I think because of 2 reasons. 1. Obama is a very liberal spender at a time we need serious cutbacks in expenditure from our government - a vast majority of people in this country identify themselves as fiscally conservative. 2. Obama is African American - sad but true, a lot of people grew up when AA's had seperate bathrooms and water fountains. From my experience their mindset has changed, but not enough to vote for a black man. DD
Michigan Election news - everything Michigan Who won Friday night's foreign policy debate? John McCain 27% Barack Obama 72% Total Votes: 38,997 DD
That's a great stat that gets thrown out there, but do you know what those numbers mean exactly? How do you know Obama didn't support Bush on a large number of those times (obviously not 90 percent)? It would be interesting to see what specifics they agreed on and how that compared with Obama or other democrats.
MSNBC Poll - who won the debate? Who won the presidential debate? * 722835 responses John McCain 35% Barack Obama 51% Tie 6.3% Not sure 7.9% That is a huge number of people voting..... DD
At best I would call it a draw, leaning towards Obama since this is John's home turf. I also can't believe polling is close. The Dems sent out Joe Biden to do interviews last night. The GOP refused to send Sarah Palin and instead sent 9/11. It's really sad.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-kiss.html Fact Check: Kissinger Defends McCain's Iran Stance September 26, 2008 11:54 PM ABC News' Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday's presidential debate saying he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level." "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality," Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign. During the debate, Obama pointed to Kissinger to defend his position because the former secretary of state supports direct talks with high-level Iranians without preconditions. Kissinger does not, however, support the U.S. president personally engaging in those talks, a point which McCain sought to drive home during the debate. While it appears Kissinger and Senator Barack Obama disagree on what level those talks should occur, they do agree talks should begin, in Kissinger's words, “at a very high level” and without preconditions. During the debate, McCain said that Kissinger would not endorse Obama's position that he would meet on a presidential level with leaders of enemy countries. "I guarantee you he would not say that," McCain said of Kissinger. Obama took issue with McCain's characterization of the former top diplomat's position, but just last week Kissinger said that, while he broadly agrees on the need to negotiate with Iran, he "preferred doing it at the secretary of state level." When asked if high level talks with Iran should begin right out of the box, Kissinger replied "Initially, yes." According to Obama's official website he supports "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." On preconditions the two appear to agree. Last week Kissinger also said that "I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."
So Kissinger did say we should meet with Iran, correct? Because Obama never said we should meet with them on the presidential level either last night.
Didn't Nixon go to China? That turned out pretty well. I think if the US quit vilifying Iran as a nation we could win the hearts and minds of the youth there and really effect change in the next generation.
Not talking is never a good policy.....even Kissinger agrees we should talk to Iran. BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE LADIES !!! DD
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KOTLlExqvwc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KOTLlExqvwc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> This was the defining moment of last nights debate.
I tend to agree. I think for informed voters, there was nothing new. That said, it seems with undecideds, there may have been a real impact in the question, "is he ready to be President?" I don't think one debate is enough, but if the other debates go the same way, this could be the final piece Obama needs. The one question he's had overhanging is that - if people feel he's ready, he locks up the election pretty comfortably. Of course, both candidates will change tactics some for the next two debates and there's always the potential for a gaffe, but I think you'll see a minor bounce in the polls for Obama from now. It may just be temporary, though.
Did you see the numbers that CNN had on female voters, and also the ones on the over 50 voters...they were staggeringly in favor of Obama.... Link to article women voters tended to give Obama higher marks, with 59 percent calling him the night's winner, while just 31 percent said McCain won. The female vote is what is crucial to winning the election.... DD
They both really came across pretty well, and I'd call it a push. But this was something McCain should have won and he didn't, so I voted Obama.
If you refer to a statement by your opponent as "horse ****" during a live presidential debate -- well, you can consider that a loss friend.
