Wow. The first half of the debate didn't address a single policy issue. All the questions were about: 1) Barack's associates, 2) what Barack "meant" with his "bitter" comments, 3) Hillary's Bosnia memory "mistake," etc.
Clinton was happy to play the game, and for whatever reason, moderator Charlie Gibson must have thought it was a lot more sexy to keep playing gotcha with the candidates than to ask them any real questions.
By Hour 2 of the debate, they finally started to address some of the real issues, but by then, Barack had been forced into the defensive for too long so that it didn't really matter what was said. He had been forced to explain himself too often, and he used the word "angry" too often. Barack's real problem seems to be that he thinks people are listening to what he says, that they respect him for being honest. Unfortunately, maybe his hope in the American people is too strong?
Who won this debate? No one really. Who lost? Everyone. The last AOL poll I saw suggests that Barack's overall favorable ratings continue to drop, which is pretty sad as he's one of the most honest and honorable men in politics.
But then again, even Jesus was crucified. Maybe people can't handle honest and honorable men in politics.
Clinton was happy to play the game, and for whatever reason, moderator Charlie Gibson must have thought it was a lot more sexy to keep playing gotcha with the candidates than to ask them any real questions.
By Hour 2 of the debate, they finally started to address some of the real issues, but by then, Barack had been forced into the defensive for too long so that it didn't really matter what was said. He had been forced to explain himself too often, and he used the word "angry" too often. Barack's real problem seems to be that he thinks people are listening to what he says, that they respect him for being honest. Unfortunately, maybe his hope in the American people is too strong?
Who won this debate? No one really. Who lost? Everyone. The last AOL poll I saw suggests that Barack's overall favorable ratings continue to drop, which is pretty sad as he's one of the most honest and honorable men in politics.
But then again, even Jesus was crucified. Maybe people can't handle honest and honorable men in politics.
Well, I think you are nosing around pretty close to a point. According to what we are taught about Jesus of Nazareth, He spoke as if He had more knowledge of what was the right way for people to live and act than the people who were in power at the time. He was not much of a politician, preferring to tell the truth as He saw it, which of course He thought was the absolute truth and those who disagreed with Him could, let us say, perish in their sin and ignorance unless they repented and came to believe in Him, and His teachings. You can continue this study if you desire to do so. As a result those who had enjoyed power for some time got together, and as a result of fear of losing their power and priveleges, killed Him.
ReplyDeleteNow look at Barack and others. Did you happen to see the Colbert Report tonight? Hillary and John Edwards were there in person, and Barack was there in a TV feed. They were sort of spoofing themselves. If they could have been as loose and light from the beginning, I am not sure if I would have thought more of them, less or about the same, but they all seemed pretty likable tonight, even Hillary.
Let me say that "debate" is a real minomer for these performances. I confess that I watched maybe 15 to 30 minutes of the so called debate. I found it boring. Hilary was not memorable in the part I watched. Barack and I agree on at least one thing, and that is the idea of wearing a little metal flag in our lapels. That is similar to wearing a large cross to proclaim one's Chritianity. If one wants to do that, wonderful. If one prefers to show either love of country or devotion to Jesus Christ in some more concrete way, what is wrong with that? Members of the "Manson Family" or at least some of them. had a cross tattooed or even carved into their forheads, as I recall. Was that something we should emulate? The Demoicrats seem to think, or many of them do, that Bush and Cheney are criminals and traitors, yet they were little flags (I wonder if they are made in China). Why would Barack want to emulate those two? I have never heard him call them traitors, but certainy he thinks they are ineffective.
Barack's associations are important. "Reverend" Wright has done a good job, apparently, of buiding a large congregation of people, who from what I hear have participated very "hands on" in some important ministries. He is apparently not politically savvy among people in general but he certainly is politically savvy among his his congregation, Some of the inflammatory remarks that were played in a loop for a few days, such as "God Bless America? I say God Damn America for ..." were of course repeated without context. It is at least possible that some less inflammatory preachers are preaching even now, and if not, the probably should be, warning that if we do not make certain changes in the way we livein this country, that God will not be able to bless us, but in effect He will damn us because He will simply have to. He cannot and will not bless us in evil.
Do these "debates" actually mean anything? Well, they mean a lot of income/revenue for the networks. Other than that, I think nothing of real value.
BTW, from what I have heard and read about what Barack said conerning the bitter folks who cling to their religion or their firearms, I simply think that the "elite" simply don't undestand what he was thinking. I think he was telling us truth.
So maybe, as I said, you are sniffing around something important. Maybe at least part of the time Barack is telling unwelcome truths. Unwelcome to the far right, the middle and the far left alike. He even is telling the truth (most likely) when he says will listen and evaluate on a number of things before he takes action. I take that to mean that if he is not "ready on day one" for everything, that is good. He will not be shooting from the hip if he becomes President. It has been my experience that nothing really needs immediate attention. At least sufficient time to be sure that we are not making matters worse.
Well, you see what I am thinking, I hope.
Having said all that, I cannot be comfortable with any democrat, regardless of how attractive he or she is, being the President of the United States.
Not voting for someone simply because of party affiliation doesn't make a lot of sense. I still consider myself to be a Republican, but there are a lot of Republicans I couldn't vote for! As people say, vote for the person, not the party.
ReplyDelete