pm
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 09/27/2008 @ 5:06pm

I'm sorry, did you actually explain how McCain is "knowledgeable, informed, and realistic"....voting with Bush 93% of the time????

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 5:44pm
What matters first is the occupation of Iraq. Obama recommitted himself to a timeline for withdrawal and since al Maliki has himself called for one, Obama will put the US on the right side of international law. McCain will keep the US a rogue nation. Dreyfuss is obviously too much of an addled hippie to understand what Obama is saying about the surge: "it may well have been more successful than I imagined in reducing ethnic tension due the heroic efforts of brave US soliders but it utterly failed to meet its objective, i.e. to create space for national reconciliation."And if you can't understand that is what Obama is implying, Biden spelled it out clearly for you, Dreyfuss. So Obama will not fail to recognize some good the troops have done. They are not the enemy; he is praising them. But in spite of their success the objective was not met. It is time to force national reconciliation by withdrawing our troops. And Obama is willing to live with an Iraq that won't see Iran as a mortal enemy and that will be too independent to be a client state. McCain will not leave until he has anti-Iranian client state in Iraq. He'll never get it, so then he says we have to try because of the costs we have already sunk in the occupation. This is above VandenHeuvel's and Dreyfuss' heads (I don't care about their credentials), but this is the fallacy of sunk costs. And Obama is free of it. If you don't work hard for his victory, you are an addled hippie.

Posted by hartal at 09/27/2008 @ 7:26pm
Posted by hartal at 09/27/2008 @ 7:26pm

"If you don't work hard for his victory, you are an addled hippie."

Ummm, yeah.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2008 @ 8:32pm
I am just so sad that the Repbulicans did not put up Mitt Romney for president. They have thus denied the American People an historical opportunity to vote for both Ken AND Barbie.

Posted by adolphus at 09/27/2008 @ 9:28pm
I am just so sad that the Repbulicans did not put up Mitt Romney for president. They have thus denied the American People an historical opportunity to vote for both Ken AND Barbie.

Posted by adolphus at 09/27/2008 @ 9:28pm
I am just so sad that the Repbulicans did not put up Mitt Romney for president. They have thus denied the American People an historical opportunity to vote for both Ken AND Barbie.

Posted by adolphus at 09/27/2008 @ 9:28pm
Now First of all, Mr Mac Cain keep telling us about all the places that he visited, however, we would like it better if he tell us what he did in these places, what kind of people he meet with and which policies he promoted! And I would not hear defending America litany. Second, Bombing people in foreign countries is not heroic in my book. Third If Obama is educated in elite schools, because of his intelligence is far more credential than belonging to the elite because your dad and grand dad are Admirals in the Navy. Finlay, Teddy Roosevelt is Mac Cine idea of a great president and that explain his Imperial view of the world that was expressed best by W. Churchill in the 20's, when his generals were debating using Mustard gas against rebellions in N. Iraq , Churchill did not understand why all this discussion about using chemical weapons against some stray nomadic tribes in the desert of the Middle east!?

abdo, IL

Posted by abdosoliman at 09/27/2008 @ 11:20pm
Obama was articulate, composed and confident. He was more assertive and to the point than expected. He connected by talking to the camera often. He seemed presidential more presidential than McCain. And of course, he made more sense.

Posted by carlosbas at 09/28/2008 @ 07:49am
Why couldn't McCain look at Obama, or ever call his name? Why is McCain still at pains to pronounce the names of well known world leaders?

Posted by WeldonRobeson at 09/28/2008 @ 09:59am
Early polls show McCain 82% and Obama 16% in the debate! Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/27/2008 @ 12:14am

Well, let's look at the "post-game" wrap, shall we?

CBS News: Obama won 39%, McCain won 25%, Draw 36%

Insider Advantage: Obama won 42%, McCain won 41%, Undecided: 17%

CNN: Obama "did better" 51%, McCain "did better" 38%

The MSNBC on-line (non-scientific) poll showed Obama winning the debate 52% to 33%.

MediaCurves.com reported Independents favored Obama overall 61% to 38%.

USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/28/2008 @ 12:13pm
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/today%27s%20polls

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2008 @ 4:15pm
'If, God forbid, foreign policy had to be the deciding factor in choosing between Barack Obama and John McCain, then last night's terrible showing by Obama would make me a Ralph Nader voter in a heartbeat. Obama's performance was nothing short of pathetic, and only a Democratic-leaning analysts [sic] and voters with blinders on could suggest that Obama won the debate.' -- Robert Dreyfuss -- The Nation -- 27 September, 2008

Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/29/2008 @ 09:46am