Obama won the debate. He came across better. More youthful and vigorous. He also seemed more interested in debating, while McCain was more stump speeches and attacks. Obama is a better speaker on the whole, and did very well. I think he won it by a nose.

OTOH, I think Palin will do a great job against Biden.

And the only way I would ever think of voting for Obama is if the McCain camp kicked Palin to the curb, which I don't think is going to happen.

About what I expected. MSM says Obama won, liberal blogs are split between McCain won/Obama won, and most of the conservative blogs I've checked out say it was McCain. So, who knows who "won"? I say Obama. But McCain refusing to look at Obama, and all the smirking, really grates on me. It reminded me of Al Gore in 2000, and make Obama seem like more of the adult.

And McCain tore into Obama. And Obama handled it really well. I call it for Obama.

Next time he might not be so lucky.

You quoted a poll from a super conservative website. MSNBC, CNN and CBS had Obama smashing McCain. Do some responsible reporting, not just writing what you want to hear please.

Drudge, really? He actually aggregates articles from a wide array of sites including MSNBC, CNN, CBS, WSJ, NYT, etc; and it's the most visited news website on the Internet.  Please don't come in the kitchen unless you have some level of knowledge.

Responsible reporting? I am not a reporter. I am a man with an opinion and i have wide reach.  What about you?

Well I'm in the kitchen now, and I have lots of knowledge for you. HE aggregates articles from different sources, most of which are conservative and some liberal, but the VIEWERS are predominantly conservative. Even Wikipedia recognizes it!

The Drudge Report is a conservative,[2][3] U.S.-based news aggregation website run by Matt Drudge. The site consists mainly of links to stories from the US and international mainstream media about politics, entertainment, and current events as well as links to many columnists.

And no that's not my only sources, it's well known. And you are not a reporter by any means- I would never extend you that much credit- but you are REPORTING by giving commentary. 

Please don't test me, this can become too much and I will destroy any argument you try.

I have always voted republican in the past.  Unfortunately, McCain is just way to erradic.  His actions leading up to this debate would make me scared if he became president

Wow - is that all you got?  You would never extend me that much credit; yet you are obviously trying to pimp my site in an effort to garner some traffic to your so-called blog. It is a blog, right? Or just an aggregation hub to sites in the UK?

Test you? What the hell is that supposed to mean?  Are you saying you can literally destroy me in a debate or something?  You know how many fools come to this site and say this?  Are you the real deal Kip?  Are you going to report on the REAL NEWS?

Destroy me? hahaha....bring it on biatch!

Kip - just went to Kippocrite....are you even an adult yet?  You look like my little brother's friends....

@kipp
go home son. you don't belong here nor can you hang here. Go get some life experience and then come back and articulate your arguments. 
Anyone who cites Wikipedia, CNN and MSNBC as a legitimate source clearly suffers from mental illness.  I am surprised you can add 2+2 ....
 

I am an independent who would have voted for McCain in 2000 if he had survived the republican dirty tricks campaign during the primaries--mentally unstable because of POW experience, 'black' child out of wed lock etc. Interesting how his own party was successful at taking away one of his most important  and reliable campaign assets, his POW experience in 2000 and the democrats have not touched it in 2008.

He looked angry and smug tonight. He was successful at drawing attention to his decades of experience in foreign policy, but he commented several times that Senator Obama 'just doesn't seem to  understand' or 'didn't seem to get' certain aspects of FP. This made McCain seem small and less than presidential. He should have let his years of experience speak for itself, instead he discredited himself with what seemed to be a canned, coached line.

Obama is obviously very bright, attacking his ability to understand an issue doesn't work. Outlining why he is wrong is the more credible approach.

McCain started off in the muck: he invoked Ted Kennedy in the most egregious and blatantly canny attempt to drag the viewers by the heart into his camp. McCain went on like a kicked dog through the rest of the debate, fearful of ever looking Obama in the face, even as Obama directed his comments straight at him. Never once did McCain direct a comment at Obama. In every question, McCain seemed to get more flustered, and was even making sniffing sounds like he was ill near the end of the debate. Obama's demeanor was always prim, calm, and intelligent. McCain's was confused, ill-equipped, and angry. The Dial Response Group ratings fell well below the mid-line every time McCain spoke, particularly that of the line which represented Independents, and typically rose well above the mid-line in response to Obama. In sheer mathematical scoring, the data will show Obama the clear winner. Barack Obama won this first debate handily.

Hey Black Conservative,
That's all for sources that have come out so far, but when RealClear says the same thing I'll post that for a source. I can absolutely hang here, I assure you. Show me what you got.

I actually did not come to garner interest in my site- please, do NOT GO TO MY SITE! I don't care what a bunch of "urban" conservatives do with their time and I know they aren't smart enough for sites like mine. 

Yeah, yeah, I'm young. Just like your party, a bunch of cheap shots with no substance. You're bitter because your candidate is getting owned and all you can do is talk about lipstick and "When I was in Vietnam...". 

Your candidate sounded like my boring grandpa tonight... I just tuned him out and couldn't stop staring at his gobble. Looked like a turkey. I'd like to have a substantive discussion but I can't even bear listening to Grandpa tell stories. "Back when I was your age... You know, when I was in Vietnam..."

By the way, what the hell did you expect from this blog entry, a fair debate? You run blogs on a site called urbanconservative.com... was this just an Obama-bash party to assure one another that McSame has some sort of chance? 

I imagine you hide from real discussion by posting blogs on already determined conservative websites. That way you can hide and gather with other conservatives instead of having real worthwhile discussions with people of different beliefs. 

kip, this whole site is full of substance. click around and you might learn something. 

""urban" conservatives do with their time and I know they aren't smart enough for sites like mine. "

sounds racist to me .. perhaps you are that 33% that are racist towards blacks...

Lol... I really did not mean it like that, I'm sorry. That was wayyy out of context, I meant conservatives aren't. Wow I just reread that and I totally see where you're coming from. Not on purpose, I can assure you.

kipp,

you are cracking me up, what are you saying, that MSNBC, CNN are not in the tank for obama? what planet are you from.  they lean awfully left, so what would you expect, their viewers to vote for mccain or admit he did better in the debate as for the rest of your post, you sound not only young but inept and inane. the fact that you were bored by what was discussed in the debate is rather an indication that you are an ignoramus and most likely you can't comprehend much of the foreign policy issues. being young is not an excuse for being ignorant though. your comments and remarks on this forum scream that. what are you even doing on a conservative forum if you're not interested in the debate, or you're just one of the liberal trolls of axelrod's astroturfers teams despatched to spit venom and pollute the conservative blogs and forums. good riddance then, you're not really welcome here.

Yo this is Kipp. 

First off

That was not racist, completely unintentional. I meant to refer to the conservative aspect- the fact is that the thought didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, most probably because in your party you frequently have to worry about that.

I hope McCain win, because I believe he is better to be the president, and his speech is perfect.

I think Obama was smart to say something about helping families that may need to buy a computer or have a hard time with getting gas but saying that I think McCain actually has a plan i.e. nuclear power, drilling offshore,  stuff like that I think they both want to actually do good for the country unlike bush. It did bug me where Obama could not really give a example of where he would quit spending. I think the biggest thing that would help the whole united states is to quit depending on oil from other countries and that is why I want McCain but at the same time I feel like if someone would talk to Obama he is more open minded and if something was not going well that he had decided he would change they way he thinks about it. So I really do not know I am going to do some fact checking on both of them and maybe that woud help.

JOHN McCAIN won!

In my opinion – there was one clear decisive point in this debate. Listen up! When Jim Lehrer asked: What if anything – as a result of the financial plan outcome – What presidential priorities will you as President be willing to give up?

McCain's answer – Spending! Spending freeze with the exception on national defense and vital issues…

Obama's answer – Never really indicated what he would be willing to give up… Instead – Obama talked about MORE SPENDING…

More spending on alternative energy

More spending on universal health care

More spending on free college education

More spending…

More spending…

More spending…

People – if you don't see it now – you never will! We can not allow the fake Messiah Obama any where near the White House except via a visitor pass! He does not care that you, nor I, are having financial difficulties! His remedy is to bring in more socialistic programs that will take each and every one of our freedoms away. Obama wants AMERICANS… ALL AMERICANS depending upon the government and like it or not – that's the bottom line! THIS is what I got out of the debate.

lol what I am scared of is does anyone really care about the little guy anymore and I am not looking for a hand out its just my pay check does not go as far as it use to and I think that is all anyone cares about is being able to pay bills and have a little extra I do not care that I live in a apartment I do not care my car is old I just want to give my kids a good life and if things keep going how they are I am going to have a real hard time doing. I am not going to judge Obama all I know is what I want and what I want is what everyone else wants. Cheaper gas, I do not want universeal heath care that scares the hell out of me nothing the goverment runs well

Drudge is an extreme right blog with an extreme right following.  "Keating Five" McCain should be worried that only 69% of rightist Republicans thought he had won the debate.

Most, if not all of you, know already where I stand politically.  Many here may well probably have had their decision made regarding their choice for president before watching the debate, looking to shore up what they already perceived to be true. 
I have closely followed the political process for many years- the candidates, the issues, the substance and how each "side" interpreted their version of the issues and the truth.  This campaign has been no exception.  
Knowing that many Americans watching last night's presentation of the candidates, and knowing that,  for many, this was their first real exposure to both men applying for the job to lead the country I tried to watch, not with a favorite horse in this race- but rather how each candidate might be perceived by those just now viewing  each of them for the first time.
Perception carries a lot of weight in helping them decide which candidate will win their confidence and their vote. 
What struck me most, visually, was the fact that McCain would not look at Obama.  Ever.  It seemed a lack of respect or willingness to engage.  While Obama made his various points, McCain grimaced, smirked, and put his head down.  I saw one man, not only in command of his facts, but also willing to state when McCain was right on his; to say these are areas of agreement.  While McCain never acknowledged that Obama could be right on anything, ever.  His condescending and oft repeated "he doesn't understand" served as the proverbial "10-foot pole" that made McCain appear unwilling to even consider another's point of view.  This off-ishness  was made even more pronounced as McCain flatly refused to meet with anyone (world leaders) that did not meet his standards of approval.  Obama noted that even Bush has now seen the importance of meeting leaders of countries that presently are not on "our side". Understanding that discussion and understanding play an important role in diplomacy.
Obama had many occasions presented to him to throw in a cheap shot or a low blow.  He did not.  Instead he outlined a more constructive way that would not anger or alienate foreign leaders, but rather hear what they had to say and work from there. McCain came off as an angry man with an agenda and, come hell or high water, or opposing points of view, he was going to shove his agenda and methods down the throats of any who may oppose him. 
So, what I saw last night boiled down to watching a gentleman, a statesman, and a man willing to engage respectfully and honestly vs. "my way or the highway".
At such a delicate time in our nation's history- both financially and diplomatically, I find it difficult to even consider the methods proposed by McCain. 

I'm not going to comment on the source citing of Drudge since blaming the messenger is the lamest tactic.  I will say this, if there is even a question of who won, Drudge not withstanding, Barack wins.  What is McCain's strong suit besides being old and being a "maverick?"  His strong suit is foreign policy.  This was supposed to be McCain's sweet spot.  I say they tussled to a tie which is a win for Barack.  I'd be more impressed, UC, if you took an aggregate of lot's of sources.  We all do it.  We find a site or article or whatever to bolster our own arguments and say, "See, I told you so!"  The problem is that the spin is already there BEFORE the debate.  We saw that with the McCain ads declaring victory running prior to the debate taking place.  I'm pretty sure Barack had similar ads ready to go too.  It just illustrates how this stuff works (and more McCain campaign ineptness).  Are you going to go after Murdoch's Wall Street Journal too?

So we've heard from Drudge courtesy of UC.  What does Fox and the radio talk show hosts say?  If they all say McCain won, then it MUST be so, right?  WRONG!  I watched with my own two eyes and don't need a website to tell or confirm or support anything my own two eyes and ears tell me.  Barack more than held his own on McCain's strongest turf.  That is a win to me. 

Look for the "Palin Wins Debate!" ads running on Tuesday and Wednesday (the debate is Thursday).

To: Terry re: spending
It would be mathematically impossible for Obama to spend more than the Bush administration has in the past eight years. The crime of it all is that the current administration has borrowed to the hilt from the same institutions that we now find out never had the money to lend in the first place. The buyout plan is absurd - we are re-paying the banks with toxic debt; $700 billion of phantom money, and who is going to pay for this? We are, of course.
I honestly wanted McCain to win the debate because I despise Obama, but big John blew it. He came off as childish and arrogant, like a five year-old throwing a tantrum in his sandbox. McCain didn't win the debate - he solidified his image as an aging war horse with a short fuse...just what America needs right now, huh? Even the comments on this highly conservative blog site lean in favor of Obama!
So, unless McCain is re-programmed in a hurry, we are all screwed. I wouldn't worry about spending, though. Obama still hasn't come out of the closet and when he does, we may lose a lot more than money. Can you put a price on our way of life?

Let's just get one thing straight about last night's debate between Obama and McCain....OBAMA AGREED WITH MCCAIN ON 9 SEPARATE OCCASIONS!!!!

 Barack Obama blatantly misstated Kissinger's views on diplomacy with US adversaries and I am oretty sure the latter is not happy about being mischaracterized. here's what Kissinger has to say.

You can find the quote in the Weekle Standard: blog:

Kissinger: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

that stuff with 'mccain didn's look obama in the eyes' is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard, as if they were there to lovingly look at each other and hug...and what else, smoke pot maybe...:-) but then this is the kind of thing the dems have to pull out when there isn’t any substance to criticize McCain on. It is all about body language now for the Dems. he didn't look his opponent in the eyes priceless as if this would have changed anybody opinions about how they vote, 'it's about the issues, stupid'

You are not there to convince Obama, you are there to convince the audience/the American people. And then this is a pattern for McCain, it has nothing to do with Obama, MCcain always looks and addresses the audience dircectly, this is the way he focuses and connects best. Look back at the saddleback debate, same thing, he didn't once look at Rick Warren, he got the question from him and then turned and talked straight to the audience. and so he should do. remember those debates in highschool, what is the first thing they teach you, never talk directly to your opponent, talk to the moderator and look at the audience.

What bothers me most about these two candidatesis the lack of leadership qualities. The ability to lead is a quality in and of itself that has nothing to do with education or experience. There are very intelligent people with PHD's and beyond who are extremely intelligent, but would be lousy leaders. Jimmy Carter, though an intelligent and good man, was a very poor leader. Reagan was a leader. Bush, not very good. JFK....outstanding. VP Johnson was not. Guliani has some of that quality, as does Bill Clinton.

A person can have all the answers and education in the world, but if they cannot make a decision or have 'command' that people will naturally follow, they are not fit to handle a leadership position.  
 
What I want to see is that ability to lead and actually get things done. A leader doesnt have to have the answer to everything, that is why presidents have cabinets and why our govt has a congress. But a leader needs to know what to do with the information given and can't be afraid to make a decision. 
 
The ability to lead can bring people of opposite beliefs together toward a common goal. Many who've served the military have seen the boot lieutenant with all the college and training who is laughed at by his troops, as he simply cannot or will not make a decision. He is dwarfed by the new Sergeant who, though he barely graduated high school, is shown a natural loyalty by his troops who would follow him anywhere.  
 
In the debate and during the campaign, I heard ideas, mantras, rhetoric, and politics, blah blah blah, but I have not seen leadership qualities.  

When I saw the video of Bush together with our representatives, both Obama and McCain were there, and they both appeared insignificant, neither had any command. 

That quality was the one thing I was looking for in the debate, and neither one of them convinced me they actually have that abillity to actually lead and bring about any kind of change or reform in our government and country.   
 
 

That was not racist, completely unintentional. I meant to refer to the conservative aspect- the fact is that the thought didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, most probably because in your party you frequently have to worry about that.

I think it's a toss-up....I've previously voted Republican, but am currently undecided. And to be quite honest, I think I'm leaning towards Obama after last night.  Why (my husband asks)?  Well, for one--McCain came off as someone who didn't want to be there, disgruntled, and condescending.  And to be frank--a lot like the stereotypical "angry, old man".  He wouldn't even look to Obama when debating him, and I grew tired of the "experience" mantra he overused.  And Obama on the other hand, when he really had some opportunities to get some digs in at McCain, chose to be polite and say "I agree with John on this..."---which to me came off as being overly nice, when I'd rather him show a different side for a change.  To me a president can't be a McCain, we saw last night--hot-headed and overly arrogant--but can't be the Obama we saw tonight, either--all "play nice" and seemingly afraid of confrontation.  I'm certainly looking forward to the other debates to come...and especially the VP one.  Should be entertaining on both ends, that's for sure.

Take politics out of this thought. Most of us are probably executive level people who have some experience in hiring people. 

Question, would you ever hire someone who won't look you in the eye when they speak about you? 

Lets get to the core of basic power skills. Anyone who has trained a dog knows that estabishing eye contact is a sign of dominance. 

You can say all that you want about McCain not needing to respect Obama so he doesn't need to look at him. This is just an excuse because his body language and lack of eye contact spoke louder to the general viewers than anything he verbalized (and he did have some good spoken points). 

Also, it is well known that an Alpha doesn't need to always say they are right. A leader can at times say the other person has a good point. Really, do you always disagree with 100% of your opponents thoughts? For example, if your opponent says they love this country, do you say I agree, or do you insist on not agreeing (thus disliking the USA)?

Each time Obama agreed with McCain, I cringed.  I mean, he's an intellectually generous person, and he clearly is the strongest debater of the two.  He is good at showing where he agrees, and then outlining where he disagrees.  

Aside from whether or not I agree or disagree with the positions that each one espoused, from a purely stylistic viewpoint, and from what I remember from being on the debate team as an undergrad, Obama took the lead on this one.  However, not by a large margin, and I have to give the old man kudos for taking Barack on- that had to have been pretty scary given how afraid he seemed to be during the days before.

Obama lost this one becuase he was all style and no substence and
seemed to get extremly upset.McCain knew what he was talking about and semmed strong and experienced.

MCCAIN/PALIN 2008                   ROMNEY 2012

I believe John McCain won by a landslide. Not based on how "cool" either of them looked out there. But based on experience. Jobs require the right type of experience. I believe your same personal morals and points of view about experience can be used in a much broader aspect. If you just bring it down to a much smaller, personal level. For instance my brother is 19 years old went through the process of becoming a San Diego Sheriff. He's never been in the military or had any other experience in this field. But he's never done drugs or been in jail or any of that stuff. You could say he's a "good kid". Well he didn't get the job purely based on his lack of experience. They all liked him and hoped he'd make it. As cool of a personality he had or how in shape he was; it all came down to his experience. Well jobs that entail protection and making fast and trustworthy decisions have the same prerequisites. You need to look past the "name tags" of which party they came from, but what their personal morals and experience are. If you look at any other important big jobs like doctors, lawyers, engineers. They all have require experience. you can't just say you're young and ambitious and you'll automatically win over the people. Sure that helps sometimes being young and ambitious, but it doesn't mean you'll be made "king".  We Americans banter back and forth about these political issues just because he's a democrat and im republican. Thats a joke! The next president is the one with the right experience and morals not only on a vast world wide level but a personal level as well. And God willing its John McCain.

@kip

all your comments were marked by my spam filter for some reason. I added your IP to the whitelist, so you should be good to go.

Now what were you saying?

I don't think it possible for some of you here to be at all objective.  
One post here stated that McCain won because Obama was all about "style over substance".  There are a vast array of opinions out there - both conservative and progressive- that noted Obama's strong and well informed grasp of foreign affairs.  Many conservatives in fact, feeling that "foreign policy" was supposed to be McCain's "strong suit" were forced to be honest to admit that Obama more than passed the "commander in chief test", saying that Obama held his own very well throughout the night  regarding foreign policy- even to the point of explaining to McCain the difference between tactic and strategy- points entirely lost on McCain.  
McCain not only fumbled with pronunciation of names, he got leaders names wrong and called Pakistan a failed country. (Not really a good idea when you will need to work with this country). 

Earlier in the week, McCain did not recognize who José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero  was and wrote him off as some Latin American leader of little importance prompting Obama to wonder why McCain would insult the President of Spain -who is also our friend.  
When people do not keep up with current events and facts as they occur, and learn from the source they are at the mercy of those who will "interpret" facts for them. When people read only one source or one point of view or listen to only one side of an issue- they are ill-equipped to make an educated decision for they do not have all of the facts- nor have they seen both sides represented fairly without bias. 
The fact that Obama said that he agreed with McCain on several statements does not diminish Obama- what it does do is demonstrate exactly what Obama has said all along- that there are always ways to find common ground- even with your opposition- this provides a starting point to work together on shared concerns. 

As far as economic issues are concerned- Obama was asked earlier in the week (again, for those who do not follow the day to day news items as they occur, you would not know this) Obama was asked, in light of the current financial crisis,  how does this effect his proposed programs that he has suggested throughout the campaign. Obama answered this then the same way he did last night- essentially that we just don't know what the state of the budget will be- nor will we know the tax revenue - which will obviously less- so to pretend to know what he will have to work with at that time would be highly speculative and utter folly at best.  That's an honest answer.  McCain's answer of "freeze spending!" may sound good but is not very realistic since the day to day operations of just general government business requires "spending".   McCain mentioned nothing specific that he would cut.

Someone here also mentioned the other day's photo-op in the White House- again, for those who don't actually follow the news on a daily basis- There was absolutely no pressing reason for Obama or McCain to come to Washington to get involved in the ongoing discussions taking place making revisions on the Paulson/Bush proposal regarding the bail-out- now being called the "rescue".  Obama had already made his concerns well known to them daily, to the point of listing 5 items he felt needed to be addressed.  Obama called McCain suggesting that they put out a joint statement with these 5 items as being concerns to them both and not to let politics get involved in the deliberations. McCain agreed to the joint statement.
McCain, prior to this had,  not only not read the initial proposal, he had no input or ideas or contact with anyone on any banking or finance committee regarding any of it.  After showing  his lack of information on where they were in the process of revision McCain and his entourage plopped themselves into Washington to "save the day" only to be more of a bull in a china shop than of any assistance whatsoever, destroying a weeks worth of work.  Bush, seeing this not going very well for McCain, called upon both  Presidential candidates to meet with him along with the ranking house and senate leaders and those working on the revision of the "rescue".  Obama had every intent to remain away from the deliberations to keep Presidential politics out of the mix.  When your President requests your presence, you go. Obama was there at the request of the President. 
 

toe says 'Earlier in the week, McCain did not recognize who José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero  was and...

toe, don't get me started on that...not long ago obama talked about some 57 states that might be part of the US :-),  also obama said 'let's bring the issue of Russia invading Georgia in the UN Security Council', while obviously and blatantly  he had no clue that Russia was a member of the Security Council with full veto power. so how should his statement been interpreted other than: 'let's bring russia to the security council so that russia punishes and sanctions hmmmm ...let me think....russia???  :-) so let's not get into these gaffe things, it's been a long campaign, both candidates are tired and they can say silly things, it's only human. Not to mention the Biden gaffe machine: 'FDR was the US President during the depression' - he said that during his interview with Couric, only it was actually Hoover who was president then. and apparently, according to Biden 'FDR went on TV' to explain to the nation I don't know what....only there was no television back then...so, really...if you want substance, bring substance to the discussion, and not these usual gaffes that both candidates make. or if you do, then be ready to stand scrutiny because your 'guys' are worse gaffeurs that McCAIN would be in his wildest dreams. most of the facts that obama and biden mix up are US (domestic) policy-related which is even more bizarre. as for the zapatero thing, leave it there, really... I am European originally, and lived in the UK for the last five years before coming to the US, believe me, you'd be surrpised how many such gaffes the European leaders make on a reguar basis... yeah, mccain might have mixed up zapatero's name, big deal, ask any current EU country leader the names of each and every single leader of the other EU countries, and you'd be suprised how few of them know exactly, without help from their staff...they did this experiment on the  BBC not long ago, it was more part of some comedy show, but the persons interviwed were real life leaders, ministers, prime-ministers who were participating at different EU summits, and  most of them could not tell the names of their counterparts of other Eu countries...and shall I remind you that the EU leaders convene regularly for  for the inter-ministerial meetings, while the US leader meet with the Spanish PM probably less than once a year...  so, really....let's not try to be more Catholic than the Pope....

and toe, you spin an important issue there...you said there was no reason for mccain and obama to come to washington for the bailout debate...you are right in that there was no need for obama to come indeed, and you pointed out correctly that he only came at the invitation of the president. but you are completely wrong about mccain. don't forgte that the Dems were immediately onboard when it came to signing the 800,000,000 USDbailout bill, so indeed obama;s presence wouldn't have helped in any way. while the Reps were the ones who considered the above amount appalling and the idea of investing one guy (Paulson that is)  with the power of distributing all that money, or 'injecting' them - whatever you call it - into the financial markets was met with incredulity and suspicion by them, also they were the ones who had other reservations about the bill. So, of course that McCain wanted to be there to negotiate other alternative proposals with his fellow reps precisely because he's done that in the past and he's done it well, and also to reach across the aisle. and after all it is his prerogative to do just so, it's not obama's, or the media's or your's, or anybody's business to criticize him for he chose to go to washington. that was his call, he's a member of the senate, he's paid for that, and unlike Obama (who was on the senate floor for 144 days in his career) he does attend the senate meetings. you have absolutely no right to question mccain's motives, if not for other reason simply because  before anything else he is at/in the service of the taxpayer's, he gets paid for that job, and it's only normal to be in the Senatem even more so when such crises occur. his job is exactly to be present in the senate and take part in the initiation and voting of legislation. and he showed leadership by going to washington where his office is. it is bizarre that obama did not think for a second that this (senator) was actually his job. hopefully, if he ever becomes president, he will attend the white house meetings at least

toe, one more last thing, regarding the 'mccain's input' in that infamous meeting. mccain was there to listen, this is what a good negotiatior does, I am surprised that you of all people, who defends obama on his stance as a negotiator in intl conflicts, also as a negotiator without preconditions with foregin leadres -  don't know that the fundamental part/step of any negotiation or conflict resolution process is 'SIT AND LISTEN'  to  both parties' grievances, proposals (etc) .  in the absence of that, THERE IS NO NEGOTIATION. and it was the Dems who were actually bickering like 5 graders in that meeting.

only after that meeting mccain met separately with his fellow reps and they started  discussing the alternative plan, ideas, etc. that he input a lot of ideas in those meetings I have no doubt about.

and I have a simple question for you. if the Dems maintain that they had a 'deal' (which let's get serious it's BS, they never had a deal with the reps) - why didn't they signed that bill before mccain even got to washington, or after that infamous white house meeting, they have the majority in both houses. if mccain's input to the discussion was/is so irrelevant, why don't they go ahead and put their signatures on the bill and pass it? Again, THEY HAVE A MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES!

pnin,

Father Time had not been back to the Senate since March.  So to suggest that he was doing his job as Senator is a stretch at best.  He went from "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" to all out crisis in 10 days.  Nice leadership.  He said he wouldn't leave Washington until a deal was done.  He left.  There is still no deal.  This is what McCain is left with.  He is thrashing about with wild maneuvers all over the place.  Had he kept his word and actually suspended his campaign, he'd still be in DC now but that's right, he takes the weekends off.  Poor guy.  When this deal is finally done, Old Man River will be nowhere around.  It was a stunt.

Listening to Old Man River tell his old man stories just further rooted him in the past to me.  It reminded me of Bjorn Borg the great tennis player of the 70's.  He attempted to make a comeback after several years of retirement and major innovations in tennis like graphite rackets.  When he came back he brought his old wooden rackets with him, no joke.  Well, he very quickly found out that the game had passed him by.  He was a great champion at one time but this is a new day.  There is no doubt that McCain has been around a long time and done a lot of stuff.  It doesn't really amount to much though because the game has changed.  There is an experience tipping point.  If you were going to start a high tech company today would you want Andrew Carnegie or the guys who started Google?  Look, there is a reason McCain has been around for 26 years and this is his first bite at the apple.  His own party doesn't believe in him.  He belongs on the History Channel not in the White House.

pnin,

They didn't do the deal because 700 billion is on the line.  It was important to be prudent than to make Father Time look silly.  He can do that all on his own.

as a member of a gold star family, I resented McCain attempting to exploit the pain of a mother for the sake of political gain.  I think its sickening.  No person who is killed in combat does it in vain, and for him to suggest that was appalling.

Just to let you all know.........I just returned from an Obama rally in Virginia.  10,000 supporters stood in the pouring rain for 2 hours to cheer on our candidate.  Two weeks ago, McCain got 2,000 to show up in Virginia on a beautiful sunny day.  Virginia is Obama country, and that, my friends, wins the election.

"pnin"

The Great Depression began in 1929-While Herbert Hoover was President...and lasted until about 1939- While Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President. 
Herbert Clark Hoover was challenged by the Great Depression that began while he was President.
 
 
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic system   After the Great Depression, government action, whether in the form of taxation, industrial regulation, public works, social insurance, social-welfare services, or deficit spending, came to assume a principal role in ensuring economic stability in most industrial nations with market economies.
I'm sorry- but as much as you would like to rewrite history, bub, you are just not factual.

There are so many errors in your previous posts, it's alarming the me that you even have the understanding on how to tie your own shoes. 

"pnin"

It's clear that you have absolutely no understanding how a bill is made. Try watching CSPAN.
Furthermore, no one- NO ONE accepted the original proposal (the 2 1/2 page item that McCain never even bothered to read for 2 days) as put forth by Paulson and Bush.  NO ONE.
House and Senate committee chairs (Banking and Finance) got together immediately to rewrite the proposal put forward. This is what is done in committees.  Of major concern to everyone (INCLUDING BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS) was Paulson's demand that there be no oversight, regulations, etc.  Furthermore, NOBODY- not ANYBODY wanted those responsible for the mess to walk away with multi-million dollar parachutes while the American Taxpayer paid the bill. 
I do wish you would try to keep up with what actually happened. 

furthermore, "pnin" - understand the difference between "pre-conditions" and "preparation".

Here is a balanced view: fuck the cocksucker ass-wipe Republicans - they are the dipshit big business coddlers asleep at the wheel who allowed the fucking mess we see the last 2 weeks. You call it - unregulated toxic lending bringing down the big financial institutions, Mid-East quagmire killing the sons/daughters of poor people, environmental laws strip-mined, out of control deficit dooming my kids future, stripping basic services for disabled - fuck those shithead bastards! Fuck those butt-fuckers and the mule they rode in on! All those assholes have done for the past 8 years is squat down and take a big steaming dump of shit right on the head of the little guy.

and... just so you understand completely, "pnin"-how McCain is seen by others:
McCain's so-called "suspension" of his campaign was seen by a huge majority of those actually watching and in the know of the day-to-day doings- (IE- every major and minor news organization even conservative talking heads)  saw this as a stunt by McCain to draw attention to himself.  Comments regarding his inability to walk and chew gum were common with regards to McCain's decision not to participate in the debate.  Comments regarding the necessity for a Commander in Chief to multi-task were common. 
McCain has constantly tried to draw attention to himself when the polls were not in his favor.  This last week it was Palin's dreadful "interview" with Couric and the staged "meetings" with heads of state here for the UN meeting ...McCain's people refused to allow reporters and cameras finally "allowing" a "pool" video - and they continue to keep Palin in her little cage - taken out for display as needed.  We are less than 40 days from the election- and they are scared to death to let her take questions.  This is not just inexcusable, it's an insult to the American People. 
I'm sorry, "pnin"- but McCain has not only shown poor judgment in his first and most important decision in naming a Vice President, his actions have given wonder if he has any core principles that cannot be altered if the polls find it necessary.  He has his wetted finger in the air, ready to flip with the slightest change of wind.  This is how he is seen.

Please fellow Conservatives and classical liberals including (Clintonites)....please read "liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. Its the only way to dispell the trance....and show who the "true" fascists and racists are.

PASS THE BOOK AROUND....BY COPIES FOR YOUR PROGRESSIVE ACQUAINTENCES....YOU MUST...for the sake of our freedom.

I clearly felt Obama was the brighter and more articulate of the two.  I believe Obama would be a much better President.  The cancelling and then showing up didn't play well for John McCain.  I don't think he is a maverick - I think he is impulsive and I wouldn't want him to be responible for the fate of our nation or any other nation.  Palin is simply not qualified.  How much faith can you have in a government official who refuses to acknowledge a supoena and can't be trusted in an interview with any press member.  I was a Republican but can't vote for this ticket.

@toe: "I don't think it possible for some of you here to be at all objective. "

But you are? Isn't that special!

BTW, Obama won the debate. In my objective opinion. I'm still voting for McNugget, however, because, lame as he is, I think Captain Queeg is more likely to randomly be right on policy (and might accidentally appoint better people to the supreme court) than The Big 'O'. 

FDR did much that exacerbated and extended the Depression by trying to micromanage the markets. Most historians and economists who are predisposed to the liberalism of The New Deal don't mention the stuff that did more harm than good, like forcing farmers to burn crops and slaughter livestock to try and artificially prop up food prices. Under the highly mistaken notion that this would somehow be a stimulative for the economy. While people were going hungry. 

@kipp: Kipp needs to get out of diapers before he starts telling everybody how smart he is. Really, politics aside, you're coming across like a bigger jackass than anybody else here, including Mr. I Call Bullsh*t up there.

Just my opinion.

 hey Urban Consevative could you clarify a comment you made on your blog.  It was in response to someone stating that the KKJK was going to attend the presidential debates.        your response was "the mississppi white knights now theres something Americans can be proud of." maybe you could help us liberals  to better understand sally's post on who the true facists and racists are.

Kevin (alias the church lady) I never claimed to be objective.  I have a point of view just as you do. 
and regarding FDR-  one thing interesting in his political career ...   He was a socialite and a womanizer, grew up with a privilaged background,  with little regard, knowledge, or interest in the common man- initially. 
 It was not until he was sticken with polio that he learned about and understood the less fortunate.  while you may not think too much of him, FDR was an enormously popular President- winning 57% of the popular vote and 472 electoral votes versus Hoover's 59 in his first run, for his second re-election he won an overwhelming victory with 523 electoral votes versus Landon's 8, for his third,  won with 449 out of 531 electoral votes- for his fourth, 53% of the popular vote and winning 432 electoral votes versus 99 for Dewey.

@Sally
you like reading?  check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html

Just so everyone knows, the president doesn't "spend" anything.  The congress votes on that.  Then, he can either sign the bill or veto it. 

Sorry, I only made it half way through the posts before commenting...

oh oh....

McCain and Team Have Many Ties to Gambling Industry

By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr. Published: September 27, 2023

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I thought McCain schooled Obama during the debate, but apparently most of the media believes Obama won. Obama agreed with McCain on at least 8 different issues. If he had those same point of views before he was nominated as a presidential candidate, it would have been Hillary up there debating with McCain.

Kevin S. Willis is back!  It just got serious up in here.

Repubs think MCcain won, the dems think obama won, and the independants appear to leaning in favor of obama . Thank god.

OK Obaminites I have 1 easy question for you. Please answer it as clearly and short to the point as possible. I don't want huge 3 paragraph answers. Please just answer the following question:

In your eyes what makes Obama the next President?

could you please clarify for me, do you mean what qualifies him over McCain, or do i think he will win or something else

In your own eyes and your own opinion what makes him your choice? Don't put him up to McCain. Just what makes him what you want to see in the next president? Remember short and sweet. Thanks.

With Obama  I is my hope America will move away from 1. its agressive,  expensive and allienating policy of making war on poor nations.    2. end tax loopholes for the super rich.      3. Some improvement on the healthcare system.         4. A break from the total domination of big oil on politics and policy.        3.investment in alternative energy.      4. a second thought for the environment  basicaly i hope we can turn this ship around.       sorry it took so long to respond i am at work

honestly.  i am on the fence here with who to vote for.  But i think McCain blew obama out of the water.  Obama just did not know what to do.  I thought he did a TERRIBLE JOB.  his speaches have been amazing, but, on this debate, he looked dumb, confused, and had no idea what he was talking about.  it was almost humourous how bad obama was doing after all these amazing speaches he has been giving.

McCain won hands down.

davidfelix90,

Confirmed Obama supporter here.  To answer your question as succinctly as possible it comes down to this:  Barack represents the future of this country.  He is not tethered or beholden to the past.  He is forward facing and competent and yes, inspirational.  This election is about the past versus the future.

Feel free to hammer away....

OK Obaminites I have 1 easy question for you. Please answer it as clearly and short to the point as possible. I don't want huge 3 paragraph answers. Please just answer the following question:
In your eyes what makes Obama the next President?
He inspires me and millions of others to be better citizens- which, ultimately, creates a better country.  In the end, no election is about who is right on a surge or passed X many bills or can pronounce so and so's name.  Elections are about leadership.  Barack is an epoch leader.  I'm drinking the kool-aid.  America will be a better place for it.

Why Obama?
For me, I want a leader with:
~the temperament to make rational, reasoned decisions,
~the ability and interest to listen to all sides,
~to recognize a good idea - no matter whose it was,
~the understanding of the global economy and the interwoven aspects that effect every country in the world.
~the understanding that diplomatic efforts will always be best as a first option.

...to name a few.

Here's my thinking on this.  I like John McCain (or at least did until this race began).  He has become a blatant liar, along with his running mate.  It's a real shame, but it is what it is.

He hangs out with too many people who have taken the low road and has sided with GW too many times.

Even with less 'experience,' Obama is clearly the leader we're looking for.  Most of us have more in common with Obama than McCain and we believe Obama actually cares about the underdog.

If you just visually looked at the debate, you would see clearly the one is a president while the other is mad, conniving, stressed, and unwilling to look the other guy in the eye.  McCain just wouldn't look at Obama - I would hope he would treat other world leaders with a bit more dignity.

If you listened to the debate, you actually heard the same thing.

Peace.

Steve

AMBER:  Untrue.  Many conservatives are now leaning toward Obama.  Believe it or not, there are many middle-class conservatives out there who now see that there's one man who will be on their side.

I've noticed this before, but Obama pointed it out again in his recent ad.  McCain just doesn't talk about middle-class, and especially the poor, very often.  And when he does, he doesn't really connect.

You see, he really doesn't 'get it.'  Obama spent years working with the poor.  He understands that there are just some people who don't have bootstraps.

I don't look to a president for inspiration.  I get that closer to home. I want a president that has demonstrated the ability to lead and make difficult decisions.  Has Obama ever made a politically risky move in his life?  Not that I have seen.  Whan it hits the fan you can't vote "present".
McCain was certainly not my first choice, or my second or my third, but he is the only choice I have left.

I predict that McCain will start using the term 'middle class' in each of his boring speeches from now until Nov 3rd.  He's that kind of candidate: "say anything to get elected"

I would predict that Palin would use it too, but apparently she has been rendered mute by her own campaign.  I don't blame them.  If they tried to get her work a talking point into one of her non sequitur responses, it would sound something like 'backpack.  i've had two jobs all of my life.  9-11.  terrorist.  mature decision.  pouton.  where'd he go? middle class."   Just smile and be pretty Sarah.  Do what you do best:  roll the women's movement back years at a time each time you open your mouth.

What will win the election for Obama is not converted Republicans- although it doesn't hurt.  What will win this election are the independents who don't trust government enough to commit to either party and who can tell that John McCain is a phony who will do, say, and choose as a running mate anything or anyone who he thinks will get him elected. He has run a desperate campaign and his desperation will be his undoing.  In addition, Obama has inspired millions of formerly non-voters to come to the polls on his behalf.  This is what will change the country.

I posted before but I don't see it.  26000 of us Virginians stood in the pouring rain for two hours yesterday to hear our future president and vice president lay out their vision of the future.  I held someone's toddler on my shoulders for an hour to give them a break (and I don't even like kids that much) and I danced with a 90 year old woman (to Stevie Wonder, no less) who is voting for the first time.  None of you Republicans seem to get it.  Obama is the candidate of change.

SDB,

Your point is well taken on inspiration.  People need to find it wherever and in whomever they see fit.  My only counter is to suggest that both JFK and Ronald Reagan inspired people.  Their legacies influence the politics of today.  That's bigger than any single vote or policy.  Barack IS my first choice, not some consolation prize because I don't like anyone else.  Do you think people aspire to be like George Bush?  Will future generations be tying themselves to his policies or the era that he presided over like they do with my two examples of inspirational presidents?

71......As a vet, i find it hard to stomach that McCain would be a good leader just because he is a risk taker.  A good leader needs to be able to use insight and judgment to make decisions.  Since there will be a lot of decisions for our next president to make, i find it hard to look back on John's extensive record in congress and feel that the safety of my nation is in good hands.

Harrysmom asked.....
"In your eyes what makes Obama the next President?"

-i have found that Black Men seem to try harder, and are driven to do a good job when given the chance.

Guys like John McCain have a narrow view of the world.......it's too easy, even though they survived Hanoi Hilton.

Obama slightly widens lead after debate, poll finds.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll29-2008sep29,0,57477.story

But I'm sure the Drudge Report poll is much more scientific and reliable.

@toe:

<i>while you may not think too much of him, FDR was an enormously popular President-</i>

One of the most popular presidents ever, in fact. And I never said I didn't think much of FDR. He was a president that was also a person, and had flaws and several top advisors who were active Communists (Truman and Eisenhower had the same problem there) that didn't always advise him well. FDR's decision in Malta being one example. 

I just like things in context. Which president first proposed a form of Social Security? Herbert Hoover. FDR made it happen, tho. The two president's most responsible for our national parks? Republican's Herbert Hoover and Teddy Roosevelt. 

Thank you Palin.

Guadoo said:
"But I'm sure the Drudge Report poll is much more scientific and reliable."

That's true enuff Guadoo  ..  the L.A. Times is one of the biggest HACK papers out there.  Only the misinformed read that paper. 

McCain won the debate.  OBAMA looked out of place, which i do not understand since he had a teleprompter there to tell him what to say..  That was puzzling.  I knew thinking on his feet was not a strength, but jeezh, just read it. 

McCAIN started slow and finished strong.  just the way to do it.  I think not looking at OBAMA had an affect on OBAMA"S EGO which is HUGE.  It worked perfectly.  It also indicated that OBAMA is easily rattled.  And he was rattled.

Debate  McCAIN 1
OBAMA 0

Next up:
PALIN
BIDEN

Palin will cream him.

Hehehehehe.  Not looking at Obama did not have a positive impact on John's appearance.  It made 'him' look elitist, angry, and un-presidential.  The whole point of this setup was so they could have a dialogue, exchange words.  Not looking at someone while you're talking to them makes us wonder what you have to hide.  He barely even looked at him when they shook hands at the beginning.  He looked adolescent.

Palin will cream Biden?  I don't know about that.  Did you see her cream Couric?  Didn't she just knock the Bush Doctrine question out of the park?  I think I would have a better chance of beating Biden, and that's scary.

The only thing that might save her is the format, designed to keep answers short and with no 'conversation' time in between.  She got a pass on that one and might be able to take advantage of it, BUT in the end, Biden will be the obvious victor.

Consistantly Republican Newspaper endorses Obama for President:
"Barack Obama is our choice for president of the United States. He has demonstrated time and again he can think on his feet. More importantly, he has demonstrated he will think things through, seek advice and actually listen to it.
Obama is a gifted speaker. But in addition to his smarts and energy, possibly his greatest gift is his ability to inspire.
For eight years, American politics has been marked by smears, fears and greed. For too long, we've practiced partisanship in Washington, not politics. The result is a cynicism every bit as deep as that which infected the nation when Richard Nixon was shamed from office and when Bill Clinton brought shame to the office.
This must end, but John McCain can't do it. He can't inspire, nor can he really break from a past that is breaking this nation.
McCain is an American hero, and he has served this country in the Senate with determination. He has gone against his party, but the fact is his ties to the Bush administration and its policies are deep. Americans know we cannot keep going down this path.
McCain, who has voted consistently for deregulation, started off two weeks ago declaring the U.S. economy fundamentally sound but ended the week sounding like a populist. Who is he really?
He tends to shoot from the hip and go on gut instinct. The nation cannot go through four more years of literally and figuratively shooting now and asking questions later."
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/A_OPINION01/809280301/-1/A_OPINION

Obama did miss the boat on some things, though.  He could've nailed McCain on a few more issues, but chose not to for some reason.  I was disappointed in that.

Just the history of John's last 10 days, quickly highlighted, would've been good.  Jeez!  If my boss was that impulsive, and that wrong, he wouldn't be my boss anymore - I'd be his.

My last comment was flagged as spam, because I've written three comments in the last 10 minutes?  Wierd.  Hmmm....I somehow feel discriminated against.  But, I guess that makes sense....

Good bye.

Hobo- What planet are on?  Obama had no teleprompter at the debates-

He had no teleprompter when he came here-  Actually-when he came here,  The initial bldg planned to be used for the meet and greet was unable to accommodate those wanting to see and hear him- it was quickly moved outdoors - even at this, the line just to get into the parking lot for standing room was over a mile long in both directions-  this in a community of 48,000 people that have traditionally voted Republican. 
To be fair, across the street were 7 people holding McCain signs.
Colorado will be voting for Obama. 
 

With, regards to "Drudge"- it is described as a "conservative news aggregation website".
“He is the center of personality-obsessed, attack-based politics. That is the content Drudge looks for,” Glenn Greenwald says. “He’s a right-wing hack.” Greenwald is a leader among the phalanx of left-wing Internet groups and voices, from Salon to Media Matters to Talking Points Memo, that is taking Drudge on as the snake in the Eden of American democracy, the guy who gets the media to take seriously trivial or scurrilous gossip, like John Edwards’s $400 haircut, or the Swift Boat Veterans’ attack on John Kerry ..."
http://nymag.com/news/media/36617/
The host here has, on many occasions, cited his use of "Drudge" as the basis of his "research" - however, when someone (Drudge) has a clear leaning and seeks to place links to support that leaning I would not exactly call it a non-biased "media source". 
I would be hard-pressed to name any single news "source" as being objective, and why I have always read and listened to a wide range of publications and newscasts and commentators. The best "source" will always come directly from the "horses mouth".  The only way for one to get the entire picture is to look at the entire picture... 20 second snippits taken from a 75 minute speach hardly represents the entire picture. 

"speech"  ^

Let's see... balrokhusseiNObama was the attorney for Ecorn's money trail$????????
and ha$ had all thi$ 100 day$ on the $enate Komunity-preparing network$ on media-justice-gov$... pursuing people "who dare to think like me" announcing "change'$" (made from lib-megaterrorlogi$tic $ocial gov$-machine$, ye$ nazi u$e of the money)???????
and announcing recently publicly to "destroywallstreet&banks"...
Ok, I have lots of terror logistic authorities sourrounding me from "family, job, paralegal reality"..., ok, "I live on a terror sanctuary city, ok"...
well, "my terrornetwork" esbirro$, I told you "WE WHERE GOING FOR THE "big" ONES, sadam, fidel..., you know, the ones who NO LONGER APPEAR TALKING LIKE SARUMAN... "live"...
ok, the balrokhusseiNObama mill$, all megacrime friends, "friendlyenemie$", leftists, marxists, comunists, hamas, chavez, castros, ayatolas... the 300$...
And terror$anctuary#1 Nothingham countie$ (no God at school$) wants me to think "my political family is not political", even 20years-activity coyotes castro-related, police bringing kids even today, noriega-related "other side" "of my sudden new family", "boss salary" publix, winndixie, a terrorists farc gerrilla stealing my ID...
You know what, I'm not telling the list of BIG POSSITION AUTHORITIES CAPTURED BY THE GOOD ONES...
let paradade wooderne$$ mega$candal$ be part of "my 4 of July kind of celebrations"...
ok, MY POLITICAL FAMILY, AND "THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL FAMILY" (including the obama strategist, and other police-related relationships", ok you have an army of police-stuff, inside USA, well, your bigger ones are ready to rumble...

I don't know about anyone else here- but when this multi-named individual posts- the jumbled mess trying to pass as english is so convoluted I don't bother even trying to read it.

A majority of debate watchers in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Saturday picked Obama over Republican John McCain when asked which candidate offered the best proposals to solve the country's problems, 52%-35%. They said Obama did better overall in the debate than McCain, 46%-34%.

simonesdad2008
I did not mean to imply that presidents can't be inspirational.  Only that it is not a requirement for me.  No doubt JFK and Reagan inspired a great many people.  I would submit to you, however, that their legacies were born of their policies, not simply their personalities.

I did not mean to discredit McCain when I said he was not my first choice.  McCain beat the guys I wanted above him and I have to be pragmatic about it.  I do not view him as a consolation prize.  He was not my first choice in the primarys but he is certainly my first choice now.

As far as George Bush goes, I think history will judge him well.  Much better than many people believe right now.  Only time will tell. 

USA TODAY...LOL

SBD,

You are right about George Bush.  History will elvate him past any recent President of memory besides Reagan.  He took it them, and kept us safe.  We held an extremely large and violent foreign land for five years with what in any war would be considered "minimum" fatalities.  Well done Boys!!  Our Military men and women are amazingly efficient and well trained. 
George Bush stuck it out when everyone around him said QUIT!   Hell, he fired Donald Rumsfield!  Guts and level headed, able to see the trees through the forest.  Once he matched another visionary like General Patreaus into the Command position, victory became a reality. 
Yes, George will do well.  I think he has always had that comfort by him in the tough days.  So different from CLINTON who was obsessed with immediate popularity (hence the real estate meltdown). 

BUSH is truly a COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. 

Makes OBAMA look like Michael Jackson.

out.

please, flaggler agency, "coincidentaly a "hispano-skin t-rex's baby NOISING UNSTOPPED, POLICE pursuing me "spyco-selfshutup" as
lib-terrorparaland$ don't show mercy for the "uncitymember" at the middle of they realfaceuncovered falling empire$, anti-war on Iraq...
paralegal "menthal at the end accusation of someting is wrong with the "uncitymember, the by a miracle guest", rap-hip kind of "cellphone ringer"... 
the hispano t-rex, "looks like a whole police local captain", from dadeland$, alvarezsystems, anamontesystems, chavez, noriega, castros, etc, system$...
and enjoying "their justice, and whatching it on cnn, or even some fox's, like sadam would still doing (or I hope, manoriega has no wright to cable like me), in fact, paradadeland$ lanlord$&manager$ rule, is $ymple $y$tem..
it is as friendlymedia@informals 's traces of fire over the darkness say...
a sanctuary for the anti-war on Iraq, and Bush's allies...
the real ones, the active anti-terrorists, the mayority voting GOP...
and, this time, their candidate fires off the job any "campaigner" he considers...
because what he denies on war and economy is bigger in power than he's Media¶lands...
and it always be...

Commander of Thieves would be ever so much more accurate.
I don't know how old you are, Hobo- but I do hope you are around long enough to see how this presidency will be noted by historians. 
Apparently the general consensus already available NOW you dismiss.Tell me, Hobo, just what do you consider a credible source?  I would seriously like to know.   What paper?  What news program?  What journalist?
You pfft every source placed here so please inform us.

sorry Mcain campaign, what I meaned was GOP voting, dems&reps not liberal is bigger in power than bananamamarama-biden, hillary, whatever...
that % didn't showed up during the 90's, because pre-drivebymedia...
para miamidade landlord$&manager$ and soFla's voting is same than actual lib congress: 10%,...
that's why sofla is a terror logistics sanctuary...
that's why "anybody would find wise opportunity window$" by helping terror enemies facing the city treatments these "political or public order or civic liders" serving the enemy help self-declared castro declaration of (terrorist) to my political party I'm a strategist and the city knows about, political assylum trails on Europe before (90's by the way), I mean, pre-info, like they show to my cases"...
so I will wait to get more of their names, or windows to get them to account calling, I swear of God...

so, the baby still noising the public paradadeland$ library $Y$TEM$
ohhh, amy (balrok's campaigner, "strategists") you got a hip-hop-rap kind of cellphone ring next to me aah?
Ok, learn a taste on me, the more ted machine over me, the more imbeciles fall, as usual, those "powers", those possitions", those falls...
enjoy your police or justice, or big one's babies later, on their no God at school$...

My source was myself watching McCAIN hand OBAMA a defeat in the political arena.  I need no one to tell me who won.  It was quite clear.
Now if only OBAMA can finish the race and make us all forget how important foreign policy issues are.   Good luck with that one.

And yes Toe, i am the same, when i see someone unable to use the English language as intended, i simply don't read the post.  Publik Skool graduate I'm sure.  makes a teachers Union proud doesn't it?

out.

@HOBOBOH
Well said my friend.  A real person with an opinion not relying on the NYT ot LAT to tell him who won the debate.

@toe: "Consistantly Republican Newspaper endorses Obama for President:"

Well, that certainly changed my mind. Um, no, actually, it didn't. There explanation could be summed up: "We have more liberals on the editorial board than we used to, so guess what?"

Been there, done that

@toe: "I don't know about anyone else here- but when this multi-named individual posts- the jumbled mess trying to pass as english is so convoluted I don't bother even trying to read it."

Yeah, I'm also passing on those. Too convoluted. Reminds me of the unabomber.

BTW, I think Bush will be treated much better by history than we regard him, as is often the case. But his presidency will be considered a mixed bag, as many are.

I think Clinton will be treated pretty well, too. Most two-term presidents get enough done that history has enough to look at to give them some credit where credit is due.

Traditionally, the regard of history is frequently different from the partisan sniping that is happening at the time.

toe, you suffer from a terrible selective ignorance. Go and check the transcript of the CNN/YouTube debate, on July 24th, 2007. Obama was asked: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" Obama responded, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

(CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13876/democratic_debate_transcript_cnnyoutube.html

Ok? So stop preaching your faux 'truths' on this forum and projecting yourself as some sort of a guru on all matters political, while you are ignorant at best and a ridiculous spinner most likely.  Sure, after Obama has been criticized for the respective ineptitude, he started switching from 'precondition' to 'preparation' in his usual fashion. Who are you kidding? Show me one single position that he's been consistent on, just one! And thanks for recommending me which news outlet to watch, maybe if you watched less MSNBC you'd actually stand a chance to at least 'appear' less left-biased and ignorant yourself. 

toe, I am afraid you are the ignorant here. During his interview with Katie Couric on CBS News, Joe Biden (AKA Gaffemaster) had this to say exactly:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘look, here’s what happened.’”

Where to start. First of all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected 1932 — the market crashed in 1929. so stop spinning the Depression' issue here,  what he said was 'when the stock market crashed', ok?

And here's some useful info for you:

'Commercially available since the late 1930s, the television set has become a common communications  receiver in homes, businesses and institutions, particularly as a source of entertainment and news.'

I say my man won and you say your guy won.  We are all entitled to our opinions.  There has been a positive and discernible uptick favoring Barack since the debates though.  I'm cautiously optimistic about that because we know that W never won a debate in his life but managed to win the White House twice. 

McCain made the brilliant tactical move of attaching himself to this financial crisis.  Now it appears it has spun out of control (certainly out of his control). While he was criticizing Barack and patting himself on the back for the solution, the whole thing fell apart.  One could argue that this is more urgent now than when Old Man River "suspended" his campaign last week.  I'll be interested to see if he will ride back into DC to save the day again.  Ha! Ha!  I seriously doubt it.  Even scarier for Father Time is if this thing is still front and center come Thursday.  Very seasoned politicians can't get their arms around the complexity of this.  Let's see if the Grandma can articulate her position on it.  Ha! Ha! 

and more for you, toe, before you start spinning the issue again, I somehow am pretty sure that you'll start lecturing us (alas, again!!) on how Biden actually  meant the 1933 crash that Roosevelt was addressing in his inaugural speech, or the 1937 one we all tend to forget at times that you are an vital component of Biden's thought mechanism or process :-) and possibly in his running mate's too (oups, I forgot, I meant their first one on the ticket :-), otherwise how can we explain that you have so much Biden's head's 'insider  knowledge'

The first televised inauguration address? Harry truman in 1949.

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/inaugural-quiz/answer-03.html#answer
'In 1949, the inauguration of President Harry S Truman and vice president Alben W. Berkley was the first to be televised'

and here's some more for you, toe, before you start spinning the issue (alas, again!!!) and start lecturing us on how actually Biden meant the 1933 stock market plunge that he talked about in his inaugural address, or maybe the 1937 'crash'.  We are not quite sure what Biden meant, and probably he does not know either :-), since there wasn't any source handy to plagiarize while he was responding to Couric Also it has nothing to do with the fact  that he's not the most thoughtful of speakers and usually when he opens his mouth he inserts foot in it in a matter of seconds. But what we all tend to forget at times is that you are a vital component of Biden's thought mechanism or shall I say process. And most likely a vital part of his running mate's one too (oups, sorry, did I say 'running mate', I meant their first on the ticket of course :-).  Otherwise how could we explain your Obama and Biden's heads' 'insider knowledge?'

So, here: the first televised inauguration address? Harry S Truman in 1949.

Harry S Truman and Alben Barkeley were the first president, respectively vp to be televised. 

Oh, have you noticed that 95 dems voted against the bill? Hmm, this after Obama assured us the whole weekend that oh, piece of cake, stay optimistic, the bill would pass Monday at latest :-)...oh, it's Mon and ...the bill didn't pass!
 

So while the country is left twisting in a financial whirlwind the Democrats are upset because the House wouldn't pas all the pork the DEM'S loaded the bailout with.  Well done Dem's.  Way to put the country first. 

out.

HoBo.....
I thought this was John McCain's Bailout Bill?

Yea- Romney lauded McCain's leadership on this whole thing.  The Pelosi made a speech and they got their feelings hurt, so they voted against McCain's bill.  Boo hoo.  Way to put "Country First".  

If you ask me, these House Republicans are putting Self First.  They have unhappy constituents to answer to in November and it seems that their seat on the hill matters more to them than McCain's desired seat in the oval office.  So much for leadership.  So much for country.  So much for McCain's campaign.  

McCain is imploding so quickly before our eyes it's almost difficult to watch.  And we won't even go into the Palin catastrophe!  lmao

So, the bloggerstockler articulated English-police kevin s willis don't ever realizes all I say it's on talk radio, mostly, and of course internet. willis "defends" Bush "apparently", but is not value ecco and no-match for unified entertainment anti-assymetric media fire trace...
Where is pelosiraptor's psyco-words willis?, toe?, ted f?, dr.walters?, it's not the first time they are cought hurting America while help terror with what they need from the inside the USA, it came before "Vietnam", Iraq showed theirselves, and the "new Ecorn"...
And, to "my counterpart" bho "strategist" amy, so you did it again?, no?, ryan put me to sleep on your paradadelan$, "NOBODY KNOWS...", "the rap-hipkind of cellringer... "touchy, like ted's himself's job"...
obama has long megacrime records, terror long relations, self long declarations recordings messages helping terror on what the need...
so you are one of the masterbrain on the plots?, did you know arrested psycologist for miamidade police for 30 years castro-anamontes systems agent?...
Do any of the imbecile "authoritie$" of the most terror $anctuary inside USA know my "records", or it is only miamideath counties doctors, and justice "people" who will increase balrok husseiNObama's gov$ control$ even before november? to the rest of the country?...
pelosi has the votes to do what Bush or Mcain shall do without a blinck...
to fix the economy and increase the ofensive (the best defense) on the war on terror lib$ $ay is "a boompersticker"... "the war is lost"... live the terrorist alone, meet them, drink tea and eat kebaaps, go to (walters) barbara's stage, sing fidel happy birthday "mr president" (the other barbara)
help the barbarians destroy "rome", your (by the way) no-God "rome", in fact, your sodoma...

this used to be a pretty good blog to find some good debate and get some well thought out perspective.  now it's turned into a place where some person, who doesn't seem to know the difference between the name entry line and the comment box keeps ranting like a lunatic. 

Urban conservative- you need to clean house.

happy camper is right, not anti-terror bloggers fill sites since long ago, the have mill$...
but happy camper, If you meaned "the only one person who doesn't seem to know the difference between the name entry line and the comment box keeps ranting like a lunatic". 
Learn to use name entry line, anti-a$$ymetricly, are you sure you are enough pro-Iraq war, for example, to be here "ordering articulaTED changes"?
do you know the actual time stages, freemedia firetraces, anti-assymetricly?
common, write down then on "it"
be anti-terrorist, like Bush record re-election voting... 

the entire world thinks republicans are idiots 

amber - and the entire world thinks that amber is a woman's name and that you are an uninformed-public-school-drop-out-liberal-idiot. So, please come back anytime with your clearly articulated comments about Republicans.

UC.....sometimes, short and sweet works.
World wide, most will laugh at Republicans.  I don't, however.....i respect the Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves, and Rick Davis's of the party for their ability to present shit sandwiches for public consumption.

david - as long as it's free right?

Oh, they cost.....and because of that and the stink.....
i don't partake.

Calm down UC!

Amber is right on about the world's view on the Presidential race - Obama is the leader we want to see in the White House.

If you think anti-Us sentiment was bad after Bush got in you have no idea. I don't think we will ever forgive you if Mccain wins.

From your mate in Australia.

Obama/Biden 08!!!

Another foreigner who thinks he knows how the ENTIRE world feels about OUR election.

I'll put that in the "WHO CARES" column.

out.

HoBo......
i s'pose it doesn't matter what foreigners think, they don't vote, huh?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8WvoRnUTs6fEo8Os3k4YlshdOvQD93HL9N81
Quinnipiac University poll, presidential race in Ohio among likely voters. (The state has 20 electoral votes.)
THE NUMBERS: Barack Obama 50 percent, John McCain 42 percent.
THE POLL: Quinnipiac University poll, presidential race in Florida among likely voters. (The state has 27 electoral votes.)
THE NUMBERS: Barack Obama 51 percent, John McCain 43 percent.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/polling.xml
But voters in the good ol USA are waking up to republican BS......
OUT!

That's right Dave, when it comes to our elections, it's not their business.  Just like I can have my personal feelings about who the Australians elect, but it shouldn't affect the average voter in Aussie land, unless they have pudding for brains that is.

It's not a popularity contest.  It's a contest of Principles. 

out.

Hobo-hoe- do you seriously believe that international goodwill is unimportant?  Are you living under a rock?  I just want to go on record from our Friend from Down Under that MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT LIKE THESE IDIOTS.  I hope that this fact is to some extent commonly understood and helps to stop you all from banning us from visiting your country or trading goods and services with you.  In fact, if McCain wins (which doesn't look like it will happen), you might just find several hundred thousand of us applying for visas.  :)  
Hobo-hoe, that would make you happy wouldn't it?  Well, read up on the fall of Rome.

The goodwill process by which the United States operates does INCLUDE:

MASSIVE charities and foreign aid unlike NO other country.

FLOATING the U.N. (for what its worth)

FLOATING NATO (for what its worth)

LETTING People come here with relative ease and enjoying our society and economy (try and go work in Australia and see how that goes, heck even Mexico, u don't have to travel far to see the difference)  We have the most open border anywhere.

However, our goodwill does not extend to CARING about who the "foreign" countries wish US to elect to the White House.  Not their business.   They can comment all they want, but we shouldn't CARE one whit what they want.  Go and elect your own folks.  These are ours.

So go ahead and file your visas.  Don't forget to come back every six months for three days.  Just make sure you take Alec Baldwin along.  We'd appreciate it.

And I would like to state to our Aussie friend that "Harry" IS indicative to the wamby pamby wishy washy sort that is fooled by Socialism.

out.

Change you can trust, a slogan that could turn around McCain's campaign?
Change you can trust contrasts beautifully with change you can believe in.
Everyone wants change, only with a team that we can trust to implement it.
If you're in a tough spot, you want someone to come to help you that you can trust, not someone you believe may want to help you.
John McCain, polls show, is rated as highly qualified and highly trusted.  This slogan, change you can trust, reinforces this message.
It can even be added on to John McCain’s current slogan.  Country first, change you can trust.  Or perhaps Change you can trust that puts Country first.  Or how about Change you can trust that puts America first
It implies without directly saying it that the other side is perhaps a little less trustworthy.
It also reinforces the message that in a time we were facing battle with Al Qaeda worldwide and two conventional wars, John McCain is a commander in chief you can trust to lead us to victory.
There are 30 days left before Election Day.  Sarah Palin’s debate performance was good, but it's really up to John McCain to win.
CHANGE You Can TRUST
CHANGE You Can TRUST to put COUNTRY FIRST
CHANGE You Can TRUST to put AMERICA FIRST
CHANGE  -  TRUST
 COUNTRY FIRST
John, are you listening???
http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/10/change-you-can-trust-slogan-that-could.html

I already submitted my comment.

It saddens me to watch the utmost stupidity shown by all those Americans who have been blinded by Obama, the “Manchurian Candidate”.  It’s inconceivable and tragic that in the 21st century, with the Internet and so many other information channels available to research our candidates, Obama followers don’t have the initiative (or brains) to get the true facts.  John McCain represents the true American values and traditions of today and those of fifty years ago (situations may change, but not these), has the experience to govern (perfect or not), and his record proves that he will put our country first.  Obama is a Muslin radical (although he denies it) with unsavory associates, “mentors” and sponsors some “not of this country”, in his past.  The fact that he’s intelligent and a good speaker does not guarantee that he will capable; his record doesn’t show any significant accomplishment to date. Based on his background, Obama is an alien to me; I personally fear that he may get elected because he still hasn’t shown his true colors.  This is the reason I wouldn’t even consider his arguments.  Anybody can promise.  Obama followers, if you love and cherish your homeland and love your family, please set aside your partisan affiliations and do what’s right for our country: vote for John McCain.

"It saddens me to watch the utmost stupidity shown by all those Americans who have been blinded by Obama....."
Colette, please don't be too sad.
Many Americans like me are tired of "Values" talk, pandering to us as if we can be placated with words. McCain says he "loves" veterans, yet he votes against funding our overcrowded VA hospitals and for increased benefits for those who have served.
You seem to be worried by Obama's connections to a 60's radical.  Yes, they may have been in the same room together, yet John McCain accepted large sums of money from Charles Keating in return for favors Senator McCain did on behalf of this felon......can you say bribery?
I cherish my nation, i have given my health in the service of this country, and i saddens me to see it go down the drain by those who do favors for the lobbyist, and merely "talk" to the rest of us.

Been in the same room together Dave?  It is statements like these which washes away any of your credibility to be considered a thinker.

So we have the perfect storm brewing for America (the great experiment).

1.) A financial meltdown (caused by dem's, tyvm)

2.) The rogue state of Iran getting the bomb in January (caused by the dem's)

3.) An inept possible President (Obama) at the wheel (caused by the dem's)

The dream which was America is almost over. 

Cherish the freedom that you have left. 

You may not have it much longer.

out.

For one person's perspective on how you can make a decision to support Obama AND vote for John McCain, see the YouTube video below:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpsdKUQ1nKA
 
Feel free to forward this to any "undecided" voters you know of. This will be a VERY close election and we need every single vote we can get. Demonizing Obama will get us a few votes (and also lose us at least a few votes) but I hope that a rational, positive thought process will persuade a few people who are still on the fence.
 
Regards, Dan

Hi I hope Mcain/Obama wins seirously he is awsome he has a girl running or/African American running. Its awsome.