Clearly Obama knows he's a lightweight

"negotiating the terms of their debates"

Why would ANY honest politician feel the need to "negotiate" the terms of debate? Anybody who really believed in their positions would say "any time, any where".

This negotiation consists of McCain calling Barry Hussein to the mat, and Barry ducking and running because he knows he's nothing but an emotion-peddling charlatan.

If McCain's recent performances in front of the camera are any indication, he should thank his lucky stars that Obama didn't agree to ten town hall meetings. McSame has to backpedal more often than a circus unicyclist.

I'd like to know what makes Obama a charlatan in your book, ZZ. His constitutional expertise? His editorship of the Harvard Law Review? His community organizing? His legislative record? His wholesome family life? His Christian faith?

If anyone's a charlatan, it's McBush, who never met a lobbyist he didn't like.

President Obama: get used to it.

Obama beats the Clinton machine and he's a lightweight?

What do Republicans smoke?

Hello:

Not a fan of Hussein Obama (I actually calculated the number of his name in Greek and Hebrew because, you know, JUST CHECKING!) but a reality check here.

1. The candidates that demand debates are always the ones that are TRAILING. The ones that are ahead in the polls NEVER ask for more debates. McCain's doing so actually indicates that his campaign is nervous. True, Obama's lead over McCain is narrow, less than 5 points. But think about it: Obama has been having to campaign against John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and a legion of angry feminists since February. Meanwhile, McCain has had since then to campaign and raise money, and he is still behind. And with Obama, we know that he can pick up supporters when Clinton's people get over their anger and finally come around, and when he moves back to the center after winning the nomination by running to Hillary Clinton's left. Bottom line: Obama's base is going to turn out in a major way, so he won't even have to beat McCain with swing voters. McCain, by contrast ... where are his new votes going to come from? He is already strong among moderate and swing voters, but he has real problems with the base, which is not going to turn out for him like they did Bush. That is why you see him going after older, pro - abortion white women by playing the "sexism victimization" card, which not only further offends conservatives, but will leave the door wide open for the Obama camp to claim race victimization later. Make no mistake, the McCain campaign is in real trouble, otherwise they wouldn't be talking about scheduling 10 appearances between now and August, looking for something to change the momentum. Of course, it is early ... at this point in 1992 Bill Clinton was third behind Bush and Ross Perot, and Jimmy Carter was actually leading Reagan. But the fact remains that McCain only proposed this because it is his candidate that needs things to change, not Obama's, whose biggest problem right now is the fact that Clinton by extending the campaign has left him and the DNC basically broke. But McCain, who is not exactly swimming in cash either, would LOVE to be able to trade his problems for Obama's.

2. Live townhall formats actually favor Obama. McCain's success in that format should be placed into context. First, it was effective for him during PRIMARIES, before audiences that basically agree with him politically, and more important all he had to do was exhibit more charisma and likability than people like Orrin Hatch, Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani. Shooting fish in a barrel! The truth is that Mike Huckabee shredded John McCain in those townhall formats, and if the guy had enough money to capitalize on his live performances in the forums and debates with TV and radio ads, he would have beaten McCain in a walk. (As it was, it took conservative blogs and Rush Limbaugh's bashing Huckabee to stop him from winning South Carolina.)

But in a randomly picked audience filled with people angry over Iraq, the economy, and gas prices ... that one would be much harder to charm because the lines that got him vigorous applause in the past would be met with silence and boos. Recall McCain's crack about Obama's not serving in the military? It works with the conservative, pro-military crowds that McCain generally attracts, but before a general audience (i.e. the people that elected Bill Clinton twice) it would backfire big time. It would offend a lot of people - especially the ones that remember the race between draft dodger Bush and decorated Viet Nam veteran Kerry - and blow up in his face. And no, McCain's job would not be to merely appear more likable than a 60 year old Republican. Obama is barely in his 40s and an excellent speaker with a charismatic personality. He and McCain could deliver the exact same speech and an easy clear huge majority would pick him over McCain based on it.

So folks wishing for McCain to debate Obama better be careful what they wish for. Like Bush against Gore in 2000, the more experienced candidate will be expected to have a superior grasp of policy, so the lesser experienced candidate will only have to hold his own. And McCain will be the one that winds up defending largely unpopular ideas and the Bush administration. And of course, Obama will turn McCain's experience as a negative. "Mr. McCain, in your 26 years in Congress, many of which were spent leading the Commerce Committee, you didn't pass a single energy bill?" You had better believe that McCain will hear that asked, and the fellow whose only major legislative accomplishment is a campaign finance reform bill that the base of his own party hates will have a hard time refuting it.

Might be true, if that's actually what he said.

So, please cite where he's said he'll 'Make Jihadist like us by talking to them', or he'll manage to 'fix the economy' (As opposed to conducting diplomacy, or has some ideas that might help the current economic situation).

I guess its no more idiotic than reading another president's lips, or thinking a president was going to turn this country into the Biblical 'City on the Hill'.

Poetic rhetoric and high ideals are pretty common campaign fare.

"Do you think McCain will have Lieberman with him to explain who's Shiite and who's Sunni? LOL"

No and I don't think Obama will have Gibson to explain the problem with raising the capital gains tax, either.

"Is a key part of the Reformed perspective that you have to parrot every Republican talking point out there, or are you allowed to think on your own?"

Canned response #6: I suggest that you stop projecting the way you form your opinions onto me and read this blog for what it is: my opinions spoken from the perspective of my woldview.

"You DO realize they're still negotiating the terms of their debates, right? McCain offered 10. Obama countered with 5. They're still talking, and will come to a settlement that lies somewhere in between."

Yeah and he agreed to one town hall meeting (after saying he would be happy to do them).

"Obama beats the Clinton machine and he's a lightweight?"

He has a very brilliant campaign manager and speech writers but when he's off script the real Obama is a fumbler. That's why a town hall meeting is something he evidently knows he should avoid.

"What do Republicans smoke?"

Well, speaking for this Republican, nothing.

Michele, how long did you peddle the 57 states one?

And it might be one type of gaffe, but one he made multiple times. One that involves far more important issues than how many states did he visit. And didn't correct it UNTIL Lieberman whispered the correction into his ear.

Which shows they BOTH fumble when they're off-script, to some extent. But traditional debates involve some level of ability to improvise, for rebuttals. McCain just thinks he can be more 'folksy' in a Town Meeting forum, and that will benefit him. But he's never truly been challenged in it, either.

So, like the Iraq visit thing, it isn't a matter of backing down, its just a numbers game. They've both agreed to them, McCain just wants a lot more. Well, Obama wants more, and longer, debates, and McCain hasn't agreed to those either.

And canned response or not, when you use not just the same idea, but the exact same wording as a particular political pundit (Gaffe Machine- Malkin), its perfectly fair to note it.

Its not an insult, is it, when its true that not only the GOP has 'talking points', but they have a site, where they are listed, and yes, called 'talking points'. When McCain has a site where he not only encourages posting on blogs, but offers 'points' to those who do so.

(No, haven't figured out what the points might get you, when you get enough. A coffee travel mug, or bumper sticker? Who knows.)

And it is a six point margin. That's a bit above the margin for error. (Which is usually, at most, 3 points.)

Michelle, for Obama to decline to put McCain in a forum where McCain does best, even if McCain is not up to Obama's oratorical level even in a town hall debate, is simply sensible negotiation.

Looney, could you redo the second sentence of your post? I cannot understand what a 'mutually arguments arguments' is. Perhaps it's because I attended public schools.

"Michele, how long did you peddle the 57 states one?"
It you search the entries on this blog it comes up with zero matches but I thought I wrote a post on it so I will say once.

"And canned response or not, when you use not just the same idea, but the exact same wording as a particular political pundit (Gaffe Machine- Malkin), its perfectly fair to note it."

Sorry but you're ill-informed which is surprising since I posted the link to the ABC News reporter who coined the phrase.

And actually checked out the dates.

That article you cited, it came out May 25th. Malkin's first use of the term I could find was actually earlier in May. If anyone coined it, it was Malkin, and it is possible he took (as he did with the list) the term from her.

So he might've been the cut and paster.