Just an observation but Barrack Obama seemed to be distracted, rattled and at times he almost looked like a scolded puppy dog.

Obama is just way to out of touch with Foriegn policy and National Security.

Sorry fellas, just calling it like I see it.

McCain has such a good grasp of foreign policy, but his domestic answers weren't nearly as good.

these things are painful.

I liked Obamas answers better but McCain definitely came across as more controlled and able to keep his mind on track. Obama had trouble calling up his points and stuttered a lot. In terms of winning the way they presented themselves McCain won. As far as what the answer's that Mr. and Mrs. Average American want to hear I would give to Obama.

This entire economical disaster I think significantly helps the Democrats.

Yes, it does give John McCain an up hill battle.

McCain clearly "won" tonight, IMHO. It seems that's the overwhelming opinion of the talking heads, too.

Obama seemed to keep looking for his telepromptor

Obama without his teleprompter and Sarah Palin without her 3x5 index cards of talking points = 1997 Clodd Tollins "Deer in the Headlights" look

Unfortunately Obama won't (or feels he can't) point out the truth about the was in Iraq, and McCain's approached to foreign affairs. McCain still thinks about these problems in the old way, of fighting nations. He is oblivious that, the reason Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity is BECAUSE we took down Sadam, and had not strategy to handle the aftermath. Most importantly, though, nobody bothered to ask McCain what constitutes a "Win" in Iraq. How do we know when we've won? There is nobody to officially surrender. We win when we leave.

Of course our enemies will say they won when we leave, but they will do so WHENEVER we decide to leave. If he thinks that the US needs to stay actively combative in Iraq, until there is peace among all Iraqis, then he is in for one long conflict. Originally, I was told that we were at war with Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction (they didn't: check), to take down Sadam (mission accomplished: check) and establish democratic self-rule in Iraq (check). Didn't we already do what we were supposed to do?

Between that and agreeing with John McCain, I almost felt like he was asking McCains approval for everything he said.

I don't understand why the pro-choice people don't say that the Republican candidate wants to force your raped daughter to have her baby. The right will say that Obama wants to kill babies. I think the vast number of Americans can see the difference.

that is sure to come up in another debate.

The preceding message has been brought to you by the 1970s National Organization for Women

The debate in 2008 isn't really Abortion Yes/No as Abortion when

IMO neither is really up to the Federal Government, let the states decide

Its clear the nation is divided on this issue.

I'm not so sure about establishing democratic self-rule in Iraq as being in check.

Isn't that for the Generals on the ground to decide when Iraq has a military force that is not littered with corruption and is ready to protect its people from God only knows if we abandon them folks prematurely?

Something John McCain has believed all along.

So, you are suggesting that there is really no way to decide when the war is won, other than on the say-so of the military?

I'm suggesting we have already won the war in Iraq provided we give the country long enough to stabalize.

I also suggest we never announce something that can put our Military and its mission at risk by putting time tables on it to begin with, some folks see the sense in that, others don't.

These debates are only to help you decide who will fcuk up the country less.

That's what the two party system has done to our "free" country.

The war IS won. It's the peace that's proving problematic.

Frankly, the current course of transitioning combat roles to Iraqi units province-by-province, then drawing down our support troops to nothing, is about the best objective measure of "success" you'll get over there. Of course, all that means is that when Iraq goes completely to sh-- in the future, we can point to it and say "Not our fault, we fixed it before we left." Which, frankly, is good enough for me.

I have no issue with a loose time line. But, more important that any date, is the overwhelming sense and acknowledgment that we are in the end stages of the war. We should be actively working toward the removal of our troops.

I don't think that can ever happen. We will are going to leave a mess when we leave, no question, IMO. What mess is the right mess? And the future mess will most certainly be, at least partly, our fault just as Sadam's regime (and Bin Laden's rise) were partly our fault.

Of course. (And thanks for the "partly". That's more nuance than most people I discuss it with understand.) I wasn't suggesting it was a good solution...merely suggesting that it's an objective measure that allows us to declare victory and get out leaving a vague approximation of "stable" behind us (forget democracy. Can't "Export Democracy™". It's a contradiction in terms, forcing free choice on people.)

The reality is that the moment we're completely disengaged (at the latest), Turkey invades the Kurdish north, Iran starts exercising their influence in the Shi'ia regions, the Arab states counter with support to the Sunnis, and the country probably falls apart. The entire Iraqi misadventure is rooted in no small part in the complete misunderstanding of the tribal nature of the region and the stupid American belief that everyone else in the world is just a misguided American who needs to be shown The Way. By our national attitude, "success" (free, stable democracy with whom were bestest friends forever) is completely unattainable. I'm perfectly satisfied with "There, you have law and order, and basic services. You figure out the rest."

I think I may actually agree almost 100% with that post. I'm not sure "law and order" in any real sense, is obtainable, unfortunately, but I believe you are talking about relative law and order, given the region and what just occurred. (And thanks for understanding that forcing democracy on people is absurd. It seems nobody understands that.) I would like to see the public face of the administration talking about the state of the turnover, and the resulting withdrawal every day. I would like the public face of the administration to say, as you did, the war is won, we are now helping to organize the peace and withdraw.

As crazy as it may sound to some, I think one of the President's biggest powers, is the ability to set the agenda and focus the nation. If you talk about terrorism every day, in every speech, then that is likely to be the major focus of/what gets the attention of the nation as a whole. Make the "clean up" the focus, and that will be defined as the immediate goal, and likely to happen more rapidly.

Maybe I'm naive, but this "tough guy" talk from Bush (and to a degree McCain) is not what we need from the next President. We need to be inspired. We need a President that, while not neglecting defense, of course, takes time, every day in every speech, to talk about becoming energy independent (for example) focusing the agenda on creativity, breakthroughs in technology, etc.

Well, I'm tired and just babbling now. So, that will be my PPP contribution to OTW for now.

I mean no disrespect to you Deano and I realize this is a very touchy subject for many Americans.

My little niece just joined the army 3 months ago, she's young, beautiful and she still has her whole life ahead of her. I don't want to see her go to Iraq, but when I brought up the subject to her and asked her if she would want to go there, she said if thats where my country needs me, then yes, its where I want to go.

So its hard for me to see my family members put in harms way, but she understands the situation in Iraq, she knew before she joined and she's OK with it.

I'm very,very proud of her.

As you should be. I respect people who join the military and, if it is required, risk their lives for the country. I don't hold them responsible for the mistake of our leaders (Dem and Rep, conservative and liberal).

McCain already has a commercial out (within about 15-20 minutes of teh end of the debate) with several of Obama's "I agree with Senator McCain..." statements.

I agree that you're right. But you're not right enough!

Obama = Pepsi = Blue Logo
McCain = Coke = Red Logo

Obama vs McCain = Coke vs Pepsi

Same general formula with a little different flavor

But MY brand is better than YOURS!

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with anything?

If it wasn't for the fact that this country elected Bush, and then RE-ELECTED HIM, I could never believe McCain would have any shot in the world of winning this election. As it stands now, I almost expect him to win.

Really, doesn't Obama just seem more like the old fashioned kind of scumbag politician that got this country through the 70's and 80's and 90's? Instead of the new, unbelievably delusional, wacko/lunatic style politician of the new millennium?

Can't decide if we should get back to our roots or push forward.

Crawl under a rock buddy, the world will be a better place.

You should have responded to my other post, which was obviously what you took offense to. But really I didn't mean any offense. I just didn't understand what point you were trying to make. Was it that people in the military don't mind being deployed to Iraq? That we should support the troops no matter what we think of the candidates? Something else entirely?

I was responding to a fellow board member who's opinion I've grown to respect.

Honestly, I could care less what you think so draw your own conclusions.

Change you can believe in

The only politician who has been hones with the voters is Ron Paul. But he tells us what we don't want to hear

War Hero = Sparkles!
Change = Sunshine!

Gold Standard and perils of deficit spending, too much credit, over extended empire =

Then next time either PM him or ignore me. I simply asked what you meant when you posted on a public message board, and somehow I'm the bad guy who should crawl under a rock to make the world a better place.



Whatever. Best wishes to your niece.

I mean no disrespect to you Deano and I realize this is a very touchy subject for many Americans.

Thanks for saying as much Faustus, no hard feelings.

I was just trying to convey that the issue really hits close to home for all of us in one way or another, thats all.

All I know is that if the democrats lose this election they should just detonate their entire party.

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
-Will Rogers

If the Democrats somehow find a way to lose this giftwrapped election, they should disband the party and vow never to speak to one another again

They could not beat Bush. Shouldn't that have been grounds for the Dem's to hang it up?

Obama + Mcain = Inadequate
Obama is exceptionally dumb. Only one way to go and it's too late. Ron Paul. A true conservative Republican.Only hope Ive never been more sure of anything. I really am afraid for this country with the choices we have. I think I want to move to the Pacific Rim where they have their sh-- together
I just hope there are no riots out of Oaktown if Obama doesn't win. That would be scary shite in these parts

And oh yeah... GO SHARKS BABY!!!! Boyes + Blake = Championship

Obama constantly mentioned that he was RIGHT about not going in the first place. over and over and over.While I do not support Obama--I think he did a good job debating...and that it was pretty much a tie. No one is gonna change their vote based on this debate.

Things go better with Coke

Pepsi, for those who think young!

This one make me think 'Ralph Steadman'...

link

That's a good one, for sure.

I don't think I'd call this election gift-wrapped.

The LAST one was gift-wrapped, however...and they lost that.

Too bad both of them are so bad for you.

You got that right AD.

Barrack Obama handled himself well and I really like this young fella allot, but if you want to run this country you cannot wilt under pressure and you must never show weakness. There are evil doers out there that hate everything our great country stands for, you cannot sit down and have a cup if tea with these folks and talk things over, its just not happening. These folks understand one thing, death and destruction of the American people and everything we stand for, they are beyond reason.

If Barrack Obama wants to win this election he needs to prove to the American people he can protect and keep our country safe better than John McCain,

and doing so will be about as tough as the man Obama's facing, because they don't make em any tougher then John McCain.

Too bad a vast number of Americans are dumb enough to be swayed by such simpleton, sound-bite arguments.

Well we know where you stand. Are you watching through your Karl Rove goggles? The ones that make even George W. Bush look good?

PTR

Nawww, Its my brand new X-ray vision goggles.

When I look at John McCain I see backbone, Barrack Obama, well, I see right through him.

What you think is backbone is his Republican Party pole that holds him up. McCain hasn't been his own man since Bush crushed him in 2000. He's learned to follow orders since.

"Left-wing propaghanda rag*" Time Magazine rates the debate
(*aka any media that says anything nice about democrats)

The ORIGINAL Maverick!

PTR

I think the bolded portion is perhaps the most important question. Is that where her country needs her? Do we still need to be in Iraq? If yes, when do we no longer need to be there? Dean put it quite nicely; we've seemed to have several measures for "success" we've met them, yet we're still there with little end in sight.

I feel very fortunate to live in a country where people like your niece have the dedication and courage to volunteer for active military service. I just wish politicians would at least appear to use a little more fore thought and concern for their lives before putting them in harm's way.


One of the more interesting things I picked out of the debate... McCain said it was very, very dangerous to sit down and talk to Iran and other governments. How is it more dangerous to talk to someone than to send troops into their country?

All in all, I'd call the debate a draw. Neither guy really showed anything different than what we all already knew about them. Interesting reading all the opinions though.