<p>“McCain could never get 200,000 people”</p>
<p>Maybe if there were free concerts by popular acts ahead of his speech?</p>
<p>Two German acts, reggae artist Patrice and rock band Reamonn, preceded Obama’s speech today.</p>
<p>“People OF THE WORLD, this is our moment, this is our time.” - Senator Barack Obama.</p>
<p>Megalomaniac.</p>
<p>“But then, I listened to them both at the Compassion forum. And what struck me is that, for all of Obama’s less polished delivery, he was more on point than Clinton, who seemed to use questions as a hook for an already prepared mini-speech and seemed as well, not to want to relinquish the microphone (it was a one-on-one format) lest she might be asked a question for which she had no ready answer.”</p>
<p>I would have to go over that one again.</p>
<p>What I learned in public speaking class was that the questions are usually given to those debating ahead of time. So that prepared answers aren’t that hard. What is hard is the preparation. I think that we were advised to do 30 minutes of preparation and practice for each minute of speaking. If you know your subject well, then less preparation and practice is required.</p>
<p>I don’t think that Clinton was worried about a question for which she didn’t have an answer.</p>
<p>“And that’s why I have not minded, as others seem to have done, that Obama pauses in mid-sentence, stammers”</p>
<p>My baby is the most beautiful in the world. Even her soiled diapers make my house smell fresh.</p>
<p>“I think that Obama has handled the interviews he’s had on this trip very well. the one thing I would (and did) fault him for was his unwillingness to give more credit to the surge for the current decline in violence.”</p>
<p>[Joseph</a> A. Palermo: Why John McCain’s “Surge” Success Story is a Lie](<a href=“http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/why-john-mccains-surge-su_b_114416.html]Joseph”>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/why-john-mccains-surge-su_b_114416.html)</p>
<p>So let’s get this straight: Petraeus arms Al-Qaeda with 115,000 AK-47s and assorted other weapons. Lots of folks – including Americans – get killed. Sheiks turn against Al-Qaeda, and Petraeus puts 113,000 Sunni insurgents on the U.S. payroll (will they stay on the payroll when the U.S. leaves? Or has the U.S. set up the civil war for the next President, whoever he may be?) Sadr decides to wait the U.S. out (as Iran is quite happy with the pro-Iranian Maliki government). Petraeus presides over the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, with 600,000 extra refugees forced to flee, and builds walled enclaves over two-thirds of the city. 5,000,000 homeless people (basically take the entire population of the U.S. west of Texas and make them homeless and you have the equivalent); only 30,000 ever return. Many starving. Violence levels now “reduced” to the level they were at in the beginning of 2005, as U.S. arms were being distributed to Al-Qaeda. Maliki tells the U.S. to leave.</p>
<p>“Success” of the increase in aggressive, hostile occupying forces? What’s wrong with this picture? </p>
<p>The “surge” is not a catchphrase: it has a content, and rather than listening to McCain’s mantra, folks should examine what it is.</p>
<p>Simba:</p>
<p>That was beneath you. Maybe you should be wearing the diaper. I smell something foul.</p>
<p>BCeagle: The debates, especially the last one that was full of gotcha questions prove that the candidates are not given the questions ahead of time. They can prepare and can try to guess which ones they will be asked. clinton certainly did her homework very well, which is why she always was fluent, and had information at her fingertips. Obama can be faulted for less preparation. I don’t know if the questions at the Compassion forum (which came from the audience, not the moderator) were given to the candidates ahead of time or not.</p>
<p>Simba, you are right on here. It’s the “can do no wrong, say no wrong attitude” that I really don’t like. (actually pretty terrified about).</p>
<p>Obama = Bush’s inexperience + arrogance.</p>
<p>Criticize Bush all you want - I won’t disagree, but I think Bush has a wee bit more humility than Obama.</p>
<p>So all things considered, I’d be more concerned about an Obama administration than even what we’ve seen over the last 8 yrs.</p>
<p>It’s ok to not know everything, but it’s not ok to think you do when you don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel the same way. After eight years of enduring Bush’s relentless verbal gibberish and mangling of the English language, Obama’s thoughtful hesitations are downright refreshing!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, Bz. You know I’m fond of you, but have you lost your marbles? Bush has to be, hands down, the most arrogant, swaggering occupant of the White House in my lifetime.</p>
<p>“The debates, especially the last one that was full of gotcha questions prove that the candidates are not given the questions ahead of time. They can prepare and can try to guess which ones they will be asked. clinton certainly did her homework very well, which is why she always was fluent, and had information at her fingertips.”</p>
<p>They simply could have provided a long-enough list so that it was impossible to prepare for them all. But Clinton was fast on her feet in response to Obama’s answers indicating that it wasn’t all preparation. And it could be that she just knew the material well. If you know the material well, you don’t have to spend that much time in prep.</p>
<p>Clinton is brilliant AND a great debater. I thought Obama held his own against her, for the most part.</p>
<p>Why should we be concerned about an Obama administration?</p>
<p>So far, he’s run a nearly flawless campaign, without drama and meltdowns.
He has assembled an impressive cadre of advisors who are widely admired for their expertise.
He has been able to communicate his vision to his audiences.
He is known as a listener among those who disagree with him, as a Republican former colleague states, adding that he might just, for the first time vote Democrat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love fairy tales too.</p>
<p>What fairy tale are you referring to? Marite is 100% right on every point.</p>
<p>BC:</p>
<p>I agree that Clinton is a great debater and very fast on her feet.<br>
I have never thought that debating skills were the most important attribute in a leader. The president of the US will not be leading a debating team. So, perhaps, I don’t put as much value on some of the debates as others do. The compassion forum was not a debate. It was one candidate at a time fielding questions from the audience. There were tough questions, but none were of the “gotcha” kind. And there, I thought that Obama handled the questions better than Clinton, pauses, stammering and all. I don’t know if he had come across as well if it had been a real debate.</p>
<p>I may be wrong, but Clinton gave the impression she wanted to win the debates and sometimes overshot the mark in her eagerness. That came across with her “I want to hear the answer to that!” Obama gives the impression he wants to put his ideas across.</p>
<p>The President has to meet with world leaders who may be very sharp and shrewd and may have to negotiate with them. I’d prefer someone with those skills instead of the guy that has to mumble through giving a little kid a breathalyzer.</p>
<p>BCeagle:</p>
<p>I have to disagree with you here. Negotiations are not debates,They are not confined to 90 second sound-bytes. They drag over a period of months and years often. What a president does is to set policy with the advice of his team. Most of the actual negotiations are done by staff rather than the president. Rice is the one doing the negotiating (thank goodness!) not Bush.</p>
<p>I do pay attention to who the candidates’ advisors are because they are crucial in both helping set policy and carrying it out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that’s so, could you please explain it to us?</p>
<p>I’m still at a loss for what he is really all about. Does he like Free Trade & NAFTA? Is he “post-racial” or has he embraced one of the most racial organizations in America? Is Rev. Wright his “spiritual advisor” or not? What does he think of Ayers who bombed sites in America & stated publicly he wishes he’d bombed more? What is his connection to Rezco anyway? What are his thoughts about Cuba? (I’ve heard he wants to end the embarge & I’ve heard he would not take it off b/c it’s “an important inducement for change”). What does he think of labor unions? (first he criticized Clinton & Edwards for taking their $$, then said he was thrilled w/ their support when his own donations started pouring in). Does he want to “crack down” on Illegal Immigration or not? Is he for decriminalization of marijuana or not? (He’s come down on both sides of both of those issues in the past).</p>
<p>What’s with this guy? Does he have a solid policy on anything?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, McCain has PLANS (The Lexington Project for just one thing!). He has strategies. I’m sure he’s been planning what he’d do as president since before Obama could walk! (And that DOESN"T mean he’s too old for the job!).</p>
<p>— I know y’all are getting tired of my regular posts about the virtues of McCain’s candidacy (which by definition must include - at times - Obama’s shortcomings). If you all would just come over to our way of thinking I wouldn’t have to flood this place w/ posts (esp. since I might be outnumbered here!).</p>
<p>It would not do me (or JM) any good to go to some political forum where EVERYONE thinks alike. CC is the place to make a difference I think & if I can convince a few of you undecideds - or even ONE democrat to vote for McCain, all my efforts will be worth it! (esp. if you convince a few of your friends!).</p>
<p>You all are smart - I’m optimistic! (& judging from some of the PMs I’ve received lately, maybe there is a glimmer of “hope” for the ol’ guy! Thanks!).</p>
<p>(Yeah, that can be Obama’s new slogan: “HOPE - For McCain!”).</p>
<p>“I have to disagree with you here. Negotiations are not debates,They are not confined to 90 second sound-bytes. They drag over a period of months and years often. What a president does is to set policy with the advice of his team. Most of the actual negotiations are done by staff rather than the president. Rice is the one doing the negotiating (thank goodness!) not Bush.”</p>
<p>In negotiations, you need to be well prepared, able to laugh at yourself and quick on your feet. President Bush seems to be fairly comfortable with Putin but I assume that he’s uncomfortable with the real stuff. But the President does meet and can negotiate with foreign leaders. And there is negotiations with local leaders (Congress, Senate, Governors).</p>
<p>“I do pay attention to who the candidates’ advisors are because they are crucial in both helping set policy and carrying it out.”</p>
<p>How do you feel about spiritual advisers?</p>