The Debates

Kobi · 10-04-2012, 08:32 AM

I dont know that I agree on the pundits assessment of the debate. I guess it depends on what factors one is using to determine a winner.

Wardrobe - Romney. Red power tie vs purple subdued tie.

Energy - Obama. Frenetic energy is Romneys forte. Frenetic energy tends to be contagious but it is also used to obscure a message. Frenetic energy makes one appear to be dynamic but it is also indicative of desperation and anxiety.

Obama was his usual controlled, low key self. I dont know about anyone else but I would rather the White House be occupied by someone who exudes stability, constancy, and consistency rather than a whirling dervish of contradictions.

Credibility - Obama. The man inhereted a mess. Yet his message has never waivered. It is the hallmark of an incumbent. Romney has always tailors his message to the audience du jour. It is the hallmark of a contender. Obama has always been true to himself. Romney has always been willing to be whatever anyone needs him to be.

Message - Obama. I may not always agree with him but the man has a vision of the bigger picture, the global picture, which is running the world today. He is the pioneer President who has to deal with the never before known hazards of a meltdown of a global economy. He has had to deal with the USA becoming a partner in rather than the leader of the world. Yet, his humanity and his values have never waivered.

Romney, on the other hand, is stuck on a USA only vision. He is stuck spouting policies and ideals which are outdated; economics which have failed miserably in the past and are the antithesis of what is needed for a global economy; and he is panderer.

Personality - Obama. A global economy and global world require thought, cooperation, negotiation, compromise, and a willingness to tackle the hard stuff that challenges ones own values, beliefs and principles.

Romney, no matter how hard he tries, still comes across as a bull in a china shop, a bully, an intimidator, a steamroller, and a control freak. This will not bode well in a global picture. The USA doesnt have the clout or the money to operate this way.

Humor - Obama. Obama is a master of understated irony and he got his digs in. Made me laugh at his cleverness a few times. I dont think Romney even has a humerus.

Ideas - Obama. The man is very reality based. Is a tough world out there. There are no easy answers. There is no Superman or Superwoman who is going to swoop in with a magical elixir and fix all that ails us and the world.

Romney, as a contender, is still relying on selling the fantasy of what he can and will do. It might sound good to some, it might sound like the right thing cuz he is making it seem so simple and easy. If it was that easy, dont you think someone would have done it by now?

He is stuck in Friedman economics which is famous for making 2 classes of people - the obscenely rich and the obscenely poor; and for requiring the exertion of a great deal of control over the masses.

Not exactly the way the pundits called it.

10-04-2012, 08:32 AM	#11
Kobi Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Biological female. Lesbian. Relationship Status: Happy Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic. Posts: 9,234 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,840 Thanked 34,635 Times in 7,642 Posts Rep Power: 21474861	I dont know that I agree on the pundits assessment of the debate. I guess it depends on what factors one is using to determine a winner. Wardrobe - Romney. Red power tie vs purple subdued tie. Energy - Obama. Frenetic energy is Romneys forte. Frenetic energy tends to be contagious but it is also used to obscure a message. Frenetic energy makes one appear to be dynamic but it is also indicative of desperation and anxiety. Obama was his usual controlled, low key self. I dont know about anyone else but I would rather the White House be occupied by someone who exudes stability, constancy, and consistency rather than a whirling dervish of contradictions. Credibility - Obama. The man inhereted a mess. Yet his message has never waivered. It is the hallmark of an incumbent. Romney has always tailors his message to the audience du jour. It is the hallmark of a contender. Obama has always been true to himself. Romney has always been willing to be whatever anyone needs him to be. Message - Obama. I may not always agree with him but the man has a vision of the bigger picture, the global picture, which is running the world today. He is the pioneer President who has to deal with the never before known hazards of a meltdown of a global economy. He has had to deal with the USA becoming a partner in rather than the leader of the world. Yet, his humanity and his values have never waivered. Romney, on the other hand, is stuck on a USA only vision. He is stuck spouting policies and ideals which are outdated; economics which have failed miserably in the past and are the antithesis of what is needed for a global economy; and he is panderer. Personality - Obama. A global economy and global world require thought, cooperation, negotiation, compromise, and a willingness to tackle the hard stuff that challenges ones own values, beliefs and principles. Romney, no matter how hard he tries, still comes across as a bull in a china shop, a bully, an intimidator, a steamroller, and a control freak. This will not bode well in a global picture. The USA doesnt have the clout or the money to operate this way. Humor - Obama. Obama is a master of understated irony and he got his digs in. Made me laugh at his cleverness a few times. I dont think Romney even has a humerus. Ideas - Obama. The man is very reality based. Is a tough world out there. There are no easy answers. There is no Superman or Superwoman who is going to swoop in with a magical elixir and fix all that ails us and the world. Romney, as a contender, is still relying on selling the fantasy of what he can and will do. It might sound good to some, it might sound like the right thing cuz he is making it seem so simple and easy. If it was that easy, dont you think someone would have done it by now? He is stuck in Friedman economics which is famous for making 2 classes of people - the obscenely rich and the obscenely poor; and for requiring the exertion of a great deal of control over the masses. Not exactly the way the pundits called it.