My impression is that McCain gave it everything he had. He needed an opening round knockout, and didn’t get it. He had to resort to calling Obama naive. All Obama had to do in response was prove he knows his stuff, and he did that.
I think Obama held back and he gave McCain nothing that can be used against him in the next debate, but McCain provided plenty of ammo to his opponent. I predict Obama will hit harder next time and he will KO McCain.
Joan, my friend Cheryl (my daughter’s godmother) LOVES Sarah Palin! We’ve agreed to disagree, and she does send me a lot of funny cartoons on her. Check out last night’s SNL; Tina Fey delivered another five-star performance as Le Bimbo opposite Amy Poehler as Katie Couric! The debate parody was almost as good.
I found it startling that last night, John McCain said he was for “no more torture” of prisoners. McCain had voted along with the George W. Bush position, in FAVOR of waterboarding as a means of interrogation. Oh, but wait: it all depends on your interpretation of exactly what constitutes “torture,” doesn’t it?
I guess one man’s torture is merely another man’s interrogation technique. Being deprived of oxygen by having your face plunged underwater, and feeling just like you’re drowning, apparently doesn’t constitute torture to McCain. And, since he was a POW, I guess that he would know. If HE could take the rough tactics of interrogation, then by God, I guess other soldiers should be able to endure it, too!
Since I will vote for Obama, the thing that “delighted” me most, though, about what McCain had to say last night, is how he thinks that “we are winning” the war in Iraq. How many of the average voters tuning in to that debate last night, actually believe that? That sounds SO much like a George W. Bush statement! And also, McCain made so MANY references to General Patreus (sorry if I misspelled the name), that all McCain has to do if things don’t work out as expected, is to say that it’s all the General’s fault for messing up.
Let’s get real: we can either 1) pull out of Iraq immediately, 2) declare “stabiility,” “mission accomplished,” and pull out of Iraq on a timetable, like we did when we of course LOST the war for democracy in Viet Nam, or 3) have troops occupy Iraq permanently, dealing with suicide bombers on an everyday basis. Just like things are in Israel.
We have gone from being seen as liberators of Iraq from Saddam, to the Yankee occupiers of their country. Like it or not, that’s the way it is. You could kill every suicide bomber alive in Iraq, every “freedom fighter” with a political agenda, but it won’t stop the instability. Every year, a new adolescent comes of age when he or she can be promoted into the ranks of guerilla fighters and suicide bombers.
Iraq might become the next fundamentalist Islamic regime, but that was the risk we took when we went into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein in the first place. Democracy means freedom, but people who want to make civil law according to their interpretation of the Koran (i.e., a religously-run state) simply view that kind of freedom as sinful and decadent.
Americans – including John McCain, apparently – can’t understand that kind of religously driven culture. Culture is carried in the heart and mind. And our effort to “win” in Iraq disintegrated when we failed in our publicly stated goal “to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.”
So, just keep saying how we’re winning in Iraq, McCain! Yeah, that’s it! Keep it up!!! I love it!!! (Hellloooo, President Obama!!!)
Hi! Doug, you and Paul seem to agree pretty much on everything but politics. My best friend of 35 years, June, and I rarely discuss politics in conversation because we are so passionate about certain things and have differing views on a few, but we don’t let that ruin a good and fun friendship. It’s just comical to read political posts and see such different views, but I think if memory serves me right you are similar on ice cream. There’s nothing wrong with a little spice in the smooth, huh? 🙂
I think McCain did very well, and I can see how he won on points, but he has nothing more to give. If Obama goes more on the offensive next time, I can see McCain losing his cool, screwing up, and looking old and pitiful.
I disagree that Obama speaks in sound bites. It appears to me as though he’s always thinking about what he’s going to say next, and that’s why he pauses so much between phrases. McCain kept repeating that he’ll never win Miss Congeniality. He’s gotten all of the mileage he can get out of that, especially considering that his running mate is a former beauty pageant contestant.
With two trillion dollars tied up in in Iraq and the Wall Street bailout, I don’t see how Obama could possibly match, let alone exceed, the excesses of Bush’s two terms. We have no choice but to pick one of these two men, and of the two I’d say our chances are better with Obama. McCain is still talking about winning in Iraq, without defining what that is or when it might happen, and he’s holding fast to Bush’s foreign policy, which as Obama effectively pointed out has been a disaster.
In my opinion, a vote for Obama will make George Bush’s crazy spending seem like nothing by comparison.
Most analysts have decided that McCain “won” this debate. My opinion is that both of these guys can only speak in sound-bites that their handlers have given them. The good-ol’ USA is in for some serious trouble under either of these empty-suits.
Obama has earned my respect. I openly apology here for everything bad I ever said about the man. He has a plan for everything, and he clearly states it in an intelligent manner. Double kudos for treating McCain like a gentleman. You would be a fool not to vote for him.