Honestly, I was surprised McCain was able to hold his own last night. While Obama seems to be "consistent" whenever debating or making a speech, McCain seems to fall apart or get confused quite often. I think the debate gave McCain a couple of points but it also helped Obama. Who do you think did better?
I don't think either really 'won' neither impressed me. As far as for the election goes though, who might be swayed, from all I have read and witnessed, in that aspect Obama does appear to have won. I also did not see McCain 'fall apart' or get 'confused quite often'
I didn't say that happened in the debate last night. I was just mentioning that he's usually not a very assertive person. If you watch videos of him you can also see him get confused about certain things and not knowing the answer right off the top of his head.
You see that in several videos because any time it happens, the opposition posts is to make it look commonplace. Someone should start a collection of Biden's gaffs, which do seem to be commonplace. Just remember that just because someone has a quick answer to a tough question, it doesn't mean it is the right answer. You can dazzle 'em will brilliance or you can baffle them with BS. Most popular politicians have yet to learn about the first one. I also thought the debate was pretty neutral. Same old, same old issues. None of the presidential debates have been real good since the time of the Reagan-Mondale debates where Reagan's humor and wit won the debates, even if the points he made fell short. Those were fun to watch. McCain has always been very assertive and is one of the most active members of the Senate, whereas Obama, Kerry, Edwards and many others just go along for the ride and have not played active roles in legislation. Even when it came to the issue of delaying the debate, Obama was more interested in furthering his own interests, rather than doing what we are paying him to do. McCain put the needs of the county and the responsibilities of his job first. I think at least McCain effectively proved that he isn't as old and decrepit as he is being painted by some members of the liberal press. It still would be good to see a real strong third party candidate emerge. Neither of these guys has much chance of ever being a great president.
McCain used the 'delaying' the debate as a political ploy, to think a few actually bought it as he was trying to do something. It's simply completely transparent, especially when reports come out he didn't do much of anything there to help.
I think the entire deal with the House Republicans not agreeing is entirely political. I think they've teamed up with McCain in an attempt to make it seem like McCain brought them together. It's all over political points which McCain REALLY NEEDS. If I'm correct here isn't Obama supposed to be the guy without the experience? If he's so inexperienced then why does McCain have to play catchup? With his 26 whopping years in the House and Senate it should be the other way around.
The fact that Obama is the guy with almost no experience isn't even debatable, but he is a good talker most of the time. The rest of the time he can't seem to put more than three words together without hesitating. When I ask Democrat friends why they like Obama, the only response I hear is that he is a good talker. No one can cite any accomplishments. However, his generally good speaking talents are a stark contrast to Bush, who has been a terrible speaker most of the time. I think Bush's poor speaking style is irritating to a lot of people. McCain's problem with his own party has always been that he is too liberal, which was why he was the darling of the media and the Democrat party during the last election. Kerry was actually considering running McCain for VP on his ticket. At the time, if McCain would have accepted, they probably would have won. McCain is very popular with independents because he is the only candidate in the last 10 years that has been considered to be a moderate. There is more to experience that just putting in time in a Senate seat. Kerry is also experienced but has never played much of an active role. Personally, I think governors tend to be more effective presidents because they have management experience and are responsible for budgets. Senators just spend money and play politics. They do not have real day-to-day responsibilities. When it comes down to it, people's choice for president is very superficial.
One thing that's quite obvious in this debate is how stubborn McCain is about the war in Iraq. He keeps on saying that "we're winning". What exactly are we winning? And what's the objective of occupying the country?
FYI. There has always been a clear goal with Iraq, unless you are listening to the Democrats or the liberal press. The goal was to create a stable democracy in the Middle East. The theory is that democracy would spread and stabilize most of the perpetually screwed up Middle East countries. If the Middle East was stabilized, the entire world would benefit. Remember when Bush kept repeating the line, "Democracies don't make war with democracies"? That is what he was referring to. I don't know if it's possible to create a stable democracy in a Middle Eastern Muslim country. They spend almost as much time hating each other as they do hating all of us infidels. The theory is kind of like the Johnson/McNamara Domino Theory that got us into Viet Nam. I believe the democracy theory was Cheney's. Oil also does play a role, but not for the reasons that the anti-oil crowd believes. Most people do not know the difference between heavy sour crude and light sweet crude, but there is a huge difference. Iraq is one of the few countries in the world that produces mostly light sweet crude, which is much easier to pump and refine and produces better gasoline yields. If it wasn't for the oil that the world needs, we would all be better off just ignoring the Middle East and letting them murder each other. The different factions within Islam have been doing a pretty good job of that ever since Mohammad died. One of the reasons that we are still there is because the Iraqis need our expertise and money. If everything goes as planned, we will be out by 2011 anyway--and there is a very slim chance that they could turn into an ally. I wouldn't count on that, but it is still a possibility if Iraq remains stable. That is what McCain means when he says we are winning. Iraq is currently stabilizing and most of the streets are safer to walk than many parts of New York City, Los Angeles or Washington DC. The suicide bombers are still a problem, but that is primarily Muslim on Muslim violence.
I'm listening to the Democrats or anybody. I'm listening to my own common sense. The Iraqis have already said that they don't need us there. It's costing billion of "tax payer dollars" just to keep the troops there. I think we should keep a small presence there but not as many troops as we have now. We should withdraw most of the troops and ONLY send in more troops if the country has an signs of becoming destabilized. They currently have 500,000 American trained Iraqi troops which I think is enough to fight off any insurgents.
I didn't see any clear winners, but what I did see is that McCain would not answer the questions regarding Afghanistan and Al Quaeda. I don't support Obama because he is a good talker, I support Obama because I will not go through another 4 years with McBush. As Obama pointed out, McCain voted with Bush over 80% of the time. I see that McCain clearly feels it is OK to talk the talk about change, but not walk the walk. I also do not feel comfortable that, in the case that McCain should die in office, Palin would be President. Deal Killer. Period. As to whether one or the other will make a good president, only time in the office will tell. And I'm willing to take a chance that Obama will do what needs to be done to put this country back in a position of not being viewed as a bunch of arrogant bullies who feel a childs game of the silent treatment will solve our issues. I know that I no longer want other countries to think that we all agree with Bush policies. I vehemently disagree with them!
I was watching Hannity's American last night on Fox News and all he did was attack Obama for his "supposed" inexperience. What's funny is when Shawn Hannity was asked EXACTLY what he though qualified McCain to be president he didn't know the answer right away. He pretended like he couldn't hear the question and said he would answer it after the break. When he finally did answer all he could say was that McCain is qualified because he supported the surge in Iraq and supposedly knew that the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would happen. In my opinion, I don't think those qualify you to be president.