The Debates

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by grenade

That's one of the things I love about Obama, no theatrics.

I didn't say theatrics, but fire, there wasn't any he was flat as a pancake. I don't do drama, but damn I'd like to know he actually wants another term.

[princessbelle]

That's an important part to bring up really.

Theatrical...i can only say it was true of Romney. To me, Romney was a text book politician tonight. He is not going to do this and is going to do that and blah blah, everything that he thinks *we* want to hear.

Typical. Politician. With nothing backing it up and not only is it illogical, most of what Romney said, it was full of holes and lies. So many things that he said he would do is not realistic with his actual plans, or hints of plans.

He can just go out there and say anything and get away with it?

So disappointing.

[Martina]

Romney was clear and cogent. He made sense. It's crap, but if you don't know better. . . .

I thought his gestures were good. They helped him illustrate his points. The President stepped on his own lines a couple of times. Romney was on. He was ready. Out for blood.

[Corkey]

Mitt was talking so fast I couldn't follow a train of thought. He talks a good lie but it's still a lie.

[Allison W]

Be as disappointed as you please with the President's performance in the debate, but he did keep the pressure on Romney. I rather appreciate that he kept bringing up Romney's clusterfuck of a deficit plan and the extreme vagueness of his policies--a running theme was that Obama was willing to reveal his policies and admit to their costs, whereas Romney kept playing a sad and bizarre shell game, presumably on the assumption that if he just pretends the costs of his un-policies aren't there, voters will imagine him to shit sunshine and rainbows.

That said, Romney was very well-prepared and well-spoken for a night of arguing. It's just that he's such a vapid excuse for a candidate that his performance was just that--a slick song-and-dance routine, and nothing more. His lying may or may not have won him the debate, but it is doubtful that it will win him the election--Romney simply wasn't thinking about the long-term consequences as opposed to the short-term ones. Obama, on the other hand, now has a whole mess of Romney lies that he can throw back in his face with poison added, in addition to the light shined on the magical faerie dust hole in his deficit policy.

Sure, if taken entirely in a vacuum, Romney did very well. The thing is... this isn't a vacuum. For all the unpleasant shit that can be said about the American voting public, they have been paying an unusual amount of attention this election cycle, and Romney was thus setting himself up for a long-term failure.

So when I was watching the debates, I was worried. But in retrospect, I think Obama was allowing Romney to tie the noose around his own neck. And I don't have any particular doubt as to whether Obama will hang him by it.

[Corkey]

Yea but we're not the voters he needed to convince. I got his back, but there are too many independent and frankly ignorant folks who bought Robme's lies. He missed some prime opportunities, and it showed.

[Allison W]

And it's we libs who are complaining about Obama's performance not having been good enough. Outside of MSNBC he's been getting a more favourable review, or so I heard.

[princessbelle]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Yea but we're not the voters he needed to convince. I got his back, but there are too many independent and frankly ignorant folks who bought Robme's lies. He missed some prime opportunities, and it showed.

I agree.

And those that are independents do not watch MSNBC, they watch Fox or mainstream and they don't hear the lies.

They only hear them if they are called out in a nonpartisan situation as in the debates.

The debates are the only realistic way to call out the ridiculous hypothetical, hypocritical, no real plan, ass-kissing, political mumbo jumbo that Romney spews.

We can only hope/pray/believe that this will be done in the next debates.

[Toughy]

does anyone know why Obama said he agreed with Romney on Social Security???????????????????? huh?????

going to go smoke a bowl and watch something entirely mindless on the TV or I will 'splode along side Martina...............

[Novelafemme]

I've only watched a little bit, but so far I am disappointed

[BullDog]

Romney had a great performance- all based on lies. The big question is will it matter that he lied over and over again. I'm not confident that it will. Hopefully Obama's leads in the swing states will be enough. Thank god there is the 47% tape. Yep Obama blew it.

[Medusa]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Romney had a great performance- all based on lies. The big question is will it matter that he lied over and over again. I'm not confident that it will. Hopefully Obama's leads in the swing states will be enough. Thank god there is the 47% tape. Yep Obama blew it.

I kept waiting for that! Like, if Obama wanted to sink Mitt's ship, all he had to do was bring up the 47%!

He needed to illuminate Mitt as an out-of-touch millionaire who is lying his ass off about giving a shit about the middle class and one who is willing to say anything to get elected so he can keep lining his pockets. Instead, Mitt comes out looking forceful, prepared, in charge, and Presidential while Obama looked shaken.

I am disappointed and unnerved like you wouldn't believe.

[DapperButch]

Did anyone else hear the way Romney uses the term "poor" as odd sounding? "The poor" in places it seemed to make sense that one would say lower economic class or something similar? He also seemed uncomfortable referencing that group, as well. I don't know how to explain it, or how to put my finger on it, but it felt creepy.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Did anyone else hear the way Romney uses the term "poor" as odd sounding? "The poor" in places it seemed to make sense that one would say lower economic class or something similar? He also seemed uncomfortable referencing that group, as well. I don't know how to explain it, or how to put my finger on it, but it felt creepy.

Yea, I'm one of the pooooooor.

[~ocean]

romeny back peddeled ... he is for big oil co. and against the US becomming mor e independent .. he did not create teh health care for massachusetts it was already to go inplace .. he shouldnt be taking credit for that .. it was all democtaric designed. b4 he got here in massachusetts .. u cant go on state worth in college tution .. students need fed gov help .. period. thats not improving education when u have highly intelligent ppl in thsi world who deserve to go to college on their own and NOT ask mom and dad .. who usualy cant afford college .. i agree obama didnt seem comfotable in teh debate .. I would assume it didnt change the minds of the american public at all about Obama if theyhave been FOLLOWING Romeny to begin with ,, ** wipes both sides of Romeny's mouth **

[Martina]

Politico already has Chris Matthew's tearing his hair out comments up online --

By MACKENZIE WEINGER |
10/3/12 11:12 PM EDT

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Wednesday had one major question after the debate: “Where was Obama tonight?”

Matthews — who said Wednesday night's showdown “wasn’t an MSNBC debate, was it?” because it didn’t mention the “key fighting points of this campaign" — blasted Obama’s debate performance, saying he went into the night “disarmed.” What Romney was doing tonight, unlike Obama, was "winning," Matthews said.

“Where was Obama tonight?” Matthews asked. “He should watch — well, not just ‘Hardball,’ Rachel [Maddow], he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence [O'Donnell], he would learn something about this debate. There's a hot debate going on in this country. Do you know where it’s being held? Here on this network is where we're having the debate. We have our knives out. We go after the people and the facts. What was he doing tonight? He went in there disarmed.”

Matthews described Obama’s debate performance as “like, ‘I’ll wait an hour and a half, I think I can get through this thing. I don’t even look at this guy.' Whereas Romney — I loved the split screen, staring at Obama, addressing him, like the prey. He did it just right. I'm coming at an incumbent. I've got to beat him. You gotta beat the champ, and I’m gonna beat him tonight. And I don't care what this guy moderator, whatever he thinks he is, because I'm going to ignore him. What was Romney doing? He was winning.”

Matthews said he didn’t know what Obama “was doing out there — he had his head down. He was enduring the debate rather than fighting it.”

Romney, though, went out there with a “plan” to dominate the evening, and he succeeded, Matthews said.

“He was going to dominate the time. He was going to be aggressive. He was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively. He was going to relish the evening, enjoying it. Nothing to do with the words he spoke. Here's my question for Obama. I know he likes to say he doesn't watch cable television, but maybe he should start. Maybe he should start. I don't know how he let Romney get away with the crap he threw out tonight about social security,” Matthews said.

Matthews also criticized the president for not invoking Romney’s history at Bain Capital and his “47 percent” comments that were secretly filmed during a private fundraiser.

“Why didn't Obama say that? Why didn’t he say that?” Matthews asked.