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.

Maybe Romney's lies shocked him. But the President DID look tired and he stuttered often. Oh well....on to the next debate..

watch this...http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1050

ohhh i didn't see this...and someone that Curtis worked with was murdered also.. i forget all of the details...awhile ago...http://www.votinglies.com/


Diebold and sequoia... 2 companies and 2 states just for starters
OHIO in 2004 and then florida in 2000. there were more of course..but, those were the kickers

Diebold todayhttp://kaystreet.wordpress.com/2012/...ote-control-2/

one of the greatest...i will never forget...Senators like Hillary were demanding paper receipts of ballots for her state and the nation. so that the voter at least had a paper print out from these
backward machines. I will always pull a straight ticket no matter what now.

and now redistricting fraud... ugh


and some more voter fraud info...from old. haven't visited it in awhile
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/for....cgi?pg=topics

Nice, bev has kept the states updated...http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/for....cgi?pg=topics

ES&S is another screwed up fraud machine company. http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ I cannot recall, at the moment, if they merged or were bought out by diebold or sequoia or visa versa...doesn't matter really.

The only good thing is to get a paper receipt. some machines are better than others. point is...can't trust it and it is even more of a reason to vote.


and bain...http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-profits-video


and redistricting and karl rove and the koch brothers...this is just basic information. there is a shit storm of redistricting across the nation.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/..._redistricting

Politico was saying that this is going to get donor money flowing again. He has had some fundraising woes lately -- Romney has.

Also, they have not had effective ads. The clips from this -- again, according to that article -- will provide a lot of good material for future ads.

Plus, the increase in credibility will mean that more voters will be willing to actually listen to his message. For a few the message will resonate.

Unless there are some great Obama ads focusing on Romney's lying, I think it's a net good for Romney.

Romney is now saying that he was completely wrong about the 47% so it's going to be harder for Obama to leverage that. He still can, with something along the lines of how out of touch he must be to have thought that in the first place AND taken so long to realize he was wrong.

In the end, Obama saving the auto industry might be the difference in the election because the industrial Midwest is where this election will hinge.

Ya know, I've been thinking this is just what the president wanted people to see.The more Romney blows and goes the worst he gets,a snake oil peddler chant, sooner or later it will get him.

CNN reports that the President himself is not pleased with his performance. We'll see how it goes in two weeks. Here's hoping that Romney doesn't get much of a bump and that Obama's ad guys do some genius work.

While sleepless tonight and reading political blogs, I came across an article in the UK Telegragh (How a broker spent $520m in a drunken stupor and moved the global oil price) about a 34 yr. old oil trader who, in an alcohol induced blackout, traded "huge volumes of oil with very little cash up front and no position limit" (see article, HERE).

After the intial shock of reading how this happened, I noticed in the lower right-hand corner of their blog, a link to an The National Memo's article about Mitt Romney and the political head-spinning twist of saying that he was going to "end public finance of America's largest classroom - PBS;" which PBS fired back saying that they're going to announce the shows' newest member "Big Oil" and that if "this works out, next season we'll meet Big Oil's imaginary friend, Clean Coal" (see article, HERE).



Which, in turn, led me to another article at The National Memo, which spoke to 5 reasons why Romney is a worse candidate than John McCain was, last time we had a presidential election (see article, HERE). Short form from the article:

1. A draft-avoiding, private equity maven with a record conforming his views with the orthodoxy of his party. Romney's one great accomplishment -- health care reform -- almost cost him his party's nomination.
2. When Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, he may have picked someone who is more experienced on the public stage than Sarah Palin, but he also picked a candidate many voters will vote against for his plans to slash Medicare, Medicaid and education.
3. (The race card) Mitt Romney's relentless repetition of a debunked charge about welfare reform reeks of racial innuendo.
4. Who quits a winning campaign six weeks before election day? No one. But Romney's national co-chair Tim Pawlenty did just that on Thursday.
5. (Statistic proof provided by The Pew) Romney has the worst favorable to unfavorable ratings of any candidate for president since Pew started measuring such things.

In addition, I thought some of you might find this article fascinating (I know I did). I have excerpted the opening article lines from Highly Debatable: The Big Liar’s Biggest Lies:

“It’s not easy to debate a liar,” complained an email from one observer of the first presidential debate – and there was no question about which candidate he meant. Prevarication, falsification, fabrication are all familiar tactics that have been employed by Mitt Romney without much consequence to him ever since he entered public life, thanks to the inviolable taboo in the mainstream media against calling out a liar (unless, of course, he lies about sex)" (Link provided, HERE).

can u just picture leaders of other countrys laughing at ROMNEY holding BIG BIRD accountable for the deficit !! lol .. how embarassing ~~

Yes, I thought to myself that Romney lying/changing up might have thrown Obama off. Obama's mind must have been a bit blown at that moment. Since Obama can be good at hiding emotions we may not have seen this on his face.

Rasmussen and WeAskAmerica have Romney getting bumps in Florida and Virginia. Rasmussen always sorta favors Romney, but if they detect a change, then I imagine there was one. I don't know much about the WeAskAmerica folks.

Gallup's national poll gave Obama a one point bump. Go figure.

Anyway, here's hoping the job numbers make up some of the difference. Obama is lucky, and luck is part of the equation.

Heh. I wonder if the Republican party in Idaho is being investigated for tampering with voting processes. I'm a former Idahoan and my homestate has been held in a Republican stranglehold-gridlock for years. I wish I knew someone in the Democratic offices over there, so I could find out what is going on. I see that Lawrence G. Wasden is Idaho's current Attorney General and he appears to be two years younger than me. He also got his education at Brigham Young University in Utah. If Wasden cares about his governmental seat of power, I would think he would issue and expedite an independent investigation of his own political party's culpability in having anything to do with the voting process in Idaho; and find out who is behind this and swiftly prosecute non-partisanly the people who are behind tampering with voter rights and processes.

Racism and Religious politics are twin governing forces in my homestate and the exact reason I left there, years ago.

Laughing at Jon Stewart's line: "Mr. President, you broke Chris Matthews!"

And WTF is wrong with Jack Welch? Seriously crazy.

maddow also talked about the pennsylvania voters website telling voters to bring photo ID when it's not a have-to there. could make a difference in voting.

Obama may have not looked good but I'm taking the high road on this one. Romney spewed so much bs that now he has nowhere to go but down. We get to vote 30 days from tomorrow and I am going to believe that the real Amerian People will know what to do. :-)

From Politico:

I know he's human and entitled to preferences (doesn't love campaigning) and moods, but, as I am sure he is aware of, a lot depends on his re-election, and as others have pointed out, his supporters are working their hearts out. Preferences and moods are just not relevant for the next thirty-two days.

-- still annoyed

Another article about the Obama performance. :|

Anyway, enough chewing over this (for me), but it is an interesting article.


With Romney working his ass off, I don't care about Obama's preferences. His acceptance speech at the Convention was lackluster too.

I also read that Obama has had fewer press conferences than any President in recent times and many fewer impromptu Q&A sessions. I recall us bitching about how few W. had, how he would duck the press. Obama has done soft interviews on shows like "The View." I am totally not impressed with any President -- or any politician -- who does not frequently answer un-vetted questions from the serious press. Obama is criticizing Romney for elitism. Sorry, but staying above the fray like an academic and refusing to take on the rough and tumble of a White House press conference -- that's pretty elitist.

I am honked off with the big man.

The President certainly wasn't at his best in the first debate, even he knows that, but I don't think it's a problem at all.

Romney spewed so much bs, and the fact-checkers have been having a party ever since, that all he's actually accomplished is to play out plenty of rope for Obama to hang him with.

Pathological liars, and sorry but I do believe Romney is one, lie so frequently and so often that eventually they can't even keep their own lies straight. He's shown us what he really thinks when he believes he's only with his rich, white cohorts in that 47% video. I don't care what he says about it afterwards....that kind of crap sticks in the backs of people's minds and gnaws.

For me, for the first time in my life, I'm voting straight Democratic ticket. Period.