[Tetsuma]

Watched it, and well, you know what to do people; discuss.

[Cruzandercerberus]

The moderator was great. And both of them are outstanding representatives for their parties. I have no doubt that either would make a great executive, regardless of what happens in the election.

McCain was undoubtedly dominant on foreign policy. Obama was great on the economy and the middle class. Though he did have to spend a great amount of time trying to separate himself from "Liberal" positions to appear a centrist like Clinton.

[Barachiel]

It comes down to who you want for VP since both presidential candidates stand a good chance of dying before their term is up.

[pathwriter]

I'm waiting for either candidate to actually say something. Based on previous executives, I don't anticipate this will happen within the next decade.

[Villainous]

I'm waiting for either candidate to actually say something. Based on previous executives, I don't anticipate this will happen within the next decade.

Agreed, both guys were short on substance; and nothing we haven't heard previously.
However, glaring differences in posture and presentation. Obama (with maybe one or two exceptions) looked every bit the intelligent, well-spoken executive. McCain rambled alot about his war past and basically looked like a cranky old grandpa. Particularly when Obama called him out on the Kissinger thing- he seems generally uniformed, even about what his own guys are saying. Bumbling the Iran guy's name repeatedly and real bullish with his tone on Russia.. it just struck me as petulant and weak. Plus, he's going to die soon. Anyone see the Palin-Couric debacle? This bitch is a functioning retard. Someone should have told McCain his potential running mate has difficulty forming complete sentences.

[Cruzandercerberus]

While Obama was consistently wrong on every single thing he said regarding Iraq and foreign policy. And then started talking about bombing now Democratic Pakistan using the deposed Musharraf as an example of why we should do so. Wonder how many other stupid things he's going to do in office and then blame them on things that occurred during the bush years.

Greeted as liberators in Iraq? Yes we were(Happened to be there at the time). The Insurgency didn't start until nearly a year later.

Surge? Worked.

Russia. Bellicose, Self-Interested, will veto any meaningful legislation in the U.N. Aimed at Iran.

Former soviet sattellites, should be allowed into NATO. Which will do more to stop Russia pulling another repeat land grab on the Ukrane or the rest of Georgia.

My prediction? 99% of voters will be unswayed and will vote the way they were going to before the debate. Hell, 2 conventions and a couple hundred million dollars later and the polls still haven't budged.

[Villainous]

While Obama was consistently wrong on every single thing he said regarding Iraq and foreign policy.

You'll have to be at least a little specific (I will concede the Pakistan thing was a little.. out there) Personally I thought he at least held his own on these topics. I think Obama's ridicule of McBush's isolationist policy towards rogue states was spot-on: "We can't have a discussion until you do what we say first.". Look I know our military is all ill and shit, but that crap doesn't fly nowadays- especially with Russia acting in a rogue manner. That's why all McCain's bluster towards Russia bothered me; although he criticized Russia heavily, several times he stated "We want to work with Russia". When's the last time you heard him say the same for North Korea or Iran? Have we stopped high-level diplomatic relations with Russia? Absolutely not. If we can't apply our foreign policy in a consistent manner, it makes the US look like a little bitch on the world stage. Russia has effectively said "Oh yeah? Whatcha gonna do about it?" McCain's approach leaves only two outcomes; war with russia (bad idea, any way you slice it) or embarassment & impotence, when our sanctions/whatever else we decide to throw at them doesn't work, because they are fucking gushing with petrocash.

Greeted as liberators in Iraq? Yes we were(Happened to be there at the time). The Insurgency didn't start until nearly a year later.

Who cares? We didn't liberate anyone. At best we just shifted the balance a little. So now Shiites get to kill Sunnis, instead of the other way around. Not like they haven't been doing that for hundreds of years anyway. Once combat forces leave Iraq (and I'd put Afghanistan in this boat too) how long do you think these puppet democracies will last? My bet is something along the lines of 6 months.

Surge? Worked.

I frequently hear the comment "Obama won't acknowledge the surge was a success." That's because, its alot like finding out the best way to tie your shoe, only after your leg's been amputated. No points awarded.

Russia. Bellicose, Self-Interested, will veto any meaningful legislation in the U.N. Aimed at Iran.

Former soviet sattellites, should be allowed into NATO. Which will do more to stop Russia pulling another repeat land grab on the Ukrane or the rest of Georgia.

And while I support NATO membership for alot of these ex-soviet places, in some instances I just really don't care. Georgia being a good example- look what this assclown Saakashvili has led us into. The media has not really painted a good picture of how that conflict popped off. They portray it like Russia just swooped in out of the blue. They'd been building up hardware near the border for months. Saakashvili got a warning from Condie & others in Bushco NOT to seek a military solution, WEEKS before the conflict. But he just went at it alone anyway (he really is like a tiny Bush) vs Russia of all people, his strategy essentially being to lose and pray that NATO/US bails him out. He got fucking spanked. So in this particular case, I'm glad he wasn't part of NATO yet. US troops dying so some megalomaniac can fight an unwinnable war halfway across the globe about shit we don't care about doesn't sit right with most voters (OH SNAP WE'RE DOING THAT ALREADY)

Edited for add-linky

[Cruzandercerberus]

You'll have to be at least a little specific (I will concede the Pakistan thing was a little.. out there) Personally I thought he at least held his own on these topics. I think Obama's ridicule of McBush's isolationist policy towards rogue states was spot-on: "We can't have a discussion until you do what we say first.". Look I know our military is all ill and shit, but that crap doesn't fly nowadays- especially with Russia acting in a rogue manner. That's why all McCain's bluster towards Russia bothered me; although he criticized Russia heavily, several times he stated "We want to work with Russia". When's the last time you heard him say the same for North Korea or Iran? Have we stopped high-level diplomatic relations with Russia? Absolutely not. If we can't apply our foreign policy in a consistent manner, it makes the US look like a little bitch on the world stage. Russia has effectively said "Oh yeah? Whatcha gonna do about it?" McCain's approach leaves only two outcomes; war with russia (bad idea, any way you slice it) or embarassment & impotence, when our sanctions/whatever else we decide to throw at them doesn't work, because they are fucking gushing with petrocash.

Apply our foreign policy in a consistant manner? what kind of nonsesnse is that? Maybe we should apply the Bush doctrine to Canada sometime, if they won't supply more troops for afghanistan. We can have an economic and diplomatic impact on Russia, and one on Iran as McCain suggested by creating a new organization that excludes russia and china from their current G8 Veto power situation. North Korea and Iran are special cases, Mahdism and Communism are not condusive to negotiation. Obama wants to go negotiate with people that have proven that they will simply flat out refuse to negotiate. Talk about embarassment and impotence. Not bad enough that Obama doesn't even know the name of his opponant or how many states there are. We've already had one bush thank you.

Who cares? We didn't liberate anyone. At best we just shifted the balance a little. So now Shiites get to kill Sunnis, instead of the other way around. Not like they haven't been doing that for hundreds of years anyway. Once combat forces leave Iraq (and I'd put Afghanistan in this boat too) how long do you think these puppet democracies will last? My bet is something along the lines of 6 months.

Says you, but you're wrong. We liberated kurdistan. Even if the arabs want to keep acting like big babies.

I frequently hear the comment "Obama won't acknowledge the surge was a success." That's because, its alot like finding out the best way to tie your shoe, only after your leg's been amputated. No points awarded.

If it's any inclination of how he will operate as commander in chief, I am glad I didn't reinlist. You know all we need is more mogadishus. Weak ass pussy populism on the world stage accomplishes nothing but sacrificing american lives for nothing.

And while I support NATO membership for alot of these ex-soviet places, in some instances I just really don't care. Georgia being a good example- look what this assclown Saakashvili has led us into. The media has not really painted a good picture of how that conflict popped off. They portray it like Russia just swooped in out of the blue. They'd been building up hardware near the border for months. Saakashvili got a warning from Condie & others in Bushco NOT to seek a military solution, WEEKS before the conflict. But he just went at it alone anyway (he really is like a tiny Bush) vs Russia of all people, his strategy essentially being to lose and pray that NATO/US bails him out. He got fucking spanked. So in this particular case, I'm glad he wasn't part of NATO yet. US troops dying so some megalomaniac can fight an unwinnable war halfway across the globe about shit we don't care about doesn't sit right with most voters (OH SNAP WE'RE DOING THAT ALREADY)

Sakashvili is an ass, he ruined nato membership for himself and lost both provinces. He deserves whatever happens to him for not keeping it in his pants. That being said, a resurgent KGB run russia should without a doubt be stood up to. We should still offer them NATO membership. I think the right thing to do is let the nations that choose to side with europe and north america know that if they stand up against russian resurgance we're with them. Even if they are idiots.

[motoh]

Says you, but you're wrong. We liberated kurdistan. Even if the arabs want to keep acting like big babies.

If you could find me Kurdistan on the map, the Kurds would be very grateful, they've been looking for a country of their own for a couple decades now.

~M

[Cruzandercerberus]

No they don't have a spot on the political map, but Iraqi Kurdistan is the closest thing to an independant kurdish state that will probably ever be.

[Barachiel]

Let's just re elect Clinton and be done with this farce.

Bill that is.

[Villainous]

Yes, in a consistent manner. Sadam invaded Kuwait and we kicked his ass out, why? Because we CAN. But we CAN'T (militarily) kick Russia out of Georgia or anywhere else; and sabre-rattling just makes this exceedingly obvious. That term, as well as the dismissive, belittling connotations that come with it, used to be reserved for mideast thugs. Now we got this dumb hoe on TV saying "maybe so" to war with Russia, like someone just asked if she wants milk with her tea. Then grandpa comes and reinforces that with his "tough talk"- do you really think master KGB spy Putin is not pissing himself laughing at this twitchy-faced geezer? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating appeasement- but you don't pull it out unless you're ready to use it, nah mean?

As for McCain's "alternate UN"- yeah that's a great idea. Let's take America (world's biggest oil consumer/slave) and Europe (can't heat its own homes without Russian gas, and knows it) and pit them up against PetrOgre Russia, and China, who we borrow billions of dollars from on a regular basis. Explain to me how this adds up to power & influence, because I just don't see it.

Petraeus is the author of the "surge" strategy, not Obama or McCain, so I don't see how blame or credit can be assigned. Obama is against the war period- why would he vote for a strategy where the sole purpose is to give BushCo a chance to save face on an illegal war that he opposed in the first place? The surge was not designed to win the war, merely to quell the violence (ostensibly to allow for political reconciliation... or to allow Bush's term to lapse, you make the call) and Petraeus himself has admitted he will never declare victory in Iraq. So what have we gained really? Don't blame populism for the needless sacrifice of american life- blame the guys who cooked the WMD evidence and got us into this mess.

[Cruzandercerberus]

My point was consistant application of foreign policy across the board is not a realistic ideal.

illegal war

No such thing.

Ha Ha. You think that Russia is going to stop selling it's oil? It's economy would collapse, Again. It's already halfway there, of course that's what happens when you bully industry around, but I digress. It would take an act of God to get E.U. nations to "readjust" the structure of the U.N. anyway.

You think Putin takes captain appeasement Barack Obama seriously? Pardon me while I fall over laughing.

The fact remains that Iran is not going to stop it's nuclear program unless someone stops them. Russia will block multilateral efforts to stop it and Whoever is in the White House will make approximately 0 difference, unless they're willing to pull the trigger on the Iranians.

[DianaraVP]

Here is what I think, and it will be short.

Nothing new came out of this debate and everytime I thought that Obama was going to kick an old man's ass, he went right back to being "safe." However, Obama did "win" the debate (whatever that means), but he didn't win handedly. The thing is, it wasn't Obama that needed to win handedly here, it was McCain. Foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's strong suit, and he didn't knock it out of the park, and he didn't even pull out a win; he did mediocre at best. By playing it safe Obama still won and looked better in the debate, more importantly he managed to win against the guy touting himself as the foreign policy expert.

The next debates against the presidential candidates will probably be about things that Obama will shine in and considering his superior debating skills, he will probably come out on top. Additionally, most people are tired of Republican economic policies and blame Bush for a crumbling economy (among other issues like social policy), so if McCain has to debate Obama on those issues (and we all know that is very likely) McCain will most likely do poorly with people outside of the base. And we already know how the base will vote.

It is my humble opinion that this debate was a bad thing for McCain, not because he did poorly, but because he didn't do better than Obama. This debate will only serve to solidify the views of the base, and considering that Obama is in the lead, no loss in position is a win. For McCain, on the other hand, no gain in position as we get closer to the election is a loss. Many independents who saw Obama as being weak on foreign policy may see him as better than they previously thought, so this doesn't pan well McCain.

It is also my opinion, if Obama doesn't perform to expectations in future debates he will not win this election. Another "safe play" debate will not win this election. When I grade papers I only give As to papers that are exceptional, and when I grade debates I only give As to debaters that perform exceptionally. If Obama wants to earn an A from me, he needs to do what I believe him to be capable of, that is to say he needs to say what he is going to do, why he is right, and why the other guy is so totally fucking wrong. If he can't convince me that he is worth giving an A to, then he definitely won't convince the American people. Not this time.

Then again, maybe I am more optimistic than I should be...

[pathwriter]

I've read a bit of scholarship that seriously believes McCain is actively seeking to take a dive in this election. The whys and wherefores are a little hard to ponder out, but when you consider that the man was sane up until about a year ago, it could almost be interpreted (conspiracy theory style, but conspiracies actually exist sometimes) as an attempt to ensure the currently ruling class of the Republican Party is kept out of power.

It's hard to tell for certain, though. Barack Obama has patently failed to make substantial gains on his position since June. In a Presidential candidate that is receiving far too much positive support from his former rival, that's a troubling problem. I can only assume that those people who have more than a passing familiarity with politics have actually paid attention to what passes his lips and have noticed, not that it takes a Ph.D. to do so, that repeating the words "change" and "hope" while otherwise using exactly the same rhetoric and dodge tactics as every politician in the past 100 years is rather insincere and untrustworthy.

It seems quite likely that Barack Obama will win the Presidency. It also seems quite likely that nothing will change.

[Villainous]

The fact remains that Iran is not going to stop it's nuclear program unless someone stops them. Russia will block multilateral efforts to stop it and Whoever is in the White House will make approximately 0 difference, unless they're willing to pull the trigger on the Iranians.

Well, I agree there. Thing is, war with Iran has consequences almost as unpalatable as them having a nuke. We're in two wars already, IMHO this is a job for Israel- even better if it can be executed with plausible US deniability. Other option is to wait for next August when Ahmadinejad's term is up. Who knows what that will bring? His country is run like shit, basic services are not available... they're probably hungry for change too. Alot of Iranians could give a fuck less about the US, and just want to get back to having a functioning economy. They have the 3rd highest oil reserve in the world, by all rights they should be filthy rich- a fact I'm sure is lost on nobody.

I know americans hate the wait-and-see approach, but I think good things are brewing. Ahmadinejad and Chavez are soon out. Kim Jong dead or MIA. We finally have some traction behind LEV's and energy independence. Tzipi Livni as acting, hopefully future prime minister (she is the head palestinian negotiator- if there's a chance for a deal, she's it) all of these things have the potential to increase our hand on the world stage, if handled delicately- something McCain is not.

Ahh but Sarah Palin, that delicate flower.. she'll lead us to victory!

Pressed on why Alaska's geographic location enhanced her world knowledge, Palin said: "Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of."
She said that when Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin "rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska."
"It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right next to, they are right next to our state," Palin added.

[Villainous]

I only am interesting in topics that have to deal with the Digital World. This debate failed big time.

I don't think this will show up as a debate topic, networks don't like dead air (as we know McCain can't use a computer)

Here you go:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet

And because I totally want to bang her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67a48YKjDIo


Edit:
I guess I would be remiss in not including McSame's position.

When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like “net-neutrality,” but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices.

[Biglumpfish]

I've read a bit of scholarship that seriously believes McCain is actively seeking to take a dive in this election. The whys and wherefores are a little hard to ponder out, but when you consider that the man was sane up until about a year ago, it could almost be interpreted (conspiracy theory style, but conspiracies actually exist sometimes) as an attempt to ensure the currently ruling class of the Republican Party is kept out of power.

It's hard to tell for certain, though. Barack Obama has patently failed to make substantial gains on his position since June. In a Presidential candidate that is receiving far too much positive support from his former rival, that's a troubling problem. I can only assume that those people who have more than a passing familiarity with politics have actually paid attention to what passes his lips and have noticed, not that it takes a Ph.D. to do so, that repeating the words "change" and "hope" while otherwise using exactly the same rhetoric and dodge tactics as every politician in the past 100 years is rather insincere and untrustworthy.

It seems quite likely that Barack Obama will win the Presidency. It also seems quite likely that nothing will change.

Your post was amazing. I can't wait for another one.

I am surprised all of you guys swallow the information given to you by the government controlled major media. Actually, I am not surprised at all because this country is full of dumb-dumbs.