<p>My late night insomnia played out well for me last night—I saw a replay of the entire debate during the infomercial-time-of-night. We haven’t heard any explanation of the “almost hitting” episode. It did not happen.</p>
<p>I think each candidate had their own strong moments, and a handful that they each didn’t handle well. However, this, as well as several speech excerpts I’ve heard from both, assures me that either will be a formidable opponent to McCain. THAT reassures me. Either will be a refreshing change from the current White House. </p>
<p>I think a charismatic leader, one that people can easily LISTEN to, would be a good thing for America right now. I still feel Obama is the better choice, but I feel like I could rally around HRC if it comes to that. I think, as mentioned above, that each are committed to making sure that they don’t damage the other’s chance of being elected against McCain. Obama, with HRC as running mate? I’m not sure her pride would let that happen, but I don’t think it would be a bad idea.</p>
<p>My undergraduate degree is in Political Science from Emory University with a concentration in International Relations and Foreign Policy. This is also the location of the Carter Presidential Library and he was a lecturer at Emory while I was there. One of the topics of discussion was “The “Morality” of Politics” specifically on the “world stage”. </p>
<p>The big conclusion that was drawn was that Politics should be neither “moral” nor “immoral”, but “amoral”. One cannot assume that other world leaders ascribe to the same sense of right and wrong that we do. As a leader, one has to make decisions based solely on what is best for our country and leave the “morality” out of the equation. Ironically, it was determined that this was the dowfall of the Carter Presidency. As a devout Christian, he operated under some erroneous assumptions about the rest of the world (with some very dire consequences).</p>
<p>And remember, those American hostages, who had been held in captivity for 444 DAYS (!) were released immediately upon the election of Ronald Reagan, a President who they respected and feared. Strength and Resolve are our “hope” for the future - not chitchat while they plan their next attack behind our back.</p>
<p>Let me add that I am a Born-Again Christian, but I am not so naive to believe that the whole world believes as I do. Sure, I’d love it if we could all just hold hands and sing “Kum Baya”, but we have enemies who are eager for the chance to BEHEAD or BLOW-UP as many innocent Americans as they can! </p>
<p>I believe that Jesus would want me/us to defend myself, my family and my country.</p>
<p>Agree almost entirely with ClassicRockerDad, which is why I said earlier that it looks like she’s conceding already. She has lost all momentum and needed to be a little more on the attack on a substantive issue (commander-in-chief) and less petty on plagiarism.</p>
<p>I do disagree with “I expect him to lose big time to McCain.” I still think he beats McCain. McCain can’t come out too harshly on any issue or he’ll look as crazy and unstable as some people think he is. Still, his surrogates should be able to handle those duties. I notice even Rush was looking sympathetic to McCain afer the NYT story, so maybe McCain will be able to rally some of the consrevative base after all.</p>
<p>I saw the same stuff you saw. The facial expressions, body lanquage, invading her space. He may not have taken a swing at her, but it’s that moving around when invading someone’s space where you almost bump them or do bump them. Yes, I have seen agressive office bullies do the same tricks.</p>
<p>Oddly enough, as the race progresses, the hs senior boys my S hangs with, who started out hating Hillary 'cause she’s a woman, are now warming up to her. They are starting to dislike Obama, feel he’s a fake, are getting tired of the repetition of the rhetoric. The boys (all eligible to vote in the fall) think both Obama and the press are going too far demonizing Hillary and that she’s being treated unfairly. The tide is turning.</p>
<p>Do any of the Obama fans ever listen to what he says with a critical ear? For example, last night’s elixir for illegal immigration from Mexico was to improve the Mexican economy so that the workers will stay there. First, does he really think that he is that powerful that he not only can cure what he says is wrong with the US economy but also take on the Mexican economy? Secondly, when talking about what is wrong with the US economy he rails against programs like NAFTA that “export jobs to Mexico”. Doesn’t anyone see this as double speak? Why does no one from the press ever ask him about his contradictions. Are they that mesmerized by his flowing rhetoric that they are afraid to break the cadence? Will he be allowed to get away with this sort of political double talk until the election?</p>
<p>I remember being thrilled with Dukakis’s nomination speech at the 1988 convention. He had more “beef” than Obama. I couldn’t imagine him not beating George H.W. Bush. I was practically in therapy after Kerry lost. Kerry also had more “beef” than Obama and lost to a fool. There has not been a Republican nominee more palatable to moderate democrats in my lifetime. After the convention, both will swing toward the center. McCain’s record of leadership, bipartisanship and prudence will be formidable for Obama to overcome with just rhetoric. McCain will be able to answer the commander in chief question clearly and down Obama goes. </p>
<p>I am personally struggling with who to vote for if Obama is the nominee.</p>
<p>“Will he be allowed to get away with this sort of political double talk until the election?”</p>
<p>Yes. And for the same reason that “electability” is the only factor of concern for some people. If you are a democrat who thinks the most, if not only, impt thing is to take back the White House, no matter who you put in there, then electability is the only issue. If you also think it’s time to get a significant minority in the White House, as a symbolic rallying point, then even Hillary is not minority enough to do the job, so you will let all double talk from the appointed one slide.</p>
<p>McCain and the Republicans won’t let the double talk slide, but they will be villified in the press for every criticism they make. Obama will continue to get a free pass.</p>
<p>FF - That is exactly what I was talking about. While watching the debates last night, my reaction was, “Does he really believe all this?” There is no way he can do all that he is saying (same goes for Hillary). I like him from a personality standpoint, but I am wearing thin on the believability factor.</p>
<p>I guess I am having OCD - Obama Comedown Syndrome</p>
<p>FF: It was not an elixir for illegal immigration, it was just part of the solution, as was the securing of the borders and penalties for employers who hire illegals. He was stating correctly that we need to support Mexico in its attempts to improve its own economy, so that eventually there is no need for illegals to come here in such great numbers. Obama is not against free trade. He is against the fact that NAFTA is not fair and actually contributes to a decline in working conditions here and in Mexico. Corporate interests had succeeded in removing the environmental and labor protections from NAFTA before passage, making it a race to the bottom. Obama wants to fix NAFTA. </p>
<p>I don’t agree with you at all on the terrorism issue but I don’t want to get into a prolonged debate and it would probably serve no purpose. It is an ancient strategy to justify a war by dehumanizing the enemy. Bin Laden does it on his side, and we are doing it on our side. I see things differently. I feel that is is sometimes necessary to kill human beings in a war. But the death of those human beings is not a time to rejoice. We should try to prevent terrorism even while we fight it. Fewer people get killed on both sides and we all become more human.</p>
<p>I’ll think they are more humane when I stop hearing horrific stories such as taking two mentally deficient people, strapping bombs on them, sending them into a crowded market place full of innocent men, women and children, and then detonating the bombs via remote control.</p>
<p>I think the terrorists are human, I just don’t think they are humane. And, I don’t think that we can ever understand them, or negotiate with them.</p>
<p>^^ We did, and we are, negotiating with terrorists in Iraq with great success. Gone are the Rumsfeld days of “we will not negotiate with the terrorists”. We have a more pragmatic policy of negotiating with and making alliances of convenience with the terrorists who were killing our soldiers just a year ago.</p>
<p>There is no way that Obama “almost hit Hillary.” What a bizarre point-of-view, and I suspect one based on your personal projections. Have you been threatened by “office bullies,” so you see them everywhere? Oh wait, perhaps your point-of-view is not so bizarre, since Hillary sucessfully tried that trick in her Senate race. The big mean man debating her was threatening poor little Hill. What bs. She acts helpless when it suits her. If she looks threatened by Obama’s body language, how do expect her to stand up to national threats?</p>
<p>A woman will soon be president, but it shouldn’t be Hillary. She does not deserve it. Incidentally, would she manage the country’s finances as she has her own campaign’s? Good way to overspend and destroy the economy. And hey, where are her tax returns???</p>
<p>" We did, and we are, negotiating with terrorists in Iraq with great success. Gone are the Rumsfeld days of “we will not negotiate with the terrorists”. We have a more pragmatic policy of negotiating with and making alliances of convenience with the terrorists who were killing our soldiers just a year ago. "</p>
<p>We are now talking to the ones who are (a) not dead and (b) understand that they could be dead. Brings a totally different willingness to work with us and us with them.</p>
<p>“We did, and we are, negotiating with terrorists in Iraq with great success.”</p>
<p>There is a huge difference between Iraqi Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists. We can negotiate with the former; there is no possibility of negotiating with al Qaeda.</p>
<p>"Obama is not against free trade. He is against the fact that NAFTA is not fair and actually contributes to a decline in working conditions here and in Mexico. Corporate interests had succeeded in removing the environmental and labor protections from NAFTA before passage, making it a race to the bottom. Obama wants to fix NAFTA. "</p>
<p>That’s all well and good, but putting MORE restrictions on Mexico will not improve its economy - it will just be more difficult for Mexican businesses to compete. Yet, he somehow says that he wants to improve Mexico’s economy so that its people stay in Mexico. He can’t have it both ways - yet no one questions him on this double talk.</p>
<p>“First, does he really think that he is that powerful that he not only can cure what he says is wrong with the US economy but also take on the Mexican economy? Secondly, when talking about what is wrong with the US economy he rails against programs like NAFTA that “export jobs to Mexico”. Doesn’t anyone see this as double speak?”</p>
<p>Although I happen to agree with you about the vapidness of his (and Hillary’s) ecospeak, no I don’t see it as doublespeak. Prior to NAFTA, millions of southern Mexican and Central American economic refugees were NOT streaming across the U.S. border. The lure of the U.S. was just not very great for folks working their own small plots and making a (meager) living just fine. The millions of migrants were not “lured” by the U.S., but rather “pushed” by the impacts of NAFTA.</p>
<p>Neither Clinton nor Obama nor McCain have ANY plan that will return the millions of Central Americans pushed off their land to their former condition; they’re only hope is create better conditions in Mexico by which they can be exploited further.</p>