Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Let's just say if I was walking in the desert, and he was asking for water, I'd be hardpressed to find it in my heart to give it to him! But of course, I probably would.

No, I don't hate him, but I can't stand him. After the Pope spoke this morning, and Bush stood up to thank his holiness, Bush said "awesome speech." WTF? And this from the President of the US. Where were the speech writers, couldn't they give him an index card to read from, or write it in the palm of his hand. Geez. Will wonders never cease? After almost 8 years of this, you would have thought they could have tutored him more adequately for the office. Guess he should have paid more attention to his schoolwork when he was younger! LOL

waiting anxiously to hear everyone's comments about tonight's debate.   For the most part, I thought it was quite civilized on both their parts--not much bashing of each other.   I liked what H said about getting out of Iraq and I also liked how O expressed his view on that.   One thing that did kind of irritate me was the number of times H referred to policies and economics and how things were done during Bill's presidency.   She's got to stand on her own two feet if she's going to win.   It's like she's saying, "I've got a been there, done that back up if I need one..."   Her earlier "Bosnia bullets flying, ducking for cover" comments still leave me cold.   I admire that she has admitted to making a mistake in how she described that experience.   I admire more that O hasn't made a huge issue out of it--unless I've missed it.

I still don't know who I favor (my "vote" has long since dropped out!) but I know that if I vote Rep, all my ancestors will turn over in their graves!!!

It is an exciting time in our history.   I am enjoying reading this thread--and enjoy all the side issues that have been brought into it!  You all bring another dimension besides TV for me to listen to and think about!

junie

I thought today's debate was a waste of 2 hours.

I didn't like the way Obama tried to put off the questions of Wright and Ayers.  For example, he kept saying that Ayers was just a distant acquaintance and that his (Ayers) crimes were over 40 years ago.  But Ayers was much more than an acquaintance - he ran a fund-raiser for Obama and while his crimes were 40 years ago, he never apologized and after 9/11 said that he felt that his group (the Weathermen) had not done enough bombing 40 years earlier.  For Obama to dismiss this the way that he did and to say that these (Ayers, Wright, etc.) are irrelevant issues is silly.  These are issues about Obama's judgement. 

I felt that Clinton was too constrained.  Because of all the negative feedback she's had, I think she's afraid to attack too much, so she would raise the negative concerns about Obama (such as continuing to press on the Ayers thing) but she seemed tentative and hesitant when speaking.  She should have forcefully said that the Ayers and Rev. Wright issues are relevant because they reflect judgement.  But she wouldn't dare say that.  Similarly, she was cornered into saying that she thinks Obama is electable, but then she tried to talk around it.  Instead, perhaps she should have said that if he ends up being the nominee, she hopes that Obama is electable and she will do whatever she can to help get him elected.  I think for her, that would have been a better response.  But, as I said, she was being too careful and too tentative. 

I also think that Clinton is in a bit of a bind when it comes to referrals to her husband's administration.  I felt that all she was trying to say was that prior to the Bush fiasco, back when the Dems were last in charge, there was a surplus, there was job growth, etc. etc.  I didn't interpret from the way she said it that she was taking any responsibility for any of those achievements; I felt she was simply reminding people that this can happen again under a Democrat (if it's the right Democrat, of course).  If Clinton wasn't running and if it wasn't her husband who happened to have been the last Democratic president, I'm sure that Obama would be using exactly the same examples to show that the Democrats know how to effectively run the government. 

BTW, Obama has made a big issue out of the Bosnia thing, he's simply he's done it under the covers.  George Stephanopoulos asked Obama a question about all the stuff that's coming out of the Obama camp on a daily basis questioning Clinton's honesty.  Obama himself is careful in what he says publically, but behind the scenes his campaign is vicious.  It's his version of "new politics".  Be a dirty as the next guy (or woman) but just don't do it in public.  I think that may be how he deals with honesty as well. 

Overall, I was .

By the way, to the earlier discussion, I don't think anything that Obama has done will hurt him with the Democratic base.  His supporters love him and it doesn't seem that anything will change that.  But I do think it will hurt him in the general election.  Each gaffe, each piece of new information about a questionable decision that he's made in the past or a questionable relationship that he has, will chip away at those undecided voters and independents.  And if it's a close election, which it's bound to be, that could be the difference between winning and losing. 

Hillary has taken everyone by surprise with her blanket umbrella security statement for the middle east.  They jumped her hard on that last night after the debate.  So she'll be explaining it for the next month or so to the press. She brought a little more to the table, and she'll be roasted alive over it till she can explain it. 

Actually, I thought she should have been questioned harder by the panel after she talked about it. The first question I would have asked her after she talked about it, is what do you mean a blanket of security to that region?  If anything happened there of significance we'd be back anyway, who's kidding who, but the talking heads jumped her pretty good about it after the show.

Those questions about not raising taxes gets everyone in trouble.  You can't lock yourself in.  The minute they asked them about taxes, I knew they were both going to say the wrong thing.  How is Obama going to lower taxes?  We are in such a financial mess, the kind that will take years and years to recover from, and he's going to lower taxes.  Right. Pandering. More later I'm sure.

I posted this on another thread but would like to repost it here to get people reactions. When asked about his plan to raise capital gain taxes, Obama was not able to provide an intelligent answer. He went on to talk about hedge fund managers salaries, which has nothing do to with 100 millions Americans today who hold stocks. He was then pointed out that historically tax cuts led to the increased government revenues and the increase had just the opposite effect. His answer "It's all about fairness" .  He then added that the did not know whether the revenues would go down even though the historical evidence was overwhelming. He never expained the conntection between fund managers salaries and capital gains tax cuts.

Hm there is hope for us who don't want to see Obama in the office.

I do not believe Bush had one thing to do with there being no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but I do believe that he has exaggerated certain so called "foiled terrorist attacks". During his first term, it seemed like whenever his poll numbers went down, the terror level went up. I think that we are far less safe than we were on 9/11, because Iraq was never a threat to us and because he used so much of our resourses in Iraq that Osama bin forgotten and Afghanistan bin forgotten too.

Inna, I noticed that Obama was struggling with the capital gains tax issue.  Same thing with the question of payroll tax.  Clinton said that she wouldn't increase taxes for anyone who earned $250k or less. Obama said the same thing (although when pressed, he wasn't clear if his line in the sand was $200k or $250k).  Then Obama said that he would increase the payroll tax but would look at exempting those who earned "slightly above" the limit.  The moderators pointed out that this would effectively be a tax increase for anyone earning over $100k, and there are a lot of people who earn between $100k and $200k or $250k.  All Obama could say was that he'd already said  that he would consider an exemption for those slightly above the limit.  So he clearly had not thought this out well and doesn't have a defined plan.

Here again, just like with the issues of Rev. Wright and Ayers (and so on....) this lack of clarity/lack of understanding is not going stop Obama from getting the Democratic nomination, but it's one more thing that is going to chip away at his support from independents or swing Republicans when he's running against McCain.

Anne,

Why couldn't Clinton do something when is started brewing? We all know that he was "given" Osama during his presidency and he refused to take any action. Has he done it , there would DEFNITELY be no 9/11.

During Clinton era the CIA and FBI became ineffective . In fact there was a directive  issued then that explicitly prohibited them to share information.

Bin Laden began feeling comforatble when he saw the lack of reaction from Clinton government after attacking our ship. We just fired a missile and that was it. Osama probably was laughting his head off at that reaction.

But Clinton had no problem attacking Serbs in Bosnia who were our allies during WWII and had nothing to do with terrorism.

The media on numerous news stations have pointed out that Hillary not Barack seems to be running a negative nasty campaign. Barack has resisted commenting, and I am not aware of any underhanded hidden attacks on Hillary. Hillary on the other hand, repeatedly tried to bring up again and again the bitter comment Obama made, especially during the debate. And according to CNN polls in PA, there are many voters who are finding her negativity to be too much and are turned off by it. She should watch it as it will come back to bite her at some point!



As far as economic plans that were raised in the debate. This is the first of many debates where there will be questions like this. I thought both candidates needed to be more specific. I also think that much of what they said might change over the next few months, and when they get into office. This is true for the republican candidate also!!



Hillary's adamant statement to remove the troops from Iraq might have been too far out--I think there will be an adjustment there if her presidency becomes a reality.



What I got from the debate personally, is that no matter who the candidate is, that is who I will vote for.



When Hillary was referring to her husband's presidency and what was accomplished, she kept saying "we." I was unclear if she was referring to the Democrats or a husband and wife team. If it is the latter, she is taking more credit than she is due. I think she should be careful with the we refrain!

Amy,

You prove my point about 9/11 being plotted mostly during CLinon reign. It's been over 7 years now in Bush adminsitration, so it is saying something. We'll see what happnes next but 7 years is a respectable interval.

The anthrax attacks seem to be forgotten or conveniently omitted when Bush supporters say how safe we have been from terrorism.

And the fact that we don't acknowledge acts of terrerorism in Spain and the UK as failures in the global war on terror just adds to the appearance of arrogance by the US.

The only thing that makes me feel safer than I was on 9/11 is that we have locked, reinforced doors between the cockpit and the passenger cabin.  That improvement, by the way, had been lobbied for by the pilot unions for some time.  But there wasn't a sufficient "business case" for making that investment.   

People who bitch about the widows and widowers of people who died on 9/11 receiving payouts from the US Government need to understand that the payoff was much cheaper and far less embarrassing than what would have happened had we brought the airlines and FAA into court to account for their negligence.

A few days ago, I boarded a plane just an hour after having radioactive materials injected into me for a bone scan.   I passed through security without incident (I had a note from the doctor, just in case they detected the nuclear traces on my skin).  Yet, had I attempted to pass through security with a 4.5 ounce bottle of Lubriderm, I would (and have) been pulled aside and that bottle would have been tossed into a huge bin with all the other similiarly "dangerous" materials removed from other passengers before me.

The question that I can't reconcile is, if they think my lotion and everyone else's toothpaste and such is "dangerous" - or if they think we are sneaking TNT or the like into shampoo containers, how on God's green earth is it safe to dump all of those dangerous materials into large bins less than two feet away from the screeners and passengers?

I would feel safer if the American Airlines MD-80 I was on a few weeks ago didn't have to make an emergency (although uneventful in the end) landing because of a failed hydrolic system.  I would feel safer if I knew that the FAA had enough "teeth" stop all airlines from getting skimpy on airplane inspections.

There are so many things that would make me feel safer, but this administration does not pass muster, in my opinion.

Ijl- I don't blame Bush or Clinton for 9/11. I don't blame anyone except for Osama and the hijackers. Almost no one in this country, even with superb intelligence, would have believed 9/11 was possible. We were too arrogant, thinking it could never happen here. I would NEVER feel safer if this country did profiling-- it was wrong when troopers pulled over blacks on highways (and they might still doing that) for DWB (driving while black), it's wrong for those who see people speaking spanish for being illegal immigrants, it's wrong if they do it for Muslims. After Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building on Oklahoma, no one suggested profiling white men with blonde hair. People always want to profile those who look different than the majority.

Grace-- can you imagine Clinton as a republican? She's the one who coined the term "republican attack machine" in the 90s. Would then even have her? LOL.

I just can't see Ann Coulter stopping over the Clinton house on a mission from the Welcome Wagon Committee, welcoming her to the party and Rush doing an interview with her about her party change. LOL.  We will know hell hath frozen over...

 There's a saying on one of the lesbian boards that asks how any self respecting gay person could be a republican. If you didn't know, the log cabin republicans are gay republicans-- I've run across a few of them. I think gays who are conservative feel in a real bind because of some of the vitriol about gays from the fringe of the party and verbiage like "protecting families" from our relationships.I can handle McCain because doesn't usually disparage us,but he has voted against allowing us on employment nondiscrimination acts. 

I was wondering what a log cabin republican was..but didn't want to ask and seem stupid.  I thought it had something to do with Lincoln, lmao...ok...SERIOUSLY, I did.  Explain where the term came from?

Bugs