Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, October 16, 2012
2012 Here Are the Most Important Moments of Tonight's Presidential Debate
Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM
I'm working on a piece about tonight's debate, but the YouTubes are quicker than the written analysis. So here are the most important moments in the debate, for your viewing pleasure. Here's the moment when everyone realized this wasn't going to be a repeat of the first debate, when President Obama called out Romney for his lies:
Here's Mitt Romney's first major mistake of the evening—his weird, rambling anecdote about having "binders full of women," and his statement that women need to be home to make dinner at certain times.
Here's the clip that everyone was losing their shit over: President Obama's pension zinger:
This is the moment when President Obama completely took charge over Romney, chiding him with a wagging finger and saying "That's not what we do." Romney responded with a lie—President Obama's "please proceed" is cold-blooded—which Candy Crowley then disproves. President Obama showed anger in a very presidential way; it's possibly the most emotion he's yet shown in a debate. I'd say this is the moment when every Republican probably gave up any hope that the debate could be turned around.
And, finally, President Obama's flawless closing statement:
1
I thought Romney nailed his two-minute monologue about Obama's economic policies. That's really the only sensible card the R side has to play, and he played it well.
2
That "please proceed, governor" was ice cold. I didn't realize it the moment he said it, but it was brutally obvious soon after.
3
Romney's comments about "binders full of women" was awkward because it made him sound old. Romney paints his hair the same way that Reagan did. But everyone knew that Reagan was old. They cut him some slack and figured that was just his style. Romney, on the other hand, seems to try really hard to look young. See how often he talks about "new ideas" and a "new way". But he is no spring chicken. He is 65 years old. He is 14 years older than the President. You wouldn't guess that by looking at him, and that's the point. His answer to this question was probably sincere, but it was from a different era. No one these days would ever look at a list of prospective clients and see only a few women. It just wouldn't happen. It's like walking into a room full of doctors and only seeing men. Sorry, that just doesn't happen anymore (unless you are in a really weird hospital). Romney was governor only ten years ago, but it seems like a really long time ago now. You are old, governor, there is nothing wrong with that (ask Joe Biden) but just act your age and admit it. He won't, and it just shows how full of sh** he is.
4
Thanks for these! But I want to see Candy Crowley telling Romney to sit down! Does anyone have a clip of that yet?
5
Don't have the energy to watch the whole debate tonight, so thank you for posting these. The "act of terror" exchange in particular gave me chills.
6
Sweet that Romney wants to do away with the double tax on interest earned. I'd have sex with him for promoting that.
7
Candy Crowley's fact-checking was the most fun for me, though there were a handful of highlights in the debate.
I'm sleeping much better tonight.
I'm sleeping much better tonight.
8
Frustratingly, the only clip i really wanted to see was the first one (i missed the first half of the debate live), and theres something wrong with that link--it just brings up the entire debate start to finish. Can someone provide a timestamp for where the referenced exchange happens?
9
Paul, how about changing your byline to "Constantly Wrong?" Obama won the debate, but not by nearly as clear a margin as Romney won the first one. And your "most important moments" weren't mentioned either by any analysts or by anyone in any of the focus groups. But hey, you're brilliant, right Paul?
11
This YouTube clip --
"The suggestion ... that anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive"
-- doesn't have the impact it did live. You don't have the context of the whole debate, where you'd gotten used to a certain range of tone. Obama changed right there, for one phrase, and it was shocking.
Obama was angry. I've never seen the president angry before. And I know why he was angry. The president and the secretary of state have many people working for them, but a diplomat like the ambassador to Libya is not just another agent or employee. That kind of person is a peer.
Obama and Clinton were badly affected by Hill's death. Going to meet those particular caskets must have been terrible.
When Romney used the death for a political attack, the contrast between the ambassador, a highly accomplished person doing serious work, and Romney, a slimy exploiter throwing a low blow, brought out the real personal animosity Obama feels. The president is extraordinarily careful and controlled -- remember how he laughed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner when Seth Myers made that joke about Osama bin Laden, when Obama and Gates had just secretly put out the hit? Cool as they come -- but right then, he knew he could loosen the control just enough to let out a jet of real anger.
That was frightening, actually. This is the most powerful man on the planet, who never gets angry, and he used a tone on Romney we've never heard before. It's lost in the YouTube clip, but it was sure there at the time. I think it unnerved Romney. He kept up his end a little bit longer, but he had to know he'd thrown a low blow, and deserved the response; and I think he was realizing, at that point, that he was beaten, beaten down quite thoroughly by a greater man.
Romney wasn't the same after that exchange. Gave up inside, I suspect.
More...
"The suggestion ... that anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive"
-- doesn't have the impact it did live. You don't have the context of the whole debate, where you'd gotten used to a certain range of tone. Obama changed right there, for one phrase, and it was shocking.
Obama was angry. I've never seen the president angry before. And I know why he was angry. The president and the secretary of state have many people working for them, but a diplomat like the ambassador to Libya is not just another agent or employee. That kind of person is a peer.
Obama and Clinton were badly affected by Hill's death. Going to meet those particular caskets must have been terrible.
When Romney used the death for a political attack, the contrast between the ambassador, a highly accomplished person doing serious work, and Romney, a slimy exploiter throwing a low blow, brought out the real personal animosity Obama feels. The president is extraordinarily careful and controlled -- remember how he laughed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner when Seth Myers made that joke about Osama bin Laden, when Obama and Gates had just secretly put out the hit? Cool as they come -- but right then, he knew he could loosen the control just enough to let out a jet of real anger.
That was frightening, actually. This is the most powerful man on the planet, who never gets angry, and he used a tone on Romney we've never heard before. It's lost in the YouTube clip, but it was sure there at the time. I think it unnerved Romney. He kept up his end a little bit longer, but he had to know he'd thrown a low blow, and deserved the response; and I think he was realizing, at that point, that he was beaten, beaten down quite thoroughly by a greater man.
Romney wasn't the same after that exchange. Gave up inside, I suspect.
12
#11, that was definitely Obama's best moment, but it was a defensive moment. This election is all about the economy, and Romney did well enough. And Obama still missed some attack points. When Romney went after him about his pension, Obama's response was only adequate. He missed the perfect moment to go after Romney for his Swiss bank accounts and all the rest.
I will never understand why the Democrats are so afraid to kick ass. Biden did it, but unfortunately he drooled and grimaced too much. Obama improved in his second debate, but he still didn't make the varsity team when he needed to.
I will never understand why the Democrats are so afraid to kick ass. Biden did it, but unfortunately he drooled and grimaced too much. Obama improved in his second debate, but he still didn't make the varsity team when he needed to.
13
#12 No, Romney is destroyed. Remember Paul's comment about how Obama only uses that energy that is necessary, and no more. That's what we saw here.
15
Yeah, here's Paul's piece: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/down-…
"Something that I often forget about Obama, though, is that he has another, special kind of genius. He always knows how much energy he needs to expend, and he doesn’t expend any more than that amount. Obama never plays an ace when a two will do."
And then
"For the first time, Obama is in danger of taking a little too much joy at attacking his opponent."
This was that. But he avoided the danger. The attack was just right.
"Something that I often forget about Obama, though, is that he has another, special kind of genius. He always knows how much energy he needs to expend, and he doesn’t expend any more than that amount. Obama never plays an ace when a two will do."
And then
"For the first time, Obama is in danger of taking a little too much joy at attacking his opponent."
This was that. But he avoided the danger. The attack was just right.
16
Mister G, if the American people want to believe Romney's lies, backed by the Koch brothers billions, there is nothing Obama can do to help them. A single debate performace will not stop an electorate that endured eight years of George W. Bush destroying the economy, waging war for no reason, exploding deficits . . . and signs up for another Republican president.
It couldn't be more obvious that Mitt Romney has no interest in anything other than amassing even more money than he already has, and slavishly serving the interest of billionaires at the expense of every working man and woman. The only time he gets really excited is when he talks about pension funds or drilling for oil or "harvesting" companies.
If the American people believe that McDonald's food is good for you because it's "100% beef," neither Barack nor Michelle Obama can fix that.
And to pretend that one debate has any effect whatsoever on the farce we now endure after the corporate Supreme Court has given corporations (legal fictions) the right to spend billions to spread political lies, just exposes you as a simple tool of the one-tenth of one percent that is perilously close to completely assuming complete control of this country.
It couldn't be more obvious that Mitt Romney has no interest in anything other than amassing even more money than he already has, and slavishly serving the interest of billionaires at the expense of every working man and woman. The only time he gets really excited is when he talks about pension funds or drilling for oil or "harvesting" companies.
If the American people believe that McDonald's food is good for you because it's "100% beef," neither Barack nor Michelle Obama can fix that.
And to pretend that one debate has any effect whatsoever on the farce we now endure after the corporate Supreme Court has given corporations (legal fictions) the right to spend billions to spread political lies, just exposes you as a simple tool of the one-tenth of one percent that is perilously close to completely assuming complete control of this country.
17
#16, I have never met or heard of anyone who thinks McDonald's food is good for them. You are too smart (or think you are) for your own good. The problem with the Kool Aid guzzlers of the left is the same as the problem with the Kool Aid guzzlers of the right: They mistake their own smug self-righteousness for brains and/or virtue.
18
@17 Coming on too strong, man. Your troll is showing.
Also, considering you referred to yourself as an Obama girl in another thread and as a man in yet another, you need to get a better handle on your internet personae if you want to troll effectively. Sockpuppets are only as good as the hand up their ass. And Mr. Rogers you are not.
Also, considering you referred to yourself as an Obama girl in another thread and as a man in yet another, you need to get a better handle on your internet personae if you want to troll effectively. Sockpuppets are only as good as the hand up their ass. And Mr. Rogers you are not.
19
Re: Clip #1 - I wish Obama would say, "If Mittens thinks that the president's actions dictate gas prices, he's not a much of a businessman and he doesn't understand basic economics.:
22
@21: Stop drinking the Flavor-Aid Kool-Aid. If only you Kool-Aid guzzlers would stop being brainwashed about the Flavor-Aid and Kool-Aid controversy maybe you would see that you are just being fed Kool-Aid about Flavor-Aid. Stop drinking the Flavor-Aid and wake up Kool-Aid guzzlers. Er, I mean, stop drinking the Kool-Aid about Flavor-Aid, I think.
23
What I do not understand is, if Mr. Romney is so keen to flipflop on everything, why doesn't he also flipflop on Mormonism to get the evangelical vote?
24
@17 The problem with people who make statements like "Kool-Aid Guzzlers" They mistake their own smug self-righteousness for brains and/or virtue. When, in reality, they just don't have the balls to take a stance on anything of merit.
25
Mr. Obama LIED about Benghazi, and it’s a lie that’s going to catch up with him (if the press does its job at all). He did NOT call the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens an “act of terror” on 9/12/12 as he claimed last night and anyone who has been following the Benghazi cover-up knows it.
On 9/12/12 he called the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi” and an “outrageous and shocking attack” and referred to the attackers as “killers”. He then went on to allude to the YouTube video as the “justification” (cause) of the attack saying “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence” and continued on to refer to the attack as “brutal acts” by “attackers”. He then eulogized Ambassador Stevens and then reflected on the anniversary of 9/11/01 and eulogized the victims of that attack, and the soldiers lost in its aftermath, and in conjunction with those reflections said “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for” (referring back to his earlier statement that “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others “ before pivoting back to 9/12/12 by saying “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” He then, again, referred to the perpetrators of the attack as “attackers”.
So, to recap, he called the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi,” an “outrageous and shocking attack,” “brutal acts,” and a “terrible act” and called its perpetrators “killers” and “attackers” but never, and nowhere, did he call the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “act of terror” (as he claimed last night) or refer to its perpetrators as “terrorists”. HE LIED AND CANDY COVERED FOR HIM BY REPEATING HIS LIE.
The transcript of the speech can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi…
I am sure it’s unnecessary at this time for me to recap the many statements made after 9/12/12 by the Ambassador to UN and the President where they both tied the attack directly to the YouTube video and a fictional mob of protesters or the multiple times the President and his Press Secretary were asked directly if the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens was an act of terror and they refused to call it such.
More...
On 9/12/12 he called the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi” and an “outrageous and shocking attack” and referred to the attackers as “killers”. He then went on to allude to the YouTube video as the “justification” (cause) of the attack saying “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence” and continued on to refer to the attack as “brutal acts” by “attackers”. He then eulogized Ambassador Stevens and then reflected on the anniversary of 9/11/01 and eulogized the victims of that attack, and the soldiers lost in its aftermath, and in conjunction with those reflections said “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for” (referring back to his earlier statement that “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others “ before pivoting back to 9/12/12 by saying “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” He then, again, referred to the perpetrators of the attack as “attackers”.
So, to recap, he called the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi,” an “outrageous and shocking attack,” “brutal acts,” and a “terrible act” and called its perpetrators “killers” and “attackers” but never, and nowhere, did he call the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “act of terror” (as he claimed last night) or refer to its perpetrators as “terrorists”. HE LIED AND CANDY COVERED FOR HIM BY REPEATING HIS LIE.
The transcript of the speech can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi…
I am sure it’s unnecessary at this time for me to recap the many statements made after 9/12/12 by the Ambassador to UN and the President where they both tied the attack directly to the YouTube video and a fictional mob of protesters or the multiple times the President and his Press Secretary were asked directly if the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens was an act of terror and they refused to call it such.
27
"women need to be home to make dinner at certain times."
Whoops, I didn't know that. Thanks Mittens!
Whoops, I didn't know that. Thanks Mittens!
28
@26
If he believed then that it was an act of terror, why did he call the perpetrators "killers" and "attackers" instead of terrorists?
Why did he refuse to call it an act of terror on The View and Letterman when they asked him if it was an act of terror?
Why didn't he label it as such in his UN speech?
I call bullshit
If he believed then that it was an act of terror, why did he call the perpetrators "killers" and "attackers" instead of terrorists?
Why did he refuse to call it an act of terror on The View and Letterman when they asked him if it was an act of terror?
Why didn't he label it as such in his UN speech?
I call bullshit
29
@28 I, too, start down that road: Obama *was* being careful about labeling the attack as terrorism.
Ok.
Is it a coverup or was it caution?
I start at coverup but find no reason that action (even if successful) would be to his benefit? He could've EASILY embraced it as terrorism and gone in with guns blazing. It would HELP his campaign - not hurt it. America loves that cowboy stuff.
??
Ok.
Is it a coverup or was it caution?
I start at coverup but find no reason that action (even if successful) would be to his benefit? He could've EASILY embraced it as terrorism and gone in with guns blazing. It would HELP his campaign - not hurt it. America loves that cowboy stuff.
??
30
@29
I can't pretend to understand why he would tell such an obviouse lie but ontrary to what Mr. Obama said last night he did not call it an “act of terror” in the rose garden on 9/12/12. If he had, don’t you think someone somewhere would have reported such a statement?
Where’s the headline from 9/13/12 saying “Obama: ‘Ambassador killed in terrorist attack’” or anything in that vein?
Please point to any article anywhere on 9/12 or 9/13 that says he called it an act of terror in his speech on 9/12. Surly the Stranger would have mentioned such a thing…
Hell, I called it an act of terror in slog comments on October 10th and got shouted down for doing so...
Obama either lied last night, or he’s an abject failure at communicating basic facts.
As to the why of the cover-up?... Who knows?
I can't pretend to understand why he would tell such an obviouse lie but ontrary to what Mr. Obama said last night he did not call it an “act of terror” in the rose garden on 9/12/12. If he had, don’t you think someone somewhere would have reported such a statement?
Where’s the headline from 9/13/12 saying “Obama: ‘Ambassador killed in terrorist attack’” or anything in that vein?
Please point to any article anywhere on 9/12 or 9/13 that says he called it an act of terror in his speech on 9/12. Surly the Stranger would have mentioned such a thing…
Hell, I called it an act of terror in slog comments on October 10th and got shouted down for doing so...
Obama either lied last night, or he’s an abject failure at communicating basic facts.
As to the why of the cover-up?... Who knows?
31
If he believed then that it was an act of terror, why did he call the perpetrators "killers" and "attackers" instead of terrorists?Frankly, the question of whether the assassin who kills friend, family, or fellow citizen is a "mere" killer or attacker, or a "terrorist," a manufactured word that gives the atrocities of man an unearned collective urgency, is moot. I don't see that justice (granting that justice in itself is a subjective construct) demands something notably different in one case than in the other.
All that said, you've been shown where it was said IN HIS SPEECH that it was an act of terror. The only rebuttal you had was a semantic argument that would fail even the most rudimentary lit crit evaluation; that you continue to press the issue without what might be considered a normal level of shame or self-doubt is truly perplexing.
32
You are reading that speech like and evangelical reads the bible looking for “da gay,” but your’re looking for anything to hang Obama’s lying hat on. He was CLEARLY refering to 9/11/01 not 9/12/12 as an act of terrorism. You need to re-take reading for comprehension and revisit the facts.
It simply defies reason to say that on 9/12 the POTUS could say any version of “our ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack” and no one would report that he said it.
It’s made even more impossible for a reasonable person to believe when one recalls how many times after that speech the administration said it was a mob, angry at a YouTube video, that got out of control. And how many times, when pressed directly on whether it was an act of terrorism, the POTUS refused to confirm that it was.
(Hell, even Candy said “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that” as part of her “fact checking” service.)
I find it very easy to believe that Obama may have gone back and looked at that speech and decided that he could convince enough people that that’s what he meant after the fact when his feeble cover up story (it was a mob, angry at a YouTube video, that got out of control) began to disintegrate.
In order to buy that the administration’s position on 9/12 was that it was an act of terror, we have to ignore all their spin about the mob (that never existed) and the complete lack of contemporaneous reporting on Obama’s supposed statement on 9/12. It’s completely implausible.
It simply defies reason to say that on 9/12 the POTUS could say any version of “our ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack” and no one would report that he said it.
It’s made even more impossible for a reasonable person to believe when one recalls how many times after that speech the administration said it was a mob, angry at a YouTube video, that got out of control. And how many times, when pressed directly on whether it was an act of terrorism, the POTUS refused to confirm that it was.
(Hell, even Candy said “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that” as part of her “fact checking” service.)
I find it very easy to believe that Obama may have gone back and looked at that speech and decided that he could convince enough people that that’s what he meant after the fact when his feeble cover up story (it was a mob, angry at a YouTube video, that got out of control) began to disintegrate.
In order to buy that the administration’s position on 9/12 was that it was an act of terror, we have to ignore all their spin about the mob (that never existed) and the complete lack of contemporaneous reporting on Obama’s supposed statement on 9/12. It’s completely implausible.
33
He was CLEARLY refering to 9/11/01 not 9/12/12 as an act of terrorism.He was CLEARLY referring to both.
You need to re-take reading for comprehension and revisit the facts.I've met maybe four people qualified to give me notes on reading comprehension in the last 20 years. You're not one of them.
34
@33
Okay… If he was so CLEAR on this, why then, did everyone under the sun, from the white house press pool to the "ladies" on The View, to Letterman, feel compelled to ask him (and Carney) to clarify if he did or did not believe it was an act of terror for the next two weeks? And, when asked that question directly and repeatedly, why did he never respond with “Yes! As said in my speech on September 12th, this was an act of terror.”?
Apparently you, and those 4 other people, are the only people who understood what the POTUS was REALLY trying to say on 9/12/12. Very strange. Considering he's such a great communicator...
Okay… If he was so CLEAR on this, why then, did everyone under the sun, from the white house press pool to the "ladies" on The View, to Letterman, feel compelled to ask him (and Carney) to clarify if he did or did not believe it was an act of terror for the next two weeks? And, when asked that question directly and repeatedly, why did he never respond with “Yes! As said in my speech on September 12th, this was an act of terror.”?
Apparently you, and those 4 other people, are the only people who understood what the POTUS was REALLY trying to say on 9/12/12. Very strange. Considering he's such a great communicator...
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS