"Yeah sonny boy, you don't know anything, back in 1983 when you were wearing diaper I invented foreign policy, yeah!" -- McCain

I would use the word condescending.

The worst part of the debate was when neigher candidate would level with us and tell us how the $700B Wall Street bailout would affect their programs.

McCain avoided eye contact with Obama the entire debate and didn't express a single moment of good regard towards him

And that paid off big for McCain, too. McCain also pointed out that Obama is not and never will be a Commander-in-Chief. This is an important victory for McCain also. However, Obama clearly won as a diplomat, which is equaly as important.

I don't think it plays well for McCain to show Obama no respect. He has to reach people in the middle and some Democrats to win. Those folks tend to prefer less partisan rancor.

So far, every poll and focus group I've seen on the debate has Obama winning among independents and undecideds. Even Frank Luntz's group on Fox News had Obama ahead.

"Even Frank Luntz's group on Fox News had Obama ahead."

I jsut wanted to highlight this because because it is just amazing.

And that paid off big for McCain, too. McCain also pointed out that Obama is not and never will be a Commander-in-Chief. This is an important victory for McCain also. However, Obama clearly won as a diplomat, which is equaly as important.

#3 | Posted by Eddie

CNN poll this morning of people whho sawthe debate

Obama 51%
Mcain 38%Really paid ff big for McCain!

The worst part of the debate was when neither candidate would level with us and tell us how the $700B Wall Street bailout would affect their programs.

Very sad and true. Obama's position was a little harder, if he's making the case that we need to do X, Y, and Z. (FWIW, if every other country on the planet is any example, more socialized healthcare would be cheaper than what we're doing, on net).

But, McCain could have very, very easily answered that question. "We may have to delay further tax cuts". How simple, honest, and profound would that have been?

How "2000 McCain"?

McCain really seemed like a man who knows he is grasping at straws, and despite an effort at maintaining a strong face he came across as desperate. Stating a point of rhetoric about guessing who will or will not be commander in chief is no "victory," merely a transparent ploy.

Obama's only "error" was in trying to answer the actual questions rather than responding to the attacks. Maybe he was palying to the Indies, in hopes of trying to seem above that level of response. Initial polls suggest he was wise to do so.

The worst part of the debate was when neigher candidate would level with us and tell us how the $700B Wall Street bailout would affect their programs.

Obama misses an opportunity by not coming up with any high-dollar government programs he'd cut. He also doesn't talk enough about the borrow-and-spend mentality of Republicans, who finance their tax cuts and pre-emptive wars by loading down future generations with debt.

Republicans won for years on the phrase "tax-and-spend Democrats." Democrats, thanks to Bush, should be able to go after "borrow-and-spend Republicans."

This race is all about independents. Independents are independents because they don't follow the party line status quo and like to be cerebral about things.

That is why Obama is cleaning the floor with McCain when it comes to independents and it is also why Obama will win in a landslide this november.

"CNN poll this morning of people whho sawthe debate
Obama 51%
Mcain 38%Really paid ff big for McCain!"

MCCAIN 68% 208,707
OBAMA 30% 91,960
NEITHER 2% 7,341
Total Votes: 308,008
Drudge Report

Who won the first presidential debate in Oxford?
John McCain (51%)
Barack Obama (49%)
FOX News today

McCain 82%
Obama 13%
FOX text poll last night

Obama Wins the Debate
http://my.barackobama.com

McCain's evident hostility towards Obama was the slop-over from an attempt at self-control that may have taken up most of the man's personal resources.

Ordinary people have no problem providing ordinary respect, even towards enemies, which is obviously the way McCain sees Obama.

By continuing to refer to the old days of '83 and Reagan and all that old stuff, McCain definitely was not projecting well to the under-30 crowd. We noticed how *after* McCain said Obama was doing nothing progressive to bring up the beginning of the Iraq War (the past is the past) he brought up the surge from years before, 1983, Raygun, Keating 5 (okay, maybe not Keating 5), to highlight his 'good judgment from experience.' Why not let Obama highlight his bad judgment regarding the beginning of Iraq 2003? Patronizing hypocrite. If young people actually vote this election, they ain't voting for the old guy.

I only saw the last half hour and thought McCain did pretty well, excpet for three wierd things-his smirk (Bush has done that to death)he mentioned Reagan 5 times (didn't someone tell him Reagan was out of office 20 years) and his " I went to" whenever an area was discussed. Doesn't that mean Palin is really unqualified?

CBS Insta Poll shows Barack Obama won 39% to John McCain's 25% with 36% saying the debate was a draw.

Insider Advantage reports of those polled Obama won 42% to McCain's 41% with Undecided 17%

CNN reports voter opinions that Obama "did better" 51%, McCain "did better" 38%

The CNN poll showed men were evenly split, but women gave Obama higher marks 59% to 41% for McCain.

"NEITHER 2%"

Just as in the last election, 98% are wrong.

Something that may help explain McCain's mean attitude, aside from sclerosis, is the endemic conservative notion that no one really has a right to oppose you.

If you think back to recent history, that's how the conservatives played W., anything but agreement with him indicated your lack of personal morality.

So, from their point of view, why even hold an election? If McCain is elected, he and Palin will be treated by conservatives like the sun and the moon, the Eyes of Ra.

Personally, I'm tired of that crap. Who's with me?

McCain can be as snarky as he wants. It will help him just as much as it helped Al Gore in his first debate with Bush. Anybody remember how SNL ripped Gore?

Rasmussen has Obama six points up today; RCP average has Obama up four points.

McCain was talking to the whole country like he was talking to a child. His entire tone was as if he were talking to someone whose brain wasn't quite functioning. He seems to think the American people are stupid and you need to talk gently to them so they won't be frightened, and maybe they will understand what you are trying to say.

The images that stick with me are a disgruntled, pissed off old codger with a scowl on his face, an unwillingness to even recognize his opponent by avoiding looking even once at him....versus a relaxed, confident, well-spoken scholar with a brilliant smile. Obama looked presidential and statesman-like. McCain was Dr. Strangelove. That old bastard would be a train wreck when negotiating with other nations. His time is over. He needs to go back to sprinkling his lawn and collecting baseballs of neighborhood kids who accidentally lob one into his yard. It's time to move on, John. Get out of the way.

I thought both candidates were strong in last night's presidential debate at Ole Miss, but I'd give the edge to Barack Obama because he had more to prove and John McCain showed so much contempt for his opponent...

I was surprised by both -- they were much sharper than I expected. Obama has learned a lot in the last several months, and McCain isn't as addled as I thought he was.

I think McCain is walking a tightrope. Like Reagan with Mondale, he needs to send the message that he's the wise veteran and Obama's wet behind the ears. But Reagan did so much more genially than McCain did. Reagan came across as being in total control -- sort of bemused by the rambunctious puppy nipping at his heels. By seeming more threatened by Obama, McCain failed to project dominance.

Anybody seen Screechy Sarah, or is she still bound and gagged in the McCain headquarters' basement?

She is learning her lines for Thursday.

McCain's inability to look Obama in the eye last night bespoke a lot worse than comtempt in Spud's eyes. A lot of the points McCain tried to make last night were BS and even McCain knew it.

Spud's overall impression of the thing was that McCain appeared very glib and patronising in his responses while Obama chose to go into a more prefessorial mode giving his answers more depth and substance.

Obama gave the impression of being more connected and more affected by the current economic crisis gripping the country while John was simply tossing out empty one liners like a bad parody of Reagan.

Obama caught some of the more egregious right wing talking points/lies being tossed out by McCain last night (like Obama allegedly being interested in Failure in Iraq) and corrected him.

That was fun to see.

Of the two men Obama clearly looked the most comfortable on that stage last night.

Be Well.

/Big Shout out to Jim Leher fer his excellent moderation last night as well.
//Yes, is dethspud, entering blogworld's Drudge Retort as ya do,
stage left.

comtempt = contempt.

prefessorial = professorial.

Yeesh!

Be Well.

/There must and shall be more coffee now.

McCain is falling into the same trap as Hillary did.

McCain thinks it is his turn to be president. In 2000 he thinks he was robbed of his chance to be president because of that young whippersnapper Bush coming out of nowhere to beat him.
Now McCain,acting like Hillary, is upset because this Obama came out of nowhere and now McCain will never be president.

By never even addressing Obama directly by looking at him, McCain shows his lack of respect for Obama, while Obama at least pretends to respect McCain.

Arizona Veterans for Obama

So where was the knock out blow of McCain by Obama that many here predicted ? The debate settled nothing, and sounds like it didn't deliver the KO you all assumed/assured would occur......

McCain needs to take his tin soldiers and go home. He's hopelessly stuck in the 20th century.

#26 | Posted by navyvet50

Newsworthy. very well said.

Moreso than the 'not looking at Obama' piece, I did get the sense McCain was playing the father figure when he'd say, "Senator Obama just doesn't understand..."

I never noticed whether McCain ever looked at BO. I assume he did... and seem to recall Jim Lehrer reminding the men to do more face to face talking.

I didn't stay up to watch spinners in action and haven't watched TV yet today. I glanced at the DR, but I'd hardly consider that an accurate reflection of America - only a piece of America.

Any significant gains can probably be attributed to one's pre-conceived notions going into the event. Have polls come out to indicate viewer opinion?

"NEITHER 2%"

Just as in the last election, 98% are wrong.

#15 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-09-27 12:11 PM

FF for Zat

Grampy Poopy Pants looked OLD, sounded OLD and acted OLD last night. Obama, by contrast, was young and vital and very sure of himself. The contrast was marked. In addition, Obama was respectful toward Grampy - something Grampy would have been well advised to emulate but was, apparently and unfortunately for him, not so advised. Too bad. It did not make his performance any more admirable. And harking back to the bad old days probably did not help, either.

mccain played the lefty card with the reaching
accross the aisle remark. i expect to see much
more of this in the coming days.

That's the problem with TV cameras--they don't show the entire stage or the folks on it at all times.

It was a really good debate--substantive and the moderator didn't interrupt like Matthews--

Lehrer was exceptional--the format was better than anything in the past--including youtube.
-------------------

Poor Null--he is still looking for Sarah. Is that a song??

"So where was the knock out blow of McCain by Obama that many here predicted ? The debate settled nothing, and sounds like it didn't deliver the KO you all assumed/assured would occur......

#27 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2008-09-27 01:12 PM"

I'm not sure MANY here (or elsewhere) predicted a KO and certainly "all assumed/assured" is completely incorrect.

As long as we're tossing around assumptions, last night's debate topic (foreign policy) was "assumed" to have been Sen. McCain's "home turf" or (at a minimum) a much more favorable topic for him to debate. Despite Sen. McCain's repeated statements to Sen. Obama that "you just don't understand", the obvious reality to most (all?) is that Sen. Obama not only "understood", but had the grace/temperament to handle Sen. McCain's jabs.

Debate points aside, I think that Sen. Obama's handling of of the topics (and himself) will influence folk's decision on who they'd prefer to lead our country.

"Poor Null--he is still looking for Sarah. Is that a song??"

Where in the hell is she, Murphy? Are they going to keep her locked up in the basement for the entire fucking campaign?

i am actually getting pissed that palin is not going before the media more often

it is the typical republican antipathy for the us.

they cant be bothered with putting their candidate before us, to answer our questions.

that is so fucking arrogant.

any sincere republican would agree with that.

she could be fucking POTUS and we cant even question her

fuck her.

antipathy torward us

Null-- I am with you--I want her out more too.

I am sending emails--are you?

---------

The debate last night had the Obama supporters breathing a sign of relief.

Sigh of relief--or sign--=

Fact Check- McCain seriously misstated his vote concerning the marines in Lebanon. He said that when he went into Congress in 1983, he voted against deploying them in Beirut. The Marines went in Lebanon in 1982, before McCain came to Congress. The vote came up a year into their deployment, when the Marines had already suffered 54 casualties. What McCain voted against was a measure to invoke the War Powers Act and to authorize the deployment of U.S. Marines in Lebanon for an additional 18 months. The measure passed 270-161, with 26 other Republicans (including McCain) and 134 Democrats voting against it.

Fact Checker- John McCain raised an old Republican canard, repeated often in the primaries, when he claimed that Obama's health care plan would eventually turn the health care system over to the federal government. The Illinois senator proposes helping individuals purchase health insurance through a system of subsidies and tax credits. He is also in favor of mandatory health insurance for children. But he is not advocating a state-run health system, such as the one that exists in Britain and some European countries.

McCain accused Obama of wanting to stage "military strikes" inside Pakistan, which is a misleading account of what Obama famously said in 2007: That he would be willing to go after Al Qaeda targets inside that country with or without the approval of the Pakistani authorities."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

why is mccain against targetting osama bin laden?

* "I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility"

* "Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused"

* "He's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing theserequests"

* "John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right"

* "John is right we have to make cuts"

* "Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families"

* "John you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say"

* "Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran"

--Obitchma

Obama was McCain's bitch last night, and such contempt should be shown to bitches.

isnt mccain the maverick who reaches across the isle?

the self retorting mccain, very funny

why is mccain against targetting osama bin laden?

Cookfish

Obama was showing his ability to reach across the aisle. Very Presidential

McCain talked the talk about reaching across the aisle, but he doesn't walk the walk. McCain lost the debate. I can understand why he wanted to postpone his humiliation with his excuse of putting it off so he could "solve the crisis"---when his input was not required or wanted.

He did the same Drama Queen antics in 1999.

Obama famously said in 2007: That he would be willing to go after Al Qaeda targets inside that country with or without the approval of the Pakistani authorities."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

why is mccain against targetting osama bin laden? -- Truthhurts

He's not. He is aware that Obama glibly said he'd violate international law if it suited him.

he positioned himself as being against an attack to get OBL. pretty clear from the debate

btw you are aware we are currently boming into pakistan

From what I read here, elsewhere and the people I have talked to it becomes clear that the debate last night was essentially a blank page upon which the viewer projects their own negative feelings and inclinations upon the candidates or the two political parties in general.

People's reactions seem to fall into three camps: those inclined to Obama saw negative in McCain. Those who are inclined to McCain saw negative in Obama.

Those on the fence did not see anything in either to compel or dislike.

I thought it was a draw.

Sadly, neither seemed to create a compelling kind of confidence among the voters.

If I, however, can say one thing in favor of both, come January it will be nice to have a president that sounds like he has some command of language.

Cheers

why is mccain against targetting osama bin laden?

~Truthhurts

He's not. He is aware that Obama glibly said he'd violate international law if it suited him.

~Phoenix.

Actually, Phoenix, the reality is that American Special forces are operating in Pakistan already.

Obama knows that, McCain knows it, the Pakistanis know it.

The real difference between McLame and Obama is that Obama thinks the American people and the world should be told of American intentions in the region and McCain thinks lying is the prudent course.

Sorry, but we've seen too much lying already by BushCo and McLame's readiness to take up that mantle should really piss people off.

Be Well.

Also, if violating international law is such a problem why did America go into Iraq in the first place and why are y'all still there?

To destroy WMD that didn't exist? Check.

To get rid of Saddam Hussein? Check.

To take over the once nationalised oil fields and put them under control of western interests?

Bingo.

Corporate theft plain and simple.

Legal? Maybe to some folks. Maybe on paper.

Not to Spud.

Be Well.

btw you are aware we are currently boming into pakistan -- Truthhurts

Yes, and until a couple weeks ago, the bombing in Pakistan was coordinated with the Paki military under an agreement forged between those two countries. (The standard bombing campaigns have been by Predators -- unmanned bombers -- and require targeting from the ground. That targeting has been provided by Pakis.)

The reason the recent ground incursion into Pakistan set off such a furor is because it was not approved by, much less coordinated with, the Paki government, and was therefore a clear violation of Paki sovereignty (and an act of war in violation of international law). It set off a diplomatic furor, and according to reports at the time, the Bush Administration agreed not to do it again:

"As far as my information, we have taken it up at the highest level with the State Department and Pentagon," Mukhtar said in an apparent reference to the U.S. using ground forces.

"They have given us assurance that it would not be repeated. The agreement we have with them is that we will exchange information and the Pakistan military or (paramilitary) forces will take action against terrorists in Pakistan," Mukhtar added.

If I, however, can say one thing in favor of both, come January it will be nice to have a president that sounds like he has some command of language.

Amen, brother.

Actually, Phoenix, the reality is that American Special forces are operating in Pakistan already.

Obama knows that, McCain knows it, the Pakistanis know it.

The real difference between McLame and Obama is that Obama thinks the American people and the world should be told of American intentions in the region and McCain thinks lying is the prudent course.-- Spud

No, the real difference is that McCain knows that striking within Paki territory without Paki approval is crossing a bright line, and at the time, Obama didn't. For weeks, he scrambled around trying to say the U.S. was already doing that.

The other difference is that in his arrogance, Sen. "I'm the sensitive diplomatic guy" implied that he really didn't give a damn about our relationship with Pakistan, or the tightrope the Paki leadership walks by continuing to cooperate with the U.S. despite the Pakistani public's anti-Americanism.

Obama has clearly learned a lot in the last year, and if elected, he would take office in Jan 2009, not Nov 2007. But the fact is McCain is right when he claims that Obama made a lot of frighteningly ignorant foreign policy statements early on.

"For weeks, he scrambled around trying to say the U.S. was already doing that."

The US is doing that. All of the sudden, it seems that getting bin Laden is important to Bush again.

Also, if violating international law is such a problem why did America go into Iraq in the first place... -- Spud

There have been numerous calls for prosecuting both Bush and Blair for war crimes for invading Iraq. I haven't paid much attention to this lately, and I'm not a legal expert, but I'd guess that in the unlikely case of a trial, part of the question would be how the "imminent threat" standard would play out. (Pre-emptive strikes are legal under international law in cases of imminent threat, but illegal if they're merely preventive without imminent threat.)

I assume you know that Biden has promised on the campaign trail that if elected, he and Obama will investigate the Bush Administration for war crimes concerning Guantanamo.

...and why are y'all still there? -- Spud

This debate, centered on Foreign Policy, was McCain's home turf. Obama and McCain ended in a draw on that one. The question of judgment over going into Iraq in the first place - when weighed against McCain's four-years-later "Surge" approach - raised questions the public hasn't focused on for quite some time.

McCain scowled a lot. I thought at the end, when Obama and McCain's wives took the stage, McCain showed his glaring contempt when he and Cindy McCain stayed on their side of the stage rather than graciously taking even a single step towards the middle of the stage. Obama showed class.

The public wants change. Obama looked and sounded Presidential. Undecided voters, who despite knowing McCain well were still on the fence, most likely would like to vote for Obama since they haven't warmed to McCain yet. Last night Obama was equally comfortable with McCain on economic and foreign affairs.

The public prefers to like a President they will see and hear for the next four years in their living rooms. A scowling McCain vs an amiable Obama was a glaring contrast.

Even if the debate was a 'draw', Obama wins because he looked and sounded Presidential in a year people want change. McCain's whole attitude was more of the "my way or the highway" approach that's turned off the public to George W Bush's approach to governance. Even a draw is a win for Obama.

No, the real difference is that McCain knows that striking within Paki territory without Paki approval is crossing a bright line, and at the time, Obama didn't. For weeks, he scrambled around trying to say the U.S. was already doing that.

~Phoenix

Wot part of "already in Pakistan" are you simply not getting?

You do know that unmanned predator drones have been bombing the shit out of Waziristan don't you?

Who do you think controls them?

Where so you think they are located?

Do you really think there are no boots on the ground in Pakistan in the FATA?

Spud thinks Bush deliberately allowed Bin Laden to escape in Tora Bora fer a coupla reasons. First, cos the House of Bush and the House of Bin Laden have ties going back decades. Secondly, because the fearmongering that Bush encouraged was prolly the single biggest factor in Bush's 2004 "win". With Bin Laden oin the loose the fear remained palpable and it fed into the "We can't leave yet" (TM) BS the WH was spinning at the time and continues to spin.

Obama made a lot of frighteningly ignorant foreign policy statements early on.

As Spud reads it the "frighteningly ignorant" foreign policy is all to be laid at the feet of the Rethugs.

Not talking to yer enemies? Absurd and dangerous.

Not planning on how to exit Iraq? Shameless and dangerous.

Not going after Bin Laden? Cynical, political positioning that has allowed the AQ to spread it's reach into 60 countries globally and garner their cause more funding and recruits and sympathy.

Far from being naive, Obama has proven himself to be ahead of the curve on foreign policy in the ME and the dimwits in the WH and John McCain have been forced to play catch up.

Pottery Barn rule

You broke it but you don't own it.

You are responsible for it and the lack of responsibility taken there has been abysmal.

In terms of potential war crimes Spud cites use of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq. Effectively a low key nuclear war has taken place.

Woman are afraid to have kids there now cos they are giving birth to monsters.

Plus, the deliberate orders from the WH to try and circumvent international law like the Geneva Coventions by redefining torture.

Unless yer still buying into that "few bad apples" BS.

Be Well.

This pic, spiced up with a little contempt on McCain's part, seemed a good visual analogy for last night's debate:

Did any of you actually watch the debate? Most of what I see here are lib talking points.

John smoked obama.

In terms of potential war crimes Spud cites use of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq. Effectively a low key nuclear war has taken place.

#59 | Posted by dethspud at 2008-09-27 03:41 PM

WHAT???? Do you even know what those munitions are used for?

....and what's with the lies about Eisenhower writing a second letter of resignation? As soon as the debates were finished the commentator could not understand why McCain lied.....Can anyone explain to me why he lied (other than the obvious).

Murphy is right about this Dem when he said Dems are relieved.

As ludicrous as it is, given their record, the GOP always wants us to believe that they do foreign policy best.

We watched for about a half hour and then I said "aw hell, all I want is for that old man to do poorly, and for our guy to at least hold his own... and he sure did, so we bagged it.

Reagan had class, Obama has class.

WHAT???? Do you even know what those munitions are used for?

Effectively they allow smaller more speedy tanks to take out larger more heavily armed ones.

After taking a hit by this type of munition the tanks will usually continue to spit and sputter and hiss fer 24 hours after the shell hit.

The reason fer DU is as cynical as it is crass.

It's a way of getting rid of nuclear waste by shooting it into another country.

Do you know how many tons of the stuff have been used in Iraq to date?

And yes, Spud has read the "official" studies that declare the stuff as safe as mothers milk.

Difference tween you and Spud, Mr Vato, is that Spud aint over-awed by authorities accounts or impressed by lies.

One difference anyway.

Be Well.

John smoked obama.

#61 | Posted by cabo_vato

Ya, OK. The problem is every independent poll of undecided voters disagree with your statement.

Only the Freeped internet polls gave it to McCain

Even FOX News own focus group gave it to Obama:

Wot part of "already in Pakistan" are you simply not getting?

You do know that unmanned predator drones have been bombing the shit out of Waziristan don't you? -- Spud

Yes, Spud. See my #53. Again, the bright line is "with Paki approval."

You broke it but you don't own it.

You are responsible for it and the lack of responsibility taken there has been abysmal. -- Spud

Well, we agree there.

Shhhhh, don't tell the liberals in the media but when Aol asks "who will you vote for":

AOL Straw Poll: McCain 63%, Obama 37%
Votes: 154,732

If I, however, can say one thing in favor of both, come January it will be nice to have a president that sounds like he has some command of language

Agreed. Nowhere to go but up there.

Yes, Spud. See my #53. Again, the bright line is "with Paki approval."

If America sees a clear shot at killing Bin Laden once and for all with a limited time window and fer some reason the Pakistani government doesn't want to allow or assist should America take the shot?

Obama sez YES.

Spud agrees.

Wot do you think?

Be Well.

...and what's with the lies about Eisenhower writing a second letter of resignation? -- Kenoosh

He may have been misremembering the details rather than lying.

I thought it was a gaffe mostly because it gets you thinking... is McCain really so old that he remembers the Normandy invasion? Was he under Ike's command? Maybe Ike's roommate?

Answer: Born in 1936, McCain would have been 8 years old during the Normandy Invasion, so while he may have some memory of the news coverage at the time, he did not fight in WWII and was not in the room when Ike wrote the letters.

;-)

Shhhhh, don't tell the liberals in the media but when Aol asks "who will you vote for":

AOL Straw Poll: McCain 63%, Obama 37%
Votes: 154,732

#68 | Posted by KBM

Everybody knows that AOL is internet on training wheels. No surprise that those who need giant icons to tell them how to access their mail also think its a good idea to vote for McCain.

Obama was McCain's bitch last night, and such contempt should be shown to bitches.

#44 | Posted by cookfish

Only if you WANT to repel prospective voters.

Did any of you actually watch the debate? Most of what I see here are lib talking points.

John smoked obama.

#61 | Posted by cabo_vato

I watched it-cabo-wabo-all McSame has "smoked", is gw's dick.

You are responsible for it and the lack of responsibility taken there has been abysmal.

~Spud

Well, we agree there

~Phoenix

Sweet! Spud lives fer these brief shiny moments of concensus here at the Drudge Retort.

We're both on the same side, Phoenix.

We share the same goals, more or less.

All we're really arguing about here is tactics and strategy.

/And Yes, Spud, like Obama, does know the difference.

^_^

Be Well.

I watched it-cabo-wabo-all McSame has "smoked", is gw's dick

"Shhhhh, don't tell the liberals in the media but when Aol asks "who will you vote for":

AOL Straw Poll: McCain 63%, Obama 37%
Votes: 154,732

#68 | Posted by KBM at 2008-09-27 04:01 PM"

A straw poll?

A STRAW POLL?!

As in, "grasping for..."??!

"Did any of you actually watch the debate?"

Every word.

"John smoked obama."

Posted by cabo_vato

Cabo Vacuuo smoked crack.

Shhhhh, don't tell the liberals in the media but when Aol asks "who will you vote for"

KBMI

Shhhhhh, don't tell KBM that AOL poll was spammed by Freepers and is meaningless.

Shhhhhh, don't tell KBM that polls of undecided voters by credible polling firms (as opposed to meaningless internet polls) had results KBM would hate.

Even FOX News own focus group of undecideds went for Obama (Shhhhh, I posted the link in post #66)

:-)

and what's with the lies about Eisenhower writing a second letter of resignation?

~Kenoosh

Despite being wrong about the letter McCain's larger point about accountability needing to be returned to big government is completely valid.

But here's the thing about that.

Only by electing a Dem POTUS can there be any reasonable expectation of accountability for past mistakes by BushCo.

A McCain presidency would be a complete and utter whitewash of all the bad shit that's gone down on their watch.

McCain was effectively arguing fer an Obama presidency there.

G08ama!

Be Well.

Gee, it was only Obama that I saw smirking, making faces, wagging his head and interrupting last night.

McCain may have cost himself Indiana last night with his comment about doing away with Ethanol subsidies.

If America sees a clear shot at killing Bin Laden once and for all with a limited time window and fer some reason the Pakistani government doesn't want to allow or assist should America take the shot?

Obama sez YES.

Spud agrees.

Wot do you think? -- Spud

The right answer for someone in Obama's position is something like this: "Pakistan is our ally in the war on terror and has been working with us to destroy Al Qaeda in their country. I fully expect that cooperation will continue."

Did I answer your question directly? HELL NO!

My personal view is that Bin Laden should be captured and put on trial, not shot on sight.

My personal view is that Bin Laden should be captured and put on trial, not shot on sight.

#81 | Posted by Phoenix

If we can capture him great but if he is slipping away and all we have the chance to do is squeeze off one last shot before he slips back into a network of caves I say take the shot. I am anti-death penalty if we have the suspect confined and can't harm more innocent people. If the criminal is free and most certainly will try to kill more people you have to take the shot.

***McCain accused Obama of wanting to stage "military strikes" inside Pakistan, which is a misleading account of what Obama famously said in 2007: That he would be willing to go after Al Qaeda targets inside that country with or without the approval of the Pakistani authorities."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

why is mccain against targetting osama bin laden?***

Uh, I guess we are to believe that when Obama says that we will "take him out" he means a fancy dinner somewhere. Maybe a nice curry...

What McCain meant (by those willing to hear) is that you don't go blabbing your COVERT ACTION policy all over the place. A prudent leader will never spew all the military options in their arsenal - to do so weakens the country, and that's what Obama in his naivete is doing.

If the military has a bead on a high value target in the lawless region of Pakistan, they will be "taken out", as they have in the past under Bush. It's much easier to ask forgiveness than get permission.

I was impressed, however, with how well Obama pronounced the word "Pakistan". He sounded like a true native. Oh wait...

The right answer for someone in Obama's position is something like this: "Pakistan is our ally in the war on terror and has been working with us to destroy Al Qaeda in their country. I fully expect that cooperation will continue."

Spud agrees that mighta been the correct "political" answer but let's look at context fer a sec.

Bush went from wanting Bin Laden "Dead or Alive" to cracking jokes that he wasn't under his desk.

Obama's larger point was that American resolve to capture and kill Osama had weakened under BushCo and that he did not share the mind-set.

Also to be considered, sometimes threats work without having to resort to actions.

Did I answer your question directly? HELL NO!

S'cool. At least we're having a rational discussion which beats the hell outta the usual monkey-poop tossing that Spud endures around this place.

My personal view is that Bin Laden should be captured and put on trial, not shot on sight.

Yup, that works fer Spud on so many levels.

Ordinarily, Spud aint wotcha call a big proponent of Capital Punishment but in Bin Laden's case Spud is more than willing to make an exception.

But how to do so?

Maybe by taking him to the top of the new 9/11 memorial building in NY and tossing him off?

Yes, That has a nice level of poetic justice to it.

Maybe, they can let the relatives of those who fell on 9/11 take part in a lottery in order to see who gets to push the SOB off.

^_^

Be Well.

Despite McThusaleh's penchant for hauling in American Idol makeup artists at five grand a pop, he reminded me of nothing so much as those old "Heartbreak of Psoriasis" commercials. He looks like he's standing there slowly flaking to death. The coat of Spackle did nothing for him; I doubt they could make him look young if they brought in Sanjaya's hairdresser. What I saw last night occupied a weird grey area between maquillage and taxidermy.

Obama needs a bit of training on extemporaneous speaking; if he said "uh" and "um" once last night, he said them two hundred times. But he looked much fresher, more sincere and more conversational than McThusaleh, less like an old-school pol who's been doing his thing so long he figures it'll work with voters until Hell freezes over.

I wish McThusaleh would lose that Mother Bates rictus he evidently thinks is a smile. Every time I see it, I think of Vera Miles screaming as her hand hits that light bulb in the cellar.

"What McCain meant (by those willing to hear) is that you don't go blabbing your COVERT ACTION policy all over the place. A prudent leader will never spew all the military options in their arsenal - to do so weakens the country, and that's what Obama in his naivete is doing.

If the military has a bead on a high value target in the lawless region of Pakistan, they will be "taken out", as they have in the past under Bush. It's much easier to ask forgiveness than get permission.

I was impressed, however, with how well Obama pronounced the word "Pakistan". He sounded like a true native. Oh wait...

#83 | Posted by Dinsey at 2008-09-27 04:33 PM"

Puhleeeze! These vague statements are about as revealing of one's covert actions as a football coach stating before a game that the team intends to score more touchdowns than the other team ;-)!

You may wish to whip this into some smear ("Pakistan" snark duly noted), but it is (at best) weak and mostly just seems pathetic.

Spud aint wotcha call a big proponent of Capital Punishment -- Spud

Capital punishment isn't the issue -- remember, Hussein got a trial.

My own view comes from the conviction that there's supposed to be a difference between us and the bad guys, the general sense that we lose moral authority when we lower ourselves and play by their rules, and the belief that right now the battle for the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens in the Middle East, Muslim countries, etc. is more important than taking one guy out -- even if the one guy is Bin Laden.

Also, I worry more about Pakistan's political stability than I do about Bin Laden. They've got nukes. He doesn't.

But certainly reasonable people can disagree -- I might even disagree if I had different information than I do now.

remember, Hussein got a trial.

~Phoenix

Spud remembers the trial all too well.

"comtempt = contempt.

prefessorial = professorial.

Yeesh!

Be Well.

/There must and shall be more coffee now."

You don't need coffee, you need lithium.

You don't need coffee, you need lithium.

GOP motto:

"Lithium: It's how we vote Republican and still live with ourselves."

What I saw last night occupied a weird grey area between maquillage and taxidermy.

FF fer Mary Tyler Whore!

Hell, fer "McThusela" alone.

you need lithium.

~Babyhuey

Shhh... the grownups are talking now.

Go back to the kiddy table at freeperworld.

Eat some paste or go and crayon.

Wotever ya want, just do it quietly.

Be Well.

maquillage

One thing that might backfire on Dems is this talk of McCain's old age.

After hearing so much made about how old he is, there was an expectation that he would be a bit of a doddering, forgetful old man, that Obama's youth and vigor would make McCain seem tired and worn.

Even though I was not won over by much of what he said, McCain did not seemed to be lacking for energy or the ability to express himself in a very capable way.

BTW, did you catch McCain's one attempt at levity which seemed to go completely unnoticed?

In talking about pork barrel spending, he mentioned some million dollars for studying the DNA of some wildlife (bears?). Anyway, he said something to the effect that he was not sure if they are examining the DNA for paternity or criminal reasons. (Ha, ha?) I think it was supposed to be a laugh line --probably one that was rehearsed--but no one even noticed it.

Cheers

"but no one even noticed it"

We both did.
It was lame.

BTW, did you catch McCain's one attempt at levity which seemed to go completely unnoticed?

One attempt?

All McCain seemed to have last night were flippant one-liners that went over like a lead balloon.

The guy can't tell a joke to save his life.

It showed Spud that Obama was definitely taking the proceedings a lot more seriously than McCain.

McCain seemed disconnected and more than a little uncomfortable. Not looking into Obama's eyes as he told his stump speech lies fer the thousandth time was a dead giveawy.

As Chris Rock sed the other night a guy like Obama with only one house has a lot more empathy fer folks currently losing theirs than a guy like McCain, who could lose a few houses and still have a few left.

Be Well.

Just thought I'd throw this racy shot of former IL Senator Jack Ryan's ex-wife, Jeri Ryan - star of Star Trek Voyager - for your viewing pleasure:

Jeri Ryan for VP !!!!

7 of 9

ZAT

LOL I think I prefer the bikini shots of Jeri Ryan

Why didn't McCaiin pick HER?!!! She'd already been the wife of a Senator and could memorize lines better...

Yikes!!

Grendel-
I noticed it. It was a dud. The only thing I'm surprised about is that Obama didn't slam McCain over Palin's multi-million dollar earmark to study the mating habits of crabs.

"~Babyhuey

Shhh... the grownups are talking now."

Okay.

When the voices in your head quit talking, let me know, schizo.

There are many things that wise leaders do not elaborate on. Not because they are liars, but because they are taking the greater interests of the state into consideration. The "banking crisis" we are in is nothing less than a "run" on the banking system. What the government wants is for people to leave their money in the banking system. If too many people pull out, any bank (not just the weak ones) will fail. Anyone who's watched "It's a Wonderful Life" should know the deal. But the UNWISEST thing a leader can say is "Don't worry about the banks". The run started when Schumer said the WRONG thing about IndyMac, which started a panic that forced the bank to close. People over the FDIC insurance limit lost their deposits forever, not because the bank was weak as much as the bank was ruined by Schumer's loose lips.Obama, Pelosi and Gay Barney are milking this banking situation for its maximum political value, not caring about how close to the edge of the cliff we are. They are pumping the bill with pay-outs to their pet political causes, such as ACORN. There's no place for that here and now.

Similarly, the worst thing that you can tell a prisoner undergoing interrogation is exactly how far you intend to pressure him for information. It is the fear of pain and discomfort that is motivating, not the actual action. Yet the Dems, time and time again, want a public policy on "torture". Our enemies are laughing at us, because now they know exactly what to expect if captured - literally a slap on the wrist. An effective leader would state publicly that "nothing is out of bounds when the safety of our citizens is at stake" while having a private policy that forbids outright torture (which with the debatable exception of "waterboarding" is the current policy). Both candidates come up short on this, but this wrong thinking is owned by the Dems.

Obama (sorry, I mean Osama) himself speaks of the "strong horse", meaning that people should unite with him (the strong horse) instead of the West, the weak horse. Musharraf was barely in charge of Pakistan, and we got as much as we could out of him. The new government is even less likely to support the USA, so threatening them with indiscriminate military attacks and withholding foreign aid is extremely foolish as official policy. And Pakistan is a country that Obama should KNOW since it's one of the few places that he's visited outside the USA. Incidentally, Pakistan holds a special meaning to Barack, since it was his 3-week visit to Pakistan that caused him to suddenly change his name from "Barry" to "Barack", embracing his Islamic (not African) heritage:

"Barack": Name of the winged creature that took Mohammed to Paradise.

Hussein: Name of Mohammed's grandson.

"Obama": Swahili for "Osama". Yes, they ARE the same name. "Osama" means "lion" and was one of Mohammed's chief warriors, engaged in genocide, plunder and slave trade.

Great candidate you have there.

< That specific enough for you?

One attempt?

All McCain seemed to have last night were flippant one-liners that went over like a lead balloon. . .
. . .As Chris Rock sed the other night a guy like Obama with only one house has a lot more empathy fer folks currently losing theirs than a guy like McCain, who could lose a few houses and still have a few left.

I didn't get this reading of the debate, perhaps it is because I am not committed to either. I have no idea, which one I will vote for. I may go third party.

Obama did come off as more empathetic and emotionally connected to people--I do think Obama genuinely lives the cliched line of Clinton--"I feel your pain," which is a positive/plus for Obama and part of his genuine charisma. The current administration has left us starved for any leader with charisma. Obama has charisma to spare.

What you see as flippant in McCain struck me as someone who was very serious, intense, and confident and strongly believes in his positions and his ability to lead--which is a positive for McCain. It counters the criticism I mentioned above that he is too old.

When examined this way the two resonate on the archetypal level.

Obama appeals to the emotional, what is traditionally characterized as the feminine--the compassionate nurturer. We want Obama to take care of us. We want to feel good about the presidency again; Obama enables us to do that.

McCain appeals to the male principle, less emotional, less interested in feelings, but in actions when there are tough decisions to be made. We want McCain to take charge. We want to feel like someone who really has experience is in charge.

Well, that's my take on it.

Cheers

Grendel-
That's the biggest load of horseshit I've seen today.

DINSEY---Let me get this straight---We shouldn't vote for Obama because of the etymology of his name?

Strikes me you are the better part of a loon.

ZED-
I think that was his point, as comical as that is.

"The Strong Horse (instead of the West, the weak horse)...."

I take that back. You are bat-shit crazy. Does it hurt much?

BETELG---Do people like him have ANY conception how they sound to others?

Let me try to understand what DINSEY said---Obama is speaking to us in Muslim code, but we need DINSEY to explain it?

ZED-
Disney pasted that crap from somewhere else (without a link or attribution).

Grendel-
That's the biggest load of horseshit I've seen today.

BETELG,

You like that? Here, I'll give you another one.

The more visceral and emotional the disagreement to someone else's point, the more likely that the original point had hit a nerve.

If you simply disagreed, you would have said so simply.

Cheers

Betel- he did worse. It wasn't a direct copy and paste, he changed a few words here and there.

But the plagiarism still stands as obvious.