This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

Welcome back, Brian! Good to see you back on the discussion thread. You can be a sarcastic smart ass, but it's all good. And you are one of the most thoughtful posters here, IMHO, not only with respect to others but in your defense (as much as I don't understand it) of your candidate.

>>GREETS GREG WITH A HUUUUGGGGEEEEE HUG!!!!<<

Thank you!!! I appreciate that, Greg! I gotta run for now, but will respond at greater length later...

>>GREETS GREG WITH A HUUUUGGGGEEEEE HUG!!!!<<

Thank you!!! I appreciate that, Greg! I gotta run for now, but will respond at greater length later...

NP, buddy. I'm very interested in your take on the debate last night, as it seems we've lost Casey (again).

You saw a clip. I watched the entire damn show. I think I am in a better position to put this in context than you.

But thanks again for trying.

Brian, how nice to see you.

It's also nice to see you come on here and start getting nasty with people right off the bat. You haven't been here for days, and now you return because, apparently, you're still pissed off HRC lost.

Oh, and just to let you know......that "black people vote in a block" horseshit is really old, and is really starting to sound borderline racist. We've already had that on here in the past few days....so are you now adding to it? This arrogance of yours stating what is and isn't fact is just laughable. For someone who knows every damn thing, why aren't YOU running for POTUS......

Or GOD for that matter, since you seem to know black folks so damn well? Tell me, do all black people eat fried chicken and watermelon, can dance, play basketball well and can make a hip-hop album with no effort?

I mean damn, you seem to know SO MUCH about ALL black amercians. Please, enlighten me.

We're cool Brian. I hope you had fun on your trip

Good Morning, everyone! It's hump day!!

LOL Roman! Funny you should say that. When the Dolphins used to be in the playoffs (yeah, that long ago!), I did the same thing. I could never watch the game cuz I felt that I would jinx it in some way.

I watched the first hour or so, and I try to be as unbiased as I can be when watching the debates. IMHO, Obama came across as much more likable and showed more empathy for the average American. I like that he said something along the lines of people like him and McCain didn't need tax breaks because they aren't hurting like other Americans.

McCain surprised me though, as all I've heard this past week is that this format is his strong suit. It didn't come across that way to me. He came across as robotic and combative. Again, the likability factor favored Obama in this format. I really didn't like the fact that he called Obama "that one". It showed a complete lack of respect on his part.

In terms of substance, IA nothing new was said, apart from McCain wanting to buy back some bad mortgages. I don't think that will sit very well with his base at all. He didn't explain where this money would be coming from.

What about us white guys? I want to be in a "voting block" for the Democrats! Please!!

Welcome back, Brian! Good to see you back on the discussion thread. You can be a sarcastic smart ass, but it's all good. And you are one of the most thoughtful posters here, IMHO, not only with respect to others but in your defense (as much as I don't understand it) of your candidate.

It's a good thing Obama or McCain don't run their campaigns to seek the approval of the MS tv media. One minute Obama is "too cool" and the next minute he's too angry. It's almost like "Damn! Pick one and stick there!"

And, the candidates talk to the american voter, not them. The only ones I saw even TRY to call this thing down the middle were the people at CNN. Keith at MSNBC took way too much time blasting McCain for his visceral manerisms, and Pat Buchanan once again said McCain won on points. How did he win on points (and on what points) when he didn't answer or explain his answers to some questions?

I'm also reading that JM is getting some serious heat for that statement last night about buying up everyone's bad mortgages. The fiscal conservative community is up in arms over that one. I also have a hard time buying this notion that JM is having a hard time working these personal attacks against BO. He could stop that if he truly wanted to. I think he's got the wrong people in his ear, and once read in the WP that he, many tmes, makes his decisions on the last peron he talked to.

Edited October 8, 200817 yr by Roman

McCain renewing harsh criticism of Obama

By PHILIP ELLIOTT – 1 hour ago

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — John McCain and Sarah Palin plan to return to familiar criticism of Barack Obama's friends and supporters, just hours after a presidential debate that steered clear of the subject.

The Republican candidates planned joint appearances in key states of Pennsylvania and Ohio on Wednesday. Ahead of their appearances, the GOP ticket has released an ad that criticizes the Illinois senator as simply not presidential.

During Tuesday's debate, McCain did not criticize his rival's connection to 1960s-era radical William Ayers. The two are not close, but Palin has repeatedly faulted Obama for serving on nonprofit groups' boards with a man whose Weather Underground group bombed the U.S. Capitol and Pentagon.

We're cool Brian. I hope you had fun on your trip

Are you feeling better today, Ryan? I hope so!

I'm also reading that JM is getting some serious heat for that statement last night about buying up everyone's bad mortgages. The fiscal conservative community is up in arms over that one. I also have a hard time buying this notion that JM is having a hard time working these personal attacks against BO. He could stop that if he truly wanted to. I think he's got the wrong people in his ear, and once read in the WP that he, many tmes, makes his decisions on the last peron he talked to.

I knew the minute he said that that the right would have big problems with it. I don't blame them. I'm not a Repub and even I don't know if it sounds like a good idea or not.

As Republicans take aim at Barack Obama's past links to a 1960s radical activist, some Democrats are threatening a tit-for-tat assault by noting John McCain's ties to a group that helped fund right-wing guerrillas during the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.

The latest round of attacks came as the presidential hopefuls geared up for their second debate in Nashville tonight. With his fortunes fading in many key states, McCain has made no secret of his plans to question Obama's character – and Obama allies have fired right back.

After Republican No 2 Sarah Palin condemned Obama for attending a political event hosted by Bill Ayers, a former leader of the 1960s radical group the Weather Underground, Democratic pundits and bloggers began chiding McCain for his time on the board of the US Council for World Freedom (CWF).

The CWF was used as a conduit for arms sales and other aid to the Contras, a right-wing guerrilla group in Nicaragua that also got backing from the CIA under Ronald Reagan.

McCain was a congressional supporter of the Contras during the early 1980s, while serving on the CWF board but before the Iran-Contra scandal imperilled its work.

The CWF was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League, whose chairman was forced to resign in 1980 after he was linked to the neo-Nazi movement. McCain joined the CWF the following year after meeting with its chief, former US army major general John Singlaub.

"I think I met him in the Washington area when he was just a new congressman," Singlaub told the Associated Press. "We had McCain on the board to make him feel like he wasn't left out. It looks good to have names on a letterhead who are well-known and appreciated."

The Obama campaign has yet to raise McCain's CWF connection directly, but prominent liberals are sure to continue raising the link as a way to temper Palin's Ayers-related attacks.

Democratic strategist Paul Begala, a former Bill Clinton adviser, was the first to warn McCain that condemning Obama's arms-length interactions could potentially backfire.

The timing of McCain's resignation – specifically, its proximity to the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986 – could become particularly pertinent. McCain has said he quit the group in 1984, and spokesman Brian Rogers told Politico.com that the Republican nominee resigned "when questions were raised about its activities".

"But that in no way diminishes his leadership role in ensuring that the forces of democracy and freedom prevailed in Central America," Rogers added.

McCain's name remained on CWF letterhead as late as 1986, however, according to several reports today.

If it ain't Brokaw, don't fix it

By

Colin McEnroe

on October 8, 2008 9:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I seem to be on a blame-the-moderator kick, but I think one reason last night's debate was such a disappointing rehash of old position statements was Tom Brokaw's choice of predictable questions, questions that -- with very few exceptions -- the candidates could have seen coming and could mold around their favorite stump speech statements.

(One of the few bright spots for either candidate came, I thought, when Brokaw, on his own, asked the candidates to prioritize among energy, health care and entitlement reform. McCain refused to do it and insisted all three could be done at once. Obama took the challenge. He said energy was the immediate crisis. Then health care. Then education, instead of entititlement reform. I think Americans understand that resources are limited. I think they know that ALL presidents have to be decisive. I think even one of them said he was the deicder. In fact, you could even argue that triage kind of IS the main part of the job. Obama seemed cool and decisive in that moment. McCain, not so much.)

Back to Brokaw. This format is supposed to produce moments that are somehow less scripted. There are supposed to be wild cards and moments that jostle the candidates onto unfamiliar ground. We didn't get our ponytail guy last night. I blame Brokaw for sticking with conventional questions, both from the crowd and from the internet. He gets no credit for the New Hampshire "zen" question at the end, because that was stupid and just elicited more boilerplate from both of them.

The other problem with Brokaw is that he thinks he's their equal - and maybe then some. He's been around a long time, and he thinks his opinions are worth at least as much as any damn candidate's. For some reason, last night, that tranlsated mostly into a lot of pointless scolding about rules and time limits, capped off by a gravitas-sapping "you're blocking he machine that tells me what to say." The rules of engagement seem to be heavy on rules and light on engagement. Rather than getting them to lock horns, last night's format -- supposedly the least structured -- caused each man to kind of dance and shuffle around the ring, looking everywhere but at his opponent. I think Jim Lehrer had the right idea when he tried to get them to use the second-person pronoun and look at each other, but, on that occasion, only Obama complied.

To GGL....

Thanks. You're right. Sometimes one has learn to just let [!@#$%^&*] go.

Thanks for reeling me back in.

Senator McCain sprang a potentially headline-grabbing surprise by announcing a big new initiative, worth up to $US300 billion ($440 billion), to enable the government to buy distressed mortgages directly from home owners and loan providers.

Edited October 8, 200817 yr by Roman

I'm also reading that JM is getting some serious heat for that statement last night about buying up everyone's bad mortgages. The fiscal conservative community is up in arms over that one. I also have a hard time buying this notion that JM is having a hard time working these personal attacks against BO. He could stop that if he truly wanted to. I think he's got the wrong people in his ear, and once read in the WP that he, many tmes, makes his decisions on the last peron he talked to.

I think that McCain strongly believes that the only way he can win is to incite fear about Obama and to make people buy into the whole "he's not one of us" business. The problem with that is what is meant by "one of us" and how some people will take that. He's unfazed by the ramiifications. On a positive note, the Secret Service is at least looking into the "kill him" threat made at his rally against either Obama or Ayers.

It dawned on me that McCain may be referring to that idea from one of his economic advisers that relies on the rescue and foreclosure bill that Nancy Pelosi sponsored. I mentioned some pages back that McCain wanted to tap into the ESF (which is already strained) and also the housing bill which I believe is funded up to $300 billion. This idea could potentially have an adverse effect on the FHA but since he has yet to explain how it would work, it's hard to tell. I don't think he understands and was simply regurgitating what was said....you know how badly that goes when you haven't grasped the concept of what you're parroting.

The idea of bloc voting has a negative connotation because it makes people think that it means that whoever is doing it, does so because they are incapable of thinking. IA with Jess that it isn't a bad thing. It actually gives a group of people a certain degree of power and the idea is that this group is voting for a common interest which in most cases relates to civil rights issues.

There is a difference to me between saying that black voters tend to vote for Democrats versus black voters are in favor of Obama. I think the most significant concern is that people don't want to be seen as voting mindlessly for a candidate which is what they think is being implied. At some point, people need to stop worrying about what other small minded people may say about them and say so what? If it's true that all black people want to vote for Obama (and I know it's not) so what??? What's the problem with that? Nothing....next.

I think that McCain strongly believes that the only way he can win is to incite fear about Obama and to make people buy into the whole "he's not one of us" business. The problem with that is what is meant by "one of us" and how some people will take that. He's unfazed by the ramiifications. On a positive note, the Secret Service is at least looking into the "kill him" threat made at his rally against either Obama or Ayers.

It dawned on me that McCain may be referring to that idea from one of his economic advisers that relies on the rescue and foreclosure bill that Nancy Pelosi sponsored. I mentioned some pages back that McCain wanted to tap into the ESF (which is already strained) and also the housing bill which I believe is funded up to $300 billion. This idea could potentially have an adverse effect on the FHA but since he has yet to explain how it would work, it's hard to tell. I don't think he understands and was simply regurgitating what was said....you know how badly that goes when you haven't grasped the concept of what you're parroting.

The idea of bloc voting has a negative connotation because it makes people think that it means that whoever is doing it, does so because they are incapable of thinking. IA with Jess that it isn't a bad thing. It actually gives a group of people a certain degree of power and the idea is that this group is voting for a common interest which in most cases relates to civil rights issues.

There is a difference to me between saying that black voters tend to vote for Democrats versus black voters are in favor of Obama. I think the most significant concern is that people don't want to be seen as voting mindlessly for a candidate which is what they think is being implied. At some point, people need to stop worrying about what other small minded people may say about them and say so what? If it's true that all black people want to vote for Obama (and I know it's not) so what??? What's the problem with that? Nothing....next.

Excellent points.

If it ain't Brokaw, don't fix it

By

Colin McEnroe

on October 8, 2008 9:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

(One of the few bright spots for either candidate came, I thought, when Brokaw, on his own, asked the candidates to prioritize among energy, health care and entitlement reform. McCain refused to do it and insisted all three could be done at once. Obama took the challenge. He said energy was the immediate crisis. Then health care. Then education, instead of entititlement reform. I think Americans understand that resources are limited. I think they know that ALL presidents have to be decisive. I think even one of them said he was the deicder. In fact, you could even argue that triage kind of IS the main part of the job. Obama seemed cool and decisive in that moment. McCain, not so much.)

To GGL....

Thanks. You're right. Sometimes one has learn to just let [!@#$%^&*] go.

Thanks for reeling me back in.

Roman, first of all, you know I think you rock, buddy. You're awesome. No need to thank me at all. I so wish I could buy you a beer sometime!

Secondly, I completely agree with this paragraph from your post. I stayed up long enough to see this question asked and I was thinking the same thing to myself.

How in the hell does McCain get off saying that all 3 issues could be resolved at the same time? It's nonsense. And if Social Security was so "easy" to fix, as he claimed, why hasn't someone done it by now? He's been in Washington for years. Has he just been hoarding this wonderful plan for a time when he would be the nominee? That's how it came across to me. The truth is, he didn't answer the question and his ambiguous response made him look very un-presidential to me.

Obama answered the question directly. End of story.

I watched the entire debate. I got frustrated with Obama a couple of times because I think he missed opportunities. I think he could have knocked the question about the economy affecting our international standing out of the park. Instead, he just rehashed his Iraq argument.

However, McCain, once again just seemed angry and pissy. He kept saying, "I know how to fix it" to so many questions. Well if he knows how to fix it, please share, because right now every it that was included in questions is a mess.

Speaking of its, the "that one" comment was just weird. I think he meant to say, and which Senator voted -- "that one" Instead, it just sounded disrespectful.

At the end of the debate, it was like the two of them just did not like each other. I think McCain dislikes Obama to the point that he just considers it beneath himself to have to deal with him. :lol: I think that is why the "that one" comment came off as anything but a mis-speak.

I watched the entire debate. I got frustrated with Obama a couple of times because I think he missed opportunities. I think he could have knocked the question about the economy affecting our international standing out of the park. Instead, he just rehashed his Iraq argument.

However, McCain, once again just seemed angry and pissy. He kept saying, "I know how to fix it" to so many questions. Well if he knows how to fix it, please share, because right now every it that was included in questions is a mess.

Speaking of its, the "that one" comment was just weird. I think he meant to say, and which Senator voted -- "that one" Instead, it just sounded disrespectful.

At the end of the debate, it was like the two of them just did not like each other. I think McCain dislikes Obama to the point that he just considers it beneath himself to have to deal with him. I think that is why the "that one" comment came off as anything but a mis-speak.

I don't think it helps McCain to have the media focusing on his contempt for Obama. It's ridiculous to keep making these arguments that you can work with Democrats when you can't even look your opponent, the Democrat, in the eyes.

After the previous debate, someone (I think Chris Matthews) said McCain sort of looked troll like and so yesterday after a point, that image cemented itself in my head. He's too angry and charismatic he's not so he should lose the anger.