The Debates

[Corkey]

Where? 'Cause FB is not so forgiving.

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Where? 'Cause FB is not so forgiving.

I was actually speaking of a local channel, but after checking CNN (which might be a better indicator), well, shit.

It's not like Obama to just let himself get walked on for no reason, though. So I'm going to hold onto the hypothesis that Obama was letting Romney walk into a trap--Obama plays a long-term game, and if he somehow calculated that letting Romney run his mouth tonight would give him a prime opportunity to deal a killing blow later, it wouldn't surprise me if he chose to do exactly that. The debate may yet turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for Romney.

...Orrrrr perhaps it's just Obama's overconfidence getting ahead of him and he wasn't expecting Romney to be that on the ball. If that's the case, we can expect Obama to be far better-prepared in round two.

[Corkey]

Salon.com has the debate debunk if anyone is interested.

[Martina]

feeling less intensely about it -- but did you see the video of andrew sullivan's reaction?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos.html

[Kätzchen]

Loved it that Medusa used the "sink your ship" metaphor: I found an early press release on last night's debate published by US News and toward the end of the article, I found a similar gem:

"Second, while the Romney campaign seems to bank on distinct moments in time to turn the race—first the vice presidential rollout was going to restart the campaign, then the Republican National Convention was going to spark a Romney surge—the fact is that elections are akin to aircraft carriers. They generally don't turn on a dime," (Robert Schlesinger; Oct. 3, 2012)

You can find the full article >>> HERE <<<

[Scorp]

Well, I for one purposely didn't watch The Debate. I didn't want to see bullshit going back and forth like kids slinging mud at one another and who can outdo who, especially with that rich, lying, imbecile Romney...

This type of crap gets on my nerves and why waste my energy and evening on that shit. I'm an Obama fan and hope he wins. And either fortunately or unfortunately whatever is going to happen, is going to happen no matter what.

I wanted to enjoy my evening watching my DVR shows. Which, by the way, I did watch a few episodes of "Long Island Medium"

All I know is if Romney does win...We're all fucked...And, I didn't need to watch the debate to know that.

P.S. I saw a bit of recap while watching the news while getting ready for work and saw you had to throw in Big Bird, really Romney, really? That's what came to your head(rolls eyes) Uh, yeah, Ok...Dimwit...

[Kobi]

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.

[Kätzchen]

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.)