The great debate

So who do you think won the debate? I think the Kennedy/Nixon syndrome has kicked in. Obama just comes across better, setting aside content, as the American public does.

"Yet, when you send your kid to school, they are told they aren't there to ..."

Why Would a High School Kid ..."
"I know evangelicals who regard Athanasius, Augustine, and Chesterton as Catholic authors. Some even regard ..."

“The Evangelical Church” as the “Catholic ..."
"But, guns were just as easy to get when I was a kid. Probably easier. ..."

Why Would a High School Kid ..."
"1. Anger.2. Frustration.3. Internalizing the image of the hero with a gun, out for revenge, ..."

Why Would a High School Kid ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Carl Vehse

    McCain wiped the floor with Zerobama.

    Zerobama is clueless and tonight showed it.

  • Anon

    Obama’s bad behavior was noticeable, but on the whole, he is a better showman than McCain.

    This is looking to not be a fair election, so the fact that McCain knew better, was more reasonable and wiser may not matter. Can that win against brown-shirt tactics and ACORN fake votes?

  • Dr. Veith, I think you said it right.

    Obama came across better, looking at the camera, looking at McCain, etc. McCain seemed, especially toward the end, to maybe over-hammer on the experience thing.

    I think Obama walked away with the upper hand on the issue of Iraq casting McCain as guilty in sharing in Bush’s error of going to war in the first place.

    I’m a politics rookie, but those were my initial impressions.

  • Dawn in Denver

    McCain looked so, so, so old. I’m worried about him.

  • tammy

    I saw a lot of arrogance on Obama’s part. The use of Sen. McCain’s first name shows a lack of respect. I have a hard time with putting a man in such a powerful position while he is at the same time an arrogant man. That is a recipe for trouble.

    McCain’s failure was in dealing with the economy. He quickly inserted the words “spending freeze” as a last ditch effort to satisfy a question about the impact the current economy has on their positions.

    One thing I have noticed from McCain which is absent from Obama … “I was wrong”. Obama never admits to making mistakes. Leaders MUST be willing to see their flaws and mistakes in order to be better leaders.

  • Anon

    Some of the things that Obamans are trumpeting are claims that Obama was right and McCain wrong, but the Iraqis -did- greet us as liberators in the beginning, and on the ground most of them like us. It is the infiltrating al-Qaeda and Iranian troops that are doing much of the fighting, and the tribal stuff that would have happened anyway. And he was right on WMDs. Obama was wrong.

  • Lisa

    When did McCain say” I was wrong” in the debate? When has he said that he was wrong? I do recall an exchange when Obama rather powerfully said that McCain was wrong on Iraq (not the surge), but I don’t remember McCain saying “I was wrong”.

  • Carl Vehse

    According to a Weekly Standard report:

    Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: “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.”

  • Lisa

    Dr. veith,
    Is it your opinion that Obama’s content was not equal to or better than McCain’ or is it that you don’t agree with his content. Honest question.

  • Carl Vehse

    According to this McCain ad, 0bama did get something right tonight.

    In fact, when he wasn’t interrupting, 0bama agreed with McCain’s position eight times. While 0bama isn’t ready to lead, he seems to be agreeable to following.

  • Peter Leavitt

    McCain won this debate. He came through in a relaxed, competent way that comes froms years of being a thoughtful, nuanced, accomplished leader. He mopped Obama up when he pointed out that Kissinger is adamantly opposed to presidentials talks with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, et al without preconditions. On balance, Obama came across as the inexperienced leader with no major accomplishments that he is.

    Ezra Klein, the liberal blogger, makes an interesting point:

    This is a pretty traditional debate performance for Obama. Strong on substance. Few mistakes. Little in the way of killer instinct or decapitating lines. McCain, by contrast, is offering an uncommonly strong performance powered, as far as I can tell, by his raging contempt for Obama. He won’t look at him. He’s using “what Senator Obama doesn’t understand” the way Joe Biden uses “ladies and gentlemen.” His constant refrain is the places he’s visited, leaders he’s befriended, aging advisers and presidents he’s known. Obama is conveying the fact that he thinks McCain wrong. But McCain is conveying the fact that he thinks Obama an unprepared lightweight. One of these is a stronger claim than the other.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is the ligtweight who basically got clobbered in this debate.

  • I think McCain won the debate on both substance and style. I disagree that he looked old–I thought he looked great! Obama seemed frustrated and angry, especially in the beginning, while McCain came across as cool and pleasant. I don’t think either of them was very convincing in the economic segment, although I couldn’t help noticing that when pressed for how he would pay for the bailout Obama just kept naming all the other things that he would spend money on and McCain did come up with some concrete measures. But I would call the economic portion a draw.

    On every other question, McCain won. The problem for him is that Obama made no big mistakes, and in doing so he may have allayed concerns about his readiness to be commander in chief. So people who were wanting reassurance from him may have gotten it. On the other hand, McCain was clearly much more in command of the issues and subject matter.

    What I found very interesting is that even in my house there was not consensus on who won. I was ecstatic, thinking McCain won, and my husband, also a conservative Republican, was disappointed in his performance. Go figure.

  • tammy

    LISA #7,
    Here is a quote from McCain, “MCCAIN: First of all, I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.”

    Meanwhile if you look up the transcripts of Obama talking with Fox News. Hannity caught him in a mistake and tried to get Obama to agree that it was a mistake and that he was wrong … no such luck.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    I don’t think there was a win, unless it was ‘your guy’.
    I think McCain proved he’s experienced and Obama proved he’ll say or deny anything.
    But there are things we’ve known all along.
    What matters, regardless of how either man did, is that these things don’t matter, regardless of how either man did.
    The people who might end up deciding this election don’t care beyond liking what they like because they like it.
    Issues and records and depth are so 8 years ago.
    Obama *is* the candidate for change, being as how he glibly changes what he actually said into what he never said.

  • Obama struck me as being sort of sputtering and incoherent at times, and I just didn’t believe the foreign policy cred that he attempted to give himself — whether or not that cred is justified, it just seemed fake. McCain on the other hand seemed far more intuitive when it came to foreign policy, and it seemed to me that he showed remarkable constraint — I could sense some times that the thing he wanted to do the most was jump over there and lay a whoopin’ on Obama. Or at least yell at him to get off his lawn.

    Obama did better than I expected he would, though, and did have some good points and counterjobs to make. But he came off looking like a talented undergraduate trying to take a PhD qualifying exam.

  • “counterjABS” not counterjobs.

  • Lisa, to answer your question, I worry that the public doesn’t care about content at all. So far in the campaign, what we are mostly getting is the trumpeting of one’s opponents “gotcha” gaffes and tit-for-tat trivial sniping at each other. The debate did have a higher tone, though, at least raising substantive issues, but I worry that voters don’t care that much about substantive issues. And unlike the candidates, I often hope I am wrong!

  • allen

    I make it McCain by 10 rounds to 5.

    But it doesn’t matter. Obama made it clear that it would be his intention to keep attacking Pakistan until we “get bin-Laden” or the government there is overthrown by radical Islamist fundamentalists(which would give a whole new meaning to the phrase, “the Islamic Bomb”), if even then.

    What McCain had to say was, well, much more realistic.

  • Carl Vehse

    Gene Veith wrote: “I worry that voters don’t care that much about substantive issues.”

    Unfortunately, like members of the leftist MSM, a certain segment of the public often favor the candidate who makes their legs tingle.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    ‘The people who might end up deciding this election don’t care beyond liking what they like because they like it.’
    What I said.
    ‘…the public doesn’t care about content at all.’
    What Dr. Veith said.
    Same page. I can only wish that were proved wrong. I can’t expend hope on the prospect.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Jay Nordlinger in his coment about the debate makes a salient point :

    What’s depressing, to a person like me, is that Obama has mastered the trick of coming off as perfectly moderate — even when your career and thought have been very different. Listening to Obama last night, you would have taken him to be a Sam Nunn, David Boren type. No ACORN, no Ayers, no Wright, no community-organizin’ radicalism, no nothing. He certainly knows what it takes to appeal to people in a general election. Then, once he’s in — if he gets in — he will govern as far to the left as possible.

    How else has Obama skated past the fact that for twenty-years he belonged to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”?

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Last night I was more struck by their similarities than anything else. I just have a hard time determining the substantive differences in policy between the two candidates, especially over issues of the economy and foreign policy. There are small differences, granted, but they are relatively minor. Both promise to be big spenders (while trying to cut taxes to people), which I read as just printing more funny money. They also both plan to entangle us in War on Terror fun for an indeterminate time.

    Also, I really enjoyed whenever they talked about spending cuts. It all just rang so hollow next to the seven-hundred billion dollars bailout they both seem intent on pushing forward. I think Ron Paul looks better than ever today as a write-in candidate.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Bryan, there are serious differences between Sen. MCCain and Sen. Obama. Obama, for all his slinking to the right during this general election, is the most liberal member of the Senate. He will, if elected, try to govern as far to the left as possible. We can be sure that any Supreme Court appointments he makes will be liberal, as was the case with Pres. Clinton.

    Voting for a Liber tarian cndidate would be a perfect way for a conservative libertariann to throw away a vote. People did this for Mr. Perot and ended up with the dubious pleasure of eight years of Pres. Clinton.

  • Carl Vehse

    “They also both plan to entangle us in War on Terror fun for an indeterminate time.”

    Bryan, would you explain your “War on Terror fun” comment to those Americans, or their surviving family members, who have had, in your words, “fun” in Iraq or Afghanistan or from the Islamist attack on 9/11?

  • Carl Vehse

    One defining lowlight in last night’s debate was Barry’s “I’ve got a bracelet, too” speech:

    “Uh…Jim, the… uh… let me just make a point. I’ve got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant…uh… uh… [0bama looks down at his bracelet to see what name was on it]… from the mother of…uh… Sergeant Ryan David Jopek.”

    As for the bracelet John McCain talked about, which was given to him in August, 2007, the Boston Globe explains in a Dec. 4, 2007, article:

    Lynn Savage, 54, of Wolfeboro, N.H., said it was an impulsive decision to give McCain the bracelet she wore in memory of her son, Army Corporal Matthew J. Stanley, 22, who was killed last December by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

    “He was talking about his time in Vietnam, and suddenly it dawned on me,” Savage said. “During the 1970s, I had a silver bracelet that carried the name of a soldier. I wore it faithfully. As I was sitting there, I thought, ‘My God, now I’m wearing my son’s. . . . I thought it would help him remember why he was running for president.”

    Now, McCain wears the bracelet on his right wrist, and invokes Savage in speeches. He says he plans to wear the bracelet until the mission in Iraq is complete.

    “She symbolizes the courage and sacrifice of a lot of American families,” McCain said in a telephone interview. “It serves as a reminder to me, to be honest with you, of what my first obligation is. All of us are caught up in our own ambitions, and it helps me keep my perspective.”

  • Anon

    Now that the governor of the State of Missouri is taking a stand against Obama’s Brown Shirt tactics, it may be Biden (if he can prove he wasn’t involved) or Hilary that we may be discussing, since Obama will presumably be in a federal penitentiary.

  • Carl Vehse

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Saturday, September 27, 2008 Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290 Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

    JEFFERSON CITY – Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

    “St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

    “What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

    “This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

    “Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts – not a free society.”

  • Carl Vehse

    Perhaps St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill, will get the opportunity to become familiar with the U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 241, Conspiracy against rights :

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

  • Anon

    I believe that their may be additional penalties for doing so under the color of law, with the armed force of law enforcement officers.

  • Anon

    their should be there, of course. Fingers too fast. That’s my story, and I’m sticking with it.

  • I think it’s funny how much Republicans here have focused on style, not substance.

    Anyhow, I think the idea of “winning” a debate is often a ridiculously binary framework in which to fit an exchange of ideas (or at least soundbites). Sometimes, there is a clear winner. But I think in last night’s debate, there wasn’t, except inasmuch as you agreed with the positions that were touched on. But these position statements didn’t really serve to bludgeon or counteract much, they just were what they were.

    I think McCain did much better in the 90 minutes at the debate than he’s done in the past several weeks. If his campaign was as respectable as he was last night, I’d be giving a lot more thought to voting for him. As it was, I only came away with a feeling that, well, he might not be that bad of a President. Made me feel a lot better than watching Bush debate.

    Speaking of 2004, I was impressed with how relatively on-topic the candidates were. It’s sad that I felt that was noteworthy, but still. They were both waaay less given to spouting off random, repeated soundbites than were Kerry and Bush. I felt like it was much more of an actual expression of ideas than you normally get in politics. (That said, McCain really needs to get some new stories. Does anyone at this point not know that when he looks in Putin’s eyes, he sees “a K, a G, and a B”? Or the ridiculous saw about the bear DNA study being a paternity or criminal issue? He’s like your uncle who only knows four jokes.

    I will make one (irrelevant) style point: McCain’s makeup was clearly made for regular-definition TV. He looked frightening in HD with all that pancake makeup on.

  • Carl Vehse

    Two-term MO Gov. Matt Blunt announced back in January that he would not be running for re-election this year.

    Currently the MO Attorney General Jay Nixon (D) is running against Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R) for governor.

  • Now for some responses.

    Anon (@2), “This is looking to not be a fair election”? Sounds like laying the groundwork for some sour grapes, to me.

    Carl (@8) (and Peter @11), you and the Weekly Standard seem not to have listened to what Obama actually said about Kissinger: “Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.”

    He said Kissinger “said that we should meet with Iran” (emphasis mine), where “we” clearly refers to America, and not the President. And Kissinger did say that, on September 20: “I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. … I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level. … I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.” [1]

    Tammy (@13), that’s not McCain saying “I was wrong”, that’s him saying someone was wrong. Do you think McCain was responsible for our ignoring Afghanistan for so long, or do you think he thinks he was responsible?

    Anon (@26), “Obama will presumably be in a federal penitentiary.” Ooh, and there will be unicorns singing, too, right? And elves! I love playing make-believe, too!

    [1] “FactChecking Debate No. 1”,, 9/27/08

  • Also, since Republicans seem to revel in petty details like this, Obama was wearing a flag lapel pin, McCain was not. I guess now we know who really loves this country!

  • FW

    this one will go down as reagan/carter, jfk/nixon, clinton/sr bush.

    a passing of the guard. except for reagan, young vs older.

    all obama had to do was to hold his own and look credibly presidential.

    He did this and so probably the election effect of this debate will tilt obama.

    I also did not see alot of substative differences between the two candidates.

    it will be interesting to see what does with this. both sides, I do believe, mistated alot of things about each other.

  • FW

    Jimmy Kimmel:

    “John McCain showed up without running mate Sarah Palin, which is a shame because she actually has a lot of experience with financial matters. You know, she lives right next to a bank.”

  • Carl Vehse

    In the debate McCain clearly stated that as President he would not meet with dictators like Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions. McCain gave pre-condition examples in the precedents by Reagan and Nixon.

    In his response, 0bama distorted the meaning of “pre-conditions,” mispreresented what Kissinger had said, and then claimed that McCain was in disagreement with Kissinger, one of his advisors.

    When 0bama claimed that Kissinger “said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition”, 0bama dishonestly took Kissinger’s statement out of context to fit his own agenda.

    McCain corrected Barry’s lie by stating: “Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that. He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I’ve always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.

    What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.

    This is dangerous. It isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous.”

    And that’s exactly what Kissinger was referring to on September 20, in what Barry deliberately left out:

    “I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we — we know we’re dealing with authentic… with authentic proposals.

    And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are – what the outcome is that you’re trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to….

    So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we’re trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can’t achieve what we’re talking about?

    But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.”

    Kissinger was talking here about not making conditions for opening lower level meetings, not for holding Presidential meetings. Dr. Kissinger himself reasserted this fact in his post-debate comment I quoted in #8.

    And now you, tODD, do the same dishonest thing as Barry and take “we” out of context from McCain’s subsequent statement where he rightfully ridicules Obama’s conditionless presidential meeting with the leader of Iran:

    So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, “We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,” and we say, “No, you’re not”? Oh, please.”

    Later 0bama seemed to realize he had been caught and tried to weasel out that he really wasn’t talking about Presidential meetings with no preconditions – another 0bamalie, because that is exactly what he was talking about when he immediately answered McCain, “So let’s talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe.”

    So, tODD, you try to twist that “we” into implying 0bama was correct? tODD, have you ever heard of the “royal we” used in reference to the presidency? 0bama even uses it himself… even though he isn’t president.

    tODD, your increasingly distorted and irrational pro-0bama postings have reached the point where they have little credible or worthwhile content.

  • D Bestul

    The notion that Obama was ‘right on Iraq’ is wrong. He was against going into Iraq despite the fact that Sadam was doing all that he could to develop WMDs and the evidence available at the time convinced reasonable men on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Atlantic that it was so. Obama was still against it….and that’s the point that should concern us all.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Carl, I also take exception to all War on Terror “fun”. I’m very thankful to all who have served and who have given their lives but I’m pretty sure even my pro-military views will fade as they eventually decide to draft my daughters in this never-ending war. Both candidates are bold to promise much more foreign entanglements irregardless of which bum is elected in November. I’m pretty sure any nation could keep a War on Terror going until Jesus comes back, if the nation lasts that long.

    And Peter, Ron Paul is not the Libertarian candidate. He is a Republican congressman. I may be a pro-life libertarian (but I’m not sure about that yet – still a registered Republican), but Ron Paul is just about the only true fiscal conservative the Republicans still have and that, my friend, is why I like him way better than McCain (even though Paul is pretty boring to listen to). I like boring in a president.

    I will probably write Paul in on my ballot in November, because I don’t want to throw away my vote on either of the Republicrats.

    The only real substantive difference that I can see is the life issue (which I care very deeply about – but what will it matter when the government can rule by fiat and kill whomever they want whenever; but I digress), but McCain is just using the life issue to get close to Obama in the polls (we all know he won’t really do anything substantive), who I think (Obama) will win because Americans really don’t care about policy.

    Republicans and Democrats are really getting very efficient in pushing crap policy together these days (usually for an emergency – because they are so bad at projections and actually working out reasonable solutions). Our government is going to destroy the dollar with this bailout deal (just a little later for me to pay dearly for after a few more older folks go on social security which isn’t really there) and will finally sever all connections we ever had with our nations founding documents. Since they both dislike the constitution so much (neither of them even mentioned trying to uphold it in the debate) I wonder what the personal constitution of our next president will be? I sure hope he writes one, otherwise we have no idea what to expect. Can’t wait to wake up to the new deal next week when they adopt this baffoonery of historic proportions.

    Trying to force myself back on topic, I think Obama won this debate when McCain trashed Ethanol subsidies (which I also think is a stupid idea). But that’s how shallow our politics are today.

    Don’t throw away your vote, at least think about writing in Ron Paul.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    P.S. Don’t worry too much Peter. I live in Utah. We’re pretty much a rubber stamp for the Reds.

  • Carl Vehse

    In the presidential debate last Friday, both candidates referred to a bracelet they wore, each given to them by a mother of a soldier killed in in combat.

    What do you think would be the media headlines following that debate if it were known that the mother had asked John McCain NOT to wear her son’s bracelet and that she was upset about her son’s bracelet being made a campaign issue?

    Well, it wasn’t McCain who had been asked by the mother not to wear and refer to the name of her soldier-son. According to a Newsbusters article it was Barry “I’ve got a bracelet, too” 0bama!

    And furthermore, this information was revealed by the father of the soldier in a Wisconsin radio show back in March. Yet there is not one word about this story from the media buttboys for 0bama. In the meantime legions of lawyers infest Wasilla checking on parking tickets and overdue library books.

    What will 0bama do next, in the tradition of his 20-year-long spiritual advisor, to demonstrate his ‘respect’ for America – spit on the grave of the Unknown Soldier?

  • Anon

    So the Dems here are cool with organizing law enforcement into Sturmabteilung to arrest, harass, intimidate political dissidents?

    Something to take note of.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Interesting that after faltering and looking down at Sgt. Ryan Jopek”s bracelet to remember his name, Obama said the following in the debate:

    “We are here because it is time to ask ourselves as a nation if we are serving Ryan and his compatriots and all our young brave men and women as well as they are serving us. They need us to end this war and bring them home and give them the care and the benefits that they deserve.”

    i.e. Ryan’s name is being used to end the war and bring the troops home regardless of victory, which has been Obama’s consistent theme. Yet, we know from Ryan’s father that his son supported the mission in Iraq and died supporting a cause he believed in. Here is a soldier who died for a cause he believed in being used by a political candidate who has continually opposed the war. No wonder that hre Jopek family have requested that Obama no longer use their son’s bracelrt.

    Mccain made it clear that he was wearing the soldier, Matthew Stanley’s, bracelet to honor his mother’s request that he do every thing he can to make sure that her son did not die in vain.

    There is a ton of difference between McCain and Obama in their use of these bracelets.

  • NavyMom

    #41, It looks like ABC news has launched an investigation into this. Stay tuned.

  • BKW

    Regarding Ryan Jopek’s bracelet, please refer to above article.

  • Carl Vehse

    “Jopek acknowledged e-mailing the Obama campaign in February asking that the presidential candidate not mention her son in speeches or debates. But she said Obama’s mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, said a soldier’s mother gave him a bracelet.”

    Perhaps some more specific information will be forthcoming. Other than the AP writer’s description of what Tracy Jopek told “The Associated Press”, and Ramde’s final interpretation of what 0bama said Sgt. Jopek’s mother said several months ago, there is nothing in the AP article, other than the single word, “ecstatic,” that addresses the difference between what both Tracy Jopek and her ex-husband admit she said back then about 0bama mentioning her son during the campaign and what she told the AP now about 0bama mentioning her son in the debate.

    The AP article didn’t mention whether or not the 0bama campaign staff had talked to her before the debate or before she talked to the AP. Previously, Tracy Jopek’s ex-husband had mentioned that Tracy was an 0bama supporter.

  • Carl Vehse

    More specific information on Tracy Jopek’s views following the Friday debate is posted in an expanded report by Dinesh Ramde, Soldier’s mom defends Obama’s mention of bracelet.

    In the report, Tracy Jopek was quoted as saying, “His [0bama’s] response in the debate was exactly that, a response, after John McCain put it out there first,” she said. “I think it was an appropriate response — he was just saying there’s another side to the story, there’s two different viewpoints.”

    The reporter also noted: “She wouldn’t directly say whether she wanted Obama to refrain from mentioning the bracelet again, but she hopes the whole issue will just go away.”

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Oooooh, bracelets! We certainly see their true colors now! Now I definitely know which boob to vote for. 🙂

  • Carl Vehse

    Bryan, maybe you would like to share with us your favorite boob to vote for.

    In the meantime, given Tracy Jopek’s change of mind and her quoted statement agreeing with 0bama’s debate response, even though the statement was made after the debate, 0bama should no longer be faulted for mentioning the name of her son then or in future campaign speeches.

    Perhaps 0bama will even remember Sgt. Ryan David Jopek’s name without having to look down at the bracelet to read it.

  • Oooh! “Media buttboys”! And a chronic spelling error involving Obama’s name! (Carl, do you need us to chip in to buy you a new keyboard?) And now we’re talking about real issues: bracelets!

    And people accuse the Democrats of being shallow, of not caring about the real issues. And yet here we are discussing bracelets. Nothing in that debate was as important as bracelets. Not lapel pins, mind you: ignore that this time. Lapel pins used to be veeeeerrry important in determining the true nature of a candidate. But not now. Now it’s a different accessory: bracelets.

    I have a serious question for everyone here: what about tie pins? What do the candidate’s tie pins tell us about them?

  • CRB

    I hope and pray that Sen. McCain in debates 2 & 3 does not use that little aphorism about “Miss congeniality” again! Please, once is enough!

  • Actually, CRB (@51), he used it twice in just that one debate! I, too, found it odd — wouldn’t it work just as well to say “Mister Congeniality”?

  • CRB

    Indeed! If he wants to win the feminist vote, though,
    he’ll have to say, “Ms…”! 🙂

  • Bryan @ #39 – I agree, boring is good in a politician. Canadian politics is quite boring. Ergo… 😉

  • Carl Vehse

    With all the major league clymers having crawled into the political bed with Barry, one wonders whether one of them will even peek out of the covers to moderate this Thursday’s VP debate between Palin and Biden without hawking her new book, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which is described as:

    “In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.”

  • Joe

    “What do the candidate’s tie pins tell us about them?”

    That the missed the last twenty years of fashion, which should have alerted them to the fact that tie pins are really out of style and have been for a while.