Comments on: Obama v. McCain

By: Cincy Steve

Cincy Steve — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:32:43 +0000

I found Tom Brokaw’s involvement in the debate the most interesting.
Recurrent admonishment to maintain time constraints was delivered in an attempted humorous manner but seemed like scolding for attempts by either candidate to deliver anything more than sound bites. I still have little feel for either candidate. I remain with a decrepit war hero vs an articulate neophyte vision in my head.

By: jen

jen — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:03:51 +0000

Just like in hurricanes and earthquakes? It seemed like Obama tried to get at some issues, but is to beholden to interests and polling. He eliminated any nuance. Nuance is everything in policy. The population doesn’t do well with nuance apparently, which doesn’t bode well for “on our own”. McCain is so obsequious to polling that he’s turned into a lying machine. He makes my palms sweat.

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:39:02 +0000

Those debates are a form of show business. Each candidate is using emotion to try to convince you that he’s a good guy and that the other guy will ruin the country. If you want to find out their positions on the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, etc., you can probably read about them on the web sites maintained by their campaigns. The three debates held so far have not provided any additional information to help a voter make his or her choice, though they are entertaining at times.

I think that all of the show business aspects of the election are an effort to distract the voters from paying attention to the issues. Meanwhile, the people on Wall Street, who apparently call the shots in Washington, don’t waste their time with “social” issues or which candidate has the superior “character”, or any of that nonsense. When it comes to politics, their focus is on taking care of their companies and their bonuses, and it’s working out very well for them.

By: Brazilian watcher

Brazilian watcher — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:16:18 +0000

Honestly, your government doesn’t seem too interested in resolving the crisis. Trying to approve a bill of 700billion dollars in the congress within two weeks is impossible and Bush and the ones who were “trying to approve it” always knew it(even I knew it). They know the how the congress and American politics works. More time to discuss the matter and to explain how and why the bill would work is necessary. To me, seems like they wanted to delay the crisis a little bit more. It is just becoming more obvious to me every day that the USA is not ruled in behalf of the Americans anymore, but for generating billions of profit with financial speculation and war industry. I think you Americans should review your thoughts and views about a totally free market with the minimum control from the government, because your economy is at risk of running totally out of control, and it’s obvious that its effects will affect economies all over the world, and then a 3rd world war will erupt.

Watch your governors and your country Americans, yours democracy is one of the most advanced in the world, USA has a huge number of civil associations and know it’s time for you to watch who is profiting from this crisis and where the real terrorism resides.

By: Walter Mitty

Walter Mitty — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:41:11 +0000

I agree with your main point. However, I think that even if they had good ideas about the American economy, those ideas would be largely pointless.

Coming up with an American industrial policy is about 10 years behind the curve. Globalization is no longer the coming thing. It’s arrived. In order to deal with the short term credit crisis, the Fed and central banks around the world all had to act on the same day, lowering interest rates by 50 basis points. That makes my case.

A global economy cannot be regulated by dozens of national regulators, each promoting a slightly different agenda. Either we put up with a global economy that is essentially unregulated, or we form, like it or not, a global regulating authority.