Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Willard Mitt Romney has, more than ever before, embraced the post-truth candidacy; he has made it central to every aspect of his being. Very nearly a majority of American voters will embrace it; possibly even a majority. This, especially abetted by Citizens United, could well mean the death of Democracy in this country.
But I mostly agree with you. However, I'd say Obama's victory was more measured. The zingers we'd been hearing about since before the first debate (finally!) were at Romney's expense, and you could definitely note Romney's face getting flushed and tight as he struggled to stay on his game, but he never tripped up and he performed fairly well. He did have a few sequences of driving strength as he ripped on Obama.
But, overall, Obama did outdebate him. Unlike the first debate, he actually responded to Romney's attacks and took the battle to Romney himself. (Obama was the first to break the civility truce and go nasty, right out of the gate.) Also unlike the first debate, Obama actually looked at Romney while Romney spoke. No more sullen note taking for him. In general, it looked like Obama prepared to compete in a debate, not perform in a news interview.
Romney, for his part, wasn't the obstreperous jerk of the second debate. He smiled more and tried to go the gentler friendly route. I guess internal polling told him the get-off-my-lawn act didn't play very well. Obama was also friendlier. You couldn't help but notice that Obama and Romney shook hands and exchanged pleasantries for longer before sitting down for the debate, and that the Obamas were mingling quite nicely with the Romneys afterward. Obama and Tagg "Swinging" Romney actually chatted for a bit. And, also, Mitt and Obama made it a point to be extra nice at that fancy Catholic charity dinner this weekend. Which is to say, they got the hint that the animosity was showing quite clearly and it wasn't playing well with the precious undecideds.
Did Glenn Beck really say that?
I didn't think Obama won by that much, but then I started to see how the media were reporting it - a little worse for Romney than I imagined - and that's when I got the gut feeling that this may be the point when the election starts to turn one last time for Obama. There's two weeks left and, if I were in Romney's camp, I'd start to feel the muted pangs of dread.
All in all, it was a fascinating presidential debate season. There was a little bit of everything, plenty of stuff for debate students to analyze, and even something of a story arch. Obama stumbled badly on the way out, lost all of his summer gains, but then regrouped, adapted, won the rest of the debates, and now is back on a favorable position as they turn the last corner. And he has a few television appearances to sell himself some more. He should be sleeping tight tonight.
Anyone has the transcript, it was at the very beginning of the debate...
Here's Charlie Pierce (who did notice the many "inaccurate assertions" of Rmoney last night) on the debate:
I'm sleeping better knowing that
Obama said he wanted to cut US exports in half.
(we assume it was a gaffe- or perhaps just a moment of candid introspection...)
There's no talking to someone who is all emotion and zero thought. Do whatever you want, but understand that we know you're a part of the problem.
Drones are better in every way, including harm done to civilians.
Protest military action against terrorists if you care about civilians in the middle east. The drones are simply the tool we use. You just "protest" the drones because you would rather American soldiers die as well, as hey, you aren't the one who has to helicopter into another country and get shot at, right?
We have been using drones for years before Obama, and no one cared until now. This is a non-issue of convenience for non-thinkers.
Yeah, gay rights are nice but so isn't killing innocents on the off chance you may kill a terrorist.
But I wonder if you would feel the same way if a Republican was doing the same thing?
Here are some more links to check out:
But hey! I can openly join a military that fights for corporate profits! Just ignore.....
But Obama is for gay marriage! That's great. But he wasn't a trailblazer by far and waited only until polls showed it was safe.
To listen to you write off kids being killed as "Oh well, he's pro-gay" is on the verge of being racist. I mean they aren't American children being killed they are Afghan kids so apparently who cares about standing on principal.
I've known your nothing but a hack for anyone with a D behind their name but even for you this is entering into Dick Cheney territory
The logic seems to be torchured at best.
Look, dummy.... I don't like the drone strikes, but that is only one thing going on with the presidency, and it's going to happen no matter who is in the White House. So I have to discount it from evaluating the candidates and go back to other things, while working to strengthen the liberal wing of the Dems so that that can be something that gets consideration in the future. There are other things pressing right now that I'm not willing to sacrifice, while ALSO losing on that front.
Like: How many people are going to needlessly die if Romney wins, and the GOP takes both chambers and they repeal the HCA.
Like: How many women are going to needlessly die if they succeed in cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood.
Like: How many more unwanted pregnancies are going to occur when they bring back abstinence-only sex ed and stop paying for contraception.
Like: How the GOP is solely driving the economic divide back to 19th Century numbers. (The Dems aren't clean on this count, not by a long shot, but they're finally listening.)
Like: How Obama is not interested in a war with Iran. If you honestly give one shit for the lives of civilians, you'll do everything you can to prevent that from happening. Voting Green ain't going to do that, and I'll be around to remind you of that.
This was a foreign policy debate, and everyone knew the Middle East would factor heavily into it.
Mitt prepared attacks against Obama regarding Iran and Syria, that were almost completely devoid of detail, but rather hinged on the idea that he would say the same things, only louder, and that some how that would solve everything.
That Mitt failed the basic geography of his prepared attack, falls somewhere between major gaffe and complete disqualifying ignorance.
Wow, it's bizarro Sog, but with even more anger and hate!
Yeah... that should do it. Let’s see how that’s working out.
Gallup: R=51 / O=45
Rasmusssen: R=50 / O=46
RCP: R=47.7 / O 47.1
Yup! Things are looking up!
LOL. Whatever, dude.