Go To:
Contact:
Polls:
Other Notable Sites
There may be an objective way to score tonight's debate. Assuming one could find anyone objective to score it. My subjective take was that McCain won on foreign policy debate points, and Obama won on style and presidential diplomacy. Both men demonstrated a knowledge of geography, the hot spots in the world of foreign policy, and the names of leaders of various nations. There were no guffaws.
Depending on where you stand on Iraq, McCain or Obama won. Depending on whether you believe our nation's future depends upon diplomacy and cooperation or a president capable and willing to pull a trigger without hesitation, Obama or McCain won.
On the economy, both lost. Neither would respond to the repeated question by Jim Lehrer regarding spending cuts. Neither was willing to alienate any voters who may be receiving tax dollar benefits. Both were grossly dishonest with American voters regarding how they will deal with the deficits about to double with the bailout resolution.
On emotional heart tugs, McCain won with his recollections of our troops and their words. On stature and poise, Obama won as the only one of the two willing to look at his opponent and talk to his opponent.
But this was just round one, and this election will not likely hinge on foreign policy as much as it will with the voter's preoccupation with job security, credit accessibility, and costs of living.





Expand - Collapse Comment
10:37 PM, 09 26 2008 | Permalink
Both candidates did a good job David. Both sides can claim victory and both sides can wonder if they changed a mind of an undecided voter, I kind of doubt it. It will all come down to Guns and Butter or Butter and Guns in November if this debate is any indication.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
David R. Remer replied to j2t2 at: :
10:39 AM, 09 27 2008 | Permalink
j2t2,
There are voters who will be looking to FactCheck to see who they will vote for. Here are the highlights of FactCheck's take on the debate:
* Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.
* Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.
* McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.
* McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.
* Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.
* McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.
* Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.
* Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
* McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.
* McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
9:54 AM, 09 27 2008 | Permalink
In my opinion, Obama made the best score when Obama said McCain was wrong about WMD, U.S. Troops being greeted as liberators, etc. That goes directly to judgement, and McCain's judgement was wrong many times. However, John McCain still believes that the occupation of Iraq is making the U.S. safer, despite the fact that the terrorists of 9/11/2001 were not from Iraq. However, as you point out, depending on your own position on Iraq, either won.
McCain's camp then quickly created an ad showing Obama saying John McCain was "right" about some issues. In my opinion, that's sinking pretty low and proves nothing, except that the McCain camp is sinking pretty low.
Obama missed many opportunities.
Yes, both were abismal on the economic issues. McCain didn't even answer the question, unless McCain thinks cutting pork-barrel alone will solve all spending problems.
To know who the real winner of the debate was will be whether either candidate pick up more votes (in the polls), and ultimately the election. I don't think McCain will win the election, but it will be close.
As a result, and since the economy is issue # 1, the debate was sort of like trimming the hedges while the house is burning.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
David R. Remer replied to d.a.n at: :
10:50 AM, 09 27 2008 | Permalink
d.a.n said: "Obama missed many opportunities. "
Man, ain't that the truth.
At least a dozen times during the debate I saw huge opportunities for Obama to count coux on McCain, and he didn't. Obama prepared for this and stuck to his preparation, rather than risk spontaneity. That may have been the wiser course of action given his lead in the polls.
But, Obama had opportunities to tie McCain to Phil Gramm. He had an open door to trounce McCain on Iran and McCain's failures to 'understand' who the players are. Obama missed many opportunities to hit McCain on McCain’s false claim of never taking pork. In 2006, McCain teamed up with fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl (R) to funnel $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Even Arizona lawmaker, Rep. Jeff Flake (R), said he was planning to “lean against the measure.” The National Taxpayers Union, another traditional McCain ally, questioned why the senator was making federal taxpayers foot the bill for the center.
In 2003, McCain also slipped $14.3 million into a defense appropriations bill to
create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. As Roll Call reported in 2003, this project violated McCain’s own anti-pork rhetoric:
The only problem is the project to acquire more land near the base was not requested by President Bush or fully authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee - two of McCain’s criteria for identifying so-called ‘pork.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
d.a.n replied to David R. Remer at: :
1:13 PM, 09 27 2008 | Permalink
And there was also that $1 Million dollar earmark by McCain for the brown tree snake in Guam.
McCain has also, as all in Congress, voted on lots of BILLs with pork-barrel. It's unavoidable since they ALL do it. So, by that measure, no one in Congress is innocent of voting for pork-barrel, waste, subsidies, and welfare for the wealthy.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
David R. Remer replied to d.a.n at: :
2:48 PM, 09 27 2008 | Permalink
d.a.n, quite right. Obama scored a solid point in highlighting McCain's voting FOR most of Bush's budgets which doubled our national debt in 8 years.
Of course, I think Obama did as well. So the point was blunted considerably by that consideration.
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
Akif G. Agayev said at :
12:44 PM, 10 06 2008 | Permalink
I hope somebody will read this.
I was raised in Soviet Union. I have studied socialism. I have read Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.
First expression about Obama and his speeches and policies was very familiar to me.
I started studying his biography and political career. His association with Bill Ayers and knowledge of socialism theories pointed me to very familiar facts. Vladimir Lenin in his analysis of Russian revolution in 1917 points to a 3 major conditions in the country and one major move by Bolsheviks (Russian’s revolution agitators) which allowed him to accomplish seizing power over Russian Democratic Government.
Here they are:
1. Country at war. (Russia was at war with Germany and people been opposing it.)
2. Economical downfall (After 1913 best economy Russia fell into economical crisis.)
3. Real estate crisis (Russian government failed to distribute land for land owners.)
And last major move by Bolsheviks who infiltrated there agitators to an army, factories and farms to get farmers and blue collar workers involved in overthrowing government.
Obama knows these canonical rules. His involvement with ACORN and “Public Alliance” agitators proves it even more. Doesn’t it sound similar with situation in United States now? He is betting on it and his agenda is Socialism. Please make it known.
Akif G. Agayev | October 6, 2008 12:44 PM
Reply to this comment