A lot of discussion about performance here. What about content and message?

[Dover]

I think Obama's performance was impressive. He seems to quietly hold his center of gravity which reads as strength, stays very present and listens, is articulate, bright and quick. He's also comprehensive in his approach to complex issues, the macro and the micro.

But what about the content of his plans for this country? I'm not looking for the 'he is much better than McCain, regardless' response. That's a given. I want to know what you think about the picture he is drawing for us about our future...near term and long.

For instance:

-- How do you feel about his take on the bailout (necessity of it and it's impact funding other programs). It sounded to me that we may not see a return on our investment from this bailout for a looooong time IF AT ALL.

-- Did you get any feeling about whether he'd hold anyone accountable for their crimes or abuses of our laws and system? Or is he in the 'let's just move on' crowd.

-- What about the sure knowledge that he would build up the war in Afghanistan?
(and with little if any talk of the pipeline/Silk Road foreign policy...instead all about
'terrorists' and bin Laden and safety).

-- What are your thoughts about his take on Georgia and how he represented that conflict?
He seemed to be in agreement with McCain on this, and on our response to Russia.

-- How do feel about the apparent reliance on Henry Kissinger as one of his advisors?

-- Do you think he represents a REAL and significant change or a slight change in overall direction
based on the content of his message and the picture he is drawing for us? A baby step or a quantum leap?

[sandnsea]

1. No he's not a leftist/anarchist

and Henry Kissinger is McCain's advisor.

[Dover]

What exactly is 'leftist anarchist' about this in your mind? That's a pretty interesting way to

characterize my questions about the content of his message... or me.

And secondly.
Obama used Henry Kissinger's advice on Iran proof of the legitimacy or his own ideas. That tells me
that he listens to Kissinger's advise whether or not he is an official advisor.

[votetastic]

4. No, he was showing McCain's contradictory stance

[Dover]

6. That too. But he is also listening to Kissinger...n/t

[Dover]

8. ;

'

[Laelth]

11. Welcome to DU!

:dem:

-Laelth

[sandnsea]

9. Most people support hunting down Bin Laden

oppose letting our economy collpase, and are more interested in the economy and wars than an endless investigation into the Bushies. Just because your priorities don't match the majority of the people, it doesn't mean there isn't going to be significant change.

He used Kissinger's remarks to discredit McCain. It's his job to know what everybody is saying. That's the biggest problem with Bush, he doesn't listen to people he disagrees with.

[Dover]

13. I'd love to know where you are getting your figures for determining what 'most people'

think.

[sandnsea]

15. 58% are happy with the Iraq War progress

People are fickle, they flip around on a whim. But they do not want the economy to collapse and they absolutely want Bin Laden caught. The OP is yours, you prove your points.

[Dover]

17. I'm asking questions, you're spouting apparently unsupportable absolutes.

I simply asked where you got the figures that shaped/informed your statement.
If you can't answer that, then you can't.
Nothing more to discuss.

[sandnsea]

18. Oh my bad

Nobody cares about Bin Laden anymore and Obama is just an idiot to make his entire foreign policy based on capturing him. And nobody needs to access their money or get a paycheck, meh, stupid Obama to care about one bank failure after another.

Nothing more to discuss. :rofl:

[Dover]

2. ..dupe post..

[bigtree]

3. here

I liked his effort to steer the economic questions to a more comprehensive discussion of his myriad of priorities, like his tax cuts, his education initiative, and health care.

I thought he outlined as reasonable a set of priorities as he could for a possible bailout bill although we all know he's likely to sign on to whatever compromise emerges. His presentation, I think, was as important as the substance since he seemed to have a recognizable measure of an approach that voters can latch on to and he communicated that well.

I liked the fact that his focus on Afghanistan is on capturing the original 9-11 suspects and I thought he made an effective argument for disengaging from an effort in Iraq that the Iraqis themselves can now reasonably fund and support to facilitate that effort. If I'm reading him right, he wouldn't support the bombing around the capital to defend Kabul as much as he would focus on the 9=11 suspects.

There really isn't much to be made of the Russia-Georgia comparison, except that McCain is transparently unstable in his attitude toward the sensitive relationship with our former Cold War adversary. I think most folks will recognize that.

Don't even try and pretend that ANY step away from McCain/Bush wouldn't be a quantum leap forward. I think Obama will govern very close to the our Democrats in Congress, depending on their level of power. Clintonian without the scandal (I hope).

[Gramps911]

5. Look

all Obama had to say was "John, I understand that you are not for helping out homeowners that are behind in their mortgage payments" John would say "No I don't think people should be reward for their mistakes" Obama "Well John, then tell me why are we rewarding businesses that made bad decisions" John "Well that is different" Obama "Really, it would only cost 92 Billion to help the homeowners I would agree with you. It would be different because it would save us 608 Billion dollars, but you like to save money right John?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. point by point

I think Obama's performance was impressive. He seems to quietly hold his center of gravity which reads as strength, stays very present and listens, is articulate, bright and quick. He's also comprehensive in his approach to complex issues, the macro and the micro.

But what about the content of his plans for this country? I'm not looking for the 'he is much better than McCain, regardless' response. That's a given. I want to know what you think about the picture he is drawing for us about our future...near term and long.

For instance:

-- How do you feel about his take on the bailout (necessity of it and it's impact funding other programs). It sounded to me that we may not see a return on our investment from this bailout for a looooong time IF AT ALL.

We will not see a return on investment for at least a decade. Anybody who's done even cursory numbers understands this, and he should come out and plain out say it. Tonight he did not say it, but he's already hinted that some programs will have to be put on hold, two or three days ago. He needs to be far more open about this and explain the reasons in English that the average person can understand.

-- Did you get any feeling about whether he'd hold anyone accountable for their crimes or abuses of our laws and system? Or is he in the 'let's just move on' crowd.

There wasn't a thing on that... just the feel good we need to get away from torture talk

-- What about the sure knowledge that he would build up the war in Afghanistan?
(and with little if any talk of the pipeline/Silk Road foreign policy...instead all about
'terrorists' and bin Laden and safety).

He has a point about Afghanistan... in that sense, from a policy respect both had a point. That said, we missed the door and left the barn door open seven years ago. The window to actually change conditions where the taliban don't dominate has been closed a while ago.

As to the Silk Road, that is the central asian game, and we are loosing terribly. Don't think EITHER understand why we are loosing either.

-- What are your thoughts about his take on Georgia and how he represented that conflict?
He seemed to be in agreement with McCain on this, and on our response to Russia.

Not full agreement at all. He was more about engaging the ruskies and encouraging allies. McCain was all for a new cold war, denials to the contrary

-- How do feel about the apparent reliance on Henry Kissinger as one of his advisors?

Whether we like it or not we are in a new cold war period, of zero sum... and Kissinger is one of the finest chess players in this sense. Though he is relying in Kissinger for engagement and detente, not for confrontation. Lets just say the Kissinger of '75 not '68... and we will need Detente to go down from this new cold war to something less dangerous.

-- Do you think he represents a REAL and significant change or a slight change in overall direction
based on the content of his message and the picture he is drawing for us? A baby step or a quantum leap?

Baby step... this assumes things don't change radically with the crash (yes that is real). FDR didn't run on the New Deal either...

Not saying that history will repeat itself exactly, but a time of crisis is when the US usually has radical changes, not times of peace and niceties.

[Dover]

14. The question I have about the Silk Road policy and Afghanistan is

if we plan to maintain and expand that Caspian corridor isn't that also part of our energy policy that we should be discussing? Oil and gas? It seems that if we are committed to Afghanistan and its immediate region then that also suggests we are committed to continuing our consumption and dependency on foreign oil and gas.

I know there are other geostrategic reasons for our presence there, but would like this question addressed openly.

[Laelth]

10. Good questions.

I think we're making a serious mistake by antagonizing Russia. I was sad to see Obama rattling sabers (he, of course, did so less than McCain). South Ossetia is populated by mostly Russian citizens. That situation is complex and nuanced. Our politicians often sound very shallow when debating foreign policy.

-Laelth

[Dover]

12. Oh yeah that reminds me of another question as regards his views on Georgia

being brought into the NATO fold. That question is quite a contentious one in Europe.
Is that what you are referring to as antagonizing Russia? Pressuring them at their borders?

[Laelth]

20. Russia's position is that they have the right to defend Russian citizens.

That's why they moved their military into South Ossetia. It's irresponsible to paint Russia as a hostile invader; that's merely the Georgian position, and to echo that shows poor understanding of the actual conflict.

As for NATO, I doubt NATO members are ready to commit to the defense of Georgia. I would oppose Georgia's admission into NATO at this time.

-Laelth

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Who looks for substance in these highly scripted "debates"...

when they have two minutes at a time to outline the entire history of US economic policy or Russian relations in eastern Europe?

They want to solve the current liquidity crisis, keep people in their homes, get employment up, reduce the debt, reduce taxes, make the middle class more prosperous, turn Iraq into a Mesopotamian tourist trap, "keep America strong" and beat up on Russia, Iran, and North Korea. They just have small disagreements on just how to do all this.

Did I miss anything in this alleged foreign policy debate?

Did I miss the intense discussion about what we can productively do in Africa? Is China the only country in Asia-- Japan somehow became a suburb of Manchuria? Musta slept through the plans to open up relations with Cuba and repair relations with Venzuela and Bolivia whilst not pissing off Brazil and Argentina too much. And, ummm, yeah, still wonder what they think about the doin's in Africa-- could have at least mentioned Mugabe and Nigerian instability if they didn't feel like tackling the Congo, blood diamonds and other horrorshows going on there.

McCain pissed me off with most of what he was saying, although he came off a lot better than I thought he would, but Obama really pissed me off with the sorry bullshit about Russia in Georgia. I understand that no Presidential candidate can ever say that what Russia does in its back yard is none of our business, but did he have to go all Cold War on us about that? At least he balanced it out with some discussion of why we need to make nice with those nasty Russians.

[Dover]

19. Agreed...given this format.

We aren't gonna get a lengthy discussion. Silly me.

And I agree that while there do seem to be differences between these two in how we go about things, there are probably many more areas of agreement particularly as regards foreign policy.
I'm concerned that I see so many of the old faces around Obama, advising on these foreign policy issues and have my doubts that there will be any substantial change there.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. How they are going to build up our military (short of a draft) and convince us to go back into Afghanistan will be interesting. Of course maybe they are relying on poverty as incentive.