I think I disagree with most of the pundits myself, especially after a good night's sleep. I was very upset with Obama, but today I think I'm coming around.

I thought Romney acted as if he'd had several pots of strong coffee and an entire bottle of No-Doz. He jumped in and interrupted the moderator and the President. I thought he was rude and condescending there.

What some are calling listless and tired, I thought was calm and professional. Obama is never going to be Christie, Mr. Fire. He always has been, and always will be, wonky and subdued. He really hadn't changed that much.

I actually thought Obama was smart not to dig with the 47% or Bain. He was sticking to the big picture, not the sideshows (even those that show Romney's character).

Romney also contradicted himself, and I hope the Obama campaign makes use of his statements.

However, I am afraid that voters not familiar with Romney's record watched last night and liked what they saw; more energy, almost a bullyish attitude that some might want to see in foreign policy.

Romney might have "won", but fortunately this was only the first debate, and that news cycle will probably be long gone two weeks from now, or even by next week. I cannot envision how Ryan will make a better impression than Biden.

I totaty agree w. u Kobi !! also, Romney's constant interuptions. Romeny had to do something to save his campaign , even if it meant to change his stand lol... Obama looked a tad surprised w. Romeny agreeing w. a few things .. like i said b4 ..

**wipes Romneys mouth on both sides**

Bam is a brilliant strategist. I am hoping he planned this all to give Mitt a false sense of security and also to give him confidence to shoot his mouth off some more.

Maybe he also wanted to make sure everyone who supported him last time, comes out in big numbers for him again like we did last time.

The strategy was for him to look Presidential. And it backfired, especially as Mitt lied and made him look befuddled.

Strategists admitted as much to Politico. It was a big mistake.

In fact, the debate made the President look vulnerable, the opposite of the intention of the strategy.

The President looks beatable. His base is frustrated and demoralized (I am sure temporarily) while Romney's folks are energized.

I appreciate what you are saying. I was ripping angry last night.

But, I meant more of a medium-range strategy. I think, if it WAS an actual strategic move, we won't see its result for a week or so, until the next 2 debates.

Incidentally, Big Bird has now been replaced by Tweety Bird as Tweety is willing to work for chicken scratch.

Obama gave a good stump speech in Denver today. The frustrating part is why didn't he say a lot of those things last night during the debate.

I expected him to take the presidential route, but not being so passive. To me he appears to be disgusted with Romney and the Republicans with all of their lies and distortions. However, he still has to make his case as to why he should be president for the next four years. Also a big part of being presidential is being in command and appearing strong and decisive.

I watch the electoral college because that is what matters. If Obama's lead in Ohio starts to evaporate I will start sweating bullets. If not, I think he will win. It will be very difficult for Romney to win without Ohio. If Obama wins Ohio and one of the other remaining swing states like Iowa, New Hampshire etc. he is almost certain to win unless something really dramatic happens.

Thoughts
 

Obama kept calm, perhaps to subdued. He's in a no win situation as a President who isn't white. If he's to confrontational he's the rabid black man if he's to soft he's weak. In my opinion Mittens looked, acted, spoke like he was on a 60oz can of Monster drink, he was pushy, inconsiderate, slobbery and imposing. He danced around, waffled, repeated himself and LIED.

Obama could of been more aggressive but I feel it would of made Mittens more foamy at the mouth. The Moderator SUCKED and it made me cringe when he corrected Obama about his time being up. Mittens Interruptous wasn't spoken to in that manner and that felt icky.

I personally won't expect for Obama to be overly aggressive, it would hurt him since the kooka nuts already paint him as the hateful black Muslim guy.

Oh
 

PS...

We need women Moderators not just ancient white guys, that needs to change as well.

Romney: "The rich are just fine". The one line from last night that sums up his whole platform's reason for being: keeping the rich fine and getting finer.

I wish I could distill into simple sets of information what is on my mind concerning serious debates of this nature, but I am not that skilled yet in doing so. I process information in relatively very slow ways and one of the reasons I am not so good at that yet is because I largely think in abstract terms and ways and it takes me a while to narrow items of consideration down to a point where I can make sense of these sorts of things.

I know who I will be casting my vote for in the upcoming election but aside from that, to me the larger part of the story rests upon extended and ongoing national and international unrest. Not only is it terribly important that the US have a leader who is capable of making reliable executive decision, that takes into consideration the health of our own society, but there needs to be a concentrated effort in demonstrating a capacity to take into consideration the health of other societies and social issues of extreme paramount of importance: For example, the recent markers of global unrest in Libya, Egypt, Syria (Middle East participant societies) and items of unrest residing on the global stage of economic unrest (the Euro affair, etc) - all to say that our own Presidential election issues affect not only us, but others who work cooperatively on a global stage. In my mind, leadership is not a singular act - it is cooperative by design.

To me, this is why - as an observer to the debates or other issues recieving wide media attention - we (the general 'we') may not see items publicly addressed, or items that we feel need public redress, in timely ways; as there might be more at stake than can be given a public accounting for.

(eta: Where was Gwen Eiffel? Does anyone know why she was not appointed to facilitate the debate? I like her style as a facilitator, moderator.)

Obama must win because of 3 words: The Supreme Court The next President could appoint up to 4 Supreme Court Justices.....Scalia and Kennedy are both 76yrs old and could well step down in the next 4 years. Scalia is the most conservative Justice along with Clarence Thomas (age 64). Kennedy is sometimes a swing vote, but really is a staunch conservative. Ginsberg is 79 and Breyer is 74 and are both staunch progressives and could step down in the next 4 years. We could be fucked big time for at least a generation.

Jim Leher is old and needs to be replaced by Gwen Eiffel. However Gwen is not moderating any of the debates. Website for the debates: http://www.debates.org/

I also have to say it sooooooooooooo sucks that absolutely none of the 3rd party candidates were part of the debate. We need them to hold people's feet to the fire. KPFA and Democracy Now actually had the alternative debate with 3rd party candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. After Romney and Obama gave their answers Stein and Anderson answered the same questions. You can listen here: http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/84853

I think Romney should be called on all his lies from last night and he is being called on it by some papers today....such as Business Week and the Wall Street Journal. It's pretty amazing he just ignored what he has been saying for a year and made up a whole bunch of new stuff. And Obama certainly is taking on ALL the lies today and cracking some pretty good jokes in the process..........

I'm also thinking Obama had his head down because he was talking to himself and saying....don't get mad, don't look at him or you will punch him in his lying face, don't get made, don't get mad........I kinda figure that is his self talk last night.........shrug.............

sleeping on it always gives me perspective.........

I don't have a horse in this race (I'm not US so won't be voting) but managed to catch much of the debate in an airport.


From my outside perspective, there's no doubt that Romney came across more impressively than Obama. Obama was too impassive and, for much of it, appeared to lack focus. In addition, his approach seemed slightly more academic which isn't what wins this type of debate. Maybe it comes across as Presidential, I don't know. However, I would want a leader, not a President. Obama didn't come across as a leader.


That said, IMO, it actually worked out well for Obama. Why? Because, in practice, the importance of these debates can be blown out of proportion. Those most interested in the specifics and who watch and take-in these debates from start to finish have typically made up their minds beforehand. The debate doesn't sway them.


Therefore, for someone such as Obama who, despite some US media coverage suggesting that this is a tight race (the international media coverage is very different, recognising Obama's significant lead in key swing states and that's what this election will come down to), is in an extremely strong position, the key objective from last night's debate was to avoid any significant gaffs that could get all of the USA excited and talking about today, outside of the normal election coverage. He avoided any such gaffs so, in my opinion, it worked for him in that nothing significant occurred so as to impact on his lead in the swing states.


That said, if I were American and unemployed / underemployed, I would be worried about both his responses and those of his challenger yesterday evening. Neither would have filled me with any confidence or hope.

He can't really use it in the 3rd debate because that one is about foreign policy not domestic policy. And the middle debate isn't so much a debate as it is a joint town hall meeting. Now he might be hoping that things like the 47% and the tax returns will come up in the town hall debate--and likely they will. Then he can run with it without being the one who brought it up.

Catch romney in the lies...rehatch the flip floppers words...

This race could be very close. Close elections in the U.S. mean that fraud can make the difference, and we have fraud. Rachel Maddow today had a segment today on Idaho's voter guide, which says, "Bring Your ID and Vote" when there is no voter ID requirement in Idaho. A firm employed by the RNC just got caught turning in fraudulant registration forms in Florida. This is a firm which had destroyed Democratic registration cards in swing states in 04.

In 2000, Gore lost a lot of traction after the debates, and in 04 Kerry got within striking distance after a good showing. They can narrow the race significantly.

I think Romney will get a bounce from this, the bounce he didn't get after the Convention. It will make the race a close one, and that is dangerous in this country because the Republicans are willing to break the law to win elections.

One great quote I heard - can't recall who said it -- went something like Obama's campaign has been doing the work for him while Romney has been doing the work for his campaign. Romney is in there fighting with everything he has. Obama spent last Sunday watching football. It's not encouraging.