Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
The Oxford debate
September 27, 2008
After the last couple of days, McCain badly needed to win Friday’s debate. My immediate feeling was that he didn’t even manage a draw.
Obama was on fine form. He did not meander. His responses were calm and focused. He never looked rattled. He seemed comfortable with the issues and unthreatened by his opponent—sufficiently unthreatened to be generous to McCain now and then, an effective Clintonian (Bill) touch. McCain was prickly, rarely looking in Obama’s direction, repeatedly accusing him of failing to understand the issues—a difficult charge to make stick with Obama looking so assured. McCain’s aggression seemed to me at times to betray a lack of confidence. He had his moments; still, I thought it was a comfortable win on points for Obama.
Now and then I found myself thinking, “Remind me, what is it that they disagree about?” Health care, for sure, but that subject as usual came and went very quickly. Taxes? Again, yes, though both are pitching themselves as tax-cutters. Spending? Harder to say. McCain has his hatchet, Obama his scalpel: they both claim to be fiscal conservatives, intent on getting value for money. Who knows what that would mean in practice? McCain as always tried to make a mountain out of the earmarks molehill—saying it was emblematic of a wider culture of fiscal abuse—but I don’t know if that was very successful. He did score a hit on Obama’s support for the energy bill, but how many people watching know enough about that pork-laden legislation for the point to have registered?
As ever it was clear that they are guided by different ideologies. McCain is relatively pro-business, pro-market; Obama, despite the intellect and the pragmatic mindset, shows a wide streak of anti-business populism. But the debate did not really get at the practical implications. Questioned about the bail-out, for instance, they were unwilling to get into the details of their differences, if any. I’m sure Obama scores points with his simplistic “blame it all on deregulation”, and McCain’s pro-business prejudices are a handicap right now. But when the financial regulatory system comes to be made over, it will be a question of getting the quality of regulation right, not the quantity.
Turning to foreign policy, both men seemed intent on exaggerating what in practice might be rather slight differences. McCain still refuses to admit that the Iraq war was a mistake; Obama still refuses to admit that he was wrong about the surge. But that is the past. Looking ahead, McCain wants to wind US forces in Iraq down as soon as circumstances allow; Obama wants a timetable of sorts, but is not promising to get troops out by a certain date regardless. Both want to pour more forces into Afghanistan. Are their positions really so far apart? The long debate about meeting enemies “without preconditions” seemed to me entirely about semantics rather than the nuts and bolts of practical diplomacy. Either administration would make overtures to Iran or North Korea if it thought it might get results; neither would fly the president in for a chat without having a good idea in advance what the outcome would be. Dealing with Russia? Both men want Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.
Their characters and temperaments are very different, of course, but we already knew that. McCain goes by instinct and (yes) experience, Obama more by intellect and calculation. Ideally, one would have all of the above. Forced to choose, I prefer the latter, but can see there are pros and cons on both sides.
I thought the debate moved off the financial crisis too quickly, though it was not for want of effort by Jim Lehrer, who I thought did a superb job as moderator—relaxed, funny, courteous, self-effacing. (So it can be done.) I wanted to applaud as he cheerfully kept pressing his question about which aspects of their plans would have to change in order to pay for the bailout. McCain talked about a spending freeze (“it should be considered”). Obama acknowledged that some of his proposals might have to wait, but would not say which (and then listed all the main ones as so important they should go ahead regardless). Neither candidate, it seems, has given thought to the fiscal implications of the bailout. Perhaps this is a good thing. If either were to do that, they might wonder if they really want to win.
A very good assessment. I was not able to watch to the end, but during the first hour, which I did see, I thought that both performed well, with Obama avoiding sounding too much like a dispassionate professor and McCain more focused than usual.
But I think that Obama looked more “presidential” of the two, with a better grasp of the issues and a steadier demeanor. He did a beautiful job of hitting back hard at McCain and being gracious at the same time.
McCain, on the other hand, often had a desperate quality to his answers. If someone from Mars had been watching, he or she might well have thought that Obama had been in the Senate for many years and that McCain was the relative newcomer.
Posted by: algasema | September 27th, 2008 at 7:29 am | Report this commentContinuing the above comments, Obama looked as if he was accomplishing two other important goals as well. The most crucial one was distinguishing himself from McCain on ideology. I think that Obama successfully (with some help from McCain) presented himself as on the side of the people as opposed to the Bush policies of corporate welfare.
McCain, on the other hand, continues to find himself in the very uncomfortable position of being in the middle - trying to reestablish his tarnished “maverick” image while upholding the Bush corporate dominated laissez-faire that has done so much to bring the country to the point of economic disaster.
Obama, also, talked about the issues with a great deal of specificity and focus (except, of course, for the bailout, but how can anyone be specific about a three page Paulson plan which would grant him virtually unlimited authority to do anything he wants?) The notion that Obama is an “empty suit” is gone forever (except, probably, from Fox News, which has a relationship to reality that is never more than tenuous at best).
If one wanted to see a real debate on the bailout, the only way to do that would have been to ask the two candidates (and the superb moderator, Jim Lehrer) politely to step aside and hand the stage over to the FT’s own Martin Wolf and Willem Buiter, who are debating this on the latter’s blog even as we speak. The moderator? Who else but Clive Crook himself?
All in all, a solid victory on points for Obama.
Posted by: algasema | September 27th, 2008 at 8:22 am | Report this commentThe Paulson plan is the second major bailout of financial institutions that we have had in 20 years, based on the Reagan philosophy that regulations are excess paperwork. Criticism of a a look-the-other way policy of regulation is more than simplistic. The 28-year effort of reactionary Republicans to undo the regulatory policies of the New Deal has been a disaster.
The Reagan/Bush/McCain companion to deregulation has been tax cuts for the wealthy financial speculators whose excesses have led to two massive bailouts of financial institutions. The third aspect of Republican voodoo economics is free trade, which has left our manufacturing base in tatters, except for defense spending which means government spending.
The Republican economic policy of the past 28 years has been to use stock market bubbles, real estate bubbles, and military spending to stimulate the economy. Local, state, and federal spending is now at least 40% of GDP. Twenty five of the thirty states that generally vote Republican in presidential elections get back more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes.
Reagan said government is the problem, not the solution. Yet, Republicans have driven up the national debt from $1 trillion to more than $10 trillion.
The Republican Warfare State is proving to be a much more expensive welfare state than the welfare state we had before 1980.
Posted by: Bill Rush | September 27th, 2008 at 9:03 am | Report this commentI was glad to see both candidates make more than passing references to Pakistan which will remain crucial in the execution of the US-styled ‘war against terror.’ McCain was spot on in citing the practical challenges of the NW areas in Pakistan which he has visited citing Alexander the Great’s difficulties (the British colonialists could perhaps have been cited to better effect) and the need for cooperation with Pakistani authorities (which Obama seemed more ambivalent about) but Obama correctly reflected the wider mood in the country - where I have just been for 8 months - where US support for a beleaguered General Musharraf clearly went beyond its sell-by date with consequences still being felt. It is gauging and engaging that mood and the wider sense in which the US is now perceived across the Muslim world and in countries with significant Muslim minority populations (such as the UK and India) that will be crucial to the success of the next US President internationally.
Posted by: Arif Zaman | September 27th, 2008 at 10:20 am | Report this comment“if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me (McCaine) once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger”.
Senator McCain, if you were having breakfast with Schultz (our great secretary of state) in San Francisco on Saturday morning, I’m sure he would have been disappointed with your “pulling the trigger” skills during the debate. Now I see why selecting Palin as a VP candidate was a stroke of genius.
Posted by: Vicken Ekmekjian | September 27th, 2008 at 11:11 am | Report this commentI tried briefly to watch and listen to the “debate”, but could not stand to hear either candidate in the few minutes I watched as they both bashed Russia and Iran for no reason.
Senator McCain likely believes what he says about both countries along with his other fantasies. I still want to believe that Senator Obama goes along with this ignorant and stupid vestige of the last 25 years of extreme-right wing policies in foreign (for the USA that is) affairs because that is the framework that the average citizen is used to hearing. Otherwise if he strayed into the truth along the lines of n honest politician, say Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, he would be branded by all powers-that-be, including too much of mainstream media, as a left-winger.
Laughable of course. But any sane policy that shows knowledge that other countries have other perspectives on culture, society, morals, economics, history, etc. - all of which are worth learning about and knowing in depth - amazingly cannot be presented by any Presidential candidate or most candidates for national office of any sort.
I did notice the essentially nasty, bristly manner of Senator McCain and the serenity and confidence exuded by Senator Obama in the few minutes I watched however, as noted by Mr. Crook. Those characteristics are of course the ones that most people notice and which will have an effect on voting. Certainly more so than the substance of the remarks.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | September 27th, 2008 at 11:30 am | Report this commentI have just watched the first few minutes of the debate on YouTube. I think Clive and others are making the mistake of actually listening to the answers. That is not what counts. As Clive says, it is hard to spot where the candidates differ on (declared) policy. It is their ability to connect with viewers which is much more important. McCain has the emotional intelligence that Obama lacks.
It is not that Obama is cool and cerebral, but worse: he is phoney. Listening to him, I perceive a salesperson. I find him difficult to trust. He stutters the answers, they do not emanate from inside of him, it does not seem these are themes he really thought through, really cares about, really knows something about. I think America is about to embark on a dangerous experiment: know one knows what Obama’s presidency will be like. I find this moment in history very surreal.
Posted by: RCS | September 27th, 2008 at 11:36 am | Report this commentLehrer for President !
Posted by: mott groom | September 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am | Report this comment[…] Clive Crook: A win for Obama - Sep-27 […]
Posted by: Johnnie Byrd’s Weekend » Blog Archive » Rebels’ revolt aims to save Republican party brand | September 27th, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentClive has it right. An astute assessment.
One less-astute regular posters says: “I think Clive and others are making the mistake of actually listening to the answers. That is not what counts.”
Indeed, it is not, but that is not what was claimed in the very words on which he/she is supposedly commenting.
In this kind of forum, body language and demeanor and tone are always more important than the actual words.
Kennedy-Nixon established that proposition for good. Looking down and refusing to look at your opponent are instant signals for most observers of lack of confidence and, if you will, a somewhat unpleasant temperament - both of which seem clear to me are realities.
By the way, the campaign is apparently in a dither about Palin. A prominent American female columnist, a conservative, has called for her withdrawal as incompetent.
Also the campaign has done dry-run practices and the results are reported to have been disastrous.
All of which confirms the observation that she is a ditzy cheerleader over-endowed with hormones.
Which has as its corollary the inescapable notion that McCain picked her with no regard for the national welfare.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | September 27th, 2008 at 1:40 pm | Report this commentalgasema predicted a while back the Palin would be fired when it became clear that her gross incompetence could no longer be hidden. I still doubt that the McCain campaign will do that. Although I am sure the campaign is desperate to avoid any more exposure of her to the public or media that is not short, contained and completely scripted.
It could be that McCain’s intention on avoiding this “debate” was to try to excise the “debate” between the Vice-President nominees in some way. Who knows what goes through the heads of the McCain campaign staff or McCain’s head in this regard.
I simply cannot see any success for Palin in a setting like that that is not fully scripted. She will inevitably respond as she did in the snippet from the Couric interview that has been endlessly repeated on television and radio.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | September 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pm | Report this commentSo why did Obama look so shallow?
Posted by: jgarrett | September 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pm | Report this commentThe US economy is in a serious trouble and solving this situation should be discussed heavily during the debates, but not on the expense of the dedicated time to the US foreign policy. Therefore, both candidates should demand from the election commission that those stolen 38 minutes of the foreign affairs issue should be credited back for the October 15 debates.
Posted by: George Shengelaia | September 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm | Report this commentBoth candidates should emphasize on the threats that we are facing by the resurgent Russia. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are significantly weaker now due to a lack of funds and weapons. According to media reports, Russia is using this moment to arm these organizations in the Middle East and Central Asia. Since the open and brutal attack on the US national interests in the Eastern Europe, Russia is gathering its military presence in the Caribbean and is openly promoting nuclear proliferation there. Apparently, Russians are supplying South American drug lords with guns for assistance in drug smuggling in Mexico and the USA and thereby actively demoralizing young generation. Russia has been well penetrating into the political circles of the developed countries and covertly funding political scientists in the western world. There are some indications that they are not exercising greed with the Quebec independence movement. Both candidates should address the issue of democracy inside Russia, since there are disturbing reports of Putin’s totalitarian power expressed by murders of western oriented journalists and activists, and increasingly unfavorable conditions of foreign businessmen.
Therefore both candidates should show there standing on their policy towards the unmasked Putin system.
I agree with the substance of Mr. Crook’s remarks. Looking over the comments, I do say that the Russia and Iran bashing was disgraceful. Especially the caricature of Ahmadinejad. I saw him recently on the show Democracy Now and he seemed to be a politician addressing a wide range of issues that impact his country. I wouldn’t vote for him but he is not some kind of Hitler. The caricature is bizarre. And I also appreciated how Lehrer pressed the candidates on the financial issue. I also think that if the candidates admitted that the money is gone they would not be elected. Obama was more relaxed and McCain is just not himself.
Posted by: bgoedecke | September 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm | Report this commentThe Dear Leader
Sen. Obama during the debate: “Here’s what I want to tell the American people: 95% of you will get a tax cut!”.
Speaking of astute, that is an astute salesperson. Is that legal? Is that not buying votes?
He has no vision, he has no coherent world-view. He keeps specifying a variegated assemblage of populist one-liners. How about connecting the dots? What do you, Sen. Obama, stand for — apart from getting elected?
People here keep repeating the term ‘empty vessel’. If ever there was empty vessel, Sen. Obama is it.
Posted by: RCS | September 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Report this commentIf you want a real debate you need debaters with different ideas,for example - RON PAUL!
Posted by: Bill | September 27th, 2008 at 4:43 pm | Report this commentWhen McCain kept on reiterating that he was experienced and Obama wasn’t I longed for Obama to reply “so that is why you picked Palin for Vice-President” but of course that would have been seen as sexist. I also felt that McCain really looked his age. The thought that he would be over 80 towards the end of his second term should give one pause.
Posted by: Ian Stuart | September 27th, 2008 at 5:33 pm | Report this commentAside from Sen. Obama, does anyone actually think that the housing market is deregulated today?
Quoting John Kay
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight “employed 236 people at the time of its last annual report. OFHEO did not fail because it was understaffed or not well informed.”
I could not listen to the whole debate, but did anyone bring up the slush fund earmarked for ACORN, La Raza etc, or Obama 20 years of ties with ACORN?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 27th, 2008 at 5:48 pm | Report this commentI agree with Clive Crook’s assessment of the debate. It seemed that Sen. McCain’s consistent response to direct questions regarding his own positions on various issues, was to tell us what he thought Sen. Obama did or didn’t know about the question, all without actually addressing the moderator’s actual query. It left this viewer wondering if McCain thinks he has some special clairvoyance that allows him to see into people’s minds and know what they know and do not know.
Posted by: Michael McClard | September 27th, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Report this commentMcCain came off as an angry little man to Obama’s patient and focused man.
We’ll need a couple of days of polls to really gauge the effect of this debate, but it seems pretty clear that McCain is still alive and in there with a chance.
This shouldn’t be. No Republican presidential candidate should be in striking distance of the Democrat this year. I’m am not going to bore you with another laundry list of disasters, we could all recite them like schoolboys can recite the lineup of baseball teams. Bush and his administration have trashed practically everything (everything?) that they have laid their hands on.Obama should have a lead of about twenty points: the Republicans should lose like Mondale did against Reagan.
This does not look like happening and I believe that it is because voters are simply not convinced about Obama and perhaps race matters for only about six percent of them. At this point I thinks Barack Obama is very vulnerable. The Republicans are sure to spring something very nasty on Obama in the next few days (the famous “Michelle Tape”, perhaps?) and he should have at least a ten point lead to absorb the damage. With Bush fumbling so badly, he should have that lead already… he doesn’t.
Posted by: David Seaton | September 27th, 2008 at 6:22 pm | Report this commentPostscript:
Posted by: David Seaton | September 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm | Report this commentThis is weird, the American people have such doubts about the Democratic Party and about Barack Obama fitness to run US affairs that a Republican president that makes Jimmy Carter look like Abraham Lincoln can’t give them a solid ten point lead as the United States of America apparently circles the drain.
I disagree with Mr. Crook’s assessment of the debate.Last night,Obama was articulate and looked presidential when he presented his political view and why change is needed after eight years of Bush. Obama’s comments on the financial crisis were articulated better than McCain’s but after watching the political hearings in Washington, no politician understands the ramification of the financial crisis. When the debate switched to foreign policy, McCain spoke with passion and wisdom because he has the knowledge and experience and frankly, we all present better to our audience when we have those two big assets. Obama lost his calm demeanor, eloquent speech and exhibited body and facial gestures of someone who knows he is in a corner against a more experienced opponent. From my teaching days, Obama reminded me of a student who crammed the night before and McCain reminded me of a student who understood and believed in the issue.
Posted by: Steve | September 27th, 2008 at 6:57 pm | Report this commentI have one comment for those laying the blame totally on the Republicans for the financial crisis. I will remind you that the Clintonites decided to re-interpret the Fair Lending Act of 1968 and the Equal Opportunity Act of 1974 and forced banking regulators, whose primary responsibility is safety and soundness of banks and thrifts, to become compliance examiners for purposes of forcing banks and thrifts to reduce their credit standards to allow lower-income families access to housing. It was Roberta Achtenberg and Janet Reno who played the role of mortgage militants and forced banks to reduce their underwriting principles which led to the concept of sub-prime mortgages.
One other comment while we are playing the blame game on this site. The Glass -Steagall Act which was enacted in the 1933 after the Great Depression prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. In 1991, Bill Clinton signed the “Financial Modernization Bill” which most Republicans agreed to including Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The reason Clinton signed it is because Sandy Weill, head of Travelers merged with Citibank and the deal would not be effective until the Glass-Seagall Act was repealed. It was Secretary Robert Rubin who convinced Clinton to repeal the Act. Later Rubin left his post and joined Sandy Weill at Citigroup. Now today we have the full-service banks that have leveraged their balance sheets to enhance their profitability at undue risk thanks to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. My point is fingers can be pointed on both side of the political aisle as well as to citizens of this nation who enjoyed the party and are left with a big hangover. The Party is over.
[…] such as the Invisible Hand of the market is the basis of the US economy, but in an industry where risk can be passed off to the consumer, sold into the larger market or as we see in the Bail Out, al…, private gains are created and losses are made public. The free market cannot sustain itself as […]
Posted by: Latin America » Blog Archive » US Bailout: Private Gains, Public Losses - Perspectives from the Americas | September 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm | Report this commentDavid Seaton points out that Obama should be way ahead at this point and asks why he is not. Putting aside race (which can never be put aside), I would list three factors. First, the Republicans have a built in media advantage in all presidential elections, because of the distracting effect of the focus on trivia and intolerance (a/k/a “culture wars”) instead of the issues, which favor the Democrats, not only the economy, but on the Iraq war for oil and on our vanishing civil liberties (which neither neither candidate ever talks about).
Second, the Republicans have a built in “ideological” advantage, in that most voters believe that Democratic attempts to strengthen labor unions, enact regulations protecting the public from corporate greed (not only on Wall Street, but with regard to Big Oil, Big Pharma, defense industry war profiteers, etc.) and to oppose the redistribution of wealth in favor of the rich that has become the hallmark of our still ongoing Reagan era Gilded Age are nothing but “class warfare”, “socialism” or “tax and spend”, to use three of the most popular mindless Republican slogans that substitute for thought among all too many voters. Read Tom Frank’s books.
Third, don’t leave out the Clinton rage effect. While the divisions in the Democratic party resulting from the bitter struggle between two eminently qualified candidates may have been papered over for the moment, there are still quite a few bitter (yes, what other word can one use?) Hillary supporters who simply will not back Obama under any circumstances.
While Hillary herself has done all the right things - most of them, anyway - on Obama’s behalf, Bill’s posturing is enough to make one sick.
Who was one of the first and most publicized speakers at the “Clinton Global Initiative” (call it “Clinton Political Initiative”) just a couple of days before the first presidential debate? John McCain, of course. Who praised America’s most publicized nincompoop, Sarah Barracuda, to the skies on the Larry King show? Bill Clinton. Where has Bill been ever since the Democratic convention? On the campaign trail for Obama? Of course not. He has been holed up in hie office in Harlem, which everyone knows will be one of the most tightly contested battleground areas in this election.
Obama is getting about the same level of support for November 4 from Bill that Julius Caesar got from Brutus and Cassius on March 15.
And I haven’t even mentioned the ongoing racist Jeremiah Wright and other smears which Fox News and the rest of the Murdoch empire are still carrying out against Obama and will doubtless continue to engage in right up to the end of his second presidential term.
Instead of wondering why Obama cannot pull out far ahead of McCain, we should be marveling at the fact that Obama is not 20 points behind. But the reason he is at least even, or slightly ahead, is because of his honesty, his strength of character, his genuine concern for the ordinary Americans left out by the Bush/Cheney/McPalin policies of corporate welfare for the rich, and because of his fundamental respect for the intelligence of the voters. This is why Obama has the potential to be one of our greatest presidents ever. Are we Americans up to seizing this once in a lifetime opportunity?
Posted by: algasema | September 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Report this commentMy problem with McCain is not that he goes by instinct and experience, but that his instincts are so troubling, especially for someone wanting to be US President. Obama was right to remind viewers of famous instinctive remarks by McCain: the song about bombing Iran, the extinction of North Korea, and recently the ambiguity about whether he would meet José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the prime minister of Spain, an important NATO ally.
The latter point is also indicative of McCain’s obsession with the Iraq war. He obviously still resents Zapatero’s withdrawal of Spain’s troops. That, in turn, suggests that McCain lacks a broader vision and the ability to look forwards. If he did, he would see Zapatero as someone who supports the NATO effort in Afghanistan with troops and enjoys respect in the Spanish-speaking world.
Also indicative of McCain’s tendency to see everything in terms of Iraq was his constant reference to the judgment of general Petraeus on Iraq and other matters. If McCain wins, who will be governing US foreign policy? McCain together with the US Congress, or McCain together with a US junta of military officers?
Clausewitz described war as a “continuation of politics by other means”. But McCain has turned that around to mean that “diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means.”
McCain is applying for the wrong job. Much of what he has done and said suggests he would make a good secretary of defense. But he does not have the vision and empathy required of a President.
McCain correctly proposed the surge in Iraq and predicted its outcome, as one of a set of measures. But as Joe Biden observed after the debate, the question the next president will have to face is what happens now. There a broader vision and judgment will be required, and the views of the Iraqi government will have to be heeded. They may be more open to advice and caution coming from Obama, as they will not suspect him of wanting to extend the US presence in Iraq.
Partly because of the questions put by Jim Lehrer, the debate was too focused on current military crisis points. Obama managed to mention China and Africa at the end, but there was no discussion of the humanitarian crises in Sudan and Zimbabwe. Nothing about Latin America, the US’s near-abroad, except hostile references by both candidates to president Chavez of Venezuela. He is not more undemocratic and more provocative than president Saakashvili of Georgia, of whom both spoke in very friendly terms. But then Saakashvili is in Russia’s near-abroad!
Both McCain and Obama seem to be too hasty in their desire to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. He is a how-to-do-it person, not a what-to-do person.
Neither seems to have a clear policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict, though there are signs that Obama would be more willing and able to speak to and mediate between both sides.
One point on the economic debate. I believe Obama would have been more effective if he had compared the situation at the end of the Clinton and Bush presidencies. Yes, the dot.com bubble was bursting at the end of the Clinton presidency, and the economy slowing down. But the US federal budget was balanced, giving the next president room to manoeuver and real options. So it was hardly credible for McCain to imply that Obama, as a Democrat, would be an irresponsible spender.
Posted by: Edward S | September 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm | Report this commentWhat I did not like was how McCain did not look at Obama as if he did not exist. He continues to say he is an amicable person and can work accross party lines but McCain’s behaviour to a fellow senator was dispicable and somewhat racial in character.
Posted by: Angellight | September 28th, 2008 at 6:43 pm | Report this commentWhere oh where do people get the idea Mr. Obama demonstrates anything approaching keen intellect, cerebral, or an ability to speak and think?
Everything is about him: “What I want, What I don’t want, …and I don’t want that for you either.”
Where is the You, We?
Well. I don’t really give a …. what He wants or does not want. Rather from his total lack of experience what does he think WE want him to stand for and do?
To me he displays nothing more than self serving arrogance of those newly minted political wannabes who are largely a product of affirmative action policies that were themselves the compromises of many once praised as Cerebral, and showing great intellect!!!
matthew
Posted by: matthew victor | September 28th, 2008 at 8:28 pm | Report this commentI know it is different in some Eastern cultures … but in Western Civilization, an old adage best expressed by the English-born Graham Nash does not seem to hold for the Arizona Senator:
Posted by: Ed Tracey | September 29th, 2008 at 2:00 am | Report this commentSo despite the fact that Sen. McCain is one of the few Senators who actually has passed bi-partisan legislation, and has a long track record of tormenting conservatives and liberals alike with his bipartisanship, Ed Tracey and Angelliight ask us to ignore all that, and rely on the sage advice of the lead singer from the Hollies?
This sort of trite analysis has to Stop Stop Stop.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 29th, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Report this commentI will agree with one of the remarks above. Unfortunately it is so obvious that Mr. Obama is phony. It is one thing to have a good education but it is another thing to know how to use it and how to put it in practice to serve all, the Country and the Nation. In that sense it may sound ludicrous but Ms Palin may have a chance and upper hand because with some crash course on foreign affairs, she may do much better. At least she will demonstrate conviction. Has anyone followed the Russian media recently? It is really interesting the way those guys are rooting for Mr. Obama. The danger is right there. Let’s face it - the world has really changed and the challenge is much bigger than we realize.
Posted by: Nana K. | September 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Report this commentSouth Korea’s current level of foreign exchanges reserves exceeds 230 billion dollars. This is the sixth largest reserve in the world. Also, the foreign exchange holdings are safety assets that can be immediately liquidated.
As of the end of June 2008, South Korea has a total of 419.8 billion dollars of foreign debt. However, the amount of long-term external debt that does not have to be repaid immediately totals to 268 billion dollars. Although short-term external debt that needs to be paid within one year accounts for 86.1%, when branches of foreign banks are excluded, the ratio drops to 54.4%. Therefore, reports that Korean banks are having difficulty in securing foreign currency are exaggerated.
In 1997, South Korea suffered a foreign exchange crisis. However, as of now, there is absolutely no possibility of another foreign exchange crisis. South Korea’s current foreign exchange reserves are more than ten times larger than that of 1997, and the financial status of companies has improved incomparably. Also, not only the government but also financial institutions and the Korean people are gathering their strength in order to avert a crisis similar to that of the past.
During the financial crisis in 1997, South Korea overcame the national crisis through the gold-collection campaign led by voluntary participation of the public, as well as bold corporate restructuring, and the government’s active support to corporate activities. The South Koreans have demonstrated an extraordinary ability in overcoming crises. The ability to overcome crises of the Korean people are not based on instructions given by the government. The voluntary participation of the public is the prime motivation.
Posted by: yoon hy | October 15th, 2008 at 5:40 am | Report this commentI thought the debate was rather tame for all that led up to it.
Posted by: http://www.oxfordmscondos.info/ | November 18th, 2008 at 6:42 am | Report this comment