The 1st Presidential Debate is Over!My first thought, good debate.
It was like a boxing match. They both took hits. Obama was bashed a bit in the 1st half hour. I would give the first 30 mins to McCain.
In the 2nd half hour, Obama came back. Still lots of punching. McCain seemed rough and contentious almost dismissive, like a grumpy old man. It didnt work. I give the 2nd half hour to Obama.
The last half hour, Obama hit back hard. McCain still punching away.
What I took away from this, if this Campaign is about CHANGE, Obama won the debate.
Obama appeared Presidential, positive, diplomatic and able to take a punch. If America wants change, they will vote for Obama.
Obama talked about the future, his plans for Diplomatic solutions, a timeline to the end of war, economic plans for the future, tax reductions for 95% of Americans, oversight for the Bailout to ensure the taxpayers are paid back and the WS execs do not receive million dollar bonuses. He also talked about the need for Education for our children and Healthcare.
Even though McCain was loud, angry and forceful, he said nothing new. His plans sounded like four more years of the last eight years. He talked about staying in Iraq until the war is won, not backing down to Russia or Iran or any other enemies of our country. He talked about setting up a separate group vs the UN to sanction countries that are our enemies. He did not talk about economic solutions, instead McCain said nothing about Education and laughed at Healthcare solutions. His economic plan even includes taxing employers-workers for employer sponsored healthcare benefits. (That hits MY pocketbook!) Some might say McCain was strong on the War. Some would say he won from a Defense-Military perspective. However, to me, that is scary. It sounds like he advocates War with Iran, Russia, and everyone else who makes him angry and he will not seek diplomacy. His last words were the scariest, "I know what to do and I will take care of it." Sounds like he is running for Dictator, NOT President!
I removed my LIVE notes from last night and summarized my notes into the blog itself. I did store them for reference.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like the majority of news channels and blogs agree with my saying Obama narrowly won the debate last night. They also agreed with my candidate of change vs 4 more of the last 8 years comments.
ReplyDeleteFact checking the first presidential debate
ReplyDeleteI knew Obama was right. Then McCain twisted the truth about Kissinger. Obama said "we" then McCain changed the context by saying "Presidents" when Obama was referencing "Without Preconditions." Silly McCain!
ReplyDeleteOBAMA: "Sen. McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who is one of his advisers, who along with five recent secretaries of state just said we should meet with Iran - guess what? - without preconditions."
MCCAIN: "Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve face-to-face meetings between the president of the United States and (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad. He did not say that. He said there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings. I've always encouraged that."
THE FACTS: Obama was right that Kissinger called for meetings without preconditions. McCain was right that Kissinger did not call for such meetings to be between the two presidents.
In a foreign policy forum on Sept. 15, Kissinger said: "I am in favor of negotiating with Iran." He went on to say, "I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level" and the U.S. should go into the talks with "a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about? But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government."
Obama was right, but so was McCain. Silly McCain?? What about silly Obama for not being clear in what he said, specifics are the same as semantics, the word, a single word, can change the entire meaning of the sentence.
ReplyDeleteLiquid,
ReplyDeleteMcCain changed the context. Imagine this discussion between me and you.
Dee: 30 days has sept, april june and november. Kissinger said so.
Liquid: LIAR. Kissinger DID NOT there were 30 days in February.
Dee: He did say there weree 30 days in sept, april, june and november.
Liquid: LIAR. He did not say February.
McCain clearly changed the context!
Although I agree we should talk with our enemies at some level, the progress made in the Israel vs Hamas talks has been extremely limited and I'm not sure Hamas has ever recanted the idea of destroying Israel. This seems to suggest that Achmadinajad[sp?]
ReplyDeleteis not likely to publicly and sincerely recant his similar pronouncements. As Obama admitted, North Korea seems to have played us for the fool, accepting aid, but now reopening its nuclear plants. Neville Chamberlain found out to his chagrin that you can't really negotiate with dictators. In spite of the Kissinger/Nixon to China initiative, that country remains bellicose and is the fastest rising power in the world while holding $0.5 -$1 trillion of our debt. I heard nothing from either candidate regarding how they intended to right that situation and even out the balance of trade with China before our entire country belongs to the Middle East and China.
Obama never did indicate which of his grandiose plans he was willing to scrap in the face of the current financial crisis and the high price tag of the bail out. An even better question would have been, "How are you going to balance the budget and begin to pay down the national debt at the same time as you are adding $800 billion in new spending?" What he is really proposing is to continue the Dems rep for tax and spend policies.
When Obama said loopholes substantially reduced the tax rate on businesses from the high level of 35% compared with Ireland's 11% which has led to important economic growth there. McCain didn't have the presence of mind to ask, "What are all these loopholes and how did you arrive at that conclusion? How many of these so-called loopholes are merely generally accepted accounting principles?"
One pundit said the debate was a draw but on that basis would have to be considered a win for Obama, since foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's forte.
I remain very dubious about Obama as president given his past association with felons, his grandiose spending plans,his lack of understanding of the desperate straits of our finances,the lack of a thorough Palin-like examination of his record, say noting about questions about the location of his birth.
And Obama was very loose in his word "we". Semantics, specifics, who is 'we'?
ReplyDeleteMcCain clarified it with his: "Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve face-to-face meetings between the president of the United States and (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad. He did not say that. He said there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings."
You paint with a broad brush, clarity of the picture the further away you stand. I paint with a fine brush clear from a distance and more clear up close, fine detail. Big difference in our pictures.
Ulty,
ReplyDeleteMy friend. I know your support of McCain is tepid at best. You must admit, after the debate, all of us should be nervous. McCain is more than ready to pronounce WW3 against whomever challenges us, whether Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Korea, or anyone else. No diplomacy. Just war. Very, very scary!!
Liquid,
ReplyDeleteForget about semantics. Get to the point of the discussion.
Basically, McCain said we cannot meet with Iran, Obama said we can.
Read my lips: Diplomacy
Your lack of understanding of what they are/have said is where in the problem lies. McCain has always said negotiations would be tried first and that the use of force would be the last resort.
ReplyDeleteYour rhetoric and bias is causing you to become closed minded. You are already set in who you are going to vote for, your a toe the party line hack. First it was Clinton, and you talked down Obama, now that Clinton is out you talk Obama up as the savior.
Liquid,
ReplyDeleteYour rhetoric and bias has caused you to become closed minded.
LISTEN to the WORDS the candidates spoke.
McCain said we cannot meet with Iran, Obama said we can.
Read my lips: Diplomacy
McCain said "there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings. I've always encouraged that."
ReplyDeleteHow is that not Diplomacy? How is that saying McCain said no to any meetings? How does that equate to "McCain is more than ready to pronounce WW3 against whomever challenges us, whether Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Korea, or anyone else. No diplomacy. Just war. Very, very scary!!"
You really are biased and closed minded to think that.
I´d like to see some speech where he actually said this besides saying he said this in the debates.
ReplyDeleteLiquidmicro said...
McCain said "there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings. I've always encouraged that."
Liquid,
ReplyDeleteAd hominem - Name calling does not become you. Stick to the issues.
How many links do you want Dee?
ReplyDeleteAn Enduring Peace Built on Freedom
Securing America's Future
John McCain
Foreign Affairs
Remarks By John McCain To The Los Angeles World Affairs Council
Your the research queen, you could have found all this in a matter of 2 minutes. Keep toeing that line though, it becomes you.
Ulty,
ReplyDeleteWhichever you tube you were referencing is "no longer available."
Liquid,
ReplyDeleteSorry. The McCain websites you reference with his talking points are so full of rhetoric and BS, I did a search on these painful to read bs links but did not find these words "there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings. I've always encouraged that."
NOWHERE.
Show the words!
You're pathetic, Dee. Those exact words "there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings. I've always encouraged that." were only in his Pres. Debate. We are not discussing his exact words, we are discussing his stance on foreign relations, for which you are crying all he wants is WWIII.
ReplyDeleteTwo of those links were speeches he gave. The other is from his own web site.
"In the face of new dangers and opportunities, our next president will have a mandate to build an enduring global peace on the foundations of freedom, security, opportunity, prosperity, and hope."
"The recent years of mismanagement and failure in Iraq demonstrate that America should go to war only with sufficient troop levels and with a realistic and comprehensive plan for success."
"In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well.
"I detest war." It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us."
If you are ready to act like a grown up and discuss this as an adult, then we can continue, otherwise you have lost all credibility in this discussion.
OMG Liquid,
ReplyDeleteDont call me names! You are the pathetic one.
All I read was McCains "blah blah blah!" He said NOTHING!!!
This is all rhetoric!! Lies!!
He advocates 100 MORE YEARS of Endless War!! And No Peace until HE Says So!! PATHETIC!!
You are losing it Liquid! You are becoming a Right Wing Nut Drone! I feel very sad for you!!
McCain on Video:
ReplyDelete100 more years is FINE with him!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain on Thursday defended his statement that U.S. troops could spend "maybe 100" years in Iraq -- saying he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea.
ReplyDeleteDo not be fooled by his rhetoric. McCain plans to keep American troops in Iraq at least 100 more years!!
ReplyDelete"Republican presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain on Thursday defended his statement that U.S. troops could spend "maybe 100" years in Iraq -- saying he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea."
ReplyDeleteWhats so hard to understand in what he said, Dee? Are you daft? Obama has said the same thing, except he wants to shift troops from Iraq, leaving full battalions there, into Pakistan. You, in fact are completely clueless.
McCain has said nothing more than what we already have in Korea, Europe, and many other countries throughout the world to include the USA. Its called strategic placement, unless you have ever served in the armed forces, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Dee says:
ReplyDelete"All I read was McCains "blah blah blah!" He said NOTHING!!!
This is all rhetoric!! Lies!! "
That's because you are simply closed minded!! Not my fault for your ignorance!! Learn to Comprehend or do things need to be 'dumbed down' to a simple level for you to understand?
Obama is only going to remove 'Combat Troops' from Iraq, that leaves behind almost 80,000 troops to stay in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteObama Adviser Suggests Up to 80,000 Troops Remain in Iraq By 2010
Here is the factcheck for your ignorant diatribe of McCain.
The DNC plans "unlimited" spending against McCain; some of its claims are misleading.
"The DNC paints McCain as favoring "endless war" in Iraq. What McCain actually said is that he wouldn't mind a hundred-year troop presence "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.""
"Troop Presence" is the key words here. Comprende?? Obama is saying the same thing, only from a different way, he has you blinded by ignorance.
Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come
ReplyDeleteFrom Democracy Now, February 28, 2008
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will not “rule out” using private military companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. Obama also has no plans to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009. Despite their antiwar rhetoric, both Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton have adopted the congressional Democratic position that would leave open the option of keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for many years."
Open your mind to the actual TRUTH Dee, both candidates are going to do the very same thing in regards to Iraq. Where the differences lye, are what they are going to do with Pakistan and other countries in the area.
"For all their stated differences on Iraq, the two men have largely converged over the course of the campaign. Both have said they would withdraw U.S. troops within the next few years, Obama by mid-2010 and McCain by 2013. Each, however, has offered stipulations that could prolong the military presence."
ReplyDeleteIn debate, Obama and McCain differ sharply on foreign policy
More of what I have repeatedly tried to have you understand!!
liquid, I have seen these same idiotic comments in other pro-illegal, democratic blogs and forums. They are twisting the truth about what McCain meant because they want so badly for Obama to win the election.
ReplyDeleteHow about Obamas EXACT words from his own speech. from the Huffington Post no less!!
ReplyDeleteObama's Full Iraq Speech: "A New Strategy For A New World"
That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki's call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq's Security Forces has testified that Iraq's Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq's security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible "redeployment of our combat troops" that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and "refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests."
....
"To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, "we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.""
So do you now see, there is no difference in Iraq with either McCain nor Obama. Open your eyes and free your mind, maybe then you can make better judgments about your own BS Rhetoric, and I won;t have to 'dumb things down' for you!!
Ulty,
ReplyDeletePerhaps the moderator should have asked, "How are you going to clean up the economic mess created by this Republican Administration?"
Ultima said...
Obama never did indicate which of his grandiose plans he was willing to scrap in the face of the current financial crisis and the high price tag of the bail out. An even better question would have been, "How are you going to balance the budget and begin to pay down the national debt at the same time as you are adding $800 billion in new spending?"
Liquid,
ReplyDeleteI post video of McCain, you post op ed analysis.
Plan for Ending the War in Iraq
ReplyDelete“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.
So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”
—Barack Obama, Clinton, Fayetteville, North Carolina, March 19, 2008
A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
From McCains website:
ReplyDeleteJohn McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.
HE HIMSELF SAYS THERE IS NO TIMETABLE. HE WILL LEAVE WHEN HE BELIEVES (IN HIS GUT) IRAQ CAN GOVERN ITSELF. EVEN IF IT TAKES 100 YEARS!
FROM MCCAINS WEBSITE:
ReplyDeleteThe best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.
IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN RAINBOWS AND LOLLIPOPS AND THE RAINBOW CONNECTION BECOME A REALITY. MAYBE EVEN 1000 YEARS!!
You take what Obama says as gospel and you read into what McCain says to vilify, when in fact they both are saying the same thing. Again your comprehension lacks and only shows your toe the party line rhetoric BS ignorance.
ReplyDeleteKeep trying to belittle my links though, it only shows your true ignorance each and every time, especially when they are word for word of both of their speeches.
Liquid,
ReplyDeleteYou are acting so Republican.
I shared the links from the Candidates websites. There was NO SPIN. Just paste and copy. Their words speak for themselves! Try to read what they are saying and comprehend their perspectives! They ARE different!
And try to remember McCains last words in the debate last friday. He "Just Knows" (Scary):
ReplyDelete"I guarantee you, as president of the United States, I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends."
You copy and pasted the exact same things I did, your comprehension is where the problem is. Acting Republican??? I'm acting as an American, but keep on that line of yours though!!
ReplyDeleteRemember Obamas words in the debate, John is RIGHT!!
ReplyDeleteDEALing with Adversaries?? DEALing with Friends??
ReplyDeleteHIS WORDS make him sound like a Dictator!!