First Presidential Debate

[Drago-Kazov]

Notwithstanding, I also wonder what kind of voter is still truly undecided at this point in the game? Those voters seem so few it hardly seems worth chasing after them.

Seriously what is the difference between the two?

[Misfit Toy]

Ghostavo Fring wrote:

---

Pretty much sums it up. Obama can do and has done better. Romney was firing on all cylinders and never let up. There's more fire in him than I'd have given him credit for.

I agree with both of you. I was disappointed with the President's performance.

[Squiggy]

thestrangledcorpse wrote:

---

The color-coded ties make it easy for the voters.

+1

I support Obama. Romney won. Last night was Leher's last time moderating a debate.

[KimM]

Drago-Kazov wrote:

---

Seriously what is the difference between the two?

If you are American it makes a great difference if you are not a one percenter who needs social security and health insurance and cannot pay for those out of your own pocket.

If you are not American it makes a great difference if you are in need of international aid. Romney was willing to let th US automotive system go to hell - his own countrypeople. Imagine how he would feel about bailing out Spain, Greece or the rest of the EEU.

And if you are an international ally you might not wish to be dragged into the military disaster he could blunder us into - would you wish to be dragged into a war that keeping his mouth shut to mollify the fundamental right who voted him in could have prevented?

In other words, it makes a great difference to everyone.



http://news.yahoo.com/romneys-strong...150035684.html

[Locutus of Bored]

Romney won the debate by a mile. It doesn't matter that he was lying through his teeth, compromising the hard right values he's had to pander to throughout this campaign, actually conceding a lot of policy points to Obama, and acting like a first class prick to the deer caught in the headlights that was Jim Lehrer (although Obama wasn't much better), because all the people in his base who are nervous about him are going to care about is that he came across as strong, tough, direct, vital, and not awkward and robotic. He commanded the stage, literally, and looked presidential. It was a total victory of style over substance, but that was enough for this first debate, where it will build confidence amongst people who can't stand Obama regardless, but weren't thrilled about Romney either.

Obama has always had a problem with excessive use of verbal crutches (ummms and ahhhs) and pauses, which is indicative of carefully considering his words during an interview or speech, but here it just came off as indecisive and stalling for time. When he wasn't absentmindedly nodding his head at everything Romney said (which is a good technique to show that you're engaged and interested on a date, but not in a debate), he spent far too much time looking down at his notes on the podium. Plus, by the time he got around to making his point half the time he was gone way over the two minute limit, so he had to bully Lehrer around as well.

If one were to look solely at the facts presented by both candidates in text form without all the extraneous pauses, ummms, and "zingers," Obama would have won in my opinion, because much of Mitt's claims won't pass the smell test. But from a total presentation standpoint, Mitt dominated. I was expecting him to win the debate, because the challenger usually wins the first debate by virtue of simply holding their own against the incumbent and not coming across like an idiot, but I was not expecting this Mitt Romney to show up. This is probably the one and only time this comparison will ever be used about these two candidates for obvious reasons, but Mitt was the Harlem Globetrotters to Obama's Washington Generals this time out. Obama will hopefully be much improved next time (plus, it's a town hall format, which is more his speed).

[foxhot]

I predict this weekend Jay Pharaoah of SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE will be looking at the floor, then briefly grinning, then back again, over and over.

Both Romney and Obama were more than happy to flout Lehrer's rules. Both went extremely over the allotted times.

[gturner]

Screamy wrote:

---

+1

I support Obama. Romney won. Last night was Leher's last time moderating a debate.

Why wouldn't they keep using Leher? He's was so close to a corpse this time that I don't think being an actual corpse would really detract from his presence. They could just prop him up in a glass-topped casket like Evita Peron and play audio clips of his questions from past debates.

[laika]

[laika]

I agree that choosing a candidate to vote for and support is an important thing to many people (including myself, at times). However, IMO, I don't see much thoughtful and careful choosing involved when there are only TWO choices.. people are forced to confront the whole "lesser of two evils" bs and pretty much abandon some issues that they find important and relevant because those issues are not important in their candidate's eyes. This is unfortunate.



..and this is why, in conclusion, I should be president. Obviously.

[Dr. Chandra]

foxhot wrote:

---

I predict this weekend Jay Pharaoah of SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE will be looking at the floor, then briefly grinning, then back again, over and over.

Both Romney and Obama were more than happy to flout Lehrer's rules. Both went extremely over the allotted times.

Agreed. If you're going to have rules, abide by the rules.

[J. Allen]

laika wrote:

---

I agree that choosing a candidate to vote for and support is an important thing to many people (including myself, at times). However, IMO, I don't see much thoughtful and careful choosing involved when there are only TWO choices.. people are forced to confront the whole "lesser of two evils" bs and pretty much abandon some issues that they find important and relevant because those issues are not important in their candidate's eyes. This is unfortunate.



..and this is why, in conclusion, I should be president. Obviously.

The thing is, I'm not choosing between the lesser of two evils, I'm choosing a moral and ethical good by voting for Obama.

[horatio83]

How can a guy who has not restored Habeas corpus and spreads terror in Pakistan be "a moral and ethical good"? Gee, I'd probably also vote for him if I were an American citizen but not with false illusions.

[indianatrekker26]

Rainbow Dash wrote:

---

The thing is, I'm not choosing between the lesser of two evils, I'm choosing a moral and ethical good by voting for Obama.

moral and ethical = Obama????????? I don't follow politics all that closely, but those are not two words i would use to describe Obama. Socialist, yes, MORAL and ETHICAL,, no.

[gturner]

What Obama should've done is come out with a wooden chair, set it in front of his podium, and walk off. When the empty chair debated Clint Eastwood it at least landed some pretty good jabs at Romney, and most of the press declared it the winner, or at least declared Eastwood the clear loser. An empty chair would've put Romney in the unenviable position of having to fill in both sides of an unscripted conversation and he would've been the one hemming and hawwing while he pretended Obama was replying to his points. Everyone would've come away from the debate thinking Romney had lost his marbles. I'm not sure how well Jim Leher would make Romney spend equal time pretending to listen to the chair, but if the press called foul it would paint Romney even more unfavorably.

Eastwood was definitely on to something, but Obama's campaign advisors failed to capitalize on it.

[horatio83]

indianatrekker26 wrote:

---

moral and ethical = Obama????????? I don't follow politics all that closely, but those are not two words i would use to describe Obama. Socialist, yes, MORAL and ETHICAL,, no.

Obama is like Clinton a Third Way social-democrat, i.e. a centrist. Big step from there to being an actual social democrat and a big step from social democracy to socialism.
I agree though that there has been socialism in the US during the last decade, socialism for the military, socialism for Halliburton, socialism for Goldmann Sachs, socialism for the rich.