BREAKING NEWS: McCain SUSPENDS HIS CAMPAIGN (merged)

[Denny Crane]

so, either you are adept at playing devil's advocate, or do you really think that a McCain presidency wouldn't hinder these social policies?

how about energy policy?

I don't think the president has anything to do with most of the policies, they've been state ballot initiatives. Roe was a SCOTUS decision that I don't see being overturned no matter what. Others, neither candidate would address proper, so what's the difference?

That only leaves energy policy.

One candidate says drill, use nuclear, do everything possible alternative energy sources, and $300M for better batteries.

The other says don't drill, no nuclear, waste money on possible alternative energy sources, and no incentive.

On this one, I do not see Obama being on the right side.

 

[Dumpy]

Yeah, let's not use our greatest natural resource and make money off of it. Notice Obama doesn't talk about global warming anymore?

Our greatest natural resource is our creativity and innovation.

I am anti-drilling. Oil and gas is a dead end. Sooner or later it will run dry. Sooner or later we must wean ourselves of it, and now is as good a time as any. I am in favor of pouring money into R&D efforts to develop alternative technologies and alternative fuels. That includes wind power, harnessing the gulf stream, etc.

I am also in favor of a national effort to just use less energy. Why do movie theaters keep the temperature at 68 degrees? Why am I freezing every time I enter a CVS? Air conditioning uses the most electricity in homes and businesses, by far. Getting on the soap box and asking people and business to set the temperature higher will save a ton of energy, and take a lot of pressure off the grid in summer time. And lower rates. I'm also in favor of creating incentives for businesses to start encouraging telecommuting by employees more.

It doesn't sound like much, but the accumulation of marginal energy savings will collectively make a big difference in the energy consumption of the nation.

 

[¹²³]

Don't piss off Letterman.

Really, that is ugly for McCain.

 

[MickZagger]

The closest thing to this I can think of was McGovern having to replace Eagleton as VP after it came out that Eagleton had mental illness issues.

I find it laughable that McCain is somehow scared of the debates.

If anything, this reinforces his statement about "rather lose an election than lose a war" - he'd rather lose this election than see the economy in the shitter.

Obama could easily keep on campaigning without much repercussion. His argument would be "the economy isn't going to be fixed by one bill or this week, it's vital to have me as president for the next 8 years to fix it and everything else."

The line of thinking that McCain is suspending the campaign because he feels the need to go fix the economy is laughable. What is he going to bring to the table economically that the people who are working on a bailout agreement can't do? Isn't it the same McCain who has admitted he doesn't know much about the economy? This seems like another case of Karl Rove style politics that the Republican party has been using for awhile now.

 

[Dumpy]

I don't think the president has anything to do with most of the policies, they've been state ballot initiatives. Roe was a SCOTUS decision that I don't see being overturned no matter what. Others, neither candidate would address proper, so what's the difference?

That only leaves energy policy.

One candidate says drill, use nuclear, do everything possible alternative energy sources, and $300M for better batteries.

The other says don't drill, no nuclear, waste money on possible alternative energy sources, and no incentive.

On this one, I do not see Obama being on the right side.

ok, that's logical

 

[MARIS61]

McCain becomes more and more of a joke hourly.

His handlers, aghast at his recent struggles to put together simple, understandable sentences or convey basic ideas, have grasped at this ridiculous straw as an excuse to avoid the debate.

After hiding from votes all year long, he runs home to Bushville for protection.

As a major architect of this debacle, he should be donating his extra houses to help those Americans who are losing them.

Obama will crush McCain, if he has the stones to show up.

 

[Denny Crane]

Our greatest natural resource is our creativity and innovation.

I am anti-drilling. Oil and gas is a dead end. Sooner or later it will run dry. Sooner or later we must wean ourselves of it, and now is as good a time as any. I am in favor of pouring money into R&D efforts to develop alternative technologies and alternative fuels. That includes wind power, harnessing the gulf stream, etc.

I am also in favor of a national effort to just use less energy. Why do movie theaters keep the temperature at 68 degrees? Why am I freezing every time I enter a CVS? Air conditioning uses the most electricity in homes and businesses, by far. Getting on the soap box and asking people and business to set the temperature higher will save a ton of energy, and take a lot of pressure off the grid in summer time. And lower rates. I'm also in favor of creating incentives for businesses to start encouraging telecommuting by employees more.

It doesn't sound like much, but the accumulation of marginal energy savings will collectively make a big difference in the energy consumption of the nation.

I went to various sites and added up all the trillions of barrels of unexplored and undrilled oil in the world. If we continue to use 25% (we use more like 20%, but that's the figure T.Boone Pickens uses), there's enough oil for 160 years.

I wouldn't exactly say that's "soon enough." I would say that conservation makes it 320 years if we cut consumption by 1/2. Good plan. 160 years seems like a long time, considering how far wind or solar has come in the past 30 years. Why not buy it the time it needs to be practical?

 

[MARIS61]

I don't think the president has anything to do with most of the policies, they've been state ballot initiatives. Roe was a SCOTUS decision that I don't see being overturned no matter what. Others, neither candidate would address proper, so what's the difference?

That only leaves energy policy.

One candidate says drill, use nuclear, do everything possible alternative energy sources, and $300M for better batteries.

The other says don't drill, no nuclear, waste money on possible alternative energy sources, and no incentive.

On this one, I do not see Obama being on the right side.

That's the Mad Cow Disease in you talking.

 

[MARIS61]

I went to various sites and added up all the trillions of barrels of unexplored and undrilled oil in the world. If we continue to use 25% (we use more like 20%, but that's the figure T.Boone Pickens uses), there's enough oil for 160 years.

I wouldn't exactly say that's "soon enough." I would say that conservation makes it 320 years if we cut consumption by 1/2. Good plan. 160 years seems like a long time, considering how far wind or solar has come in the past 30 years. Why not buy it the time it needs to be practical?

Most, if not all, experts disagree with your figure.

Little things like population explosion, worldwide modernization, China becoming an automobile manufacturer...balloon the actual number of vehicles far past the amount of oil on Earth to run them.

Gas is on the way out as a transportation fuel, and probably completely in the next 20 years.

 

[PapaG]

Roe was a SCOTUS decision that I don't see being overturned no matter what. .

All that a Roe reversal does is send it back to the states at this point. The SC claimed the right to abortion was in the US Constitution. If reversed, each state can make its own decision, as it should be IMO.

 

[PapaG]

Most, if not all, experts disagree with your figure.

Little things like population explosion, worldwide modernization, China becoming an automobile manufacturer...balloon the actual number of vehicles far past the amount of oil on Earth to run them.

Gas is on the way out as a transportation fuel, and probably completely in the next 20 years.

I've been told that carbon would lead to our demise. Is that argument not valid anymore? Because if not, why aren't we drilling NOW?

 

[Dumpy]

I went to various sites and added up all the trillions of barrels of unexplored and undrilled oil in the world. If we continue to use 25% (we use more like 20%, but that's the figure T.Boone Pickens uses), there's enough oil for 160 years.

I wouldn't exactly say that's "soon enough." I would say that conservation makes it 320 years if we cut consumption by 1/2. Good plan. 160 years seems like a long time, considering how far wind or solar has come in the past 30 years. Why not buy it the time it needs to be practical?

You can buy time through conservation without additional drilling (or with less additional drilling).

 

[Dumpy]

McCain becomes more and more of a joke hourly.

His handlers, aghast at his recent struggles to put together simple, understandable sentences or convey basic ideas, have grasped at this ridiculous straw as an excuse to avoid the debate.

After hiding from votes all year long, he runs home to Bushville for protection.

As a major architect of this debacle, he should be donating his extra houses to help those Americans who are losing them.

Obama will crush McCain, if he has the stones to show up.

to reiterate the question I posed earlier: what does the proposal to halt campaign ads have to do with any of this?!

 

[mook]

Really, that is ugly for McCain.

Dang, I was just going to watch a minute of that, and I couldn't help sit through the whole thing. That definitely wasn't the kind of publicity you want on a presidential campaign, especially coming from a guy like Letterman who never really comes across as a guy with an axe to grind.

Reminds me of a few years ago somebody (can't remember who) flaked on Jon Stewart without giving any notice. They filled in the time, but you could just see how pissed off he was through the whole episode.

Most of these late night guys are just trying to get a laugh. They know (except for Stewart) that excessive partisanship doesn't get them the choice interviews. All you have to do is show up and let the interviewer be funny and look sincere. McCain does that as well as anyone.

I have to believe even the McCain camp was pretty shocked Letterman seemed so torqued. Dave made it seem like he thinks their campaign is spiraling out of control.

 

[MARIS61]

Re: McCain wants to postpone Friday's debate

I prefer the English system, where you vote for a party, and then the party installs its leader as PM.

We don't.

That's why we kicked England's ass and made The United States of America.

 

[MARIS61]

to reiterate the question I posed earlier: what does the proposal to halt campaign ads have to do with any of this?!

McCain is dying in the polls, his campaign has no points to make which is why they have only slanderous attack ads which are so vile and obvious they are eroding their base of voters.

Having nothing to say, they seek to silence Obama.

 

[MARIS61]

"Taxpayers SHOULDN'T bail out lenders."

George W. Bush

 

[JE]

I just want to meet the undecided voters who are stupid enough to be swayed by this.

 

[Dumpy]

McCain is dying in the polls, his campaign has no points to make which is why they have only slanderous attack ads which are so vile and obvious they are eroding their base of voters.

Having nothing to say, they seek to silence Obama.

That's my thought also.

 

[MARIS61]

Did you see the less edited version?

She was fine.

I saw it.

I wouldn't trust her to feed my pond fish.

She's THAT stupid.

 

[MARIS61]

I don't think it was any difference then his vetting for any other VP candidate. I think Palin has two positives to his camping. One it got his republican base on board and could pull in some women voters. I think without Palin McCain would have no chance. It got me back on board.

Because you believe 2 idiots are better than 1?

 

[Denny Crane]

You can buy time through conservation without additional drilling (or with less additional drilling).

So drill, duh.

If we drilled in ANWR in 2000, that oil would be online now, eh?

 

[Denny Crane]

Most, if not all, experts disagree with your figure.

Little things like population explosion, worldwide modernization, China becoming an automobile manufacturer...balloon the actual number of vehicles far past the amount of oil on Earth to run them.

Gas is on the way out as a transportation fuel, and probably completely in the next 20 years.

We use 25% of the oil and produce 33% of the world's wealth. It's a pretty good deal for everyone if you think about it.

There's population explosion in some places, but not in others. Europe is getting older in a big way. So is the USA.

This chart is for only the top 12 oil producing countries or those with the largest oil reserves. There are many more. The figures do not include ANWR, offshore, oil shale, and other sources in the USA. The 65 year number contradicts your 20 year figure. It truly is 150+ years if you count all the rest.

<table class="wikitable"><caption>Summary of Reserve Data as of 2007</caption> <tbody><tr> <th rowspan="2">Country</th> <th colspan="2">Reserves ¹</th> <th colspan="2">Production ²</th> <th>Reserve life ³</th> </tr> <tr> <th>10⁹ bbl</th> <th>10⁹ m³</th> <th>10⁶ bbl/d</th> <th>10³ m³/d</th> <th>years</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Saudi Arabia</td> <td align="right">260</td> <td align="right">41</td> <td align="right">8.8</td> <td align="right">1,400</td> <td align="right">81</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Canada</td> <td align="right">179</td> <td align="right">28.5</td> <td align="right">2.7</td> <td align="right">430</td> <td align="right">182</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Iran</td> <td align="right">136</td> <td align="right">21.6</td> <td align="right">3.9</td> <td align="right">620</td> <td align="right">96</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Iraq</td> <td align="right">115</td> <td align="right">18.3</td> <td align="right">3.7</td> <td align="right">590</td> <td align="right">85</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Kuwait</td> <td align="right">99</td> <td align="right">15.7</td> <td align="right">2.5</td> <td align="right">400</td> <td align="right">108</td> </tr> <tr> <td>United Arab Emirates</td> <td align="right">97</td> <td align="right">15.4</td> <td align="right">2.5</td> <td align="right">400</td> <td align="right">106</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Venezuela</td> <td align="right">80</td> <td align="right">13</td> <td align="right">2.4</td> <td align="right">380</td> <td align="right">91</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Russia</td> <td align="right">60</td> <td align="right">9.5</td> <td align="right">9.5</td> <td align="right">1,510</td> <td align="right">17</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Libya</td> <td align="right">41.5</td> <td align="right">6.60</td> <td align="right">1.8</td> <td align="right">290</td> <td align="right">63</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Nigeria</td> <td align="right">36.2</td> <td align="right">5.76</td> <td align="right">2.3</td> <td align="right">370</td> <td align="right">43</td> </tr> <tr> <td>United States</td> <td align="right">21</td> <td align="right">3.3</td> <td align="right">4.9</td> <td align="right">780</td> <td align="right">11</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mexico</td> <td align="right">12</td> <td align="right">1.9</td> <td align="right">3.2</td> <td align="right">510</td> <td align="right">10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total of top twelve reserves</td> <td align="right">1,137</td> <td align="right">180.8</td> <td align="right">48.2</td> <td align="right">7,660</td> <td align="right">65</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="6"><small>Notes:</small> <dl><dd><small>1 Claimed or estimated reserves in billions (10⁹) of barrels (converted to billions of cubic metres). (Source: Oil & Gas Journal, January, 2007)</small></dd><dd><small>2 Production rate in millions (10⁶) of barrels per day (converted to thousands of cubic metres per day) (Source: US Energy Information Authority, September, 2007)<sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference">[15]</sup></small></dd><dd><small>3 Reserve to Production ratio (in years), calculated as reserves / annual production. (from above)</small></dd></dl></td></tr></tbody></table>There's this, too:

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

To begin with, one of the most revealing speeches about world oil reserves went unremarked in 2006. The head of the world's largest oil company, Saudi Aramco, said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil potential. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That fact alone should discredit the argument that peak oil is imminent and put our minds at ease concerning future petrol supplies.” [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The Impact of Upstream Technological Advances on Future Oil Supply" - Mr. Abdallah S. Jum'ah, President & Chief Executive Officer, Saudi Aramco, address to OPEC, Vienna, Austria, Sept. 13, 2006. [/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What does it mean? Why does his view of world reserves conflict so dramatically with the oil industry's view? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Probably most important for world oil policy, the Middle East does not necessarily have two thirds of all world oil reserves, as has long been claimed by the oil companies and the US Dept. of Energy. It only has two thirds of "proven" oil reserves which are far smaller than the potential reserves Jum'ah describes.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
​

<table border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="6" height="491" width="1189"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" height="198" width="407">

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The "traditional" view (British Petroleum). [/FONT]​

</td> <td bordercolor="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff" height="198" width="752">
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#cccccc"> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" height="66" width="407">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here is the conventional view of proven world oil reserves, 2002, British Petroleum. [/FONT]</td> <td bordercolor="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff" height="66" width="400">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here is a more geologically accurate picture of world oil reserves that adds US Geological Survey figures for recoverable and unconventional oil reserves. [/FONT]</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[Stepping Razor]

So drill, duh.

If we drilled in ANWR in 2000, that oil would be online now, eh?

This is my problem with "drill baby drill":

Now that admittedly doesn't include ANWR, which has been estimated to have a max peak output of about 800,000 barrels per day (4x the offshore production shown here). Still, "drill baby drill" in ANWR *and* throughout the coastal shelf gets us to about what, 5% or less of demand? This doesn't solve our problem at all.

If "drill baby drill" could actually solve our energy crunch, I'd support it... despite having some environmental misgivings. But it's literally a drop in the bucket... we need innovation in new technologies and, yes, conservation, not more wells.

SR

 

[PapaG]

This is my problem with "drill baby drill":

Now that admittedly doesn't include ANWR, which has been estimated to have a max peak output of about 800,000 barrels per day (4x the offshore production shown here). Still, "drill baby drill" in ANWR *and* throughout the coastal shelf gets us to about what, 5% or less of demand? This doesn't solve our problem at all.

If "drill baby drill" could actually solve our energy crunch, I'd support it... despite having some environmental misgivings. But it's literally a drop in the bucket... we need innovation in new technologies and, yes, conservation, not more wells.

SR

Your link is literally from "treehugger.com". Excuse me if I question the source. Keep in mind that oil companies keep inventing new methods to make previously unrecoverable oil now recoverable.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your link is literally from "treehugger.com". Excuse me if I question the source. Keep in mind that oil companies keep inventing new methods to make previously unrecoverable oil now recoverable.

I hear treehugger.com raises money to polish all the trees in the forest.

 

[Stepping Razor]

Your link is literally from "treehugger.com". Excuse me if I question the source. Keep in mind that oil companies keep inventing new methods to make previously unrecoverable oil now recoverable.

That is kind of funny, but they were just the first place hosting the chart that I found on Google images. They didn't supply the data (which comes from the government) or even make the chart (which came from something called Architecture 2030, which I know nothing about). But whether or not it was picked up by an enviro website with a hilarious URL, the numbers there are good. Drilling -- these numbers account for easing regulations and projected improvements to technology -- simply cannot solve our problem, or even contribute more than a trivial improvement on the margins. Offshore drilling literally will do less to meet our energy needs than Obama's much-maligned suggestion to inflate our tires to optimum pressure.

As I said, I'd totally support drilling if I thought it would actually work. Hell, I *do* support drilling, within some limits, if it be offered as a trade-off to conservatives to get them to support the kinds of real innovations in technology and conservation that we need to make in order to weather the coming energy storm.

But people who pretend that "drill baby drill" is all we need to do kind of dismay me with their ignorance, to be completely honest.

SR

 

[Denny Crane]

From my previous post:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What does it mean? Why does his view of world reserves conflict so dramatically with the oil industry's view? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Probably most important for world oil policy, the Middle East does not necessarily have two thirds of all world oil reserves, as has long been claimed by the oil companies and the US Dept. of Energy. It only has two thirds of "proven" oil reserves which are far smaller than the potential reserves Jum'ah describes.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

And drill baby drill isn't the complete answer.[/FONT] It seems silly to me to sit around in the dark without air conditioning while we wait for the greenest alternative energy sources to actually make sense.

http://sportstwo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1661609&postcount=5

(A response to T. Boone Pickens's plan to spend $1.2T on wind farms)

First, I would come up with a comprehensive strategy for deploying hundreds of new nuclear power plants.

This strategy would include studying what's been successful in France (where they generate most of their power via nuclear) and adjust our badly thought out and outdated regulations. For example, the French reprocess their spent fuel into more energy and less lethal waste and our regulations forbid that.

A key part of the strategy would be to come up with a single blueprint for all these reactors and to build the exact same plant over and over again. This would streamline just about everything there is to building the plants as well as safety monitoring of the plants once they're online.

As our energy requirements increase over time, which they surely will, we use the same blueprint to build more plants.

The French have been disposing of nuclear waste for decades and nobody's ever heard of any accidents there or repercussions from storing the waste. It's not rocket science; it's proven and safe.

There's an obvious construction boom to be had in building these plants and manufacturing the parts to build them.

Second, if we're going to spend $1.2T to address the problem, use it to subsidize people buying electric cars and research into better and better batteries.

With all the really cheap electricity produced by the new nuclear power plants, charging up the batteries for electric cars would be cheap and no need to ration who gets to fill up (by price).

We already have a fairly robust infrastructure for distributing electricity. It's not much work for an electrician to install circuit breakers and outlets in parking lots and other obvious places to let people charge up their batteries.

It'd be an obvious boost to Detroit where we once had a manufacturing powerhouse for automobiles. Someone has to build these electric cars, after all.

A simple back of the envelope kind of calculation. $1T buys 10,000,000 electric cars at $100,000 per. It subsidizes 1/2 the cost of 20M cars. Would an electric car really cost $100,000 mass produced? No, more like $25,000 or less. At $25,000, $1T buys 40M cars, of subsidizes 1/2 the cost of 80M cars. Now we're talking!

For most people who commute, electric cars are more than adequate. A range of 200 miles on a single charge isn't far fetched, if not already achieved. Most people might commute 100 miles per day (both ways) or far less.

Third, we have to exploit other energy sources here at home.

Electric cars charged by nuclear power plants isn't the be-all, end-all solution to our energy needs. We're still going to need gas powered vehicles for industrial purposes and other situations where the limited range of electric vehicles will not suffice. For example, a truck moving some goods across country isn't going to be workable if it's electric powered. There are other jobs where people need to travel more than 1,000 miles per week, so gas vehicles are their only option.

There's absolutely no reason not to drill for oil where it is, even if it's 2-10 years before it is available at the pumps. No matter what you say now, in 2-10 years if we're in a worse situation, we'll be wishing we drilled today.

Though I call solar a scam, there is some value to it as part of a comprehensive plan. The energy cost of making them no longer is an issue, since we get plenty from the nuclear power plants. Petroleum (that we're drilling for now) is a key component of plastics like those the solar panels are made from. They may have a better application as a means to extend the range of electric cars by 10 miles per charge, which is worth considering.

Fourth, if there's a need for a Manhattan Project for energy research, it's batteries.

Double the charge a battery can hold and electric cars become some combination of lighter and more range. Double their life span and we'll save ourselves the hassle of replacing batteries every 3-5 years.

 

[Real]

Bill Clinton: Don't 'Overly Parse' McCain Request to Delay Debate
Email
Share

September 25, 2008 8:26 AM

ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.

Appearing on Good Morning America Thursday, Clinton told ABC News' Chris Cuomo that McCain's push to postpone the debate would only be a good political move if both candidates agreed. McCain announced on Wednesday that he would "suspend" his presidential campaign to come to Washington to help negotiate a financial bailout bill

"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."

If the debate moves forward as planned for Friday night, Clinton says "they should be able to talk about this some of the debate because it is a security issue."

The former president thought Bush's address Wednesday night on the economic crisis had a "positive reaction".

"I thought it was the clearest statement of why we're in the fix we're in, at least what the nature of it is and why some national action is needed," Clinton said.

He said that both Democrats and Republicans "should move as quickly as they can" on the president's economic rescue plan but that both parties "want to know exactly how this $700 billion is going to be invested..to stabilize the system."

President Bush's bipartisan meeting on the economic crisis will take place at 4pm at the White House, both Obama and McCain will be in attendance.

September 25, 2008 in Clinton, Bill, McCain, John, Obama, Barack, Vote 2008: Democrats, Vote 2008: Republicans, Washington, White House | Permalink |

Link

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5882663

 

[maxiep]

Bill Clinton: Don't 'Overly Parse' McCain Request to Delay Debate
Email
Share

September 25, 2008 8:26 AM

ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.

Appearing on Good Morning America Thursday, Clinton told ABC News' Chris Cuomo that McCain's push to postpone the debate would only be a good political move if both candidates agreed. McCain announced on Wednesday that he would "suspend" his presidential campaign to come to Washington to help negotiate a financial bailout bill

"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."

If the debate moves forward as planned for Friday night, Clinton says "they should be able to talk about this some of the debate because it is a security issue."

The former president thought Bush's address Wednesday night on the economic crisis had a "positive reaction".

"I thought it was the clearest statement of why we're in the fix we're in, at least what the nature of it is and why some national action is needed," Clinton said.

He said that both Democrats and Republicans "should move as quickly as they can" on the president's economic rescue plan but that both parties "want to know exactly how this $700 billion is going to be invested..to stabilize the system."

President Bush's bipartisan meeting on the economic crisis will take place at 4pm at the White House, both Obama and McCain will be in attendance.

September 25, 2008 in Clinton, Bill, McCain, John, Obama, Barack, Vote 2008: Democrats, Vote 2008: Republicans, Washington, White House | Permalink |

Link

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5882663

Regardless of the fact that President Clinton is right, I find it hilarious how much he hates Obama.