<p>Agree with much of what’s been written here. She did a very good, not great, job. She hit a double but needed a homerun. </p>
<p>Agree with whoever said she needed to go after him on the commander-in-chief role. I am an Obama supporter, but that is the one area where I have concern, so I know if I do, others do as well. </p>
<p>Feels like she’s conceded already. I did not care for her two snipes: the tired plagiarism thing again and the way she came to Austin and insulted a local boy and former mayor (the infamous posted YouTube video where he couldn’t come up with an Obama accomplishment). Poor form that didn’t gain her any points. Again, she had a good target but went for the cheap shot instead.</p>
<p>Obama “almost hit” Clinton? Hmmmm, I didn’t see that.</p>
<p>H, who is a major BO supporter and a debate coach, found her presentation to be much superior to BO’s last night. I do not trust my own instincts to judge the results, but he was stunned at the talking head’s credit given to BO for the debate. There are lots of disconnects in the reactions of folks to these two candidates, clearly some nerves are being hit in a way which clouds judgement.</p>
<p>“I watched it. I thought Obama was very condesending towards Hillary. He acted just like some of the incompetent male jerks I have to deal with at work. I am very disappointed she didn’t just tear into him.”</p>
<p>I didn’t see that. I think he was very laid back and mellow whereas she was extremely tense and uptight.</p>
<p>Obama looked like he was trying to keep his frustration under control while Hillary went on and on about his rhetoric. I think he did a good job of ridiculing the notion that all his supporters are “delusional”. Just because he gives a good speech and because he has had less time on the national stage does not mean he is not up to the job. If nothing, the way in which he has run his campaign should show that he is likely to put together a very good administration. I also think his foregin policy plans are excellent. He is right about talking to our enemies and not demonizing them. He could do on the world stage what he has done on the national stage- which is to unite people and gain the respect of adversaries. And no, that is not delusional. I have lived outside this country and guess what? People have the same aspirations all over. The people in Guatemala and Cambodia also have the same “dream” that we arrogantly call the “American” dream. There is nothing American about it.</p>
<p>I loved the taped interview with the obviously young (could tell by her voice) girl at the Obama Houston rally. When asked why she thought he would make a good president, seeing that he had little experience, she responded with, “Well, everyone’s got to start out somewhere.”</p>
<p>WOW! I believe that too, but I don’t think the Whitehouse and leader of the free world is the place to start!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope you’re right, but I fear that when he starts swimming with the sharks (not only world wide, but in DC) he is going to be eaten for lunch.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think they are delusional, but I do believe that they are being a tad bit too hopeful. How are they going to feel when he falls short of the high hopes they have for him?</p>
<p>“She missed the single greatest opportunity to knock him out and answer the question about whether Obama would be a good commander in chief.”</p>
<p>She would have been crazy to answer that. If Obama gets the nomination, the Republicans would have been all over her answer of “No.” Whatever happens, both Obama and Hillary have to take care to (and no doubt want to) support the Democratic party.</p>
<p>ag54: >>I hope you’re right, but I fear that when he starts swimming with the sharks (not only world wide, but in DC) he is going to be eaten for lunch.>></p>
<p>I am glad to see a non-Obama supporter use the word HOPE! Tellingly you also use the word FEAR in the same sentence. </p>
<p>I agree, hope and fear are both part of any bold and great accomplishment. I can just hear the wise men saying: </p>
<p>“I hope George Washington can succed in beating back the British but I fear that when he starts swimming with the sharks…”</p>
<p>Fear should not paralyze us from doing the right thing.</p>
<p>“How are they going to feel when he falls short of the high hopes they have for him?”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I think that such a question could be asked of any supporter of any candidate on either side of the fence. It is the nature of our political system. :o</p>
<p>“How are they going to feel when he falls short of the high hopes they have for him?”</p>
<p>Many of us who have high hopes for Obama also have quite moderate expectations. We know that for the most part, the president doesn’t really run the show in Washington, and no president in history has ever served four years without making big mistakes. Plus, we’re in the middle of several giant cesspools right now (war, economy, etc.).</p>
<p>We HOPE that Obama can get various Washington oars to row together out of this pit, but that just means that we think the odds are a little higher with him than with the other candidates. If his first-term accomplishments move us only modestly in the right direction, I will neither be surprised nor terribly disappointed.</p>
<p>Bombing Pakistan and “talking” to Iran is “excellent foreign policy”??</p>
<p>It was just on the news that Iran has NOT curtailed Nuclear development. Their leader is an insane tyrant and is he**-bent on destroying Israel (as in DESTROYING!). Obama wants to legitimize that?? No, Foreign Policy takes much more finesse than Obama realizes.</p>
<p>McCain has been well-versed on the situation in the Middle East since his days as a Navy Liason in the early 80’s. In fact, he opposed sending Marines into Beirut (and we all know how that turned ou!). </p>
<p>Again, I ask you, how many times does McCain have to be RIGHT about something for people to realize he is the most capable candidate??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is complete hype. Unite people?? Respect of adversaries??<br>
The other world leaders will eat him for lunch & that weakness will give our adversaries the opportunity they’ve been waiting for. On top of that. his entitlement programs will break the bank. </p>
<p>Obama should change his slogan to “HYPE You Can Believe In!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The difference is - in America, you can actually ACHIEVE it!</p>
<p>Uhh, that’s a stretch, but I’ll go with it;)</p>
<p>I’m not an anti Obama person, in fact I like him. I’m just being a devil’s advocate. I watched the debate last night, and I was off put by some of the things that were said because I don’t believe that, given the nature of the world and politics right now, his hopeful changes can come to fruition. I know he is an educated and very intelligent man, so I cannot get past the idea that he knows that alot of what he’s saying is unattainable, and he is saying them to get elected.</p>
<p>But, I guess that’s the nature of all politicians.</p>
<p>I heard another interview yesterday that was pretty funny and telling. Ted Kennedy was preaching on the need for new blood and inspiration in Washington, and that Obama is the man to bring it. But, when the interviewer asked him about the fact that he and many of his co-harts have been in Washington for many years, and that maybe they need new blood in congress too, Ted hemmed and hawed and changed the subject back to how Obama has invigorated the youth to vote.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but this is delusional. Do you honestly think that people who praise Allah when they are successful in blowing up children or cutting people’s heads off will become “respectful” of the United States because of its change in leadership? These are our adversaries, not the people in the countries that you have lived in over the years. </p>
<p>This is the most delusional part of rhetoric of the left - that al Qaeda is “just like us” and just wants to “get along” with the rest of the world. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The only thing that bin Laden will be happy about if Obama is elected is that some of the measures being used to track him down or keep him in check will be relaxed.</p>
<p>I watched every minute of the debate but I somehow missed the part where Obama was “almost hitting” Clinton… did you mean “hitting on” Clinton, Amom2? Please explain the part where he nearly came to blows with her so that I can find it on Youtube.</p>
<p>FF: You are wrong. And by the way, this is not a “rhetoric of the left” I agree with the true conservative Ron Paul on this issue. “They” did not attack us because we are Christian or because are a free country and they hate freedom. They attacked us because they were angry with our support of the dictatorial regimes in the Arab world, because of our need for oil. The Arab youth including those who join Al Qaeda would love to be part of the world economy and enjoy the same freedoms that we enjoy. Our policies are preventing them from realizing their own “American” dream. Until we realize that even the terrorists are actually human beings who once had simple dreams and aspirations, we will never be able to win against terrorism. </p>
<p>Parenthetically, I have to point out that the main reason we are succeeding in Iraq is because we have quietly started negotiating with the terrorists there. All these people who are now our allies, we used to call them terrorists about a year ago. And guess what? That was a smart move. </p>
<p>This is not a leftist world view. This is a conservative view and also a Christian view. Did Jesus preach hatred or love and forgiveness? Are his teachings just impractical now?</p>
<p>I don’t agree with this. It’s a substantive difference between them and the Republicans will go after him on this anyway because their candidate is much stronger in this domain. She can’t become the nominee unless she points this out. That said, she can’t complain about the media not vetting Obama if when given the opportunity, she won’t. I think the plagiarism thing was a stupid distraction that put her on the defensive. It was “Bush” league, pun intended. Pointing to the lack of any credible evidence of him having the requisite experience to be commander in chief is not only fair game, it’s the only game. </p>
<p>In other words, FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) will be emphasized by McCain because it exists, it’s real and most importantly it’s reasonable given Obama’s minimal record. It is a liability for him. If she doesn’t go after him for it and take him down, than he’s the nominee and I expect him to lose big time to McCain. If she refuses to damage him, I assure you that McCain will. </p>
<p>The American people are far more moderate than either party and you won’t find a Republican candidate more palatable to swing voters than McCain.</p>
<p>“They attacked us because they were angry with our support of the dictatorial regimes in the Arab world,”</p>
<p>Oh please!!! So they are really just freedom fighters trying to get democracy installed in Arab countries? And because of that they attacked the US? Do you really believe that nonsense? If they just want democracy, how do you explain the brutal, dictatorial Taliban in Afghanistan? How do explain them attacking the democratic process in Pakistan? </p>
<p>No, they aren’t just against dictators - they are against ANYONE who doesn’t share their views of a rigid, dictatorial theocracy. These aren’t just misunderstood poor people; they are the modern-day equivalent of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Just like these other mass-murderers, they will not be satisfied until they have killed everyone who stands in their way of achieving their evil ambitions.</p>
<p>“Arab youth including those who join Al Qaeda would love to be part of the world economy and enjoy the same freedoms that we enjoy”</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I disagree with you completely. The aspiration of that segment of the population is an Islamic theocracy, not a free society. THis is a deeply held conviction and one which its holders feel duty-bound to achieve. This is not demonizing anyone, just acknowledging that which the people involved will tell you right to your face. Take their word for it.</p>