Obama said McCain was "right" nine times

[Beric]

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/26/john-is-right/

I especially liked the ad. It pretty much nailed it. McCain is the leader here.

[motulist]

You're kidding right? Because he acted civilized and non-partisan you're gonna hold that against him? What is wrong with you?

Would you rather he disagreed with or tried to ignore when McCain said something reasonable just because they're from different political parties? That's the type of partisan BS that got our country into all this trouble in the first place! Just because someone is your political opponent doesn't mean you shouldn't acknowledge that there's middle ground!

[abijnk]

You're kidding right? Because he acted civilized and non-partisan you're gonna hold that against him? What is wrong with you?

Would you rather he disagreed with or tried to ignore when McCain said something reasonable just because they're from different political parties? That's the type of partisan BS that got our country into all this trouble in the first place! Just because someone is your political opponent doesn't mean you shouldn't acknowledge that there's middle ground!

Exactly, they "agreed" on broad general concepts that a 12 year old can identify, and yet this is leadership?

While I don't think Obama should have used that phrase so much, it says NOTHING about McCain's leadership skills.

[Beric]

I think the point was McCain took the leadership here and Obama could only copy his footsteps, humbly agreeing.

It's honorable to admit your opponent is right. But when you constantly have to agree with him because he knows and is saying and does everything better than yourself, then you have a problem.

[abijnk]

I think the point was McCain took the leadership here and Obama could only copy his footsteps, humbly agreeing.

It's honorable to admit your opponent is right. But when you constantly have to agree with him because he knows and is saying and does everything better than yourself, then you have a problem.

12 year old No. 1: "Chocolate is yummy."

12 year old No. 2: "I agree."

Who's the leader? :rolleyes:

[motulist]

I think the point was McCain took the leadership here and Obama could only copy his footsteps, humbly agreeing.

It's honorable to admit your opponent is right. But when you constantly have to agree with him because he knows and is saying and does everything better than yourself, then you have a problem.

Wow man, I feel sorry for you. You are so blinded by, something, that you can't see objective reality. The worst implication a person could logically draw from his using that phrase 9 times over a couple of hours is that he wasn't prepared for how low the republican campaign machine was willing to sink since he didn't realize that they would take an honorable act of nonpartisanship and turn it into a dirty political ploy.

[shu82]

We could also count the number of times Obama said Bush and McCain in the same sentence. He is so hollow and transparent. I believe that as the debates go on, we will see more evidence that Obama can't think on his feet. He keeps falling back to his wild cards, each time he uses them they become worth less and less. Eventually he will be seen as the 2D puppet that he is.

[balamw]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street.

Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.

And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.

Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world

Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...

A ringing endorsement indeed! Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

B

[chrmjenkins]

We could also count the number of times Obama said Bush and McCain in the same sentence. He is so hollow and transparent. I believe that as the debates go on, we will see more evidence that Obama can't think on his feet. He keeps falling back to his wild cards, each time he uses them they become worth less and less. Eventually he will be seen as the 2D puppet that he is.

You didn't even attach a conclusion to your statement. What do you want us to infer?

How is he hollow and transparent? What wild cards? Puppet of whom? Do YOU even know what you're talking about?


To the OP, most of those instances were in the later stages where McCain was given the question first, and it was obvious stuff like "Was it wrong of Russia to go into Georgia?" (paraphrasing). Besides, this couldn't even be considered "leading" if he hadn't spoken first because these are issues well developed where we already know the candidates' stances. You're really grasping at straws.

[63dot]

Obama listened better to the moderator and to McCain. The reason McCain didn't agree with Obama was mostly because he wasn't listening. He looked tired and wasn't on his game.

Obama disarmed McCain by agreeing and then set forth his own plan more often. McCain had fewer chances to distinguish himself from Bush and he should have mentioned how he didn't like how Rumsfeld ran the war. It would have garnered points for McCain. He had a chance to give his own vision of foreign policy, but it just fell apart.

[Ugg]

Obama listened better to the moderator and to McCain. The reason McCain didn't agree with Obama was mostly because he wasn't listening. He looked tired and wasn't on his game.

Obama disarmed McCain by agreeing and then set forth his own plan more often. McCain had fewer chances to distinguish himself from Bush and he should have mentioned how he didn't like how Rumsfeld ran the war. It would have garnered points for McCain. He had a chance to give his own vision of foreign policy, but it just fell apart.


I think the fact that McCain looked old and tired will turn a lot of people away from him especially with his shotgun approach to the financial crisis.

[63dot]

I think the fact that McCain looked old and tired will turn a lot of people away from him especially with his shotgun approach to the financial crisis.

It was kind of like the Nixon Kennedy debate in 1960, but not as dramatic. McCain just looked tired, where as Nixon looked tired because he had been up all night burglarizing office buildings. :)

[SMM]

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/26/john-is-right/

I especially liked the ad. It pretty much nailed it. McCain is the leader here.

Unfortunately, I realize you are serious. Either that, or you have been engaged in a long-term hoax. However, I cannot imagine anyone pretending to be a republican, who really was not one. I would be like admitting you were a dolphin killer.

Enjoy what short-lived excitement you can find (fanciful by most standards), but brace yourself for the crushing agony of defeat you will feel come November.

[zioxide]

He also said "You were wrong" multiple times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncE84Da4wNw

[GGJstudios]

12 year old No. 1: "Chocolate is yummy."
12 year old No. 2: "I agree."
Who's the leader? :rolleyes:
The manufacturer of the chocolate! :D

[seenew]

McCain can't even look his opponent in the eye! How weak is that?!


Also loved his.... verbage (lulz) "festooned" "naivete" Hahahaha.

The only thing Obama did wrong was be too slack on the old man. I think his advisers will tell him that, though. We can expect more aggression from him next time, and McCain won't come out so happy. ;)

[GGJstudios]

Also loved his.... verbage (lulz) "festooned" "naivete" Hahahaha.
It's called a vocabulary. Maybe you haven't gotten that far in school yet.

naiveté |ˌnīˌēv(ə)ˈtā; nīˈēv(ə)ˌtā| He pronounced it properly. Use your Dictionary.

festoon |fesˈtoōn|
noun
a chain or garland of flowers, leaves, or ribbons, hung in a curve as a decoration.
• a carved or molded ornament representing such a garland.
verb [ trans. ] (often be festooned with)
adorn (a place) with chains, garlands, or other decorations : the room was festooned with balloons and streamers.

[RacerX]

This type of argument is used quite often in forums as well as in debates... the goal of some people is to stake a claim to certain things and attempt to force someone else to defend the opposite.

As pointed out, it is a childish ploy.

As Obama showed, the best thing to do is to make issues on which you and your opponent agree non-issues. Spending needless time and energy battling over common ground is pointless.

But this shouldn't be unexpected from the far right. Substance is the last thing that matters to these people, I doubt they even care what issues were being discussed. They only care about winning, it is a contest or game to them. They don't care if they elect the worst people in the history of the world into office, as long as they win the race. Nothing else matters.

But you have to give them this much, while they may be destroying this country and the world by putting the worst people in positions of power, they have figured out what to do to hide the fact that their candidates ideologically have no clothes.

[BoyBach]

Also loved his.... verbage (lulz) "festooned" "naivete" Hahahaha.


How quickly the Republican Party change their pathetic narrow-minded hypocrisy. It was only in the 2004 election that John Kerry was attacked for being too French ( :confused: ) but when Teh Maverick™ uses some French in his vocabulary it's leadership.

Standards? Mine's a double. :rolleyes:

[Thomas Veil]

I think the point was McCain took the leadership here and Obama could only copy his footsteps, humbly agreeing.

It's honorable to admit your opponent is right. But when you constantly have to agree with him because he knows and is saying and does everything better than yourself, then you have a problem.If that's true, then it's dishonorable when you know your opponent is right and won't admit it...something McCain does constantly, and not just in the debates.

And just because two people agree on some points doesn't automatically make the conservative the leader.

[yg17]

12 year old No. 1: "Chocolate is yummy."

12 year old No. 2: "I agree."

Who's the leader? :rolleyes:


Well, it was more like:

12 year old No. 1: "Chocolate is yummy."
12 year old No. 2: "I agree, but vanilla is better."


The VP debate will be:

12 year old No. 1: "Chocolate is yummy"
12 year old No. 2: "I can see the Hershey factory from my house so I'm an expert in chocolate!"

[IJ Reilly]

McCain frequently used the line, "Senator Obama doesn't understand" to explain their differences of opinion. How do we rate that, a big hit for McCain because he managed to be so much more condescending? I think we saw an aspect of the real John McCain last night, the part where if you don't agree with him, it must be because you just don't "get it."

[MBX]

Obama is way too nice to McCain.

It's something that i noticed during this debate. He should've been more distanced and cold to McCain like McCain was to Obama.

[Peace]

McCain can't even look his opponent in the eye! How weak is that?!


Also loved his.... verbage (lulz) "festooned" "naivete" Hahahaha.

The only thing Obama did wrong was be too slack on the old man. I think his advisers will tell him that, though. We can expect more aggression from him next time, and McCain won't come out so happy. ;)

That has been festering in me all night. Obama was way too nice to McCain. It's obvious McCain and the republicans want to go for the throat. The only way to fight fire is with fire.

Obama needs to stop being so polite and nice and go after him and spare no punches.

Then you will see Obama win the election.

[abijnk]

Well, it was more like:

12 year old No. 1: "Chocolate is yummy."
12 year old No. 2: "I agree, but vanilla is better."


The VP debate will be:

12 year old No. 1: "Chocolate is yummy"
12 year old No. 2: "I can see the Hershey factory from my house so I'm an expert in chocolate!"

Unfortunately I am afraid it will be more like:

Moderator: "12 year old No. 1, this question goes to you first. Blah blah blah."
12 year old No. 1: "Chocolate is yummy."
Moderator: "The question was about the bailout..."

[IJ Reilly]

Obama needs to stop being so polite and nice and go after him and spare no punches.

That's not his style. He prides himself on the ability to listen respectfully to everyone, whether he agrees with them or not. That may not seem like an asset in the midst of a hot political campaign, but it will be a big one if he's elected. That's the real message of this debate, and the Obama campaign. Keep your eye on the doughnut, and not on the hole, as they say.

[Aranince]

Like others have said, Obama agreeing with McCain just made Obama look like he was following in McCain's footsteps. Even if he did agree, he didn't have to say it. When the question was put on him, or it was his turn to speak, he could have stated what his position was instead of agreeing.

"I agree, but..."
or
"This is the way it should be, this is my position."

The latter is more confident and to the point.

[abijnk]

Like others have said, Obama agreeing with McCain just made Obama look like he was following in McCain's footsteps. Even if he did agree, he didn't have to say it. When the question was put on him, or it was his turn to speak, he could have stated what his position was instead of agreeing.

"I agree, but..."
or
"This is the way it should be, this is my position."

The latter is more confident and to the point.

I pointed you to this in another post too. Please see post #8 for the entire quote. "I agree, but..." is exactly what he said.

[Aranince]

I pointed you to this in another post too. Please see post #8 for the entire quote. "I agree, but..." is exactly what he said.

If you read my whole post, I said it would have been better for Obama to get straight to the point, instead of agreeing.

[chrmjenkins]

If you read my whole post, I said it would have been better for Obama to get straight to the point, instead of agreeing.

Actually, I find his approach refreshing. Many politicians are so excited to talk about something, they skip what the moderator said, pick a few points out of what their opponent said, and mainly go off on their platform. We've seen so much question ignoring from Palin, I'm beginning to wonder if she's deaf.

He recognized common ground, then specified his differences. That is essential to his bipartisan claims.

Oh, and caramel is kinda like chocolate, except it has real responsibilities!

[Aranince]

I pointed you to this in another post too. Please see post #8 for the entire quote. "I agree, but..." is exactly what he said.

Does this mean that Obama isn't showing bipartisanship, because he wasn't really agreeing with McCain? He was just agreeing that the question is a problem?

[Peace]

Does this mean that Obama isn't showing bipartisanship, because he wasn't really agreeing with McCain? He was just agreeing that the question is a problem?

McCains statements were so generic just about anybody could agree.

[Aranince]

McCains statements were so generic just about anybody could agree.

I'm confused. First its: Obama didn't agree with McCain because he had his own points; now its: McCain is so generic anyone could agree. Which is it? Either Obama agreed or didn't agree.

[abijnk]

Does this mean that Obama isn't showing bipartisanship, because he wasn't really agreeing with McCain? He was just agreeing that the question is a problem?

My problem with the whole agreeing issue, and the part I think you are missing, is that McCain's statements, as Peace said, were so generic that a lot of people would agree. I don't think it has anything to do with bipartisanship and everything to do with common sense. I see what you are saying about that maybe not being the best approach in a debate, but I also think its really important to keep what he was agreeing about in mind (i.e. basic statements that a lot of people would agree with).

[Peace]

I'm confused. First its: Obama didn't agree with McCain because he had his own points; now its: McCain is so generic anyone could agree. Which is it? Either Obama agreed or didn't agree.

I never said "Obama didn't agree with McCain because he had his own points"

You must be confused.

[freeny]

Yes, it's called "Diplomacy". Diplomacy is a key ingrediant in foreign affairs. Why Republicans continue to see this as a weakness while the entire rest of the world sees it as an asset escapes me...

What I found rude was the fact that McCain wouldn't look Obama in the eye, which, ironicly IS a sign of weakness.

[63dot]

I'm confused. First its: Obama didn't agree with McCain because he had his own points; now its: McCain is so generic anyone could agree. Which is it? Either Obama agreed or didn't agree.

If you actually watched the debate, there were points where McCain and Obama agreed (danger of Iran with nukes) and areas where they didn't agree (division of tax cuts). But one could say they both favor tax cuts, but McCain's idea of giving most of those to the richest five percent is not exactly a cut most of us here will enjoy.

If there is anybody who is in that top five percent, be charitable and buy new macs for everyone on this thread, since it's just chump change in your book. :)

[63dot]

Yes, it's called "Diplomacy". Diplomacy is a key ingrediant in foreign affairs. Why Republicans continue to see this as a weakness while the entire rest of the world sees it as an asset escapes me...

What I found rude was the fact that McCain wouldn't look Obama in the eye, which, ironicly IS a sign of weakness.

The only reason McCain didn't look Obama, or anybody in the eye, was that he was half asleep. The guy just needs to retire and go back to his cozy home, which is very nice, in Arizona.

I remember hearing all the accounts of Ronny falling asleep during meetings, and McCain reminds me of that.

[leekohler]

12 year old No. 1: "Chocolate is yummy."

12 year old No. 2: "I agree."

Who's the leader? :rolleyes:

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better.

I'm confused. First its: Obama didn't agree with McCain because he had his own points; now its: McCain is so generic anyone could agree. Which is it? Either Obama agreed or didn't agree.

I now know why I'm not Republican.

[kfordham281]

I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for, so this is from someone looking at both sides of the table last night.

The one thing I can't seem to get out of my head is that McCain talked less about his own plans and more about the fact that Obama's were wrong. He kept saying Obaba is wrong or doesn't know, but he didn't really go into HIS OWN plans. It seems like he was cutting down Obama more than speeking his own thoughts.

One debate down, two more to go (and one VP debate). The first debate didn't really sway me one way or the other.

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, I find his approach refreshing. Many politicians are so excited to talk about something, they skip what the moderator said, pick a few points out of what their opponent said, and mainly go off on their platform. We've seen so much question ignoring from Palin, I'm beginning to wonder if she's deaf.

He recognized common ground, then specified his differences. That is essential to his bipartisan claims.

Oh, and caramel is kinda like chocolate, except it has real responsibilities!

The basis for Obama's entire philosophy of governing is the idea that Americans tend to agree on basic issues far more than they disagree, but that politicians exploit the differences for their own gain. He believes that politics based on the exploitation of differences has created a toxic environment in Washington, and prevents progress. He's right, I think quite obviously, and I believe most people would agree with this premise too if they gave it some serious thought and consideration. It seems pretty clear that most of his opponents don't understand this about him, and probably neither do many of his supporters.

[Don't panic]

I think the point was McCain took the leadership here and Obama could only copy his footsteps, humbly agreeing.

It's honorable to admit your opponent is right. But when you constantly have to agree with him because he knows and is saying and does everything better than yourself, then you have a problem.

haha, boy are you delusional.
he agreed on some points (mostly generalities) and used it as a starting base to point at differences.

[bobber205]

haha, boy are you delusional.
he agreed on some points (mostly generalities) and used it as a starting base to point at differences.

Apparently Repbulicans live in a world where you can divide by zero. :eek:

http://halshop.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/phpw9jvl0pm.jpg

[Cleverboy]

I'm confused. First its: Obama didn't agree with McCain because he had his own points; now its: McCain is so generic anyone could agree. Which is it? Either Obama agreed or didn't agree.The real question is why anyone of any intellectual prowess can't understand when they're presenting a false dichotomy. Even if all someone knew was the sentence quoted above, you could discern the deeply flawed thinking. In a sentence, in order to BELIEVE the false dichotomy, you'd have to believe that: "If you agree on the basic facts your opponent has laid out... yet disagree with his conclusions, you must declare that you instead disagree with the facts, or admit that you agree with the conclusions and that your opponent is unequivocally correct."

It's like Alice in Wonderland.

~ CB

[seenew]

It's called a vocabulary. Maybe you haven't gotten that far in school yet.

naiveté |ˌnīˌēv(ə)ˈtā; nīˈēv(ə)ˌtā| He pronounced it properly. Use your Dictionary.

festoon |fesˈtoōn|
noun
a chain or garland of flowers, leaves, or ribbons, hung in a curve as a decoration.
• a carved or molded ornament representing such a garland.
verb [ trans. ] (often be festooned with)
adorn (a place) with chains, garlands, or other decorations : the room was festooned with balloons and streamers.

Nice, nice, niiice. Personal attacks will get you everywhere! :) You should show Senator Obama a thing or two.
I assure you, I knew quite well what each of the words meant. That doesn't change the fact that they stuck out to nearly everyone who watched it.

And please, can't we try to have some fun? Some people are just too wound up.

[Peace]

I'm confused. First its: Obama didn't agree with McCain because he had his own points; now its: McCain is so generic anyone could agree. Which is it? Either Obama agreed or didn't agree.

Either Joe Biden or Sarah Palin will be one step away from being President.

Do you agree or disagree ?

[GGJstudios]

Nice, nice, niiice. Personal attacks will get you everywhere!
It wasn't an attack. It was a statement of fact.
... That doesn't change the fact that they stuck out to nearly everyone who watched it...
Words only "stick out" to people who aren't familiar enough with them to use them in everyday speech. While I haven't heard "festooned" used in a while (probably last Christmas), the word "naiveté" comes to mind daily, especially when reading some of the posts in these forums, as well as many of the comments on politics I've heard recently. They're words. If they express the thoughts that are being shared, what's the big deal with using them? :rolleyes:

[és:]

Beric, have you met with filvepoint? I think you two would get along quite well.

This thread is the one of the most vicious accounts of selective quoting I've seen on this forum. Quite shameful.

[mactastic]

Obama also said McCain was wrong a whole bunch of times. Funny we don't see conservatives counting THOSE. I don't know if he said it nine times, but he negated most if not all of those nine instances where he said McCain was right.

Besides, we've been told that Obama "just doesn't get it", so if that's the case, why should anyone believe that he's right about McCain being right?

Or are the McCain supporters admitting that you have to listen to Obama to find out what's right and what isn't?

[IJ Reilly]

Speaking of the meaning of words, I hadn't noticed before the debate how often John McCain uses the expressions "he doesn't understand" and "he doesn't get it" to describe Obama's positions. It would be interesting to go back into McCain's political history and see if this is a personal habit of his. Either way, his choice of words paints a clear picture of the world inside McCain's mind -- a world where he is always right, and where anyone who doesn't see things his way must be clueless.

[mactastic]

That's pretty standard language from daddy-state conservatives. For years now, this administration has been saying that anyone who doesn't agree with them is unserious, doesn't get it, or hates America.

It's not a new tactic. I would imagine it's not new to McCain either.

[solvs]

Well, to channel my inner condescending McCain, some of you obviously aren't getting this. ;) Obama wasn't talking to those who've already decided who to vote for. He was talking to independents, Purple Staters, who are tired of the partisan bickering. McCain talks a good game about being a moderate, a maverick. Palin couldn't stop using that term in the VP debate. But while neither of them were listening to their opponents, Obama was saying he agreed on fundamentals. Just differing on the details. Biden did the same thing to an extent. While some of us may not like it, and SNL makes fun of it, it's working with the indies. Just watching the polls, and listening to the aftermath, they liked that. While McCain appeared to be partisan, condescending, and worse, angry.

Doesn't matter how much the neocons here want to make fun of Obama for agreeing (which I still don't understand why it's a bad thing) and preach to their base, nor how much some of us want him to be more aggressive, he's reaching out to those in the middle who haven't decided, and it's working enough to get enough of them to tip the scales in his direction.

It's better than pretending you disagree with him, even though it was actually his idea (sometimes too, sometimes first):

OBAMA'S IDEAS ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO STEAL (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014781.php)
Undermining McCain Campaign Attack, Republicans Back Obama‘s Version of Meeting With Iraqi Leaders (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html)
Palin Contradicts McCain On Pakistan - She Agrees With Obama (http://www.stopthinkvote.com/whatsnew/palinpakistan.html)

And I love this one:
Seeking a boost, McCain changes the game (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-24-mccain-debate_N.htm)
At 8:30 a.m. ET, Obama called McCain to suggest the idea. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Obama wanted "to ask (McCain) if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal, and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal."

McCain called back at 2:30 p.m. and the two agreed to have staffers work on a statement. About five minutes later, McCain was telling reporters the he was suspending his campaign, returning to Washington and calling for a postponement of the debate.
What a couple of maverick, leadery, outsider, mavericks the GOP candidates are. :rolleyes:

I mean, come on... are you really criticizing him for actually listening and agreeing with McCain? Really? Seriously? I mean... really? :confused: Because a Pres who actually listens to people and can negotiate, agreeing on the fundamentals instead of just arguing for the sake of arguing, is a bad thing? Really!?!