It all depends on who you ask. Democrats will say that Obama won. Republicans will probably tell you that McCain dominated. Radio audiences will have a different take than TV audiences, etc.
Then there's Drudge, who just says it was "Boring."
My take? I think both candidates did very well. There were no major gaffes, at least none that were immediately obvious on a first viewing. Despite Sarah Palin's earlier statement that it's 'time to take the gloves off' there weren't any big surprises tonight. Obama's controversial connections to William Ayres were not mentioned, leading one to wonder whether the McCain team is saving its ammunition for the very final days of the race.
Perhaps the most memorable moment in the debate was Obama's statement about McCain's song version of "Bomb, bomb Iran." This will hurt McCain's rankings with some audiences but may actually help him with others because, let's face it, it's an amusing mental image...
All in all a solid debate, but not a game-changer for either party.
Obama is the clear winner, he showed poise and confidence. He connected with middle America. McCain was disrespectful, made bad jokes and his campaign is clearly in a deadly spiral spin.
http://theobamapound.com/2008/10/obama-clearly-won-the-debate-and-mccain-acts-like-a-sore-loser/
The Presidential debate was long, but boring. How can it even be called a debate when there is no rebutal time allowed? Brokaw interupts the allocated 1 minute rebutal time with more pedestrian questions.
Obama finally insisted on a follow up and McCain said, "If he gets to, I get to." Call it a joint press conference, not a debate. They repeated almost exactly what they said last debate and there was even less chance for them to respond to one another.
These shows, orchestrated by democrats, are intended only to benefit the Democrats. The candidate has only to pass himself off as something other than what his record would suggest. Direct challenges between candidates would not only make for better viewing, but diminish this liberal from passing himself off as a moderate centrist chomping at the bit to "kill" bin Laden and "destroy" al-Qaeda and defend Israel. And the conservative chomping at the bit to tackle global warming. Spare me.
It is a travesty that they avoided the central issues dealing with who is responsible for the economic collapse, as well as Obama's unsavory relationships with the likes of Wright, Ayers, Resko and Pflugher (WARPed).
Chalk one up for Wormtongue.
qwerty,
It is a travesty that they avoided the central issues dealing with who is responsible for the economic collapse,
This isn't really all that surprising at all. Take a long term look at the financial meltdowns that we have had over the last 30 years and you'll see a pattern that points to the culpability of both the democrats and the republicans in this area. They were both involved in the S&L meltdown in the eighties, they were both involved in the internet stock meltdown in the 90's, and they both bare some of the responsibility for the credit and securities meltdown that we're in the midst of now.
There's a lot of finger pointing going on from conservatives about Fannie and Freddie and the democratic entanglements there, but that's only a part of the story, and it points very strongly in both directions. In that respect, neither one of them want to go in that direction because neither of them want to expose their parties' involvement.
In short, we shouldn't be trusting either of these guys any further than we can throw them.
Frankly, I might be with Drudge.
I think Obama handled himself well, and I usually didn't want to scream at him for his answers. McCain didn't do as well, but wasn't bad.
The format was awful, and Brokaw didn't do so well. (This is different from the previous debate -- I called Jim Lehrer the winner of that one.)
Well, I learned something. I learned I may be fined for not having health insurance for my kids or my employees under an Obama administration.
What the heezy? I guess paying cash is like a bad thing, now.
"There's a lot of finger pointing going on from conservatives about Fannie and Freddie and the democratic entanglements there, but that's only a part of the story, and it points very strongly in both directions. In that respect, neither one of them want to go in that direction because neither of them want to expose their parties' involvement."
True, Bush was AWOL during the heist. But the affirmative action type lending, which was responsible for this mess, belonged almost exclusively to the affirmative action party.
Bush looked the other way, because until the dems took control of Congress in '04, the DOW was averaging 150 points higher than the highest point ever under Clinton administration. The October surprise this time was not Rathergate, it was well timed release of economic choas that the dems had wrought for four years under the nose of a discredited, war raveged President.
McCain lost some credibility with me when he railed against earmarks, after sheepishly signing an $800 billion bailout bill loaded with earmarks. Ironically the original bailout plan even included
more bread to ACORN.
"In short, we shouldn't be trusting either of these guys any further than we can throw them."
That may be "a good horse in the barn, but an errant jade on the journey." One you can't trust any farther than you can throw, and the other you can't trust at all. I say, give the benefit of the doubt to the one you can throw.
==How can it even be called a debate when there is no rebutal time allowed?==
There was rebuttal time. However, Rezkobama consistently went over the agreed-upon times, and he even tried to get in a rebuttal that wasn't allowed, prompting McCain to say that, if Rezkobama's allowed a rebuttal at that time, McCain demands extra rebuttal time, too.
Rezkobama also didn't let, on several occasions, Brokaw's questions limit him on what he wanted to say anyway, just as critics said of Palin.
I don't know that either candidate won the debate (which is a win for Obama, he's in the lead and certainly didn't hurt himself), but what's with Tom Brokaw? He looked like a space alien. It was a bit disconcerting.
"There was rebuttal time . . ."
Maybe I missed something when I walked away
grumbling about the format, but if there was rebuttal, it seeemed to be at the descretion of the moderator. Did they not say that it was to be 2 minutes, plus one rebuttal - basically the same format in the Paylin debate? From what I saw last night, that 1 minute was more often than not consumed with Brokow's follow up.
"Rezkobama also didn't let, on several occasions, Brokaw's questions limit him on what he wanted to say anyway, just as critics said of Palin."
Now if you're man, McCain, had done the exact same thing as Obama and Paylin, perhaps there would have been a more happy ending for him. It is strike 2, and if he doesn't stop name dropping Lieberman, legitimizing global warming, and praising BO for his "community organizing," he has about as much chance as a black dog in Manilla.
==...if there was rebuttal, it seeemed to be at the descretion of the moderator.==
The contenders agreed to the format. Rezkobama violated it, prompting McCain to even things out.
== Did they not say that it was to be 2 minutes, plus one rebuttal - basically the same format in the Paylin debate?==
Two minutes to answer the question. the, one minute discussion time for each. From the start, Rezkobama ignored the one-minute limit and went about two minutes cuz I timed him.
== From what I saw last night, that 1 minute was more often than not consumed with Brokow's follow up. ==
The time for the contestants cannot be taken by the mod. The time begins when the mod turns it over to the contestant.
=="Rezkobama also didn't let, on several occasions, Brokaw's questions limit him on what he wanted to say anyway, just as critics said of Palin."
Now if you're man, McCain, had done the exact same thing as Obama and Paylin [sic], perhaps there would have been a more happy ending for him.==
However, you people criticized Palin for doing it.
===..Obama...[is] in the lead...==
If you believe the polls.
===..Obama...[is] in the lead...==
If you believe the polls.
I certainly think Obama won the debate, but if you look at the way the country is, debates matter little. The republicans have used wedge issues for years to solifify their base, making it almost impossible to gain more than 50% of the vote on either side. You are either against gay rights, or for it. For the oil war in Iraq, or a traitor. Etc. It's designed by the Reds to split the country, and it's a pollster strategy having little to do with commomn. Good. I agree completely with Gingrich on this issue. Most people are not one side or the other; we are all Americans.
McCain needs to put up a policy beyond essentially devaluing houses and giving people a break on their mortgages. By his socialist economic plan, anyone buying a car should drive it off the lot and get it refinanced by the governement at the immediate 25% devalued worth of the car. It's absurb. He need to actually address the voters and say "This is my plan." We don't know what it is and people blindly support him. At least Obama says his plan and you like it or hate it, but it's a plan. McCain should be a real conservative, object to the bailout, and suppoort the free market. He's a coward.
Obama needs to address the moral issues: war is wrong, we are fighting the wrong enemy, Pakistan IS the damn problem, health care is screwed up with the admisistrative costs in the US exceedeing 16% which is 37% in the world in red tape costs(canada is 2.8%. taiwan 2%...a shame). He needs to help people get to the doctor and it is a moral issue. Education is a moral issue, not a tax issue. I have employer health insurance that costs 1000$ per month. I have tried to apply for the same health care privately and can't get the coverage, so I can't do freelance work. McCain needs to address access, as does Obama.
Either would win if they said taking care of people is a moral obligation for all, and that the economics of it will sort themselves out over time. Care fist, money later. America first, oil later. Peace first, war later. Food first, tax cuts later. Solar now, peace now.
Well, my wife walked away long before the debate(?) was over. I forced myself to sit and listen, but I do not know why.
Most people (as far as I can determine) is supporting their favorite candidate by using their emotions.
There probably is no intelligent reason to support either candidate. Each debater(?) had a question they did not answer directly. Obama never answered the question directly about defending Israel, and Mccain didn't answer the question directly about what sacrifices Americans would need to make under his administration.
In conclusion, I would just say pray, and hope for the best, no matter who wins the election.
Amusing mental image? I'd say it's a terrifying mental image.
Charles N hit it right on the head with his comments. I could add one comment, though. One of those two candidates will be the next president, so people will have to make decisions about who to vote for, or not to vote for. After saying that, I say vote for Obama, so we can start blaming the Democrats for all our problems, instead of the Republicans.
"Obama's controversial connections to William Ayres were not mentioned, leading one to wonder whether the McCain team is saving its ammunition for the very final days of the race."
It's going to take more than that. Obama serving on an educational board with a criminal who has paid his debt to society doesn't give most people pause. Don't you guys believe in redemption? Or does guilt by association trump that? If so, I could name some unsavory folks McCain has worked with. I don't think the McCain team could go much lower than the "palling around with terrorists" tripe, but I could be wrong.
"Obama serving on an educational board with a criminal who has paid his debt to society doesn't give most people pause."
Whoa there . . . "paid his debt to society" ? 1979 headline: Charges Against Ayers Were Dropped Because "The Government's Case Was Based On Illegal Wiretaps."The New York Times reported, "William Ayers was a fugitive, too, for nine of those years, but the Federal charges against him, Miss Dohrn and other members of the revolutionary organization were dropped in 1979, when it was ruled that the Government's case was based on illegal wiretaps." No wonder Obama is against making it legal to wiretap terrorists. If it had been in 1979, who would have helped him launch his political career?
"Don't you guys believe in redemption? Or does guilt by association trump that?"
When George Stephonopolis asked Obama about Ayers, Obama played the 'who me?' game we are all so familiar with. This was the one and only time anyone in the MSM questioned their relationship in the 2 years Obama had been campaigning! If he had come clean and admitted that he made a serious mistake that would be one thing, but he didn't. He lied about it and voters have a right to know the truth.
Stan Kurtz at National Review has researched the extent of that relationship and if the public was aware of it, I doubt that Obama would be in the lead today.
"If so, I could name some unsavory folks McCain has worked with."
Keating? Not only was McCain exhonerated for his involvement in the Keating 5, McCain also unequivacally repented of his association with the man.
Contrast that with Obama palling around with unrepentant terrorist, Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon; extreme racist demagague, Wright, who married him; convicted felon, Rezco, a major contributor who was involved in a land scheme w/Obama; and radical PLO communications director, Khalidi, a close associate of Obama who was also friends of Bill Ayers. (Ayers features Khalidi in some of his books about how to politicize the teaching for students and included several of his essays).
The list goes on and on, but my patience is wearing thin. . .
Ryan,
Check out this article about Obama's nefarious network from Clinton's former communications director.
It might be more credible to you coming from someone like him.
.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2008/10/08/the_obama-ayers_connection
==McCain needs to put up a policy ...==
You want him to make policy during a debate??????
I'd like to know what that smirk was on Rezkobama's face all during the debate?
"It might be more credible to you coming from someone like him."
You must be kidding. Dick Morris, the little weasel for Faux News? You might as well direct me to a Sean Hannity article.
I'll check it out, though.
Do you think Morris has credibility with me because of a Clinton connection? Clinton is not exactly a font of veracity himself, you know. And what a nest of wingnuttery you led me to! I thought Fox was bad. Are you going to send me to WorldNutDaily next?
Ayers was a criminal, but he is not running for president. He is now a professor and political activist. Obama has worked with him. I don't care. Do you think Obama should have refused to work on the grant (from the Annenberg Foundation...aren't they supporting McCain?) because of Ayers's participation? You are welcome to your opinion.
Now that I've looked at your remarkably objective link, look at mine, and you will get an idea of what I think of Townhall.com:
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
See what I mean? A very biased source can paint a very ugly picture.
==Ayers was a criminal, but he is not running for president.==
Irrelevant. Serious citizens in good standing must question a candidate for the country's highest office about his associations and why he chose to make and to continue in those associations. As Tom Foley said, the mere appearance of wrongdoing is enough.
== He is now a professor and political activist.==
A professor and political activist who said that he wishes he could have done more, regarding the violence he created.
A professor and political activist who has yet to repent for his conduct.
That is the atmosphere Rezkobama found himself exploiting for political purposes. There is no telling what ideas he absorbed during the time of association. Just as there is no telling how much of what he absorbed during 20 years in that church to which he and his wife took their kids to listen to that anti-America garbage. That's child abuse.
== Obama has worked with him. I don't care.==
I wouldn't expect anything less from you. Of course you don't care. That's because your politics transcends those problems. You don't care what he would bring to the Office, just as long as he gets elected. That's a low form of politics.
== Do you think Obama should have refused to work on the grant (from the Annenberg Foundation...aren't they supporting McCain?) because of Ayers's participation? ==
Yes. On principle. On character. On integrity. Oh, that's right. You don't care.
The more I hear about Ayers (and how his writing style is such a great match for that in Obama's books) and Obama (and how he has not made available any other literary work prior to his connection with Ayers), I'm inclined to believe that Ayers is the puppeteer behind Obama. And if that is the case, then it danged sure is important to know whether or not he is going to be pulling the strings of the man on the ballot. Who is really going to be making the Presidential decisions if Obama is elected, Ayers or Obama? The paper trail, as it were (the two books and countless number of major newspapers that refuse to at least question the relationship) leads toward Ayers. I can't think of anything worse than having an unrepentant domestic terrorist whose avowed goal is the subversion of our government in the Presidential cabinet and possibly in control of important national decisions. I hope and I pray that I am wrong about this, but it gives me the willies thinking about it.
Ayers is dead as an issue. McCain's campaign has embraced the endorsement of Leonore Annenberg, widow of Walter Annenberg and President of the Annenberg Foundation. If Obama shouldn't have served on a board with Ayers then the Annenberg Foundations shouldn't have given Ayers $50M to spend.
More importantly, McCain failed to raise Ayers in the debate. If Ayers is so important, especially in a time when we are at war with terrorism there is only two possible explanations:
1. McCain doesn't believe it, therefore the people who do are being played by his campaign.
2. McCain does believe it but thinks all the other crap, like Obama's failure to support his pork filled energy bill from a few years ago, is more important. That would establish McCain as unfit for the office.
"Do you think Obama should have refused to work on the grant (from the Annenberg Foundation...aren't they supporting McCain?) because of Ayers's participation?"
Given the fact that it was Ayers at the helm, and the radical polemics involved in Annenberg Challenge, the answer is yes. Obama would have been smart to have refused it. He would probably agree.
No. The Annenberg Foundation is not supporting McCain. He put out a list of 100 former ambassadors who are supporting his campaign, and lo, among them was Leonore Annenberg, the wife of Ambassador William Annenberg, the founder of the Annenberg Institute of Reform.
That's the connection.
"See what I mean? A very biased source can paint a very ugly picture."
That article, "John McCain's Skeleton Closet"
reveals gems like . . . He loves to play craps.
He wasn't rebaptized when he joined the Baptist church. He sent regrets in response a to birthday invitation from some mafia nut. Besides the Keating scandle, of which he was exonerated, and his marriage scandle, that's it.
The difference between the two candidates is that
McCain has publically confessed (in a primary debate) that his association with Keating and his adultry were among the worst mistakes of his life. Obama has never confessed to anthing that I know of, and has blantently lied about his dealings with Rezko, Ayers, Wright, and probably Farrikhan, who recently called him the "messiah."
Seeing the reckless abandon with which most people have accepted this man is like watching an accident in slow motion.
==Ayers is dead as an issue. ==
Not quite.
==McCain failed to raise Ayers in the debate.==
He "failed" to raise the issue? I thought that he just didn't raise it. I wasn't aware that it is a failure.
McCain isn't that kinda man, and, so, he's been reluctant, until recently and from now on. He has seen the "light," finally.
Isn't the kind of man to see what he honestly believes to be terrorism and not say anything? Unfit for office.
Oh, yeah, that's convincing. The metaphorical "Move along folks, nothing to see here."
Doesn't believe it? Wow, since you are so privy to his private and personal thought, please tell us what he thinks about your speaking for him in a manor which favors his opponent? And while you are at it, maybe you can explain the commercial that was aired recently the had Hot Air blog claiming that McCain's campaign was going on a full frontal assault on the Obama/Ayers connection. Or maybe you should explain why Obama's earmarks doesn't disqualify Obama for the Presidency if earmarks by McCain disqualifies McCain.
And while you are at it, maybe you can explain the commercial that was aired
See earlier comment about playing his supporters for suckers.
Or maybe you should explain why Obama's earmarks doesn't disqualify Obama for the Presidency if earmarks by McCain disqualifies McCain.
Why should I explain a position I never held or advocated?
==Isn't the kind of man to see what he honestly believes to be terrorism and not say anything? Unfit for office.==
I agree that Rezkobama fits that description.
Because sometimes your spin is so convoluted that other people find it hard to understand. Why else would you specifically mention pork when McCain is supposed to be notoriously against it?
Oh! I get it now. You would, so think he would! It's becoming clearer.
You are the stupidest person on this list.
Why else would you specifically mention pork when McCain is supposed to be notoriously against it?
Well notorious is a good word for it. I would say, though, that McCain's lies about Palin opposing the bridge to nowhere doesn't disqualify him for office....it's just another reason to vote against him.
==McCain's lies about Palin opposing the bridge to nowhere...==
What "lies"?
Here's the history:
Congress gives Alaska, under the pre-Palin administration, 232 million dollars for a bridge. Alaska takes it, and Palin says, "YES! but, then, the cost for the bridge balloons to about 400 million dollars, everything after 232 Alaska would have to pick up. Then, Governorette Palin, seeing that the state cannot come up with the difference, changes her mind on the bridge, and Congress says that Alaska can keep the 232 for other transportation costs and sends the money anyway. Alaska accepts the money. Governorette Palin says that Alaska sure could use it.
So, did she change her mind? Yes, but for the right reason, that the state could not afford the increased cost of the bridge.
Are you making the case that she acted properly on the bridge or are you making the case that she didn't lie? Are you able to tell the difference?
I am impressed, though, that you think blowing a quarter billion dollars on a bridge to nowhere is a great idea if the people of Alaska didn't have to pay for it but if the taxpayers of Alaska had to chip in $168M she turned on it. I guess that's what 'country first' means to someone who married a man who wants Alaska to leave the US. Party of Lincoln too....nice...
==Are you making the case that she acted properly on the bridge...==
She was for the bridge when Congress was paying 232 million for it, and against the bridge when the cost of the bridge inflated to about 400 million and the state would have had to pick up the difference. So, she acted properly when she took the 232 million Congress sent anyway, saying use the money for other trans projects.
==... or are you making the case that she didn't lie?==
Given the accurate story I've posted, she didn't lie about it.
==I am impressed, though, that you think blowing a quarter billion dollars on a bridge to nowhere is a great idea if the people of Alaska didn't have to pay for it but if the taxpayers of Alaska had to chip in $168M she turned on it.==
Congress, including Rezkobama's vote, sent Alaska the money anyway. She couldn't have used it for the bridge cuz the cost almost doubled and Alask would've had to pick up the rest of the tab. Alaska couldn't afford it, and, so, she used the 232 for other trans projects.
== I guess that's what 'country first' means...==
Blame Congress for insisting that Alaska take the money. Why should she turn it down and let some other state have it? Somebody hands YOU some money, you start thinking of how YOU will use it, not how much poorer that person is.
==... to someone who married a man who wants Alaska to leave the US. Party of Lincoln too....nice...==
However, you forget that Rezkobama voted to send Alaska the money anyway.
You also conveniently forget that Rezkobama [and Hillary] voted for a bill that its author, Senator Akaka, of Hawaii, admitted could have been used to separate Hawaii from the Union.
Blame Congress for insisting that Alaska take the money.
You're defense of Palin is that it was she supported sticking everyone else with the bill for a bridge to nowhere but balked at her taxpayers paying for it. That's real reform minded country first thinking there.
Anyway on policy your defense is crap. On the lie front she was caught red handed. Her statement:
Her statement:
In Sept 2007 she stated:
""Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," Palin said. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.""
Now you tell me how this makes any sense if her 'work' with the Congressional delegation was telling them "don't fund this bridge, we'll build it outselves if we want it"?
It's the moronic nonsense like explains why your guy is behind. But go ahead, keep defending it.
Why do you say that? Is it because you think it took me a few minutes to realize how underhanded you are? Anyway, you should quit channeling Senator Biden, it doesn't work any better for you than it does for him. I must have hit it pretty close to the mark if it enticed you to make such a statement.
Somehow I doubt I'm the first person to say something like that to you. Sometimes the truth is the obvious answer. Someone here is the stupidest, I really think it's you!
Yeah, your argument on that thesis is so compelling some fellow nicknamed Boonton believes you.
"Seeing the reckless abandon with which most people have accepted this man is like watching an accident in slow motion."
Now you know how I felt eight years ago.
The MSM is not discussing Ayers, they are talking about what meanies we are for bringing up the Ayers matter 3 weeks before their messiah is to be sworn in. Either that, or the highly irrelevant news of Palin gate.
Rob claims that he doesn't care about Ayers, but as a teacher he should care
about the possible changes in education if Obama is elected. A little background. . .
Ayers's prior terrorism, while highly relevant, is not the essential point. The real issue is Ayers's revolutionary leftism (at around the time Ayers and Obama began working on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, by the way, Ayers described himself as "a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist”).
Obama is clearly lying when he claims ignorance about Ayers's terrorism, but even if you wanted to pretend otherwise, it is impossible that he was in the dark about Ayers's revolutionary leftism: Ayers has never made a secret of it. Obama not only knew about Ayers's views in this regard; he obviously subscribed to them: was a member of the Chicago New Party begun by the Democratic Socialists of America; he worked closely with Ayers on "education reform" for years, he approved of Ayers's similarly fringe-Left views of the criminal justice system's treatment of juvenile crime, and, we are learning, he was tightly aligned with ACORN, which he and Ayers funded and whose practices fit comfortably with the Ayers view of "participatory democracy."
McCarthy quotes Ayers' speech to Chavez and his comrades at length; here are couple of high points:
[M]y comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice … has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution [i.e., Chavez's movement] and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane….
[I’ve] learned that education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space—what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom? ...
Venezuelans have shown the world that with full participation, full inclusion, and popular empowerment, the failing of capitalist schooling can be resisted and overcome. … [W]e, too, must build a project of radical imagination and fundamental change. Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation.
These are the views that Barack Obama funded in Chicago and with which he chose to ally himself. No wonder that a study later found that the many millions of dollars that Obama funneled to left-wing groups led to no improvement in the quality of education!
"Rob claims that he doesn't care about Ayers, but as a teacher he should care
about the possible changes in education if Obama is elected."
As a teacher, I always care about possible and actual changes in education. However, I have no reason to assume that Obama's position on educational issues mirrors that of Ayers. The president can propose education changes, but he can't push them through unilaterally. It beggars belief to think that a majority of either house wants Ayers's educational philosophy to be codified.
Yeah. Maybe there's nothing to be concerned about. Maybe Obama's views on education will be less influenced by Ayers than his other mentors - Wright, Farrikhan, and Khalidi.
The MSM is not discussing Ayers
Ohhh please, Fox gave the Ayers story slightly more airtime than the Weather Channel gives the weather.
It's your guy, McCain, who decided not to raise it in the debate. It's your guy, McCain, who decided to embrace the endorsement of the President of the Foundation that gave Ayers the $50M CAC grant to begin with!
You ignore another possibility, that this magna cum laude Harvard Law School graduate might have his own ideas about education, and they might not be radical in the least. I have to wonder if you will consider it worthy of comment when and if you ever have to acknowledge, at least to yourself, that your fears had no basis.
I will remind you of your wringing of hands when President Obama fails to live up to your fearmongering.
"Ohhh please, Fox gave the Ayers story slightly more airtime than the Weather Channel gives the weather."
Although the term is annoying, Fox is not considered MSM.
"It's your guy, McCain, who decided not to raise it in the debate. It's your guy, McCain, who decided to embrace the endorsement of the President of the Foundation that gave Ayers the $50M CAC grant to begin with!
He ain't my guy. He will address the Ayers issue Wednesday, and it was the president's wife, not the president.
RR
"I have to wonder if you will consider it worthy of comment when and if you ever have to acknowledge, at least to yourself, that your fears had no basis.
I have no fears and no horse in this race. Havard graduate et al, he still shows a propensity for weak judgement. There is no reason to assume that will change with time.
"I will remind you of your wringing of hands when President Obama fails to live up to your fearmongering."
Save it for when Obama stops the sea from rising. Now that is scaaary!
He ain't my guy. He will address the Ayers issue Wednesday, and it was the president's wife, not the president.
We shall see tonight but so what? He had Obama in front of him and he passed. If it was important he should have said it. His failure to do so is telling. Sorry, now that a half dozen contradictory tactics have failed to give him the poll numbers he wants a belated Ayers attack, if it happens, is simply not credible and certainly not impressive.
Annenberg's widow is the current President of the Foundation. The Foundation has never repudiated or objected to anything the Chicago Annenberge Challenge did. McCain hawkes her support not just as a private citizen but as President of the Foundation. You guys can't have it both ways on this, I know you're used to it after 8 years of Bush but times up!
"A belated Ayers attack, if it happens, is simply not credible and certainly not impressive."
This sounds almost prophetic, or were you were copied the memo sent to all the MSM political eunuchs to insure that there is no diversity of opinion, or independent thoughts on the matter? Disgusting!
OBAMA CAMPAIGN ISSUES TALKING POINTS TO MEDIA AHEAD OF DEBATE
Wed Oct 15 2008 11:13:03 ET
* Just this weekend, John McCain vowed to "whip Obama's you-know-what" at the debate, and he's indicated that he'll be bringing up Bill Ayers to try to distract voters.
* So we know that Senator McCain will come ready to attack Barack Obama and bring his dishonorable campaign tactics to the debate stage.
almost prophetic,
Prophetic would be a prediction of the future, my statement was just laying down the facts. Thanks, though, for the compliment.