Second Presidential Debate

Just wondering who saw the second presidential debate here?

Personally, I really liked Barack Obama and thought he came off the best in the whole debate - man, it was longer than I expected.

I did think John McCain had some good points (not many because he largely ignored the questions, or went around and around that by the time he finished, you forgot what he was responding to!). I did like McCain's response to the question about Russia - very well said and no political nonsense in his response at all.

Barack Obama in general (although he sometimes talked around questions, but it wasnt the majority of them) is a very fine orator, he instills confidence in his audience (well, at least in me... lol) and he has more of a heart and cares about people.

The question that I thought McCain would have totally lost a lot of support was the "Should health care be a right, priviledge or responsibility?" -- McCain's response was that it should be a responsibility, whereas Obama said it should be a right. It baffles me to think that someone would not want to ensure his people are healthy and can get access to affordable health care!!

I also thought that this debate was much more interesting than their first one...

Anyway, the consensus here was that it was Obama's win. What do other people think?

Obama lost.

I don't think either candidate did their best job; however, I think Obama came out ahead again. The candidates did not even follow the rules that they established themselves. I was very happy to hear that Obama finally address McCain's claim that he just does not understand.

I benefit from this debate was that viewers saw a clear contrast between the two candidates. For exampe, this debate gave both candidates the opportunity to clearly lay out their health care plans.

I also think it is very clear that they do not even like each other, because once again they did not talk to each other.

I noticed that McCain would often go into a "...and we can do this...because we're America ...and America is great ...and yes, we can fix this..." and on and on. However, he rarely stated, specifically, how he plans to do whatever he was talking about at the time. By the time he got done with all that, his time was up and he hadn't really given an answer to the question. All the talk about how great we are and that we can fix our problems is to boost morale, I guess, but it doesn't help me understand how he plans to fix anything...or what we will face while we're fixing it , if we choose his plan.

One thing he mentioned, that I wish he had expanded on, was the spending freeze. He said he would recommend a freeze on everything except "defense, veteran affairs and some others". Well, what others ?? I'd like to know. Does he mean education? Does he mean health care for kids? Does he mean scientific and medical research? What others? I think he should have been very specific , in that statement, because it just left me wondering about a whole new set of questions. And, at a time when people are begging for answers , that's just not good. If he hasn't thought out this idea, and is not prepared to be specific about it, he shouldn't have thrown it out there, like that, and left people hanging. Bad idea, I thought. He mentioned a freeze, at some point, before this debate...I don't remember exactly when...but between then and now, he should have been prepared to elaborate.

Overall, the difference between these two men, in the ability to stay on point, think quickly and offer specificity in their answers was, again, noticeable. These are qualities I think would be very important, when dealing with other politicians and world leaders. McCain just seemed to come across as "desperate", to me...not very inspiring, at all.

So, I think Obama came out better in this one. Not because I learned anything new from him, really, but because McCain actually left me with more questions than I had when it started.

I am guessing that most of those in favor of Obama will feel that he won and most of those in favor of McCain will feel he won ... It is just a guess :)

I only saw the last few questions of the debate ... Obama danced around the Israel question, with no definitive answer, McCain danced around the question just after that ... For good reason they both danced around the Russia question, McCain openly danced around it, Obama tip-toed about it.

However, the one that really boggled me was when Obama said if Bin Laden was in Pakistan and they knew where he was hiding and Pakistan was not willing/able to cooperate, he would attack/invade/launch a strike (I searched for the exact phrasing, but was unable to find it, and I do not recall precisely what he said). That blew my mind ... There is one thing to do it, it is a whole 'nother ballpark to say on national TV that you will launch a strike against someone in a foreign country ... I mean, what if Bin Laden was visiting Russia, we knew where he was, Russia refused to cooperate ... Using the same logic, would he then launch a strike on Russian soil?!

That just seemed to strike me the most ... I don't have any personal experience with covert operations, but I am guessing many, if not most, countries do have some sort of 'Black ops' equivalent (though it is possible the black ops is just a Hollywood creation, in which case I will withdraw this paragraph from my argument, heh) ... Their job is to do things that are illegal in the country they do it in, but in the nation's best interests ... But for Pete's sake you don't announce it!!

Fact Check: McCain, Obama Charges and Countercharges ABC News Fact Checks Claims Made By White House Contenders During Second Presidential Debate Oct. 7, 2008

With reporting by the ABC News Fact Check team John Berman, Lisa Chinn, Dennis Dunlavey, Brian Hartman, Tom Giusto, Kimberley Randolph, Z. Byron Wolf, Justin Rood, Teddy Davis, Karen Travers, Kirit Radia, Luis Martinez, Ariane deVogue, Arlette Saenz, Reynolds Holding and Jerika Richardson.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Money

Early in the debate tonight, McCain charged that Obama had the second highest donations of anyone in the Senate from troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

TRUE. The Illinois senator has received $126,349 ($120,349 from employees and $6,000 from Political Action Committees or PACs) since he joined the Senate in 2005, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. His total is the second largest of any member of Congress, right behind Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., at $165,400.

McCain has received $21,550 from employees (nothing from PACs) since 1989 -- a period 14 years longer than Obama has been in the Senate -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Pork Barrell Spending

McCain charged that Obama was guilty of driving up pork barrel spending -- government spending on programs that benefit his state of Illinois. McCain said, "While we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks, he voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill."

TRUE: In July 2007, Obama requested a $3 million earmark for the Adler Planetarium to repair the 40-year-old projector to the Sky Theater.

AND FALSE: As to the first part of the claim, that Obama voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, any senator, including McCain, who casts a vote to pass spending bills, in effect, votes for far more than that.

But if McCain misspoke and meant to say that Obama requested nearly a billion in earmarks, he's not even close. According to the Citizens Against Government Waste's annual Pig Book for 2008 Appropriations, Obama requested 53 earmarks worth a total of $97.4 million.

Obama defended his tax plan against McCain's charge that "Obama's secret that you don't know is that his tax increases will increase taxes on 50 percent of small business revenue." Obama responded that "only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. So, the vast majority of small businesses would get a tax cut under my plan." TRUE...AND TRUE: Only 4.3 percent of the total U.S. businesses are small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year, according to tax data. It's also possible that a majority of "small business revenue" comes from these firms. Obama is referring to the number of firms, McCain is referring to the concentration of revenue at the top end of the small business food chain. Both managed to make the facts work for their arguments.

Pakistan

McCain charged that "Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly. In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan."

FALSE: Obama has not said that he would "attack Pakistan," but he has said that if Pakistan was unwilling or unable to move in on Osama bin Laden, he would.

This charge started with a speech Obama gave on Aug. 1, 2007, called "The War We Need To Win," in which he said: "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Computers

When asked what he would do to make Congress move quickly to address the environment, Obama said, "This is one of the biggest challenges of our time, and it's absolutely critical we understand it's not a challenge, it's an opportunity ... we can do it but we're gonna have to make an investment. The same way the computer was invented by a bunch of government scientists." Were computers invented by the government?

FALSE: The Mark I, widely considered to be the first digital computer, was developed by Harvard scientist Howard Aiken working in conjunction with IBM from 1939 to 1944.

A year later came the final assembly of the ENIAC, a computer developed by scientists at the University of Pennsylvania who were under contract with the U.S. Army in order to more rapidly compute firing and bombing tables.

Lebanon

McCain said, "In Lebanon, I stood up to President Reagan, my hero, and said if we send Marines in there, how can we possibly beneficially affect the situation, and said we shouldn't. Unfortunately, almost 300 brave young Marines were killed."

FALSE: This is an issue that came up in the first presidential debate, as well. And in both cases, McCain exaggerates his position. Marines were already in Lebanon when McCain arrived on Capitol Hill in 1983, and his vote was to prevent invoking the War Powers Act to extend the Marines already deployed. McCain did vote against that, but as he did in the first debate, McCain is wrong to imply that he opposed sending the Marines to Lebanon.

Town Meeting?

Perhaps the biggest exagerration of the night came from the debate organizers, who called the format a "town meeting." Of the 21 questions asked during the 90-minute debate, nine came from moderator Tom Brokaw, eight from the live audience in the hall and four from Internet users.

Here's a Canadian point of view:

I watched the Presidential debate last night. You call them presidential debates in the States and we call the Leaders' debates here. This is the first time I've watched any debate (Presidential or Leaders') from beginning to end. I liked Barrack Obama myself.

Hi Rand :)

I recorded the debate on my DVR (I love my DVR!) so, I pulled it up and wrote it, verbatim, for you. I did leave out the thank yous for the question, the discussion of whether or not there would be rebuttles and the issue of time restraint and rules...didn't think it was necessary to include all that. You will notice that some words are repeated...these are not typos...they're part of the actual quotes.

The question: Should the US respect Pakistani sovereignty, or ignore it, to pursue Al Qaeda?

Obama's 1st response:

"...I do believe we have to change our politics with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars...and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban militants. What I've said is, we're gona encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan, so they have more of a stake in working with us...but insisting that they go after these militants, and if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights, and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act. And we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden, we will crush Al Qaeda...and that has to be our biggest national security priority."

McCain's 1st response:

"...You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say, "Walk softly, talk softly, but carry a big stick." Senator Obama likes to talk loudly. In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable. You know, if you are...if, if you are...a country...and you're trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can, that they would act in a cooperative fashion. When you anounce that you're going to launch an attack into another country, it's pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan. It turns public opinion against us. Now let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out...with, the Afghan Freedom Fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan and then we made this most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan, the Taliban came back in...Al Qaeda...and we then had this this situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war. Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical. Because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations. And we have to get their support. Now General Petraeus had a strategy. The same strategy, very, very different...because of the conditions and the situation. But the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people. We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan...where I visited, very rough country...and, and get the support of the pepole, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others. And, and...by working and coordinating our efforts, together. Not threatening to attack them, but working with them. And, where necessary, use force, but, talk softly, but carry a big stick."

Obama's rebuttle:

"...Look, ah, I just wanna be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Yet, Senator McCain continues to repeat this. What I said was...the same thing that the audience, here today, heard me say...which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden, and take him out, then, we should . Now, that I think, has to be our policy because they are threatening to kill more Americans. Now Senator McCain suggests that, somehow...you know, I'm green behind the ears, and ya know I'm...just spoutin' off, and he's...somber and responsible. I... [McCain interrupts here, with "Thank you, very much!" and a laugh.] (Obama continues:) "...Senator McCain...this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran...who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That , I don't think, is an example of speaking softly. This is the person who, after we had...we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, before he said, "Next up, Bagdad!" So...I agree that we have to speak responsibly...and we have to act responsibly, and the reason Pakistan...the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan...was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharruf...had given him ten million dollars over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties...we were not promoting democracy. This is the kind of policies that, ultimately, end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change , when I am President."

McCain's rebuttle:

"...Not true. Not true. I have, obviously, supported those efforts, that the United States had to go in, militarily, and I have opposed those that I didn't think so. I understand what it's like to send young Americans into harm's way. I say...I was joking with a veteran...I hate to even go into this, I was joking with an old veteran friend who joked with me , about Iran. But the point is...that I know...how to handle these, these, these crises...and Senator Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan...look at the context of his words...I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him. I'll get him, no matter what. I know how to do it. But I'm not gona telegraph my punches, which is what Senator Obama did. And I'm gona act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly, throughout my military career...and throughout my career in the United States Senate. And, we have fundamental disagreements about the use of military power, and how you do it, and you just saw it, in response to previous questions."

Okay, I didn't hear Obama say he would attack Pakistan. What I heard him say was that he would go after bin Laden and Al Qaeda. McCain tried his best to make it sound like Obama said he would attack Pakistan, but he didn't. I caught that the first time he tried to pull this stunt...and now, here he is doing it again. What was ironic, was that McCain said, "...look at the context of his words...". Well, I would say stop trying to change the context of his words, because anybody can clearly see that is exactly what he's doing. Also, he never answered the question. He was more focused on trying to make Obama look bad, than he was on trying to help himself. He had an oportunity to state his case and stand by it, no matter what Obama's position is..which is what he should have done. But instead, he started right in with slamming the competition. That's childish. I think the point he was trying to make (in such a painfully lost and roundabout way) was that their views on military strategy differ. Okay...that's obvious...to everybody, by now...but all he had to do was say that, and get on with his answer to the question...but he blew it. I'm trying to imagine him in a meeting with world leaders...trying to make a case for his views...and I get a mental picture of these men rolling their eyes and yawning at him.

Rand, you said you predict that Obama supporters will think Obama came out ahead and McCain supporters will think McCain came out ahead...I'm trying to give McCain every fair chance I can, to prove himself to me, but every time I hear him speak about most issues, he just doesn't hold a candle to Obama. In some ways, he comes across as being almost senile. He wants, so badly, for America to elect him because he is a veteran and because he was a POW. I respect his service to this country, same as I respect anyone's. But that, in itself, is just not enough to win my vote.

As of last night, I've pretty much made my decision. Unless McCain can show me something better than what he offers at this point, Obama gets my vote. I would also like to point out that neither of these men was my first choice. I have given each of them equal consideration and I have paid more attention to this election than I ever did to any other. The reasons being that (1) My first choice of candidate, in the past, has always been the nominee (2) Our nation is in the worst shape it's ever been, in my lifetime and (3) I think it's my responsibilty, as a voter, to be open-minded and pay attention. I have tried to research the things I've had questions about, but it's not always easy to find unbiased, factual information...I've done my best and I left the rest up to the candidates.

Just my 2 cents. :)

Seemed like more of a draw to me. The people who like Obama will say that he won, and the people who like McCain will say he won.

I find it amusing that the news articles about this all say that since McCain didn't manage to land a "knockout punch", he lost. It would have mostly been a draw otherwise.

Simplegirl: '.. if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights, and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act. And we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden, we will crush Al Qaeda ... '

The phrase, we will take them out, we will kill bin Laden, we will crush Al Qaeda, does lead one to believe a force of arms will be used ... Since the sentence it is in and the paragraph/response it is in refer to those two entities while in Pakistan ... I would think it is safe to assume that he intends to do that, given that the Pakistani government is unwilling/unable to help ... So, we would either be doing an air strike on Pakistani soil or sending armed forces onto Pakistani soil ... It is possible that is we dropped poisoned food stuffs to Al Qaeda that they would eat them and die, but I feel the odds are slim.

Invade: intrude on: to intrude upon, infringe, encroach on, violate

If that is the case, I still stand by my response, what Obama said is still mind blowing. He proposes invading Pakistan under the conditions above ... So my question still stands, if we know bin Laden is in China, do we 'invade', as per the definition? Or, since they are as militarily strong as us (or more so) do we leave bin Laden alone?

There may be other methods of killing bin Laden and crushing Al Qaeda while they are in Pakistan without the Pakistani support, but I can't think of such a way. If you know of such a way, and such a way is not a national secret, feel free to fill me in on the scoop and I will retract my argument :)

I think they're saying that McCain needed to do something to regain momentum and move the polls in his direction; and he failed to do that. You know, if he were a quarterback and he took a knee when the team was behind, it wouldn't be a loss of yardage, but he would still lose the game.

Honestly, don't you think that this is the stance that any US President will take at this point, no matter what his political party? To take out bin Laden if we know where he is? You can bet your bottom dollar that special ops troops are constantly on his trail and that if they get him in view he will be gone. (If you think that we don't already have troops "unofficially" crossing the border into Iran and Pakistan and wherever right now, then you are being naive...)

It's an ugly business, but it's reality these days...

Neardc: You missed the point ... My disagreement was not with the fact that it would be done ... I hope he, bin Laden, wakes up some day to a blinding flash from a shotgun, but you don't publicly state that you will invade other countries to do it.

It falls under the modified don't ask don't tell policy for foreign operations ... By announcing that he will do it, it forces other countries into the position that if such an event were to happen they then either need to respond to the invasion or admit that they don't mind if a foreign country kills people in their country.

Do we happen to have any political refugees? We are then authorizing their murder, without retaliation, of those refugees.

If bin Laden happened to pass away with a cruise missile in his keister, Pakistan would have full deniability ... It may very well have been a counter extremist group that suicide bombed the place or whatever other excuses are used ... Possibly the suicide with 50 knife holes in the back story.

You see the difference? I could relate it to murder if that makes the distinction simpler ... Let's say John kills my sister but gets away scot free ... I am very angry and would love to see John pushing up daisies ... Now there are two scenarios ... I am walking home one day and we bump into each other, a fight ensues and John dies ... Other scenario, I write a note in my diary that I plan on getting into a fight with John in order to kill him, and then proceed as earlier mentioned ... The first scenario, may be an involuntary manslaughter, maybe, the second one is likely Murder 1.

Relating to Pakistan, bin Laden's home blowing up would be a shame that damage was done to Pakistani soil ... Whereas telling the world that we will blow up bin Laden's home in Pakistan and then coincidently bin Laden's home blows up ...That is a world of difference.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, I can only hope that bin Laden is found dead in Afghanistan, Iraq or in Israel ... Off the top of my heads, I can't think of any other country that would advocate such a position publicly, privately is one matter, public air waves is a different boat.

Okay, maybe I should have been a little more specific... :)

Yes, I agree that a force of arms would, most likely be used, to snuff bin Laden and members of Al Qaeda. We do agree on that. My interpretation of Obama's response, however, and yours seem to differ...

First, I'd like to re-examine the question: Should the US respect Pakistani sovereignty or ignore it, to pursue Al Qaeda?

Next, let's consider the definitions of sovereign: 1. adj. of or relating to a sovereign || having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly, a sovereign state || unlimited, absolute, sovereign power...

Next, reconsider what Obama said in the beginning: "...we're gona encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan...but insisting that they go after these militants..."

Now...considering that we had, at one time, a better affiliation with Pakistan, but we dropped the ball, it's not unreasonable to think that, by offering our help and aid to them, once more, we can (under the right leadership) come to agreements with them, again. It is also not unreasonable to think they might be willing (under the right circumstances) to get rid of bin Laden, just as much as we are...

My interpretation of "...are unable..." would be that Pakistan had tried and was unsuccessful, therefore, they would need our help. It doesn't insinuate that we would attack the entire country...the leaders or the people...it simply says that we would intervene.

On the other hand, "...are unwilling..." to me, would mean that Pakistan had refused our aid, our help, our efforts...and, in that case, they would be willing to support bin Laden in his efforts to do whatever he planned to do. So, in that case, yes, we would most likely have to invade Pakistan. (War ain't pretty.) Obama hopes it would not come to that, and he would do his best to prevent that, I feel certain. However, if it comes to that, what does it matter whether or not he states his position on national television? Why should he not be open and honest about it with the American people? He answered the question...that's his stand, and he stands firm.

Now, if you think McCain would act any differently, then I think you are mistaken. McCain's words: "...We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan...and get the support of the people...and where necessary, use force..." .

So, what is the difference in that, and what Obama said? Basically, nothing...the difference is that Obama stated, clearly, that if Pakistan is not willing to cooperate, even after our efforts to help them, he's willing for us to get the job done, however we need to go about it...and he doesn't seem to be afraid to make that pledge and stand behind it, on national television, or wherever. McCain, for some unknown reason, wants to try to make this a huge deal, insinuating that if Pakistan hears what Obama said, they won't be willing to negotiate...and that's simply not true...because the Pakistanis would have heard what Obama said, just like we did, and they're intelligent enough (just like we are...or should be) to know what he meant. And as far as that goes, what makes McCain any different, when he turned right around and said the exact same thing: "I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends...I'll get him, no matter what." And, he said it on national television. Does he think Pakistan just turned off their TV before he said that? So, what is his point? He's trying to make something of nothing.

What's sad is that because of whatever reason , some folks will not disect and evaluate...they will simply let McCain's showboating cloud the issue.

In conclusion, in my opinion, if bin Laden is getting aid from any country , then that country poses a threat to every other society in the world, along with bin Laden. Any country who helps him knows there will be an issue with the US, that will have to be dealt with. How the US will deal with this, from country to country, I don't presume to know. In response to your questions about whether or not we should invade Russia/China, I don't know. That is not the question that was asked, last night, and that is not the question to which the candidates responded. So, to me your question is moot, regarding last night's debate.

If, at some point, someone stated that we know bin Laden is in China or Russia, and I missed that, then I apologize for saying your question is moot.

*insert smiley here*

Oh, pleeeze! There is no cat to let out of the bag...lol. It is no secret to Pakistan or any other country that this is what the US will do as has repeatedly been stated in different ways. If he had said "We have bin Laden in our sites at x-coordinates and are moving in right now to take him out" that would be letting a cat out of a bag. It is not tipping anyone's hand, though, to say that we will pursue bin Laden relentlessly. And, if we do end up catching up with him in Pakistan, chances are that Pakistan will be willingly looking the other way when it happens, no matter what the official position is...

The Russia/China question was a hypothetical ... There is one thing leaving it with an implication, another to say it ... The hypothetical was to show the problem with the statement ... Both candidates danced, and rightly so, about the Russia question ... That is a question to be decided upon behind closed doors ... It is not a politcally correct path to follow ... There is a reason it is called black ops, you don't tell them you will break the law of the land, you just do it.

You can liken it to being laid off from work, as I see it ... An employer doesn't let a department know that he will be firing some of them, he is not sure when, but he will be doing it as soon as he can ... No, once you decide to do it, you do it then and there ... To do otherwise breeds suspicion and distrust.

I can't think of any other means of getting the point across ... But it doesn't seem to be getting through ... All I can do is repeat ... I feel Obama violated the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy for foreign relations and black ops.

Am I confident that If McCain was there bin laden might coincidently commit suicide with 50 knife wounds in the back? ... Do I feel the same would happen with Obama or even a third? The answer is the same, yes, to both.

neardc: You seem to have skipped the rest of the statement ... But I can understand why ... It does paint your hero as one who speaks before he thinks ... See, I too can be condescending to, ain't this great!

Now, it may very well be in the Islamic Jihads' best interest for bin Laden to die in Russia or China, or possibly France ... That may very well be the nail on the coffin as far as the world view goes.

And yes, the cat out of the bag phrase is apt ... Just as the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy goes ... You know it, we know it, but we don't talk about it ... Obama chose to talk about it, that is when he became a putz.