I actually watched the whole debate, although in Europe it started at 2 am.
For me Romney was not the winner. He was indeed MUCH better than I expected. But in on the one hand the contents of his policies are jut bad, also as some already have pointed out he took some new positions and distanced himself from himself.
Some argue that Obama should have attacked Romney more. But why should he. I knew even before the debate that Obama would not attack Romney on where he had misspoken. Sure that would have been a big mistake. Especially as americans, more than Europeans hate aggressive politicians. So Obama went to take some hits from the start. That never surprised me.
Romney did the best that he could, he looked very nervous and acted aggressively. Obama did not his best to counter the attacks. He was unsure what to do so I guess he rather stood to the campaign plan which was to talk to the viewers and explain what he did and plans to do. He looked much more often into the camera.
What would have happened if he had countered the attacks of Romney as aggressive we will never know. My guess is that the outcome would be worse. Romney had nothing to loose but much to gain. The opposite is true for Romney.
So what we could see was exactly what we could expect. It went quite well for Romney. But I think the more important impact o the debate will be now if everything Romney has said will be investigated.
He opened up a lot of holes in his line of arguments.
Just watching an interview with Naomi Klein on Democracy Now about the protests of the Toronto Film Festival (TIFF).
She says that the focus on Tel Aviv, which is 100 years old this year is an attempt to redraw the bad image of Israel.
I think this sound ridiculous. It is obvious, that states like the USA, Russia, Germany, etc. etc. do much worse. But no one would suggest not doing a dedication to New York, Moscow or Berlin. To paint a picture of Tel Aviv in a movie sense should be ok for every state. To think that Israel should be judged differently jsut because it is a jewish state is antisemetic in my view.
Israel has fewer inhabitants as New York, but still it is judged as it would be larger as the USA.
BTW. the TIFF has released a statement underlining that it sticks to its positions.
Why on earth do i get the “news” every day that Hillary miht become the secretary of state – that it is highly likely and so on and so on. I am tired of it. Either she gets it or not – the news that it may be likely was out a week ago – and i dont want to read this as a new news every day! Personally I do not think that it would be a very good idea, but its really not that important. The only thing I know is that Hillary had lost the primaries.
Why vote for Obama? From my perspective as a german or european I can say that I have been offended already by many of the words that McCain and Ms Pain have chosen. I am terrified about the incompetence and arrogance like he would not meet with some european leaders like Mr. Zapatero who are not in the boat in the Iraq war any more.
Obama might not be perfect and still policies of the US might not change as many in the world would like to see, but with McCain I could bet the US gets a lot of trouble. The US has an increasing number of enemies – and those are not falling from heaven, but are the result of the policies of the last 150 years or so. Many US citizens ask themselves why so many attacks are made against the US. It is because the US is omnipresent as a military force – it is because the US is trying to dominating the world and in its presence they often disregard other cultures – but then – some cultures like the arabian culture are highly sensitive to such a disregard, unlike some other western cultures. So this results in people not just being a bit angry but willing to kill. This is the reasoning of the whole terror problem from my perspective – the other part sure is that there are still regions who suffer in the globalization process and the people who live there have nothing to loose.
McCains way means to not look at the root causes but to solve problems with military force. But if you look back in history very seldomly military force has helped to actually solve conflicts. It has in the 2nd world war in Europe. I would admit that – and I wont say force in general is always bad. Sometimes it is necessary. But as a last resort. A war is costly and it always means that the once who suffer most are the innocent. But if so many innocents have to die – and there is no resolution in sight – is it worth the cost?
What people in the USA would need mostly is a leadership who reduces the military – its funny how McCain talks about cutting expenditures while at the same time talks about extending the military budget. There is no ONE cure for everything and the same is true for the military. One of the major problem is the high militarization of the USA. As an US citizen you might not even realize this – as a european I see it in all movies and speeches. In fact the military has become a substitute for a real economy and familiy and real friends in many ways. I think Obama is a chance for the USA to correct some things that have gone in the wrong way. Now in the midst of an economic crisis it would be time to rethink many of the policies that have been established after World War II and also before.
For certain a president McCain means much more war(s) than a president Obama. Why has the violence in the Iraq gone down? Because some Iraquis have turned on Al Quaida instead on to the US military – in fact that proves my point. You can partly win a war militarily – but freedom can only be established if the root causes are solved.
I knew it would be terrible when George W. Bush was elected. I think this is the last chance for the USA to gain some new ground. Otherwise I see a very, very bad ending Nobody will cooperate with a McCain-USA. This ignorance has to stop NOW.
So please do us all a favour and vote for Obama if you can!!
Just now (2008-10-24) McCain on a rally said that if Obama will get elected the USA will be tested by other countries. This means McCains calls on terrorists and foreign countries to attack the USA if he does not win. This is very dirty. How stupid can someone be?
I will be watching the debate between Palin and Biden later (3am in the morning here). As CNN reports that some democrats are worried that Palin would be unexpectedly strong in the debate I like to through in my 5 cents: If you look on what McCain and Palin did wrong in a short period of time Biden could totally suck in that debate and it wont matter at all. As long as he does not beat her up in public it will be good.
We will see, though. But I guess I will be right.
McCains problem with the situation now is that it is rather unlikely that he can show people that he is better handling the economic crisis than Obama. He has only this chances: One that the crisis will fade away from the minds of the voters as things may seem not to be that worse till election day – or that Obama will do or say something extremely stupid and give him the chance to make his point. Pretty much wait for Obamas failures. But given how many stupid things he said himself and that his plan to present himself as the big decider has not really worked – he might be discouraged to try taking the action into his own hands again. And if he does try anyway the risk of failing and then loosing even more of the voters who still stick with him is even greater.
The funny thing is that after all that pre-election circus it had seemed that this election would not be about issues at all and now it seems it very much boils down to that it does. I still think the republicans will try to do a lot of dirty tricks to either turn voter opinion or to do election fraud. Watching CBS News I just thought about all those homeless people who propably will be denied the right to vote. BTW: In Germany you do not need to register to vote – every citized who is over 18 has the right to vote and is automatically registered and gets an invitation to vote.
There has been a lot of talk of what some candidates in the 2008 US election said or did not say and what it meant. But if you look how polls are done and how they are interpreted they often talk about things like “white men voters” against other races or sexes. But isnt what they do here essentially that everybody is determinded through the envirnoment and the color of the skin? By using the statistics to gain information of how races vote in comparison the first assumption that they do is that this actually matters. I dont say that your environment does not determine your view in any way. But the question should be if this is what a single person is about or if this means you have to vote with your group? The polls show that this does mostly not indicate anything. Even if some virtual group will vote in favor of some candidate it rather proves that those groups do not really matter. It only shows how the media desperately is seeking material. Funnily some data is often not measured. This is about the social status for example. Maybe those who are poor vote different ti the rest of the USA. it seems that this nobody wants to know. Its easier to make this an issue about race, although I guess it does matter less – as today race or sex is not as much definining as 50 years ago.