The only "bipartisan reform" that Obama has partaken in is to reform his reponses to fall in line as closely to McCain's as possible. He strikes again! He's fooled people into not realizing his licked finger has picked up which wind direction McCain is coming from. OBAMAROMETER When the pressure is up, he'll shift to the right position. Did you hear him try and tell everyone that he warned about the financial crisis two years ago, when in fact that was McCain? Did you hear him say, "As president I would reserve the right to meet with anyone I feel necessary to protect America" only to say moments later, after McCain called him on that absurd notion, "we're not talking about on the presidential level." He's a follower. OBAMAROMETER will indicate the pressure changes. When the pressure is up, he sides with McCain... when the pressure is down he talks a big talk. Why can't people see this? It's blatantly obvious. Why didn't Obama answer why he hasn't sat in on one meeting about Afghanistan? Why didn't he answer why he hadn't even visited the country he's supposed to be on a subcommittee for? Where is the outrage that he did not do that part of his job? The "if you need me, call me" response won't cut it on this answer. What he did do, whenever questioned on tough foreign issues, was duck, dodge, and dive into a knee jerk "health care" line, or something about the "middle class" - this was the foreign debate. OBAMAROMETER did not answer the questions. What, just cause he parses words, can talk in circles, and in strongly opinionated verbiage "thinks" he's got experience I should trust him more to handle the current global climate? "I want to make a point... I went out and got a bracelet a couple of weeks, too." Pshhhh... No thanks. Heartland America saw this. They'll know better. OBAMAROMETER, "the answer my friend, is blowing on the wind, I'll wait on John to tell me what to think."
I watched with 6 Obama supporters. We thought it was either a tie or McCain slightly won. We were ticked at Obama looking like a punching bag. My hope is moderates think McCain was overly aggressive. On Russia for instance their opinions were essentially identical, but McCain was still vociferously attacking pretending there was some sort of difference. McCain also belabored the meeting with Ahmejinedad point for it seemed like 10 minutes.
I think this was mostly a toss-up. It was mostly rhetoric and bickering. Nothing of much substance. I give Obama the slight edge for rebutting most every jab Mccain had. Mccain also loses points for dodging more questions than Obama. These are just casual observations. I don't plan on watching the debate again for more in-depth observations.
By definition, doesn't that mean McCain agrees with Obama on those same issues? So the issue you're trying to make isn't that Obama agreed with McCain or that McCain agreed with Obama. It's that Obama was willing to publicly admit that there is common ground on a few issues between the two campaigns. Why is it wrong to admit that? Both candidates talk about reaching across the aisle but while both were willing to talk about fundamental differences of opinion, only one was willing to acknowledge that there were things they both agreed on. It's the whole talking the talk vs walking the walk argument. There is a gray area between the two sides where the same opinion is held. Obama acknowledged it. McCain acted like it didn't even exist. How does that reflect poorly on Obama. Answer: It doesn't unless you're a hardcore Republican who has no better point to bring up.
No. That's back door logic. Just because Obama claims he likes the food from the same kitchen, doesn't mean he did the cooking McCain did to come to that result. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ec3aC8ZJZTc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ec3aC8ZJZTc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
If Clutdh wouldn't mind it would be interesting to have a poll on who won in the GARM and Hangout. That is where you would find the true uncommitted. Not many on this forum and I don't know any.
The burden to prove your point is on me? I've made my points, in multiple posts. Your responses are the epitome of a failed arguement given up on. I'll put your thrown-in towel back in the washing machine for you. The spin cycle is what it's most used to anyway.
Although to me it seemed like a tie pretty much, a tie after this weeks fiasco should result in a McCain victory. You would get the feeling with all of the momentum Obama had and all of the stumbling McCain has done in the past two weeks, despite of the experience factor, Obama should have eventually pulled away. But McCain was very aggressive in making his points and may times, got the last word in.
No, you never proved your assertion that the points Obama called McCain "right" on, aren't those in which they are both in agreement on. You made a statement, back it up.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/gradingthefirstpresidentialdebate;_ylt=AmGxZ0S_RCw1BZXkD27byV6s0NUE Obama impressed.
