News Scoring the Presidential Debate #1: Winners, Kill Blows & Major Subjects

[Ivan Seeking]

How do you score the debate? Who won, and why. How did the candidates fare on each of the major subjects discussed. What were the best kill blows and one-liners?

Transcript
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

 

[LowlyPion]

How do you score the debate? Who won, and why. How did the candidates fare on each of the major subjects discussed. What were the best kill blows and one-liners?

Transcript
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

Simply put Obama was the more Presidential. Petulant McCain did himself little good by often not addressing the actual question. Obama seemed much better tuned into the actual questions and engaged in the discussion.

I think the country has a number of difficult decisions to be made and I think Obama is an honest broker and likely to make more thoughtful decisions than McCain who can't be trusted given his history with banking interests and the disasters they have dragged the country into fueling their greed and of course his Manichean view of foreign policy.

I think we need thoughtful decisions and artful compromises and that's just not the way McCain comes off.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I voted Obama by a large margin, but McCain had his moments. I think Obama really hammered him on tax breaks for the oil companies, early Iraq, and McCain's support of Bush ecnomomics. And most important of all, Obama called him on his many lies and misrepresentations of what Obama has said or plans to do. Hopefully people could see that McCain was telling one lie after another; even during the debate! And clarifying that almost everyone will see a tax break under Obamas plan, was crucial. Driving home McCain's continued favoritism for the oil companies was gold. Making the distinction between tax brackets, and the actual taxes paid, was Platinum.

McCain definitely had the advantage in regards to the surge, but he handled it in such a way that it didn't seem to help him much.

Biden pointed out the while McCain accused Obama of not understanding the difference between a strategy and a tactic, in fact McCain was incorrect. The surge was a tactic designed to support the overall strategy of enabling political advances so the Iraqis can run their own country.

 

[deckart]

Obama took that debate. McCain definitely shows that he is experienced, competent and able, but we all want a little more vigor in our prez. He pointed at his accomplishments and experience instead of answering the questions directly. I don't agree much with Obama's ideals but as far is the debate went, Obama won it IMO. In these debates it's not so much as to what the answer is as it is how you answer the questions.

 

[russ_watters]

Biden pointed out the while McCain accused Obama of not understanding the difference between a strategy and a tactic, in fact McCain was incorrect. The surge was a tactic designed to support the overall strategy of enabling political advances so the Iraqis can run their own country.

No, Ivan, McCain was correct (I didn't watch the debate - I assume you represented it correctly). A tactic is what a small unit does on the battlefield. A strategy is what an entire military force does. In short: tactical=win the battle, strategic=win the war.

The simplest example is the Vietnam war. The US won virtually every battle, and by a large margin. But the strategic plan of the NVA/VC was not tactical victory, it was strategic victory through attrition and PR. So they won the war.

These terms came from the military, but are applied in business now as well. A google of "tactical strategic definition" provides many relevant hits. Here's a very good one:

Military activity is usually defined in three hierarchical levels:
- Strategic
- Operational
- Tactical

These three levels also imply the level of planning and execution.
While the goal is (at least in theory) supposed to be formed by the
political level; it is supposed to be translated into a strategic
command/goal in the administrative level. It is supposed to be
transfered to the main operational units - those who actually
specialise in one arena or in one military discipline. The heads of
these operational units should translate these commands into a
tactical execution, that would really depend on (relatively)
small-scale orders: a very specific area, how it applies to a specific
unit and its abilities, etc.

It could look like that:

Leader ---> Defines goal: to protect our country and its interests; to
promote those interests.

Chief of Staff - receives strategic goal; defines a strategic plan and
commands (among others) his head of admirality ---> Secure the marine
arena (strategic/operational command).

Head of Admirality - receives operational command and orders (among
others) his head of marine commando ----> Make sure that no enemy ship
crosses the ABC line! (this could be still considered an operational
command, as the head of the admirality is responsible for the whole
marine arena, and does not forsee tactical details).

Head of Marine Commando - tells his officers ----> :
1. Attack with small forces of unit A ship XYZ that is heading towards us.
2. Small forces from unit B should sink the enemy ship on Port BBB
before it launches
3. etc.
The officers execute it on the tactical level.

He actually adds a third level between the two (not the way I was taught), but it doesn't change the basic point.

Note: the surge is but one piece of the strategy. But that doesn't make it a tactic.

[edit] [from the google] It appears that liberal bloggers, in an attempt to downplay the success of the surge, are calling it a 'tactical success but a strategic failure'. So perhaps that's what you and Obama are responding to. It's an effective argument. Wrong, but effective nonetheless.

 

[cristo]

One thing that I really noticed was how McCain very rarely looked at Obama, either when he was addressing, or being addressed. Obama would constantly look over at McCain when he was directly addressing him. McCain didn't seem to grasp the idea of the debate, instead wanting to answer the questions directly to the chair. Also, not once did McCain look into the camera and address the viewers: Obama would do so frequently. This is only a small thing but, to me at least, speaks volumes. I could never trust someone who doesn't look the person/people they are talking to in the eye.

 

[OAQfirst]

MCCAIN: I've been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we've faced in the last 20-some years. There are some advantages to experience, and knowledge, and judgment.

And I -- and I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas, including his initial reaction to Russian invasion -- aggression in Georgia, to his -- you know, we've seen this stubbornness before in this administration to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is -- shows to me that we -- that -- that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.

Did McCain just link Obama with the Bush administration?

 

[tribdog]

As a republican and an Arizona resident I've tried to like McCain but I can't do it. I just hope that Obama hasn't got me fooled. I'm sick of presidents I don't respect. Bush is a joke, Clinton was as two-faced as they come. I wouldn't have trusted either of them with a key to my apartment. I think, I hope, Obama might give honesty a try in the White House.

 

[OrbitalPower]

For a Democrat to be proclaimed a "winner" by the talking heads, there has to be one of two preconditions:

1. Either the Republican candidate was a bumbling idiot, like Bush in 2004 at the first debate.

2. It has to be a complete blow out for the Democrat.

Remember, in 2000 Bush won a debate because that while Gore appeared more knowledgeable about the issues, Bush was more "likable," and therefore he won. So it's an uphill battle for the Democrats.

These preconditions will change if polls continually show that Americans think Obama won, but I think the talking heads will try and convince Americans he lost. This will probably happen with the next debates as well.

With regards to the surge, I don't think Obama tried to effectively refute that at all, or at least be cautious about it.

General David Petraeus himself has said that Iraq remains fragile -- probably because of the large amount of civil war style sectarian violence that is going on (and that's why US troop deaths are down), and that a several areas are still effectively under marshall law -- and he also said the gains are ""not irreversible."

Obama could have pointed out that we've been told before that we're "winning in Iraq" only to have another large uprising of extremists in various regions of Iraq and then when the US goes in there and clears them all out, they just tend to come back again (in that way, he could make his point that its our precense there that's causing the violence so our being there is not necessary).

He could have pointed out that Nouri al-Maliki already wants us out of Iraq, and if the surged worked, why does the US maintain well over one-hundred thousand troops in Iraq, troops that could be used in Afghanistan? This would corroborate the point that Obama was making about the need to go into Afghanistan. The violence is down, but only compared to the blood bath that occurred two years ago - Iraq is still one of the most dangerous places in the world.

With regards to Iran, they ALREADY have an influence in Iraq and Iran supports the current government in Iraq as they see it as a leading coalition of Shia like parties. The fighting in Sadr City and Basra between the Mehdi army and the Iraq government was brought to an end by Iranian interference, and Jalal Talabani played a role in organizing the ceasefires in Basra and Baghadad via Qassem Suleimani. The Iranian influence is stronger than ever in Iraq and their goal is to keep the current Shia backed government in power as they know it is the reasonable way for maintain their influence, so they do not want the situation to overboil nor do they want to see an intra-shia Civil war between the Sadrists and the ISCI.

So if McCain wins and acts as if the US is the sole decision maker in Iraq he will face increased insurgency resitence and an Iran that will refuse to be marganizled.

Obama had the chance to explain that the situation in Iraq is not what McCain makes it out to be and he really didn't do that - perhaps because he doesn't want to be seen as "too intellectual." Supposedly, though, he has training in International Relations and is supposedly a candidate of the head, not the heart, so I feel it was a missed opportunity for Obama to take on the McCain propaganda.

 

[OrbitalPower]

The violence is down, but only compared to the blood bath that occurred two years ago - Iraq is still one of the most dangerous places in the world.

This is also because of the fact that Sunni Arabs are now taking on al-Qaida in several areas as well.

I like this piece recently from the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...but-not-because-of-americas-surge-929896.html

You also have to take in the fact that several areas are effectively under martial law and they can't last for ever. The Nineveh looks like Lebanon, very divided, even among different sects of the same religion and/or ethnic group.

And John McCain is a guy who wrote in his book that he still believes Vietnam could have been won if we continued to drop more bombs on cities and continued to bomb them into submission.

This is a man who after he was shot down was actually saved from drowning by several Vietnamese villagers (would citizens in the US save someone who was just bombing our country via airplanes who had been shotdown) - who has later referred to the Vietnamese as "gooks."

Obama missed an opportunity to expose McCain's wrongheaded aggressive stances and his neo-con, Hawkish policies.

 

[Astronuc]

Obama could have raised the issue of the cost of the war - the fact that it is based on supplemental spending (not part of the budget) - and the apparent fact (which I'm trying to verify) that the US government is spending more (greater than 50%) on private contractors (paramilitary, mercenary, . . . personnel) than on US military.

I'd ask McCain, why the US government has 'cut', not increased, support to veterans. Last I heard, the Senate had yet to restore the recent cuts to veterans health care.


The idea of privatizing the military (with companies like Blackwater) was to save money. But it didn't save money - it just cost more. It also results in a lack of accountability and likely violates international law let alone the sovereignty of whatever country the US-sponsored paramilitary groups operate.

And once the US military pulls out of Iraq/Afganistan, where do those 10's of thousands of paramilitary people go? Back to the US? Are they going to provide security to entities in the US - with automatic weapons? Or will Blackwater and others simply cut them loose?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So perhaps that's what you and Obama are responding to. It's an effective argument. Wrong, but effective nonetheless.

I was quoting Biden. And from what I see, you have said nothing to refute the context.

 

[tribdog]

And once the US military pulls out of Iraq/Afganistan, where do those 10's of thousands of paramilitary people go? Back to the US? Are they going to provide security to entities in the US - with automatic weapons? Or will Blackwater and others simply cut them loose?

this is America. don't worry we'll start a fight with someone else by then

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One thing that I really noticed was how McCain very rarely looked at Obama, either when he was addressing, or being addressed. Obama would constantly look over at McCain when he was directly addressing him. McCain didn't seem to grasp the idea of the debate, instead wanting to answer the questions directly to the chair. Also, not once did McCain look into the camera and address the viewers: Obama would do so frequently. This is only a small thing but, to me at least, speaks volumes. I could never trust someone who doesn't look the person/people they are talking to in the eye.

It sounds like you and I judge people by much the same means: Look for key indicators of the quality of one's character.

His constant misrepresentations of Obama's position is another point that has really caught my attention. He doesn't just spin, he lies. I went into this election having a great deal of respect for McCain, but he has all but destroyed my opinion of him. His public ridicule of an eigthteen year old girl [Clinton daughter] also really threw me. I wouldn't have expected such behavior from McCain. I thought he was better than that.

 

[tribdog]

It sounds like you and I judge people by much the same means: Look for key indicators of the quality of one's character.

I was impressed with the way Obama would say "John..." but McCain always said "Senator Obama..."
I REALLY like Obama's tone

 

[turbo]

One thing that I really noticed was how McCain very rarely looked at Obama, either when he was addressing, or being addressed.

That mannerism made McCain look shifty, IMO. I think Obama came out on top by a substantial margin. He didn't knock it out of the park, but he ended up looking more thoughtful and honest, and we certainly need both of those qualities in a President after the past 8 years of having neither.

 

[tribdog]

That mannerism made McCain look shifty, IMO. I think Obama came out on top by a substantial margin. He didn't knock it out of the park, but he ended up looking more thoughtful and honest, and we certainly need both of those qualities in a President after the past 8 years of having neither.

20 years. It's been AT LEAST 20 years.

 

[LowlyPion]

20 years. It's been AT LEAST 20 years.

Well ... I know you may want to paint Clinton as dishonest. And about some of the personal aspects of his life, I can't defend his choices. But I surely empathize with the situation he would have been in. But for the zeal of the overly moralistic Right Wing, there but for the Grace of Chance most anyone may have gone. I think he is on the whole a person of good heart, with genuine concerns for others and in his best moments has appealed to the best in people.

While Reagan may have personally lived more of a clean life in his White House years, his appeal in my opinion was more to the selfish in people. I would like to think that Americans are better than Reagan's appeal to the more acquisitive side of human nature.

The Bushes have been at their best pedantic and uninspiring, with Bush Senior at least being tolerably educated and intelligent. I can only think that George Jr was dropped on his head as a baby or something and is more the tool of Cheney and Rove and those that are nominally supposed to work for him, than he has been a leader with any vision or persuasive authority.

 

[G01]

Here is my analysis of the debate:

Obama came off as being more in control of the facts and figures. Consistently, he pointed out when McCain was not being completely truthful and he did so immediately, even before McCain was done speaking. That said, Obama let McCain run away with the debate too much. They spent more time talking about what McCain wanted to talk about and this had Obama on the defensive a little too much.

McCain definitely came out looking like the tough attack dog who has experience and can use it. As I said, he controlled the debate very well. This is good, but it also made him seem somewhat mean. His attacks on Obama, while nothing more than anyone expected, were presented in somewhat condescending ways. When he criticized Obama, he would say "Sen. Obama does not get it." or "Sen. Obama is wrong." all the time referring to Obama in the third person. While saying this, he did not look at Obama either. He looked at Jim Lehrer or the camera.

Obama, on the other hand, looked at McCain when he attacked him. he referred to McCain in the second person, i.e. "You were wrong." Thus, by comparison, McCain came off as condescending, cold, and seemed to avoid his opponent in the debate, while Obama attacked directly and did not sound condescending in his speech or actions.

Overall, the winner of the debate will not be determined by who had a better command of the facts (Obama) or who was able to control the course of the debate (McCain). It will be determined by the impressions the candidates gave to the voters.

Impressions I got from Obama:

Respectful and direct in his attacks.
Calm and Collected.
Knew what he was talking about.Impressions from McCain:

Takes Control very easily
Emotional
Indirect and condescending in his attack style.
Avoided the actual questions more so than Obama.Honestly, I don't think the debate did much to break the status quo, which is worse for McCain than Obama. But the winner will be determined by what the people think, in other words by the polls. The CNN and CBS polls seem to show most people thinking Obama won, but of course not many people were polled yet.

 

[mathwonk]

I wonder if McCain isn't like a child who has just found out that lying seems to work in the short run, and still looks shifty and guilty about it. After all, he used to be an honest guy until recently, so hasn't learned to pretend well yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While Reagan may have personally lived more of a clean life in his White House years, his appeal in my opinion was more to the selfish in people. I would like to think that Americans are better than Reagan's appeal to the more acquisitive side of human nature.

I was a huge Reagan supporter. Truthfully, I couldn't stand liberals back then. It seemed like they just wanted to provide handouts to solve all problems. Also, I was young and naive enough to believe that trickle-down theory would work. I wanted what was best for everyone, but, alas, the best laid plans...

To this day I credit Reagan with helping to end the cold war through economics [the SDI corbomite maneuver]. Also, I never once believed he was sincere in his rhetoric about the Soviets. That he and Gorbachev became fast friends seemed to be a confirmation of this notion. But above all, no matter how right or wrong he may have been, many people believed that Reagan had a good heart. He was inspiring, Presidential, strong, and to many of us younger people who had grown up with Nixon and a bumbling Carter, not to mention Ford who I think was DOA, Reagan was almost like a father. He was like a bright new flag. Ah, to be young again.

The Bushes have been at their best pedantic and uninspiring, with Bush Senior at least being tolerably educated and intelligent. I can only think that George Jr was dropped on his head as a baby or something and is more the tool of Cheney and Rove and those that are nominally supposed to work for him, than he has been a leader with any vision or persuasive authority.

Bush I made me a Democrat [now Independent]. Bush II damned near made me a Canadian. When Bush II was reelected, the flag went into the trash; literally.

Edit: Sorry, way off topic.

 

[Alfi]

One thing that I really noticed was how McCain very rarely looked at Obama, either when he was addressing, or being addressed. Obama would constantly look over at McCain when he was directly addressing him. McCain didn't seem to grasp the idea of the debate, instead wanting to answer the questions directly to the chair. Also, not once did McCain look into the camera and address the viewers: Obama would do so frequently. This is only a small thing but, to me at least, speaks volumes. I could never trust someone who doesn't look the person/people they are talking to in the eye.

Both my wife and I noticed that as well. We wondered if it was a physical thing or just an unconscious rudeness.
I give some ground and conceive it to be physical, I hope the world leaders that he meets are as open when he must debate them on issues.
Stage presence counts in a president.

 

[LowlyPion]

I was a huge Reagan supporter. Truthfully, I couldn't stand liberals back then. It seemed like they just wanted to provide handouts to solve all problems. Also, I was young and naive enough to believe that trickle-down theory would work. I wanted what was best for everyone, but, alas, the best laid plans...

To this day I credit Reagan with helping to end the cold war through economics [the SDI corbomite maneuver]. Also, I never once believed he was sincere in his rhetoric about the Soviets. That he and Gorbachev became fast friends seemed to be a confirmation of this notion. But above all, no matter how right or wrong he may have been, many people believed that Reagan had a good heart. He was inspiring, Presidential, strong, and to many of us younger people who had grown up with Nixon and a bumbling Carter, Reagan was almost like a father. He was like a bright new flag. Ah, to be young again.

Bush I made me a Democrat. Bush II damned near made me a Canadian.

I don't begrudge Reagan his charm, or his conservative values, and I suppose that the Soviets ultimately ended up blinking as their system that denied Free Market activity and undemocratic representation in the face of autocratic power bankrupted itself on Reagan's watch. I have to suppose that the termites were going to bring the building down anyway. But Reagan was the one in charge at the time so I suppose it's fair enough that he would have accepted the Cold War Emmy on behalf of a grateful Nation.

 

[wildman]

Did McCain just link Obama with the Bush administration?

LOL! He certainly tried!

 

[LowlyPion]

With this debate not being perceived as the Republicans would have hoped, the next line of defense is apparently next week's debate. Fox is trying (maybe really hoping against hope) that by setting Palin expectations low they can say she handled herself better than her critics have depicted, and hence it will be a great victory.

Of course if her performance is worse than many think she already is ... look out below. Every Republican on the national ticket may have extremely tight sphincters election night.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Bush II damned near made me a Canadian. When Bush II was reelected, the flag went into the trash; literally.

I thought it was the American voters who caused the flag to go in the trash literally. Must be my bad memory.

 

[syano]

No, Ivan, McCain was correct (I didn't watch the debate - I assume you represented it correctly). A tactic is what a small unit does on the battlefield. A strategy is what an entire military force does. In short: tactical=win the battle, strategic=win the war.

In chess, tactics are short burst of strategy, often times loosing material before gaining it back. The US spent additional money by adding additional troops in hopes to gain material back in the form of reduced violence. What’s next? Stay the Course? Let’s assume that “Staying the Course” will work. How are we going to pay for it? Is it worth it? Is it a wise investment of money and human life?

I have a hard time seeing how, with a straight face, one can say that adding more troops to a battlefield is an ingenious tactic, much less a full fledged strategy.

How smart would you think Gary Kasparov was if he grabbed three extra pawns, a knight and rook, placed them on his board and declared victory?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I thought it was the American voters who caused the flag to go in the trash literally. Must be my bad memory.

That is what I said - when Bush was reelected. I can handle a corrupt President, but not a voluntary national betrayal of the Constitution. And the scariest part was that most voters seemed to be completely oblivious to the significance of their actions. It was like the blind leading the blind. Our educational system has completely failed in this regard. Many people don't know the difference between the flag and true patriotism [many people here didn't even know that soldiers swear - agree to give their life if needed - to protect the Constitution, not to protect the President!] And sometimes the most patriotic thing that can be done is to refuse to accept the gutter as a standard; even if it means leaving.

The problem with freedom is that we are free to throw it away.

Of course, to be fair, the election was almost certainly rigged [voting machine fraud]. But the lack of outrage generally was just another betrayal.

 

[LowlyPion]

Things must be getting pretty desperate in McCainville.

I was reading some Fox sponsored blogs and I was struck by one "reader's" comment about Obama.

a Muslim/Arab Trojan Horse for Islam..Obama.

I also noted that Greta Van Sustren had put up a picture showing Obama arriving for the debate, with the not so subtle comment that she had to overexpose the picture because it was so "dark".
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/09/27/senator-obama/

I seriously question the Christian Right values that encourage this kind of divisiveness, and appeal to the basest of man's instincts with misrepresentation and downright nasty racial inference. And these are the same people that had hard-ons over Obama describing McCain's economic policies as putting lipstick on the Bush policy pig.

 

[LowlyPion]

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Saturday, September 27, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet (see trends). Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, McCain by 54%.

Obama's momentum growing.

 

[OmCheeto]

As usual, I focused on Iran:

... Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, ...

I think it actually took him 3 or 4 times to get it right. But I could totally relate:

...everyone references what Ahmadjeblahblah has to say...
... for about a year before Ahmadjewhatever made his visit ...

But Obama won this argument with the following statement:

First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to.

Finally... Someone actually listened to me.

 

[GCT]

Things must be getting pretty desperate in McCainville.

I was reading some Fox sponsored blogs and I was struck by one "reader's" comment about Obama.

I also noted that Greta Van Sustren had put up a picture showing Obama arriving for the debate, with the not so subtle comment that she had to overexpose the picture because it was so "dark".
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/09/27/senator-obama/

I seriously question the Christian Right values that encourage this kind of divisiveness, and appeal to the basest of man's instincts with misrepresentation and downright nasty racial inference. And these are the same people that had hard-ons over Obama describing McCain's economic policies as putting lipstick on the Bush policy pig.

They need to be ***** slapped , the people at Fox are composed of deluded morons concealing themselves in a religiously moralistic veil ... Who the hell is promoting this type of news at Fox? Everything about them is so sleazy - always explicitly stating that they are the most unbiased e.g. Reily , when they are a travesty at this endeavor.

 

[LowlyPion]

They need to be ***** slapped , the people at Fox are composed of deluded morons concealing themselves in a religiously moralistic veil ... Who the hell is promoting this type of news at Fox? Everything about them is so sleazy - always explicitly stating that they are the most unbiased e.g. Reily , when they are a travesty at this endeavor.

It's certainly a concern that there must be some violation of providing adequate balance when they run their biased shows 24/7 almost as a continuous McCain political attack ad.

The other night Van Sustern interviewed someone that purported to be a Hilary defector - Miguel Lausell - a Hispanic who went on to describe how no Hispanics would be voting for Obama. I looked up the guy and he was announced 10 days ago as supporting McCain. At the Democratic Convention he was a Hilary delegate. Turns out he was a delegate from Puerto Rico and has NO vote in the US election. What a total disingenuous crock of moose lard that he would be paraded about like he was either relevant or his support constituted any news merit.

 

[tribdog]

Well ... I know you may want to paint Clinton as dishonest. And about some of the personal aspects of his life, I can't defend his choices. But I surely empathize with the situation he would have been in. But for the zeal of the overly moralistic Right Wing, there but for the Grace of Chance most anyone may have gone. I think he is on the whole a person of good heart, with genuine concerns for others and in his best moments has appealed to the best in people.
.

Its comments like this that keep me from becoming a Democrat and keep me out of this forum. I'm going to get banned one of these days. Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my **** in my pants for the length of my term. Then to come out, look straight into the camera and lie to the people he has been entrusted to lead is disgusting. Clinton is and always will be one of the most repulsive presidents ever. I don't care if "everyone does it" that doesn't make it right. And EVERY president has appealed to the best in people in their best moments. They have to or they never would have been elected.

 

[Cyrus]

Its comments like this that keep me from becoming a Democrat and keep me out of this forum. I'm going to get banned one of these days. Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my dick in my pants for the length of my term. Then to come out, look straight into the camera and lie to the people he has been entrusted to lead is disgusting. Clinton is and always will be one of the most repulsive presidents ever. I don't care if "everyone does it" that doesn't make it right. And EVERY president has appealed to the best in people in their best moments. They have to or they never would have been elected.

Curious: How do you feel about president kennedy?

Or...richard Nixon?

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD4mspMtYzc&feature=related

I think Obama had much better answer and was to the point in the opening remarks. McCain was all over the place in his answer talking about the need for less oil dependence etc that had nothing to do with the question asked to both candidates.

Obama: 1
McCain: 0

 

[Evo]

I accidently had the tv channel on Fox when the debate started. This is pretty close to what the Fox reporter said introducing last night's debate 'We have national War Hero John McCain who will be talking about what he is doing to save our country...blah, blah, blah,. Oh and Obama will be trying to defend his views.' For a minute I thought I was in the Twilight Zone, then realized I was on Fox.

 

[turbo]

Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my dick in my pants for the length of my term.

I agree that cheating on your spouse is reprehensible. If you're going to start playing the field, get divorced or get your spouse on-board for an "open marriage". I personally could not do either. Like Paul Newman said "I've got steak at home, so why should I go out for hamburg?" Hillary stood by Bill through the Lewinsky thing, so it's not inconceivable that they had agreed to the "open marriage" arrangement. I have a couple of friends who tried to do that, with resounding failure in each case. Divorces, families split up, kids bouncing from home to home for weekends, holidays, etc.

Clinton was/is not an honest person, but he is very intelligent and made himself aware of minutia that played into his policies. To be sure, he is perhaps the most politically-calculating president in recent memory, but I would rather have had 8 more years of him in office than the "Bush II years". Right now, he is doing squat for Obama, and that seems just one more example of his political calculus. Too bad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Its comments like this that keep me from becoming a Democrat and keep me out of this forum. I'm going to get banned one of these days. Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my **** in my pants for the length of my term. Then to come out, look straight into the camera and lie to the people he has been entrusted to lead is disgusting. Clinton is and always will be one of the most repulsive presidents ever. I don't care if "everyone does it" that doesn't make it right. And EVERY president has appealed to the best in people in their best moments. They have to or they never would have been elected.

I made one small edit to your post - ****

Clinton could have been one of our greatest but he threw it away. I don't feel the same as you in that I don't care who the President is doinking - that is between him and his wife - but he lied to a judge and he lied to the public, and worst of all, there was no reason for it. In my heart of hearts I still like Clinton, but every time he waives that finger I want to cut it off.

And yes, he was disrepectful of the office. But after what Bush has done, it seems more a footnote than an issue now. Clinton may have ****** Monica, but Bush ****** everyone!

 

[LowlyPion]

Its comments like this that keep me from becoming a Democrat and keep me out of this forum. I'm going to get banned one of these days. Chance has NOTHING to do with cheating on your wife. I would not have done it, I hold my president to a higher moral standard than I hold my plumber to. It is the highest position on the planet don't disgrace it. I could keep my dick in my pants for the length of my term. Then to come out, look straight into the camera and lie to the people he has been entrusted to lead is disgusting. Clinton is and always will be one of the most repulsive presidents ever. I don't care if "everyone does it" that doesn't make it right. And EVERY president has appealed to the best in people in their best moments. They have to or they never would have been elected.

You would be mistaken if you think that I would admire Clinton for his choices in this regard. But I equally realize that people are imperfect and fallible. And who am I to judge his personal situation with Hilary or his need for human contact, regardless of whether or not it was shallow or meaningless, or outside the bounds of marriage. Hilary is in my mind the only one not constrained from such judgment. I think it is a totally private matter between them. And but for the Chance of a busy-body gossip would likely never have become a matter of public note.

The ensuing Ken Starr witch hunt seen through the lens of Public relevance was merely an attempt to take political advantage in matters that were not a part of the Public's business.

He wasn't accepting bribes like Agnew. He wasn't obstructing a Criminal investigation and charges of money laundering like Nixon. Neither was he stonewalling on an abuse of executive power trying to get his sister's ex-husband fired as part of a vindictive divorce.

While I respect that you may have more self control, as do I have higher standards than his I might add, I don't presume to cast judgment with respect to that conduct of that aspect of his life.

 

[tribdog]

Curious: How do you feel about president kennedy?

Or...richard Nixon?

They were a little before my time, so I'm not as familiar with all the details, but I think Kennedy came closer to starting a nuclear war than necessary, I don't know about his cheating. I just wasn't alive at the time. I think killing him was a bit drastic. My feelings towards Kennedy have been influenced completely by the opinion of others who for the most part refuse to speak ill of the dead.
Nixon deserved what he got. Again I was just too young to remember anything about him so I have to base my thoughts on Watergate. Going to China was probably good, but I'll always think of Nixon as being dishonest.

I don't presume to cast judgment with respect to that conduct of that aspect of his life.

Why? I never understood why someone wouldn't DEMAND their president be held to the highest standards. I demand that my doctor do his job correctly. I demand that my teachers know their subject. The president's job is to lead the country AND be the symbolic figurehead of the country. It is only 8 years at the most that I ask him to represent the best in Americans. 8 years is not a long time. I can do the morally right thing for 8 years it is not too much to ask that the president do the same. The whole Lewinski episode was something he should not have done, he broke his vows, period. The lying to me was even worse. I gave my trust and my loyalty to him and he flat out lied to me. He looked me right in the eye and lied. It is totally unforgivable and I get disgusted to hear people defend him. With Bush at least we can blame ourselves, we knew what we were going to get and elected him anyway. I can't stand Bush, I hate to have him represent my country. He is arguably the worst president EVER, but I hate Clinton more. Clinton betrayed my trust may he rot in hell. I will not ever lie to anyone here. Sure I tell jokes, but I think my jokes are obviously just that. When push comes to shove and you need someone to have your back you can call me. I want a president who I could trust not to stab me in the back, that is not asking too much.

 

[Cyrus]

They were a little before my time, so I'm not as familiar with all the details, but I think Kennedy came closer to starting a nuclear war than necessary, I don't know about his cheating. I just wasn't alive at the time. I think killing him was a bit drastic. My feelings towards Kennedy have been influenced completely by the opinion of others who for the most part refuse to speak ill of the dead.
Nixon deserved what he got. Again I was just too young to remember anything about him so I have to base my thoughts on Watergate. Going to China was probably good, but I'll always think of Nixon as being dishonest.

So why don't you say you can never be a republican because, clearly, Nixon was MUCH MUCH more dishonsest and disgraceful president than Clinton.

I honestly don't know or understand why you want a cheer leader in the white house. I don't care who he bangs in his free time. I just care that he runs the country. I don't know where you get the notion that the president 'represents the best in us'.

 

[tribdog]

So why don't you say you can never be a republican because, clearly, Nixon was MUCH MUCH more dishonsest and disgraceful president than Clinton.

I honestly don't know or understand why you want a cheer leader in the white house.

Mostly because Nixon didn't lie to me. I don't remember his time as president so he has as much to do with my political preference as Millard Fillmore and John Adams. And also because Nixon was not "MUCH MUCH more dishonest and disgraceful" he was exactly as dishonest and disgraceful. This is a black and white issue for me. If I trust you and you look me in the eye and promise me you are telling the truth when you aren't then I have been betrayed. It doesn't matter what it is about, it is the act of lying TO ME that I can't forgive. When I give my trust to someone I mean it and I don't give it lightly. I can forgive ANYTHING, I forgave the guy who stabbed me in the neck, but I can't forgive betrayal

 

[GCT]

This nation has always had a thing against fornication , compared to most Europe the US is sexually naive despite the fact that we may have higher teenage pregnancy rates. Anywho Clinton needed to be impeached simply because ...

He had sex on the job.

Do we want a playboy as a president? Preferably not. America needs better standards to be distinguished and easily identifiable in relations with the rest of the world so that we can thrive.

 

[tribdog]

It has nothing to do with sex. I have sex every single night whether I'm alone or not. It is about breaking your vows and lying to me. It is about being a man of your word. THAT means something.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did anyone else notice how quickly McCain rushed through the alternative energy options, as if an afterthought, to get to his main point about drilling and nuclear power?

Based on his voting record, I think he is lying. I don't think he gives a hoot about alternatives. He seems to be in the pockets of big oil. Not only does he want to give them tax breaks when the price of fuel and sky high, and after they just made more profit than any company in history, but he also lied or mislead people about coastal reserves having an impact. He then changed his story to an emotion based market perception argument that oil pumped eight years from now will affect market prices today. PLLLLEASE!

Something else that caught my eye recently was this:

In the progress of other alternative energy sources -- such as wind, solar, geothermal, tide, and hydroelectric -- government must be an ally but not an arbiter. In less than a generation, wind power alone could account for a fifth or more of all our electricity. And just in recent memory, solar energy has gone from a novelty to a fast-growing industry. I've voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary, and often the result of who had the best lobbyist instead of who had the best ideas. But the objective itself was right and urgent. And when I'm signing laws, instead of casting one of a hundred votes, I intend to see that objective better served. We will reform this effort so that it is fair, rational, and permanent, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy.

http://sharp.sefora.org/innovation2008/compare/race/president/2008/

Not an arbiter but passing judgement on the best ideas? Classic double-talk and more of the same: Another Republican blocking our path to energy independence. And he clearly doesn't understand the chicken and egg problem of energy; that or he doesn't care.

Also, Obama mentioned biodiesel, but not ethanol. YAY!

Also, McCain specified that he does not support ethanol. While I agree with him on this, there are a good number of corn-growing Republicans out there, and I suspect that McCain lost some of them; maybe a lot of them. I don't have any information on this, but I wouldn't surprised if this hurts him in the midwest. Of course Iowa and Illinois are already in the bag for Obama, and they are both big corn States.

 

[Cyrus]

This nation has always had a thing against fornication , compared to most Europe the US is sexually naive despite the fact that we may have higher teenage pregnancy rates. Anywho Clinton needed to be impeached simply because ...

He had sex on the job.

Do we want a playboy as a president? Preferably not. America needs better standards to be distinguished and easily identifiable in relations with the rest of the world so that we can thrive.

Im not sure, is this sarcasm?

 

[Cyrus]

It has nothing to do with sex. I have sex every single night whether I'm alone or not. It is about breaking your vows and lying to me. It is about being a man of your word. THAT means something.

What vow's do you and Bill Clinton have together?

 

[edward]

Did anyone notice that McCain claimed that Eisenhower sat down and wrote a letter of resignation after Normandy. This is not historically correct, Ike wrote a note accepting responsiblilty for Normandy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/744/


CEO's will write a note saying "so long sucker"

 

[LowlyPion]

I demand that my doctor do his job correctly.

And do you also demand that your doctor be faithful to his wife? There is no aspect of the Oath of Office that extends to the personal life of the President as it would relate to the actions between consenting adults. Just as there is no aspect of the Hippocratic Oath that either suggests celibacy or a strictly monogamous spousal relationship.

You of course are free to like or dislike or respect him or not, but the moral police aspect of things, delving into the Personal life in that fashion, with the expectation that anyone had any right to receive any answers, I happen to think is out of bounds. There are numerous historical references to infidelity in the White House, from Washington that took being the Father of his country more literally than polite society would expect, to FDR, to Kennedy and Jefferson and likely others too that were never reported. Would we disqualify the brightest and most able on such thinly drawn Puritanical standards? That of course is not my choice, as it applies to the conduct of their personal lives and with respect to the activities of consenting adults.