«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

The First Obama-McCain Debate: Not as Telling as Real Life

No memorable exchanges. No historic zingers. No gotchas. The much-anticipated first face-off between Barack Obama and John McCain resolved little. Neither candidate strayed from their usual briefing books. The talking points were recycled. McCain blasted Obama for being a rookie in the ways of national security. Obama questioned McCain's judgment, notably his initial support for the Iraq war.

They both played it safe. Especially when it came to the hot topic of the night: the $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street. It was no surprise that moderator Jim Lehrer would lead off with the issue, even though the focus of this debate was supposed to be foreign policy. And in his first question, Lehrer asked each candidate to state where he stands on the "financial recovery plan." Neither would get specific. Obama cited the need to move "swiftly" and "wisely." He called for effective oversight of the plan, taxpayer protections, and guarantees the money spent would not reach the pockets of CEOs. He pointed to the current meltdown as evidence of the failure of economic policies supported these past eight years by George W. Bush and McCain. It was standard fare.

McCain noted he was heartened by the bipartisan negotiations under way in Washington. He, too, cited the need for accountability. He mentioned the possibility of adding a provision to the package that would allow the federal government to offer loans to troubled institutions rather than buy their bad paper. Neither one, though, fully endorsed the plan--or raised any objections. Asked if he would vote for it, McCain said, "I hope so." It was a strong signal he would not be mounting any from-the-right populist crusade against the proposal.

But each candidate exploited the bailout queries. Obama tried to tie McCain to Bushonomics. McCain hailed his own efforts to curtail pork-barrel spending on Capitol Hill. Obama slapped him for focusing on $18 billion in earmarks while supporting $300 billion in tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals. McCain accused Obama of being a tax-hiker. Obama countered--correctly--that his tax plan provides far more relief for taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year than does McCain's proposal.

It was as if they were eager to talk about any economic issue other than the details of a gargantuan bailout that may or may not work and that may or may not be popular come Election Day.

On foreign policy, the candidates dished out the expected lines. McCain touted the surge in Iraq and slammed Obama for having ever doubted the wisdom of the wonderful General David Petraeus. Asked for the lesson of Iraq, McCain said, rather inelegantly, "You cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict." Obama assailed McCain for supporting Bush's grand distraction and having failed to recognize that the job in Afghanistan ought to have been finished first. He connected the ongoing Iraq war bill--$10 billion a month--to the nation's current economic woes.

On Iran, McCain derided Obama for wanting to hold talks with President Ahmadinejad (whose name he mispronounced a few times before getting it right), claiming such a move would practically send a signal that the United States approves of a second Holocaust. Obama defended his policy of engagement, noting that there were other Iranians to speak to besides Ahmadinejad and that the Bush administration has recently broadened its diplomatic approach when it comes to the ol' Axis of Evil. McCain claimed Obama had been indecisive at first in reacting to the conflict in Georgia. Obama echoed McCain's tough stance against Russia, but cautioned that the United States could not revive a Cold War approach because it still has to deal with Russia on the pressing matter of loose nukes.

In talking policy, both men came across as knowledgeable. McCain truly perked up when he got the chance to discuss the strategic importance (as he sees it) of the Caucasus region. Obama demonstrated confidence in his ability to challenge McCain on the strategic importance of the Iraq war. But, indubitably, many viewers of the debate would score these exchanges in accordance with their preexisting opinions of the two candidates. As for those knotty undecideds, there was no specific assertion that an analyst could point to and say, "This is going to stir them."

Once the debate ended, the television commentators immediately tried to assess the impression each conveyed. McCain did come across as somewhat condescending. He barely looked at Obama and almost seemed annoyed to have to be talking foreign policy with that other guy. He tried to put Obama down by charging that Obama did not know the difference between a tactic and a strategy. He slapped him for not supporting funding for the troops. (Obama voted against an Iraq war funding bill that did not have a timetable for withdrawal--just as McCain voted against a funding bill that did.) And McCain sent one straight shot at Obama, saying, "I don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or the experience" to be commander in chief.

That was no knockout punch. And Obama kept his now-famous cool. He did not swing too hard at McCain. Several times during the debate, Obama said that McCain was "absolutely right" about the point under discussion. Obama did question McCain's temperament, noting that McCain had threatened extinction for North Korea and had once jokingly sung a song about bombing Iran. But McCain, in response, pointed to his opposition to Ronald Reagan's deployment of Marines in Lebanon as proof he can be trusted to make prudent decisions about war. (That is, he's no warmonger.) McCain noted he wears a bracelet honoring a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq as a reminder of his pledge to that soldier's mother to do all he can to insure her son's death was not for naught. Obama replied that he, too, wears a bracelet--given to him by the mother of another fallen soldier who asked him to make sure no other parent loses a son in vain. He was calm; McCain was pugnacious. How that plays is hard to assess. It's truly a matter of taste.

There was much buildup for this debate. For weeks, members of the politerati looked forward to it as a defining moment in the campaign. The big question: would Obama be able to display commander-in-chief cred? Then McCain's shenanigans--pulling out, jumping back in--added to the drama. The big question: would he be prepared? And would Obama be able to take advantage of the last-minute shift to economic matters? But the debate ended up a straightforward affair, with no twists, no turns. Commentators could score it any way they wanted. Obama held his own on national security affairs, so give him the nod. McCain did the same on economic matters, so maybe he won over the 27 American voters who have yet to decide. You can look at it this way: given that Obama has been ahead in the recent polls, McCain lost by failing to beat him to a bloody pulp. Or this way: McCain survived what many analysts considered to be a bad week for him.

In any event, it's on to the next main attraction: the Biden-Palin duel on Thursday. Then there will be two more Obama-McCain debates. But who knows what other crises will hit between now and November 4 that will force the candidates to react to the real world? In fact, this past week demonstrates that the candidates' responses to events beyond their control may be more important in determining the outcome of this election than the debates. Fancy that: reality trumping political theater. It happened this past week. And in the next six weeks, it could do so again.

Photo by flickr user Barack Obama used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

I am an Obama supporter, just to get that out of the way. I am neither fair nor unbiased in my view!

However, I DID try to judge it simply on who did better.

Honestly, I see a tie with a slight edge to Obama. Both Senators had their moments of successful jabs at their opponent, and both really failed to do anything to put himself above. Obama was more clear, concise, and thoughtful and McCain seemed angry. So nod goes to Obama

Posted by: HJFudge on 09/26/08 at 9:53 PM Respond

McCain comes off as mean and small, he never even looked at Obama. We need a leader that is level headed and thoughtful. McCain had no answers, he talked in circles and sometimes made no sense. Often he just retold old stories we have all already heard. We get it, you have been around a long time and have a lot of stories to tell. We need a leader who thinks about the world as a whole and looks beyond constant conflict. McCain can only see enemies, he is haunted by his own experience. We need a new perspective. McCain is dangerous.

Also, Obama was right, Kissinger backs direct talks with Iran ‘WITHOUT CONDITIONS’.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/09/kissinger-backs.html

Posted by: Chuck Renaud on 09/26/08 at 11:15 PM Respond

Yes good jop. Thanks

Posted by: Muhabbet on 09/27/08 at 2:05 AM Respond

Think of how much better the event would have been if Ralph Nader had been given a podium.

Each candidate would have been forced to deal with real issues. Sound bites would have been called out as "bullshit". The populist posturing would have been exposed, as would have exactly how the major two candidates' foreign policy will yield the same results... more war, more occupation, more dead people.

Too bad, America, you let the PDC filter out the real arguments and all you got was the baby food.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 09/27/08 at 4:41 AM Respond

This was the lamest debate I have ever watched in my live. It was "I am the "bested" Debate. I thing we should ask Bill Clinton to run again. At least he always knew what he was talking about and was able to see the future. These guys cannot answer the question " What can't you do when the country is 10 trillion dollars in the Hole. Oh ask Suzy Orman to run. At least she would give honest answers.
Give me a break. We need a smart president not a agreeable one.
SB

Posted by: Seam Baines on 09/27/08 at 6:02 AM Respond

The debates are a sham since
the League of Women Voters
washed their hands of it
during the last Presidential
election. Now it is just
paid advertising from the
political parties.

Posted by: Thomas on 09/27/08 at 6:38 AM Respond

So first McCain wants the American people to give the government over $700 billion to bail out a bunch a capitalist criminals who ran their businesses and our economy into the gutter. Then he proposes a spending freeze on the government programs that help these very same people in times of need. Finally, he will continue funding the military and and other "national security" concerns (aka domestic spying and torture) and refuse to talk with any world leader with whom he disagrees or dislikes.
What kind of idiot is this McCain? What he proposes is nothing less than a return to Cold War tactics and a cementing of the imperial power of the presidency while carrying the biggest stick he can find. I have a good suggestion for what he can do with that big stick, but he probably wouldn't like it.

Posted by: Clay on 09/27/08 at 7:04 AM Respond

I support McCain but I did not expect him to outperform Obama but that's exactly what he did. McCain, although occasionally incoherent, stuck it to Obama every change he got and had Obama on the defensive most of the night.

Obama made the mistake of conceding point after point to McCain. How many times did he say something like, "McCain is absolutely right when he says...". McCain NEVER conceded anything to Obama and although, in reality, this doesn't mean much, it will sway a large percentage of the American public into believing (rightly or wrongly) that McCain knows what he's talking about while Obama is inexperienced.

McCain has made so many strange comments over the last year alone, yet Obama rarely mentioned these gaffes.

Posted by: HarryNads.com on 09/27/08 at 8:41 AM Respond

@ William W. Wexler, America is not ready for Nader. Nader is the only one crazy enough to actually try to change politics in the U.S. and we all know that's not going to happen.

Americans are confused. They seem to believe Obama is less of a warmonger than Bush, yet he wants to escalate the futile war in Afghanistan and repeats the "Israel is our staunch ally" propaganda.

Americans, get this through your heads, Obama is a good actor, that's about it. He has the same mentality as Bush and McCain and you should be thankful for this.

He understands the way of the world. He understands that in order for America to remain a superpower, they must keep other countries down. Nader does not agree with this philosophy.

Posted by: HarryNads.com on 09/27/08 at 8:47 AM Respond

If I were rating the debate, I would give Obama a slight edge over McCain.

McCain's biggest mistake was not looking Obama in the eye even though the commentator requested the candidates look and speak to each other--McCain stubbornly refused to do it.

McCain appeared to be snubbing Obama as he did on the 9/11 walk. McCain may be insecure about his height and does not want to be seen looking up to Obama,or McCain thinks that snubbing Obama will make his opponent look insignificant to voters. The blantant lack of respect McCain showed Obama last night was a minus for McCain and voters will come to their own conclusions why--and none will be good for McCain.

Obama missed opportunities to go after McCain on his recent vote against Veteran's benefits--he should have hammered McCain on that.

All in all, Obama appeared to be as informed on all foreign policy issues as McCain and assured voters that he is ever bit as ready to be Commander in Chief as McCain.

Posted by: nnorman51 on 09/27/08 at 8:54 AM Respond

Contrary to the author's assertions, the bonds in question are not valued at zero. That is the false construct of mark-to-market accounting.

Mortgage-backed bonds do have performing qualities (ie. underlying mortgage payments) and therefore have value, as demonstrated by the sale of ML bonds by Thane at $.22 on the dollar. Ergo, price discovery is sufficiently established for an insurance premium. The bonds have a floor value, thereby removing the only doubt offered by the Time correspondent (which in my opinion was a weak argument to begin with.)

The issue now is how to acquire the bonds without full exposure to the taxpayer.

I suggest that the proposed $700b expenditure be in the form of loans to the holders of the debt instruments. The Treasury should take the underperforming, "temporarily impaired bonds" as collateral. These collateralized assets should be held on the shelf of the Treasury (without the burden of mark-to-market), where the bonds can be re-financed, consolidated or (declared worthless) over the full period of maturity rather than a worthless assessment declared as of today when the market is bogusly impaired.

As the bond market regains confidence, I surmise a large portion of these assets will be able to return to the marketplace as full-valued performing assets, to be re-sold to repay the original taxpayer loans.

As taxpayers, we may not see a real gain, but we will certainly avoid a MASSIVE loss.

In exchange, participating banks will cancel all dividend payments to equity holders until at least half the debt is repaid, no commissions shall be paid on the bond sales, and no portion of the proceeds received by the participating bank may be part of any compensation plan.

After all -- this IS a bail out.

Posted by: rtrco1 on 09/27/08 at 9:49 AM Respond

What kept coming to mind was the way in which presidents age so fast and so far during their terms. What would McCain look like in four years?
I'm serious. I don't think he has the mojo.

Posted by: Terry on 09/27/08 at 10:51 AM Respond

HarryNads... (tee hee)

I think Nader's point that his supporters find appealing is that he truly is the change candidate. Some of us believe that we are at the end of the line. Either we will change our politics or it will change us... permanently, and not for the better.

We have already allowed our nation to devolve into the state it's in today, where our politicians are poised to pass one of the most loudly protested and despised pieces of legislation ever presented.

It's going to happen this Sunday. They want to do it while we're watching football... that way we can't call in our protests and on top of it, we'll be too busy at our jobs on Monday to do anything about it.

Can you believe this shit? It's an outrage, and it's time to start movements to recall these people, regardless of party. They are defying the will of the people while stealing our money.

No matter how you boil it down, this is just plain theft by attache case and Armani suit.

I hate to sound so defeatist, but if you haven't called your congress critter yet, please do so. I've been calling every day, it's worth a few minutes, even if it doesn't help.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 09/27/08 at 11:06 AM Respond

Prediction.... Before the vp debate, Palin will drop out of the running, siting some private family matter, McKeating will select Joe Brown Nose ( leiberwacky ) to replace her. This will put a damper on the vp debate.Look for this by tuesday evening ...

Posted by: Halpin on 09/27/08 at 2:09 PM Respond

Wexler says: Can you believe this shit? It's an outrage, and it's time to start movements to recall these people, regardless of party. They are defying the will of the people while stealing our money.

Absolutely, it's an outrage!

I've written both Senators and my Rep and let them know that this WILL be a defining vote, regarding MY vote this November. And even if they don't come up for reelection for another 4 years, THIS is the vote they'll be evaluated on then.

I don't intend to forget who they represent.

The only thing that worrys me is that they can go to a voice vote and not be on record regarding which way they went. And if they do that, I'm going to assume the worst about them, should it pass.

Posted by: Let 'Em Know How You Feel on 09/27/08 at 2:46 PM Respond

It doesn't surprise me that someone named HarryNads would see it that way. Why weren't you watching WWE instead? Is it not on Friday nights?

Posted by: freelyb on 09/27/08 at 2:56 PM Respond

freelyb, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but a petty ad hominem attack does not disprove what Mr. Nads wrote.

Can we deal with the content of his posts, rather than doing an end run around it to throw a cheap-shot at the Q.B.?

Posted by: Way To Prove Him Wrong...NOT on 09/27/08 at 3:14 PM Respond

I don't know who won. All I know is that America lost. Both corporate candidates support corporate welfare. Both corporate candidates favor the interests of their large donors over their small donors (a.k.a. government bailout). Both corporate candidates are planning to eliminate government programs. Both corporate candidates are planning on increasing the size of our military. Both corporate candidates want more nuclear power.

Nuance is not a positive attribute. It is a form of deception. I am tired of being deceived.

Posted by: Liberal Larry on 09/27/08 at 5:54 PM Respond

Missouri governor goes nuclear on Obama for using prosecutors on campaign “truth squad”posted at 6:30 pm on September 27, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | regular view Oh, now. Would people really refrain from criticizing Obama just because they fear being, er, sent to prison for it?
This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
More at the link. Needless to say, no one actually has to be prosecuted for this to work. Prosecution will be impossible anyway in most cases thanks to the First Amendment. The point isn’t to jail critics but merely to price the cost of prospective litigation into their decision on whether to publicly criticize The One. Add this to the threatening letters his lawyers sent to station managers over the NRA ads, the flash-mob smearing of David Freddoso, and the appeal to the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for its perfectly factual yet devastating Ayers ad. Oh, the fun we’ll have with a deep blue Congress and an Obama-run DOJ and FCC. He promised you a “new type of politics,” didn’t he? Click the

Posted by: Paul Revere on 09/27/08 at 7:50 PM Respond

The Democrats tried and still have a 20% of all income from the govt 700 billion dollar bail out to go to special intrests such as accorn. We need to clean out the congress and senate of these low life prostitutes. Yes the Democrat bill has that in. Google it and then you have no more excuses. Clinto this week on ABC said the Democrats stopped all regulation of Fannie Mae in 2003. Obama also stopped regulation two years ago. He is a worthless arrogant elitist thief and a political whore.

Posted by: Rebecca on 09/27/08 at 7:57 PM Respond

Yes I know that this is a conservative site, but as I have mentioned before being an independent, I like to look at both sides.

Check this one out.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/memory_lane_lynching_franklin.html

Also I don't like the Obama campaign's connection to Acorn.

With regards to the debate, I felt that McCain looked tired (but who wouldn't be after such a week. And yes he is old, but wisdom does come with age.
It did bother me that he didn't look at Obama.
I felt Obama came off as slick and lawerly. His calling McCain "John" who is a senior senator played off as disrespectful and juvenile. McCain always refered to him as Seantor Obama. This will not be received well by middle America.
All in all, both clung to their respective stump speeches. Will wait to see more.

Posted by: Independent on 09/27/08 at 8:54 PM Respond

mc cain is a war monger

and in a country like america that can get you elected

he wants honor and respect that he feels he lost in nam

he will kill millions to get that honor

we are an imperialist nation so easy to see if you drop your patroitism and nationalism

huff post deletes my posts if i even suggest we are imperialists

bet german did not admit to being imperialists in 1939 and controlled the media

the new bad guys in the world our own america

now economic decline ie go figure

imperialism has its price for the middle class

the middle class lined up to vote for these imperialists

and will line up again to vote for them ie ohio and flordia

wanna bet :-)

Posted by: researcher on 09/27/08 at 10:03 PM Respond

If George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama had any honesty and integrity, they would approach the current banking malady in much the same way that President Andrew Jackson did. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, “Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.”

What President Andrew Jackson said to the bankers in 1832 is exactly what an American President should say to these criminal international bankers today. But what George Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama want to do is provide amnesty for the international bankers. Instead of sending these banksters on extended vacations to the Bahamas with millions of taxpayer dollars in their pockets, we should be sending them straight to jail!

The only way to fix this economic mess that the international bankers have created is to return America to sound money principles, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. This means dismantling the Federal Reserve and returning the American monetary system to hard assets: gold and silver. Anything short of this will only delay and worsen the inevitable collapse that has already begun.

Posted by: CB on 09/28/08 at 7:11 AM Respond

Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet... Where is Media?
By Warner Todd Huston
September 28, 2008 - 03:53 ET

Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.

Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte.

Posted by: fREEDOMN fIGHTER on 09/28/08 at 7:46 AM Respond

The Democrat Party a Criminal Enterprise
Friends of Angelo get new invitations — to a federal grand jury
Countrywide Mortgage CEO Angelo Mozilo offered sweetheart deals on loans to his “friends”, who just happened to be people who had oversight responsibilities on his business. People like Fannie Mae CEO/chair Jim Johnson, Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad, and others got below-market-rate loans from Mozilo through a “Friends of Angelo” program at one of the main lenders at the heart of the subprime collapse. Now a federal grand jury wants to talk to Angelo’s circle of friends to determine whether indictments for corruption are in order:

Countrywide Financial Corp., the biggest U.S. mortgage lender, made large, previously undisclosed home loans to two additional executives of Fannie Mae, the government-chartered firm at the center of the U.S. credit crisis.

One of Countrywide’s previously undisclosed customers at Fannie was Jamie Gorelick, an influential Democratic Party figure whose $960,000 mortgage refinancing in 2003 was handled through a program reserved for influential figures and friends of Countrywide’s chief executive at the time, Angelo Mozilo. Ms. Gorelick was Fannie Mae’s vice chairman at the time.

Another Countrywide client was recently ousted Fannie Mae Chief Executive Daniel Mudd, though it isn’t clear whether he received special treatment on two $3 million mortgage refinancings he made when he was the company’s chief operating officer. …

Countrywide loans on preferential terms to influential figures are the subject of a federal grand jury investigation in Los Angeles, according to people involved in the inquiry. Prosecutors subpoenaed records of many of the so-called “Friends of Angelo” loans in August, lawyers and others familiar with the matter said. …

While Countrywide was developing a closer working relationship with Fannie Mae, the company also had created a special path to handle loan applications from influential figures. The “Friends of Angelo” program channeled loan applications from celebrities, public figures and sports stars — often singled out by Mr. Mozilo — to a department where the borrowers received special treatment, sometimes including lower interest rates and a reduction in fees.

It’s been a while since we’ve heard from Jamie Gorelick. The former 9/11 Commission panelist wound up being one of the focal points of the dot-connecting afterwards, as she pushed for further separation of law enforcement and intelligence efforts in the years prior to the 9/11 attacks, even while al-Qaeda attacked American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. Now she turns up at Fannie Mae, taking the same kind of insider loans while having oversight responsibilities for the GSE and the manner in which its business got transacted with other firms, including Countrywide.

Gorelick claims she never knew she got preferential treatment. For that matter, Barack Obama’s campaign adviser Jim Johnson says the same thing. However, both got loans a full point lower than market value at the time, after going outside the normal channels to get their loans handled. Are we to believe that the CEO of Fannie Mae and a member of its board were completely ignorant of the going rate for residential loans at the time of their application? What business did they think they were in, anyway? The rate for residential loans is the center of Fannie Mae’s business.

The notion that they were ignorant of their preferential treatment insults both their intelligence and ours. I suspect that a federal grand jury will feel the same way if Gorelick and Johnson try to use that line in their testimony, assuming they don’t just take the Fifth when called.

Gorelick hasn’t had any role in the presidential campaigns, but Johnson has been a high-level adviser to Barack Obama — and still is. Chris Dodd has taken leadership on the bailout bill negotiations on Capitol Hill. With two Democrats this closely tied to a federal grand jury action, they’d better hope that the grand jury takes its time in assessing the evidence. This to me seems a lot more worthy of an investigation than a dismissal of a political appointee in Juneau.

Posted by: CRIME FIGHTER on 09/28/08 at 7:49 AM Respond

While we were sleeping...

Our elected representatives from the Democrat and Republican parties sent Bush a $634 BILLION bill that includes a lift of the offshore drilling ban and over 2000 earmarks for pet projects.

Later today they will announce that there is a final agreement on the $700 billion bailout package and they will send it to the House and Senate, urging immediate passage.

This is what the TWO PARTY SYSTEM IS DOING TO YOU.

PLEASE WAKE UP.

How many more $1.3 TRILLION one-day spending sprees can you tolerate before you get out of your chair and start demanding change????

If Ralph Nader were in the mix, you KNOW that you could trust that anything that was WRONG with this bill would have gotten some ink. But in order for this to happen, you have to demand that the press blackout on Nader is ended.

Don't you think we need an adult presence in the room or are you going to let the kids run the playhouse?

www.votenader.org.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 09/28/08 at 7:54 AM Respond

ABC News' Tahman Bradley and Arnab Datta Report: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., on Sunday described Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's request for billions of dollars to buy debt from struggling Wall Street financial firms as "un-American" and said the secretary should have stepped down.

Gingrich even expressed concern with Paulson's connections to Wall Street. The treasury secretary served as the chairman of a major global investment banking and securities firm before joining the Bush administration.

"You have the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs asking for 700 billion dollars, and in his initial request, asking for it in such an un-American way that I think he should have resigned," said Gingrich. "I think Paulson has terminally misunderstood the nature of the American system. Not just no review, no judicial review, no congressional accountability. Give me 700 billion dollars, 700 BILLION dollars! 'I'll be glad to spend it for you.' That's a centralization of power that is totally un-American."

Posted by: Newt on 09/28/08 at 12:50 PM Respond

McCain and his nashyskirty. We've had ROTTEN border security as a product of equally rotten(corrupt) border and immigration policy for as long as McCain's been in politics. I think that's part of how the whole 9/11 thing happened.
'Defense' translates to Big Buxx. No, REALLY Big Buxx. A. LOT. OF. MONEY. With tanks, and guns, and rampant corruption, and stuff. McCain's pretty hawkish. Can you visualize McCain ever vetoing a defense spending bill? Hardly. Obama? Possibly.
But, I think it's the nature of the beast that they're going to try to push for McCain, wave the flag, tell a couple sob-stories about starving troops in Iraf or something, strong-arm Congresser into more spending, and the gravy train will lurch on toward whatever its' final destination turns out to be, there. But, with Obama, maybe that's not quite so set in stone. I don't know, it's kind of a crapshoot. Hopefully, whoever DOES get the job has been taking notes and listening to a public that is not happy with this administration, or with Congress, and is of a mind to put an end to the war, and instead of handing more billions to people that already eat pretty well, start pushing for things that will make it so that US citizens can get into the business of growing their own food again and producing their own energy. Independence is the keyword. Let's have a little DE-globalization, I say.

Posted by: Bert on 09/28/08 at 2:57 PM Respond

Bert writes: We've had ROTTEN border security as a product of equally rotten(corrupt) border and immigration policy for as long as McCain's been in politics.

Which would be 10 years less than the 36 years Joe Biden's been in the Senate. Since he was 30 years old, after 2 years as a county councilman. A true career politician.
Quite a few of his Senate years were with substantial Democratic control of the Congress, and 12 years of which with a Democratic president.

But it's all McCain's fault.
Right?!?!

It's just six-of-one piece-of-sh!t, half-a-dozen-of-the-other hunk-of-crap. But partisan dupes will never allow themselves to see it for what is and what it's been.

Posted by: You Don't Say..? on 09/28/08 at 3:39 PM Respond

The beauty of this theft is that the people who have already been caught red handed stealing your money are telling you how awful it is that they're taking it.

And the collective IQ keeps plummeting...

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 09/28/08 at 5:40 PM Respond

Hey Wexler, I think you are out of luck.

The truth is Americans don't really want change. If they did, and independant would win hands down.

What American's really want is a return to normalcy.

American's want a Democrat or Republican because they know what those terms mean. American's fear the unknown. You know for example that if you vote for a Republican he'll most likely be against abortion and be a homaphobe. You know that if you vote for a Democrat you'll get someone who is all about big business but will wrap their views in a big liberal bow.

To vote for anything else, is to vote for uncertainty. As the old song goes, rather the devil you know.

Posted by: EbbieA on 09/29/08 at 6:41 AM Respond

In any balanced contest, small and medium sized businesses will outperform big-business 95% of the time. Thus is the underpinning of the 'financial crisis' this country is now into. In order to provide Wall Street with a viable advantage, all rules of fairness and justice have gone out the window. Most people paid zero attention while this was all gathering over the past 30 (or so) years. It really started with Paul Volker (then Federal Reserve Chairman) who kept raising interest rates in a pissing contest with the Carter Administration, to insure Carter would not be reelected. This ushered in the era of the big-dumb TV commercial actor / president, who rang-up a few trillion in national debt. While Clinton was a far better deal for the American people then Reagan or Bush-1, he let the Wall Street power-brokers have an orgy or few. The Bush-W administration became the "Boogie-Nights" era of abuse and corruption.
As to the debate: I feel that McCain slightly won, simply because he far surpassed most people's expectations of him. However, on the other side, Obama appeared to have his information wired tightly, which is beyond what most people expected from him. Who to believe? If one believes McCain in his quest to rid Washington of the stench it has acquired, then, he wouldn't be so bad. He is in a better position to fight these gangsters (as a pissed-off old Military guy) then Obama. But Obama shopped at Goodwill as a youth and I am convinced that he is a penny-pincher, which is what we need right about now. Plus, McCain may be full of baloney or, more likely, a bit of a 'split personality'. And then there's Palin, who has less business near the White House then Bush-W. Never mind her qualifications, which can be argued till the cows come home. She simply does not have the data-bases to deal with the complex issues associated with being second in line to the Presidency. While Biden has also put his foot in his mouth, its because he talks way too much. Word for word, Palin mis-speaks about 100x more often then Biden.
Lastly, none of the candidates mention our dysfunctional legal system, which is at the core of the problems America is facing. Without serious repair, we might as well vote for the dead corpse of Ken Lay. If you want B&W proof of how screwed up our system is, analyze a few state's appellate decisions wherein the state's government has been Democratically controlled for a number of years. You will find that the appellate decisions published by the State's Supreme Court are often totally opposite from decisions rendered by the Federal Appeals Court covering the same state and similar subjects. Why? Because the US President (generally a Republican) appoints the Federal judges. The two courts then operate off of completely different books-of-law and both pretend that they are on the same page. Each virtually ignores the other. Since giant corporations almost always use the Federal court system, many have become untouchable and can act as they please--without functional limits.
Even Ralph Nader has been remiss on this subject. And he knows better. Without a clean-up of this problem, we are debating over window-dressing.

Posted by: Trollstein on 09/29/08 at 6:55 AM Respond

fREEDOMN fIGHTER -- This AP story says that the mother of the soldier is delighted that Obama wears her son's bracelet. Doesn't mention the ex-husband. Hmmm.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdsm_ntfH32sDoi1u_H9HYCDeaHAD93G1RBG0

Posted by: Greg on 09/29/08 at 11:54 AM Respond

i don't know what you're all talking about. i think george bush should run another term...oh, wait hahahahahaha i just wanted to see if people freaked on that thought :)

Posted by: meeee on 09/29/08 at 3:21 PM Respond

Could you please comment on the idea that the ongoing crush may force a devaluation of at least fifty per cent. That would destroy the holdings of the Chinese, Japanese and Europeans - around 10 trillion dollars- and also those of the American pensioners. If the same Bankers reorganize the economy, they would make sure
to hold sway of everything.
If this is the plan - in a way similar to the crisis of the 30´s, these people would
have a chance to enforce the NWO as well, over the ruins of the economy.

Posted by: karl on 09/29/08 at 3:54 PM Respond

MILWAUKEE — The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was "ecstatic" when Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama mentioned during Friday's debate the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.

Tracy Jopek of Merrill told The Associated Press on Sunday she was honored that Obama remembered Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, who was killed in 2006 by a roadside bomb.

Jopek criticized Internet reports suggesting Obama, D-Ill., exploited her son for political purposes.

"I don't understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet," she said.

Jopek acknowledged e-mailing the Obama campaign in February asking that the presidential candidate not mention her son in speeches or debates. But she said Obama's mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, said a soldier's mother gave him a bracelet.

"I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant _ from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay," Obama said during the debate. "She asked me, 'Can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I'm going through?' No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided."

Jopek says Obama's comment rightfully suggested there's more than one viewpoint on the war.

She wouldn't directly say whether she wanted Obama to refrain from mentioning the bracelet again, but said she hopes the issue will just go away.

"I think these bracelets should be looked upon as an honor that both candidates wear them to respect the troops," Jopek said. "My request to both of them is that they honor the troops by lifting the conversation to the issues, and that they continue to live up to the standards our military deserves."

Posted by: RKSTAR on 09/29/08 at 6:02 PM Respond

The poblems in our elections are not the candidates,but the American people themselves
who accept to be programed by the media every election.the candidates tell the people what they like to hear!even the candidates are programed not believe in themselves!
the candidate could be the most educated person in America but if he or she decided to run for an office
they hire a bunch of advisors(Con Arts) to help them get elected by any means necessary.as a result,our respected candidates must give up their independence and be ready for make over !and before they can hit the street,they meet with their masters to tell them exactly WHAT to say & HOW to say it . it's just like directing an actor in a movie including
what they should be wearing !if you really want to know what the candidate's answers will be about certain subject,you need to know about his advisor's opinions or agenda.WHY Obama & McCain are in the same area code on Israel?
check the advisors !WHAY Obama & McCain are anti Russia?again,check their advisors ! I'm sure U got my point.If we need A change,we as American must be willing to change & not the candidates.

Posted by: massimo on 09/30/08 at 1:39 AM Respond

Debate? My personal memory of this stuff runs back to Carter's campaign while lying in my hospital bed for a broken ankle at age 7. Even then I could tell these people were playing me. Soundbytes, cliches and BS. That's all we get from our politicians on the best of days. There are no discussions, no debates, no examination or review whatsoever of the issues and potential solutions we face in America. There's only the demopublic monopoloy playing a game they believe to be democracy. And what's worse is the spectacle of Americans who buy into it.
America - you have a choice. Break the demopublican hold on our government that has existed for over a century now or shut up and accept that our system allows for a mentally (and emotionally) retarded Jesus freak into office.

Posted by: thealienanthropologist on 09/30/08 at 5:32 AM Respond

Trollstein, it has been reported that some Jewish bankers are behind it as evidenced by the shut down of Congress on the Jewish holiday today. If this was such a crisis, why did all of Congress go home during this "crisis" period? It is just a big swindle Trollstein, and you know it.

Posted by: Wessel on 09/30/08 at 9:50 AM Respond

McCain indeed has some obsession with barbie look alikes.
His mention, as foreign experience during the debate, of saying "I KNOW who Tymoshenko is" is part of that, but no one seems to have noticed it.
It turns out that Yulia Tymoshenko is the Ukrainian Prime Minister and SHE does indeed seem to be the model after whom Sarah Palin is being cut, or is the inspiration. Yulia Tymoshenko is a sexy good looking woman who has gotten to where she is by wiggling her tail, is crazy about her looks, and sells them well, including perfumes of her own brand. Just Google her out, including Images, of course.
She is also known for her corruption in relation to gas pipe-lines and gas (energy) mis-deals. Amazing similarity, isn't it?

Posted by: El Mugroso on 09/30/08 at 11:22 AM Respond

And, on Yulia Tymoshenko, SHE is known as "The Gas Lady", AND, by the way, Dick Cheney is right now in dealings with her over there.
Dick Cheney, by the way, IS the nominator, behind the scenes, of Sarah Palin. All this is related to Oil and Gas interests.

Posted by: El Mugroso on 09/30/08 at 11:27 AM Respond

This site is filled w/such intellect, insight and onside information. Wow! DC "IS" again the man behind the scenes. Please....spare us all.

Look! Like it or not, Palin IS the Veep nominee that McCain picked. I never heard this same angst towards Clinton. "WE" must have looked at Clinton in a different manner.

"WE" bitch about the status quo in Washington...the REpub's this, the Repub's that, the Dem's are...and so on. This guy, McCain, tries to do something different and the Congress be doomed over ONE lady from Alaska. Is there not some schizophrenic folly behind this?

It takes 3 things to qualify to be the Veep of the U.S. First, one must be 35 years of age. Second, a natural born citizen, and third to have lived in the U.S. for the last 14 years. Guess what? ...Palin IS qualified. It's not rocket science, it's just that easy.

Posted by: Jimmy on 10/01/08 at 8:01 AM Respond

And...if we all had the same attitude as Rebecca towards these folks that we as a whole tend to idolize. Maybe, just maybe. Throw 'em all out! It's time for a constitutional convention.

votenader.NOT

Posted by: Jimmy on 10/01/08 at 8:25 AM Respond

I am deeply concerned that the public still thinks, after the first debate, that McCain has the better plan for ending the war in Iraq.

One reason -- Barack never really challenged McCain's assertions that the Surge was an unqualified success; and that the success of the Surge would be undermined if the U.S. set a firm date for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

This is what Obama should have said during the debate regarding “Timetables” – and what he needs to say now to the American public through ads (and should be prepared to say if Mr. Brokaw, doing McCain’s bidding, brings the matter up again during the next debate) —

“Senator McCain is against setting a timetable for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq.

“That is not his call. Nor is it the call of our generals. Nor is it the call of our Government.

“If I am calling for a timetable, it is because the people of Iraq are calling for a timetable.

“It is their country, it is their call.

“The Iraqis are tired of being occupied. In poll after poll, before the surge, during the surge and after the surge, 70% plus of the Iraqis have asked that American combat troops leave within two years. Both the parliament of Iraq and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have responded to the will of the people of Iraq by demanding that American combat troops leave by a date certain.*

“We should not station American combat troops where they are not wanted.

“It is time for our troops to come home.”

*Source: Testimony of Dr. Steven Kull Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), University of Maryland  Director, WorldPublicOpinion.org   July 23, 2008 - 2:00 PM  Before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight.

Posted by: Michael Floyd Miller on 10/02/08 at 7:47 AM Respond

I am deeply concerned that the public still thinks, after the first debate, that McCain has the better plan for ending the war in Iraq.

ANOTHER reason -- Barack never really challenged McCain's assertions that the Surge was an unqualified success.

This is what Obama should have said during the debate regarding “the Surge” – and what he needs to say now to the American public through ads (and should be prepared to say if Mr. Brokaw, doing McCain’s bidding, brings the matter up again during the next debate) —

"Admittedly, Iraq is less violent today than before the Surge. Why? Not because we put an additional 30,000 troops in harm’s way. That had little or nothing to do with diminishing violence in Iraq. The real reasons are threefold.

"FIRST, the Shia and Sunni militias have largely finished the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. They drove millions of Iraqis out of their homes and into tent cities, where they still live.

"SECOND, Al-Qaeda in Iraq made the mistake of assassinating Sunni tribal leaders. The Sunnis had no problem with Al-Qaeda when Al-Qaeda was bombing Shia mosques and shooting American troops. But when their operatives turned their guns on Sunni tribes, that was the end of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is a shadow of its former self. General Petraeus deserves credit for arming the Sunni tribes and helping them take out Al-Qaeda.

"THIRD, Iran told the Shia militia to stop shooting one another and put down their guns. Why? Because Iran wants the Shia majority Government to succeed. The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who Senator McCain says that America’s President cannot meet without preconditions, met last March in Baghdad with Iraq’s President without preconditions. Said Ahmadinejad “My visit to Iraq is to the benefit of all countries, because if there's peace, if we establish peace and put an end to (the American) occupation, that will be to the benefit of all countries”. Said Ahmadinejad, my visit “opens a new chapter in bilateral ties with Iraq. … We have had good talks in a friendly and constructive environment. … We have the same understanding of things and the two parties are determined to strengthen their political, economic and cultural cooperation.”

"The Government of Iraq has already warned us not to use the territory of Iraq to invade Iran.

"After having spent upward of a trillion dollars; after more than 4,000 brave American soldiers died in Iraq and after more than 30,000 soldiers were gravely wounded in Iraq, what has the United States gained from this war? Nothing. The true Victor is Iran, who saw its greatest enemy, Saddam Hussein, driven from power and its Shia allies in Iraq come to power.

"The Iraq war will go down in history as one of the greatest strategic blunders ever by an American government."

Posted by: Michael Floyd Miller on 10/02/08 at 7:51 AM Respond

Best description of McCain I have yet to see in such a compact space.

Posted by: Sammie on 10/03/08 at 5:20 AM Respond

I don't remember if I commented on this one yet or not, but, if I did, well, here I go again...
One of the functions of these debates is to air some dirty laundry. To the extent and degree that our Candidates are discussing issues of national relevance, they are performing a public service, and for that, I applaud them both. One thing that Barack has mentioned is the offshore business stuff, Cayman island offshore business headquarters, 22k such 'headquarters' in one building alone, I think he said. But, both Candidates have their work cut out for them with the mortgage mess, it's definitely an issue of national importance, it affects the lives and livelihoods of millions of US citizens as well as our economic base, as real estate and property tax and business lease costs affect all businesses, too, and the energy issue has come up, because that's equally an important issue with national impact. I hope that both Candidates will at least briefly talk with billionaire/oil mogul Pickens, because from where I sit, it seems like he's pushing in the best possible direction on this issue at the moment. Pickens has talked about the INSANE amounts of revenue moving one-way beyond our borders to purchase our national oil supply, and you may as well lump in the cost of the military with that, and it's just gotten stupid. But, ironically, 'hot air' may end up being part of our national salvation, not only for its' ability to push turbine blades, but also to get people to sit up/sit down, and start talking and thinking about how to solve the energy problem, and to gain as much input as humanly possible on other issues, such as the whole sordid sleazy international real estate business. More transparency, more public accountability, and less people sitting on foreign shores or yachts presuming to dictate, or attempt to dictate America's national future. That's my view.

Posted by: Bert on 10/04/08 at 8:32 PM Respond

Dear All,

It certainly comes down towards the end of the day that the people must decide who they want to represent them.
Politics by nature threads a fine line between the interests of many communities within a state. The decision for any change would require much grass roots lobbying that competes with commercial & extremist lobbyists.
Unfortunately like many countries around the world, the government has failed to provide enough funding into the development of education & public transport, leading to a whole lost of their edge to other countries who have done so.
What the u.s.a has experience under GB has been irresponsible & should be subject to reprimands by the people & not be protected under law.
Sure GB has held up the economy temporarily by waging war but has paid a price on the economy & environment.

Too many short term lifestyle goals & greed on the part of the general public have lead to their own demise.
We have enough knowledge & history to understand that previous civilizations have ended due to religious based management & over exploitation of the environment.
The world needs to wake up to a sustainable future by proper education policies, spurring on economies & taking off the damage on the environment.

Let it be known the path to prosperity & peace will be difficult, hopefully humanity will learn & not forget the incompetences of the past.
God have mercy on all of us.

Posted by: Rustan on 10/11/08 at 1:50 AM Respond

I'd like to talk about "drill baby drill", a slogan of the McCain Campaign.
I work for the power industry and have recently helped to expand the Meeker Substation in northwestern Colorado to provide power to electric heaters so that oil companies there can remove the oil from the shale with new technology. Oil Shale Exploration Corp. said they are already producing 4,000 barrels a day from the experimental plots lease to them by the government. And with the current price of oil this is most certainly... worth the effort.

It is reported that there is more oil in the Colorado-Utah-Wyoming area alone, then all of Saudi-Arabia. So that 3% tid bit from Obama at the debate was absolute malarkey.

There is also oil off the coast of Virginia, off the coast of Florida, in Alaska, and an estimated 10.3 billion barrels of oil off the coast of California, which is hurting badly for revenue at the moment.
So what is "drill baby drill" going to do for the American people?

*REMOVE US FROM OUR DEPENDANCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST* Is there a better benefit then this?

*CREATE MILLIONS OF JOBS* literally... millions. We will need people to provide power to the rigs, drill,transport the oil and people to refine the oil; literally millions of jobs.

*CREATE THOUSANDS OF NEW TAX PAYERS WHO ARE AT THE MOMENT DRAWING UNEMPLOYMENT*

*PAY OFF MILLIONS OF HOME LOANS* this is soooo important, I'm going to say it one more time. *PAY OFF MILLIONS OF HOME LOANS*
and
*LOWER THE PRICE OF FUEL*

If you think this is a bad idea then vote for Obama, he has repeatedly voted against off shore drilling.

People… please… adjusting taxes will not fix our economy, but instead, raising taxes on those that provide jobs is only going to make matters worse for us. We need jobs right now. We need John McCain.

Posted by: jason.herod on 10/17/08 at 11:32 AM Respond