These pollsters must be drinking …… EVERY poll has Obama up by 3-5 times their 2 point difference survey. New Hampshire 12 points, Pennsyvania 11 and Mich. and Minn. already in the bag, get real, Find another job guys …… Or is Rueter’s another FOX network/website???

Now, we’re told the rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That’s true. “The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income, but they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income.” In other words, the tax code’s already steeply progressive. Yes, even at 35, 36%. And what this proves is the old adage that when you lower taxes, you get increased revenue. Listen to these numbers. “In 1990, the richest 1% were 14% of the nation’s income. They paid 25% of all taxes. In 2000, they paid 37%. In 2005, they paid 39%; and 2006, 40%.” So since 1990, the rich, top 1%, richest 1% have paid from 25% in 1990 to 40% in 2006 of all income taxes. The richest 5% in 1990 paid 44%. In 2000, they paid 56%; in 2005, paid 60%. The top 10% now pay 71%. But the big number is the top 50% are paying 97.1% of all taxes.

“It proves the way to soak the rich is with lower tax rates, and the IRS data from last week provide more powerful validation of that proposition. But, nevertheless, the Democrats and Obama continue to say that these tax cuts have been a giveaway to the rich and it’s a figment of their imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006, from $136 billion in 2003.” What happened in 2003? We rolled back the Clinton tax increases! “No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 when it was 3.5% in 2003.”

I think voters will see that McCain’s display of disdain for a fellow US Senator does not bode well for his ability to work out differences with any world leader “who doesn’t like us very much.”

I don’t see that O. “walked away” with this debate. When the tired old points keep coming back (like “preconditions” and “the surge”) Obama needs to find a fresh angle of attack instead of canned comebacks. I’d like to see him dramatize the Republican attitude in DC that we need to get rid of, and the only way to do that is flush the Republican White House completely. Attack the mindset that got us into this mess and present his ideas of a better mindset.

Obama misses opportunities to make an example of “wasteful” spending when he lets McCain get away with stuff like the planetarium remark. First, does McCain know that a planetarium IS just a huge overhead projector? Is a science museum something that has to be jettisoned from the budget so more oil companies and defense contractors can get more tax cuts?

He also missed bringing up Cheney’s “energy conservation is a personal virtue” remark when he had the perfect opening for it. This is more of the Republican mindset that must be wiped out entirely.

They both say fundamentally too much. I mean, er, they both say “fundamentally” too much. I’d like to hear Obama say “but” less. Keep the points strong; instead of “but I will do this…” just say “And I intend to do this…”

It never sounds like either of them are “thinking on their feet.” When Obama makes a point to comeback at McCain about something, it still feels scripted and kind of passionless.

Security and spirituality are key for next debate. I’d like to see Obama make strong, unequivocal statements on both. Then, if the questions persist in the next newscycle, he can say to McCain or Palin, “weren’t you watching or listening to me? I’ve answered this, yet apparently you weren’t paying attention or you chose to dismiss it.” That would be sweet. I’m sick of the repeated slams that have been addressed over and over again, especially by Palin. (Who, by the way, should be on media shutout until she holds a press conference.)

I think a main winning point for Obama was McCain’s doddering gait across the stage. If he wasn’t such a power hungry lying scuzbucket, my friends, I’d feel sorry for the old coot.

I was surprised that McCain did not do well in his much touted town-hall format. The camera angles consistently diminished him physically and he had to resort to vague rhetoric too often. Obama was consistently articulate and seemed to connect with the audience much better.

“. . . that one” won

It was CLEAR to me the Obama would be a foreign policy disaster. I don’t believe he understands the complexities of foreign affairs at all.

the republicans may have made us look like idiots, but the democrats have admittedly ruined the world economy.

William Ayers- according to CBS Bews, Ayers was a terrorist, and Barack Obama associates with him. To me, this could be a dangerous idea, because he may cause terrorist attack in the future.

Obama was cool calm and collected - an intelligent leader. McCain looked old and sounded like a 7th grader. Mostly tho, nothing new happened. Except McCain looked even more out of touch on the economy - the mortgage thing he proposed is already in the bailout and besides, obama proposed the same thing months ago!

Vietnam Veterans don’t like him nor his voting record in the Senate. He only voted 4 x this year and there were 14 issues on the ballot. Can you believe that? War hero 50 years ago, not a hero now. He is an Aristocrat, an Elitist,
with his hands in the pockets of those on Wall Street. He could care less about middle class, health care, or anyone that doesn’t make more than $500,000 a year. Period!!!!