Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensI will have to agree with you there. The difference is Obama has spent most of his career geting in touch with people and he is very very good at relating to them. People seem to be fooled by him and not really look at the issues at hand.
I noticed the same thing. From what I saw McCain is campaining in realities. Obama seems to have these huge plans but fails to see how they can't be implamented.
Its the same as if I campaigned that I will give 1 million dollars to every houshold in America. Just don't ask how I will make it happen. This campaign is nothing more than a popularity contest. It seems to have very little to do with realistic policy implamentation.
Obama has no real clear idea what to do about anything this country is facing, from what i gathered is he is going to have a team tell him the answers and I hope that when he is elected he appoints one helleva team that at least know what they are doing.
I just for once would like to have a candidate that can and will think on thier own. Maybe one day, hopfully soon. All they do is skirt around the questions.
2 edits
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensHows this for reality. America produces 3% of the world's oil but consumes 25% of the worlds production and realists like McCain want to drill baby drill so that the price at the pump will drop. Given the acreages of oil fields not being utilized at present and given that your oil refineries are near capacity and given that any major new drilling probably won't come on line for another 10 years or so, which of the candidates live in cloud cuckoo land? Give you a subtle hint, starts with a J and ends with an M and N.
I noticed the same thing. From what I saw McCain is campaining in realities.
Originally posted by kmax87Drilling is not the answer, true but it will help until the answers are found. It would be plain ignorant not too. Nuclear power is the next viable option that needs to be explored.
Hows this for reality. America produces 3% of the world's oil but consumes 25% of the worlds production and realists like McCain want to drill baby drill so that the price at the pump will drop. Given the acreages of oil fields not being utilized at present and given that your oil refineries are near capacity and given that any major new drilling probably won ...[text shortened]... s live in cloud cuckoo land? Give you a subtle hint, starts with a J and ends with an M and N.
Lets face it Obama has no more of a answer to combat our energy crisis than McCain. Everyone is looking into the energy problem and it will get solved, but lets not lye to ourselves and say one candidate has a more viable plan on it than the other ok.
Originally posted by torch71It won't help. For the ten millionth time, oil is traded on the open market, so there is no guarantee that the oil will ever make it to the U.S. Plus, OPEC controls the price of oil, period. If the price of oil drops, they slow their production to push the price up. So drill all you want. It won't help.
Drilling is not the answer, true but it will help until the answers are found. It would be plain ignorant not too. Nuclear power is the next viable option that needs to be explored.
Lets face it Obama has no more of a answer to combat our energy crisis than McCain. Everyone is looking into the energy problem and it will get solved, but lets not lye to ourselves and say one candidate has a more viable plan on it than the other ok.
Originally posted by WulebgrYou see, this is what I thought. I thought he was fumbling around in the beginning and when
Obama sounded like Sarah Palin the way he was tripping over his own tongue. McCain clearly won the debate.
McCain was BSing, he would spend his time defending himself rather than addressing the question
(although he drew McCain into that mode by the end).
I think that he sounded markedly better than Palin, frankly, but I suspect you were just being
hyperbolic.
However, it looks like he picked up a point according to Gallup, which I find inexplicable. It would
be generous to call the debate a draw (frankly, if you subtract the name calling, McCain wasn't
all that great either), but the idea that Obama won is just unsupportable. Yet, he's up a point.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrHere's another amazing thing, Wulebgr: a friend of mine, who is a staunch
Obama sounded like Sarah Palin the way he was tripping over his own tongue. McCain clearly won the debate.
Republican and rather likes McCain (although he's not crazy about him),
felt that Obama did well. That is, he thought Obama won, if only slightly
but at worst it was a tie.
Now, he's not a person encumbered by a desire to see Obama win; indeed,
he's more inclined to be overly critical of Obama and gentle on McCain,
although not disproportionately so like many on this site. He's well read
and well informed on political issues.
I'm at a loss to explain it, frankly.
Nemesio
Edit:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07/politics/horserace/entry4508356.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/debate.poll/index.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111058/Obama-Rated-Winner-Second-Presidential-Debate.aspx
According to these, Obama didn't just win. He owned McCain, who suffered
serious losses against uncommited voters. More people thought Obama
won this one than the first (in which I thought he did better than McCain).
I'm mystified by this, frankly.
Nemesio
