I've never understood what significant value there is in visiting a war theater. Unless you are fighting in that theater, any short-term visitor can get that kind of cursory information by conversing with the theater's commanders. Visitng Bagdad or Mosul for a few days instructs you in very little. You would gain as much knowlege of that theater as you would of performing an operation if you watch a couple of operations.

Yeah, I especially appreciated that of him. A good discussion is always warranted.



I supported McCain in 2000, only to see him lose to an inferior candidate simply because of the massive evangelical turn-out, and that whole "black baby" smear in South Carolina. In a way, at that time he represented to me a hope of accomplishing some vague hopes: The Environment (helped pass bi-partsan legislation on combating Global Warming), Gay Rights (voted against banning same-sex marriage), Campaign Finance Reform (McCain-Feingold), and so forth. Maybe not totally agree with the Democrats of that time in the ideology, but better than with Dubya.



With the last four years, save for that anti-torture bill he got passed, McCain has gone deep into the NeoCon territory to get enough of their "streetcred" to win the nomination, a pity because he's above that bullshit.

I think I share my disgruntleties with the President for several reasons, as other BB.Neters do, but my chief reason is that he backed away from essential Conservative values, and NO I don't mean "NeoConservative" values which amount to wanting to spread freedom around the world like butter & herpes, fueled out of emotional evangelism, or pretty much for the 2000s like the naive Liberals were of the 60s/70s. No I mean true Conservative missions like cutting spending and deficit, despite having 6 years of Republican White House & Congress.

So why do I support Obama as an "Obamacon"? Because I have a distant, perhaps naive, hope that a considerable enough Obama victory would force the GOP to re-assemble 4 years from now, away from that bible-humping hysteria as personified in the VP choice, and back to basics. Trust me, I'm asshamed when Clinton, with a GOP Congress, were the last to balance the budget. Why couldn't Bush have done that?

Also, I agreed with Obama on Iraq. To quote another Iraq War-opponent in Pat Buchanan, "why would Saddam be stupid enough to step on Superman's cape?" That conflict served absolutely NOTHING for our strategic military defesive interests, and by default as caused a checkmate in Hussein's Iraq to make for a stronger and more powerful Iran. Nevermind us ignoring that little problem in Afghanistan.

Plus, as a Political Scientist, I would be intrigued as to what would happen if we elected the most liberal President in 40 years, or the impact of it. Would we actually get anything done on universal healthcare or the environment or gay rights or whatever? I must say, I'm intrigued.




Yeah, I despise the Palin pick in that it was done to win back those Social-Conservative votes for McCain, without any attention to assure folks that we would be in safe hands if McCain was to die, i.e. Cheney in 2000. Better yet, why didn't McCain offer it to Kay Hutchinson, the female GOP Senator from Texas who's been around in Washington for what, 14 years or so roughly? She's proven tough, and more than capable in case the worst was to happen.



Agree totally.

And I totally agree.

I mean, I laughed at anyone who seriously tried to push Obama's Europe/Middle-East trip back in the summer as "foreign/military policy" experience...same when Palin visiting the United Nations the other day, both glorified photo-ops, much like that "White House Summit" on the bailout the other day.

Right now I am leaning towards most of what you said. However I do not feel that McCain "won" the debate. Nor do I fell that Obama "won" the debate either....no matter what polls says what. Polls are BS as far as I am concerned. Polls taken by any party could be made to reflect favorable numbers in the interest of the said party.

I think that as someone else pointed out here ( think it was Klyd) overall this was a gentlemanly debate. And as far as I am concerned it was nice to see a gentlemanly debate without mudslinging and personal attacks. BOTH men debated the issues. I respected the both of them for that. Both presented themselves as legitimate Presidential material.

In my opinion this was a very tight and close debate.

I thought that McCain had the edge over Obama when they debate went in the direction of National Security and Foreign Policy. He seemed to cause Obama to stutter a couple of times when they were talkig foreign policy.

And in all fairness, I have to give Obama the edge when thay talked domestic policy.

McCain just doesn't speak with the conviction and passion when it comes to domestic policy as he does with foreign policy....and for obvious reasons of course.

And Obama doesn't speak with the conviction and passion when it comes to foreign policy as he does with domestic policy...and for obvious reasons of course.

For the next debate, McCain needs to strengthen up on his domestic views and experiences, and Obama needs to strengthen up on his foreign policy views and experiences. I think that the one who does a better job in strengthening up in the areas that they were weak on the first time around will have a legitimate chance to actually "win" the debate hands down the second time around.

I realize that many here posted their opinion right after the debate was over and it looks as though some of these opinions were given more out of being hyped up for the respective candidates. But in truth, after letting the hype of the first debate die down a bit, and really digesting what was addressed and what took place in this debate, one will realize that neither candidate actually "beat" the other or "won" the overall debate. It was a lot closer than many will really admit.

Can't wait for the next one.

Certainly SC, as I wrote already, I thought the debate overall was a draw.

But one thing I noticed was how on the Economics issue, McCain's lines were the same lines I heard back in 2000 with George W. Bush, and before that in 1996 with Dole, 1992 with Bush Sr....

My point is, what helped Obama with many of those polls was that he articulated all the problems right now facing the middle/working class, and whatever those proposals/pitches actually would work or not is irrelevant; debates in themselves are about appearing to the normal person that you have the answer to a problem.

I think with McCain, some people may have felt that he was out of touch on it by spouting old lines about cutting spending and corporate taxes that helped win for Bush in 2000, but may be seen as non-grata as much in 2008.

(and certainly like Dubya, Obama has a bad tendency at times to "uh" repeatedly, you know?)

EDIT - In retrospect, I also noticed how McCain said that he was completely against ethanol subsidies....some have speculated that his campaign have decided to abandon Iowa (a Bush state in 2004) and its 7 electoral votes to re-direct that staff/funds down to North Carolina and Indiana to try to keep those usual GOP-safe states.

Earlier this week, McCain campaign had closed an office in Iowa, and with a new poll today staying that Iowa is pro-Obama at +8 points...I believe that speculation now.

Yes its only 7 votes with Iowa, but with Virgina's 13, Colorado's 8, New Mexico and Nevada's 5 each...remember that Bush won re-election with only 286 electoral votes...LEts do quick math:

7+13+5+5+8=38
286-38=248

Now what if Obama wins just Colorado/New Mexico/Iowa?

8+5+7=20
286-20=266

Remember, 270 Electoral votes is needed for election.

As my son has pointed out and I've posted previously, McCain almost always appears to be exerting immense control to keep from exploding.

On the subject of foreign policy, McCain's position is that of a typical conservative: he abhors nuance and refuses to acknowledge variables.

As far as judgement goes and his distate for war, McCain supported Bush's decision to commit this Nation to war by invading Iraq to find and destroy something that wasn't in Iraq.

Why should he bother? Why can't he just "Hulk" out green and tear shit up? He probably would win some votes.

Someone ponders on the Republican jockeying on the issue in terms of the 2012 Republican race: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-comm...op-nominee.html

Does anyone else have a problem that "undecided voters" will decide this election? How can someone still be undecided? It's a two party system! McCain or Obama! Both candidates have made their stances on the issues fairly clear. If someone hasn't made up their mind at this point, then they probably should do us all a favor and stay home on November 4th.

Undecided Voters

Oh Freddy, I got a solution: How about they all swing to Obama? That way, no more pesky problem.

I can understand being undecided. I can understand needing to hear more from the candidates. BUT yea, it seems every election, we are as close as days before the election and there are still so called undecided voters. I say "make a decision" because there's not gonna be any game-changing realization that makes it for you. Maybe some people simply are not decision makers, I don't know.


That Family Guy video is hilarious. Exaggerated, but true, to a degree (sadly). Let's face it, politicians know how to spin and there will always be those who buy the spin.

Anyone see (or maybe posted it and I missed it), Obama's new ad showing McCain Won??? Gives me the chills.

RR, as far as 2012 prediction goes....who knows what issue/issues could be a factor in that election. Good possibility though since this bailout is pissing a lot of people off. Time will tell.

TIS

The two GOPers for 2012 that seem obvious to run are Romney and Huckabee, if simply because they aren't in government right now, and don't have to vote on that bailout.

But if the Conservative Savior 4 years from now is revealed to be Mitt Romney the pro-choice Governor of Massachussetts....:D

I agree. What could anyone learn about the candidates and their positions and proposals on issues that they don't know already. I think that those who consider themselves undecided do so because it puts them in a separate category and that somehow is special to them.

Just saw McCain on This Week. Noone maintains a demeanor such as his without an effort. He's holding something back.

Another question for you guys to ponder. It is said that many Republicans want McCain to drop Palin. Now, whether he will or not, I don't know. Say he did drop her...first of all, would that be a plus for him? I know much of his base might be pleased, but would the public see it as wishy washy and conclude that it was simply a political move in the first place?

Secondly, what if he did drop Palin and went with Romney, who is suppose to be the economic saavy candidate. How and would that change the ballgame in this election, at this point?
Could it be an October surprise?????


TIS

It would be a public relations disaster for him. It would show him as indecisive and having poor judgment. Like it or not, he has to stick with her.

McCain will NOT dump Palin. Why?

For two reasons:

(1) It will reflect badly on McCain as someone who had a rather poor choice in the minds of even more people. Remember McGovern with Eagleton? Yeah McGovern never did recover from that, though he didn't have much of a chance in the first place...

(2) The social-conservative GOP base will be very PISSED off, and they'll believe that McCain betrayed them. Thus they'll turn on him in terms of votes and fundraising.

And especially if McCain replaces Palin with Romney, if simply because of the two glaring strikes agianst him: (1) Mormonism and (2) Pro-Choice Governor of Mass.

We must also consider that this would be spun very easily, that Obama/Biden is stability while McCain/Whoever is as chaotic and uncertain as the stock market is right now.

I'm not sure if a VP can be dropped from the ticket. Afterall, the VP, although picked by the presidential candidate, is approved at the convention. If there is one, I don't know what the mechanism is within a party that alows for the VP's replacement.

Exactly right SC. He must stick with her now.




Yes, it is a fact that McCain supported the decision to go into Iraq. It is also a fact that many from Obama's party also voted to go into Iraq. But that's neither here nor there at this point of the game. We are in there now regardless of if it was the correct decision or not. WE ARE THERE AND CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME! And that is the issue that must be addressed. I'm tired of those who keep pounding the same old drum that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. Maybe, maybe not. It's a point that will be debated for many years. But it's a moot point now. That was one of the areas that felt Obama was a bit weak on in the debate. Everytime foreign policy and the war popped up in the debate he just kept going back to the old "we shouldn't have gone there" stand. Get off of it already. Address what is going on now, tell the people what plan you have for getting out of there and what plan you have for bolstering up the region. Enough already with the "we shouldn't have gone there" platform.

It's like telling your child that they shouldn't touch the stove because it is hot and they will get burned. But the child doesn't listen and gets burned. You don't KEEP saying "see, I told you so, you shouldn't have touched it" and then just sit there and let them suffer in pain. You may say it to them once or twice but being that it's happened, you now must address the problem and try to stop the crying and help relieve the pain.

Address the issue of our being there and how you, as the potential President of this nation, plans on getting us out of there. If Obama can do that in the next debate, I feel that he'll score big with the "undecided" voters.

But DC, what of the fact that McCain/White House overnight supported a Iraqi withdrawal timeline only after the Iraqi Government agreed with Obama's plan?

Palin Contradicts McCain On Pakistan, Seems To Back Obama’s Position

PHILADELPHIA) Sarah Palin told a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday that the United States should “absolutely” launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan in the event that it becomes necessary to “stop the terrorists from coming any further in,” a comment similar to the one John McCain condemned Barack Obama for making during last night’s presidential debate.

During Friday’s debate, Obama criticized the Bush administration for sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan without ridding the border region of terrorists.

“If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out,” Obama added.

McCain fired back hard, arguing that newly elected Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has had his “hands full” and suggesting that Obama’s tough talk was naïve.

“You don’t say that out loud,” McCain said. “If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.”

Palin’s apparent disagreement with McCain’s position on Pakistan came as the Alaska governor was picking up a couple of cheesesteaks at Tony Luke’s in South Philadelphia. She was approached by a man wearing a Temple University t-shirt, who later identified himself as Michael Rovito.

“How about the Pakistan situation?” Rovito asked. “What’s your thoughts about that.”

“In Pakistan?” Palin responded.

“What’s going on over there, like Waziristian?”

“It’s working with Zardari to make sure that we’re all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border,” Palin said. “And we’ll go from there.”

“Waziristan is blowing up,” Rovito replied.

“Yeah, it is,” Palin said. “And the economy there is blowing up, too.”

“So we do cross-border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan, you think?” Rovito asked.

“If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should,” Palin said.

In her first national television interview after becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee, Palin was pressed by ABC’s Charlie Gibson on whether the U.S. should launch cross-border attacks into Pakistan. She said that the United States “must do whatever it takes” to thwart Islamic extremists and said, “America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies.”

But Palin did not, at that time, explicitly express her support for cross-border attacks, as she did at the Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry4483110.shtml

DC, here's a quote from Obama's debate comments:

"But we can't do it if we are not willing to give Iraq back its country. Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put -- provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda."

The reasons for our invasion of Iraq are still hugely important because they reflect judgement. There are only two candidates and one of them exercised incorrect judgement. You cannot so easily eschew an appraisal of that judgement especially since McCain is more militant than Obama and too easily seeks recourse to warfare as a remedy.

I can't or don't want to even think about the 2012 election now. It's gonna be hard enough to get through the next 4 years no matter who gets elected. IMHO

It appears Obama got a debate bounce.

New Sunday, 9/28 National Polls:

Of course, things can change but I believe CNN took Michigan out of the "toss-up" states and into the Obama column as far as electoral votes. Which, btw, O is in Detroit right now (showing on MNSBC shortly)


TIS

Obama is now up double digits in most polls in Michigan. He's also now up in Virginia and N.C. He's drawn even in Florida and Ohio, and opened up a 6 point lead in PA.

JL,

Won't you be shocked if O gets Florida? I can't say before the last two elections, did I necessarily pay attention to how Fla. voted, but by all accounts it is a RED state no?? I am both surprised and pleased to see it so close.


TIS

Nothing would surprise me in Florida. I don't know the last time it went to the Democrats. It has a popular Republican Governor, and a huge population of senior citizens. It would be a huge upset for O if he wins Florida.

Florida went Democratic in 1996. This year black voter registration is way up. Could go Dem again.

Florida was real micro-paper-razor-thin in 2000 and 2004, and I'm sure it'll go down the wire as well on election night.

But as TIS points out, if Michigan becomes a more guaranteed Obama state along with Pennsylvania and Iowa and Colorado and New Mexico and even Virginia...Florida will grow less relevant for that campaign.

Don't forget Indiana, which like NC that campaign has registered tens/hundreds of thousands of new voters, which is why those two traditionally super safe-GOP states are now in contention.