Sure you can have a war on a tactic. Ever heard of spiritual warfare? You fight evil by fighting its expression. Just like we fought Nazis and Nazism in WWII we can crush those who practice terrorism. I forget what all the choices were, but I think a couple of the other ones were to ignore it and to deny its existence, so defeating evil was kind of an obvious choice. What did Obama answer to that question?
Actually you defeat evil by doing good. That's the same way we should defeat terrorism, by not giving in to torture, restricting civil rights etc.
Was this even a debate? It was just a forum. I' am a Obama supporter and I admit that McCain looked sharper. Except for the cheesy "stories" he keeps using over and over again. Really that is the only reason he looked good.
mc mark, I wasn't saying Obama wasn't more specific than McCain, that he didn't give clearer answers, because I thought that he did, far more than McCain. And it wasn't that he wasn't being sincere, because I think he was. Barack did an excellent job responding to what I thought was an excellent interview from the Reverend Warren, a man who surprised me with his intellgence and demeanor. What I was talking about was politics and the political impact. The reason I mentioned Reagan and Carter was that I was a married adult when they had their debates, someone who had already followed politics for a very long time. I recall watching Carter win on substance and Reagan win politically. Sure, McCain is no Reagan and Carter sure as hell (thank god!), is/was no Barack Obama, who is obviously far and away his political superior and his superior as a leader, IMO. As I said, my point was addressing political impact, and that's where I think McCain scored. Unlike you and I, along with a lot of other members here, who frequent D&D, that are deeply politically engaged, most of your average American voters aren't. They are only now tuning in intently to the race for the White House. Only now are they seriously attempting to decide on a candidate to support, in my opinion, and they will grow more intent during the conventions and the run-up to the election after those conventions occur. You and I can watch Obama and McCain answer these different questions in this forum and see the nuances separating these two from each other based on the substance, or lack there of, that they gave the audience and those watching. The "average American" tuning in is far more likely to be influenced by emotion and personalities than folks like you and I (not that we aren't!). That's what happened in 1980. Reagan connected with "the people" on that personal and emotional level, when Carter didn't and couldn't. I really don't intend to make too much of that, given that this was a very unusual forum, but I really believe McCain helped himself a great deal. If everyone in the country was as well informed as I believe some here are, and as informed as I would like to think I am, I would look at this differently, but the fact is that they aren't. Americans, in the main, are working on that now and these moments of connecting personally and emotionally to those watching by the candidates are vital and grow more vital the closer we get to stepping in the voting booth. So chalk up a win by McCain, in my opinion, for this one evening at Reverend Warren's church. In the grand scheme of things, it could very well be an over all plus for Barack. Lets just hope that Senator Obama does better next time with the "emotional/personal" thing. We should also hope that he will work on his body language during forums like this, if there are any, and during the debates to come. If you look at his performance during that first hour on slow fast-forward, you will see Barack constantly looking away from the camera. Looking away and down from the camera and Rev. Warren. He really needs to work on that. Heck, I just wish he had been as good as he became later in the primaries debating Clinton. To me, he simply looked uncomfortable, which leads me again to this question I still have... why did he do this? I hope the polls show I am completely off-base in my analysis. My consuming desire is to see a Democrat in the White House come January. A Democrat named Barack Obama. I'm simply incapable, however, of watching this unfold and view him, or anyone, through rose tinted glasses, not consciously, anyway. No telling what my subconscious is up to! Impeach Bush/Cheney.
I think as far as connecting with the audience mccain did dominate the nite, but at the same time he did use all talking points from his stomp speech...over all obama could have done a lot better...he needs to learn how to just say yes or no, and then explain hos answer instead of the other way around.
The pandering was rather obvious and it was rather disheartening to to see evangelicals eat it up. wtf happened to discernment.
Well stated Deckard...Your integrity is without question. I know you are a true Democrat in the best way.
The conservative movement has paleocons, neocons, etc. Tater_j belongs to the rapidly growing faction- pansieocons. The pansieocons are distinguished by their exuberant cheerleading of military conflict and enthusiastic jock sniffing of soldiers, accompanied by an extreme aversion to actual military service. The pansieocon explains this seeming contradiction by mewling about "skill sets" more appropriate to office work, than combat. Additionally, the pansieocons are known for their penchant to flee from any personal conflict that they cannot rig to guarantee victory, while taking special care to guard their fragile egos by constructing elaborate, ridiculous "terms", that ,if only met, would bring them on to the field of battle. This is definitely a pattern with tj. I seem to remember a "bet" he made with Behad where the loser of a one on one basketball game would stop posting. When Behad took up the bet, reserved a gym, and organized a game, suddenly tj had "other commitments". Telling.
I'm sure Obama cares and Jesse Jackson might settle for kicking Obama's nuts instead of cutting them off.
LOL...O my!...The reverend wasn't at the convention for a reason...Why didn't you tell me mcmark....why?...why?....
He's the new Billy Graham... Who would you think to be qualified to ask questions about matters of faith?
I'm not sure why matters of faith should even be brought up. I think there should be a Bristol Forum so we can find out exactly which teams each candidates root for. At the very least, hopefully 12% of those moronic brain-dead r****ds who still believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim now can get it through their thick skulls that he's not. Maybe I'm a little too optimistic...
http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D Can you please explain this AP photo? I direct your attention to line 4. Obama says that he has never been a Muslim, but this document directly contradicts that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but there is something grievously wrong with lying about it.
its not about who is qualified. because he only speaks for a certain group of americans. its just wielding his influence. this is what debates are for. why can't the teachers union have a forum with the candidates. why can't small business owners. I can think of numerous groups that you could do this for, I just don't see why this guy got time with the candidates. I don't remember billy grahm ever doing something like this. admitedly I didn't see but for these guys to have to go before this guy and profess their faith is a little ridiculous in my opinion.
