Presidential Debate

[Guest dog14787]

Just an observation but Barrack Obama seemed to be distracted, rattled and at times he almost looked like a scolded puppy dog.

 

Obama is just way to out of touch with Foriegn policy and National Security.

 

Sorry fellas, just calling it like I see it.

[gmac17]

McCain has such a good grasp of foreign policy, but his domestic answers weren't nearly as good.

 

these things are painful.

[Steely Dan]

I liked Obamas answers better but McCain definitely came across as more controlled and able to keep his mind on track. Obama had trouble calling up his points and stuttered a lot. In terms of winning the way they presented themselves McCain won. As far as what the answer's that Mr. and Mrs. Average American want to hear I would give to Obama.

 

This entire economical disaster I think significantly helps the Democrats.

[Guest dog14787]

I liked Obamas answers better but McCain definitely came across as more controlled and able to keep his mind on track. Obama had trouble calling up his points and stuttered a lot. In terms of winning the way they presented themselves McCain won. As far as what the answer's that Mr. and Mrs. Average American want to hear I would give to Obama.

 

This entire economical disaster I think significantly helps the Democrats.

 

 

Yes, it does give John McCain an up hill battle.

[scribo]

McCain clearly "won" tonight, IMHO. It seems that's the overwhelming opinion of the talking heads, too.

[/dev/null]

Obama seemed to keep looking for his telepromptor

 

Obama without his teleprompter and Sarah Palin without her 3x5 index cards of talking points = 1997 Clodd Tollins "Deer in the Headlights" look

[The Dean]

Unfortunately Obama won't (or feels he can't) point out the truth about the was in Iraq, and McCain's approached to foreign affairs. McCain still thinks about these problems in the old way, of fighting nations. He is oblivious that, the reason Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity is BECAUSE we took down Sadam, and had not strategy to handle the aftermath. Most importantly, though, nobody bothered to ask McCain what constitutes a "Win" in Iraq. How do we know when we've won? There is nobody to officially surrender. We win when we leave.

 

Of course our enemies will say they won when we leave, but they will do so WHENEVER we decide to leave. If he thinks that the US needs to stay actively combative in Iraq, until there is peace among all Iraqis, then he is in for one long conflict. Originally, I was told that we were at war with Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction (they didn't: check), to take down Sadam (mission accomplished: check) and establish democratic self-rule in Iraq (check). Didn't we already do what we were supposed to do?

[Guest dog14787]

Obama seemed to keep looking for his telepromptor

 

Obama without his teleprompter and Sarah Palin without her 3x5 index cards of talking points = 1997 Clodd Tollins "Deer in the Headlights" look

 

 

Between that and agreeing with John McCain, I almost felt like he was asking McCains approval for everything he said.

[Steely Dan]

Unfortunately Obama won't (or feels he can't) point out the truth about the was in Iraq, and McCain's approached to foreign affairs. McCain still thinks about these problems in the old way, of fighting nations. He is oblivious that, the reason Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity is BECAUSE we took down Sadam, and had not strategy to handle the aftermath. Most importantly, though, nobody bothered to ask McCain what constitutes a "Win" in Iraq. How do we know when we've won? There is nobody to officially surrender. We win when we leave.

 

Of course our enemies will say they won when we leave, but they will do so WHENEVER we decide to leave. If he thinks that the US needs to stay actively combative in Iraq, until there is peace among all Iraqis, then he is in for one long conflict. Originally, I was told that we were at war with Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction (they didn't: check), to take down Sadam (mission accomplished: check) and establish democratic self-rule in Iraq (check). Didn't we already do what we were supposed to do?

 

I don't understand why the pro-choice people don't say that the Republican candidate wants to force your raped daughter to have her baby. The right will say that Obama wants to kill babies. I think the vast number of Americans can see the difference.

[The Dean]

I don't understand why the pro-choice people don't say that the Republican candidate wants to force your raped daughter to have her baby. The right will say that Obama wants to kill babies. I think the vast number of Americans can see the difference.

 

 

that is sure to come up in another debate.

[/dev/null]

I don't understand why the pro-choice people don't say that the Republican candidate wants to force your raped daughter to have her baby. The right will say that Obama wants to kill babies. I think the vast number of Americans can see the difference.

The preceding message has been brought to you by the 1970s National Organization for Women

 

The debate in 2008 isn't really Abortion Yes/No as Abortion when

 

IMO neither is really up to the Federal Government, let the states decide

[Guest dog14787]

Unfortunately Obama won't (or feels he can't) point out the truth about the was in Iraq, and McCain's approached to foreign affairs. McCain still thinks about these problems in the old way, of fighting nations. He is oblivious that, the reason Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity is BECAUSE we took down Sadam, and had not strategy to handle the aftermath. Most importantly, though, nobody bothered to ask McCain what constitutes a "Win" in Iraq. How do we know when we've won? There is nobody to officially surrender. We win when we leave.

 

Of course our enemies will say they won when we leave, but they will do so WHENEVER we decide to leave. If he thinks that the US needs to stay actively combative in Iraq, until there is peace among all Iraqis, then he is in for one long conflict. Originally, I was told that we were at war with Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction (they didn't: check), to take down Sadam (mission accomplished: check) and establish democratic self-rule in Iraq (check). Didn't we already do what we were supposed to do?

 

Its clear the nation is divided on this issue.

 

I'm not so sure about establishing democratic self-rule in Iraq as being in check.

 

Isn't that for the Generals on the ground to decide when Iraq has a military force that is not littered with corruption and is ready to protect its people from God only knows if we abandon them folks prematurely?

 

Something John McCain has believed all along.

[The Dean]

Its clear the nation is divided on this issue.

 

I'm not so sure about establishing democratic self-rule in Iraq as being in check.

 

Isn't that for the Generals on the ground to decide when Iraq has a military force that is not littered with corruption and is ready to protect its people from God only knows if we abandon them folks prematurely?

 

Something John McCain has believed all along.

 

 

So, you are suggesting that there is really no way to decide when the war is won, other than on the say-so of the military?

[Guest dog14787]

So, you are suggesting that there is really no way to decide when the war is won, other than on the say-so of the military?

 

I'm suggesting we have already won the war in Iraq provided we give the country long enough to stabalize.

 

I also suggest we never announce something that can put our Military and its mission at risk by putting time tables on it to begin with, some folks see the sense in that, others don't.

[ans4e64]

These debates are only to help you decide who will !@#$ up the country less.

 

That's what the two party system has done to our "free" country.

[DC Tom]

So, you are suggesting that there is really no way to decide when the war is won, other than on the say-so of the military?

 

The war IS won. It's the peace that's proving problematic.

 

Frankly, the current course of transitioning combat roles to Iraqi units province-by-province, then drawing down our support troops to nothing, is about the best objective measure of "success" you'll get over there. Of course, all that means is that when Iraq goes completely to sh-- in the future, we can point to it and say "Not our fault, we fixed it before we left." Which, frankly, is good enough for me.

[The Dean]

I'm suggesting we have already won the war in Iraq provided we give the country long enough to stabalize.

 

I also suggest we never announce something that can put our Military and its mission at risk to by putting time tables on it to begin with, some folks see the sense in that, others don't.

 

 

I have no issue with a loose time line. But, more important that any date, is the overwhelming sense and acknowledgment that we are in the end stages of the war. We should be actively working toward the removal of our troops.

[The Dean]

The war IS won. It's the peace that's proving problematic.

 

Frankly, the current course of transitioning combat roles to Iraqi units province-by-province, then drawing down our support troops to nothing, is about the best objective measure of "success" you'll get over there. Of course, all that means is that when Iraq goes completely to sh-- in the future, we can point to it and say "Not our fault, we fixed it before we left." Which, frankly, is good enough for me.

 

 

I don't think that can ever happen. We will are going to leave a mess when we leave, no question, IMO. What mess is the right mess? And the future mess will most certainly be, at least partly, our fault just as Sadam's regime (and Bin Laden's rise) were partly our fault.

[DC Tom]

I don't think that can ever happen. We will are going to leave a mess when we leave, no question, IMO. What mess is the right mess? And the future mess will most certainly be, at least partly, our fault just as Sadam's regime (and Bin Laden's rise) were partly our fault.

 

Of course. (And thanks for the "partly". That's more nuance than most people I discuss it with understand.) I wasn't suggesting it was a good solution...merely suggesting that it's an objective measure that allows us to declare victory and get out leaving a vague approximation of "stable" behind us (forget democracy. Can't "Export Democracy". It's a contradiction in terms, forcing free choice on people.)

 

The reality is that the moment we're completely disengaged (at the latest), Turkey invades the Kurdish north, Iran starts exercising their influence in the Shi'ia regions, the Arab states counter with support to the Sunnis, and the country probably falls apart. The entire Iraqi misadventure is rooted in no small part in the complete misunderstanding of the tribal nature of the region and the stupid American belief that everyone else in the world is just a misguided American who needs to be shown The Way. By our national attitude, "success" (free, stable democracy with whom were bestest friends forever) is completely unattainable. I'm perfectly satisfied with "There, you have law and order, and basic services. You figure out the rest."

[The Dean]

Of course. (And thanks for the "partly". That's more nuance than most people I discuss it with understand.) I wasn't suggesting it was a good solution...merely suggesting that it's an objective measure that allows us to declare victory and get out leaving a vague approximation of "stable" behind us (forget democracy. Can't "Export Democracy". It's a contradiction in terms, forcing free choice on people.)

 

The reality is that the moment we're completely disengaged (at the latest), Turkey invades the Kurdish north, Iran starts exercising their influence in the Shi'ia regions, the Arab states counter with support to the Sunnis, and the country probably falls apart. The entire Iraqi misadventure is rooted in no small part in the complete misunderstanding of the tribal nature of the region and the stupid American belief that everyone else in the world is just a misguided American who needs to be shown The Way. By our national attitude, "success" (free, stable democracy with whom were bestest friends forever) is completely unattainable. I'm perfectly satisfied with "There, you have law and order, and basic services. You figure out the rest."

 

I think I may actually agree almost 100% with that post. I'm not sure "law and order" in any real sense, is obtainable, unfortunately, but I believe you are talking about relative law and order, given the region and what just occurred. (And thanks for understanding that forcing democracy on people is absurd. It seems nobody understands that.) I would like to see the public face of the administration talking about the state of the turnover, and the resulting withdrawal every day. I would like the public face of the administration to say, as you did, the war is won, we are now helping to organize the peace and withdraw.

 

As crazy as it may sound to some, I think one of the President's biggest powers, is the ability to set the agenda and focus the nation. If you talk about terrorism every day, in every speech, then that is likely to be the major focus of/what gets the attention of the nation as a whole. Make the "clean up" the focus, and that will be defined as the immediate goal, and likely to happen more rapidly.

 

Maybe I'm naive, but this "tough guy" talk from Bush (and to a degree McCain) is not what we need from the next President. We need to be inspired. We need a President that, while not neglecting defense, of course, takes time, every day in every speech, to talk about becoming energy independent (for example) focusing the agenda on creativity, breakthroughs in technology, etc.

 

Well, I'm tired and just babbling now. So, that will be my PPP contribution to OTW for now.