I was watching this debate while flying home last night on business (thank you jetBlue).

This was an election that required a candidate to fight with brass knuckles as Obama has done - and not a Senate veteran who plays by Marques of Kingsbury rules like McCain has.

This required a candidate like Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin - not someone who has left his military instincts behind too long ago and has been in the Senate for too long.

With the mainstream media refusing to do its job concerning Obama, it was McCain's obligation to this country (remember "country first") to expose Obama for the person he truly is and then let them decide on their own.

McCain waited until it was too late and even then has been doing a horrific job of that.

We have seen ups and downs in the economy for many years - all were expected - all were manageable. As long term as the causes of this problem have been, I do believe that the government has done more than it should have and now the free market needs to flush through the virus it was contaminated with.

Obama will do the opposite and history has shown that the more government's interfere in the free market economy the more the downturn will be protracted out and worsen.

I would recommend to all here to read "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes. It is a renewed look at the Great Depression. Much of what led up to it and how it was handled is very disturbing, but more importantly it helps you to foresee that an Obama presidency will lead to the worst economy this country's, and this world's, history.

I was just wondering if anyone else caught the two biggest lies that Hussein told last night.

1. We went into Iraq and Bin Laden got away.
2. This financial crisis is a result of the last 8 years of Bush economic policy.

And I didn’t hear McCain correct the record. Palin would have jumped on his skinny ass and given him a verbal beatdown.

Palin/McCain; not McCain/Palin

Everyone is missing the point--Stephanopolis obliquely raises it. Why does Obama run on hope and change for the future? Why is everything Obama says about the future? The answer is simple, yet the McCain campaign hasn't pointed it out once effectively: When one's resume is thin and one hasn't done much of anything to recommend himself for the job, he can only talk about the future. If Obama came into my office with his resume, I wouldn't hire for anything above a mid-level position until he gained more experience. 

I am positive that the Obama camp speaks about hope and change and the future as a conscious attempt to cover up Obama's lack of experience and thin resume. If you don't have experience, all you can do is talk about what you want to do in the future and pray no one asks you about the past. When the McCain camp speaks about the past, it shouldn't be about Ayers. Wright, etc. It should experience, experience, and more about Obama's lack of experience. This Ayers and Wright stuff only makes McCain look desperate. McCain should go against Obama mano-a-mano on experience. That is McCain critical strength and Obama's critical weakness. The McCain camp should sink every penny they have into defining Obama as a novice in a dangerous world, which he is.

For the next 28 days, McCain should drop everything and hammer this point home. No terrorist, no Ayers, simply expose Obama's tactics for what they are: a method for changing the subject from his utter lack of experience. Expose this whole "hope, change, and future meme for what it is: a concerted effort to pettifog the issue of experience.

At the next debate when Obama speaks about the future, McCain should pause, look at him and say, "I would talk about ther future too had I done nothing in the past." It would be a Reganesque moment and would blow Obama away, thus waking the independents into reality in the process.

Obama is the like the sexually excited male ant floating down the river screaming, "Raise the drawbridge!" He simply does not have the substance to lead anyone to think his projections for the future have any grounding in reality.

Since Georgie boy is not able to clearly articulate the performance of either candidate but only give in to his confirmation bias.  Let's view the performance of both Obama and McCain in context.  The context being the UNDECIDED VOTER, the only ones at this point who will make a difference.

After the first debate the FNC focus group of Undecided Voters gave it half and half.  The points of interest were they said Obama won on the economy and McCain won on foreign policy.  Ironic considering the debate was supposed to be about foreign policy only but Jim Lehrer had to toss the economic question in there to save Obama from a total rout.  Their criticism was McCain needed to connect more with the voter showing he understood their concerns, Obama needed to give more specifics.

After the second debate, the FNC focus group again gave it half and half.  The points of interest were they said Obama won on health care and McCain won on the economy.

Did you guys notice what happened???  John McCain despite our conservative view point, #1 connected with the voters concerns which addressed the criticism of the first focus group, #2 in doing so John McCain took the issue of the economy AWAY from Obama.  Obama did not get more specific as the first focus group said he should.

Did you guys notice that Obama changed his position on two items?  Nuclear power and drilling, Obama gave lip service to it since it lamely left his mouth when he uttered the phrases without conviction but it is clear his campaign staff see drilling and nuclear power as something the public wants. 

Where did McCain fall down?  #1 He did good to tie Obama to his failure to vote for reform of Fannie and Freddie in 2005, however, he did it tepidly since he should have more forcefully pointed out that Obama in lock step with the Democrat Party line refused reforms.  He should have identified Obama with 8 years of Democrat Party failure just as Obama attempted to indirectly claim McCain was identified with 8 years of the Bush Administration.  He should have named Barney Frank, Chrisopher Dodd and Chuck Schumer and said Obama followed their lead and did as he was told instead of standing up to his own Party when they were clearly wrong. In fact, Obama admitted the Party's error by claiming he wrote letters in 2006. 

#2 McCain lost a major opportunity with Obama's deceptive slogan of the US using 25% of the world's oil when we only produce 3% of it and then trailed off babbling about using alterative energy to replace oil as the way to hurt Iran.  a) the US creates 25% of the world's GDP and oil consumption is proportional to GDP, just look at Europe, they use a similar percentage of oil to produce their GDP. b) the reason the US only produces 3% is because of the drilling ban and we all know who is responsible for that! c) Alternative Energy only replaces electricity it does not replace oil!!!! Only a fractional amount of electricity is produced by oil, the bulk of electricity is produced by coal, nuclear and natural gas in the US - therefore alternative energy can NEVER hurt Iran. d) McCain should have said in addition to let's not raise taxes but cut spending and only spend wisely - domestic drilling is a major revenue source for the Treasury, we have lost literally billions of dollars in taxes and royalties every year by outsourcing our oil supply.  John McCain's question should have been why raise taxes when we could raise revenue WITHOUT going to the taxpayer again. e) Nor did McCain make the linkage of the Dem Party's 2006 broken promises to lower the price of gasoline thus causing people to lose jobs and therefore couldn't pay their mortgages.

#3 Social Security, McCain did not respond to Obama's obvious deception over prioritizing on social spending to save enough to meet SS requirements.  Obama admitted he is going to be spending MORE (investments) and McCain should have pointed out that "investments" is Democrat code word for spending MORE.  btw-McCain while trying to say he would be bipartisan in solving the SS funding issue didn't do himself any favors by implying it would be solved in the same manner as before, we were screwed on that deal as it did not separate the SS trust fund from the general budget thus allowing politicians to embezzle retirement funds for so called social investments. It's a pretty poor investment that only returns 1 to 2% for the money you put in it.  A point McCain needs to make is citizens would do far better parking their money in FDIC insured CDs than letting Social Security hold their money for them, that is why private accounts are necessary. 

To meet the criticism of this focus group, McCain in the last debate and of course with all the ads in the meantime, has to give more detail on his health care plan.  He needs to talk about how the $2500/$5000 (individual/family) tax credit would actually work.  He has to explain what his thinking was regarding making current employer paid contributions to a health plan income and to whom business or the employee.  Even his website is foggy on this. 

As far as Obama is concerned, he has to still give more detail which he can not do otherwise the public will realize the negatives he has in store for them.  Obama basically danced around trying to co-opt McCains strong points (drilling & nuclear power) to make his own negatives go away.  Look for Obama to do more co-opting and "agreeing" with McCain.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Hard to worry about what Steffie thinks, he's never publicly supported a republican. As far as Obama being cool and calm, keep this in mind. "If you can keep your cool when all those around you are losing theirs, you obviously misunderstand the seriousness of the problem!"

I would like to point out a weakness Obama felt particularly sensitive about pay attention to his reaction and nuance to the charge he plans to invade Pakistan:

McCain: Well, Katie (ph), thank you.

You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly -- talk softly, but carry a big stick. Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly.

In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.

You know, if you are a country and you're trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion.

When you announce that you're going to launch an attack into another country, it's pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us.

Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out with -- the Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in, Al Qaeda, we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war.

Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical, because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations, and we have to get their support.

Now, General Petraeus had a strategy, the same strategy -- very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation -- but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and -- and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

Obama: Tom, just a...

Brokaw: Sen. McCain...

Obama: ... just a quick follow-up on this. I think...

McCain: If we're going to have follow-ups, then I will want follow-ups, as well.

Brokaw: No, I know. So but I think we get at it...

McCain: It'd be fine with me. It'd be fine with me.

Brokaw: ... if I can, with this question.

Obama: Then let's have one.

Brokaw: All right, let's have a follow-up.

McCain: It'd be fine with me.

Obama: Just -- just -- just a quick follow-up, because I think -- I think this is important.

Brokaw: I'm just the hired help here, so, I mean...

Obama: You're doing a great job, Tom.

Look, I -- I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Sen. McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.

Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and, you know, I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible.

McCain: Thank you very much.

Obama: Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of "speaking softly."

This is the person who, after we had -- we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad."

So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.

This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I'm president.

McCain: And, Tom, if -- if we're going to go back and forth, I then -- I'd like to have equal time to go -- to respond to...

Brokaw: Yes, you get the...

McCain: ... to -- to -- to...

Brokaw: ... last word here, and then we have to move on.

McCain: Not true. Not true. I have, obviously, supported those efforts that the United States had to go in militarily and I have opposed that I didn't think so.

I understand what it's like to send young American's in harm's way. I say -- I was joking with a veteran -- I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran.

But the point is that I know how to handle these crises. And Sen. Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan, look at the context of his words. I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him.

I'll get him no matter what and I know how to do it. But I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. And I'm going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my career in the United States Senate.

And we have fundamental disagreements about the use of military power and how you do it, and you just saw it in response to previous questions.

Brokaw: Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we're failing in Afghanistan.

The commander said we cannot win there. We've got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator.

If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.

Obama: I'll be very brief. We are going to have to make the Iraqi government start taking more responsibility, withdraw our troops in a responsible way over time, because we're going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan.

Gen. [David] McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan right now, is desperate for more help, because our bases and outposts are now targets for more aggressive Afghan -- Taliban offenses.

We're also going to have to work with the Karzai government, and when I met with President Karzai, I was very clear that, "You are going to have to do better by your people in order for us to gain the popular support that's necessary."

I don't think he has to be a dictator. And we want a democracy in Afghanistan. But we have to have a government that is responsive to the Afghan people, and, frankly, it's just not responsive right now.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain, briefly.

McCain: Gen. Petraeus has just taken over a position of responsibility, where he has the command and will really set the tone for the strategy and tactics that are used.

And I've had conversations with him. It is the same overall strategy. Of course, we have to do some things tactically, some of which Sen. Obama is correct on.

We have to double the size of the Afghan army. We have to have a streamlined NATO command structure. We have to do a lot of things. We have to work much more closely with the Pakistanis.

But most importantly, we have to have the same strategy, which Sen. Obama said wouldn't work, couldn't work, still fails to admit that he was wrong about Iraq.

He still will not admit that he was wrong about the strategy of the surge in Iraq, and that's the same kind of strategy of go out and secure and hold and allow people to live normal lives.

And once they feel secure, then they lead normal, social, economic, political lives, the same thing that's happening in Iraq today.

So I have confidence that General Petraeus, working with the Pakistanis, working with the Afghans, doing the same job that he did in Iraq, will again. We will succeed and we will bring our troops home with honor and victory and not in defeat.

Transcript of Debate:

Think about what an Obama foreign policy will be:  Obama said essentially he would have undermined Mushariff to install another government in Pakistan that is PC to his way of thinking in order to enlist their support.  This is just what Jimmy Carter did with the Shah and that gave us the nutjob running Iran. 

Notice Obama did not fault NATO armies for their poor performance in Afghanistan or their refusal to engage in combat?  Only the US, Canada, Australia and Briton are actually doing the fighting. The other NATO countries are restricted to non combat roles, big help they are!

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.