world

Race little altered by 2nd McCain, Obama debate

114 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

114 Comments
Login to comment

bye then, let the good lord keep you safe!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)

Troopergate the original...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Xennon

Whatever you want to feel is ok, If you think your SO was just a normal question and you not trying to be a smartass then so be it. How do you make the mistake of calling your VP Candidate by the President candidates name from the other party?

Here is the part in the story where it says the Campaign (which we know is an Obama rally so its his supporter)

The campaign volunteer had just finished more than four minutes as the podium, firing up a crowd of 3,500 in Tampa before the announcer

If this happened the other way this board would be light up like a christmas tree on the 24th of December....But because this board is has a ton more Left side then center and right side they dont laugh when their team makes a mistake, if it was the McCain camp that did this I would be laughing my ass off too...cause all this political BS is worthless and if you cant laugh at it you would have to cry because of its such a waste of time and money... any more questions?

SO

That would be why its Obamas Guy!

Arnold/Jesse 2012

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Taka313. The election is over! McCain is toast!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans are so desperate, now they are trying to link Barack to the late Palestinian leader Arafat

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We know that John McCain is a twin of george bush.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ABC_NSA_agents_admit_spying_on_1009.html

Take a look at what John McCain would continue, even after they said they quit. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh...oh....yeah!!!

The Alaska Supreme Court refuses to stop Troopergate. < :-)

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/550940.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah-h-h-h....vote..err..oh..voter purging.

It's both. The swing states have started purging democratic voters from their files. just as time to register runs out.

Dirty tricks have started already. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought candidate mccain did OK in the debate. However, so did Sen. Obama. mccain did get a day and a half bump in the polls, most likely because of it. However, that's gone and Sen. Obama, now, according to RealClearPolitics.com, has enough electoral votes (not counting the toss-up states) to win the election. With the toss-up states, it's a rout. Honestly, I believe when mccain was saddled with palin, he lost any and all chance of winning.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oop...that's "effective."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, some folks here are simply terrified at the prospect that Barack Obama will preside over a competent, ethical and effectice administration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Change 2008:

Forget Ayers, Palin is the true radical here. With the public's distrust of Gov at an all time high and people taking their money out of banks and stuffing their mattresses I expect Palin to win and Obama to take a backseat (aka driving Mrs. Daisy)

Get the geezers out of Washington and enact term limits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The debate was pretty average but it's difficult not to think that John McCain has really had his day. He could even remember World War II as he would have been 8 or 9 years old when it ended. He is just too stiff and still looks like a traumatized soldier. I don't blame him for being a bit messed up from what he experienced and even though he is softly spoken, I sense a short temper that is dying to get out. He served his country well and people are proud of that service. This doesn't mean he should be president with the keys to the nuclear arsenal. He still waffles on about his captivity in Vietnam which must have been terrible, but I'm all for moving away from the Vietnam connections. Every president since the Vietnam War has had to explain his position and/or contribution to Vietnam but, finally, there is a chance to move on from that with Barack Obama. He was too young to have been involved. Obama certainly isn't perfect but he's much more eloquent and charismatic than McCain. His running mate, Biden, seems to have been a good pick but McCain's choice of Palin was a terrible one. She really is quite embarrassing. Although eloquence and charisma aren't the most important things when in office, they are certainly important qualities that help a nominee win people over (Bush Jr. being an exception here. He just had the numbers fudged). If McCain wins, it almost feels like it won't be the beginning of the end, more like the end of the beginning of the end! We would then move into even scarier times. Finally, I totally agree with Obama that dialog with dodgy countries is always better than ignoring them or bombing them and hoping they'll fade away. Communication is vital for all humans in order to try to understand one another.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic,

Board members crossing paths when they attend board meetings. How odd!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What got under you skin there Nippon5?

Where does it say the announcer is "Obama's guy"?

I don't see other on the board quoting you and laughing their asses off at you "amazingly funny statement".

so so so so so so?

You decide to attack me for questioning you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Xennon at 10:20 PM JST - 9th October

The announcer introduced Biden as McCain... so:

Even Obamas guys are saying McCain is going to the white house...

means what exactly?

Well for most humans its funny as hell. But for guys like you its a political calling you must be rude to post on...

So so so so so so so so so so so

It was a funny, or do you live in the 58th state and feel left out, maybe you are part of the Alaskan group who watches out for attacks from Russia on your roof? Maybe you are just scared that Biden is McCain and your not sure who you voted for??

LMAO

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5 - And if John McCain is going to be the next vice president, then the next president is... Sarah Palin!

Palin/McCain '08!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The announcer introduced Biden as McCain... so:

Even Obamas guys are saying McCain is going to the white house...

means what exactly?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.kare11.com/news/whatsup/whatsup_article.aspx?storyid=526539&catid=333

Even Obamas guys are saying McCain is going to the white house...

Lmao what a big mistake.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - "successful" and "Obama presidency" is an oxymoron.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually I liked what Obama had to say to move our economy forward and provide the real leadership we need right now as all Americans are hurting. His proposal to get our economy back on track with his plan that he outlined so well. I liked the part when he said.......................... Now that inspired my confidence. And then he added how he was going to settle the mortgage mess with this proposal we can get behind with......................... Brilliance, just brilliance. I was most impressed with not only settlng the course for the economy but with how he was also going to get Congress under fiscal control when he said.......................................... Now that was a plan. Yeah this is the guy that is going to hold the line on Government spending and get our elected leaders to do the right thing by setting the example.

Now back to the McCain bashing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic

Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers

It is way worse than that dude. Ayers said "Hi" last Spring and Obama said "Hi" back. I bet they shook hands before too. You know dirty politicians are always shaking hands. There are further reports of mutual nods, repetitious greetings and farewells. What I want to know is if something like a Christmas card was exchanged; that would be the smoking gun. It would be in writing then. Could there possibly be any doubt that Obama is really a terrorist in a dormant cell if they find anything in writing that would indicate communication between Obama and Ayers. I can't understand why Palin did not mention Ayers today; maybe it is working so well that they are able to move on. Palin didn't mention Ayers at all; I guess they already know they beat Obama down on this one.

You betcha coulrophobic this will cost Obama the election. You keep that dream alive. But don't forget Rev. Wright too; keep that dream alive also.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic: It was mentioned in the debate, and has been known for a long time that bush supported deregulation under his lousy and failed 'strong dollar policy', or whatever it was called. I went into detail about it before, but clearly the message got bumped. Anyway, the proof is there.

As for the Powerline, it's still a rag. I googled McCain and loser and got millions upon millions of hit, and yet here you are claiming that a much lesser number of hits for something else makes it fact for Obama. Well, there you go many times over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge said:

Obama wouldn't know a surge if it hit him in the face. Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

I was checking Google for headlines and I came across this:

The Obama Surge: Will It Last?

/

TIME - 48 minutes ago

I had no idea this was about to be a headline when I made my initial comment. The article is by Joe Klein. I am not Joe Klein I swear. Of course when Joe Klein wrote Primary Colors anonymously he denied it being him then too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Looks like some folks' greatest nightmare is a successful Obama presidency."

Yes, even CNN is getting a little paranoid:

Ayers is now a university professor who lives on the South Side of Chicago, where Obama cut his political teeth. The nature of their relationship has been the subject of discussion all year in the blogosphere, but was dismissed by Obama during a Democratic primary debate earlier this year.

Obama confirmed during that April debate that he knew Ayers "as a guy who lives in my neighborhood." . . . But the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show.

A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/?iref=hpmostpop

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like some folks' greatest nightmare is a successful Obama presidency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey Coulro,

I'm seeing Obama being fixed with quite a few labels at the moment. But you know my guess is he'd find being labeled a socialist to be the most offensive of them all.

Its because so many people are needing a political saviour and Barack Obama is the most articulate and charismatic politician to have run for president since JFK the disappointment is going to be massive, if he does get the presidency. In short, Obama is a nightmare waiting to happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The debate was horribly moderated. What people need to do is investigate. Since the economy is the number one issue and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are what launched the dominoes falling why not start there?

‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.”

"So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness."

Planting Seeds of Disaster ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party.

By Stanley Kurtz

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic: "Commander in Chief? Never."

Well, never for four more weeks, anyway. After that it'll be 'always', whether you like it or not, for at least four more years after. The truth hurts, eh?

"You guys ought to try it out on Second Life first. Nobody in the real world takes you seriously anymore."

Hahahaha!! As opposed to... whom? YOU?? And, um... what number handle is this for you now, my friend? Sorry, but it's YOU whom no one takes seriously, and for good reason. Hell, I'm wasting precious time even replying to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can you show us an example of socialsim in practice that actually works(ed)?

An excellent question. But it also begs the parallel question. Can you show us an example of capitalism in practice that actually works?

Socialism works when it is international. Just like capitalism, socialism is not workable when confined within a single nation state.

Capitalism is not forever, that is an economic impossibility. At this time capitalism appears to be in the last stages of disintegration. The longer it is held onto the more impossible it becomes for people everywhere to live.

Listen to Jerry White, the Socialist Equality Party candidate for president, give his reply the 2nd presidential debate. That is courtesy of the YouTube URL I give above.

Moderator: All readers back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Senator Barack H. Obama - Community Organizer in Chief?

Yes.

Commander in Chief?

Never.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge

When Obama said, "We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians" he was speaking of the temporal and not of the entire war. He has made many other statements supporting the troop's efforts as well as endorsing the U.S. decision to go to war with Afghanistan. Desperate Republicans will twist anything to play the patriotism card. Obama's record on Afghanistan can withstand all the sophomoric attempts to paint him as not supporting both the troops and the mission there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have done a lot more in Afghanistan than air-raid villages and kill civilians

We. There's that word again Sarge. You haven't done anything. Why do you take credit for air-raids and killing civilians when all you do is lax lyrical behind a computer screen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey - "President idiot"

That's what I'm afraid of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts - ( sigh ) We have done a lot more in Afghanistan than air-raid villages and kill civilians. Like liberating the country from the awful Taliban, who by the way, would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse, building roads, schools, etc. What Obama said was an insult to the U.S. military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes sarge, only an idiot would want to avoid disasters like the 90 odd people - including 60 children - that died in the strike on Azizabad for example.

Are you going for a trifecta on this thread?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge

What an idiot.

That will be President idiot to you come January.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like "The One" a lot better than McCain calling him "That One" in the debate. Believe it or not that is considered a major gaffe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith... Rolling Stone?

This alone is reason enough to disqualify Obama from ever being president of the USA:

Obama, on what we're doing in Afghanistan: "We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

What an idiot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama gave McCain a good maverickrolling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oi, McCain! I haven't seen such a flailing campaign since Dukakis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think maverick alone is a good enough label for McCain. Every maverick needs a name and his should be Desperado.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taniwha said:

Blah, blah, blah socialism. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Socialist Party. Blah blah blah American Democracy bad. Blah blah blah you can trust socialist even though an Administrator or an Administrative faction will enforce rules. Visit blah-blah-blah.socialists.org.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taniwha,

Can you show us an example of socialsim in practice that actually works(ed)?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain asked why Obama hasn't cut taxes like he promised in his senatorial campaign. The answer is simple. Junior senators rarely are allowed to introduce bills so he will become president and cut taxes.

Sarah who?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cough cough

You can clearly see the level of maturity between Obama and McCain...Obama always speaks respectively regarding his...how should I put it..."rivals" in this campaign, meanwhile McCain has childishly mocked and ridiculed Obama like a whiney, preppy, spoiled little brat that needs a good old beating because he has no real facts to win against Obama except that ridiculously low-class mockery that's committed by bullies from grade school. ;)

WHO would anybody that's on the side of LOGIC, to say the least, want running ANY nation for that matter...let alone the mighty nation of the RED BLUE & WHITE who can't shake off the paranoia of other nations making WMD meanwhile, they themselves, have WMD as well, and cannot practice what they preach...and to suppress other nations with violence...yet again, like a school bully. ;)

We all know that nothing good ever comes when the USA steps into another nation, so...you can only wonder what will happen if people voted Obama out based on popularity contest on who's giving the best "disses and jokes" like McCain's mentality. ;p

PS: me pointing out the stepping into other nations refer to Iraq, Afghanistan, and now...Sri Lanka (which I doubt many are noticing at this point)...but the USA had been wanting to make Sri Lanka into a military base since the beginning of invasion on that tiny, kawaii little island...AND McCAIN SUPPORTS IT 100%!!!!!!!!

Maybe I should be childish and middle finger McCain for being ridiculously childish and give thumbs up for Obama for being an adult worthy of running anything at all, and make such an important campaign of literally life-vs-death (if you think about it, it's actually true), and continue to mock the USA since they sure love to covet their greed under the name of "war on terror" and other typical BS. MEANWHILE OBAMA...continues to be an adult, and seemingly a lesser-moron than McCain...and did I mention McCain is representing his childish behavior to state why he should win anything at all???? ;D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Voting either McCain or Obama for president, means a vote for the continuing enrichment of the already wealthy elite and the destitution of the working class of America. It will also mean a vote for bigger and bloodier wars, more of them, and starting with their 1st term in office rather than later.

One thing you can do is listen to the only real alternative on offer, that is Jerry White the presidential candidate of the Socialist Equality Party - no not Nader or the Greens.

Jerry gives his reply to the 2nd presidential debate on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f105OlulLAI&eurl=http://www.wsws.org/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge, I can't believe you've returned to the thread after the earlier spanking you received. Heh, that's kinda like you being here on Nov 5th......:D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5

You have not told us that you are not for McCain yet on this thread. You almost have us convinced. Just tell us a few more times to reassure us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a wicked article on McCain and details a lot of facts from his history. It is a resounding example of the reasons why McCain should never be allowed in ANY leadership role, and should certainly NEVER be president of the USA.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "smith, you weren't alive when Kennedy was President, so how can you make the comparison? and why should Obama be compared to Kennedy, why not not being compared to anyone?"

Maybe I was alive for Kennedy, and maybe not... my age is of no concern here. Were you alive to see the rise of Hitler? Probably not, and yet I think you can safely say he was a bad man. I can safely say, likewise, through what I've seen and what I've learned, that Kennedy was indeed a good man, and even a great one. Do I have to have been alive to have an opinion as such? How can I compare them? I have every right to do so, and it's a far more logical comparison than some others made. At any rate, until he's in office I suppose you cannot make a comparison in terms of results, but it's perfectly fine to see the potential, and many do... as seen by how warmly he was received across Europe, and through his charisma, etc.

My point: you don't have to have directly met a person to know things about them, and draw comparisons/conclusions. I haven't met all of the presidents in history -- in fact, no one has -- and yet many here and almost EVERYONE around the world shares the same judgement of bush as the worst one the US has ever had.

As to the last part of your two part question, it doesn't make any sense. Try again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You mean Obama is far, far better positioned to appease those who despise us.

Yeah, those who despise us . . .

You mean, of course, our traditional evil adversaries, like France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, Greece, Poland, or Australia. Every one except Britain has pulled either troops, money, or both out of the Coalition©. Seems the people of those democratically elected governments aren't too thrilled with the American War on Terror. Traitorous bastards, the lot of 'em.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama promises the kind of status the US hasn't had since perhaps Kennedy; he'll smooth things over with other countries, even if largely only in symbol and/or words, and I believe he has the potential to lead the US down a much more promising path than more of the same of what you guys have had with bush if McSame gets into the oval office."

smith, you weren't alive when Kennedy was President, so how can you make the comparison? and why should Obama be compared to Kennedy, why not not being compared to anyone?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - "McCain-Palin Celebrity Ticket"

Heck, Obama has WAY more celebrities supporting him than ol' McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - I reckon turnout will be lower, percentage-wise, than in past elections. A lot of people, including some I know personally, are turned off by BOTH major party candidates. As you know, I'm not crazy about McCain, but I'm extremely concerned about the prospect of an Obama presidency, and so I have voted by absentee ballot for McCain/Palin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Got to be honest here - Americans deserve far better than any of the has-been airheads on the McCain-Palin Celebrity Ticket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oops. That should read 'it's easily debatable to the CONTRARY', not 'country'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "Obama, who, by all rights, should be 20 points ahead..."

Well, you're right about the 'all rights' part, but didn't the last time you used this sorry logic say something like '10%'? I think it was last week or even two weeks ago, and you said the, "Obama should, by all rights, be leading by more than 10%..." in reference to how much the Dems should be winning if we were correct in how tired everyone is with Bush, etc. Well, now it's MORE than 10% in most polls, and growing. Not to worry, sargie, but that 20% will be reached soon. We just need a few more lies spread out by McCain, and a little more of his near-explosions while pacing around the stage and muttering 'that guy', etc., while offering nothing to stand behind his supposed future policies. Again, not to worry, it'll come.

As to Sez's comments on the US leading the world, it was a fairly decent comment (slightly subjective, to be sure, but overall more objective than most would put up here), but as he points out you missed much of the main point of what he was discussing, and you chose only to see the 'America should be leading the light of the world...', etc.

Anyway, I agree with you and him on parts, that the US has at times, and perhaps even OUGHT to be leading the world in the right direction, with its potential spirit and motivation, etc., but the truth is it is not; what's more, the only place it's clearly leading is into a realm of economic and political hell. This is, and you can't deny it, largely due to your current president, who took a much, much more promising and respected US and led it to the current state and reputation it's in. At the very least, while some of the wheels MAY have been set in motion by others (it's easily debatable to the country, but I'll be open-minded here), bush sat back and watched and even helped it happen.

Where I'll also concede point to you and Sez is that, while the US is not leading anything positive right now, there is no one else doing so, as perhaps everyone was expecting the gamble they were playing in to have quite the result it does now. There aren't any shining examples of leaders anywhere that I can think of... none.

That being said, Obama promises the kind of status the US hasn't had since perhaps Kennedy; he'll smooth things over with other countries, even if largely only in symbol and/or words, and I believe he has the potential to lead the US down a much more promising path than more of the same of what you guys have had with bush if McSame gets into the oval office. People know this, and are honestly itching for something better, which is why McCain will never win, and why he has to resort to defamation of character to try and score a few points.

The US will NEVER lead the world with fear, as bush has proven, and as the citizens of your nation have shown in the approval polls by wanting real change, and that's all that McCain has to offer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "Obama, who, by all rights, should be 20 points ahead."

Damn good point and something I have been wondering myself, however, I think the polls for some reason are not counting the millions of new people who have registered as Democrats.

In some cases, the number of new Democratic party registrants has overtaken the registered Republican counts.

Now, if only everyone who has registered will actually vote.

I personally reckon there's going to be a record turnout next month, if not the biggest election turnout in decades.

What do you reckon Sarge?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Race little altered by 2nd debate"

The debates, with all their restrictions and time limits, are only one part of the campaign. Polls go up and polls go down. There are still nearly 4 weeks to go. Obama, who, by all rights, should be 20 points ahead with the faltering economy, unfairly blamed on the Republicans, is just a few points ahead, certainly within striking distance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic, you should thank us (non Americans) to show interests in American politics .Why? Because I still think America is leader of free world and its influence also covers Australia. When people (non Americans) stop talking about US ,then you should start to worry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

No, I mean that Obama is far, far better positioned to appease those who would be our strongest allies save for their fears of our lack of wisdom.

appease: (1) to bring to a state of peace or quiet; (2) to cause to subside

source (first two principal meanings):

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appease

There is nothing wrong with appeasement. You just have to be careful who and what you are appeasing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tclh

History has shown that an Army can not control or change a country that has factions that want to change the country themselves. Most countries that have overthrown goverments in a change cycle never stop fighting. Look at Israel, Brazil, any of the former USSR. Iraq would of done this no matter how many of the armis men we brought to the table.. This was known by everyone in the military before the war ever started, some just wished it would of been different....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

solarbuster, it is highly hypothethical and too late now ,but if after the fall of Bagdad , America had few hundred thousands soldiers to disarm Iraqi army, removed all weapons, explosives out of the country,then organise education, employment for people,maintain law and order...who know it may work.America did win the shooting war but had no idea how to run Iraq. In the beginning,if American people vote "go for war" through national referendum then they will not complain about the cost later. Peace is way better and war is never cheap.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez - I can't think of another country which would be the leading light of the world either. Maybe smithinjapan can...

"Obama is far, far better positioned to restore the US to a position of trust in the world than McCain"

You mean Obama is far, far better positioned to appease those who despise us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542516/ Biden loves McCain and hates Obama before picked now he changed... Should we trust him? On McCain: Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”

Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

On Obama: Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’”

Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”

Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.

December 26, 2006: “Frankly, I think I’m more qualified than other candidates, and the issues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow.”

On Iraq: Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

Biden, on Obama’s Iraq plan in August 2007: “I don’t want [my son] going [to Iraq],” Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.” Biden criticized Democratic rivals such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama who have voted against Iraq funding bills to try to pressure President Bush to end the war. “There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there. None.”

Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”

Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

Analyzing the surge on Meet the Press, September 9, 2007: “I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation... The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: “If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “Unless we fundamentally change the rotation dates and fundamentally change how many members of the National Guard we’re calling up, it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain 150,000 folks this year.” (The number of troops in Iraq peaked at 162,000 in August 2007, during the surge.)

Having said all that: “There’s something decent at the core of Joe Biden.” — Jim Geraghty, December 13, 2007

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - That's, "Say it ain't so, Joe!"

goodDonkey - "a surge for Obama"

Obama wouldn't know a surge if it hit him in the face. Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We don't want the race to be altered too much by the debate or the next one unless it is a surge for Obama. We are satisfied by the little alteration. That would be the additional 1% shown by the most recent Gallup Poll; that would be an 11% lead by Obama. Obama is gradually winning more support while McCain is gradually losing support.

On to sarge's comment:

So, to recap, Obama was in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

Sarge do you want to attack North Korea? If not you are in favor of keeping Kim Jong-il in power. Sarge do you want to attack Iran today? If not then you must favor keeping Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power. Are you ready to attack Venezuela? If not you are in favor of keeping Hugo Chávez in power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Same all over the world, cloning sticky neo-cons must be good business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Johnny Cash said it best about John McCain.

"He's going down down down in a burning ring of fire." < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Say it isn't so, Joe!! :-)

"Those attacks don't hurt Barack Obama or me. They hurt you," Biden told the crowd in Tampa. "Every single false charge and baseless accusation is an attempt to get you to stop paying attention to what's going on in this country. Beyond the attacks, what is John McCain really offering?"

Biden said McCain's campaign has become "erratic" and is "relying on political stunts instead of offering real solutions."

Americans aren't looking for an "angry man lurching from one position to another," he said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dont worry they are the same except on like 5 issues.... They have the same goal get into office and never leave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry Your right Nippon5 I dropped big one there, we don't have Republicans to me Democrats are right so I keep thinking Democrats are to the right and forget about Republicans. I bow my head to that one I have nearly made that mistake a few times, this time I, did have to watch it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

someone is a tad confussed on his political parties ey solarbuster?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tclh there are just wars and unjust wars, there is winnable wars and unwinnable wars. Iraq was unjust and unwinnable same as Vietnam. When you have to con people into going to war just because you don't agree with another countries politics or leaders there is obviously no reason for the war. McCain is a Democrat and Democrats hate to lose as they are fearful of loosing face at any time. McCain would get out Iraq quick if he could find some one like the UN to take over there. However, Bush burnt the Democrats boats going in with his 3 amigos and is stuck there as long as Democrats are in power. McCain showed more than lack of poise and leadership skill when he refered to Obama as that one over there, it came across as racist and elitist, I am sure a lot of people would have picked it up that way and not only the extremists. McCain lost his cool and showed his frustration at not being able to push any points home, he blew it big time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

I think the US is the hope of the world. No matter where they stand in the political spectrum, great numbers of people are wanting to relocate to the US or, if not, are variously pulling for the US to take the lead in any of several critical problems or, alternatively, praying for the US to come to its senses. However, I think that we are no longer its leading light.

It would be fair to ask at this point who is the leading light if not the US. In all honesty I could not name another single country. Although I think it is fairly well-established that there are other countries where the quality of life is better, I'm not aware of any such countries with both the temperament for involvement and the capacity for meaningful involvement. Nonetheless, at the current time, I think of all those who hold so much hope of us, few trust the light that we are currently illuminating the world with. But, then again, who is to say that at any given time the world must have a leading light?

In my opinion Obama is far, far better positioned to restore the US to a position of trust in the world than is McCain. And I think, at least if I read CNN's poll correctly most Americans currently seem to think so, too. The only significant question mark about Obama, in my opinion, is how he will react in a time of crisis, whether he will be too hesitant to use force or too eager to prove that he is not afraid to use it. However, I would rather have a president who is wrestling with that dilemma than one who is convinced that military solutions are the answer to our problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the most hilarious parts about this all is watching pretty much EVERY Republican who wishes to retain their post, and of course Palin/McCain literally dis bush themselves in an attempt to garner sympathy and support. I'm curious what bush must be thinking about all this, getting bashed of course by the Dems, but having them associate others with him as being a detriment to elections, and having his own people bash him and distance themselves as well -- hahahaha!!

sarge: I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on the matter, believe it or not. Do you feel sorry for bush? I mean, any mention of his name in debates or interviews automatically draws the ire of EVERYONE these days, and McCain/Palin immediately talk about how radically different an approach they are taking than that sorry sod bush did (of course, 'make-believe maverick McCain is really just Bush in an older monkey-suit, but hey). Do you still support bush, and also pretend to support McCain at the same time? How can you possibly support both 100%? I'm not just talking about the economy, where you have, finally, admitted bush has made some blunders, but am talking about general support.

Oh, and while we're at it, I'm still waiting for an answer from you about my earlier question on the current polls. Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: '"America already has this reputation" Leading light and hope of the world.'

Geez, sarge, did you take some particular medication to be as lame as you're being this morning? My god... it's FAR worse than normal for you, and means EXTREMELY lame. I can just see you on a JT poster, still actually promising people that smoking menthol cigarettes makes your throat feel cool and minty, and is good for you, too!

Get with the times, my man... you're about 70 years behind, stuck in a WWII propoganda poster.

As for the thread at hand, again, McCain is finished... he proved himself to lack poise, confidence, and the basic leadership skills to even win a debate, let alone lead anything more than a trip for himself to the geriatrics ward.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "sushi and smith, you both just played like McCain's "he like Saddamn".

You always baffle me with the way you fail to heed your own 'advice'. You basically said in your second to last comment, "Follow my advice and don't follow people". Now you're saying that by pointing out the fact that YOU cannot change the laws yourself (legally) and without representation, sushi and I somehow sound like or buy into McCain's arguments.

Now, I do agree with you that many of the things you mentioned would be ideal, but it sounds like what you are aiming for is some kind of socialist system where everyone rules everyone else. Ultimately, you're going to have people chosen (the so called 'independents' you mention) to represent the others, and they become the very form of politician you are speaking against. Where it WOULDN'T be socialist is in it's lack of true representation and hearing the voices of everyone; I mean, if the people you choose to make decisions are TRULY independent, then it means limiting them strictly to that, and not allowing others to run or engage in any form of politics, which hardly seems democratic to me.

Anyway, whatever you are suggesting, for better or worse, it certainly wouldn't happen over night, and DEFINITELY won't happen in even the distant future in the US unless more parties are actively invovled in elections, and are equally supported by the public. Who knows, maybe after this democratic group takes power (ie. Obama and Biden) and spends their entire first term trying to clean up after the republicans, the people will be TRULY sick of having no alternatives and can speed up the process of swearing in something that's actually new.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks to LFRAgain, people criticise only Bush so much that makes me almost forget US congress! But I still think the special power of "war and peace" belongs to American people, so it can have continuation of same foreign policy for particular problem from one president after another.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well at the moment leading greed and idiocy as well. We've sold the souls that our grandfathers earned by helping to defend the world against Fascism and Soviet expansion. And with those souls we've bought globalization and greed that are now threatening to flatten the global economy. So we can add leading to collapse to our reputation.

We may be leading, but the only people following are those with no other choice. Fact!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain blamed Obama and Democrats for the collapse of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which helped trigger the unfolding economic crisis.

Thats why I said the republicans is a dirty word!! Oh please Mr McCain please respecting yourself! If you blame Bush you will getting more credits! You are a soldier and how come your morale standard down graded to this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"America already has this reputation"

Leading light and hope of the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi and smith, you both just played like McCain's "he like Saddamn".

What I wanted to point out is we only see signs of new regulations only AFTER the fact. Everyone cheered when we were basically forced to give out loans to people we knowingly shouldn't have, raised and slashed interest rates when we shouldn't have, forced currencies to fluctuate unnaturally, forced companies to size up their staff numbers, increase benefits, etc.. You see, many companies have been bled dry to appease voters and not for any other reason than that.

Smith, we could control our politicians better. Setting up independent and no affiliated watch dogs that can work anonymously, bring back the referendum, and force politicians out of their seats when looking to campaign for the next one. I find it appalling that politicians who go around and calling us thieves because we feel owed after bringing lots of cash to companies, yet they go around collecting salaries for being senators but not even thinking about performing any tasks related to such.

As well as

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But this certainly will earn America the permanent title"stirrer" for doing things half way

Don't you get it yet? America already HAS this reputation, and that's just one of the problems with how the Republican Party has executed this smokescreen of a "War on Terror." That's why the majority of nations involved in the "Coalition of the Willing" had to be cajoled, bribed, or outright bought into participating in the Iraq War. America already is a "stirrir" and has been since at least the Monroe Doctrine.

Also, the US president does not have the power to declare war on another nation. Never did. That power resides in the Congress. Always has.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When Republicans call Obama a Muslim, it is by all definition a substitute for the "N" world. Believe me! That is what they mean, what else could it mean when they know the man is a Christian.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not going to get into raking McCain over the coals just because he happens to be the candidate for a party that has, on the generous side, lost sight of the principles of fiscal responsibility, and more critically, taken a “win-at-all-costs” approach to guiding this nation’s future, to the detriment of the nation. So far, the cost has been the GOP’s credibility, with no amount of muckraking able to bring that back. We can only hope that the damage stops here.

But regardless of what others here may believe, I think McCain is a genuinely good man who wants what’s best for the nation. I don’t doubt his resolve and I don’t doubt his intentions. Eight years ago, I would have absolutely voted for him had he, instead of Bush, run against Quayle. But the longer this campaign goes on, the more it becomes apparent that his position and convictions have taken a back seat to GOP die-hards who care more about winning and putting someone, ANYONE, in the White House who can be manipulated as much as Bush was. McCain’s lost control of his own campaign and is being handled just as much as Palin is, if not more, considering how powerful and confident he had been in earlier years. It’s truly disappointing.

“Coulda’ , woulda’, shoulda’” essentially sums up the McCain campaign for me right now, with the wheels coming off the wagon right about the time the words “running mate” and “Sarah Palin” were linked together by whatever moron on his staff thought it would be a great idea to blatantly pander to a constituency the GOP would ultimately ignore once its person was in office. Sad and tragically cynical of the McCain staff, but obvious nonetheless.

Had McCain run the campaign on the principled platform he was more than capable of running even as recently as June, arguing the real issues, as he once had been able to do, before he let those jackals on his staff lead him down this road to self-destruction, we might have seen one of the better presidential campaigns in recent memory, with two respected, talented candidates actually discussing issues that matter to Americans (health, education, the economy), rather than all the fluff and crap that GOP posters here insist are more important.

Americans, being less gullible than the GOP anticipated – no, HOPED for – have inoculated themselves to the day-to-day white noise coming out of fear mongers in the GOP, choosing instead to worry about other more pressing domestic matters than “The Republican Who Cried Terrorist.”

Win at any cost: It’s costing McCain a lot, it would seem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These debates are a distraction. As in previous elections, the race will be decided by how well-executed the right wing fanatics vote theft is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everton - You betcha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: is that really you commenting? I am speechless

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain wants to withdraw from Iraq too, but after victory. Obama just walks out,simple.But this certainly will earn America the permanent title"stirrer" for doing things half way ,either in Vietnam or in Iraq.America is tired now and wants to have a rest and somehow believes that Afghanistan is the only place for the "war on terror" effort; no matter how hard McCain is trying to explain.It seems that Obama momentum is unstoppable. But if America votes in Obama this time,please also CHANGE the constitution so that US president does not have power to declare war on other nation .And that special power belongs to American people and only they can vote for war or peace after national referendum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McCain lost badly in terms of style and appearance"

True. And we all know how important that is in elections. But the question remains, is America really ready for a president with such a fit butt?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The evidence that Republicans have dunk for brains can be seen in the latest survey conducted by fox news about the outcome of the last debate. The respondents were 90% in favor of the the view that McCain won the debate. This stands in stark contrast to at least 4 other independent surveys that gave Obama a significant victory.

The world will indeed breed a collective sigh of relief, when those Republicans with their festering trickle down economic brew are relegated to the shadows of power.

These Republicans should all be arrested for squandering America's political, social, economic and diplomatic reputation that only a fundamental change in Government can restore.

The American people have had enough of these backward looking Republicans, who have remained in every sense adrift of the shifting feelings and concerns of the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, I'll say it.

I was in favor of keeping Saddam in power. Me.

Why? Not because he was a good guy. He wasn't. He was scum.

But it would have been preferable to the situation now.

If he could have been removed without a complete clusterf***, then absolutely, get the scumbag out of power. In fact, if you consult the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, they could have probably helped you out on that score.

Sarge, it doesn't matter how many theories or hypotheticals you throw around. Reality will always trump opinion. "Our removal of Saddam wasn't worth it" is not the same thing as "Saddam was a good guy."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain is looking ever more like a loser. An elderly loser from an earlier generation.

Maybe he should make more of his military record. Someone somewhere once told me that he had been a POW somewhere. Back in the last century I think ...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, to recap, Obama was in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

As was George H.W. Bush. Both rightly figured that it wasn't worth the thousands of American lives and billions of dollars to create chaos in the region.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In terms of style surely McCain is really getting hammered in these debates...

He looks like a cranky old man, compared to a fit and assured Obama.

I was suprised at how uncomfortable McCain looked in this week's debate. He couldn't stand still when answering a member of the audience. At just the point when he was delivering his important line he would suddenly lurch off and continue his old man's staggering walk around the stage.

He also seemed to have hunched shoulders and a kind of deer-caught-in-the-headlights expression.

All in all, McCain lost badly in terms of style and appearance, which anyone will tell you are important for a politician.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think people's engagement in politics needs to be regulated.

SezWho: I think we need some regulations. And I think it follows then that from time to time we will need to eliminate out-dated regulations, modify current regulataions or add new regulations.

Ah, finally, a reasonable statement. Regulations are needed in some areas, but not to the extent that they become counterproductive. The credit default swaps obviously need oversight. But too often people paint the other side as someone who wants to regulate everything or nothing and that's the position they debate from. It's a good example of how politics can poison important issues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "We all should be talking more about regulating politicians and how we can control them and make them realize that they work for us not the other way around which people like you seem to be so ready and willing to do. Kissing butt doesn't help the situation."

Your argument is pretty tenuous, but you raise a couple of points (obvious, but still). My question is, how are you going to regulate the politicians? Who's going to pass those kind of regulations into law? THat's right, the politicians themselves! In other words, you have to vote for someone who leans more in that direction (regulation). You can't just say, "We should regulate politicians!" and then not even think of a way of how that could happen, skip. It's certainly not going to happen overnight.

Anyway, you're wrong about supporting someone being akin to 'dangerous' and a kind of blind-following of said person. Of course, there are people who ARE blind-followers, like those who STILL support GWB despite all the proof he's done nothing but harm and caused nothing but hate and destruction, but that does not necessarily imply the reverse; that those who believe in someone are blind-followers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We've been sold this notion that business knows best for a long time. That we can't restrain business because it will cause economic slowdown. And we are told to trust in the market economy. So let't look at facts.

A lack of regulation is the key ingredient in the current economic crisis. No one put the breaks on what a lot of us saw as bad long term planning from the first time we heard about subprime products. No one has put curbs on the credit issue in the US and we are driving up massive household debt. And look where the derregualation that allowed many companies to pick up and move to cheaper labor markets got us. Entire communities economically ravaged at home in the US because their local manufacturing companies packed up and went where they could increase profitability by reducing operating costs.

Sure a lack of regulation has stimulated business. Why wouldn't it? Companies get to do what they want to make more money and we are told that is good thing. But are normal workers and citizens benefitting? No! Because they are losing jobs, seeing the comoditization of labor which drives down wages and benefits. Companies are now working in places where they get the best deal and shaking off their social and national responsibilities in favor of globalization that benefits them and not very many other people.

What happened to the notion that companies need to be good citizens? That they have social responsibility beyond their annual press seeking philantropy efforts? What happened to companies have a sense of national pride?

We have made a lot of people rich with deregulation. And lot of normal people we have seen lose their American or Japanese dreams. So all this "great for business" talk was once right. It was great for business. Just not great for the rest of us.

It is time to reign these companies in and make sure they don't take out the entire global economy because they dream up some profit motivated product that almost anyone can see the dangers in.

I say companies don't know best. So let's elect people who represent us and let's find out what is best and make it happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clearly, McCain and Obama have different views of the world and how to solve the world's problems, and that includes their differing views about how to deal with the current financial crisis. However, that is not a valid basis for impugning the character of either one of them.

Wonderfully said..

Hard to judge one side as great and the other as horrid when both are just the same crap in a different wrapper. Both have lied repeatedly over and over, even after they have been proven wrong, both have tried to slander the other, both have made claims they cant even get close to doing, but those who support one side or the other never sees the wrong on the side they support...

ProfessorJ at 09:13 AM JST - 9th October

So, to recap, Obama was in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

Sarge you'll swallow anything won't you. Voters like you are dangerous to your country and more importantly the rest of the world. I'm glad the Democrats have won the election.

And so does the Democrate side, come on no one can believe Obama either he has lied over and over again, just like McCain.. Be fair and point out both sides are as bad as the other, at this point America isnt voting for a good president we are voting for the better of two bad presidents...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html

How can you trust either one when they seem to continue to spread the same lies again and again? I for one am tired of the political mess these type of Candidates are for and are using, widh we could get a civil and factual president once and awhile...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taikan: "McCain may not have been a war hero when he was dropping bombs, but he became one when he defied his captors and refused to accept an early release when that would have meant leaving his fellow POWs behind."

Excuse me? McCain buckled in interrogation and gave his captors everything he wanted to know, while many of his buddies, and some died, refused to give in. John 'songbird' McCain was then given freedoms the others did not have in exchange for information, etc. He was no hero.

sarge: so.... which polls are you going to quote today to try and trick yourself into thinking McCain has a chance. Yesterday I think you quoted Zogby... but can you do that even today? Seems every poll taken has Obama at least 11 points ahead of McCain, and in terms of opinion almost all have Obama with double the favourable opinion percentage. But now, tell us again how the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 somehow means that Obama likes Saddam. Even for you, that is a very weak and see through argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

I think we need some regulations. And I think it follows then that from time to time we will need to eliminate out-dated regulations, modify current regulataions or add new regulations. I don't think we can have a lawless economy in a society of law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi: support the deregulation" While I feel Obama did way better than McCain, I want to point out to you why you are a dangerous follower, and a follower of a politician. Why do you feel it is so necessary to regulate everything and when that doesn't work, you call for more regulations and who are the ones overseeing such regulation? Politicians who were what before they were elected? Take a look at most politicians' careers before they were elected and tell me the percentage of them who truly know anything about business. Very few.

We all should be talking more about regulating politicians and how we can control them and make them realize that they work for us not the other way around which people like you seem to be so ready and willing to do. Kissing butt doesn't help the situation.

Obama may know more about economics than McCain, but I doubt he knows what makes economies tick and neither does McCain, which is why you should we should not let them regulate anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

humm.. saddam has anything to do with 9/11?

what was the goal of removing him?

so that bush and his friends can enjoy the bloody oil money?

or

to help remove the Iranian and Al-Qaeda NO1 enemy so that american can enjoy a safer america?

Obama: "I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11"

So, to recap, Obama was in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What do the average American household care about today? I know my friends households and my household are worried about: Health Care, Job Security, Savings and Retirement, Fuel Costs, Education for our kids and the restoration of economic stability so we can get on with living our lives and stop living in fear.

Of course we care about Iraq and the threats around the world. But we have enough threats in our own daily lives to make us want solutions there first. Because we understand that a crashed US economy and a second depression means that all other bets are off too. How can we win wars or bring peace if we can't keep our domestic house in order?

People are sick of politics. They want solutions. They want answers that work. And I am betting they want government to be responsible for it. Because at the end of the day, Joe Worker has more faith in government than in business because we have seen how much business cares about us. Just ask anyone who has experienced a lay off or watched the main industry in their town pack up and go abroad.

McCain failed, absolutely, to address these issues in a meaningful way during either debate. Obama managed to lay out some pretty solid ideas in both debates. And that is what is required to win this election.

I am feeling more and more confident that McCain and Palin's "straight talk" but no answers approach will cost them the election. And that is the best news out there today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, to recap, Obama was in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

Nice try, Sarge. But most sensible American's didn't buy it then, and even fewer buy it now, 8 years after Bush and his crack team of liars manipulated Congress and the public into believing Hussein was at worst, behind 9/11, and at the very least, a prime example of "Rogue States" that sponsored terrorism in need of US military excision. A lie doesn’t stop being a lie 7 years later, Sarge.

American’s believed Bush’s pap for one term, and it got them nothing more than any other president could have delivered – as if ANY president, regardless of party, would allow the US to be exposed to another terrorist attack. Grow up, please, and stop this idiotic “I’m more patriotic than you garbage” – Then Americans gave Bush a second chance to complete his promises (“I won’t rest until Bin Laden is brought to justice”) and he failed again, channeling vast amounts of American taxpayer dollars into a war that had little to do with Bin Laden, with a long string of rationalizations that changed as often as the weather.

The Republican Party has worn out its welcome in the hearts and minds of the American people. It’s time for them to go. On the brink of an economic meltdown brought about by unmitigated Republican greed, it would seem America agrees.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi -- Your distortion of McCain's record is just as bad as Sarge's distortion of what Obama said.

McCain may not have been a war hero when he was dropping bombs, but he became one when he defied his captors and refused to accept an early release when that would have meant leaving his fellow POWs behind. Also, while McCain did support the deregulation that has given rise to the current economic crisis, particularly the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who elected not to veto it and instead signed it into law.

Clearly, McCain and Obama have different views of the world and how to solve the world's problems, and that includes their differing views about how to deal with the current financial crisis. However, that is not a valid basis for impugning the character of either one of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

It seems to me that your argument is kind of like this:

Obama: We should have picked the pears and not the apples.

Sarge: So you're saying that people shouldn't have apple pie.

I think what Obama said is really very clear. I think it was the world community--the United Nations and most of the world's citizens, including most of the citizens of countries that joined us in the coalition--that said Saddam should not be removed from power through the means we had in mind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To add to taikan's comment, Obama has also repeatedly questioned the need to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at the expense of not funneling enough resources to the country that DID have something to do with 9/11 in Afghanistan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"He [Biden] called McCain “an angry man, lurching from one position to another” and making ugly attacks against Obama instead of offering solutions to a troubled country.

Biden is bang on the money here.

When Americans have been worried about their investments, mccain has spent the last 20 years supporting the deregulation process that has now wiped out the retirement savings of millions of Americans.

When Americans have been worried about their futures, mccain has been reaching into the past and talking up his fake military heroism that occurred 4 decades ago.

When Americans have been worried about their jobs, mccain has been waffling on about Obama being 'too liberal.'

When Americans have been worried about the economy, mccain has been quietly endorsing swift boat tactics focused on trying to smear Obama using his middle name and other childish scaremongering.

When Americans have been worried about their pensions, mccain has been talking about Obama's alleged past radical associations.

While mccain has been talking up 'honor', he has been busy paying the salaries of the same team that used win-at-any-cost politics to smash his 2000 election hopes.

And while mccain needed a knockout punch at Wednesday's debate, he simply proved he is an angry, bitter old man who is out of ideas, out of luck and running out of time.

mccain is so out of touch, it's just not funny any more.

Americans are turning the page on the mccain-Palin Celebrity Ticket in every increasing numbers, and it's about time - after 8 years of bush/cheney, the worst attacks on the US mainland in history, the biggest economic meltdown in 80 years and the biggest misappropriation of US taxpayer dollars in history, it's more than time to shut the door on this complete failure of an administration and the man who is desparate to continue it - john mccain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge -- Even you should be able to see the difference between Obama saying that the US had no reason to invade Iraq and saying (as you did) that he was in favor of keeping Hussein in power.

The uncomfortable truth is that the politics of world power has little, if anything, to do with morality, and everything to do with what a particular country believes (correctly or incorrectly) is in its best interests at the time. Saddam always was a brutal dictator. However, in the 80s, because he fought a war with Iran, many in the US establishment thought it was in the US' best interests to support Saddam. Thus, during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the US actively helped Saddam Hussein stay in power. It also helped Saddam to obtain and use poison gas, both against the Iranians and against the Kurds in Iraq. It was only after Iraq invaded another US ally, Kuwait, that the US concluded that Saddam's actions were no longer in the US' interest, and therefore turned against him.

The point of Obama's statement is that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the US or to US interests, and therefore it made no sense for the US to expend its resources to depose Saddam and at the same time give the Iranians an opportunity to expand their influence in the Middle East.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - no, Obama was in favor of not invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

You were in favor of invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, that was never a threat to mainland USA, and that is likely to cost your country upwards of $3 trillion.

This is why Obama is hammering mccain about poor judgement.

mccain's 26 years of experience as a Washington Insider is irrelevant when he screws up crucial judgements like this one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama: "I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11"

So, to recap, Obama was in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites