Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee, I get to be first???!!!!! That is, if nobody else posts before I finish this.... (Just because I'm turning in early tonight, so I thought I'd post now and hit the hay).

First of all, kudo's to Ilfill for, what I think, was an excellent and fair job as moderator. Yes, I had raised some questions beforehand about her book, which I think were reasonable questions to ask - but now that it is over, I think she did an excellent job.

I think both candidates did very well. I usually dislike picking a "winner & loser" in debates - many people have their mind made up beforehand, and will always think their candidate made the better points, because, they are points they agree with.

In this case, however, the spotlight was squarely on Palin. She had much more to gain or lose by her performance tonight. It was hers, and hers alone, to win or lose. And I think she did an excellent job. And I'm not taking anything away from Biden's performance, either. Without getting into any specifics, I think they both argued their view well. But, as I said, everyone knows who the real pressure was on tonight. And I think she responded to the challenge extremely well.

'Night, all.

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah held her own vs a very experienced Washington insider. More of the same or something new (change)?

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to agree, open_eyes. Both did commendable jobs; far better than I could have done, to be sure! However, I think Palin succeeded at connecting and relating to the masses. She came off as genuine and in touch with "Joe Sixpack".

Biden was knowledgeable and possessed good technical debate skills, but he came off as just another imbedded career politician. Same-O, same-O.

The scale tipped in Palin's direction.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think both were rather canned in their responses. At times, I felt like Palin was reading from a cue card that was written before the question was asked. I thought Biden stuttered too much, but can Palin say "ing" instead of "n'"? Call me elitist, but proper grammer???

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am Joe Six Pack. Sarah is the only one who spoke directly to me. She won! Biden is against the Bush administration I guess I heard him say twenty times or so. I guess I already knew that though.

Posted by socialmancan (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I really dislike politics but I'm going to have to say that Palin connected with me more. She was more focussed on the lower and middle classes than Biden seemed to be. Yes, he did have a touching, tradgic story about his own personal life, but that was the only time where I noticed he showed compassion for the "common" people.

Posted by pizza (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Palen connected with the people. She is real, she is honest and is a breath of fresh air. Biden was very smooth as well but he has had a few more years to perfect his skill. I thought Palen made a very significant statement when she asked Biden at the beginning of the debate if she could call him Joe. I think there was more to that than just being friendly, she was throwing him off balance from the beginning. Great move on her part. Sometimes I think if both VP candidates were on the same ticket we'd have a lot better pair than we have now.

Posted by coldhardtruth (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you guys must have been watching something else. Palin was a complete joke! I felt like she was a comlete idiot and didn't know what she was talking about. She was just avoiding all of the questions she didn't know how to respond to. I think I would much rather have a VP that actually knew WTF they were talking about, rather than someone who knows how to sweet talk people. She constantly had a blank stare as if she had memorized what she was going to say or something. Talking about the Same-O Same-O, doesn't McCain support Bush. Hasn't Bush done enough damage? Do we really want another 4-8yrs of that crap? That is if he lives that long. Palin just seems like she doesn't really know what she is talking about most of the time and that IS THE BOTTOM LINE! good night!

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I gotta tell you, Palin did not make me proud to be a Republican. She fumbled around with too many of the answers and the ones where she didn't seemed scripted to me. I wish McCain were younger and in stronger health. President Palin scares me.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In watching everything I can Sarah Palin in order get a better feel for her I cannot help but think that she is being reigned in too tightly. I thought she seemed sincere in her debate but her words felt as if they were highly scripted and not her own. In short I feel that she has a bright political future ahead of her but I think its too soon for her to be a step away from the presidency. She just does not instill the confidence in her demeanor that I would expect from a person running for this office. I can't quite put my finger on what it is with her, its just not quite there yet for her.

Biden did a good job as well, he did what I expected of him which was to tie McCain to Bush and defend Barack, he was in an ideal position since the pressure was really all on Palin. I felt he came off sincere and earnest and most of all it seemed as if his words "mean" something to him.

All in all I think both did fine, if I was to give an edge here I would give it to Biden just because his responses seemed more genuine. I really think that we are not seeing all Palin has to offer though, I think the McCain campaign is being overly cautious with her. I could really tell though that on some points she really was just regurgitating prepared lines and not speaking from experience, this is one of the things that really stood out for me. There is just something missing from the Palin puzzle that I cannot put my finger on, I feel that if she was 5-10 years further along in her life she would have dominated this.

My 2 cents

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Newsie,

I agree 100%, McCain is not in good health, and with the history this country has of assassinations one has to consider the real possibility that either of these people could be a president. I truly feel that Sarah Palin is just not ready for this, she simply is not qualified at this juncture in my eyes, the potential is there but its not ready yet. I try to look at it from a business perspective and think if I was a CEO and made this decision how long would the board keep me around? Bottom line I think Biden is much more adept to handle the reigns at this point and time all partisanship aside.

Posted by kseyetie (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Boring (keep dooing those stump speeches, boy and girl.) The Gov. did herself proud, but her polling numbers will, I predict, continue to drop. The VEEP generally doesn't help (but can hurt) the top of the ticket.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought Peggy Noonan said it better than most of the talking heads:

"As far as Mrs. Palin was concerned, Gwen Ifill was not there, and Joe Biden was not there. Sarah and the camera were there. This was classic "talk over the heads of the media straight to the people," and it is a long time since I've seen it done so well, though so transparently."

One of the great difficulties Sarah Palin's critics have is their inability to see her ability to connect with "average" people.

I think she played skilfully to those people. I think when Barack Obama and Joe Biden attempt to talk to the "average" person it doesn't quite connect. It feels like it's coming from someone who has grasped all the facts, etc and is speaking to the "average" person as someone who is super enlightened.

That has been the Democratic problem for years. Al Gore is an extremely bright man, but he couldn't connect with the "average" person because he came across as a policy wonk detached from the concerns of the "average" person. This wasn't easy to do, especially when he was actually attempting to connect to the "average" person. The Democrats had the same problem with John Kerry.

It's interesting for me to see the visceral reactions Sarah Palin's critics have toward her. They really don't like her. In fact, I think many actually hate her passionately. They support choice; they just hate her "choice." Many think she is stupid, which is another way of claiming extraordinary intelligence for themselves. When Governor Palin connects to well to the "average" person and her critics dismiss her with contempt, the contempt also transfers to the "average" person. This is the great failing of the critics. They're saying, in essence, that anyone who would support someone "like her" must be stupid. It exposes the great gulf between the "average" person and the "really smart" ones.

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am the average person. I am offended to be refered to as "joe sixpack". This term could not be more condesending. The implication that being a beer drinker defines my existance as average speaks volumes about how the McCain/Palin ticket is completly out of touch with America. As to the debate, Palin utilized the same tactics as McCain....smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand and misdirection. They both employ this when asked a question they are either unwilling or unable to answer.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Netloafer,

I don't think people are as interested in the "average person" divide as people like you and I might have initially thought. I do think that some people are fearfull based on our last eight years of having the "average guy" in the white house. The average Joe Six Pack may have more in common with Palin than with a Harvard graduate, but are we looking for someone whom we want to have a beer with or are we looking for a President? I'm not saying anyone is stupid for liking McCain, Palin, Obama or Biden. What I am saying is that we have some really difficult problems ahead of this nation, and we have a great model over the past eight years to show what happens when the "I like so-and-so" candidate gets into office. Do we really need to do that again? Can we afford to do that again?

Posted by abc123 (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Palin is scary how quick she is to attack and then be so defensive. All I can think of is the she is ONE heart beat away from being President if they are elected..she is NOT ready, does not have the experience and I would love to see her in 4 to 8 more years, she is an amazing woman, but not right now.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would rather see Palin debate Obama. I have made up my mind that the Dem candidate is on the same tier as the VP wannabes.

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I too am amazed about Palin. Amazed that she was elected mayor, amazed she was elected govenor, amazed that she is a vice-president nominee and amazed that she is considered amazing.

Posted by Happiness08 (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think both did a good job. Although I have to agree that Biden came off as a politican. Palin seems much more down to earth and can connect with the people on a level that we can understand. I think she is a very impressive woman, and educated beyond her years when it comes to political issues. I would love to see her as President.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, when Palin refererred to Joe Six-Pack, I thought she was talking about my abs.....

Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes. too funny
These days are dark, my friend. But the dawn could be coming. And as Obama says, it's not about him. It's about us. If Americans can see past all the hubris, nonsense, spin, and prejudice in this election - and elect the reasonable (not Godlike, but reasonable and responsible) candidate over the unreasonable (not evil, but certainly compromised and probably reckless) one - they just might find themselves capable of making a choice for our better collective future. And that day would, indeed, be very bright, and one worth fighting for.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus:

I can tell you that the divide is very real. Whether or not that's a reason to vote for a canidate is another matter.

I think we are looking for someone to lead, not someone to either have a beer with or cite policy positions.

I started this election cycle as a Huckabee supporter. When McCain secured the nomination I switched my support to Obama (I have the donations to prove it). After listening to Senator Obama for some time and examining his positions I decided to switch my support for the final time to Senator McCain. I did so not only for policy reasons, but also for "intangible" ones.

I am well aware of George Bush's failings. I'm as aware of them as I was of Lyndon Johnson's or Richard Nixon's or Jimmy Carter's. Policy failure is one of the true constants in our political landscape.

By the way, I didn't watch the debate last night. This morning I read the transcipt and then watched the video of it. I didn't think it was a draw. I'll leave it to others to conclude who I thought won.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, thanks for kudos to Gwen Iifil; I know you and I were two who had disagreed. I agree with you that she did an excellent job of moderating. She is a true professional.

Generally, I don't think there was a distinct and overwhelming winner. Palin appears to have learned her lessons; she seemed schooled and somewhat stiff. While Joe spoke, she busied herself with notes. However, she seems to have repaired the poor image she has had in the past few weeks via damaging interviews with the press. So to quote Tom Brokaw, "Sarah Palin did herself a lot of good." I'll have to agree because she was able to hang in there with a pro despite her several attempts to turn the light on to her energy experience. That got old.

This is not to say she won, not by a long shot. She did not stick to several questions, was not specific, so she came up short on substance, and this is where I draw a line. We need a clear thinking statesman in the Veep position, not a warm and fuzzy, rustic hockey mom. She needs to stop putting herself in that frame; it's not helping John McCain.

Joe was more in command of substance; he was specific in his responses and appeared more professional and confident. Certainly his diction contributes. (That's the English teacher in me speaking, yes, but diction is an important part of confident speech.)

I agree with goodoleboy on who can handle the reigns at the drop of a hat, and Joe Biden is that person. We live in a world of a lot of nuts, and anything can happen.

Finally, you're right netloafer, she does connect with the average person through her "Joe Six Pack" idioms, but I don't want an average person leading my country. If Barack Obama/Joe Biden comes across as boring intellectuals, at least I can trust them for knowledge and logic and not folksy talk or quick-stab decisions. We've had plenty of that. It's easy to see you are really taken with Sarah, net.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now that the debate is over, it's time to do a little fact-checking and see who had their data correct/incorrect. It looks like Biden has the slight lead in that (in the wrong way) - most sites I've seen list him with a few more incorrect answers than Palin. Of course, many points can be endlessly debated, many depend on one's point of view, many can be twisted and spun, but some, such as Palin's assertion that Iraq troop levels are at pre-surge levels, (they are still above that), and Biden's claim about the Constitutional role of the vice-president (he had it wrong) - can be easily verified. As I said, there are mistakes and exagerrated claims on both sides (as in any debate). Plenty of sites out there that have a good list of them point-by-point, but beware of sites that seem to lean too far one way or the other - they each seem to miss a few on either side that more neutral analysis covers.

Posted by JFish (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They both did a good job. But I didn't like how Palin refused to answer the questions about deregulation. We don't know where she stands on that now, because of her outright refusal to respond. It's pretty important in today's world to know how the candidates think on that.

And I wish someone would teach the politicians who cannot properly pronounce "nuclear" how to pronounce it! Bush and Palin both say "Nu-cu-lar." That is not proper. Biden said it right. Carter said it wrong when he was in office.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hear the term connect with people used over and over again, I fail to see it. I understand Biden and Palin equally, to be honest I was rather annoyed that she stared rather blankly into the camera all night. Could someone please expound more on what is implied here, I think anyone, anyplace, anywhere could understand and empathize with both candidates equally. Perhaps more important is what was brought up above is "connection" grounds to elect someone? Its really hard for me to connect with Palin simply because she does not seem confident or genuine, and times came off more like a robot programmed what to say.

Posted by MelissaGarrison (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry to say, but palin is an idiot. i can connect with her because she's a "real" person, and surprise! neither of us know anything about foreign policy lol. i'd rather have someone running our country that actually knows what he/she is doing.

the only reason palin came off as knowing what she was talking about is because they probably made her cram for it... much like i'm about to do for my econ test :P

Posted by socialmancan (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the way that Gov. Palin pointed out that Sen. Biden was accussing Sen. McCain/her of being similiar to President Bush/V.P. Cheney. Yes, the Republican candidates do agree and support some of the policies which were established during President Bush's presidency, but I think that out-right saying that they are going to be the exact same is a little appalling. That's just like saying that all Republicans believe in the same things (wrong), or that all people with the same last name are related. I believe that both sides know that we need change in Washington D.C., and that both have the competance and credentials to lead our nation in the right direction.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad someone brought up de-regulation. That is commonly pretty much always attributed to Republicans, I know. But, in this case, look a little deeper.... this can be found from numerous sources...

"John McCain and Barack Obama's presidential campaigns are pointing fingers at each other's political camps over who were the architects of a 1999 banking deregulation bill many cite as reasons for the current financial and mortgage lending mess on Wall Street....

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.....

The Gramm bill encouraged lending during the strong housing market but has put banks, investment houses and insurance companies in peril since the housing bust which started two years ago. The measure allowed those lending money to sell off those loan portfolios to other companies, thus disconnecting the lending risk...

McCain voted for the first version of the Gramm bill in 1999 but did not vote on the final measure. Biden voted against the initial bill but for the final product."

Bottom line is: This deregulation bill passed in 1999 by a Republican Congress and was approved by a Democratic President. For the final version of the bill, Biden voted for it, McCain either against it or did not vote, it is not clear which - but he did NOT vote for the final version.

And yet people still claim it was Reagan & Bush's deregulations that caused this....

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pronunciation is often regional. Carter was an officer on a nuclear powered submarine which, by regulation, means he has a degree associated with that. I have heard it referred to as atomic quite often, big deal. In a debate with someone pronouncing something "right" and someone with in-depth knowledge pronouncing it "wrong", I will take function over form any day.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly how much foreign policy experience did Clinton have as governor of Arkansas? (He could probably see Kansas from his house... LOL :) Or Carter as governor of Georgia? Or Reagan as governor of California?

I might add, all the above were running for PRESIDENT, not VICE-President.

From what I've read, those listed above had little, if any when they announced their campaigns for President.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

potato, pot-aaah-to, tomato, tom-aaah-to.

Haven't we had enough of slick-talking CEO's & smooth-talking mortgage lenders? I, too, will take substance over style any day. Just as I'll take policy over who's the tallest or has the best hair, or who is my gender, or who's skin color matches closest to my own. Sure, everyone wants someone who is glib with words as our leader. But that's not something I focus on. At all. If that was the case, Barney Frank would never have been elected. By the way, I'm glad O'Reilly tore him apart last night...

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it was a great debate. both candidates seemed prepared and fairly smooth. I must say that I had a hard time believing that Sarah Palin took the debate seriously. She dropped the "g" of so many words in her answers that by the end it seemed a little trite and played out. Like she was desparately trying to connect with this generalized "common American"...

Plus did I really hear her "give a shout out" during the debate for Vice President of the United States. That seemed inappropriate. This was an important debate, not spring break coverage on MTV.

But overall I thought it well for both sides. Certainly not as bad as the talking heads predicted.

Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In actuality we should be more concerned about the #2 on the ticket than the #1. This will be a historic term in the event that neither #1 stands little chance of surviving 6 months in office. We are in the mess we're in more as a result of the Clinton years than the bush years. The next 8 years will be the results of the Bush administration. Government 101 will tell you that the majority of legislation takes 6-10 years before the results start showing. The economy has never prospered under a Democratic presidency. Oboma is just another Slick Willy and Biden is a shifty-eyed snake oil salesman. This election is the same as the last several in choosing the lesser of the 2 evils. At least with McCain; he has proven throughout his life, that he has and will give it all for the good of this country.

Posted by sadinemporia (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's something to think about...how about a Biden-Palin campaign?? Biden for President and Palin for VP?

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would rather vote for Hope and Crosby.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Create

I watched the video this morning after I read the transcript. I saw both of them fiddling with notes. I suspect both were schooled, so I don't see a problem with Sarah Palin being prepped.

Your response about the "average" person sort of begs the question. I happen to think that "average" people can actually be intelligent and can actually lead. In fact, there have been some very "average" people who have turned out to be quite extraodrinary. There's a part of me that is a bit troubled when I see a politician who thinks that he or she has all the necessary answers to all the necessary questions. I don't subscribe to the idea that human wisdom and precise knowledge of policy is adequate for this nation's challenges. In fact, I think that the issues should lead any potential leader to fall to their knees, recognizing their need for guidance.

Is Sarah Palin one of those extraordinary "average"people? I don't know, but I do know that she has the ability to connect with the average person in a way that makes them feel that they matter. Joe Biden's gifts lie in other areas, as do Barack Obama's. Hillary Clinton proved that to the satisfaction of the people in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Does that mean the Obama-Biden ticket can't or won't win? No. I think it means that Sarah Palin has somehow tapped into a reservoir. It's the type of thing that drives wise men, experts, etc to the brink of rage.

Posted by johnsie (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Governor Palin is the best thing that ever happened for getting Senator Obama elected. I, along with many other Democrats, said we'd not vote for Senator Obama. We will now!

Posted by vankamp (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry johnsie, I am a registered Democrat that has been sitting on the fence, but after listening last night I am voting McCain/Palin.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

truelovecharlie,

Your are misguided, there is a great deal of fault in your logic, by your logic the Patriot Act and the Ira war is Clinton's fault? LOL get real man! The general consensus is that it takes approx 4 1 term to star seeing results of a presidency, with a lot showing after a few years. Whoever takes over gets BUSH"S war that is costing us over a billion a month as it stands. You are clearly a misguided Republican that probably got all teary eyed when Bush landed on a carrier and crowed "Mission Accomplished". Gimme a break.

PS middle class income was up $7500 during Clinton's administration, down $2500 up to this point. Facts are facts sir, I am unaffiliated when it comes to politics, but Bush is a horrible president, his own party despises him.....

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And wow did I butcher that post, apologies to all, not at my normal desk today.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There may not have been a problem with Sarah Palin being prepped, but I do see a problem with her not being specific in her answers and more than once taking the question off target to her status as an energy guru. It is apparently where her confidence lies. I would think that a governor of any state would have more to offer and at least have some intellectual curiosity about many subjects relative to government.

Posted by Happiness08 (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lycomu - The fact that you are so defensive about your beer drinking, and the fact that you took it personally about "joe six pack" should tell you something about your drinking problem. AA is a good place to start.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, goodoleboy, if we want to look at things that way......

Bin Laden & Al Qaeda formally declared war on the US in... when... the early 90's? And the first World Trade Center attack was in, what, 1993? And the Cole bombings? And Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights and made the decision to let him go. And the planning for 9/11 was years in the making, and the Taliban was allowed to flourish in Afghanistan that entire time. So........ what exactly did Clinton do? Or, should I more accurately say, not do?

create, I agree with you somewhat, but I also think that a governor's main focus lies with their own state. Had Palin been a presidential candidate from the getgo, I would imagine she would be far ahead of where she is now by this time. I think she's came quite a ways in 5 weeks. She knows where her current strengths and weaknesses lie (every politician has them, hers are more upfront at this moment due to the intense scrutiny she has been under the last month) - and, like any skillful politician, managed to steer clear of potential pitfalls and guide discussion to areas she is more comfortable in. I don't see any politician doing any different. As I stated in my first post here, Palin was under alot more scrutiny last night than Biden has been under, in, well, 30 years....

Posted by Happiness08 (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, I am interested in the remark made about how neither one will make it in office for 6 months. What is the reason behind that thinking?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, when comparing the 2 administrations, I wonder how the economic data would compare if the dotcom bubble happened on Bush's watch, followed by it's bursting and 9/11 happening on Clinton's?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well techinically we have seen the houseing bubble come full circle on Bush's watch, combined with a war that has cost more than any other and continues to erode our standing in the world, and kill off 615,00 Iraqi citizens as a result, not to mention how many Americans are dead and wounded over a lie. Near the end of the Clinton administration the deficit started reversing itself, where are we at now? I am not delcaring Clinton the best pres ever, but he was better than the incumbent.

PS How is Bush doing with Bin Laden? Not even in the right country, hindsight is 20/20.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not think that breaking 17 UN resolutions was a lie, nor would alot of Iraqi citizens who's entire families disappeared in the night to be taken to torture chambers, rape rooms, or just happened to be in a village that got gassed was a lie either. You are, I am sure, referring to the WMD claims. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someday years from now we find out that all the activity with the convoys of trucks moving into Syria during the run-up to the war were actually transporting chemical & biological weapons out of the country. But who knows. Time will tell. I would also say the deficit once again started reversing itself on September 11, 2001. As for Bin Laden, I would actually say that Bush is "doing much better with Bin Laden" than Clinton did. Bin Laden openly traveled and flourished under Clinton, and was even released when in custody and we had a chance to have him handed over. Under Bush, he's hiding out in a cave somewhere in Pakistan.

Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the 6 month prediction I made: McCain age and health are a major factor. As for Obama; (I know I'll be accused of racism, but here it goes) We have progressed a great deal but I certainly don't believe we have progressed to the point that some psychotic won't assassinate Obama prior to taking office, IF, he were to be elected. I hate to think of what situation we would be in had Al Gore won. I know for certainty had they pulled the 9/11 while Reagan was in office; we would have bombed and owned Iraq before the week was out. As for Bin Laden, we had our chance at him under the Clinton administration and passed on it, so 9/11 occurred due to Clinton's inaction.

Posted by socialmancan (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

truelovecharlie,

Sad-to-say, but your last statement is very probable, if not true.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy unaffiliated??? now LOL. I thought you were a talking point follower at the least.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

never sir, unlike the vast majority of this state I can actually see blue instead of red year after year, and yes when I went in to pay my tags last month they still had me as unaffiliated, best man for the job always sir.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Clinton did attempt to hit Bin Laden in much the same manner we would attempt to hit him now. Get actionable intelligence, put ordinance on target and attempt to verify. If you're going to place the blame on Clinton for "not getting him", you might as well place the blame on the CIA and DOD for training (and arming) him and his collegues as resistance fighters against the USSR in Afganistan. Or, you could blame the Saudi's for not taking the nut job out after he said he would attack us and the Saudi government for allowing the US to stage an attack on Iraq during Gulf War I from Saudi soil. Or, you could blame anyone that used (or uses) opiates in any fashion, which is where Bin Laden gets a large portion of his funding. Or you could blame some conservative think tanks that, during the 1980's were proponents of a future strategy of using the US military to foster democracies in third world nations while acknowledging that the strategy failed to account for decentralized, insulated terrorist cells conducting asymetrical warfare. Or, you could blame the fact that we still don't have Bin Laden on Cheny and Rumsfeld's squabble during the beginning of the Afgan conflict, which essentially lead to a lack of force available to cut of Bin Laden's escape into Pakistan. Or, you could blame Bush for not putting enough stock in the report titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States" two months prior to 9/11. But, nope... It's all Clinton's fault.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen Momus,

I really get peeved about 9/11 being blamed on Clinton, 9/11 is a big crap sandwich that everyone in our government is responsible for, not just Clinton, still amazes me people try to pin it on him. If 9/11 would have happened on Reagan watch we would be after BIN LADEN not Saddam. Bush was the one who put us in Iraq, spending trillions initially and now it is a billion a month on us. He prostituted our patriotism and need for revenge to go after Saddam. Cmon we know all about Iran and North Korea and their Nuclear capabilities, Bush knew about Iraq too, and if it could have been proven or if he could be tied to 9/11 then the rest of the world would have been with us. Instead Bush just assumed and made an ....... well you know how that one goes.

McCain's age is and should be a factor, he is 72, approx the average life expectancy for a male these days. He has had cancer, he has limitations put on him from his war wounds, and we get Palin for our new leader if he fails, its an issue and it SHOULD be. If Obama did get shot by a nutcase I wold feel light years better with Biden in the hot seat than Palin. To me it is sheer common sense, no partisanship involved.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We tracked Bin laden for years, bu NCA always said to let him go. NCA was Clinton.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have never said it was "all" Clinton's fault. But he certainly deserves some blame. I'm just saying, if we are going to start saying "so and so LIED", then lets also point out that the Clinton's (both Bill and Hillary) agreed that Iraq had WMD's, so THEY both "lied", as did the governments and intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel....even Russia, among others. Whether or not they had ulterior motives is another debate. And, don't forget to blame all the members of Congress who saw the SAME intelligence that Bush saw. "Liars" there, too.

Just like our current financial crisis, lots of blame to go around on both parties.

Reagan was 70 when he took office, and served 2 terms.

I have a general question for everyone who, like many Americans, always blame the current administration 100% for whatever is going on in the economy:

Do you believe that it is possible for our economy, or any super-large economy like ours for that matter, to have and sustain economic growth each quarter infinitely? In other words, do you believe that, as long as you can get your candidate in, and, suppose they did away with the term limits, for instance they abolished that law and, say, Bill Clinton served as pres for the next 40 years, (like some congressmen), that his policies would absolutely recession-proof our economy?

Not really saying anything one way or the other, just curious what people think, for discussion's sake.....

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on October 6, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's move to a forum:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...