As a Republican I was ashamed at the way that McCain turned a debate into a set of personal attacks and falsifications (see NPR.com for fact checking of the debate and the quote from Kissinger stating exactly what Obama said he did about negotiations). I was disappointed about his address of economical issues. He seemed to get stuck on earmarks and couldn’t get off it. I am wondering if he really has a plan. I like that he has military experience, but I wonder if it will limit his creativity in using other methods. His whole life has been military. He may make a good Secretary of Defense, but can he build relationships and alliances with other countries? He seems to be pretty set on winning at any cost( anyone seen the show Lions for Lambs). I fear that he parrots Bush in his belief that the rest of the world is inferior to the U.S.. I am proud to be an American, but I don’t believe in the bully philosophy that Bush has adopted. I am terrified that he will die and Palin will have to step into the role of president and if you want to talk about inexperience and not understanding. According to actuary tables there is a 1 in 3 chance that that could happen. He showed a lack of class and good sportsmanship in his refusal to address Obama directly and treated him as an enemy (last I checked we are all on the same side here). I found his remarks about Obama “Just not understanding” condescending and clearly untrue. I think anyone who is honestly evaluating the candidates would agree that based on the debate Obama certainly has a very good understanding. They may not agree with his strategy, but understand of the world doesn’t seem to be a problem for him. I have to say that I think it was a draw. McCain has more experience in military issues and time in congress, but Obama has a very clear understanding and intelligence about what we need.

I think what he meant to show by doing that is that he had the forethought to lead our contry differently than Bush chose. If he had been president then instead of Bush his focus would not have been distracted with Iraq. He was making a point that he would have chosen differently than McCain and Bush had. It is an important distinction because he will be making future choices on what to engage in if he is president.

. Marv KFC Kickin For Christ Wrote: On Sep 26, 2008 Reply Quote I think Obama said it best....repeatedly..... "You're absolutely right John. " "I have to agree with John" I wonder if he agrees that McCain won the debate? McCain looked and sounded much more Presidential than Obama did. Did any notice how thin and gaunt Obama looked? I didn't think he looked that good. Or is it just me?[/quote]

It is interesting that many people feel that agreeing with someone is a weakness. I like the fact that Obama can look at all sides of the issue and if he agrees he doesn't let his pride interfere with saying it. It shows open mindedness and a willingness to gather information and logic to form strategy. There is something very right about a candidate that gets up and really talks (even if that means saying he agrees if he does) and having a debate. A good leader knows that there is wisdom to be found anywhere and they aren't afraid to have a discussion about issues. They treat there oppobebts with respect instead of tryig to convice the people that the other opponent doesn't have a clue when its obvious he does. Let's be clear it doesn't take someone who has been in war to lead a war. It takes someone who can gather information, surround himself with good people and not be ashamed to explore all sides.

I finally got a copy of the debate and will check it out tonight and give my opinion then.

BTW, I have seen very few, if any, of the media disecting the debate so I guess you can say I have not been influenced by their comments.

Kurtin posts #2

Obama did a great job pushing his brand of far out liberalism....bring the government in throw more tax payer money at failing entities..... 

Even knowing the taxpayers are going to be further burdened with some kind of Wall Street bailout, Obama STILL wants his $800 million in NEW spending. When asked what he'd cut...he answered "what we need to do" is throw new money (19 Billion) at federal education...he wants 10 Billion to expand "early education"....he wants our 4 year olds in school, a longer school day and double spending on after school programs....nothing there about teaching to read and passing basic math...

Obama's all for choice, just not when it comes to allowing parents to choose of schools.

JohnReed posts:

ENOUGH of this nonsense....I saw Fox News and heard former Sec. of State, Henry Kissinger say that he never said what Obama claimed he said. Kissinger said Obama was wrong and he agreed with McCain's position that it's both naive and dangerous for Presidents to speak with rogue dictators without pre-conditions.

All of that money to the schools sounds wonderful to me, Lula!  Priority check!  Help America where we need growth, or hold back on beneficial spending...I pick the former.

JohnReed posts #18

Well, that's just it..... Obama is full of pride....take the issue of during the primaries.... in order to separate himself from what Hillary said she would have done, Obama said that as president he'd meet with dictators without pre-conditions. They bagged him on this point and being too proud to back down, or admit he made an error, it has now become his mantra; his personal doctrine of policy. Mybe you do, but I don't want the next president to speak to tyrants without pre-conditions. It's exactly as McCain said, it's naive and dangerous, and I'll add prideful and stupid.

On this, Obama was wrong then, and was wrong at the debate and still is too proud to say he is wrong about it today...IMO,  this indicates a very bad character trait.

Lula, no Republican would check facts at NPR. Only a far out left winger would do such a thing. (I can swear I hear toccata fugue D minor).

Enough of this nonsense! Obama completely overhauled a condescending old-age pensioner who thinks he's wiser than most because of his record. Being a war hero and a senate senior, McCain talked down to Obama. McCain is a Bushite with a hell of an ego. Well done to Obama for standing up to this crap!

Let's be clear. Kissinger did say exactly that he supported negotiations without preconditions. There are quotes and a verification from Katie Couric. What Fox news did is let kissinger clarify what he said and said he would like to see that happen only after lower levels had met and they were close to an agreement. Obama also clarified this in the debate (go watch it again). Unfortunately, many think that there is something wrong with clarification. Also, NPR is only one source and anyone who would really like the whole picture should visit several. I never advise someone who really wants to evaluate all sides to never try to understand the opposition. I'm afraid that is one of the reasons that we can't have an honest discussion about any of this.

When did Obama stand up?  I just kept hearing..."I agree with John".  It's obvious from the debate that McCain is much wiser, and his experience shows, rather than Ugh-bama's inexperience.

kurtin posts# 2

Kurtin,

McCain out of touch?  You, and anyone else who thinks he's out of touch especially on this economic crisis, should check out the bill he co-sponsored in 2005, "Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act"?

McCain has proven himself as stellar; very much on the high road as far as being in touch with the economy. He warned of mortgage collapse and credit crisis and this bill that the Dems rejected and defeated proves it.  Read his senate floor statement:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:16:./temp/~r109nEqCIT::

McCain co-sponosred legislation that would have prevented it and go after the corruption that has caused much of the problem.

And as far as the Dems and Obama's fingerpointing to Bush, the Republicans and McCain, better check out Clinton for he's the one who put the Charter Redevelopment Act (google it...from the Carter days) which dictated where mortgage lenders would lend and in essence helped create the market for high risk sub prime loans that have ended up breaking Wall Street.

Obama is a hypocrite in this regard claiming it's Bush, the GOP and by inference McCain...when in fact it began with Democrats, was pushed through Congress by Clintonites, and furthered along by Obama himself and those toadies of his who are involved in his campaign like James Johnson and Penny Pritzer both part of the financial engineering that caused the meltdown.  

I was talking about his foreign policy ideas with that statement, Lula, not the economic situation.  I'm tired of people passing the buck with this whole bailout fiasco.  Instead of blaming from party to party, something that I personally have not done and will not do, let's just fix it.  Just because it's an election year this is party politics to the extreme, whereas other times it would be perfect for bipartisan legislation and cooperation across the board.  This is not simply a democrat/republican situation, and you'd best recognize that.  It might help you sleep at night once Obama gets elected.