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

Debate II—McCain Offers a Man; Obama Offers More

Last Thursday, during a McCain campaign town hall meeting in Denver, one participant stood up and challenged the GOP presidential candidate: "When are you going to take the gloves off?" His fellow McCain supporters in the downtown hotel roared with approval. "How about Tuesday night?" John McCain replied, referring to his second debate with Obama.

How about not? The McCain campaign in recent days has pumped up its effort to delegitimize Barack Obama, with its top strategist apparently calculating that McCain cannot vanquish Obama if the election is about issues. At a recent rally in a California suburb, GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin declared, "Our opponent...is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (This was a reference to Obama's past association with Bill Ayers, the former Weather Underground radical who became an education expert). And on Monday, McCain delivered a blistering attack on Obama that was loaded with inaccuracies and distortions. So one expectation among the politerati was that McCain would continue swinging--or thrashing--at the second debate. Work in Bill Ayers. Refer to Jeremiah Wright. Depict Obama as shifty and untrustworthy.

That did not happen. McCain, trailing Obama in the polls, mainly trained his fire on policy matters. He did continue to hurl misrepresentations at Obama. (As the debate proceeded, I received 40 emails from the Obama campaign making this point.) For instance, McCain once again claimed that Obama has voted 94 times to raise taxes, a charge that has been widely debunked by various factchecking outfits. But there was no frontal assault on Obama's character--and only one or two slight digs on his qualifications. The debate was more high-minded than anticipated. But it demonstrated a tough reality for McCain: he is out of sync with his own campaign. He cannot pull the trigger, when his advisers seem to believe a machine gun blast is needed.

Obama and his campaign are fully integrated. He calls for a break from the past eight years on both domestic and foreign fronts and famously urges fundamental change. As a new face--and a black man--he sure does represent change. He is his message. And his campaign for over a year and a half has not had to go through any strategic lurches or had to reconfigure either its candidate or its core pitch. That's not true on the McCain side. His campaign has been nothing but lurches. And the most recent one--a turn toward even more negative campaigning--undercuts his old and now practically worn-out reputation as a straight-talking maverick. So come Debate II, McCain was confronting a tough choice: damned if he does (go negative) and stalled if he doesn't.

Deciding to forego the nasty stuff, McCain relied on policy differences to hammer Obama. The problem: Obama's policy prescriptions are not unpopular.

In response to the first question--posed by a member of the audience--Obama defended the Big Finance bailout bill, but he excoriated the "failed economic policies" of the Bush administration, tied McCain the Deregulator to said policies, blasted the corrupt chief execs of AIG, and called for a middle-class "rescue package," involving tax cuts, health care reform, energy independence, and an infrastructure rebuilding plan.

That didn't leave McCain much of an opening. As he has done in the past, McCain tried to portray wasteful Washington spending as the main evil in the land. His big news of the night was to propose that the federal government ought to buy up bad mortgages so people could keep their homes. But for some reason, when McCain tried to appeal to Americans worrying about their economic security, he didn't use the phrase "middle class." (McCain preferred to use a less engaging term: "middle-income.")

McCain took a punch at Obama, a top recipient of contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives, for supposedly encouraging both institutions to make "all these risky loans." (Factcheckers, start your engines.) Obama countered that McCain's own campaign manger, Rick Davis, had been a lobbyist for Freddie Mac. McCain blasted earmark spending, noting that Obama had requested $3 million for a projector for a planetarium in Chicago. Obama pushed back: earmark spending accounts for $18 billion a year, cutting back these requests is fine, but McCain wants to hand a $300 billion tax cut to corporations and wealthy individuals.

There was not much point scoring--certainly not for McCain who probably did, as the pundits said, need to make up ground. When moderator Tom Brokaw asked each to say how they would prioritize health care reform, energy independence, and entitlement reform, McCain gave the standard political line: we can do them all at once. Obama, looking decisive, said, energy had to come first, then health care. And he placed education in his third spot. In this exchange, he came across as the adult in the room. When McCain derided Obama for being a tax raiser, Obama calmly and forcefully explained that he proposes to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans and that only a small percentage of small business would be affected by the tax hikes he advocates for the well-off.

One of the most interesting--and perhaps telling--exchanges of the evening occurred when Lindsey Trella, an audience member, asked, "Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?" Obama went first and explained his proposal and made McCain's health care plan appear reckless:

If you've got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it. You can keep your choice of doctor. We're going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year. And we're going to do it by investing in prevention. We're going to do it by making sure that we use information technology so that medical records are actually on computers instead of you filling forms out in triplicate when you go to the hospital. That will reduce medical errors and reduce costs.

If you don't have health insurance, you're going to be able to buy the same kind of insurance that Sen. McCain and I enjoy as federal employees. Because there's a huge pool, we can drop the costs. And nobody will be excluded for pre-existing conditions, which is a huge problem. Now, Sen. McCain has a different kind of approach. He says that he's going to give you a $5,000 tax credit. What he doesn't tell you is that he is going to tax your employer-based health care benefits for the first time ever. So what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away. He would also strip away the ability of states to provide some of the regulations on insurance companies to make sure you're not excluded for pre-existing conditions or your mammograms are covered or your maternity is covered. And that is fundamentally the wrong way to go. In fact, just today business organizations like the United States Chamber of Commerce, which generally are pretty supportive of Republicans, said that this would lead to the unraveling of the employer-based health care system. That, I don't think, is the kind of change that we need.

McCain then explained his plan:

I want to give every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit. They can take it anywhere, across state lines. Why not? Don't we go across state lines when we purchase other things in America? Of course it's OK to go across state lines because in Arizona they may offer a better plan that suits you best than it does here in Tennessee. And if you do the math, those people who have employer-based health benefits, if you put the tax on it and you have what's left over and you add $5,000 that you're going to get as a refundable tax credit, do the math, 95 percent of the American people will have increased funds to go out and buy the insurance of their choice and to shop around and to get -- all of those people will be covered except for those who have these gold-plated Cadillac kinds of policies.

He did not effectively address Obama's criticism of his approach. And when Brokaw asked the pair whether health care in America is "a privilege, a right, or a responsibility," McCain went with "a responsibility," adding, "But government mandates, I--I'm always a little nervous about that." His was not an eloquent reply. Obama then answered the question: "I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

Throughout this back and forth, Obama displayed a command of policy, and he also connected with anyone who has ever been pissed off with their health insurance company. McCain seemed rooted in free-market ideology--which ain't looking so good these days.

On foreign policy issues, the discourse was a replay of the previous debate. McCain hit Obama for having not supported the so-called surge in Iraq, claiming this demonstrated that Obama did not have the judgment to be commander in chief. "We don't have time for on-the-job training, my friends," McCain said. Obama, though, gave no ground. With some steel in his tone, he replied:

Well, you know, Sen. McCain, in the last debate and today, again, suggested that I don't understand. It's true. There are some things I don't understand. I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us. That was Sen. McCain's judgment and it was the wrong judgment. When Sen. McCain was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we'd be greeted as liberators. That was the wrong judgment, and it's been costly to us.

Wrong on the surge versus wrong on the whole war? Clear advantage to neither. Which is a loss for McCain, given that he's supposed to have an edge on national security matters. And when McCain accused Obama of dangerously suggesting that the United States ought to be prepared to attack al Qaeda targets within Pakistan, Obama fought back: "Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and, you know, I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible. Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of speaking softly. This is the person who, after we had -- we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad." McCain dismissed the "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" quip as "joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me about Iran."

For an evening billed as The Night McCain Attacks, Obama landed as many blows as did McCain. Neither took any wild swings. But Obama, leading in the polls nationally and within swing states, didn't have to. He is going smooth and steady. He was practically cruising in this debate--slow and calm. He exuded confidence. McCain was no slouch. He just couldn't overcome a high-performing foe.

In his final remarks, McCain talked mainly about himself:

I have spent my whole life serving this country. I grew up in a family where my father was gone most of the time because he was at sea and doing our country's business. My mother basically raised our family. I know what it's like in dark times. I know what it's like to have to fight to keep one's hope going through difficult times. I know what it's like to rely on others for support and courage and love in tough times. I know what it's like to have your comrades reach out to you and your neighbors and your fellow citizens and pick you up and put you back in the fight.

That's what America's all about. I believe in this country. I believe in its future. I believe in its greatness. It's been my great honor to serve it for many, many years. And I'm asking the American people to give me another opportunity and I'll rest on my record, but I'll also tell you, when times are tough, we need a steady hand at the tiller and the great honor of my life was to always put my country first.

It was a reference to his POW experience. Nothing as explicit as his convention speech, which ended with a vivid description of that episode--but still it was John McCain talking about John McCain.

Obama ended the evening talking about what's going on:

The question in this election is: are we going to pass on that same American dream to the next generation? Over the last eight years, we've seen that dream diminish. Wages and incomes have gone down. People have lost their health care or are going bankrupt because they get sick. We've got young people who have got the grades and the will and the drive to go to college, but they just don't have the money. And we can't expect that if we do the same things that we've been doing over the last eight years, that somehow we are going to have a different outcome.

We need fundamental change. That's what's at stake in this election. That's the reason I decided to run for president, and I'm hopeful that all of you are prepared to continue this extraordinary journey that we call America. But we're going to have to have the courage and the sacrifice, the nerve to move in a new direction.

McCain offers a man; Obama offers more.

For many voters, it's gotten rather frightening out there. Perhaps frightening enough that the presidential race for them is not about which candidate is a proven hero but about which candidate best speaks to the challenges at hand. (A CBS insta-poll after the debate found that among uncommitted voters, Obama won the debate 39 to 27 percent, with 35 percent calling it a draw.) Obama is campaigning these days as if he senses that the times are on his side. That was clear in the debate. What was also clear was that McCain has to try another tact in the final debate next Wednesday. He will need another lurch.

Comments

You guys need to study Ariel and Will Durant - you just don't get it...the pattern for our own destruction is all around you, Mother Jones, and you're feeding it....Jesus, the greatest radical of all time, proclaimed the only solution to this madness and said it loud and clear....Love the Lord, God, with all your heart, and love one another....check the condition of your hearts, brothers and sisters.

Posted by: Jack on 10/07/08 at 10:16 PM Respond

Jack,

What pyscho-babble are you spewing forth? Apparently, you don't get it. As long as the American people stand for war, death, destruction, pain, anguish, starvation, pestilence and misery, you have no chance at that paradise you seem to be dreaming of. If either McCain or Obama wins, then prepare for the worst disaster that is at hand.

Posted by: Reed Richards on 10/08/08 at 12:44 AM Respond

Jack you have given me the lulz.

Reed, elaborate?

Posted by: Jones McJones on 10/08/08 at 12:53 AM Respond

Oh oh, the talking snake people are here.

OK... I have given up on the "debates" as anything more than a dog and pony show, and I believe it's a travesty that the other candidates who are on the ballot (such as Nader) are excluded. But that's another topic.

The so-called "town hall" format is so contrived and absurd as to be comical. It's supposed to appear as if a group of random townsfolk left their plows in the field, put on their Sunday best, and came to the meetin' to ask their candidates a few questions about how they are gonna make life better in 'merka.

Holy sheesh. What a complete charade of a lie.

The format was supposed to favor "the Republicans" for some reason. Perhaps having a wooden old man staggering around the room getting in people's faces asserting things that aren't true, but instead are part of 'merkin folklore that you're SUPPOSED to believe, is an advantage to McCain. Maybe it is; maybe if he keeps asserting that he will put a "steady hand on the tiller" it will come true, although his military career and his own campaign literature tells us that he's a goofball who crashes airplanes and votes against conventional wisdom. Mavericks are erratic, aren't they? Don't they do stuff like put a spending freeze on EVERYTHING to make a point that they're doing SOMETHING, even if it's wrong?

The MSNBC pundits told us that McCain needed a "game changer" last night and it didn't happen. Instead, his spin machine will claim that he humiliated Obama, and they'll get right back to inciting crowds to kill him.

This is why American politics desperately needs third parties. I sure wish that MJ was more inclined to provide coverage of the Nader campaign. He's on the ballot in 45 states, a difficult feat due to complex and non-standard hurdles thrown up by the two parties that want to keep other ideas out.

If you heard anything last night that you haven't heard before, then have a drink. I'm thinking you'd be cold sober. We need the new ideas of progressives.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 10/08/08 at 2:53 AM Respond

William,

If you think the debates are just a dog-and-pony show and that the town hall format is absurd and comical, then why do you care that Nader is not allowed to participate? Do you wish your candidate to be a party to such nonsense?

Posted by: Gary on 10/08/08 at 4:48 AM Respond

I support your position, Jack, but must add a call for discernment as well. Reed is also correct in his assertions that radical fundamentalism hasn't produced the outcome that Christ foresaw.

Posted by: freelyb on 10/08/08 at 5:21 AM Respond

Gary:
We deserve more options in who we elect as president. And frankly, Nader has different things to say. He denounces the Federal Reserve. He's against the massive, bloated military budget. He doesn't want to see health insurance CEOs make their money by denying care to the customers that buy their insurance (what the f*** happened...we went from caring about customers to caring about stockholders?!?!?!) Yes, his participation would change the dynamic of the debates.

Posted by: Jay on 10/08/08 at 6:14 AM Respond

I learnt so many things last night.

First - why have more than 1 debate? I'd say that 75% of what was said was taken verbatim from the previous debate. The only shockers was McCain plan to buy homes (not his idea although he claimed it) and Obama's call for a line item veto (holly Constitutional shit Batman!).

Second - If the audience chosen was to look like the American people, then the American people are:
0% Hispanic, 0% Asian,
10% fat white bald guys,
95% totally unattractive,
and 100% f***in' morons. The chick with the Far-Side-like-glasses asking the "trust" question was a freakin' stumblin', bumblin' hill jack,

Third - How many times can McCain say "reachin' across the aisle" and mention that Reagan worked with Tipp O'Neil on a tax deal. I counted 4 and 2. And, how many Americans know who Tipp O'Neil was?

Fourth - McCain is far from being free of senior moments. On prioritizing Energy/Entitlements/Health Care, McCain had to write down each topic and look back at the list. Then his answer as to which to prioritize? "Do them all at once." I mean, we can easily fight a two fronted war...

Fifth - You would think that these guys are courting the Saudis. Why won't either Obama or McCain mention the Saudis when talking about money that we go to when buy foreign oil? Obama says, "Middle Eastern oil", but does not mention the Saudis??? McCain goes on about "givin' money to countries who don;t like us very much but never mentions the Saudis. WTF?!?!?

Finally, who is McCains hero? Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt? He mentioned both, but I think it goes to Reagan with his finishing line, "Our best days are ahead of us". Reminds me of Bush II's bit about livin' on the east side of the mountain to watch the sun rise. And both are out of the Reagan play book.

Posted by: kirkbrew on 10/08/08 at 6:23 AM Respond

Tip O'Neil:
He was singly responsible for a major revision of medical protocol. Namely, he gets full credit for the rule that there must be a cardiologist in attendance during stress-testing.
O'Neil's physician: "OK Tip, on the treadmill"
O'Neil: "Ya know doctor, I'm not feeling that great".
O'Neil's physician: "Now Tip, we go through this every time."
O'Neil: "Yeh doc but I'm really feelin kinda slow today".
O'Neil's physician: "Tip, I don't want any more complaining, now come on".
O'Neil: "OK. (gets on treadmill) Hey doc, how much longer, cause I'm feelin a little nauseous."
O'Neil's physician: "Tip I'm not going to argue with you, its 5 more minutes".
O'Neil: "Five minutes? Come on doc, I'm feelin kinda faint".
O'Neil's physician: "Tip, you're a big boy and you'll get no special privileges here".
O'Neil: "Really doc, I'm not kiddin, I don't think I can make it".
O'Neil's physician: "Four more minutes Tip . . . the more you complain the harder it will be."
O'Neil: _^__^__^___^___^____^____^_____^-- - - - - - - - - -------------------------

Posted by: Winston Smith on 10/08/08 at 6:51 AM Respond

Gary...

Why Nader?

Because having him on the stage would change the dynamics of whatever format they chose into something useful.

The other two candidates could do sound bites of their stump speeches, Nader could tell the truth. Then people could make up their minds who best represents them... a couple of Washington corporate creatures or someone who actually shares their values and has worked for them.

I assume that you were trying to be a smart*ss with your question, so why did I bother answering you?

Sometimes I amaze myself.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 10/08/08 at 9:06 AM Respond

Kirkbrew,

The reason that a wider variety of American s are not represented by the town hall audience is that they decided beforehand to have the audience represent middle class people who consistently vote. Minorities are not included in that category.

That was the worst debate format I have ever seen. I got tired of the negative barbs and almost turned that tv off. Tom Brokaw had no control over the forum and honestly the 1 minute time limit was too short. I really wish we were open minded enough to include Bob Barr and Ralph Nader in these debates and include some real questions. This way the American people would get a fair chance of electing a suitable candidate.

Posted by: Lyssa Barnes on 10/08/08 at 9:14 AM Respond

Seems silly reviewing the debate in terms of a contest to be won or lost when it's clear that it is the American people who are the losers in either case (given a "choice" of two corporate drones sucking the life out of the republic...) Why doesn't MJ talk about that?

Posted by: Deskpoet on 10/08/08 at 9:45 AM Respond

(Cross posted at CQ)
A Slate headline states today "Obama killed on the foreign-policy questions" and Mr. Corn says "[Mccain] cannot pull the trigger, when his advisers seem to believe a machine gun blast is needed". Killing and shooting would be questionable figures of speech under any circumstance, but they are especially egregious when the mccain/palin campaign is whipping its base into an ugly frenzy to the point that people are shouting "kill him [Obama]" at rallies.
The press only furthers this mindset when it uses these tropes to describe really vile tactics.

Posted by: AmiBlue on 10/08/08 at 9:59 AM Respond

Mr. Obama clearly won the debate although he almost ruined everything--because he kept turning his back to the active camera (minor-league mistake).
When Obama came down on McCain re: his "Bomb Iran" medly, it reminded me of "The McCaine Mutiny".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9KlQPX1qiE

Posted by: Trolstein on 10/08/08 at 11:28 AM Respond

COMPLIMENTS OF FACTCHECK.ORG

Dubious Health Care Savings

Obama said that his health care plan would cut premium costs substantially:

Obama: We're going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.

We contacted health experts about this claim before – when Obama was saying the $2,500 would be the savings per family "on average." Some were quite skeptical. M.I.T.’s Jonathan Gruber told us, “I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion.” Obama has also said on the campaign trail that more than half of the savings would come from the use of electronic health records, a major part of his plan to cut health costs. When we looked into that claim, experts told us it was wishful thinking.

Adoption of electronic medical records has been slow among doctors and hospitals. Obama could do much to speed it up, but it's not clear that he could bring about widespread adoption or reap such large savings from it. One of his advisers previously told us that the $2,500 figure included savings that would go to government and employers and that could, theoretically, result in lower taxes or higher wages for Americans. It remains to be seen whether savings could trickle down like that, even if Obama could gain the optimistic overall health care savings he touts.

Posted by: THE DEMOCRAT on 10/08/08 at 12:20 PM Respond

Ya, and well the proble is that when the whole ship is leaking and going down under the blows and battering of the rocks it's captain decided to head straight for, 'a steady hand at the tiller' is not at all appropriate. Heading away from the rocks is, and repairing the ship on dry land.
McCain has always been a wannabe me too me too, who spouts violence as a ,which it is not, to anything but crisis, and even then, is usually not the answer. He sanctifies violence in every form he can. That is not a responsable leader, of a country, or of a household, or of anyone's life.

Posted by: G Sido on 10/08/08 at 12:55 PM Respond

Nader is in the pockets of the GOP and for those of you who are unwilling to acknowledge, accept, and/or research this, you are just as much a blinded flock as you claim the rest of us to be.

Posted by: CW on 10/08/08 at 1:08 PM Respond

The Democrat, you forgot to follow up the rest of factcheck.org's statement on dubious healthcare..

McCain misstated his own health care plan and Obama’s in one sentence:

McCain: I am in favor of . . . giving every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit and go out and get the health insurance you want rather than mandates and fines for small businesses, as Sen. Obama's plan calls for.

McCain's plan does not call for giving a $5,000 tax credit for "every American." It calls for a tax credit of $2,500. The $5,000 figure would apply to couples or families. And Obama’s plan requires large businesses to provide coverage for their employees or pay into a national plan, not "small businesses," as McCain said. Obama's health care proposal, posted on his Web site, says: “Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.” McCain previously used this charge in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, and he repeated the claim in the debate, saying, "If you're a small business person and you don't insure your employees, Sen. Obama will fine you. Will fine you." As we said, that's false. Obama countered that he had proposed a refundable tax credit for small businesses of up to 50 percent of the cost of premiums, which is indeed part of his plan. We've noted before that neither man defines what he means by "small business."

Let's look at both sides of both healthcare plans.

Posted by: completemayhem on 10/08/08 at 1:11 PM Respond

There is an explosion of information about the severity of the economic crisis that is blowing up the world; nevertheless, the candidates expressed the same prepared lines in order to induce the public to sleep!
Karl

Posted by: Karl on 10/08/08 at 1:12 PM Respond

CW, I absolutely agree with you on Nadar. He lost my respect when, in 2004, he claimed "many Republicans support me and therefor I have no problem with them petitioning to have my name on the Presidential election ballot".
Yea, right, Republican's just loooove you Ralphie, and the fact that many Independents voted for you over Kerry, splitting the votes and giving us 4 more years of Bush.

Posted by: completemayhem on 10/08/08 at 1:17 PM Respond

McCain might as well have personally attacked Obama last night. Does anyone think Palin is attacking without the full knowledge and blessing of John McCain? The campaign seems to pride itself on their choice of Palin for attack dog. I have no respect left for McCain. He has damaged his own image beyond repair. His performance at last night's debate was pathetic, an old man who is selling his soul to win the election.

Posted by: dishesdone on 10/08/08 at 1:34 PM Respond

Nader, Bob Barr...fine. But don't forget Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party. She's actually got a sensible platform. I hope her ideas and commitment don't go to waste.

Posted by: Antonio on 10/08/08 at 3:01 PM Respond

Antonio, I plan to vote for Barr as I lean pretty strongly libertarian, but I guarantee you I'd vote for McKinney and the Greens long before I'd eat the requisite cubic yard of sh!t associated with voting for either McCain or Obama.

Posted by: Aurora Snow on 10/08/08 at 3:07 PM Respond

I just read all of these comments and want to thank all of you for your cogent and reflective replies. It does my old heart good at 70 to read such articulate musings on the fate of our nation. You reinforce my belief in the quality of intelligent people left in the USA. Despite the atrocious behavior of the Republican strategists, hell bent on hoodwinking the public, you all have added something important to the political dialogue affecting the electorate. Each comment was read carefully by me and perhaps overlooking some specious remarks found the writers' comments fascinating. What hasn't been said are the questions regarding McCain's health, his stumbling around and incessantly blinking on stage, choice of a repugnant and diabolical women clearly "out of her league," by the Senator as VP, and the vicious smear campaign used as a surrogate for his lack of substance on the major issues. As for his hero status, give me a break, whatever they did to him in Hanoi doesn't prepare him for the presidency. He got his medals and a promotion (for which many Vietnamese widows and orphans must be eternally grateful after all the napalming of villages his squadron took part in--just following orders, right?). He dumped his invalid first wife, married up, and kissed Goldwater's ass...that's the man we're supposed to elect? NOT.

Posted by: Jerry in NC on 10/08/08 at 3:16 PM Respond

"although his military career and his own campaign literature tells us that he's a goofball who crashes airplanes and votes against conventional wisdom" -WWW

McCain is many things, including fair game for political slander and commentary. BUT, to any that would denigrate a man's service to his country by making light of the fact that McCain strapped a jet to his ass, was shot at, and down in service to his country, are to be reminded that it has been these men throughout our nation that make it possible for such ignorant statements to be made without fear of redress from our government.

A modicum of respect is due here, especially from any who are subject to gov't handouts.

Posted by: Jimmy on 10/08/08 at 4:14 PM Respond

McCain "strapped a jet to his ass" because it was the most prestigious and sought after job to be had during the Vietnam War, if not in all of military history. Does anyone not believe he got the job because his family is a military dynasty, and his father was an actively serving admiral?

Regarding his POW experience, it was unfortunate. But his special treatment there also occurred because of family ties. I guess you can't expect special preferential treatment without also being subject to special unfavorable treatment.

Posted by: RKT on 10/08/08 at 5:17 PM Respond

Jimmy is right that we should honor and respect the veterans that took part in U.S. wars. That many were drafted against their will and died for a lost cause like Viet Nam or even Korea (a truce is still in effect there) is regrettable. The volunteer Army in Iraq and Afghanistan has suffered immeasurably and for the most part for another lost cause. I also served in the US Marines as well as the US foreign service for a total of 32 years.

Jimmy,I get a gov. retirement check every month (a handout some would say) but I still think McCain should be judged on what he has or hasn't accomplished in 26 years in the Senate not his ability to survive unspeakable torture. Let's give him extra credit for speaking out against torture at Guantanamo and renditions to foreign countries of our prisoners so they can be tortured clandestinely. If he wants to walk the walk he should talk the talk. Alas, the wheels have fallen off the Straight Talk Express as Obama would say. Poor John (and Gov. Demagogue) is headed for ignominious defeat. Finishing 5th from the bottom at Annapolis will look like glory land compared to the thrashing the voters are going to give him and his party.

Posted by: Jerry in NC on 10/08/08 at 6:22 PM Respond

Thank you for your service. It is still admired adn greatly appreciated by a few of us in the U.S. A retirement check for this effort is the least "we" can do. My reference was not to your retirement check.

In my humble opinion, the trash talking stops with the service to one's country.

Posted by: Jimmy on 10/08/08 at 7:31 PM Respond

Repugnicans have only ONE talent, and that's the talent to get elected. It makes this the scariest election ever.
What makes it totally horrifying is Palin. She has lots of that Reaganesque moron appeal, and since the repugnican base is mostly made up of culturally and intellectually challenged people (let's not mince words, shall we?) who "vote with their hearts", vote for Jay-zus and react mightily to flashy little buzzwords, I'm very much afraid she's going to become the next vice-president.
WORSE : if Obama wins this turn around, she will not remain idle.
You can bet that the GOP, having discovered her natural talent for moron appeal, will spend the intervening years coaching her to a high point of efficiency, where she'll even APPEAR to be intelligent and well informed.
I can't help but think of Stephen King's "The Dead Zone".
There's no deus ex machina in real life, no magical Talleyrand who will be hovering over her shoulder fixing her messes.
She's roadkill with lipstick, and she might be president one day...

Posted by: Spitfire on 10/08/08 at 8:33 PM Respond

there r only two problems

1 we no longer live in a republic we r governed corporatisum

2 to many people , how many can the boat hold

Posted by: bopdad on 10/08/08 at 10:33 PM Respond

Jerry [10-8-08; 3:16pm], my friend (oops a McCain repetitive), I agree completely with your observations. Senator McCain's military experience, while admirable, occurred over 40 years ago and didn't qualify him for the presidency any more than General McAurther's grandstanding in the Phillipines and, later, Korea. McCain's choice of Gov. Palin as a running mate defies logic. Yep, he's a maverick (I might get sick if I hear that again). But good golly, don't cha think we deserve someone who can at least tell us what newspapers she reads, what her views of the Bush Doctrine are, that her views of foreign policy extend beyond simply seeing Russia from the Aleutian Islands and 2 days in Kuwait, and who doesn't grind her critics into oblivion? To be honest, I am not enamored with Obama. As bright and articulate as Sen. Obama is, Sen. Biden would have been the better first choice as President. More experience. But I've grown accustomed in my many years of presidential elections to having to vote for the lesser of two evils. At least this time we have someone to vote for who has real spirit, grasp of national and international issues and gives us Joe Six Pack educators, attorneys, engineers and other educated Americans hope for the future. Kinda reminds me of Jack Kennedy or probably more appropriately, Bobby, though he was cut down before we could enjoy his firebrand enthusiasm and leadership.

Now, anyone want to talk about California's Proposition 8 attempting to strike down gay marriage?

Posted by: SJguy42 on 10/08/08 at 11:52 PM Respond

Which reminds me :

IF my man Obama becomes president, they better put a whole heap of security on the poor guy, even more than they have for the dubya right now. Nobody wants to shoot the dubya anyway, they just want to spit on him.
But Obama, well he just has that Kennedy-ish thing about him. He's young, smart, educated, liberal, "Er ist ein Berliner" and literally a beacon of hope... just the kind of guy they like to assassinate.
And, as we have often seen, the right wingers never miss their mark. They love guns and guns love them.
Beware!

Posted by: Spitfire on 10/09/08 at 12:30 AM Respond

The preceding statement by Spitfire is pure hatred and evil.

Posted by: Boofus on 10/09/08 at 9:48 AM Respond

If McCain had listened to the alarm going off in the cockpit, made a rational decision and juked out of the way....
But no. Johnny McWarhero kept a steady hand on the tiller and flew right into the SAM, lake, Hanoi hilton, American politics.
What a pretentious, self serving asshat.

Posted by: Dan Stashman on 10/09/08 at 10:10 AM Respond

Kirkbrew,

I disagree with you on the 2nd point. With respect to the questions, why don't you ask Tom Brokaw why he chose those questions out of the 6 million that he received in total! Yes, Tom received millions of questions online as well as from the members of the audience---and it was Tom Brokaw who picked the questions for the debate.

The reason that the simplistic questions were chosen is probably due to the format of this debate, which doesn't work. The rules were determined by the debater's respective parties, rules meant to play it safe but, in doing so, left the candidates answering multiple choice questions rather than essay questions.

Posted by: Marve1 on 10/09/08 at 11:48 AM Respond

"But no. Johnny McWarhero kept a steady hand on the tiller and flew right into the SAM, lake, Hanoi hilton, American politics."

What in the hell do you know of flying a jet while someone is shooting at you? The courage it must take to sit at a computer and make flagellant attacks about a subject matter that you have only ever read about.

The man's political opinions are fair game. I give you that. But service to your country...have an ounce of respect.

Posted by: Jimmy on 10/09/08 at 9:39 PM Respond

It never ceases to amaze me how the mindless lemmings of the American electorate are mesmerized by the title of "War Hero"!(I seem to remember a guy named Joeseph McCarthy who considered himself a war hero also)

McLiar was NOT drafted. He was engaged in an activity that he chose and enjoyed.

It also doesn't strike me as very "heroic" to be bombing innocent citizens of a country that never did anything to us.

I would have to say that ALL the soldiers involved in that misguided conflict were "VICTIMS" of arrogant and ignorant leaders.

However, Gramps McCain managed to parlay his military experience into a political career, millionaire wife, more homes than he can remember, 13 cars, an executive jet, and $500 imported Italian shoes to wear. A truely "Fortunate Son", indeed! Maybe he should write a thank-you note to the Vietnamese.

Too bad he can't take the time to vote for Bills in Congress that would improve the lives of fellow Veterans who were NOT as fortunate as him though.

As far as the psuedo-debates. I have only one thing to say to Mr."My Friends"McCain: WE ARE NOT YOUR F__KING FRIENDS!!!!!!

Something that millions of voters will make VERY clear on November 4, 2008.

BE A SUCKER FOR THE RICH.........VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Posted by: JNH88KR on 10/09/08 at 11:36 PM Respond

JNH88KR:
To my thinking, there were no "war heros" from the Vietnam War. Many on the left like to compair Vietnam with Iraq but the two circumstances are FAR apart.
1. We had no vital interests in Vietnam, except for the "witch-hunt" for commies that could not harm us in the slighest anyway.
2. The only way they could harm us is to invade rice patties and rubber tree plantations and thereby subject ourselves to their rightious retaliation.
3. The history is clear on the issue: While the American youth was being told that we were protecting democracy in Vietnam, the opposite was true. We were attempting to extinguish it and support a corrupt dictatorship--against the general will of the people.
4. Ho Chi Min was a great admirer of the USA and was as shocked as anyone to learn that we were not inclined to support him and his cause. He was also well loved by a vast majority of his people. He was also a strong ally in WW2. Saddam by contrast was a mass murdering tyrant, hated by a vast majority of his people--who had scorn for the USA and our people. He was officially a Nazi until it appeared clear that Hitler was not in hiding in Argentina and would not be returning--at which point he switched to a Stalinist political platform (Baath).
Back to McCain:
He was too well educated to just be given a pass on understaning of the above points and was certainly a "America right or wrong" person. So on that basis, his gun-ho willingness to participate, he can not be considered a "hero" of any type (in my book). That said, the guy was a prisoner for five years. He was tortured. Now, has he milked all the fat he could out of that? Absolutely--and then some. So, at the bottom line, I see two sides to this issue.
a. He was a tortured POW.
b. He is entitled to some comp. on that basis. The problem is that he has way busted his comp..

Posted by: Trollstein on 10/10/08 at 2:36 AM Respond

Obama said that Iran should be barred from importing gasoline. Isn´t that exactly the same as HR 362 and SR 580, i.e. virtually a Declaration of War as Congressman Ron Paul stated ???

Posted by: Claus-Erik Hamle on 10/10/08 at 2:03 PM Respond

Man! I wonder, if the Dem's and the Messiah, Obama, win this election, what is there for the left to bitch about? Their own? That won't happen.

Posted by: Jimmy on 10/10/08 at 11:53 PM Respond

Obama said he wouldn´t allow the UN to Veto a US attack on Iran. What´s the matter with him ? Does he think the US owns the world because of bigger guns ?

Posted by: Claus-Erik Hamle on 10/11/08 at 1:33 PM Respond

Don't even bother to respond to j88, he's an insulated college boy who doesn't understand how the real world works.

Posted by: Dave Fennell on 10/11/08 at 2:41 PM Respond

Sigh.

What?

And how is he/she full of s***?

Oh that's right, calling a spade black is talking 's***'.

Right.

Posted by: rantersparadise on 10/12/08 at 12:46 PM Respond

I wish McCain's campaign would point out that the Obama campaign has Shepard Fairey, a known copyright violator and petty criminal, as Obama's official campaign artist. Obama can accept $400,000 raised from Shepard's Obama prints but he gave donations from another criminal, Rezko, away? What gives and why is the media not onto that!

Shepard Fairey has made a career off of creating art that depicts the White House burning and other situations that are not patriotic. The guy is a left wing wacko. And Obama supports him? Obama actually sent Shepard Fairey an official letter praising his career and supporting the artists practice of placing Obama stickers all over city stop signs. I wonder how many people have died because of that?

Not to mention that street art clean up cost the nation over $15 billion per year! And Obama supports it? Street art can be cool but it cost tax payers a lot of money! But if you point out the Obama / Fairey connection people say you are closedminded. I think spending that money on education is more openminded. Sorry. But Obama supports artists who destroy our city streets?

Posted by: Artist against Obama on 10/16/08 at 12:04 AM Respond