Who Won The Debate? Reviews Go To Obama

[KenH]

McCain had a better grasp on foreign policy

Nope. Senator Obama showed that he had just as much of a grasp of foreign policy as John does - and he pronounced foreign leaders names better than John did.

 

[KenH]

McCain was most definitely the winner, in all areas, especially projection as a leader.

Senator Obama stayed with Senator McCain stride for stride and actually won the debate by a small margin. Senator Obama came across as a cool, calm leader who is willing to acknowledge areas of agreement with other people. Senator McCain came across as a mean old man(my wife said this herself and she is not politically inclined at all).

 

[dragonfly]

I watched to entire debate and think that Obama won hands down. I know, however, that the right-wingers here will never admit it, not even when on January 20, 2009 Obama is sworn in as President of the United States, I hope.

 

[here now]

Pastor Larry, this is good advice to Ken. Because I watched the debate and from recall I just can not remember any of what Ken claims, about McCains temperament. But I did record the debate and had planned to watch it again soon, not that I expect to see anything different than I remember. Maybe I watched the wrong debate.

 

[KenH]

on January 20, 2009 Obama is sworn in as President of the United States, I hope.

Now that Senator Obama has passed the commander-in-chief test with most Americans there should be no doubt that Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States of America. :thumbs:

 

[targus]

Senator McCain came across as a mean old man(my wife said this herself and she is not politically inclined at all).

Well there we have it then.

Case closed.:tonofbricks:

 

[dragonfly]

Well there we have it then.

Case closed.:tonofbricks:

You are right, it's almost "case closed." As the economy slowly gets worse, McCain's support will slowly evaporate. As Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy stupid!" (I'm not calling you are anyone else stupid, I'm just quoting Bill Clinton accurately).

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, I am.

No you're not. I gave objective proof, such as answering him and shaking his hand that undeniably shows he acknowledge that Obama was there.

For you to say he "refused to even acknowledge that his fellow competitor was there" is simply false and you know it.

If he didn't acknowledge that he was there, then how did he shake his hand? How did he respond to his questions? Surely even you can see the silliness of your assertion.

 

[KenH]

No you're not.

Yes, I am. When Jim Lehrer, early in the debate, tried to get John to respond directly to Senator Obama, John didn't look at him and responded to Mr. Lehrer instead.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Nope. Senator Obama showed that he had just as much of a grasp of foreign policy as John does - and he pronounced foreign leaders names better than John did.

Obama doesn't seem to understand the ramifications of his plan in Iraq. He doesn't seem to grasp the ramifications of his plan with Afghanistan. He doesn't seem to even know what happened in Georgia, and couldn't give any coherent answers to it. And pronouncing names is not a good test of foreign policy.

Let's face it, Ken. You don't get it. You are biased and your judgment is flawed. You make demonstrably false statements and then stand by them. That is unacceptable.

 

[KenH]

1) Obama doesn't seem to understand the ramifications of his plan in Iraq.

2) He doesn't seem to grasp the ramifications of his plan with Afghanistan.

3) He doesn't seem to even know what happened in Georgia

1) Yes, he does. You offered no proof to back up your assertion.

2) Yes, he does. You offered no proof to back up your assertion.

3) Yes, he does. You offered no proof to back up your assertion.

 

[KenH]

Renewing American Leadership

For anyone who thinks that Senator Obama does not understand foreign policy, I challenge you to read this:

www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html?mode=print

 

[targus]

Now that Senator Obama has passed the commander-in-chief test with most Americans there should be no doubt that Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States of America. :thumbs:

I'm still confused.

Exactly how did Obama pass the commander-in-chief test?

Were we attacked last night?

Did he avert an international incident?

Did he deploy the Illinois National Guard to Pakistan?

How did I miss this?

 

[here now]

Now that Senator Obama has passed the commander-in-chief test with most Americans there should be no doubt that Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States of America. :thumbs:

Ken, why do you keep speaking for most Americans? You did this at the bottom post #6 also, when you said that most Americans thought that the war was a mistake.

 

[KenH]

You did this at the bottom post #6 also, when you said that most Americans thought that the war was a mistake.

Those were the words of the author that I posted, not mine.

why do you keep speaking for most Americans?

This will be verified by the polls next week.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, I am. When Jim Lehrer, early in the debate, tried to get John to respond directly to Senator Obama, John didn't look at him and responded to Mr. Lehrer instead.

That's not what you said. You said he refused to even acknowledge his fellow competitor. I pointed out however that he shook his hand (which requiers acknowledgement), he responded to his comments.

Here's another example: MCCAIN: With all due respect, you already gave them to the oil companies. (http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/816036-p4.html).

That is a comment directed to Obama, which shows very clearly that falseness of your statement. So I have given objective proof that your statement was wrong, and yet you stand by it. You sound like George Bush.


BTW, did you notice how much Obama interrupted McCain? I saw it over and over again in just the short amount I watched. Where I come from, that rude ... worse than calling your elders by their first name.

 

[KenH]

Exactly how did Obama pass the commander-in-chief test?

The same way that Ronald Reagan did in debate in 1980 - by showing a knowledge of foreign policy and the world, by showing that you will use military force when necessary to defend the United States such as Senator Obama's willingness to take out Osama bin Laden when the opportunity arises regardless of whether Pakistan gives us permission to do so.

I agree with Barack Obama - Pakistan should not be given veto power over protecting the national security of the United States.

 

[KenH]

That is a comment directed to Obama

Was John looking at Senator Obama when he said it?

BTW, both John and Mr. Obama are U.S. Senators. Your "elders" stuff won't work in the context of the debate.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1) Yes, he does. You offered no proof to back up your assertion.

2) Yes, he does. You offered no proof to back up your assertion.

3) Yes, he does. You offered no proof to back up your assertion.

McCain did a far better job than I could do.

But let's get back to the point: Having been proven wrong through objective evidence, will you now apologize for your misrepresentation?

 

[targus]

The same way that Ronald Reagan did in debate in 1980 - by showing a knowledge of foreign policy and the world, by showing that you will use military force when necessary to defend the United States such as Senator Obama's willingness to take out Osama bin Laden when the opportunity arises regardless of whether Pakistan gives us permission to do so.

I agree with Barack Obama - Pakistan should not be given veto power over protecting the national security of the United States.

Reciting a few minutes of prepared talking points hardly qualifies someone to be commander-in-chief.

Can you show me an example of Obama keeping his head in a critical situation requiring an immediate response with the national interests of our country and the lives of it's citizens in the balance?