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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The debate analysis reveals that Barack Obama was perceived as more presidential and engaged than John McCain, who often failed to directly address questions. Obama effectively challenged McCain on key issues, particularly regarding tax breaks for oil companies and misrepresentations of his policies. His ability to clarify misconceptions about his tax plan and highlight McCain's past support for Bush's economic policies was noted as significant. McCain, while experienced, came off as condescending and avoided eye contact with Obama, which detracted from his performance. The discussion emphasized that the winner of the debate would ultimately be determined by public perception, with early polls indicating a favorable view of Obama. Overall, Obama was seen as calm, knowledgeable, and respectful, while McCain appeared more aggressive but less relatable. The debate's impact on voter sentiment and the candidates' contrasting styles were central to the analysis.

What was the score?

  • McCain won by a large margin

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • McCain won but it was close

    Votes: 9 23.7%
  • Obama won by a large margin

    Votes: 10 26.3%
  • Obama won but it was close

    Votes: 12 31.6%
  • It was a tie

    Votes: 7 18.4%

  • Total voters
    38
  • #101
MCCAIN:
First of all, by the way, I'd eliminate ethanol subsidies. I oppose ethanol subsidies.But he never says why. Is there a simple good reason for his stand?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
cristo said:
Sure, it's apparent that McCain has visited the area, but I don't think this is equivalent to him 'knowing what is going on.'

As I recall McCain visited Baghdad shortly after the occupation and was quoted as saying that the Baghdad market place was now safe. Of course he made his statements surrounded by a special forces unit and he was wearing a flak vest - pretty much the way most Americans dress for market?

Not exactly in touch with the realities that the residents of Baghdad faced at the time.
 
  • #103
schroder said:
Clearly, Mc Cain meant to say “Revolutionary Guard”. It is, I think, a very understandable slip and nothing I would judge a man by. Remember when Obama introduced Biden as “the next President” at the Democratic convention? Everyone makes these kind of slips all the time. The name “Ahmadinejad” probably stuck in his throat because of revulsion for such a dangerous fanatic. When I say that name I feel like spitting as well. But when it came to Russia and Georgia, Mc Cain had all the facts and first-hand experience and has Putin’s number down pat! I judge Mc Cain to be a good and honest man who will do what is best for his country. I don’t know what to make of Obama as he is still an unknown quantity and I have serious reservations about his past involvement with some fairly radical people as well as his naïve remarks about Pakistan. Pull ou of Iraq, but bomb Pakistan without consulting the Pakistan government? I vote for Mc Cain to have won the debate and I will be voting for him in November as well.

McCain thinks he's an expert in the area he should know the difference. Also, Obama should have started directly with, 'well john, maybe we should look at the revolutionary guard' and then after making him look bad slam him with some facts that counter McCain's argument.
 
  • #104
WhoWee said:
I found a link to Obama's resume...please read

http://obamasresume.org/


Then, if you want a little diversion this is a comparison of Obama's resume to Palin's



Come on Whowee, that youtube video is a joke. Did you get that from the Sean Hannity webpage?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
WhoWee said:
Doesn't it bother you that a first term Senator is named to 5 or 6 (?) major committees (chair on 1)...and in only his 3rd year he's selected to run for President?

This appears to me that he was fast-tracked without a chance to make mistakes.

McCain is losing because people are sick of Bush and want change.

Again, Obama scares me because we really don't know him.

According to your Barack resume website, he started as a state senator in 96', so he's been in government for more than ten years now. I don't see how that's a 'fast track'.
 
  • #106
If we let everyone (except maybe the worse 1%) out of prison in this country and told them...now behave and go get a job...stay out of trouble...what do you think would happen?

At a minimum, some of them would prey upon the other citizens. Others might take up arms with their (like minded affiliates - gangs) and become local narco-terrorists.

We don't do a great job of controlling these problems now...LOTS of reasons...but we know better than to dump everyone on the street unsupervised and unfed...right?

The new Iraqi leadership needs to address their local security in a positive way. They need to secure one area at a time and gain the trust of their citizens. Otherwise, the population only knows one way of life...submit to the greatest threat.

The big difference is we're never going to execute 100,000 people (nor should we) and bulldoze them into a ditch...and they know it...they'll just tolerate us until we leave.

How we leave might is probably the most important decision at this time...regarding Iraq.
 
  • #107
schroder said:
... The name “Ahmadinejad” probably stuck in his throat because of revulsion for such a dangerous fanatic. ...
That's no excuse for someone who is ambitious to be President. Petulant and petty is not pretty in a President.
I judge Mc Cain to be a good and honest man who will do what is best for his country.
I once did as well, but no longer now after the kinds of attacks that he has condoned under his name. After his embrace of the extreme Right as his only hope to be President. The ridiculous choice of the vapid valley girl from Alaska that makes him look all but too content to risk the country falling on the rocks of extreme division.

After his readiness to posture during this financial crisis, to misread the economy like Herbert Hoover, to deny his career as a champion of deregulation to avoid responsibility, to preen for the cameras, to disrupt the process, all in the name advancing his ambition to be President, shows to me a profound dishonesty and lack of honor in serving the country ahead of his own selfish interests.
 
  • #108
I agree the U tube video IS a joke (kind of my point)...but a sad joke at that...the truth is that neither Obama nor Palin are qualified...I'm really tired of bad choices.

As for Obama being a state Senator in Illinois since 1996...read what he did during that time...common theme workers pay protection, low income subsidy, voter rights...all noble enough...and all giveaways.

The point I'm trying to make is this...after 8 years of floating along in Illinois...how does this guy ride into Washington and jump into 5 major committees and move to the head of the Democratic party in a 2 1/2 year period unless someone is pulling his strings?

Was there nobody more qualified in the Democratic party than Obama and Hillary?
 
  • #109
When I re-read the transcript I find McCain to bouncing all over a topic and very difficult to read. I think Obama stuck to the questions better.

except when

This bit struck me as funny. It was almost going to break into a child's fight.

MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please.

OBAMA: No, let me tell...

MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.

MCCAIN: Of course he encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.

LEHRER: We're going to go to a new...

MCCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.

OBAMA: I am not parsing words.

MCCAIN: He's parsing words, my friends.

OBAMA: I'm using the same words that your advisers use.

Please, go ahead.

LEHRER: New lead question.


Obama gets one point for dismissing McCain. Next question :smile:

Has there been any word from Mr Kissinger on the issue?
 
  • #110
McCain : I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.



He scares me. :eek:
What if I'm not 'one of them' ?
 
  • #111
WhoWee said:
If we let everyone (except maybe the worse 1%) out of prison in this country and told them...now behave and go get a job...stay out of trouble...what do you think would happen?

At a minimum, some of them would prey upon the other citizens. Others might take up arms with their (like minded affiliates - gangs) and become local narco-terrorists.

We don't do a great job of controlling these problems now...LOTS of reasons...but we know better than to dump everyone on the street unsupervised and unfed...right?

The new Iraqi leadership needs to address their local security in a positive way. They need to secure one area at a time and gain the trust of their citizens. Otherwise, the population only knows one way of life...submit to the greatest threat.

The big difference is we're never going to execute 100,000 people (nor should we) and bulldoze them into a ditch...and they know it...they'll just tolerate us until we leave.

How we leave might is probably the most important decision at this time...regarding Iraq.

The problem always is: Do we have enough resources to lock up the bad guys or do we address the problem in some other (cheaper) way. In spite of what the Bush and the Neocons believe, we just don't have the money and lives to go around attacking and locking up EVERYONE.

The question now is do we have the resources to stay in Iraq or do we take a risk and set a withdraw date or do we take another risk and stay in Iraq? Which is the greater risk?
 
  • #112
At the end of the day...the new Iraqi leadership must find a way to govern themselves.

The issue is complicated for us because so manu of our private companies are now "in country".

Read today's headline

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080928/bs_nm/us_iraq_ge_siemens

$7 billion in contracts...hopefully the Iraqi's pay them and not us...maybe the answer is to charge our companies for protection...let them build it into their contracts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #113
To get back to the thread...

I think we all agree that it's a sad state of affairs when we need to put every word both candidates utter under a fact checking microscope...that we distrust our political system THAT much.

I think we also agree that the various news organizations promote their own agendas...instead of reporting the news...also bad.Here's a thought:What if we hook both candidates up to lie detectors for the next debate? If they lie...drop them into a dunk tank...like a clown at the fair.
 
  • #114
WhoWee said:
What if we hook both candidates up to lie detectors for the next debate? If they lie...drop them into a dunk tank...like a clown at the fair.

That's apparently already happened to Palin and it looks like McCain is still clawing to stay on the clown seat.
 
  • #115
I still don't know what to think about the Palin selection?

You know what I find even more interesting...certain Republican forces actually wanted McCain to consider Jeb Bush...hahaha.

Maybe she was the best available choice?
 
  • #116
WhoWee said:
I still don't know what to think about the Palin selection?

You know what I find even more interesting...certain Republican forces actually wanted McCain to consider Jeb Bush...hahaha.

Maybe she was the best available choice?

If she was the best of a bad litter, ... ouch. Because in the end that's all McCain was to the Republicans in the first place.

I liked Huckabee the best, but his policy positions were simply too faith based for me. In hindsight though I'd say he would have both energized the conservative base, his positions are about as extreme as Palin without the ethical and inexperience baggage, and not have become the kind of National running joke embarrassment that Palin has become.
 
  • #117
As for Obama, a few weeks ago I started to wonder if maybe he wasn't supposed to actually WIN(?)...just take away votes in the primary.

Hillary would have been guaranteed to win with Obama as co-pilot. This could have led to another 8 to 12 to 16 (?) year Democratic run.
 
  • #118
If you step back and look at the organization of our system...checks and balances...it does work...if given a fair chance.

I've come to believe we need the safest choice at president. Someone who understands world politics, the economy and a senior statesman...Governors make a good choice normally...(like him or not & I didn't vote for him) Reagan fit the profile. President should not be a learn on the job position...and no more namesakes.

I think our biggest problem is in the Congress. In the medical field we have general MD's and we have specialists.

We're always going to have lifetime appointments on the bench...part of the deal.

But, I don't think Congress should be so comfy.

I think we need longer terms for Senators...maybe 8 years and double that for committee heads (specialists)...and PAY them well...enough to keep them accountable. If you lie/cheat/steal...you GO TO JAIL!

The House on the other hand needs to be more representative of our population base (general MD's...lot's of common sense and accountability at home)...shorter terms and no "lifers"...if they're good enough to stay...make them run for Senate.

Again, just a thought.
 
  • #119
WhoWee said:
As for Obama, a few weeks ago I started to wonder if maybe he wasn't supposed to actually WIN(?)...just take away votes in the primary.

Hillary would have been guaranteed to win with Obama as co-pilot. This could have led to another 8 to 12 to 16 (?) year Democratic run.

I tend to agree with that. But I will say that Obama has grown to fill out his suit. And in the world we are living in today that presents this choice, it suggests oddly enough that Obama is the less erratic and the more thoughtful.
 
  • #120
I said this yesterday (and was chastised), but I think McCain in the known quantity and does want to finish his career strong...I get the feeling he hasn't lived up to family expectations yet.

Obama on the other hand, COULD BE VERY PRODUCTIVE in Congress. If he returned to Washington and led reform in the Senate (and tried to keep Nancy Pelosi in check) he would be a much greater ASSET to our country than if he becomes President and struggles with gridlock.

Please read what I'm saying...Obama COULD MAKE A HUGE IMPACT in a second term...then NOBODY would doubt him and he'd be the natural choice next time (sorry Hillary), you can always go back to WalMart.

I think these candidates (McCain & Obama) would compliment one another and could get a lot done IF they could find a way to work together.

United we stand...at the end of the day, I'm not aligned with either party. I'm an American first...no agenda...and very worried about our country and our long term security.
 
  • #121
WhoWee said:
..I get the feeling he hasn't lived up to family expectations yet.
At this point I don't see him living up to his representations, or that he offers anything but erratic decision making and naked ambition willing to embrace any ideology that can carry him higher. In short he's used up the respect that I once had for him.
Obama on the other hand, ... than if he becomes President and struggles with gridlock.
Don't expect the Republicans to make any gains in Congress. Obama is likely to reside in the White House with a majority in Congress. If there would be gridlock it would be standing against McCain should he win, and McCain/Palin would be totally divisive force in the Nation. No more lipstick for that Bush Policy Pig that has brought us to this mess is my sense of where the country is.
I think these candidates (McCain & Obama) would compliment one another ...
I think the Nation is best served by giving McCain a pat on the back and letting him retire to his Country Club.
I'm an American first...no agenda...and very worried about our country and our long term security.
Then I'm guessing that Obama should be expecting your vote in November.
 
  • #122
I just don't think he's ready...and you make a good point...the Democrats WILL control the Congress.

This too is a problem...I think the powers in Congress would dictate to Obama...and Nancy Pelosi...is BIGGEST PROBLEM in that scenario.

Again, Obama could be VERY influential and productive in a second term.
 
  • #123
WhoWee said:
I just don't think he's ready...and you make a good point...the Democrats WILL control the Congress.

This too is a problem...I think the powers in Congress would dictate to Obama...and Nancy Pelosi...is BIGGEST PROBLEM in that scenario.

Again, Obama could be VERY influential and productive in a second term.

Obama is no puppet.

If they could have dictated to Obama, they already would have Hilary as the Nominee.
 
  • #124
I'd like to know who is advising the McCain and Obama, on economics, foreign policy, . . . , i.e. who has their ear, who do they listening to, and how do McCain and Obama independently verify that they are getting correct information.

Who are the ideologues? Who will be in the transition team, and who will be cabinet members?
 
  • #125
Don't kid yourself...someone fast tracked Obama.
 
  • #126
Here's a thought for the night...

Why haven't we heard from Oprah lately?

I thought she was going to light the path to the White House (or something like that).

Maybe her contacts in Chicago know something we don't...yet?
 
  • #127
WhoWee said:
Don't kid yourself...someone fast tracked Obama.
Post a link to back this up. An opinion is ok, stating an opinion as truth is a violation of the guidelines.
 
  • #128
No problem...start here with his resumehttp://obamasresume.org/First, look at his activity and leadership in the Illinois Senate...mediocre at best.

Now look at how long he's served in the US Senate...2 1/2 years approx...(prior to the primaries) and from out of nowhere he's on 5 major committees and a chair...then he's chosen to lead the Democratic party and the free world...tell me I'm wrong to think he had help.
 
  • #129
WhoWee said:
Now look at how long he's served in the US Senate...2 1/2 years approx...(prior to the primaries) and from out of nowhere he's on 5 major committees and a chair...
Well he's got to serve on some committees. Perhaps he took vacancies. If he got the chairmanship, then perhaps he impressed his colleagues or leadership.

then he's chosen to lead the Democratic party and the free world...tell me I'm wrong to think he had help.
Um - primaries and caucuses. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton would be leading the Democratic party. And please don't refer to the president as leader of the free world - he or she is not. The rest of the free world is doing just fine not following Bush or any other US president.
 
  • #130
WhoWee said:
No problem...start here with his resume


http://obamasresume.org/


First, look at his activity and leadership in the Illinois Senate...mediocre at best.

Now look at how long he's served in the US Senate...2 1/2 years approx...(prior to the primaries) and from out of nowhere he's on 5 major committees and a chair...then he's chosen to lead the Democratic party and the free world...tell me I'm wrong to think he had help.

You're wrong to think that that there is a conspiracy other than that his popularity has soared after the last Democratic Convention where his address showed the promise of a capable young leader. After being elected to the Senate of course he got some plum assignments as befits his standing in the Party. I would note that Hilary also got her choice of committees as a result of her standing in the party when she was first elected in NY as a freshman Senator.

This doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy to do anything but advance those that the Party thinks can ably carry the Democratic Agenda.
 
  • #131
WhoWee said:
No problem...start here with his resume


http://obamasresume.org/


First, look at his activity and leadership in the Illinois Senate...mediocre at best.

Now look at how long he's served in the US Senate...2 1/2 years approx...(prior to the primaries) and from out of nowhere he's on 5 major committees and a chair...then he's chosen to lead the Democratic party and the free world...tell me I'm wrong to think he had help.
That doesn't back you up. You must post something that proves what you said.
 
  • #132
Are you the judge or jury?

I just read one of your postings offering credit advice to someone...are you sure of what you said?

I'm looking at information that Obama has made public and making an interpretation of that information...I stand by my comments...he's been helped...fast tracked by someone...I don't know who...but he's stepped over a lot of qualified people in a very short time period...that is a fact.
 
  • #133
Gallup said:
Debate Watchers Give Obama Edge Over McCain
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans who watched the first presidential debate on Sept. 26 gave Barack Obama the edge over John McCain as having done the better job in the debate, by a 46% to 34% margin.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110779/Debate-Watchers-Give-Obama-Edge-Over-McCain.aspx

Basically both candidates shifted more positively by the same amount as regards to handling Foreign Policy, but McCain got his head kicked in on the Economy with no benefit more favorable to less favorable, while Obama got 16% thinking more favorably than less.

No wonder the McCain shills on the airways are hoping to get more foreign policy discussion.
 
  • #134
LowlyPion

Don't you think Hillary rode into the Senate with a much bigger head start than Obama?

She came into the Senate as the former First Lady...complete with Secret Service protection...of course she was treated special. I'm also pretty sure she's had her eye on the White House since the day she left.

I'm not looking for a conspiracy...someone took an interest in Obama and helped him...I don't know who?

I'm not talking about after the convention...I'm talking about BEFORE the primaries began.

Maybe the QUESTION should be...WHO took Obama under their wing?

You have to admit he's had a meteoric rise.

It's really hard to believe Obama woke up one day and said, gee...I've been in the Senate now for about 2 1/2 years, I've worked really hard and gotten myself onto 5 committees and I chair one. Now, I think I'll risk EVERYTHING and run for President...I better make some calls and see who might be interested in backing me.
 
  • #135
WhoWee said:
Are you the judge or jury?
I enforce the rules.

I just read one of your postings offering credit advice to someone...are you sure of what you said?
Very sure, that is one of my specialties, I know utilities, it's my job.

I'm looking at information that Obama has made public and making an interpretation of that information...I stand by my comments...he's been helped...fast tracked by someone...I don't know who...but he's stepped over a lot of qualified people in a very short time period...that is a fact.
It is not a fact and you violated the guidelines.
 
  • #136
I asked you about the credit advice because I'm an executive in the credit/collection industry. I've seen a lot of people get into big trouble with cell phone and cable bills. Young people need to be VERY careful with their credit.

I wish our politicians were more careful as well.

It's funny how the rules work...you can say Obama was truthful but McCain wasn't and we have to accept your word for it.

Can you PROVE Obama was truthful?

Can you PROVE McCain wasn't?

I think both of these statements might be your opinion...not fact...and that's fine...too narrow an application of the rules will ultimately stifle a free exchange of ideas.

Back to my statement about being fast tracked...from good old Wikipedia here's a link to a definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track

Fast track
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(January 2008)

Fast track refers to the practice of making use of a process which is accelerated in comparison to the one in typical use. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term's first published use was in an April 1976 Business Week article, where it referred to the construction industry's practice of beginning construction before design was complete.

...that's as good a definition as any

I'm not the only one who thinks Obama WAS fast tracked...read this

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=795698with that said...please read on...

I posted earlier that since everyone seems to doubt what the candidates say, fact checking and all, m a y b e we should just hook them both up next time to lie detectors and dunk them in a tank of water like clowns at a fair every time they lie.

Might be fun?

I am very sincere in everything I post. If someone tells me I'm wrong, I try not to over-react but instead determine the basis for their opinion.

I think it's our right to demand financial accountability in Washington...31% fraud in Medicare is not acceptable. That system clearly doesn't work.

I'm tired of being lied to and told only what we need to know to give them what they want, ala Bush and his WMD's.

Now Bush says we need a $700 B bailout or else (this is the kind of drama I expect from my teenagers)...nobody in Washington saw this problem looming for the past 10 years?

I posted a story about Warren Buffet a few days ago...really puts the bailout and our next big concern into perspective...derivatives trading...BIG problem...and aside from the people who run the industry...nobody understands it...including the SEC and Fed (apparently).

The SEC chief testified last week before Congress (when Lehman went down)...said somewhere between $60 and $183 TRILLION were held by our banks and are unregulated...he's been briefed several times over the past few months by Hedge fund managers (or someone) to bring HIM up to speed.

read this link...it will make your skin crawl

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/derivatives-new-ticking-time-bomb/story.aspx?guid={B9E54A5D-4796-4D0D-AC9E-D9124B59D436}

I guess all we can hope for at this point is that Wall Street knows more about derivatives than the Arabs or the Chinese?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #137
WhoWee said:
I'm not talking about after the convention...I'm talking about BEFORE the primaries began.

I was talking about the convention 4 years ago nominating Kerry, when he was a Congressman. Not this last one that nominated him.

In the mean time I'd say he's earned his way to the nomination, no conspiracy needed.
 
  • #138
I hope you're right...and I'm really not looking for a conspiracy.

My ORIGINAL comment was that I wondered if he was actually expected to win...maybe just take votes in the primary(?)...then a Hillary/Obama ticket would be unbeatable...for 2 terms...then he's have 2 more.

I don't think that's a conspiracy theory? But it sure would've been a good strategy. I'd just like to know how he did move SO quickly.
 
  • #139
WhoWee said:
I'd just like to know how he did move SO quickly.

Maybe because he deserves it?
 
  • #140
I really hope you're right...seen the new poll numbers?

Has Obama said anything about a cabinet lately...probably more important than the President this time around.
 
  • #141
Whowee, I will share my opinion regarding Obama's rise. As far as background goes, I didn't understand the Obama hype up until a month ago. I only cared about Ron Paul during the primaries. When the election came down to Obama, Clinton, and McCain, I figured either one of them would be fine to run the country, so I became disengaged from politics until a month ago.

What I came to realize is that Obama is in fact very similar to Paul, in the sense that they are truly grass-root phenomenons. Paul had been around for decades and he didn't become an internet-darling until this election. The reason is some people are truly sick of the incestuous marriage between lawmakers and lobbyist, and the out-of-touch, divorced from reality that we call our political system. Just look at the current financial crisis and some The Daily Show clips to see the absurdity.

So when these people see a combination of intelligence, voice of reason, and most importantly, honesty, they latch onto it. Obama is not perfect, but he is well on his way to become a once in a generation historical political figure. I think some old-boys in Washington recognized his potential, and basically try not to obstruct his path by staying out his way. Obama is the one who took the initiative to seize this opening to the best of his ability.

Obama had a very humble background where his mother used to live on food stamp. He work his way up the social food chain to become what he is today. He contributed back to the community post law school by working as a community organizer. That is essentially how he "stole" the primary away from Clinton, because his bottom-up work-with-the-people approach gave him that slight edge over the traditional top-down political-savvy, media-dictated strategy. His ground game ensured that his supporters would squeeze out those crucial caucuses votes that Clinton supporters seem to ignored. And it didn't take that many votes to earn him enough momentum for a win. What we ended up with now is a candidate that is endorsed by the public as well as those who are empowered, at the same time no less. In contrast, the Republican camp has McCain dealing with the old-boys, and Palin drawing the commoner crowd.

Now that the McCain campaign become such a joke, I'm even more glad Obama was chosen. Rest assure, his ground game will once again come into play on Nov 4th. It is quite funny the way McCain steals Obama's message on being out of touch with the middle class. Guess which one of these candidates has 7 houses and 13 cars, and the other has 1 house and 1 car. The VP picks sealed the election for me. It becomes more clear by the day that the VP decisions are the epitome of both candidates' ability to make sound judgment.

People who question Obama's experience failed to see his un-tap potential. The way I see it, Obama is like Google just before its IPO. Biden is a solid blue chipper. McCain is one of the current financial stock that is suffering a melt-down. Palin is just penny stock that was hot, but is now shorted to the bottom.
 
  • #142
  • #143
The biggest concern I have about Obama is his reluctance to just say...something like this:

"America...I'd like to do all of the things I've proposed...it's what's in my heart...but we can't. Forget about the $1,000 giveaway,,,I wanted to do it for you...but let's face it...Bush already proved that's a mistake...and now we need those funds for this bailout.

However, I give you my promise right now America...if you elect me President, I will make sure make the mortgage mess is investigated back to it's origins, thieves will be prosicuted and safeguards will be enacted to prevent future repeats.

Also, in response to the SEC request, I promise to fully investigate the $100 TRILLION per year increases in unregulated derivatives trading and promise to install a watchdog unit that truly understands the complexities of that industry. I will not allow unregulated derivatives trading to become our next financial disaster.

My opponent, John McCain, MIGHT be right about ONE thing...we do need to open the books in EVERY department, find waste...and correct the problems moving forward...we still have some $600 toilet seats out there...and I'll find them.

Then, once WE THE PEOPLE have OUR house in tight financial order, restore accountability (and we find money without increasing debt) we can focus on a phased in plan of positive change in the areas I've outlined.

We can't possibly increase spending and we can't implement any of my new programs without fixing the entire mess. We didn't get into this mess overnight...change will take time. Please support me and I'll get us through this difficult time...(even if it takes 8 years)."

That would be honesty...and I would be the first to support him!

Obama has the lead...the polls are obvious...the next big issue will be cabinet choices...Reagan had a super-cabinet...current Bush...not so good...and Clinton...all I can seem to remember is C. Rice joined Bush(?)...what happened there (another topic altogether).

If Obama wants to be productive in office...and prevent Nancy Pelosi from calling the shots...he needs to be brutally honest right now...plant the seeds for REAL change, and get EVERYONE behind him and on the same page.

This is my honest opinion.
 
  • #144
One of my favorite Obama answers was his response to the charge that he has the most liberal voting record of any Senator. His response was that he was just voting against Bush's wrong-headed policies.

DUH! Why didn't that occur to me... :rolleyes: Anyone determined to preserve the Constitution would appear far to the left by Bush standards.
 
Last edited:
  • #145
WhoWee said:
The biggest concern I have about Obama is his reluctance to just say...something like this:

"America...I'd like to do all of the things I've proposed...it's what's in my heart...but we can't. Forget about the $1,000 giveaway,,,I wanted to do it for you...but let's face it...Bush already proved that's a mistake...and now we need those funds for this bailout.

However, I give you my promise right now America...if you elect me President, I will make sure make the mortgage mess is investigated back to it's origins, thieves will be prosicuted and safeguards will be enacted to prevent future repeats.

Also, in response to the SEC request, I promise to fully investigate the $100 TRILLION per year increases in unregulated derivatives trading and promise to install a watchdog unit that truly understands the complexities of that industry. I will not allow unregulated derivatives trading to become our next financial disaster.

My opponent, John McCain, MIGHT be right about ONE thing...we do need to open the books in EVERY department, find waste...and correct the problems moving forward...we still have some $600 toilet seats out there...and I'll find them.

Then, once WE THE PEOPLE have OUR house in tight financial order, restore accountability (and we find money without increasing debt) we can focus on a phased in plan of positive change in the areas I've outlined.

We can't possibly increase spending and we can't implement any of my new programs without fixing the entire mess. We didn't get into this mess overnight...change will take time. Please support me and I'll get us through this difficult time...(even if it takes 8 years)."

That would be honesty...and I would be the first to support him!

Obama has the lead...the polls are obvious...the next big issue will be cabinet choices...Reagan had a super-cabinet...current Bush...not so good...and Clinton...all I can seem to remember is C. Rice joined Bush(?)...what happened there (another topic altogether).

If Obama wants to be productive in office...and prevent Nancy Pelosi from calling the shots...he needs to be brutally honest right now...plant the seeds for REAL change, and get EVERYONE behind him and on the same page.

This is my honest opinion.
I agree with this. Both candidates have to be frank about the fact that they cannot reduce taxes, either have to keep them as they are or increase (by letting Bush tax cuts expire), while reducing spending, including withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP.

The US has to now live within its means!
 
  • #146
Who Wee - good one. sounds damn closer to the truth than I've read so far.

Now, translate that into politico-speak so it doesn't offend 50% of the population and maybe, just maybe, it won't cost an entire election.
 
  • #147
Astronuc said:
The US has to now live within its means!

With nods from the likes of Newt Gingrich [former Speaker of the House, R], Robert Reich [former Sec of Labor, D] makes the point that we have no choice: We have to spend money to rebuld the nation. He makes the distinction between investing, and spending. For example, money that is invested in infrastructure will yield dividends for decades to come.

Money invested in alternative energy will help to keep the $700 Billion sent to foreign suppliers, here, in the US economy. That is one bailout every year! At that rate we could even afford to elect Republicans again.
 
Last edited:
  • #148
Ivan Seeking said:
Money invested in alternative energy will help to keep the $700 Billion sent to foreign suppliers, here, in the US economy. That is one bailout every year! At that rate we could even afford to elect Republicans again.
It doesn't change the gist of your point but as it is widely quoted it is worth pointing out that the much bandied about $700 billion figure is actually $536 billion with a 1/3 spent with Canada, Mexico and the UK. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
Uh, the number changes daily with the price of oil. And whether we send our money to Canada, Mexico, or Saudi Arabia, it is still money lost to the economy.

By the time we can reverse the tide, it will probably be more like a trillion a year.
 
  • #150
Ivan Seeking said:
Uh, the number changes daily with the price of oil.
Not money already spent doesn't so unless oil suddenly goes to $400 barrel from now to the EOY then the $700 billion figure is an exaggeration. As I said I am not refuting your central theme merely pointing out the oft quoted figure used by McCain is wrong.
 

Similar threads

Replies
51
Views
5K
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
21
Views
5K
Back
Top