Thank you, sir. I was mistaken in endorsing either candidate. Because once I endorse a candidate, they or their most rabid supporters end up pissing me off in some way. It is best that I remain a strictly neutral observer, showing the good, the bad, and the ugly in both major candidates and their campaigns. A true journalist is not partisan. By not making endorsements, I can keep the post-partisan flavor that continues to make the Crotty Farm Report a robust, challenging, and uniquely independent forum. That said, today's column was not an endorsement. Just stating my take on the debate. A position not covered in mainstream media.

Come to New York City. Walk amid the Kool-Aid drinkers. You will see as I see.

Early evidence of Liberal Media Bias. Penguin in 2012! Scratch that. I can't endorse anymore.

I must have several emails for this Beverly character. I vow to delete them all. The Buddha Way is inconceivable. I vow to attain it.

I guess you haven't been in NYC and seen all the metrosexual Obama-heads asking for your vote. Or all the hipsters in DUMBO and Williamsburg shilling for Obama. I couldn't find ONE event one can attend in NYC to watch a debate and get a balanced spectrum of discussion on the election. It appears that most everybody is in the tank for Obama. Mainly because of STYLE over substance. They write off this old war hero guy because he's a bit cranky, not a smooth sophist like Mr. Obama. But if you get beyond style with McCain, you see that he is a genuine reformer. He will cut taxes. He will cut spending. He will reform Washington. And he will win the wars in Iraq and Aghanistan. I do not see the evidence backing Mr. Obama on these points, for all his elegance, charm, and poise. My attacks are not personal against you. So, stop being personal with me. Look at the issues. Get beyond style. And the make a reasonable decision. I can see strong points for either candidate. Can you?

I don't think you read very carefully, sir. First, I said that the young style-conscious metrosexuals are a portion of his base. Not the whole base. Secondly, I have lived in NYC on on and off since 1989, and consistently since 2003. Do you not think I am allowed to attest to what my eyes see daily? Or am I not even allowed that freedom by the Obama PC Police? A donation should be given for providing the first forum I know of that offers genuine independent thinking and discourse. You prefer that a site engage in raging partisanship? Fox News but of the Left? There are plenty of them. Start with Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post. They would be happy to receive your loving and clearly deeply thought-out support.

I think you forgot to read the comments area, sir. This article is not an endorsement of Mr. McCain. As I made clear, I am not endorsing anyone. I got briefly caught up in the need to endorse in previous columns. And for that I apologize to all readers of CFR. It is not in keeping with the post-partisan aims of CFR for its founder to endorse any candidate. The issues are too important for such silly posturing.

Please see comments elsewhere in this forum. I am NOT ENDORSING either candidate. Can we all please get this clear: JAMES MARSHALL CROTTY IS NOT ENDORSING EITHER JOHN MCCAIN OR BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT OF THESE HERE UNITED STATES. I made a mistake in two earlier columns-- once endorsing McCain, once endorsing Obama. I am sorry. I should not be endorsing anyone. It's not the purpose of CFR to be overtly partisan. For this mistake, I am willing to be pilloried in a public square. Union Square, if you must. By Spartacus Youth League Members, if you feel so inclined. Heck, by ACORN canvassers in league with unrepetant former members of the Weather Underground in solidarity with Rednecks for Obama and Billionaires for Bush. Whatever it takes.

1. I am researching the leprechauns farting rainbows. More on that soon. 2. I deal with the Ayers stuff elsewhere in the comments area. 3. The key point you make is that McCain cannot afford his promises. I've already noted that Obama cannot name one specific program that would have a significant effect on the budget that he could cut. But here is where McCain has explicity said he is going to cut: -- earmarks (at least 20 billion a year and probably much more) -- ethanol subsidies (a position that cost him Iowa) --a host of other government subsidies and protectionist hoo-hah. He will not cut defense, veterans care, Social Security, and health care. Frankly, I think that leaves far too much off the table. I think we should SIGNIFICANTLY cut our defense expenditures, start closing some bases, and so on. And I think we should take a big cut into the social services the federal government provides and get nonprofits and localities to pick up the slack. That would help. Also, there needs to be a huge cut in Medicaid and Medicare. As people get the tax break to buy their own insurance, these cuts can be made. McCain can't say this specifically during a campaign, but it's got to happen or this country will go broke.

Hi Don. No doubt about it, Obama’s demeanor is pleasing and articulate. In this piece I asked readers to look beyond style to the core substance of issues. Also, McCain enjoyed a sizable bump in at least one poll after the debate.

First, DR, the Obama camp is disingenous on this point. It's quite clear that Joe is leaning towards Mr. McCain, though he has not officially said so. Knowing this, the Obama campaign went out of its way to dig up dirt on Joe. Is this the "New Politics" Mr. Obama speaks of? I don't mind digging up dirt, but let's stop this sanctimonious rhetoric from Camp Obama that somehow you folks are any different from any other campaign. Do you think there would be all this Obama supporter hysteria over Palin's teen daughter and Palin's doings in Alaska if Palin was the Democratic VP cnadidate? The Obama Campaign, and especially its unofficial supporters, have proven they are willing to play ad hominem hardball. Welcome to the club. Secondly, the taxation issue related to Joe is very complicated. Obama has said repeatedly that he would not penalize small businesses who do not provide health insurance for their employees or families. However, he has yet to clarify what he means by "small business." Obama does mandate that all children get coverage. That means Joe himself would have to pay for insurance for his kids or would be fined. And we still don't know what that fine will be. Obama won't exactly specify, despite being pressed on it for weeks. Finally, that magic $250,000 number. Since many small businesses file as individuals (I do), if Joe's plumbing business makes $250,000, he would pay higher taxes under Senator Obama's plan. So, yes, individual plumbers may not make 250 grand, but a plumbing business, with several employees, could. Hope this helps.

Hello again, sir. It would be helpful if you listed your name, not just the publication you are pushing. Regarding each person you mention: Buckley. Yes, he has been a contributor to his father's National Review, but on many issues the son has long been more liberal than the father. He's a decent chap. I share his distaste for big-government. And many of his criticisms I had previously echoed in my recent criticisms of the McCain campaign. But I think McCain and Palin have effectively toned down the guilt-by-association ad hominem rhetoric. As I mentioned many times, the Ayers and Wright stuff is only relevant in that it amplifies our understanding of Mr. Obama's policy views. Just like Obama's listing of his advisors during the third debate, these other advisors in his life also tell us about his views. But that does not mean, as I have made very clear, that Obama is a terrorist or a bigot simply because Ayers was a terrorist and Wright is a bigot. I drew that clear bright line long ago. Hitchens is hardly a conservative, a moderate, or an independent. He’s a liberal who happens to believe that sometimes the defense of liberal principles requires vigorous use of military force. I think his unique take on liberalism has been extremely helpful in the discourse about the Iraq War. Since he probably agrees with Mr. Obama on most everything else besides the Iraq War, I am not surprised by his endorsement. As for the inimitable Will, the delightful Noonan, the sensible Mr. Brooks and the at-times irascible Mr. K, I have yet to see their categorical endorsement of Mr. Obama. They, like me, were upset over the tone and direction that the McCain campaign took in past weeks. And the chaotic nature of the campaign’s organization and messaging. Now that the campaign seems to have changed its ways, I expect them all to endorse McCain in the end. I could be wrong, though. And I think there are valid reasons to endorse either candidate. I think with either choice the country will be much better off than it has been under the failed leadership of G. W. Bush. Thank you for your post.

I would like to deal with this claim in a future CFR. There have been several articles on this claim recently. And, of course, it comes down to how you define "better for the US economy." Upon that definition rests the fundamental difference between the two major parties. I am not trying to avoid the point, but it deserves a serious rejoinder. I want to thank you for bringing it up.

Dear Tim C: I put my full name and address and more on this site, why can't you reveal your last name? If you did, then maybe you will be more understanding in your replies. To your point, Tim. It's really just a question of posting protocol. I know other online journalists go through the same process. So that there is no misunderstanding, let me explain how this works. First, I write the article in Word. I then post it in the CFR CMS (content management system). I then go back and forth checking between the CMS and how the article appears on CFR. You sometimes can't see errors or poorly worded phrases properly until you see the piece posted for the public on the site. Invariably, during this back-and-forth process, folks, especially folks who have received RSS feeds alerting them there is a new post on the site, upload quick responses to the piece. It's an unfortunate byproduct of this editing process that responses come in before I am done fully tweaking the piece online. And, yes, in this case, as I was editing, I did notice a very quick and early response to the article (probably because this time it wasn't my normally LONG take on an issue). A person was upset by the wording of the "metrosexual" claim. I had noticed the same when writing it, so I made the change very quickly before noticing if others had responded. Sorry. My intention was not to say all Obama supporters fit this tongue--in cheek description, but that a healthy percentage do. Especially in urban areas like New York City. Adding the word "portion" clarified my intention without appreciably changing the point. Thank you for your continued patience with this process. And sorry for my dig. It's easy to understand now why there was the confusion.

To the points, Richard: 1. "It Was Obama Who Answered the Question About Which Programs He Would Cut." The broader point here was Obama's unwillingness to break with party ranks to achieve real spending reductions. According to Congressional Quarterly, Obama has voted with his party 97% of the time. Talk about party loyalty. McCain has voted with his party a far lesser percentage. There is no dispute on this point. The one shining example that Obama gave in the third debate of breaking with his party is S.5,a 2005 bill providing tort reform. 41% of his fellow Democratic Senators ALSO voted in favor of that bill. You could hardly classify Obama as a courageous maverick. There just is no record of him breaking ranks on a consistent basis. Now to specific spending cuts. Here's what Senator Obama said in the third debate: "And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn't -- under the Medicare plan -- it doesn't help seniors get any better. It's not improving our health care system. It's just a giveaway. We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don't work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better." After 20 months of campaigning, and being asked this question countless times, Senator Obama can only name ONE program he would cut. A $15 billion program, whose elimination would not make a dent in our deficit? C'mon. It's obvious, the man is extremely vague on this point and doesn't want to be pinned down for fear of upsetting a key constituency. The best solution, in these dire times, and after a huge government investment in the market, is to have an across-the-board spending freeze. And THEN go in with a scalpel and cut specific necessary programs even more. McCain is totally right on this point. Regarding the metrosexual point, I deal with that elsewhere in the comments area. Thank you for your continued support.

I deal with the spending freeze below under Mr. Ramer's post. "America" is a pretty broad group, my friend. You might want to be a little more specific. The recent Gallup Poll shows a 49% to 47% Obama lead among likely voters. I still think Obama will win, but I wouldn't count the geezer out just yet.

Here's an interesting and irreverent discussion of intellectual conservatives' abandonment of McCain. http://gawker.com/5062721/hitch-joins-all+star-roster-of-anti+mccain-smart-republicans

I think there is truth in the claim that I am trying to convince myself. In the end, that is one key purpose of these musings, as it is for any writer. Why does a writer write a novel? To see how it ends. That's my take anyway. But I was quite sincere in my comments when I said that I do want this to be a post-partisan forum. That doesn't preclude partisan opinions, but it does mandate that I, the founder, stay clear away from endorsing. I want all sides to feel that they are welcome here, which they clearly are. I don't want this to be yet another kneejerk partisan forum: from Huffington Post to Daily Kos to Fox News to MSNBC it's just one big partisan screamfest out there. Hopefully we can actually have some civilized discussions about policy here. And admit when we were wrong or off-base. I was off-base when I made endorsements. And, again, I apologize for that. Watch for radically new improvements in CFR coming soon. Also, I am looking for new bloggers.