Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.

All that was the subject of one of the most contentious tussles between McCain and Obama in the first presidential debate, with Obama contending that his intent to negotiate with foreign adversaries without “precondition” did not mean that he would neglect diplomatic “preparation.”

McCain, apparently perceiving an opportunity for attack, Tuesday again used Obama’s comments to attack his judgment. “Sen. Obama, without precondition, wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions,” McCain said, referring to Iran.

Yet Petraeus emphasized throughout his lecture that reaching out to insurgent groups — some “with our blood on their hands,” he said — was necessary to the ultimate goal of turning them against irreconcilable enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Crooks and Liars points out that Petraeus also wants to negotiate with the Taliban.

So, John McCain, you're saying that Barack Obama is naive and has it all wrong?  Then you must also agree that General Petraeus is naive and has it all wrong, as well.

Only Walnuts knows what's best!  Give me a break.

At any rate, watch the video. Petraeus supports the Obama "doctrine" of talking to the people who are shooting at you.

McCain is virtually alone in his stupidity on this front.

The NYTimes reports today that US intelligence agencies are completing a National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan that paints a very bleak picture of the overall situation there. This isn't news for anyone who's been reading Afghanistan during the last year or so. As a result, the Bush administration is busy re-evaluating its approach. Here's my radio story from today, pegged to the reports on the NIE.

The U.S. government has begun to turn its attention eastward from Iraq as well.The Pentagon has urged looking again at what we are doing and what we hope to accomplish, and a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is due out any day. They are likely to cast even longer shadows on our involvement.

The Pentagon has asked for a thorough review at both the conceptual and operational levels. The conceptual part begins with a review of America's objectives in Afghanistan. It is mind-boggling to think that any country would fight a war for seven years without knowing the objective (what it seeks to accomplish), but unfortunately such a question is not inappropriate.

What is the policitcal objective in Afghanistan? Almost everyone would agree that getting rid of Al Qaeda tops the list, as noted in the last post, but what after that? A democratic, stable Afghanistan? A surgical removal of Al Qaeda from Pashtun territories on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that leads to democratic stability in Pakistan as well? How important are each of these possible objectives to the United States? No one seems to know, or be publicly willing to discuss or defend.

The Pentagon apparently also wants to know which of these goals are achievable, particularly through the application of military force. When the question is asked this way, the prospects become especially grim.

We all agree that we want to rid ourselves (and the world) of Al Qaeda, but how? Conventional military force clearly is inapplicable in the forbidden territories along the Afghan-Pakistani border (the so-called Durand Line, named after the British diplomat who drew it in the late nineteenth century to separate the British Raj from Afghanistan). Surgical air strikes turn out not to be so surgical, miss their intended targets much of the time, and maximize collateral damage--civilian deaths--and thus end up doing as much or more harm than good. Is there a military strategy that will accomplish the goal? In any traditional sense, the answer seems to be no, and adding more conventional forces to the field will not change that assessment.

One response has been to transfer the Patraeus Iraq strategy of counterinsiurgency to Afghanistan, but that model does not apply. The heart of COIN doctrine is the establishment of secure, safe territories wherein the battle for hearts and minds can be waged. The area in contest is NOT amenable to that approach. Most of it (on both sides of the Durand line) consists of Pashtun tribal villages, whose tradition is to resist, not embrace, outsiders who say they want to liberate them. As Martin Ewans summarizes the Afghan/Pashtun tradition, "an overriding feature of their history...has been a history of conflict--of invasions, battles and sieges, of vendettas, assassinations and massacres, or tribel feuding, dynastic strife, and civil war. Rarely have the Afghans allowed themselves, or allowed others with whom they have come in contact, to lead out heir lives in peace." How the U.S. military is going to be able to reverse that tradition is not covered in FM 3-24 (the joint Army-Marine cointerinsurgency manual associated with Petraeus). It is not too strong an assertion to say the military effort as now constituted is a fool's errand. This situation is only redoubled if one slips across the border into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan--an area the central Pakistani government has effectively ceded control over and in its current weakened position is hardly likely to challenge.

The other objectives can be taken more or less seriously. The United States, under the Bush Doctrine, would prefer a stable democracy in Kabul, but Afghan history suggests it will be lucky to get one or the other. Once again quoting Ewans, "The state has never been strong enough to establish effective control over the countryside....A sense of national unity has always been weak, except when an unusually strong leader has appeared or the nation has come together when threatened by an external enemy." Hamid Karzai is not that unusual leader; the United States and its NATO allies, however, might qualify as an external enemy.

The prospects in Pakistan are even more forbidding. Attacking Al Qaeda by breaching the Durand Line from Afghanistan only emphasizes the impotence of the Pakistani government and weakens its popular appeal among its own citizens. The United States wants simultaneously to encourage democracy in Pakistan and to hunt down Al Qaeda in the FATA. The two goals are in fact contradictory; the United States had better choose one or the other; pursuing both is likely to result in attaining neither.

How did we get into this terrible mess? The short answer is through inadequate thinking and inattention. Obama is right about taking the eye off the ball in 2001 when we might have destroyed Al Qaeda, nut after that failed, we quit thinking about what to do next. Instead, we kept doing the same things that have been failing in the hopes of different outcomes. We still are, and that is not a compliment to our sagacity.

U.S. policy suffers from two major shortcomings in Afghanistan. First, we really do not know what we want to accomplish (what are the objectives?). Beyond eradicating Al Qaeda, do we really care what happens there? Your answer can lead to very different conclusions and courses of action. Second, what CAN we accomplish? The lessons of history do not encourage military adventurism in Afghanistan by outsiders. Ask the British or the Russians, or scores of others before them. The retiring British commander in Afghanistan suggested we could be there another ten years. For what? 

Martin Ewans. Afghanistan: A Short History of Its People and Politics. New York: HarperCollins Perennial, 2002.

– “When Obama says Pock-i-stahn I have an uncontrollable urge to read the New Yorker and find some Chardonnay. Fortunately I have an old copy of NR and a Coors Light to snap me back to reality. Seriously though — no one in flyover country says Pock-i-stahn. It’s annoying.” [E-mail posted by Kathryn Jean Lopez]

– “Re Senator Obama’s ostentatiously exotic pronunciation of Pakistan, one thing I like about Sarah Palin is the way she says ‘Eye-raq’.” [Mark Steyn]

– “Most overwrought pronunciation of the night: The academic way that Obama says ‘Pakistan,’ with a soft ‘a’ - reminscent of a 1980s ‘Saturday Night Live’ sketch in which newscasters over-pronounced ‘Managua, Nicaragua.’” [Philadelphia Daily News]

– “Drinking Game: A shot every time the candidates pronounce ‘Pakistan’ or ‘Taliban’ in an annoying way?” [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Um, uh huh.  Yeah.  Correct pronunciation really bothers wingnuts, who revel in their petulant stupidity.  Meanwhile, wingnuts all get erections (even K-Lo...especially K-Lo) when John McCain says "General Petraeus."  Well, it seems that either some wingnuts' heads are going to explode, or they're just going to have to add another item to the long list of things-they-believe-that-are-contradictory-and-ridiculous:  David Petraeus pronounces "Pakistan" like Obama pronounces "Pakistan"!!!!

OH NO WHAT TO DO?!?!  I guess they'll have to stop supporting David Petraeus (or pretending to) because he's obviously IN TEH TANK!!!!!11!

Watch it:

Uhhh...uhhh...uh...ARUGULA SNIFFER!

Think Progress:

A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reportedly “warns that unresolved ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq could unleash a new wave of violence, potentially reversing the major security and political gains achieved over the last year.” McClatchy notes that the NIE’s findings “cast doubts on McCain’s frequent assertions that the United States is ‘on a path to victory” and instead echo Gen. David Petraeus, who has objected to using the word “victory” for war in Iraq.

See?  McCain lies about Petraeus, too.  As every major source has concluded, the drop in violence had to do with ethnic cleansing and separating the ethnic groups, yet none of the sectarian and ethnic problems were solved.  Basically, we're nearing the point where the band-aid is going to have to be changed, and we'll see what happens when it's ripped off.

Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee's advice to Mr. Zardari: Appoint a good Education Minister ASAP. At least we can ensure that our future leaders know how to spell correctly.

AhmedQuraishi.com REPORT

Thursday, 9 October 2008.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—So it turns out President Asif Ali Zardari did make the spelling mistake in the sentence 'May Goad [God] give us the strut [strength] to save Pakistan', which he wrote on Aug. 14 in Karachi at Quaid-e-Azam's Mausoleum.

It turns out President Zardari's men were ordered to remove the page from the Visitors' Book after the scandal broke out in the media when someone circulated the page copy online.

The President's media managers sprung into action and denied Mr. Zardari ever made those spelling errors. FIA's National Response Center for Cyber Crimes (NR3C), which is otherwise a very professional unit, was given the sloppy assignment of hunting down the person who distributed the email with presidential spelling errors. But, seizing the opportunity, the government decided to also hunt down those distributing harmless jokes on President Zardari through SMS text messages and personal emails.

The revelation that Mr. Zardari's spelling mistake is true and not a hoax comes in the latest column by Ardeshir Cowasjee, the granddaddy of Pakistani column-writing community. It turns out Mr. Cowasjee was one of the last people to actually visit the Mausoleum and take photocopies of the pages in the visitors' book on the day President Zardari and his entourage came down and jotted their impressions. Later, according to the veteran columnist, men apparently sent by the President came and tore away two pages from the book and made a new entry in Mr. Zardari's name where the spelling was correct.

Here's how Mr. Cowasjee describes it:

"Now, back to this September 12 when I went to the Mazar and asked the keepers to let me have photocopies of what had been written by the September 11 visiting 'dignitaries' in the visitors' book. I was given copies of remarks recorded by the president, the Sindh governor and the Sindh chief minister. Subsequently, on September 14, I wrote in my column: "Recorded by Asif, in illegible handwriting resembling that of a stressed physician, were the words "May Gaad [sic] give us the street [sic] to save Pakistan."

The internet then took over, and messages attaching a photocopy of what had been written were flashed around the world. The spooks sprang into action. They removed from the 100-page book the double-page on which Zardari's message and that of the Karachi station commander were recorded, leaving 98 pages in the book in which visitors will now record their views, and on a fresh page rewrote Zardari's message correcting the two misspelled words.

On September 26, on the back page of The Nation, a news item under the heading 'Zardari's misspelled remarks proved fabricated' reproduced images of the original page and the rewritten new page, informing readers that "Some hidden hands have sent an email … claiming that the President had misspelled the words God and strength. However a verification of this matter by The Nation revealed that the campaign was a venomous propaganda against President Zardari … It was distressing to note that a senior English-language columnist did not bother to verify the facts and added fuel to fire in his column while referring to this fabricated story."

This was picked up by APP and their report on the 'outrage' was printed on September 27 in The News under the heading 'Spokesman slams malicious campaign against Zardari' and in The Nation under the heading 'Propaganda against Zardari 'malicious'', both telling us that "The presidential spokesman has taken strong exception to a malicious campaign initiated by some anti-democratic elements to tarnish the image of President Asif Ali Zardari."

Not to be outdone, that same day an editorial in The Daily Times under the heading 'A shameful forgery' commented on the original Nation report of the 26th. It opened up: "The past week has seen a vicious electronic and press campaign maligning President Asif Ali Zardari through a forgery", and reproduced the comments about hidden hands and the columnist.

This was all very unnecessary and somewhat foolish to draw even more attention to the matter. The initial news report did no favour to the president, and neither did the amateur 'presidential spokesman' who would have done better to remain silent. Admitting that fuel had been added to fire indicates that indeed a fire burns (or even rages) when it comes to the matter of Zardari's image.

Unfortunately, for him and for us as a nation, his image has not been exactly shining since the early 1990s. Botheration and concern about his image is nothing new, but it has all been enhanced since the tragic assassination of his wife, his usurpation in her name of the largest (apart from the army) political party of this country, and his subsequent indirect election through the various assemblies and senate to the post of head of state.

The image took further hefty knocks when he decided to do his bit for his relationship with the US and attend the UNGA meeting and address it (Benazir's photo carried in and placed by him on the rostrum). His behaviour, as reported in our press and in the international press and as commented upon in detail by the American media, did little to enhance the image. So be it.

Now, what he should do is appoint a federal education minister in double-quick time so that the upcoming citizens and leaders of this country at least learn how to spell correctly."

Now that Mr. Cowasjee has settled the matter, it is important to mention why we are posting this report at AhmedQuraishi.com. Besides the very important issue of the quality of our 'leaders' and their spelling errors [Honestly, with far more serious flaws like corruption and ineptitude, we feel good spelling skills is the least of our politicians' troubles.] there is another more important issue regarding what President Zardari wrote in the book on that day.

A more urgent question is this: Why did the President, on Aug. 14 of all days, when someone like him is supposed to revive people's patriotism, chose the following nine words 'May God give us the strength to save Pakistan'?

Why was the president making such a dire indirect assessment on Pakistan's future on the day Pakistan gained Independence?

Yes we have problems, serious problems. But who said Pakistan is such a hopeless case that it needs someone like Mr. Zardari to 'save' it?

Frankly, if you Google this out, you will discover that the only other person who keeps warning us that Pakistan is 'threatened' in its 'existence' is Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the U.S. occupation army on our western border. His argument is that Pakistan will end if it does not allow U.S. military to enter Pakistan.

Why would a President say 'God help us save Pakistan' on our Independence Day?

Mr. Cowasjee's column appears in Dawn newspaper. He can be reached at arfc@cyber.net.pk

Alright, we're now starting.

Allen Shaffer: "What's the fastest solution to bail out" citizens, from economic turmoil?

Obama: We're in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and many of you are worried.  This is the final burden on the failed economic policies of the last 8 years.  McCain agreed with Bush, and stripped regulations, and now we're paying for it.  Step 1: Make sure last week's rescue package succeeds.  Come on Obama, it won't - the package sucked!  The focus group is liking this.  Step 2: Tax cuts for citizens.  Help people stay in their homes.  Help states create jobs.  Health care.  Have politicians thinking about middle class.  Women really loved him, and men were pretty high up there too.

McCain: Americans are angry and upset and fearful.  I have a plan to fix this problem: energy independence.  Don't send money to countries who don't like us.  "Let's not raise taxes on anybody--today."  What was that - what was that "today" - that sounded bad.  "We're gonna have to do something about home values."  People can't afford mortgage payments (well, that's mainly their fault).  Have government buy up bad mortgages so people can pay them off - come on McCain - that plan sucks.  People had been liking him a lot there (more men than women), but it dropped down a bit toward the end.

Brokaw: Who would you appoint to Treasury Secretary?

McCain: Not you Tom.

Brokaw: With good reason.

McCain: Somebody who people can connect with.  Meg Whitman - CEO of some company - oh - Ebay.

Obama: Warren Buffett would be a good person, but there are others as well.  McCain said, "The fundamentals of the economy are sound."  That's because they are.  The principles of our economy, and the American work ethic is sound.

Oliver Clark: How will the bailout bill help people?

McCain: "You described bailout, I believe it's rescue."  I left my campaign to go back to Washington to make sure that there were protections for the taxpayer - oversight and a way to pay back taxpayers.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are what lit this thing on fire, and many hadn't heard of them before this crisis.  Democrats in Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie did while they got money from the two.  Obamagot the second highest amount of money from Fannie and Freddie.  Fannie and Freddie started this forest fire.  And he's not doing to well with the focus group during that, although it came up toward the end.

Obama: Right now, the credit markets are frozen, so small businesses can't get loans, and can't make payroll, so they may have to lay people off.  "That's why we had to take action."  The biggest problem in this whole thing was the deregulation of the financial system.  I argued for more regulation, but nothing happened.  I never promotedFannie, but McCain's somebody on his campaign--was something with Fannie Mae (I didn't catch the whole statement).  The President has to make sure that the homeowners are protected.  He got pretty good ratings there.

Brokaw: Are you saying it'll get worse before it gets better?

Obama: No, I am confident in the American economy.  Isn't that what McCain said when he said the fundamentals are strong?  HYPOCRITE!  He got great ratings there.

McCain: It depends on what we do.  If we stabilize it and buy up bad loans, and get rid of special interests in Washington, we can fix our economy.  Our workers are the best in the world.  They're the fundamental aspect of our economy.  "We gotta give them a chance to do their best. ... They're the innocent bystanders of" this crisis.

Teresa Finch: "How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this global economic crisis?"

Obama: I understand your crisis and cynicism.  "You're right, there is a lot of blame to go around. ... But remember, when George Bush came into office, we had a surplus ... now we have a deficit."  We've almost doubled our deficit.  Nobody is completely innocent.  I'm going to spend money on key issues that we have to work on, health care and energy.  Ratings are really high here.  Invest in college affordability.  "I'm cutting more than I'm spending."  And men just plummeted in their ratings there.  And what exactly is he planning on cutting?

McCain: "The system in Washington is broken."  I've been a reformer and crossed the aisle, working with Senator Feingold on campaign finance reform.  "The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. ... Let's look at our records as well as our rhetoric."  Obama is proposing 860 billion dollars of new spending, and voted for every increase of spending that came across the floor.  He voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel spending, including a projector for a planetarium in Illinois.  We need to get Americans working again, and get more jobs for Americans.  We need nuclear power.  We need to stop depending on foreign oil.  Ratings were pretty bad there, but came up at the end.  McCain was right - Obama's earmarks are just atrocious.

Brokaw: Health care, energy, and entitlement reform - order of priorities?

McCain: Do all 3 at once.  We won't be able to provide same benefits for future retirees as we are able to today.  I've worked across the aisle.  We can work on nuclear power plants, create new jobs.  We need alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal.  Health care - everyone is struggling to make sure they can afford their premiums.  We can do these all at once, and we have to do them all at once.

Obama: Your list of priorities.  Energy, we have to deal with today.  Gas is expensive, and it may go up.  Some countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran are gaining from high oil prices.  In 10 years, we need to be free of foreign oil.  Just like Kennedy said we can go to the moon in 10 years, this can be done.  That was a great analogy!  I missed what he just said.  I want to go line-by-line and eliminate programs in the federal government, and eliminate programs that don't work, and make others cheaper.  Women are rating him really high now.  Money given to big oil companies, which McCain wants, takes money out of the system.  Don't mislead, Obama, he wants to give tax cuts to ALL companies, but that doesn't exclude oil companies.

Brokaw: What are you gonna ask Americans to sacrifice to get out of the depression?

McCain: Talking about defense contracts that were done corruptly.  Get rid of earmarks, and some of those are "good" projects, but they have to be eliminated still.  Except for Defense, Veterans Affairs, and other crucial programs, we will have to have a spending freeze.  Keep everything transparent.  Don't allow for the government to hide earmarks.

Obama: After September 11, everybody came together, and President Bush did some smart things at the outset.  We need leadership to focus on problems inside and outside of government.  We need to think about how we use energy - we need to tell oil companies to start drilling and invest in clean coal technology.  We need to think of ways that we can conserve energy, and provide incentives to buy American cars that are fuel efficient.  The young people of America want to serve, and we need to increase the Peace Corps.  Ratings were really high there, especially among women.

Brokaw: President Bush last summer said Wall Street got drunk.  Now many think that both Washington and consumers also got drunk.  How do you get people to reduce easy credit and overspending?

Obama: We have to cut spending and increase revenue.  There are $18 billion in earmarks, but McCain wants to give tax cuts to CEOs, and that's not sharing the burden.  Actually, it IS sharing the burden - it's sharing it equally.  All of us need to contribute and make sacrifices.  We don't need an across-the-board freeze.  That way, we only help those who need it.

McCain: Obama wants to raise taxes.  The last President who raised taxes during hard times was Herbert Hoover.  We've lost 700,000 jobs in America, but300,000 jobs have been created by small businesses.  Obama's tax increases will increase taxes on over 50% of small businesses, meaning that jobs will have to be cut.  Obama said he'd fore go his tax increases if the economy was bad.  The economy is bad.  I don't want to increase tax cuts.  I want to leave tax cuts alone, but give tax credits to people, and give credits for health care.  Let's get our economy going again.

Obama just tried to keep going and Brokaw shut him up!  YEAH!

Brokaw: Would you tell Congress to do something about Social Security and Medicare within 2 years?

Obama: We won't solve Social Security and Medicare without solving tax problems.  I want to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans.  THAT'S A LIE!  ONLY 90% of Americans even make enough money to PAY taxes!  We provide a 50% tax credit to small businesses to buy healthcare.  And the ratings are really high here, again, especially with women.  McCain wants to give tax cuts to large corporations and the rest going to CEOs.  "That is not fair, and it doesn't work."  If we reverse the policies of the last 8 years, then we can deal with Social Security and Medicare, because we'll have a health care plan that works for you.

McCain: "Hey, I'll answer the question."  It's not that tough to fix social security - we have to sit down and fix this together.  Reagan and Tip O'Neill sat down and worked together.  Have a commission come together withrecommendations.  Then have Congress vote up or down, and not fool with it.  Obama has voted to increase taxes and voted against tax cuts.  I have fought to reform government.  "We'll get our economy going again, and our best days are ahead of us."

Ingrid Jackson: Congress moved pretty fast with the economic crisis.  How would you make sure they move fast with environmental issues?

McCain: "When we have an issue that we may hand our children a damaged planet--I have disagreed strongly with the Bush Administration."  We brought this issue to the Senate.  We need nuclear power.  Nuclear power is safe and clean, and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.  My liberal roommate's getting mad that the focus group doesn't like this: "These voters suck."  And the ratings went up a bit at the end there.

Obama: "It is absolutely critical."  We need to create a new energy economy.  We need to understand that this is a national security issue.  I favor nuclear power as one component.  OK, the focus group does suck.  They're now rating him high, and he's saying basically what McCain said.  The focus group seems kinda biased.  McCain's problem withenergy is that he hasn't done anything with alternative fuels.  It's easy to talk about this stuff, but McCain hasn't done anything.  McCain talks about drilling, and that's important, but there's not enough here at home to "drill our way out of the problem."

Brokaw: Do we need a Manhattan-like project to deal with the energy crisis?

McCain: We need government involvement initially, and then once it's started, release it to the private sector.  Obama (this is where he said "that one") voted for a bill that Bush/Cheney backed with lots of money for oil companies, and I voted against it.

Lindsey Trella: Health care has become a profitable industry.  Should health care be treated as a commodity?

Obama: Health care is a very important issue.  Premiums have doubled over the last 8 years, and co-pays have increased as well.  We have a moral and economic imperative to do something about this.  Here's what I would do: you can keep your plan if you like it, and we'll work with your employer to lower your premiums.  We'll work on making forms electronic, instead of on paper.  You'll be able to have the same health care plan that Congress gets.  McCain has a different approach.  He'll give you a $5,000 tax credit, but then tax your employer health care benefits.  He'll then take out regulations that states have that make sure that you get certain things covered under your insurance.

McCain: You've identified one of the major challenges that America faces (directed to the audience member).  We need to impose efficiencies.  There's a fundamental difference between me and Obama.  Obama will pose mandates.  If you're a small business owner or parent, and you can't afford health care for your employees or children, Obama will fine you.  How does that help the situation?  He's ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!  How will that help you if you can't afford health care already?  95% of Americans will have increased funds to get health care under my plan, except the really rich people.

Brokaw: Is health care a privilege, right, or responsibility?

McCain: Responsibility.  The government shouldn't mandate that health care must be provided to all.  There shouldn't be fines for these companies or parents, and Obama hasn't said how much the fine is yet.

Obama: Right, for every American.  Talking about his mother dying at 53, and arguing with insurance companies.  He's really rating high right now.  If you have a plan that you like, you can keep it, I'll just help lower the premium.  Small businesses won't have a mandate, they'll get a 50% tax credit.  We don't want kids going to ERs for treatable illnesses like asthma.  McCain voted against (something dealing with children and health care).  Crack down on insurance companies cheating their companies.  The problem with going across state lines is that companies will go to states that have laxed laws and cheat their customers, like banks do in Delaware.  DID HE JUST USE HIS RUNNING MATE'S STATE AS A BAD EXAMPLE!!!

Phil Elliot: How will our economic distress affect our position in the standing of the world militarily?

McCain: Much of the criticism of our foreign policy is justified.  We are peace makers and keepers.  We need to know when to go in and when not.  That question can only be answered by someone who understands these things.  We need to prevent the spread of genocide.  He's rating really high here.  My opposition to sending Marines to Lebanon, and my stance on Bosnia, Russia, and others show that I understand these things.  Obama has been on the wrong side of some of these issues.

Obama: I don't understand how we invaded Iraq when bin Laden is still free.  McCain said that Iraq would be quick and easy.  We're spending money in Iraq when Iraq has a surplus.  We need that money more than them, and they have a surplus.  We are the greatest nation in the world, but we can't maintain our military superiority if our economy continues to decline.  He is right about that.  We need to fundamentally change our foreign policy.

Brokaw: Let's establish doctrines for using force when national security isn't at stake, but in humanitarian issues?

Obama: Would've stopped Rwanda and the Holocaust.  When we stand idly by as genocide occurs, that diminishes us.  We should intervene when possible, but we can't be everywhere all the time.  We need to work in concert with our allies, such as in Darfur.  We need to lead the international community.

McCain: If we had withdrawn from Iraq when Obama wanted to, it would have been a travesty.  Genocide is terrible, and we never want it to happen again.  We need a person who understands the limits of our capabilities.  We went into Somalia being peace makers, but had to withdraw in humiliation.  I stood up against Reagan with Lebanon.  We have to be able to beneficially affect the situation, realizing that we're sending Americans into harm's way.  I won't make these decisions lightly.  We can't have another Holocaust or Rwanda, but we can't make the situation worse.

Katie Hamm: Should we respect Pakistani sovereignty and allow terrorists to stay there or invade like we did with Cambodia during Vietnam?

Obama: We got distracted from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and went to Iraq.  They're now stronger now than any time since 2001.  They're plotting to kill Americans right now.  We need to end the war in Iraq, put troops into Afghanistan, eliminate drug trafficking, and change policies with Pakistan.  We need to encourage democracy, and if we have bin Laden in our sights, and Pakistan won't or can't take him out, we will take him out.  That's our number 1 national security priority.

McCain: Obamawants to announce when we're going to attack Pakistan.  It'll turn public opinion against us.  We drove Russians out of Afghanistan with Afghani freedom fighters, and that led to bin Laden coming to power.  General Petraeushad a strategy of getting the support of the Pakistani people, and working with them to get Al Qaeda.  Don't threaten to attack them, but talk with them.

Obama: Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan, but to strike inside of Pakistan if bin Laden is available to be taken out.  And I agree with Obama here on this one.  McCain IS twisting his words, and not taking bin Laden out when Clinton happened is one of the things that led to September 11th.  Pakistan was not promoting democracy, and it undermined our fight on the war on terrorism.

McCain: I have supported efforts that the U.S. had to go in militarily, but opposed it when it wasn't necessary.  I was joking with a veteran about Iran (Obama used McCains "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" quote).  I will act responsibly as I have through my military career.

Brokaw: In Afghanistan, the senior British Commander has said that we're failing in Afghanistan.  The Afghans need to take over.  We need an acceptable dictator.  What's your opinion?

Obama: We need to withdraw from Iraq responsibly, and make the Iraqis take control so that we can put more troops into Afghanistan.

McCain: The same overall strategies between Afghansitan and Iraq are the same.  We need more troops, like Obama is saying.  Obama still won't admit that the surge worked, and that's the same strategy that we will need in Afghanistan.  Once they feel secure, they can lead normal lives, the same thing that's happening in Iraq today.  And he's absolutely right here.

Brokaw: How can we get Russia to behave better without starting another Cold War?

McCain: We won't have another Cold War.  I warned about Vladimir Putin a long time ago - I saw a "K," a "G," and a "B."  He was wrong with Georgia.  Ukraine is in Russia's sights now (it's in the sights of the Somalians too - that whole pirate thing is just weird).  We need to talk, such as in the G8 summits.  Russia must realize that this is not acceptable, and we need economic and diplomatic means to show that that this is not acceptable.  Really high ratings there, and he's absolutely right.

Obama: Russia will be an issue that we'll have to deal within the next 4 years.  I agree with Senator McCain on most of that.  We can't just have diplomacy.  We need to support, financially, former U.S.S.R. countries, such as Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, etc.  Georgia is suffering, and that's probably what Putin wanted to happen.  Russia was trying to obtain territories, and this is unacceptable.  We need to be proactive, not reactive.  He is right here - we have to be a step or 2 ahead of Russia.  Energy will be key in dealing with Russia, that's one of the things that happened in Georgia's situation.

Brokaw: Is Russia under Putin an evil empire?

Obama: No, but their actions are sometimes.

McCain: If I say yes, it reignites the Cold War.  If I say no, it seems like I'm ignoring it.  Energy is a key issue.  My liberal roommate just said that both want to say yes, but it'd be political suicide to do so.

Terry Shirey: If McCain attacks Israel, would you send troops or wait for UN Security Council approval?

McCain: We wouldn't wait, because Russia and China would pose obstacles to sending troops.  Iran with nukes is a threat to the stability of the Middle East - other countries would acquire nukes.  Obama would meet with them without preconditions.  I would impose tough sanctions, and we can abridge their behavior, and hopefully they'll abandon this quest for nukes.  We can never allow a second Holocaust to take place.

Obama: We cannot a nuclear Iran.  "It would be a game changer in the region."  It would threaten Israel - one of our strongest allies.  As well, it would lead to nukes in the hands of terrorists.  I will never take military action off the table.  If we can work more effectively with more other countries to tighten sanctions, we should.  He's getting rated higher, but said the same things as McCain - the focus group is biased folks.  Neither of them answered the question about if Iran ATTACKED Israel.  When we stopped talkingwith Iran, their nuclear pursuance increased, as did North Korea's when we stopped talking.

Brokaw: What don't you know, and how will you learn it?

Obama: It's the challenges that we don't expect that consume most of our time.  I wouldn't be standing here if my country hadn't given me great opportunity.  The question in this election is will we pass on this same American dream?  That dream has diminished - people are losing health care and going bankrupt.  Kids can't afford college.  We can't keep doing the same for the next 8 years.  We need fundamental change.  Really good ratings there!

McCain: I think what I don't know is what's gonna happen both here at home and overseas.  What I don't know is what the expected will be.  I know what it's like in dark times.  I know what it's like to fight and hope through dark times.  "I know what it's like to have your comrades and neighbors reach out to you and put you back in the fight.  That's what America's all about."  It's been my privilege to serve this country, and I'm asking for an opportunity to serve you more.  I've always put my country first.  Good ratings at the end, but not as good as Obama's.

Brokaw, thank you... "You're in the way of my script."  Thank you, and goodnight from Nashville.

Alright, overall, I thnk that both candidates performed pretty poorly.  Overall, I can't really pick a winner.  I hate doing this again, like I did after the last debate, but I'm going to have to call this one a tie.  McCain wasn't as strong on foreign policy as he could've been (and that's his strong point).  On economic issues, he had some good plans but he didn't seem to appeal to the average Joe citizens.  The media has been commenting on McCain calling Obama "That one" when he was talking about Obama voting for money given to oil companies (and I've put it in italics in the text above).  Apparently it caught some people as awkward.  The consensus on CNN was that it was intended as "that one" versus "this one" (meaning "me" from McCain's stand point).  Sure it was maybe bad wording, but I don't think it was anything to get worked up about (and again, my liberal roommate agrees here).  Look, politicians use poor choices of words all the time.  I'm not saying McCain should've said it, but it's nothing that people need to complain about.

Also, Obama seemed to get a little overconfident at the end, and he was stuttery at times.

Both candidates wanted to violate the rules of the debate, and just keep talking.  I think Brokaw needed to do a better job of moderating.  Instead of just saying, "You didn't stop when the red light turned on," he should've said, "Your time is up."

At some points, some of McCain's humor was just sucky (kinda like my fathers at times - he'll tell these lame jokes when he's doing announcements at church that he's got this reputation, and people just kinda laugh to humor him, and the fact that he's tried to tell a joke becomes the joke - it's not always a bad thing, but it was with McCain).

Again, I do think that this was a tie, and this was one that McCain could not afford to lose.  McCain is going to need a couple small miracles to actually come back from where he's at now.  I'm not giving up hope, but it's definitely Obama's race to lose at this point.

CNN just released a poll - Obama gained favoribility and lost unfavorability, but McCain stayed the same on both.  Overall, those polled thought Obama won (56%-30%).

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

The candidates are in agreement on two matters. The first is that the effort is important because of the terrorism problem, although Obama tends to place more emphasis on this theater because it drives home his point that Iraq diverted attention from this more impotant problem. They also both agree that at least part of the solution is more American troops to Afghanistan.

They disagree on other aspects of the issue, and their positions are more problematical than is typically discussed.

McCain argues that the United States can prevail in Afghanistan because in a McCain administration, the emphasis would be on transferring the Petraeus "doctrine" of cointerinsurgency (COIN) to Afghanistan. This formulation is questionable on at least three grounds.

First, it assumes the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are similar enough that what worked in one would also work in the other. Aside from both being in the same general part of the world, that is an assumption for which the supporting evidence is less than overwhelming. Iraq, in other words, probably is NOT Pakistan (more in a subsequent posting). Second, it assumes that the COIN strategy with which Patraeus' name is attached is a balm for the current problem in Afghanistan. One can argue that other factors, not COIN, have improved the situation in Iraq. Effective COIN (in those cases where it works) requires huge numbers of forces to protect a population being pacified and coverted to the cointerinsurgents' cause. Even then, the outcome is not assured. The necessary levels of force are unlikely ever to be available for textbook COIN in Afghanistan. The analogy fails.

Third, in present circumstances, General Petraeus, McCain's man on the white horse, does not even have operational control or responsibility for Afghanistan. NATO is (largely at American prodding) a NATO operation, and General David McKiernan (or is it McClellan?) does not report to CENTCOM commander Petraeus, but to NATO. The United States has recently called for a reorganization of the NATO effort to put the Americans under CENTCOM, but that has not happened and is opposed by many in NATO (see Sengupta article). Before McCain can even try his proposed strategy in Afghanistan, he will have to negotiate a change in the NATO command structure in Afghanistan, a move that could easily create as many problems as it solves.

The Obama approach is also not without controversy. The heart of Obama's message is that the United States erred in diverting is efforts to stomp out Al Qaeda by going into Iraq and that once the Iraqi diversion is over, it can successfully reorient itself to Afghanistan. To his credit (or is it the Biden touch?), he has admitted that much of the reorientation must be improved political relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan lubricated by significant amounts of developmental assistance to improve conditions on the ground as a way to compete for the "hearts and minds" of the mostly Pashtun population (which forms the base of the Taliban) along the border area between the two where Al Qaeda is encamped.

The Obama approach is also subject to questions. First, it has been elusive about what exactly constitutes success in Afghanistan (McCain hasn't said either): how will we know we've won? Second, Afghan history does not encourage the use of military force/occupation as a successful strategy against the Afghans--ask a long history of invaders of that land. Third, he has not explained how the United States, in its contemporary economic situation, is going to find the money to pay for all the economic assisance that is supposed to "buy" support for the Karzai regime (or, for that matter, how to avoid the Afghan government from stealing most of it). Can money "buy you love", in the words of an old Beatles song.

Nobody is questioning the candidates closely on Afghanistan now, because it does not seem terribly critical to the election. Afghanistan policy is, however, going to be sitting near the top of the in-box for the new president in January, and it is a policy area with all the potential corrosiveness of Iraq or even Vietnam. What the candidates think and say now could come home to bite them in the future.

Kim Sengupta, "US Seeking Sole Command of NATO's War against the Taliban." Independent.co.uk, September 18,2008.

Robert Fisk’s World: When it comes to Palestine and Israel, the US simply doesn't get it

Biden and Palin hid like rabbits from the centre of the Middle East earthquake

Saturday, 4 October 2008

Palestinians ceased to exist in the United States on Thursday night. Both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin managed to avoid the use of that poisonous word. "Palestine" and "Palestinians" – that most cancerous, slippery, dangerous concept – simply did not exist in the vice-presidential debate. The phrase "Israeli occupation" was mercifully left unused. Neither the words "Jewish colony" nor "Jewish settlement" – not even that cowardly old get-out clause of American journalism, "Jewish neighbourhood" – got a look-in. Nope.

Those bold contenders of the US vice-presidency, so keen to prove their mettle when it comes to "defence", hid like rabbits from the epicentre of the Middle East earthquake: the existence of a Palestinian people. Sure, there was talk of a "two-state" solution, but it would have mystified anyone who didn't understand the region.

There was even a Biden jibe at George Bush for pressing on with "elections" – again, the adjective "Palestinian" went missing – that produced a Hamas victory. But Hamas appeared to exist in never-never land, a vast landscape that gradually encompassed all the vast and black deserts that stretch, in the imagination of US politicians, from the Mediterranean to Pakistan.

"Pakistan's (nuclear) missiles can already hit Israel," Biden thundered. But what was he talking about? Pakistan has not threatened Israel. It's supposed to be on our side. Both vice-presidential candidates seemed to think that our ally in the "war on terror" was now turning into an ally of the axis of evil. Even Islam didn't get a run for its money.

Indeed, one of the funniest reports of the week, yet another investigation of Obama's education, came from the Associated Press news agency. The would-be president, the Associated Press announced, had attended a Muslim school but hadn't "practised" Islam.

What on earth did this mean, I asked myself? Would AP have reported, for example, that McCain had attended a Christian school but hadn't "practised" Christianity? Then I got it. Obama had smoked Islam but he hadn't inhaled!

Travelling across the US this week – from Seattle to Houston to Washington and then to New York – I kept bumping into the results of America's White House-induced terror. A well-educated, upper-middle-class lady at a lunch turned to me and expressed her fear that Islam "wanted to take over America". When I suggested that this was pushing things a bit, she informed me that "the Muslims have already taken over France".

How does one reply to this? It's a bit like being informed by a perfectly sane and rational person that Martians have just landed in Tennessee. So I used the old Fisk trick when confronted by ravers of the "admit George Bush did 9/11" school. I looked at my watch, adopted a shocked expression and shouted: "Gotta go!"

But seriously. There was Biden on Thursday night, telling us that along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan – he was referring, of course, to the old frontier drawn by Sir Mortimer Durrand which most Pushtuns (and thus all Taliban) regard as fictional – "there have been 7,000 madrassas built ... and that's where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually (sic) intelligence".

Seven thousand? Where on earth does this figure come from? Yes, there are thousands of religious schools in Pakistan – but they're not all on the border. In another extraordinary bit of myth-making, Obama's man told us that "we kicked the Hizbollah out of Lebanon" – which is totally untrue.

And, of course, Israel – a word that must be uttered, repeatedly, by all US candidates – became the compass point of the entire Middle East, this "peace-seeking nation ... our strongest and best ally in the Middle East" (quoth Palin) of whom "no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend...than Joe Biden" (quoth Biden).

Israel was "in jeopardy" if America talked to Iran, Palin revealed. "We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust." Thus was the corpse of Hitler dug up yet again – just as McCain resurrected the shadow of the Second World War last week when he blathered on about Eisenhower's sense of responsibility before D-Day. That Israel can quite adequately defend herself with 264 nuclear warheads went, of course, unmentioned, because acknowledging Israel's real power undermines the image of a small and vulnerable country relying on America for its defence.

Israelis deserve security. But where were the promises of security for Palestinians? Or the sympathy which Americans would immediately grant any other occupied people? Absent, needless to say. For we must gird ourselves for the next struggle against world evil in Pakistan.

Biden actually demanded a "stable" government in Islamabad, which was a little bit hypocritical only a few days after US troops had crossed its sovereign border to shoot up a Pakistani house allegedly used by the Taliban. As General David Petraeus told The New York Times this week, "The trends in Afghanistan have been in the wrong direction ... wresting control of certain areas from the Taliban will be very difficult."

It's an odd situation. Obama and Biden want to close down Iraq and re-conquer Afghanistan. The Palin College of Clichés characterised this as "a white flag of surrender in Iraq" while continuing to warn of the dangers of Iran, the name of whose loony president – Ahmadinejad – defeated McCain three times in last week's pseudo-debate.

But it's the same old story. All we have learned in America these past two weeks, to quote Joan Littlewood's Oh! What a Lovely War, is that the war goes on.

Palin wasn't answering the questions. She would give an anecdote, a catchphrase, or a canned response after each question in order to burn up about 3/4 of her allotted response time without actually having to discuss the issue.

Joe was great. Rare form. His repeating lines several times forcefully is going to subconsciously burn them into the voters' memories. Whether that was tested, or Joe's renowned debate skill, it was effective.

Someone should tell Sarah that the commander of troops in Afghanistan is General McKiernan, not general McClellan. Brandon Friedman has the money quote on that:

If you're going to accuse your opponent of waving the "white flag of surrender" in front of the entire country, then you had better damn well be able to back it up with foreign policy expertise. And, as expected, Palin fell far short of that mark. Instead, we were treated to more of the same clueless carelessness that has marked the last eight years of the Bush administration.

This is a woman who can accuse her opponents of cowardice, but at the same time, can't be bothered to learn the name of America's commander in Afghanistan. It's remarkably sad, and it's an insult to the troops serving there. Likewise, it denotes that same aloofness--that all-too-familiar lack of curiosity and concern for what's actually occurring on the ground in both theaters. And for those of us who've served overseas under the leadership of George W. Bush, it's a feeling we know well.

By the way, it seemed pretty clear that the "white flag" moment was off message for Palin. She stared at her notes blankly for a good period of time before looking up and stammering through it. Even if it was off message, it would have played better had she said it with confidence, rather than like a son telling his Dad about his first speeding ticket.

Oh, and Sarah Palin is a liar. Obama voted to cut off funding for troops? Please. Petraeus saying Iraq is the central front in the war on terror? False.

Joe is definitely a better debater than Barack. I wish we could see more of him.

That's all I got. What are your thoughts?

OK - now we're about to start.

Ifill: Talking about the Senate bill.  "Was this the worst of Washington, or the best of Washington?"

Biden: Neither.  The economic policies of the last 8 years were the worst part.  Obama laid out rescue plan: Oversight, "focus on homeowners and folks on mainstreet, treat taxpayers like investors, and lastly, make sure CEOs don't benefit."  "We will fundamentally change the ... economic policy."

Palin: "Our economy is hurting, and the government has not provided the sound oversight that we need and deserve."  Women undecided voters in Ohio (the group they're surveyin is Undecideds in Ohio) arereally liking her, now she's mentioning McCain, and she's dropped a bit - talking about his  policy will accomplish what we need.

Biden: Talking about McCain saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" - well he was talking about the PRINCIPLES of CAPITALISM and the American workers, not the details of our current economy!  Women, liking Biden more than men, a trend that seems to carry no matter who's talking.

Palin: Basically correcting Biden's statement about McCain, saying what I said.  Americans are craving reform.  Men had liked her more, then women climbed back on top.

Ifill: Subprime lending meltdown.  Who was at fault?  Lenders or buyers?

Palin: "Darn right it was the ... lenders."  And the women are as HIGH as they can go on  the chart - wow.  Talking about not living outside of our means, that we do need to take responsibility - and both categories are as high as they can go.  Basically saying that this isn't the people's fault, but that we can learn a lesson from it, and take steps to insure that we don't live above our means.

Biden: Saying McCain let Wall Street run wild.  That his stances for deregulation were bad, and Wall Street can't regulate itself.  Well, it can and should, Mr. Biden.  Saying that McCain wants to deregulate the health care industry.  I got interrupted there - lost what Biden said.  I did notice the chart, women liking him more than men, but not as high as Palin.

Palin: OK, I'm back - something about tax reduction and letting private sector keep more of what we produce.  We need tax relief.  Undecided Ohio voters are loving her.

Biden: Palin lied: Obama didn't raise taxes.  Saying that Palin didn't answer the question about deregulation.  Saying that McCain DID pursue deregulation.

Palin: Wants to correct Biden's misstatements on taxes first.  Now talking about what she did in Alaska for taxes.  Now on to talking about McCain pushing for more regulations: citing tobacco and campaign finances.

Ifill: Time is up.  Next question: Tax benefits on health care.

Biden: "The middle class is struggling."  He's right - middle class families are struggling, and the voters understand this and are agreeing with him.  He's hitting it home here, and the focus group is liking it, women more than men.  Saying that Obama will cut taxes for people under $200,000.  Talking about McCain wanting to raise taxes, but as soon as he went negative, his ratings went down, now back up.  But Biden did hit it home to the average Joe voters - it was good for Obama.

Palin: Talking about Biden saying that paying higher taxes is patriotic, and that she disagrees, coming from the middle class.  Saying that private sector and  families should grow, thrive, and prosper.  Talking about Obama's spending being "the backwards way in growing the economy."  Talking about McCain's health care plan: $5,000 tax credit - "that's budget neutral," unlike Obama's plan which will cost the government money.  Her ratings aren't doing too well right now.  Saying that McCain will promote crossing state lines to purchase plans - and that'll increase competition.

Biden: Talking about not redistributing money to big businesses.  Talking about health care - he's kinda stuttering and bumbling around during this part.  He's talking about health care, specifically McCain taxing health care benefits, which will have money going to insurance companies.  Having to replace a $12,000 plan with $5,000 because 20 million people will be dropped.  "The ultimate bridge to nowhere."  Good quote - the focus group didn't like it, but I thought it was clever.

Biden: talking about tax cuts, and not going through with the Bush tax cuts.  Not gonna support tax cuts for corporate wealthy.  Not gonna support tax cuts for Exxon/Mobil.  Saying we can't slow up on education.  And  the women are  rating him as high as they can right now, but men putting him at neutral now.  Saying he and Obama will eliminate wasteful spending, one which is a tax dodge by putting their post office box off shore.

Palin: "McCain doesn't tell 1 thing to 1 group" and something else to another group.  Talking about the energy plan: Obama voted for a plan that gave oil companies big tax breaks.  Saying that she took on those oil companies.  They were doing what they need to do, but they're not her biggest fans, because she broke up monopolies, and she was at a neutral rating all through that, but is now a little bit positive.  Reemphasizing that Obama voted FOR that energy plan.  Saying that her area of expertise is energy.  Saying that she'll do what is right for the American people, and stop greed on Wall Street, and that the rescue plan needs oversight.  She dipped pretty negative there, but balanced it out at the end.

Biden: Talking about Obama voting for the bill.  Saying it was the first bill that really allowed for alternate energy.  Why is McCain adding tax cuts for oil companies? (he asked).  Saying that we should be able to give back money to everybody just like Palin did in Alaska, but under McCain's plan, it'll all go to companies.  Saying he hopes Palin will convince McCain to support windfall tax, like Palin supported in the past.

Ifill: Something about economy and something about debt - I didn't hear exactly what it was.

Palin: We need to be appreciative of McCain's call for reform.  And emphasizing reform is a very good strategy for her (and Biden) in this debate.  Put politics and campaign aside and fix this "toxic mess on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street" (I think she switched the 2 of those up).

Biden: Saying that McCain and Palin don't support certain ways to help the people through one of the bailout bills, I missed the specifics - women liked him, men didn't.

Palin: Talking about doing all we can do to become energy independent.  She dropped really low, and is coming back now, talking about having to rely on foreign countries, instead of "dollars circulating here creating 10s of 1,000s of jobs. ... Energy independence is the key to this nation's future."  Talking about not giving oil company tax breaks.  She rose pretty high there, but dropped down at the end.

Ifill: What's true and false about climate change.

Palin: Talking about Alaska often changed by climate, since it's an arctic state.  Some of it's human-caused, others of it is cyclical.  Doesn't want to argue about causes, but wants to discuss how we'll clean up the planet.  That's a great answer - and she's right.  Who cares HOW we got here, as long as we know HOW to fix it!  We need an all of the above approach to tap into energy as well as conserving fuel - and she got pretty high ratings there.

Biden: "I think it's clearly man-made."  And he dropped down a bit there.  Saying that we can't get a solution unless we know the cause.  Well, Mr. Biden, even the National Climatic Data Center doesn't know the cause, and it's their job to figure these things out.  Talking about ways to stop greenhouse gases from being emitted.  Saying that China is building new dirty coal plants weekly - we need to export technology to help them and their environment.  Saying McCain voted against alternative energy 20 times.  Biden got some pretty good ratings there.

Palin: McCain supports caps on drilling.  Saying that we need to tap into oil, and that's what the people want.  She gave the "Drill baby, drill!" quote and that dropped her pretty bad.  Saying that Biden called drilling "raping" the continental shelf.  Saying that we need an all of the above approach.  Saying that Biden didn't support clean coal, saying that he said there's no such thing as clean coal.

Biden: Saying that the comment was taken out of context, and that he's supported clean coal for 25 years.  If the only answer you have is oil, and not everything, how will that help?

Ifill: Do you support, as they do in Alaska, benefits to gay couples?

Biden: Absolutely.  In our administration, there will be no difference between gay and straight couples.  And  here's where I disagree - it's a states' rights issue.  He brought up visitation in hospitals, and I do agree there.  Although he's remaining barely above neutral ratings.

Palin: I wouldn't do it if it redefined marriage, but I will be tolerant.  Saying that she has a diverse group of family and friends - I can't tell if she's implying gay friends?  Saying that McCain wouldn't ban visitation rights, but supports defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.  She did pretty good in ratings.

Biden: Neithe me nor Obama want to redefine marriage.  That's a decision to be left by the faith institutes.  Saying that Palin doesn't want differences in rights, so they're on the same page.

Palin: Says that she doesn't want to redefine marriage, so they agree.

Ifill: On Iraq - exit strategy.

Palin: Saying that we have a good plan, and that the surge worked, is working, and  Obama shouldn't have voted against troop funding, and she's glad that Biden stood up to him on that.  Saying that we can start putting more troops in Afghanistan.  She's rating right around neutral right now.  Saying that we're getting closer and closer to victory, and it'd be a travesty if we quit in Iraq.

Biden: I didn't hear a plan.  Outlining Obama's plan: Train the Iraqis.  McCain voted the same way in no funding for troops.  Said he won't fund them with a timeline.  He's rating pretty decent now.  Although he dropped a bit with women when he attacked McCain.  Saying it's time Iraqis spend their own money, and he's now maxed out at the women's rating and is almost there with men.  "For John McCain, there's no end in sight to end this war."

Palin: "Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq" and thats' not what our troops needed.  The surge worked, and Obama can't admit that.  Saying that Biden would've been on McCain's ticket because he supported McCain's stance on Iraq, and that he flip flopped when Obama picked him.  Saying Obama voted against troop funding.

Biden: Saying McCain voted against funding for troops.  Voted against it because it had a timeline in it to end the war.  Saying McCain has been dead wrong on fundamental issues on the Iraq War.  "There are the facts."  He got pretty good ratings back there.

Ifill: Which is more dangerous: nuclear Iran or unstable Pakistan?

Biden: Pakistan already has nukes.  Could hit Israel.  Iran is not close to getting nukes, so both are very dangerous.  Saying that John still thinks that the battlefront on terrorism is in Iraq.  Ratings are really high, especially among women - he's doing pretty good here.  Saying that we need to help them build schools (in Pakistan) and that's where bin Laden lives.  We need to go after him.

Palin: Saying that both Petraeus and Al Qaeda said that the central battlefront was Iraq.  The only thing they agreed on.  Saying that Ahmadinejad is unstable (quoted him on Israel).  Talking about Obama meeting with nations without preconditions, showing naivety on Obama's part.  And her ratings went from pretty good to neutral.

Ifill: Secretaries of State have advocated talking.  Are they wrong?

Palin: No.  We need diplomacy, but with dictators who hurt America cannot be met with just sitting down on a Presidential level like Obama said he'd do.  "Diplomacy is hard work by many people."

Biden: That's not true.  He didn't say sit down with Ahmadinejad.  It surprises me that McCain doesn't know that he doesn't control the security apparatus of Iran.  Saying that McCain and Palin said they have passion for diplomacy, and we need talks with our friends and allies, yet our allies said, "Sit down and talk," but we didn't.  Rating pretty good there.  McCain said he wouldn't sit down with Spain, a NATO ally who has troops in Afghanistan.  "I find that incredible."  Rating great there - and yeah, that was a really dumb moment by McCain.

Palin: Forging peace will be top of McCain/Palin agenda.  We will never allow a second Holocaust, even if that's what Iran warns of.  Saying we need more peace, but we need commitment, and we'll give that commitment.  Great ratings there.

Biden: "Nobody has been a friend to Israel in the Senate as much as Joe Biden."  What about Bernie Sanders?  I'm just assuming that since he's Jewish he supports Israel, but I could be wrong.  Talking about Hezbollah and that they're a legitimate part of the government of Lebanon.  We will change this policy, and stand with Israel, not insist that policies are past.  Rating great there.

Palin: Saying that she's glad Biden cares so much about Israel.  Saying that we can't keep finger pointing at Bush (like Biden just did - I left that out when I typed above).  Put partisanships aside - he's known as the Maverick.  It's good that she's bringing that up.

Biden: How different will McCain's policy be different than Bush's?  He hasn't heard how it's different.  On Israel, Iran, Pakistan.

Ifill: What should be the trigger when nuclear weapons use is put into play?

Palin: Dangerous regimes cannot be allowed to get nukes.  "Period."  Saying we need sanctions on nations like North Korea.  On Afghanistan, McCain's stance is different than Bush's - McCain will use surge principles, just like we did in Iraq, and it worked.  Saying we're fighting terrorists and securing democracy and building schools.

Biden: On Afghanistan--commanding general said that the surge principle will not work in Afghanistan.  And Biden's ratings are pretty good now.  Spent more in 3 week on Iraq than 6 1/2 years in Afghanistan.  Ratings are pretty good there.  Saying that McCain hasn't supported nuclear test ban treaties.

Palin: Saying that the general didn't say that the surge principles wouldn't work.

Biden: Saying that the general DID say that.  Obama, Hagel, Biden, and Lugar have called for more money in Afghanistan.  McCain said we had already succeeded in Afghanistan.  We need to spend more in Afghanistan than on Iraq.

Ifill: Biden, you've had an interventionist stance.  Should America continue this?

Biden: It worked in Bosnia (this is something Ifill brought up), and he supported it and was the first for it.  On Iraq, he voted to let us go to war, but opposes it.  We needed to have our allies with us.  In Darfur, we cannot allow for the genocide - we need to provide helicopters.  And the ratings skyrocketed.

Palin: Saying that she must be a Washington outsider, since she doesn't get why he switched his views, and compared him to Kerry.  Saying that he opposed Obama's strategy and now is for it.  We can agree on Darfur, specifically the no-fly zone.  And her ratings are going up decently.  Talking about not using money that would look like we will allow travesties in Darfur.

Ifill: When is the line to be drawn to go to War?

Biden: Can we afford it?  When a country engages in genocide / terrorism, that country forfeits their right to say that we can't intervene.  Saying that he predicted Sunni/Shia conflicts.

Palin: I disagree with you on whose strategy you supported.  John Mccain has faced challenges and knows what evil is, and will know how to implement commanders, and will know how to win a war.

Ifill: If the worst were to happen, how would a Biden administration differ from an Obama administration?

Biden: I'd carry out policies - accurate health care, an energy policy that creates new jobs.  A foreign policy that gives power to Iraq.  Reject the Bush doctrine.  He's rating as high as he can among womenn, and VERY good among men.  It's the most important election you'll have voted in since 1932.  I agree with Obama on every major suggestion.

Palin: Talking about disagreeing on drilling in ANWR, continue good work he started - getting rid of greed in Washington and Wall Street.  The money needs to be put to the average family.  And her ratings are skyrocketing - maxed out for women, very high for men.  Talking about Obama's plan being bad for our economy.

Biden: Saying that it's been Bush's economic policy that hurt us.  Saying that McCain says he's different, but he really isn't.  "The middle class has gotten the short end."  Very good ratings.

Palin: Saying that teachers need more pay.  We need better education.  Her ratings are doing pretty good.  Education in America is just accepted to be a little bit laxed, and that's unacceptable.  We need to reform No Child Left Behind.  Very high  ratings among women and pretty good for men.

Ifill: What does the Vice Presidency do?

Palin: Talked about her saying a lame joke, "and yours must've been a lame joke too because nobody got it."  Pretty funny.  Talking about presiding over the Senate.  Saying "McCain has tapped me and that's where he wants me" - dealing with special needs children - might've been education, I missed part of it.

Biden: "I would be the point person for legislative initiatives."  Saying that he'll give Obama his best advice.  Sahying that he won't be afraid to tell Obama if he disagrees.  Pretty good ratings.  And he's showing himself being somewhat of a Maverick or independent, and willing to disagree with HIS president.

Ifill: Opinion of Cheney's Vice Presidency.

Palin: Talking about doing best for the American people in cooperating with the President's agenda, and that there's a lot of flexibility.  Talking about her executive experience, and those years will be put to good use.

Biden: It's been the most dangerous we've had.  Only preside over Senate when there's a tie vote.  Give President advice.  His ratings are VERY high right now.  Criticizing Cheney's defining the VP as a legislative job.

Ifill: What are your Achilles heels?

Palin: Responding to Ifill (who asked if it was her experience).  I was experienced in being a governor and mayor, and I'm tapped into average families.  Talking about standing for tolerance, freedom, and equal rights.  Combine that with being a team of reform and it's a good ticket.  Pretty good ratings.

Biden: Responding to it being his lack of discipline.  I'll place my record against McCain's.  Talking about crime bills.  Talking about it knowing what it's like to be a single parent.  Saying that he's much better off than many Americans now, but the notion that because he's a man, he doesn't know how to raise to kids alone.  And he's getting emotional here - and it is really appealing to the focus group - that was Biden's best moment right there - and it was a GENUINE moment.  It's going to be hard for Palin to make any comeback from that without looking bad.

Palin: Americans aren't looking for more of the same.  Talking about John McCain's Maverick position.  And she's not doing well with the focus group, just as I predicted.  Talking about not allowing Wall Street greed, and now she's picking up ratings.  "Change is coming and John McCain" will bring reform.

Biden: McCain is not a Maverick - he voted for Bush's budget.  He voted against putting children into health care coverage.  Not a Maverick on education, on the war, on virtually anything that affects the average people.  He's rating pretty high.  "Maverick he is not on the important issues that affect people at the kitchen table."

Ifill: Single issue where you had to change a long-held view to accommodate circumstances.

Biden: Yes, the only thing that mattered for a judicial nominee was a moral person who hadn't committed crime.  Now I realized that ideology matters, and he gave an example of somebody he opposed.  Women liked his response, but Men are rating him neutral.  "I'm glad I did [change on that]."

Palin: There've been times when I was governor and mayor that I didn't like, but didn't veto.  Times when I wanted to cut taxes, but didn't have enough support.  Never a time when I had to change my views because up in Alaska, we've been able to compromise and work things out.  That's what I'll do in Washington, and that's what McCain has done.

Ifill: How do you change the tone and promote bipartisanship, after looking at the bailout vote?

Biden: I've worked across the aisle and changed opinions of my party and the Republicans.  Saying that people shouldn't question motives of members of the Senate.  Question their judgment, not motives.  And he got pretty good ratings there - that was a pretty good statement.

Palin: Do what I did as Governor - walk the walk and appoint people from both parties.  Work together.  Let policies and proposals speak for themselves.  Lower taxes on workers and businesses.  Rein in spending.  Don't support a ticket that will increase spending.  And her ratings were doing really good, but she's dropped a bit.

Ifill: Closing statements.

Palin: Glad to be here and glad to meet Biden and debate him.  Wants to speak to people without filters - just speak to them.  We'll fight for the average American people.  Always been proud to be an American, and so has McCain.  We need to fight for freedoms.  "Freedom is always a generation away from extinction."  We will fight for freedom, and only McCain has fought for you.

Biden: Thank you, and it was a pleasure to meet you Governor.  This is the most important election you've ever voted in.  There's a need for fundamental economic and foreign policy change.  Obama and I don't look at that based on CEOs and tax credits to Exxon/Mobil, but when sending a kid off to fight in a war.  They should be guaranteed best health care and education.  Really good ratings right now.  Talking about believing in selves and accomplishing things, and that's why him and Obama are running - to reestablish that mood.  It's time for America to get back up together.  May God bless you, and may God protect our troops.

Ifill: Thank you to the Commission, the University, Governor Palin and Senator Biden.  "Good night everybody."

Palin: "Thank you so much!  Thank you Gwen."

Why is her mic still on?  that's weird.

So, my analysis overall:

• I didn't like the fact that Palin avoided some of the questions at the beginning.  She lost some points with me here.
• Biden got a little wordy and confusing toward the end at some points, but it wasn't a huge issue.
• I give a lot of credit to Biden for being a single dad.  When he started getting emotional, that was a powerful moment, and I felt for him - I could feel the emotion just watching him.  It didn't affect the outcome of the debate (at least not in my mind), but I think credit needs to be given to him for that.

Overall, I call it a Biden victory.  Perhaps it's just because I was going into this thinking that Palin wouldn't perform well, but I didn't think she did too bad, but I would definitely say that I am confident that Biden won.  I really don't think that either campaign will get a bump from this, but if anybody will, I think it'll be McCain.  Like I said earlier today, it was Biden's debate to lose.  He performed very well, but Palin did as well, and for Biden to help the Obama ticket much more, he would've needed to blow her out of the water, and that just didn't happen.

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

We're about a minute out, I'll be live blogging the whole event.  Jim Lehrer (PBS) is the moderator.  I'll be watching CNN (it would be FOX, but they weren't ready on time).

The Ku Klux Klan is in the audience, we've heard, but not in robes and not protesting.

First question, "Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?"

Obama: Thank you to everybody - the usual beginning.  "Worst financial crisis since the great depression. ... We have to move swiftly and we have to move wisely."  Talking about oversight, since it's a lot of money.  Taxpayers need to be able to get the money back.  Shouldn't be padding CEO bank accounts.  Talking about trickle down economics not working.  That's not going to help him win over any Republicans.

McCain: Senator Kennedy is in the hospital.  Thank you to the sponsors, etc.  Talking about seeing Democrats and Republicans sitting down and working together, and the magnitude of the crisis.  Emphasizing that we have to work together, something that Obama didn't mention - that was good from McCain.  Talking about having options for loans for businesses, not the government taking over those loans.  GOOD - not a pure bailout!  CNN has an audience  reaction, and McCain is getting a pretty good response from the Independents (must be some keypad rating system or something).  Talking about a lot of work to do if this will work.  Eliminate dependence on foreign oil - good.

Lehrer: Do you favor this plan?

Obama: I "haven't seen the language yet."  "How did we get in this situation in the first place?"  Talking about him warning 2 years ago that mortgage abuse would lead us down a trail we can't afford to go down.  "Yes, we have to solve this problem short term, ... but ... look at how we shredded so many regulations ... and that has ... to do with an economic philosophy that says regulation is bad."

Lehrer: "Will you vote for the plan?"

McCain: "Sure."  Talking about warning about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  Talking about getting flack for calling for resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission.  And the Independents' rating has skyrocketed.  Republicans increased too.  It was good - him calling for the resignation, and people like that.

Obama: Talking about people struggling before this crisis.  It's interesting - the Dems are rating Obama higher than the Indies, but the Indies rated McCain higher than the Reps.  Talking about holding ourselves accountable, all the time, talking about nurses and teachers, and politicians not paying attention to them.  Good - he's appealing to the average Americans here, and that's who he needs to win over.

McCain: "We have a long way to go."  Need consolidation of regulatory agencies who failed and let us slip into this crisis.  Talking about the greatness of the American worker, and the Republicans like it, but it's not that appealing to Independents, but it will appeal to a lot of average Joe Americans, as long as they believe he's sincere (and the audience must not have).

Lehrer: How do we get out of the crisis?

McCain: Spending control.  And the Reps and Inds, liked it - and this is one of McCain biggest points, and now he's talking about Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a huge anti-earmark politician.  Talking about the DNA testing of bears.  I LOVE McCain saying he'll veto earmarked bills.  It's one of his best stances.  He's talking about Obama asking for earmark spending.  Talking about not being able to rein in spending with a plan like Obama's.

Obama: The earmark process has been abused.  Lobbyists and special interests introduce these things, often times.  Contrasting the cost of earmarks against tax cuts (by allegedly McCain) for CEOs and big companies.  "Grow the economy for the bottom up."  Tax cut for 95% of working families.  HOLD IT!  Only 90% of working families even PAY taxes!!!!  Come on Obama, don't lie.

McCain: Obama suspended those earmarks after he started running for Congress.  YOU TELL 'EM MCCAIN!  He's saying that earmarks have tripled in 5 years, even though "it's only $18 billion" (as pro-earmarkers say).  He was called the Sheriff.  That's pretty sweet.  As I was saying before, we need to take Coburn's example and STOP EARMARKS!

Obama: Interrupted McCain (must be kinda less formal).  Talking about priorities, and shipping, and I missed the rest.  Saying he'll keep us from spending unwisely.  Earmarks alone won't get us back on track.  The Democrats are loving this, but the Independents, aren't really liking it.

McCain: Talking about the business tax, that we pay the 2nd highest in the world, 35%.  "I want to cut that business tax.  I want to cut it."  "It's a lot more than $18 billion in pork barrel spending."  And he's right, it's SO much more than that, and it's hidden in so many bills.  The Independents are liking this.  "I want every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit" for healthcare.  Double the dependent amount refund for children.

Obama: "Here's what I can tell America 95% of you will get a tax cut."  LIAR.  10% don't even PAY taxes.  And another 5% make over $200,000, and he won't give them a tax cut.  LIAR!  Saying McCain wants to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes.  Talking about McCain's health care tax credit.  Saying McCain wants to tax health benefits.  That's not true.

McCain: Talking about an energy bill with breaks for oil companies, and McCain voted against it, but Obama voted for it."  Obama tried to interrupt - that just looks tacky when he keeps doing it.  Saying that Obama has shifted on a number of occasions.

Obama: Talking about Obama lying about the oil companies.  "I was opposed to those tax breaks ... tried to strip them out."

Lehrer: "As President ... what are you going to have to give up ... as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?"

Obama: "Right now, it's hard to anticipate what the budget is going to look like next year."  He's right about that.  "Energy independence."  Talking about solar, wind, biodiesel here at home.  And the Independents REALLY loved that - highest rating I've seen all night.  Fix our healthcare system.  Compete in education - science and technology.  "Make sure our children are keeping pace in math and in science."  Make college affordable for all.  That's not even useful.  Not EVERYBODY needs college.  America needs plumbers and other basic labor workers too.

McCain: "No matter what, we have got to cut spending."  Obama has most liberal rating.  "It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left."  Do away with cost-plus contracts.  Talking about defense contracts and needing fixed-cost contracts.  And he's absolutely right.  One of the big areas we need to save money is in defense contracts.  Talking about fixing a contract with Boeing, and people ending up in prison because of it, but hte Independents didn't like that too much.

Lehrer: Neither of you are really going to have big changes?

Obama: "I want to make sure that we are investing in energy in order to [break off from] foreign oil."  Right now, even the Democrats aren't giving him a good audience reaction.  The Republicans are giving him a higher rating!  Saying that him being wildly liberal is just him opposing George Bush.  And that spiked the Dems' rating.  Saying that he's worked with Coburn so that taxpayers can see who's promoting spending projects.

Lehrer: "How [will] this effect you in the approach you will take to the Presidency."

McCain: Spending freeze on all but Veterans, defense, and I forget what else.

Obama: You're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.  But heck, that'd have to be a big scalpel.  But he does have a point here.

McCain: We're sending money overseas, and some of that goes eventually to terrorists (through oil).  We need nuclear, solar, wind, offshore drilling, etc...  Get 70,000 (?) jobs by building nuclear plants throughout the country.  And Obama is against this.  And that's one thing that really angers me about Obama - WE NEED NUCLEAR!

Obama: "There is not fact that it [economic crisis] will affect our budgets" even if we get the $700 billion back.  "If we're lucky and do it right, that could potentially happen."  "We can expect less tax revenue."  And he's really not getting a good audience response here.  Talking about not being able to leave out healthcare, and the Independents' and Republicans' approval just dropped.

McCain: Families should make decisions between themselves and doctors, not federal government.  "I have fought to cut spending."  "Obama needs to cancel new spending programs."  Talking about taking care of veterans.  Healthy economy, lowering, not raising taxes, with spending restraint.  And the independents liked that.  Talking about owing China money, and saying he's fought against excessive spending.  And the ratings are skyrocketing - and again, I LOVE his stance on spending!

Obama: It's been your President who presided over this spending.  But Bush and McCain aren't the same.  Stop pretending they are.  That still got a good reply from the Independents.

McCain: I have opposed the President on spending, torture, Guantanamo, climate change.  Talking about being an Independent and Maverick, and having Sarah Palin as the same.  His ratings stunk right there.  He lost Dems, Reps, and Inds.

Lehrer: On to Iraq.

McCain: "Our initial military success ... Baghdad, and everybody celebrated."  Then the war was mishandled.  Came up with a new strategy.  It's succeeding.  The Inds and Dems rating has fallen a lot, but hte Reps are rating him high.  Talking about the consequences of defeat being Iranian influence higher, more sectarian violence, and U.S. having to come back (referring to defeat before the surge).  And the Inds just started to rate him a lot better.  I think he did as good as he could back there.

Obama: I would've voted against it.  "We hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan ... caught bin Laden ... and put Al Qaeda to rest."  Talking about soon to be a trillion dollars spent, plus 4,000 lives lost.  Saying that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever.  "We took our eye off the ball."  Talking about Iraq having a surplus while we're losing money.  He's bringing up a LOT of good points that I thought would appeal to people, but he's not rating THAT great, although the Dems really like him.  Now it's peaked a bit more.

McCain: President will have to decide how and when we leave and what we leave behind.  He's absolutely right.  Obama saying surge worked, but he'd still oppose it.  And he lost a lot of Indy rating points just back there.  But he's right.  Obama is simply sticking by what he said even though what he said was WRONG!

Obama: Talking about McCain being right about reduced violence.  Saying troops and Petraeus doing a good job.  But that made up for mismanagement before that.  War started in 2003, not 2007.  Saying McCain said it'd be quick and easy, but he was wrong.  Saying we'd be greeted as liberators, but we weren't.  And he lost a lot of support from Inds, but he's still doing better than McCain has on Iraq.

McCain: Saying Obama doesn't have military experience, he's got some better support form Inds and Reps now.  Saying that this strategy and general are winning, but Obama refuses to acknowledge this.  (Obama: "That's not true.")  Talking about elections and peace coming to Iraq, and the strategy will be employed in Afghanistan in a McCain administration, and the Inds went up a bit there.  Talking about Obama voting against troop funding.

Obama: McCain opposed funding for troops in a timetable bill.  Had a difference on timetables, not funding.  And Obama's right.  It always looks bad on paper when you vote against funding, but if you don't agree with the overall bill, don't vote for it.  I have to side with Obama here, and the Inds liked that a lot, and even the Republicans aren't that negatively rating him.  Reduce combat troops in Iraq.  "Capture and kill bin Laden."  We don't have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan.

McCain: Saying that military leaders saying that Obama's plan would be bad for the troops.  Talking about Petraeus praising the progress we've made.  Saying that under Obama's plan, we'd have been out before the surge could have even succeeded.  Saying that Obama's plan will "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

Lehrer: How many and when (if more troops in Afghanistan)?

Obama: As soon as possible.  Saying that this year has been the year for highest troop fatalities.  Can't separate Afghanistan from Iraq.  And the Independents are rating him lower than the Repubs now - that's surprising.  Saying that Al Qaeda is the greatest threat against us, and that we have to deal with them in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.  Press the Afghan government to make sure that they're working for their people.  And he's absolutely right - we need to press the Afghani government.  Talking about needing to reduce the poppy trade over there.  And that's another area we need to work on.

McCain: Talking about not being ready to threaten Pakistan, because that'd be dangerous.  We need to get support of the people of Pakistan.  And the Independents are rating him pretty high here.  Saying that Obama doesn't understand that we need a new strategy.  Saying that Pakistani terrorists are married to Al Qaeda and Taliban.  Ratings are very high from Reps and Inds.  Although it's dropped now.  Saying we need more troops in Afghanistan, but saying that we have put more in already.  Talking about Obama publicly saying he'd attack Pakistan.

Obama: Saying that if we have Al Qaeda in sights, and Pakistan won't help us take them out, then we need to take them out.  Again, I have to side with Obama here.  Talking about McCain singing "Bomb Iran."  And that was so stupid of McCain, and really makes him look like a hypocrite a bit here.  Although he lost a lot of ratings there surprisingly.  Talking about not going after Al Qaeda, and they're more powerful than ever.

McCain: Talking about him being a new Congressman - Reagan wanting to send Marines into Lebanon, and McCain voting against it, because he didn't think that 300 Marines could make a difference, and saying that he was right - many Marines were killed in the bombing.  Talking about voting for going into Bosnia, when it wasn't popular.  Saying that we need more than a peace-keeping force in Somalia.  And he's right.  We need to do what's RIGHT, not what's popular!  Saying that our mission NEEDS to succeed.  And he's absolutely right.  We don't want defeat, and we cannot afford defeat!  "We won't come home in defeat and dishonor and probably have to go back if we fail."

Obama: "No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain. ... We honor the service they've provided. ... Are we making good judgments" for keeping America safe, because sending troops is such a huge issue.  "We are having enormous problems in Afghanistan."  Saying it's not true that McCain has consistently cared about Afghanistan.  Saying McCain said we could "muddle through" Afghanistan.

McCain: "I've visited Afghanistan ... and I know what our needs are.  We will prevail ... and we need a new strategy."  If we adopt Obama's plan, we'll fail in Iraq, and that will have a great effect on Afghanistan.  Obama fails to see that the 2 are connected.

Lehrer: "What is your reading from the threat from Iran?"

McCain: If Iran acquires nukes, it's a threat to Israel and other countries.  Others will feel the need to get nukes.  "We can't afford a second holocaust."  Proposing a league of Democracies who would impose sanctions on Iranians, since the Russians won't do it.  "The Iranians have a lousy government, so their economy is lousy, even though they have significant oil revenues."  A nuclear Iran is a threat to the world.  They're putting IEDs in Iraq.  They're a sponsor of terror.  And he's getting some pretty good ratings right now, from both Indeps and Repubs.

Obama: Talking about the thing that strengthened Iran was the War in Iraq.  Their involvement has grown.  They've tried harder to get nukes.  "We cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran."  It would threaten Israel, and "create an environment [that would] set off an arms race in the Middle East."  We can't have sanctions without Russia and China.  Well Obama, you're not going to get Russia OR China to side with you!  You're dreaming if you think you will.  Saying we need to talk to leaders in Iran and North Korea, and he as President will.

McCain: Senator Obama twice said he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Castro.  Ahmadinejad is in New York now talking about extermination of Israel.  Saying that we can't sit down without preconditions.  And he's right.  NO President has ever sat down without preconditions (Reagan didn't, JFK didn't, and Nixon didn't).  And now McCain is using examples that I just gave.  "I'll sit down with anybody, but there's gotta be preconditions."  GOOD job McCain!  You're absolutely right.

Obama: Ahmadinejad isn't the most powerful person in Iran.  Saying as President, he can sit down with whoever he wants if it keeps America safe.  Saying that we CAN meet without preconditions, but not do with what we've been doing where we say you must do X or we won't meet with you.  "Of course we need preparations."  "It may not work.  Iran is a rogue regime."  Obama is getting pretty much the same ratings now as McCain was getting a minute ago (about a third of the way between neutral and as positive as you can go).  "The Bush Administration and McCain's advisors (Kissinger)" think we should meet without preconditions.  Saying McCain said we can't meet with Spain, a NATO ally.

McCain: "Kissinger never said that the President could meet with Ahmadinejad."  "Obama doesn't understand that without precondition ... you legitimize those comments [against Israel]. ... It's dangerous."  Talking about North Koreans breaking everything they've ever said they'd do.

Obama: McCain keeps saying that I'll meet with somebody without preparing - this isn't true.  "We do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks."  The Bush administration realized this doesn't work.  "The notion that we'd meet with Ahmadinejad as he spews his comments is" wrong.

McCain: Kissinger would not say "that Presidential, top level" communications should be made without preconditions.

The two are going back and forth, and ratings are dropping a lot.

Lehrer: How do you see the relationship with Russia?

Obama: "Our entire Russian approach needs to be reevaluated. ... Actions in Georgia were unacceptable and unwarranted."  They need to get out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  The Democrats really aren't liking what he's saying here.  The Inds are rating him higher than Dems are.  We can't go back to a Cold War status with Russia.  We need to deal with loose nuclear weapons when it comes to Russia.  "Deal with Russia based on [our] national security interests."

McCain: Obama doesn't understand that Russia committed aggression against Georgia when he said that both sides need to back down a bit.  He's compared Putin to the KGB.  We can't go back to the Cold War.  The Georgian War "had everything to do with energy."  McCain's rating a bit better than Obama, but neither are performing well right now with the audience.  "The Russians ought to understand that we'll support ... the inclusion of Georgia, and Ukraine ... into inclusion of NATO."  The Russians violated their cease fire agreement.  Saying that Russian intentions toward Georgia - just waiting to cease the opportunity.  Expecting Russians to behave as a country who will respect boundaries.  And he's right - Russia can't be left to keep doing what it's been doing.  It HAS to respect the sovereignty of other countries.  McCain rating pretty decent now, compared to an average rating before.

Obama: McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues.  Says he disagrees with McCain a bit on Georgia.  I don't think the Dems liked that - Obama is doing a decent amount worse than McCain was doing.  Talking about Russian peace keepers in Georgia not making sense and that we needed international peace keepers there, and that might have avoided the situation.  And Obama is right there.  Talking about energy.  We need to increase offshore drilling.  "We can't drill our way out of the problem."  Talking about needing wind, solar, and nuclear.  And now he's rating higher than McCain was at the end of McCain's last statement.  Saying McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times.

McCain: Saying that Obama is really against nuclear, and that offshore drilling would help more than Obama says it would.  McCain is getting pretty low ratings now, especially from Dems.

Obama: I have never said that I object to nuclear waste, but I'd store it safely.

McCain: I've always been for alternative energy.

Lehrer: What do you think the likelihood is of another 9/11 attack?

McCain: Much less than the day after 9/11, but we're not safe yet.  Talking about working across the aisle to establish the investigation commission.  Saying we need interrogators who won't use torture.  Saying that we are safer now.

Obama: We need to do more in terms of securing transit and ports.  Biggest issue is not missiles coming over skies, but from a suitcase.  Spending billions on missile defense, which we need because of Iran/Korea, but we need more for other areas as well.  Ratings are pretty high for him here.  We need more cooperation with allies.  "The way we are perceived in the world" will affect the cooperation we get.  He's right here.  We have slipped in terms of how we're viewed by the world.  McCain has a good stance on terror.  And the ratings right there are the highest they've been at any time during the debate, even Reps rated him decently high.

McCain: If we fail in Iraq, Al Qaeda will establish a base in Iraq.  McCain isn't rating too good right now, especially with Inds and Dems.  We can't have specific dates for withdrawal.  We've had great success, but it's fragile.

Obama: Saying that this administration has been solely focused on Iraq, and we haven't captured bin Laden.  Talking about borrowing from China, and they've been active around the world, while we've been focused on Iraq.  We're spending so much money, we can't invest in health care or science/technology.  "We've never seen a nation who has a failing economy but maintains military strength, so this is a national security issue."  The next President has to have better strategy for all the challenges we face.  Pretty good ratings there

McCain: Saying he's been around involved in challenges.  Saying Obama doesn't have  experience, but he does.  Talking about Obama failing to admit the success of