Obama won the debate, but he could have scored a knockout. What a missed opportunity. McCain exposed his chin when he said, during the foreign policy debate, "We need to make sure that any time we commit our forces that there will be a "beneficial impact" in doing so." He said it several times. Wow! He left himself wide open. If I was Obama, I would have asked a simple question. "If the McCain doctrine of foreign policy intervention is "There must be a beneficial impact in the region, then what was the beneficial impact of invading Iraq"? Then Obama could have cited the deterimental impacts of invading Iraq.
More than 3,000 Americans killed and 30,000 wounded. $700B and counting spent. Iran more influential and closer to a bomb than before we invaded. Israel more threatened. Oil prices quadrupled. Gas prices doubled. Our national debt doubled. Our economy in shambles. Osama bin Laden still alive. Al Quaeda still a threat. "And yet you still support this war and refuse to admit that you were wrong?"
He could have totally turned the tables on McCain, refuted one of his most oft repeated accusations, and nailed him with his own words. That would have been a knockout. It might have even swayed a few Republicans.
And by the way, the next time McCain stands up on stage and talks about how he will look after the veterans of this country will Obama please expose his voting record on veteran's issues? It's terrible. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have looked at 155 votes since 9/11 on mililary issues and then graded each Senator on whether they agreed with IAVA's views. 13 Senators, all Democrats, got an A-. Obama got a B plus. McCain got a D! The Disabled Veterans of America (1.3M members) rated all members of Congress on their support for healthcare for disabled Vets. 194 Democrats and 13 Republicans got 100%. McCain got 20%. He talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk. He has frequently abandoned veterans in favor of supporting conservative ideology and the Republican Party. In this vet's opinion that's not only hypocritical. It's dereliction of duty.
Steve Kanzler. USN 1969-1975. 3 Tours in the Gulf of Tonkin on the USS Enterprise.
I've been working for Obama since before Super Tuesday as a precinct captain, and phone-banker and talked to hundreds of voters. This summer I also did some traveling and spoke to many mid-westerners. What I've discovered is that the average voter is not a political junkie (like us) and does not watch CNN, C-span or MSNBC, and as a result HAVE NOT HEARD A FULL OBAMA STUMP SPEECH. They do not read the news either online or in print, yet have formed strong and erroneous opinions about Obama based on popular misconceptions. They do not use the internet to google Obama speeches or find them on youtube, and many do not even have high speed internet connections as many folks live rurally where there is no cable and/or a fiber-optic phone network. But they all have DVD players and know how to use them.
THERE IS A WAY TO OVERCOME the popular misconceptions about Barack: Burn a DVD with a menu of his speeches (his acceptance speech, his speech on race, his speech on faith in American politics, Michelle's DNC speech, an interview with Michelle), plus a list of his legislative accomplishments which are actually very impressive and that put an end to the lie that he has done nothing significant during his political career. Sending out these DVDs would be cheap if they were mass produced. Remember how AOL flooded the post boxes with their CDs when they were building their network? It must have been cost-efficient to do so. Think Netflix. I know print costs, and the color glossies that get sent out ad nauseum by the campaign cannot cost much less. Try it in Ohio or another battleground state. See what happens. There is no down side to this.
After talking to so many folks out there in middle America, I assure you that many would pop the DVD into their player and take a look at it. This is technology they can handle. And they can do it whenever they want. If it came in a package that said "The Truth About Barack Obama" or if it said "The Real Barack Obama" I know a significant number would take a look.
I can assure you that the racism inherent in this country and the lack of accurate information about Barack is going to have a Bradley effect on November 4th unless the average American can get to know him better. TV news and Fox propaganda do not get even close to building trust in Obama, which is what is required if he is to win. Getting to know him by actually listening to his brilliant speeches is the only way we can overcome the misperceptions that abound about him.
Can you help get this suggestion to the decision makers inside Barack's campaign headquarters?
What Obama Needs to Do in the Final Sixty Days: Avoiding President Palin
by Drew Westen
This is MUST READING for Barack Obama, the Obama Campaign and all strategists and consultants advising the campaign.
Here, again, is the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/what-obama-needs-to-do-in_b_125051.html?view=print
Please, PLEASE, don't lose this election.
CumberlandGeorge
The past couple of days have been eye opening as regards our opponent and her husband's thinking. In her attack ads before the Texas and Ohio primaries, and in public comments since, our opponent has said that Barack is not ready to pick up the red phone and has not "crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold" (whatever that means to her). If that's true, why would she "roll-the-dice" and put the nation in "danger" the nation by choosing him as her vice-president? The vice-president is only a heartbeat away from Commander-in-Chief!
Now, here is what we need to do as a campaign in our conversations with people in Pennsylvania. We need to expose this double-speak and brand it as "poor judgment" on the part of our opponent. We should also add her endorsement of Senator McCain to the list of things that reveal her poor judgment. Poor judgment is also a sign of in-experience. We should go on offense (carefully, so that we do not impede Barack's message of Hope and a New Politics) by outlining similar statements that reveal our opponent's in-experience.
For instance, she claimed that she had won Florida and Michigan in her 'victory' speech last week. We need to expose that. We need to expose her campaigns double-talk and role in NAFTAGATE. This should be branded as poor judgment and therefore in-experience. Her refusal to release her tax returns and White House records needs to be branded as poor judgment (because any candidate running for the Presidency should have the wisdom to release her tax returns and documents that show her experience early enough (the tax returns may be key to knowing where her 5 million dollars that she loaned her campaign actually came from).
Any more ideas and thoughts on how we can brand our opponent as inexperienced and having poor judgment?
The Iraq War is a fait accompli. The situation there has only gotten progressively worse over four + years, and prospects are bleak for a unified Iraqi government that serves and protects all the people ("Progress? Not Enough," editorial, July 13).
It’s painful for all of us to watch our American countrymen die and be maimed in Iraq and to see Congress squabble with the White House over nuance, while terrorists plot to blow us up over here as well as over there, possibly with radioactive material (dirty bombs).
I’m no fan of President Bush--never have been--but I have a recommendation that could help salvage his legacy. He should tear a page from President John Kennedy’s winning strategy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. JFK froze the Soviet Union in its tracks when he announced to the world that a missile attack launched from Cuba on the United States would be viewed as an act of war on America by the USSR. JFK was clearly warning of our nuclear retaliation on Moscow and the Soviets knew it.
Along those lines, Bush should be proactive and announce that ignition of a dirty bomb on U.S. soil will be viewed as a nuclear attack by Al Qaeda and that America will respond with overwhelming nuclear force, "ground zero" being that safe haven Al Qaeda enjoys in Pakistan along the Afghanistan border. When Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf becomes outraged by Bush’s threat, our response to him should be "tough cookies; that’s the price you pay for giving your land away to fanatical murderers plotting assaults on the U.S. and Europe."
Bonus to Bush's warning: Iran gets second thoughts about its own nuclear ambitions.
John LeGear
Palos Hills
