[Moderator]

He asked about Flag Pins last night. Not FISA, Not signing statements, not even Terrorism. Flag Pins...he asked about Flag Pins. Flag Pins. Not the Constitution, Afghanistan, Health Care. Nope. Flag Pins. He asked about Flag Pins.

Flag Pins.

[Dork.]

We get the government we deserve?

[MacosNerd]

Huh????

[Dork.]

If most of the country cares about flag pins more than all that other stuff, then that's what the politicians who get into office will care about.

[besson3c]

Does the country really care about flag pins, or do they just blindly trust the mass media to report on stuff that actually matters?

Moderator: I agree, it was utterly infuriating how completely retarded the first 45 minutes of last night's debate were. Here is another example of a completely pointless and idiotic question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?

Maybe he should have asked Obama to rate Wright's love of America on a scale from 1-10?

What is humorous and ironic is that there was a photo taken that showed the ABC Press reporting the event not wearing flag pins themselves at the very time they were reporting on the question of whether or not Obama doesn't love his country because he doesn't wear a flag pin, or whatever the question was.

[Eug]

And Bill Clinton wears a Hillary pin. I wonder what that means...



P.S. I have a China/US dual flag pin, and a China/Canada dual flag pin. I wonder if I started wearing them if I'd get bashed in the head by pseudo-Buddhist Gere-lovers.

[Captain Obvious]

I thought it was pretty funny.
It was a superficial debate for a superficial electorate. One of the republican debates early in the year was similar although it was that way because the moderators allowed the candidates to attack each other to a greater degree rather than because of the questions they asked. In an era of sensational "investigative" journalism that debate is what you people deserve.

I have however noticed most the whining about last night is coming from Obama supporters even though their guy received the greater amount of response time even when the questions weren't directed at him. So I see no problem with complaints of questions not being pointed enough at Clinton. When you embrace the image of a celebrity rather than a serious issue minded candidate like Obama has it is foolish to think you will not be treated like Lindsey Lohan up on that stage. If anything it was nice that the moderators didn't allow either one of them to shoot off into some long winded speech they prepared in advance.

[spacefreak]

He asked about Flag Pins.

And Obama crapped the bed again with another deceptive, cluttered answer.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I thought it was pretty funny.
It was a superficial debate for a superficial electorate. One of the republican debates early in the year was similar although it was that way because the moderators allowed the candidates to attack each other to a greater degree rather than because of the questions they asked. In an era of sensational "investigative" journalism that debate is what you people deserve.

I have however noticed most the whining about last night is coming from Obama supporters even though their guy received the greater amount of response time even when the questions weren't directed at him. So I see no problem with complaints of questions not being pointed enough at Clinton. When you embrace the image of a celebrity rather than a serious issue minded candidate like Obama has it is foolish to think you will not be treated like Lindsey Lohan up on that stage. If anything it was nice that the moderators didn't allow either one of them to shoot off into some long winded speech they prepared in advance.

The issue was not whether the questions were directed at Clinton moreso than Obama or vice versa, the issue is that they came up with them in the first place. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they were just utterly idiotic.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

And Obama crapped the bed again with another deceptive, cluttered answer.

Please make an argument. Thanks.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please make an argument. Thanks.

It's an observation, which makes an argument unnecessary.

ABC News: Barack Obama Drops U.S. Flag Pin

[besson3c]

Okay, well my observation is that discussion about flag pins and using them as a measurement of patriotism is utterly stupid.

Glad this is settled.

[spacefreak]

The issue is his unwillingness to stand united with others.

Other U.S. Senators wear their pins with pride. It's only an issue because Obama continues to make it an issue.

[besson3c]

Why should he be like other senators? Is there some rule that states that he should wear a pin?

I can't believe I'm having this argument. We might as well be lambasting John McCain for not liking to eat bananas.

[shmerek]

McCain doesn't like bananas!!! What an ass he never should have been nominated!!!!!!!

[TETENAL]

YouTube - Kingston Slams Obama for Flag Pin w/o Wearing One Himself

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The issue was not whether the questions were directed at Clinton moreso than Obama or vice versa, the issue is that they came up with them in the first place. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they were just utterly idiotic.

Have you paid attention to the democratic candidate race?

Both of them have been reluctant to discuss specific issues for the vast majority of the primary race. Its only been in recent weeks since McCain has settled in to his general election campaign that Clinton or Obama have skimmed the policies they support. So if its shocking to you that this debate was short on substantive material then you only have to blame the two people up on that podium. The NBC debate was just as meaningless albeit not as nasty.

Even during the GOP primary race they had more intellectual debates than last night. It may have only been about immigration and the Republican definition of conservatism but that is two more issues than the democrats delved into.

[besson3c]

Spacefreak: are you a fan of McCain, the so-called maverick Senator? He doesn't stand united with his party when he doesn't fall in line with the rest of his party, should we be criticizing him for that?

[ebuddy]

My favorite part was watching them bicker about which one of them is more connected to terrorists and commies.

I agree though. Believing one is patriotic because of an American flag lapel pin is as moronic as believing one is patriotic because they say they love America.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Have you paid attention to the democratic candidate race?

Both of them have been reluctant to discuss specific issues for the vast majority of the primary race. Its only been in recent weeks since McCain has settled in to his general election campaign that Clinton or Obama have skimmed the policies they support. So if its shocking to you that this debate was short on substantive material then you only have to blame the two people up on that podium. The NBC debate was just as meaningless albeit not as nasty.

Even during the GOP primary race they had more intellectual debates than last night. It may have only been about immigration and the Republican definition of conservatism but that is two more issues than the democrats delved into.

What issues are not being discussed, and what is your information source? There is plenty of information out there, these candidates have all sorts of debates, town hall gatherings, forums, and take all sorts of questions every day. Because the mainstream media is not covering this doesn't mean they are necessarily evading the issues. There is only so much you can say in a televised debate when limited to 90 seconds and when the moderator is only interested in encourage further discussion over irrelevant crap.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My favorite part was watching them bicker about which one of them is more connected to terrorists and commies.

I agree though. Believing one is patriotic because of an American flag lapel pin is as moronic as believing one is patriotic because they say they love America.

Thank you! I was starting to feel discouraged that the Republicans in here were only trying to make this argument to score partisan points.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Spacefreak: are you a fan of McCain, the so-called maverick Senator? He doesn't stand united with his party when he doesn't fall in line with the rest of his party, should we be criticizing him for that?

I'm a fan of the man's history of service to his country. That's big in my book. I don't agree on some of his stances, but I trust his leadership. It would be nice if he were a little younger, but I wouldn't trade those years of experience for anything. Especially the last 8 years. That he's remained effective and popular during this time is impressive.

My biggest complaint with McCain's is with his campaign finance legislation. I think it hurts the Presidential talent pool. A guy like Ronald Reagan would have never been able to make a serious for the Presidency under McCain-Feingold, and I think that's a bad thing.

If some guy wants to give me $5 million to start my run for President, why shouldn't that be allowed? Only uber-rich guys (Kerry, Romney) and Senators with existing fundraising apparatus in place to go with their high-level connections can run? BOGUS.

Of the 3 main choices, McCain is without a doubt who I'd vote for today. I don't agree with him on all, but I trust him to keep taxes down and to appoint solid judges. And I trust him with our security.

[besson3c]

I just hope he is never caught without a flag pin.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The issue is his unwillingness to wear his flair.

Other U.S. Senators wear their 36 pieces of flair with pride. It's only an issue because Obama continues to make it an issue.

Fixed.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

So if its shocking to you that this debate was short on substantive material then you only have to blame the two people up on that podium. The NBC debate was just as meaningless albeit not as nasty.

You are saying it is the candidates' fault that they aren't being asked substantive questions? The moderators could have asked whatever questions they wanted, they didn't have to be approved first. I think it is another example of our media failing their basic responsibilities. (Nothing has been learned from the Iraq debacle.) The direct responsibility falls on the moderators. The next responsibility falls on us, the general public. I think the candidates are third in line in terms of being responsible for poor media coverage.

Even during the GOP primary race they had more intellectual debates than last night. It may have only been about immigration and the Republican definition of conservatism but that is two more issues than the democrats delved into.

I'd never have believed this, watching the Republican debates, but it might just be true. Sad.

[Atomic Rooster]

He/She/It with the biggest flag pin wins.

This really does only happen in the U.S.A.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by tie 

You are saying it is the candidates' fault that they aren't being asked substantive questions? The moderators could have asked whatever questions they wanted

I am saying that the discussion surrounding the candidates is directly related to the material they voluntarily discuss in their stump speeches, press conferences, and television appearances. Last night's questions were the fallout from their lack of substance on the campaign trail and again this was no different from the CNN and NBC debates this year.

Obama in particular is the purveyor of this trend. He was a complete unknown before the DNC threw him up on stage at the 2004 convention. He has no real voting record, no history of championing prominent legislation, and for the majority of his run what comes out of his mouth is empty vague romantic homilies. The public asks simplistic questions to gauge who is he is since they have nothing else to go on.
If he wants to discuss the issues then he needs to move beyond the speeches of hope and bridge building and put some concrete policy on the table.

He had to be pressed two or three times to clarify his position on payroll taxes and capital gains taxes should be become president last night and he still didn't want to go on record with a clear plan. So he can't have it both ways.
And on this I single him out because really he was the only one complaining this morning about the tone of the debate.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think it is another example of our media failing their basic responsibilities. (Nothing has been learned from the Iraq debacle.)

What's there to know about the Iraq debacle? Both candidates claimed they're pulling troops out regardless of what their military advisors claim.

The direct responsibility falls on the moderators. The next responsibility falls on us, the general public. I think the candidates are third in line in terms of being responsible for poor media coverage.

I must say, the media did a pretty good job on this one. Granted, in some cases they had to invoke the FOI Act to get information from Obama on his tax policy, but... it's a start. All this distaste for media is starting to sound an awful lot like the dyed in the wool Republicans around here.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: were you watching the first 45 minutes of the debate?

[besson3c]

Anyway, I'm not so worried anymore... Manufactured distractions have been officially put on notice by Stephen Colbert.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I am saying that the discussion surrounding the candidates is directly related to the material they voluntarily discuss in their stump speeches, press conferences, and television appearances. Last night's questions were the fallout from their lack of substance on the campaign trail and again this was no different from the CNN and NBC debates this year.

Obama in particular is the purveyor of this trend. He was a complete unknown before the DNC threw him up on stage at the 2004 convention. He has no real voting record, no history of championing prominent legislation, and for the majority of his run what comes out of his mouth is empty vague romantic homilies. The public asks simplistic questions to gauge who is he is since they have nothing else to go on.
If he wants to discuss the issues then he needs to move beyond the speeches of hope and bridge building and put some concrete policy on the table.

He had to be pressed two or three times to clarify his position on payroll taxes and capital gains taxes should be become president last night and he still didn't want to go on record with a clear plan. So he can't have it both ways.
And on this I single him out because really he was the only one complaining this morning about the tone of the debate.

I really don't think there is much of a case to be made for Obama being inarticulate. He's not perfect and there are times when he stammers like anybody else, but overall he's more than capable of making his positions and opinions clear and understood. He also seems well prepared overall, whereas you can make the case that McCain isn't at times (Google for the transcript of his regarding AIDS and abstinence) if you want to turn this into partisan warfare.

There is no relationship between a long voting record and being a capable leader. There have been studies that have shown that some of our greatest leaders (e.g. Lincoln) were relatively inexperienced. Additionally, some of the most experienced leaders have been the worst leaders. In this case, experience is defined by the number of years as a senator, congressman, or governor.

Given that the number of years as an elected official is not the best gauge, one has to look at life experience which might be relevant. Can Hilary count her years as First Lady as experience? I don't see why not... I don't see why McCain couldn't include his military experience as well.

The real question is who is the most capable of making informed decisions and showing strong leadership qualities? There are no guarantees that Obama or anybody else will, but as always it's a calculated gamble. When you add up the qualities he does possess, there are several positives.

One quality that cannot be underestimated is his oratorical skills and charisma. In order to break the 50/50 deadlock we have now in politics where nothing gets done, the next president will have to be convincing and sell their case to the opposing party, as well as to foreign leaders. Bush has demonstrated that he pretty much just shuts out anybody that does not share his ideology, and clearly this approach has been ineffective. Uniting people is not getting people to hold hands and sing Kum Bah Ya, but it is convincing, compromising with, and manipulating people that disagree with you on some things. This is what diplomacy is all about, this is what power and brokering deals is all about, and this is what being a good politician is all about. This cannot happen without these skills.

There is more that can be said about Obama, but I wanted to address this because I feel that this is often under-estimated and under-valued. Ask somebody like William Safire what he thought about Obama's race speech (Safire is a Libertarian/Republican and Nixon's former speech writer who is well known for his work in studying political language), and he'll say that we haven't heard a speech like that in literally decades. You may not agree with Obama's positions and that is fine, but it is undeniable that he has excellent oratorial skills.

[vmarks]

I WANT the 50/50 deadlock. Have you seen or heard what the candidates for President will try and push through if there is no deadlock?

Sometimes, the appropriate action is to do nothing, when doing something-anything-for-the-sake-of-change will be far worse.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The issue is his unwillingness to stand united with others.
Other U.S. Senators wear their pins with pride. It's only an issue because Obama continues to make it an issue.

Yeah! This lefty traitor already balked when all the proud Amaracan's saved the cowardly world from Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! And now he doesn't wear the pin of pride!! What's next, he's secretly learning Freed... err, French under the blanket?! The horror!!!!

PB.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I WANT the 50/50 deadlock. Have you seen or heard what the candidates for President will try and push through if there is no deadlock?

Sometimes, the appropriate action is to do nothing, when doing something-anything-for-the-sake-of-change will be far worse.

Of course it would be a disaster if every president just got what he or she wanted without contest or checks and balance. I believe in some political friction, without question. However, voting on party lines just because is also of detriment to our society. There are some legitimate and necessary chances to policy which need to be made at any given time to compensate for changes in reality or changes within our society. Sometimes it is really harmful to do absolutely nothing.

What I meant by this was 50/50 partisan deadlock and politicians only looking out for their own interests rather than the interests of the country. If a Republican or Democrat can come up with great legislation that attempts to solve a problem, there is absolutely no reason why a politician should vote against it just because it was not established within their own party.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Anyway, I'm not so worried anymore... Manufactured distractions have been officially put on notice by Stephen Colbert.

It's funny that you don't see the manufactured distractions being carried out by the Obama campaign.

Look at all his fans in here whining about flag pins. That's the actual distraction... whine about the flag pin question so that people will forget how bad Obama flubbed the other questions.

Maybe the rest of the nation will forget how completely clueless Obama was regarding capital gains taxes and foreign policy. Or maybe they'll forget about the William Ayers connection, and how Obama got caught on live TV lying about his relationship with WIlliam Ayers.

I sure won't. Obama revealed himself to be completely unqualified to be President. Sure, he can work a teleprompter. But take that away, and he's a disaster.

Whine about the questions. Whine about the moderators. Whine about Hillary. Whine about everything other than the fact that Obama is a mess when not working off-script.

[besson3c]

spacefreak: I see you've completely ignored and haven't provided a counter argument of any sort to anything I've said, so I guess this conversation is officially dead.

[Captain Obvious]

Its like you read one sentence of my post and imagined what you wanted the rest to say.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I really don't think there is much of a case to be made for Obama being inarticulate. He's not perfect and there are times when he stammers like anybody else, but overall he's more than capable of making his positions and opinions clear and understood.

Didn't say inarticulate, I said he chooses to be vague. Especially in front of cameras.

He also seems well prepared overall, whereas you can make the case that McCain isn't at times (Google for the transcript of his regarding AIDS and abstinence) if you want to turn this into partisan warfare.

You mean that well prepared series of questions where they asked McCain over and over again about contraceptives and his views on them stopping the spread of HIV in Africa and McCain deferred his position to that of some doctor and said that in his view it would require a combination of things to solve the AIDS problem?
Funny thing about that, if you gave your boyfriend a half dozen morning-after pills and stuffed his anus full of spermicidal sponges the contraceptives wouldn't actually reduce the odds of you catching HIV.
In the Q/A sequence you refer to by the time someone actually said the word condoms as part of the question McCain had already stated his policy would entail a a program encouraging abstinence and where that didn't work one that would promote contraceptives.
Listen, I didn't lynch Obama on his "bitterness" remark or something that was taken out of context. He flat out refused to elaborate and clarify his position on payroll and CG taxes even after the moderator pointed out he didn't answer the question. He just didn't want to state a clear position. That is a problem.

There is no relationship between a long voting record and being a capable leader.

I believe what I said is that the lack of thorough voting record is why members of the general public find it difficult to know what Obama stands for and what positions he will take so that in its absence they seek to find tangible clues to who he really is.

There have been studies that have shown that some of our greatest leaders (e.g. Lincoln) were relatively inexperienced. Additionally, some of the most experienced leaders have been the worst leaders.

Studies? Really? There were actual studies done?
There's op/ed pieces that try and draw how experience and previous leadership experience aren't necessarily required to make great leaders. But I didn't say anything about experience in that post, I talked about the transparency of a candidate's position. Lincoln ran on a platform of antislavery, the Homestead Act, and tariffs. That is a bit more clear and self explanatory than a platform of "change"

one has to look at life experience which might be relevant.

The real question is who is the most capable of making informed decisions and showing strong leadership qualities?

Only when has Obama shown strong leadership?
How brave of a position was it to denounce the war in Iraq when you are a state senator whose stance carries no consequence or weight and you aren't up for reelection? That is the equivalent of me making it known the Bears should have started a different quarterback in the Superbowl a couple years ago and then using that as proof of why I should be their head coach this season. If I had been wrong no one would have cared or lambasted me anyway.
Strong moral leadership, the kind he likes to tell everyone he has, would have been addressing his Church's congregation as one of its most prominent members and a community leader the week after Wright made incorrect and racially charged comments and instead promoted that "unity" thing Obama likes to talk about so much. But of course he wasn't aware anything like that happened in 20 freaking years of being an active member there.
This is why leading a real charge on significant legislation is relevant. Clinton and McCain may have had varied levels of success with healthcare and campaign finance reform but they took a public stand and championed a cause. It wasn't just talk or hypothetical acts of what they would do, they went out there and tried to do it when their reputation and political careers were on the line.

Uniting people is not getting people to hold hands and sing Kum Bah Ya, but it is convincing, compromising with, and manipulating people that disagree with you on some things. This is what diplomacy is all about, this is what power and brokering deals is all about,

Which is something that he could have proven he could do as a US Senator if he hadn't spent 60% of the one term he's been in office running for another job.

You may not agree with Obama's positions and that is fine, but it is undeniable that he has excellent oratorial skills.

Great I will vote for him to do all future college commencement speeches.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

spacefreak: I see you've completely ignored and haven't provided a counter argument of any sort to anything I've said, so I guess this conversation is officially dead.

Whatever you say there, tiger. Too bad Obama still bombed in the debate.

[besson3c]

spacefreak: I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this one, tiger, for I can't keep up with your fierce debate skills. I hope that next time I'll think of simply repeating what I said before without actually making an argument as a debate tactic so that I will be the winnah! Who needs an argument when you can just make yourself louder?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Great I will vote for him to do all future college commencement speeches.

Here we get to the core of the issue. Symbolism over substance. It doesn't matter what Obama says or does as long as he says and does it with gravitas.

[besson3c]

Sorry guys, the bottom line is that there are no guarantees that any candidate will be more than their words, all we have to go on is their words. Political experience is a consideration but not the be all end all, voting records can be a little contradictory and sketchy at times, and our emotional gut feelings and feelings of trust are just instinctual.

Really, voting for any candidate is a calculated gamble, there are never any guarantees. All you can do is surmise their political stances, their personal background, their political approach, and the rest is mostly gut feeling. We could go down a list of McCain or Clinton too and weigh each of these factors, throwing out positives and negatives, and we can argue what is substantive and what isn't, but it would pretty much be a waste of time.

My point is that there is nothing substantive lacking in Obama that makes him any less viable of a candidate than anybody else, it's all a matter of preference and gut feeling, as well as some inexact personal metrics based on various known data.

You also have to consider that the general public is generally misinformed and votes based on bizarre rationale. At times in history that has served us well, at times it hasn't. I'm certain if the internets existed in the past we could be having these same sorts of discussions where people passionately plead that candidate x is not qualified and has no business being president when he later went on to do just fine, or not.

Let's just be honest here, what this really comes down to is that you don't agree with Obama's positions because your politics aren't left of center, and that's fine.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

.


Let's just be honest here, what this really comes down to is that you don't agree with Obama's positions because your politics aren't left of center, and that's fine.

Obama isn't just left of center though, he is way to the left of all of what remains of the presidential field. My position on this guy come from 7 years of watching him pop up on the local political scene do his little dance and inevitably accomplish nothing.

Even the local leading black politicians weren't so fond of him or his agenda until the DNC adopted Obama as their science project.

[besson3c]

Is he? Of the differences in issues the Democratic candidates are campaigning on, you could argue that mandatory government health care is further left than what Obama wants, no?

The whole of idea of measuring left vs. right this way is a little sketchy to me though, and also not terribly important. The bottom line is do you agree or not? Most people are moderates, and their stances on particular issues can be mapped on the political axis differently. It is only in places like this that people are fiercely ideologically partisan.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sorry guys, the bottom line is that there are no guarantees that any candidate will be more than their words, all we have to go on is their words. Political experience is a consideration but not the be all end all, voting records can be a little contradictory and sketchy at times, and our emotional gut feelings and feelings of trust are just instinctual.

... and yet if any of these gauges show a lacking it is because you're not left of center.

Let's just be honest here, what this really comes down to is that you don't agree with Obama's positions because your politics aren't left of center, and that's fine.

Let us also apply this logic in saying that you have no problem with Obama's candidacy because you are left of center. Which is of course, also fine.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Even the local leading black politicians weren't so fond of him or his agenda until the DNC adopted Obama as their science project.

I'd be curious to see any information you'd have to affirm this.

[vmarks]

ebuddy,

Part of it was his ousting the anointed office holder and civil rights leader, Alice Palmers. She was the Chicago Democrat whose seat it was. The Party told him to lay low, he'd get his chance if he was patient, worked in the trenches, etc.

He didn't. He had his supporters go and invalidate the signatures on petitions to get her on the ballot, so that he was the only candidate who people could vote for.

Doing that to the party favorite is not a way to win favour within the party.

[Macrobat]

Actually, it turned out to be the most substantive debate of all the Dembates.

Obama HIMSELF is who made the "flag pin" bit a big deal with his pointed references to not wearing one.

Both candidates were FINALLY put on the hot seat and forced to answer some difficult questions, unlike "diamonds or pearls?"

[besson3c]

Macrobat: it would be nice if the so called hot seat questions were actually important, no?

[Macrobat]

Every one of them was important, to anyone but a sycophant.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Every one of them was important, to anyone but a sycophant.

I look forward to your explanation and case why this is so.