Aggressive Obama outpunches Romney in Round 2

Consensus on Fox is that debate was a draw, meaning it was a huge Obama win.

"The next three weeks are going to be really entertaining."

It sure is. The world is going to watch as Govenor Romney burns through millions more of donations from misinformed Americans before being ejected from the public stage and rudely shunted into retirement in 3 weeks time.

Binder full of women...hmm, I guess that's a mormon thing.

RNC Chair Preibus said, "Tomorrow is another day." In other words, Romney lost!

They are squabbling

Gee, ya think maybe they are fighting over something...uhm important.

Obama wins on facts again...Libya response was triumph

Factcheck by Politifact:

Romney said Obama began his presidency "with an apology tour." Pants on Fire!

Part of Romney's fortune invested in China? Mostly True

Obama policies to blame for high gas prices at the pump? Mostly False

Obama said he’s cut taxes for small business, middle class. Mostly True

Obama's claim that Romney tax plan doesn't add up got a Mostly True

Romney "would turn Medicare into a voucher program." Mostly True

In the primaries, Romney said he would veto the DREAM Act. True

Post election, Romney's sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson's gonna be mighty p*ssed.

Wonder whether he'll ask for his money back?

He probably shouldn't have backed such an inherently shallow failure as Romney but when have Republicans ever been accused of being smart?

Obama! Oh yeah!

Well, that was great. A great day to be a Democrat. A great day for America.

After the debate, audience members mobbed President Barack Obama.

Rmoney was surrounded by just his family. He didn't last long, out of the hall as fast as he could. To be fair, has a hard time being around carbon-based life forms.

On the other hand, Obama stuck around 10-15 minutes signing autographs and taking pictures.

We saw our real president tonight, and we also saw the real dick Romney. The contrast couldn't be clearer.

"Some people are critical thinkers while others are not."

The latter case perfectly describes why people are conservatives.

ooooo Ross Perot! Welcome back to 1992. Obama better run now...EXCEPT, most of the younger voter won't know who Ross Perot is, and second the older voters who do know him, won't care who he endorses. Perot is yesterday's news and TOTALLY irrelevant.

They were fine.

You want to see snipy, watch the Brits.

Romney has already acknowledged that statement as wrong, and has said "I was completely wrong."

He meant he was completely wrong to get caught out speaking his mind. If he hadn't got caught, what he said to the fat cats would have stood as his own fat-cat opinion.

The ass-whopping that Obama got was just pitiful, I almost felt sorry for him.......almost.

Notice how they changed the title of the article to "Aggressive Obama outpunches Romney in Round 2?" You're quite sure you weren't just watching the 1st debate again on TV and somehow got them mixed up? In any case I'm not sure how that whole dealing with reality thing is working out for you.

Now that Gov Romney's had his arse handed to him on a plate, I wonder what's next on his agenda before his campaign finally gurgles unceremoniously down the drain where it belongs in 3 weeks?

just can not see Americans electing Romney as President. It is just not going to happen. Nice try though

So who won? Moderate A or Moderate B?

CNN debate viewers: 73% Obama did better than expected

Wow - talk about low expectations on the incumbent.

Anyways, debates are about body language and debates are about moments.

Romney Libya swing and a miss is a moment

CNN Undecided VOter

46% Obama 33% Rmoney

Obama is winning.

And the sample was 8% more Republican than the general voting public.

Oh, what a good night. Check on that.

"Facts and truths are relative. Facts and truths are base on one perception of reality."

Yep you said that. That just about says it all. And that is not what Americans think. American think facts are stubborn things. Communists, post-Modernists, salarymen, and Republicans think facts are socially determined.

Sushi

I know. If it weren't so bloody tragic, it would be comic.

That is the problem with ideologes: they just dont understand that facts leads people to their opinions. Not the other way around.

It seemed pretty even, but Romney's slip-ups, and AGAIN failure to give any details of his plans, made this a win for Obama, I think. I also think this will put him back on top again (where he lost ground after his last performance). Romney didn't do TERRIBLY, flubs aside, but he needed to slam Obama like he did in the last debate.

Hah. Did not watch but can tell by the half-baked excuses and whining by the normal crew of head in the sand republicans that Obama cleaned up tonight. It is OK for a President to call a liar a lair. No one credible is saying Romney won this debate.

Obama's numbers should rebound now, actually they started to do that before the debate. Romney was given his one moment in the sun by Obama being overconfident but that is over now. Hello again landslide electoral victory.

But liberals and Dems are always on par when it comes to dealing with reality, eh...lol. You guys crack me up.

On the subject of dealing with reality, I notice you haven't got much to say so far about the polls that put Obama on top for this one.

The choice this time is really clear. If you go with Romney you are endorsing the 1% and putting us on a social and economic road to disaster. While I do not say that Obama promises to save us, he certainly does not promise to sink us as fast as the GOP programs would.

Until there is a better option for working people, Obama is our best hope and this debate really showed that.

Lefties seem to have a pathological need to demonize those with whom they disagree. The think those on the right aren't just wrong, they are evil. We on the right are different. We recognize that lifties are not inherently bad or destructive at heart, just not correct.

You're so sure about that? So what about all the posts here continually whining on about how lefties and liberals are basically deluded, blinkered, hypocrites whose crypto-Bolshevism will destroy America? For example:

Someone has to inject some sense of reality to all this liberal madness.

No demonizing there, then.

CNN debate viewer poll. Who won? 46% Obama, 39% Romney MoE +/- 4%

And it looks like California is locked down for Team Democrat. LOL Our CBS5/SurveyUSA poll of CA voters who watched #debate: 56% say #Obama won, 32% say #Romney, 12% tie. Independents say 44% O, 44% R. — @SovernNation via web

CNN debate viewers: 73% Obama did better than expected, 10% worse, 16% same

CNN debate viewers: 37% said Romney did better than expected, 28% worse, 33% same as expected

To YOU. That's YOUR opinion. ;-)

Ross Perot's endorsement is as relevant Kim Kardashian and Snooki's endorsements.

I was actually impressed with the way they conducted themselves - I was pleasantly surprised you might say.

But, there is something that stands out to me as being glaringly irresponsible from both sides of politics in the US. Namely, that they will offer tax cuts. I understand that the US was founded, a couple of hundreds of years ago, on principles of low tax and small government. I understand that these principles are ones that the US holds very dear to it's heart. But the US has a phenomenal national debt - which continues to grow and which is so high that it is struggling to even make the interest repayments on it.

It's time to start paying the debt. And the only way that is going to happen is by increasing taxes and reducing spending in areas like the military. It's extraordinary that someone like Mitt Romney only pays 14% effective tax on his 20 million dollar income per year.

At the end of the day, like in some of the basket case economies in Europe, voters get what they vote for. If Americans continue to vote for tax cuts because that's what the irresponsible politicians are offering, it's all going to end in tears I'm afraid.

Hey, Romney says he has binders full of women to help him fill out his staff. Of course he would not support they get equal pay, no, or control their own bodies, no, or have healthcare if they have been sick in the past, no. But he has got blinders full of them to fill his book shelves once he loses next month.

What a joke. Romney cares about two things, his church and money.

The 47 percent Mr. Romney "in-elegantly" spoke of were not of this group of contributors, Mr. Obama, and you know it.

You're honestly trying to say that those rich contributors who paid $50,000/ plate for that dinner meeting were folks on social security, veterans, and students? REALLY? That's a straw man if I ever saw one.

Obama's modus operandi : Using oily condescension to appeal to those who think with their emotions, rather than with logic, reason or fact..

Wow...talk about flipping everything on its head. Let me just make sure of something. You are aware that the black guy is Obama and the white guy with silver sideburns is Romney right? It's not the other way around....

Yeah, according to a majority of some 500 people polled, lol.

So at the last debate when they polled less people and the results favored Romney over Obama, that was more accurate??

But he has got blinders full of them to fill his book shelves once he loses next month.

He admittedly doesn't support equal pay, so he probably hired women so he could get "cheaper" labor.

Bass4Funk said, "the independent voters ( like me)"

Lol! You are the most partisan pro-republican poster on the forum, and that is saying A LOT!

Among the people that matter to the election:

Colorado voters give Obama a 48/44 victory in the debate- more importantly 58/36 among independents. Sample is R+3 — @ppppolls via web

Obama is Winning. Chew on that.

So, the snap polls are unanimous -- Obama is back on top. Right where he belongs.

Mirai is right, Ross Perot's endorsement of Romney is nowhere near as relevant as Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Obama, lol.

Actually that's true. Oprah attracted an average of 12 million views (daily). She is considered "one of the most influential woman in the world". Not only did she just endorse him, she went on campaign tours with him. She was worth millions of votes, which without, could have cost Obama the election.

Perot (now 82, retired, not even in politics) hasn't been in the public light in YEARS. Many don't know who he is. He does not have millions of followers like he did in 1992, hence is not relevant.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey%27s_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama

Every bit of money helps

@_@?????

I was surprised to see that there were a few people in this thread that didn't think obama won, but then I realized Bass4Funk just commented 11 times haha

Romeo - "If you like this terrible economy and persistently high energy costs and debt, then vote for Obama. If you want more jobs and an economy that works, then vote for Gov. Romney."

Classic conservative failing - has the facts backwards.

No wonder conservatives tanked the economy.

Romeo - "but Gov. Romney consistently pointed out the things Obama has not done in the past 3 1/2 years. We voters will remember that."

You'll also remember your boy Mitt has no strategy whatsoever - simply empty rhetoric married to childish fantasy supported by bung math.

But I know that's why you "like" Mitt - you also believe in fantasy. :-)

"and that's a good thing, especially for the independent voters ( like me)"

That's the funniest thing you've posted since Monday, Bass.

Glad to see Obama come back & hand Romney his due! This wasnt even close & Romney constantly DISRESPECTED americans in the audience but NOT answer the question posed but GOING BACK to try, lamely I might add to "correct" something Obama said LOL! And then grudgingly attempt to pacify the person who asked the question.

Romney clearly doesnt have what it takes, hopefully enough people in the US are smart enough(they may not be!) to realize it

It was a questioner who brought up Libya.

VRWC,

"Romney is a businessman at heart. He talks like a PowerPoint. And perhaps he IS an asset stripper, as Madverts said. That's nota bad thing, though. The US NEEDS to strip a few assets from those who are screwing it (like China)."

This is my point, you don't understa,d how Mitt Romney made his money. Asset stripping is all about screwing people, or entities. It's great while it lasts, but it is basically no different than a small time grift, for example setting up an auto parts business, getting a 30 day account from your suppliers and moving the stuff on as fast as you can for cash, without paying the suppliers, and then filing for bankruptcy.

4 out of 10 of Romney's major cash cows at Bain Capital filed for chapter 11, along with other lesser deals. In other words, other people and entities (mostly Americans I imagine) got screwed for the debt they left in the wake of their profits. It may be legal, but it's hardly moral.

Oh for cryin' out loud, Mr. President, Romney has already acknowledged that statement as wrong, and has said "I was completely wrong." This was a cheap shot beneath the dignity of the President.

This is almost as moronic as Romney's setting the stage for President Obama's appropriate slap-down by mentioning "100%"of Americans" in his closing remarks.

Mark Twain said that it is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled. Romney's claim that he was wrong might fool a few very gullible Americans, but the remarks were in a setting where Romney was under no pressure whatsoever to make them. As such, they represent the real Romney -- the candidate being himself, privately, in front of his loyal donors paying thousands to hear his real views. If the remarks are wrong, then Romney himself is wrong -- wrong for America.

Thoughts:

1) Testy to the point of discomforting the audience. Not at all surprising: this is the natural result adding having two utterly incomparable narratives to a general consensus that the candidates need to come out swinging.

2) Romney's best moment: Brutalizing Obama with a long string of fulfilled promises. Just brutal. Not fair, mind you - Obama has achieved an incredible amount, with unprecedented opposition, during a severe financial crisis that was not his fault and probably would have been a lot worse without his policies. Still, brutal all the same.

3) Romney's worst moment: Getting caught in a, uh, misrepresentation of Obama's Libya speech. When the previously doormat-passive moderator steps in to point out you've got your facts wrong... ouch. Romney kind of fell apart after that. Again, not entirely fair, this time to Mr. Romney. The administration embarrassingly did not have its act together before or after the incident. The failure to provide security was a gross error. But Obama gets away looking better than he deserves thanks to Romney's flub and the "the buck stops with me" speech.

4) Romney really is shameless, isn't he? He'll lie at the drop of a hat and pivot on a dime and never break a sweat. Looks good in real time, but I wonder if there will be a price to pay afterward... (Obama was flummoxed last time by this, now he's just irate.)

5) Who won? Who knows... I'm sure the partisans and the insta-polls will have an answer for you. I'd give the edge to Obama - he came out swinging, was on the ropes briefly in the middle there, but I think he had the stronger finish. That and you know the media has its "Obama makes a comeback!" narrative spin prepackaged and ready to go.

The facts speaks for themselves

Is that a fact? I though you don't believe in those things.

Well, y'know what Americans think:

Facts are stubborn things.

''The suggestion that anybody on my team, whether it’s a secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team, would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive,''

Conservatives "mourn" then get upset this tragedy doesn't get the political traction they think it should. Hard to express how much contempt I have for these folk over this.

The question that got my attention was when Obama was asked if the embassy in Benghazi had ever asked for more security and who turned them down. I'm not sure if this was a set up questions but , taking a play right out of the Madeline Albright/Bill Clinton playbook, used it to say the he is the man in charge and Hillary works for him. He never answered the question and if seemed like they were setting this up yesterday with Hillary taking responsibility.

Ross Perot is another member of the exclusive Gazzilonaire's Club that ran and failed for President. Pretty ironic endorsement if you ask me.

Romney was sharp on the attack, but not much stuck this time. People want specifics, and his 5-point plan is starting to sound like Herman Cain's 9-9-9. Obama was back in form, and while I think he could have been sharper on some questions (especially his weasly answer about gun control), I'd give him the win. The passion was back and he framed a much more coherent vision than Romney did.

Obama should have no problems in the final debate, in which foreign policy will be the focus. How many times can Romney repeat the same tired cliches about "apology tour", "leading from behind", "shaping events" or "throwing Israel under the bus"? He simply doesn't have a specific foreign policy.

Romney: bold on criticism, weak on specifics.

@bass4funk: Well I can appreciate that answer. I like to be able to see from time to time that even two people with significantly different views can understand each other on some level, and I did. As for crowly, it seems that you may be right: The statistics say that in total Obama did end up speaking 4 minutes longer than romney. And despite siding with Obama, I could also detect the attitude he was using this time that may have bothered you. That being said, considering how badly he was flattened by Romney in the first debate, and being called ridiculously "passive" even by his own party, I can't really blame him for trying to follow suite on the offensive, even if it may have been a little over-done.

I credit Romney as a businessman - which, essentially, is a salesman - and the grimaces on his face were clear signals that he himself knows he has nothing to sell.

Economics? - Nothing. Foreign policy? - Nothing. Education? - Nothing. Energy? - Nothing.

Sorry, but the man is an empty suit. It will be interesting to see how the GOP spins their impending defeat.

Seriously - and I really don't know the answer - how are the moderators for these debates chosen? I know it's seen by the liberals as being a crybaby - but you get a dude from PBS and now this woman? My HS debate teacher could have been a more impartial moderator. I know it's difficult not to have some awe of the office, but come on. Who's on deck for the third one - George Clooney?

I didn't watch this debate either, but as long as Obama didn't sit back and watch Romney go off at the mouth I feel some balance has been achieved.

CBS snap poll of undecided voters, MoE 4%

Obama 37 Romney 30 Tie 33

Chew on that.

The night is about to get better:

Obama's winning our post-debate snap poll in Colorado. We should have full results between 11:15 and 11:30 — @ppppolls via web

People earning over a million dollars supporting Romney is not news. Of course they don't want to pay more than 14% income tax.

The Moddie is now walking it back hard.

Well then, the "Moddie" is technically incorrect. Obama's speech:

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. 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.

I say technically, because he is speaking very generally here, and the administration did go on to give muddled and conflicting accounts of the incident for weeks afterward.

Still, Obama did say "act of terror."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

Perot endorsement will sew up the martian vote as Perot use to think, seriously, that they landed on his lawn at night. Maybe he still does.

Apparently, there was a request for more security at Tripoli and not Benghazi. The Republicans are twisting the facts...again...by saying the request for more security was for Benghazi.

Besides, the Benghazi operation was primarily operated by and for the CIA to deal with extra-judicial militias and find unsecured surface to air missiles. We all know the CIA knows everything, to include how to handle their own security.

Looking forward to the final debate.

Mitt Romney's going to get his arse handed to him on a plate - again.

Then it'll only be a matter of days before patriotic Americans do it again and show him the door to retirement.

@bass4funk, I can understand if you're republican and agree more with romney in general, and that you want to promote the side you believe in, but I want an honest answer to this question: Compared the first debate to the second debate, objectively speaking, do you not think obama did way better than he did last time? Objectively. Honestly.

Ross Perot's endorsement of Romney just shows how foolish Perot is and this endorsement shows to voters how the rich want Romney elected. It is only the rich who will benefit from a Romney election so anyone who is not rich is one stupid southern brain washed hill billy. The debate was close but clearly Obama had some of the edge. Romney's lies are starting to come to light. Less people will vote for Romney now that Perot is in that camp.

JTDanman - boy I can practically see you dancing giddy little circles - calm down, the fat lady hasn't done her thing yet.

All the libs and CNN and the 'insta-polls' will be drooling on how Obama slammed dunked it and now has the election in the bag. Horse-hockey as Colonel Potter used to say. I would grant you that the President might have won this one by just a bit. But in truth, on the matters that really, well, matter the President didn't say anything that should make undecided voters suddenly think he's the answer to the problem. As Mr. Romney calmly pointed out, this administration has failed to do much of what it claimed it would do, and has failed to solve our economic morass. Lots of blame - but the blame game has worn thin and folks are looking for answers. The President playing the angry man did what he wanted to do. He sort of won the debate by being the dominant, indignant forceful personality. But after the smoke of his fist shaking and accusations end, what did he really say of substance that he's going to do differently to affect change that will bring our economy around? The big, fat nothing. He said at one point that his administration 'had tried'. But they have failed, and the facts support this.

Folks are giving him points for the Libya thing; despite Romney's f-up on that one, the basic facts and accusations against the administration are still true and valid - that Mitt didn't present the argument correctly does not somehow make the facts less than true. That's the problem with a debate - in theory they're great in concept for letting the public get to know the candidates on their policies and agendas. But in our need to proclaim a 'clear winner' we lose something of the substance of what is being said. Instead it becomes who can yell the loudest and get the zingers in. And libs you can't deny that. Your boy was comatose the first time around, but I'm certain you would offer that isn't a measure of what he's capable of, but rather just an off night. Yes, there are three of them to kind of balance things out (hopefully). But with the American voting public who too often grasps at catch-phrases and talking points rather than researching real policy and political ideology, it does create pause.

I know, that sounds like I'm crying in my beer because my side didn't get the 'win' card in this debate. But I think these debates are becoming too much of a circus of who can out-perform who (old man Biden and his wild smiling and smirking) and who can ridicule and shout down the other. At times Romney was trying to stick pieces of failed Obama policy onto discussion points where they had no bearing except to bring them up. And the President looked like he was one step away from calling a street fight throw-down rather than his usual more smooth and dignified bearing. And who here believes that the black guy who asked a question was 'undecided'? I would bet my paycheck and my favorite pair of jeans that his vote was going for Obama all along. Racist? Well, a group of black friends on Facebook were talking about how they would vote for the President based upon the simple point that he is black, so I call 'em as I see 'em.

after television was invented, they were useful but incidental;

Debates were pivotal in the 1960 election and the 1976 election.

Tiger,

"Well, a group of black friends on Facebook were talking about how they would vote for the President based upon the simple point that he is black, so I call 'em as I see 'em."

What about all the racist rednecks that will be voting for Romney based upon the simple point that Obama is black? Are they any different?

Though I must acknowledge you being the one and only Romney poster to say Obama more or less won the debate, and for that in itself you may take a bow for honesty.

Leave it to you to start the lame old 'it's all evil George W's fault, inherited a mess, blah, blah, blah.

That the US economy was in free-fall during 2008 -- the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression -- is a fact. One that Republicans would like everyone to forget, since it happened on their watch, under their plans and policies -- largely a continuation of what started in 1980.

it's time to get rid of Gabbert and put in Manning

If Romney gets put in, it will be time for everyone to Tebow.

Binder full of women...hmm, I guess that's a mormon thing

Romney's words were as follows: (listen carefully) "I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the — the chance to pull together a Cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are — are all men? They said, well, these are the people that have the qualifications. And I said, well, gosh, can’t we — can’t we find some — some women that are also qualified? And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, can you help us find folks? And I brought us whole binders full of — of women." (from debate transcript)

First of all, I thought modern-day conservatives were totally against this kind of "affirmative action."

Secondly, how would it have sounded if Romney said "binders full of blacks?"

Thirdly, how many women held executive positions at Bain Capital? (No binders there?)

Lastly, why didn't Romney simply answer the question he was asked: does he favor equal pay for equal work for women? His very strange response never touched upon it.

Debates occur in the British Parliament. We here in the US are treated to name-calling contests.

"Debates occur in the British Parliament. We here in the US are treated to name-calling contests."

It's a hard choice to select a winner from either the US mudslinging fest, or the obsequious show put on by haughty, Eton educated bum-chums in the British parliament.

I think both are up for review.

Mitt still has no plan for policies except I was truly convinced Mitt will take us back to 1950 more extreme policy than "W".

No "Binder filled with women" pleeeeze. Women need equal pay for equal job. Women have a right to decide what they want to do for their bodies, pleeeze. His tax plan does not add up at all. American voters are alot smarter than Mitt. His tactics are getting cheaper and revealing more lies. We need a commander of chief we can trust. No Mitt.

Well, that was great. A great day to be a Democrat. A great day for America.

You don't say...

Obama gets biAtched slapped again, Owned, signed, sealed and delivered.

Hmmmm.

Obama did considerably better in this debate. I personally think that it was pretty even. Romney's best jab was on the oil and coal topic while Obama's best moment was on the Libya topic.

Romney missed a major opportunity on the gun topic. If he could have painted Obama as a heavy gun control advocate he could have scored some major points. He made it back up a little on the economic questions at the tail end of the debate. Another big missed opportunity was on the Libya question, he totally mishandled his approach. He got caught up on that incorrect statement and lost all of his momentum on that question and didn't pick it up again for a while.

Like I said, overall I think it came out pretty even. Much better than the last debate and it had a lot more fire in it than the VP debate. Both candidates went well. Romney definitely kept his support base energized and I think Obama has stopped the bleeding he's been suffering in the polls.

The next three weeks are going to be really entertaining. Still not voting for either of them but I always get all giddy when people fight on television.

A number of things. One, Romney had some good points, especially about Libya and how the administration failed both to provide requested supply troops for defense, but also how they kept on labelling it as a protest for far too long. Obama made some good points too, where he pointed out that it was hypocritical for Romney to go on and on about coal jobs but yet under his watch he closed a coal factory for example. I think they both performed well, and knew their facts, with the exception of that one debated statistic or two where they had a back and forth. We'll see what the fact checkers say about it. If I had to say which candidate won, I'd say Obama by a very slim margin, or a tie. Romney interrupted Candy quite a bit though.

The world is going to watch as Govenor Romney burns through millions more of donations from misinformed Americans before being ejected from the public stage and rudely shunted into retirement in 3 weeks time.

Oh spare me your partisan pandering and let me enjoy the prospect of a political bloodbath for once. Your guy is just as bad as their's, this is my once shot every four years to watch you all tear each others throats out and laugh myself to sleep knowing full well that none of you will learn anything when the dust settles. If it weren't so funny it would be sad.

BTW CNN just posted 46% for Obama winning this debate compared to 39% for Romney.

techall - the facility in Benghazi was not an embassy (which by definition is in the host country`s capitol) it was a newly established consulate. Consulates are normally established in outlying cities for assisting US citizens and promotion of US commercial interests, etc. The latest word is that a CIA operation was based out of this one. The Resident Security Officer (State Dept.) in the embassy, advising the ambassador, is responsible for deciding the threat level in the country and the corresponding security resources (physical and personnel levels) allocated. But if the squirrels are there, they will bring in contractors (as they did) for temporary measures during their ops.

@Meguroman,

Understood, but does that answer the questions that was asked of Mr. Obama? I know all too well of private security at consulates from my time in Iraq......Blackwater at the time.

Techall,

I am actually surprised we are learning anything about what went on. If the President started talking about security and how security decisions are made, I would have been upset. Still, there seems to be too much information in the open about what went on, which will aide future attacks.

The Rock'em Sock'em robots traded blows, but neither landed anything of substance.

Bass4Funk just commented 11 times

And basically covered all the baes.

Romeo

Obama droned on and on about what he wants to do in the next four years, but Gov. Romney consistently pointed out the things Obama has not done in the past 3 1/2 years. We voters will remember that.

Yes. The Republican Party is the party that endlessly looks back, and Mitt is its ideal Norman Rockwell mascot, complete with a lack of complex reasoning -- necessary in a very uncertain but real world.

The right wing of America is now thoroughly engulfed by the fictional utopian past it created for itself. Conservatism today is moving toward sidestepping the difficult lessons of history, choosing instead to follow a cult-like obsession with Reagan, trickle-down economics, and a certain white male infantile egotistical utopia. It's the worship of, yes, entitlement!

@jump

You unlike many liberals on JT ( Oh, you know who you are) that are completely partisan all the way and you can never reason with these people because they always think that Obama is right and never wrong and that answer to everything is big government. Like me, You can see both sides of the coin and that's refreshing good to hear that, mad props!

What we have here is perception vs track record. Voters will have to decide whether there is a perception that Romney can do better or if Obama can improve on his track record of his first term.

what happens to the guys who don't get elected ? here in the land of no portunity everybody gets a piece of the cake according to how many votes they got, and that's divided over five different layers of government making decisions for only 11 million people. Imagine the efficiency. But the point : what happens in america , romney has a huge following even if he doesnt win. Does it mean all those people get to just undergo the opposition and suck it up ?

Sail,

"Since I do freely admit my bias in regards to Romney economic views and policies, my judgement is of course to be suspect if that is an actual fair view of the debate."

I do appreciate your honesty, but I'm still a tad uneasy you are making your judgement on his economic views and policies, since they are at best lacking in any true substance if you'd care to examine what he has to offer. The five point plan sounds good, but there is no substance behind that either. It's like buying a car you knew had no engine but promising the family you'll take them on a coast to coast trip in it anyway.

I realize Romney is a very successful businessman in his own right even disregarding his pampered roots, but I repeat that this is in no way a qualification for being a politician. Especially the way asset strippers like Romney actually made their fortunes, a skill devoid of any sort of creation (quite the opposite in fact) and something that I'm actually not sure many of you even begin to understand. If he were to apply this kind of business acumen that you all insist on touting as a smart to running the country, it would will end in certain disaster, and certainly more wars.

"Obama is our best hope"

If that be the case, then we are doomed. DOOMED, I SAY!

Mads - "Serrano, your material is getting really tired."

I've been thinking the same thing.

Every year for the last decade.

But that's just my partisan bias speaking. :-)

Serrano, don't despair. Europe is at least equally doomed, and probably more imminently. Capital controls have been enacted with good(but frightening ) reason. After Obama gets the boot in November, the rioting will begin is USSA , putting to use all those FEMA detention camps and parmilitary police equipment. No worries!

I watched as well. It was a very energetic exchange of views. Pres. Obama was obviously determined to change his attitude and body language. He did much better, at least in terms of optics. However, at heart he is STILL a professor and lecturer. Aside from a few canned comeback lines, he isn't skilled at the verbal tennis match type of debate. All in all though, a far better performance than before. Another sleepwalk and he would have been toast.

Romney is a businessman at heart. He talks like a PowerPoint. And perhaps he IS an asset stripper, as Madverts said. That's nota bad thing, though. The US NEEDS to strip a few assets from those who are screwing it (like China).

A very, perhaps too close to call debate. Both men looked presidential and prepared. Obama won on women's issues and Libya, Romney clearly took the economic argument.

It does continue to amaze me, though, the different attitudes of the left and right. Lefties seem to have a pathological need to demonize those with whom they disagree. The think those on the right aren't just wrong, they are evil. We on the right are different. We recognize that lifties are not inherently bad or destructive at heart, just not correct.

The real - well, elephant - in the room, though, is the relevance of the debate itself. In the days of limited print media, debates were undoubtedly of great importance; after television was invented, they were useful but incidental; now, with the plethora of information available to any concerned citizen available on the Internet, if one has not formed an opinion about a particular candidate and must rely on how a particular candidate expresses his or her views in demi-second soundbites - well, that voter might well consider staying home. Democracy does, after all, entail a certain responsibility that goes beyond game shows.

Romney's bringing the Libya incident was a disgraceful attempt at a cheap shot.

It serves him right that he got shot down in a manner that left him fumbling for words.

Republicans are a disgraceful mob of corrupt opportunists.

One would think that what you say is true Laguna, but never overestimate the intelligence of the American people. I can't count the number of times I've sent out an email, only to have the recipients read just the first sentence, or sat through meetings where catch phrases were the participant's only information on a topic. In our 'honey-booboo' society where more people are concerned about the results of dancing with the stars than any political election, it's unsafe to think that many folks know much about anything.

Ubikwit - typical liberal mentality - 'all Republicans are vile and we are the chosen ones'. You don't know me dude. You know what they say about assumptions.

A longtime aide to George W. Romney issued a harshly worded critique of Mitt Romney, accusing him of shifting political positions in “erratic and startling ways” and failing to live up to the distinguished record of his father, the former governor of Michigan.

Walter De Vries, who worked for the senior Mr. Romney throughout the 1960s, wrote that Mitt Romney’s bid for the White House was “a far cry from the kind of campaign and conduct, as a public servant, I saw during the seven years I worked in George Romney’s campaigns and served him as governor.”

“While it seems that Mitt would say and do anything to close a deal – or an election,” he wrote, “George Romney’s strength as a politician and public officeholder was his ability and determination to develop and hold consistent policy positions over his life.”

@techall

It was a questioner who brought up Libya.

Fair enough, that mitigates his inept response somewhat.

I don't believe that anyone in the administration has said that there weren't security lapses based on intelligence failures, but that doesn't seem to be what Romney was targeting in his flubbed response.

@TigermothII

typical liberal mentality - 'all Republicans are vile and we are the chosen ones'. You don't know me dude. You know what they say about assumptions.

I wasn't addressing your posts, but OK, I shouldn't overgeneralize and demonize all Republicans because of the prevalent Machiavellian strain among the overwhelming majority of those in the public eye.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing a Republican like Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, or Eisenhower, who represents the last of the legitimate Republicans to have resided in the White House, in my opinion.

Despite your eloquent posting Jaiegh I would hardly call it a dunk worthy of MJ (and I'm old enough to have seen him play in college in the day when Ralph Sampson of UVA was in competition). Check the ultra-liberal MSNBC link put up above - a good many of the undecideds indicated they were going for Romney after the debate. And even CNN - another liberal rag - states that they were about even. I might even agree with you that the President got in a few more jabs - but it wasn't a TKO landslide by any stretch. The Prez still said nothing of substance that would persuade those fed up with his lackluster 4 years to run to his banner. If that's your version of a slam dunk, you must be playing in the European leagues.

The Prez still said nothing of substance that would persuade those fed up with his lackluster 4 years to run to his banner. If that's your version of a slam dunk, you must be playing in the European leagues.

After eight years of unmitigated disaster, a "lackluster" four was a welcome relief.

The previous "quarterback" inherited a "first-down-and-goal-to-go" situation and managed to move the ball -- backwards -- to within 5 yards of his own goal. His replacement his faulted for promising to move the ball back to midfield and is castiaged for only getting it to the 40 yard line.

Ah Yabits, haven't seen you in a while my friend. Leave it to you to start the lame old 'it's all evil George W's fault, inherited a mess, blah, blah, blah. It's four years later - get over it and do something for god's sake. We've jumped from basketball to football, but okay - it's time to get rid of Gabbert and put in Manning (prefer Eli as I'm a NYorker).

Hey, at least Tebow one some games. I would tend to disagree with you that the economic downfall was all the part of the Republican party, but even putting that aside the point is what have the Democrats done - and what is the current sitting Democrat President doing to alleviate the situation. After four years his policies have been ineffective, and in my view (and that of many others) detrimental to fixing the situation. His plan seems to be for more of the same. So for all of his talk of hope and change, the inexperienced community organizer cum junior senator from Illinois has no real solution that will be effective for America. I will put my faith and vote in a man who at least is capable of running a business quite successfully. The way forward in our capitalist democracy is through promoting business, not hindering it and pushing through crappy and harmful legislation. My view, my pig, my farm. To each his own, and we'll see in a short time.

sorry, Tebow 'won' some games - jeesh

Obama droned on and on about what he wants to do in the next four years, but Gov. Romney consistently pointed out the things Obama has not done in the past 3 1/2 years. We voters will remember that.

Don't you realize that this is precisely why Obama won the debate. He spoke of plans for the next 4 years, and the future of America, whereas Romney had no plans for the future, and could only keep looking back...he even went on about Reagan AGAIN. FYI, Reagan was president like 30 years ago. He has to go back two republican presidents to site anything successful his party has done.

Obama using them as an example of "victims", rather than the latter, says to me he panders to emotion, rather than in the truth

Um hello? Sorry for asking the same question twice, but you do know that Romney is the white guy right? Because it ROMNEY, not Obama who made the 47% into victims. Wow, typical republican, "whatever horrible thing I am, you must be too" projection strikes again.

it was the moderator/Obama cheerleader

As if Jim Leher did any better keeping Romney at bay

Cripes, yabits, the man has admitted he was wrong to say what he said, but you can't accept that.

The people that Romney said that too paid lots of money to be there in that "private" event. Was Mitt lying to them, or was he stating what he genuinely felt?

When he now says it was wrong, what changed his feelings? The fact that he was found out? Does "wrong" mean that he got the percentage incorrectly? That it should have been 45% and not 47% of Americans?

Yes, I can't accept what you do because I'm not a complete fool.

Yes, it does. 'Cause Omama won.

'Omama' might have won somewhere, Obama showed nothing new except that he can feign indignity. And he has no clue how he's going to get America out of its current morass. So sad for you - and so sad for all of us that he's so lame.

Yeah, the Deep South. And Texas.

Meaning, white racists whose states DONT MATTER for the electoral college, just as California dont either.

Despite the obvious grammatical errors (I thought you liberals were brilliantly smart) - I take issue with the constant liberal bashing of the south. I'm from the south, and have since moved north. Trust me when I say that there are easily just as many - if not more - ignorant white racists (and black racists, let's not forget them) in the north. Obviously you're no Rhodes Scholar either, so perhaps think before you write such sweeping, untrue and unfairly hypocritical rubbish.

Don't you realize that this is precisely why Obama won the debate. He spoke of plans for the next 4 years, and the future of America, whereas Romney had no plans for the future, and could only keep looking back...he even went on about Reagan AGAIN.

Yes, but can you really win a debate when your plans for the next four years are the SAME as your plans of the last four years - which haven't worked? Romney was simply pointing out that they had not worked so that the intelligent conclusion could be drawn that four more years of the same will not work. Mitt has clearly outlined is plans. 'He went back to Reagan AGAIN' - really, are you really going to sit there as a democrat and say that??? How many times have your lot referenced JFK? Oh, I'd say about a billion. And for that matter you can't stop talking about Bush long enough to explain why your man is accomplishing relatively nothing. Bit of pot calling the kettle black on that one I should say.

Mark Twain said that it is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.

Yes, and a lot of fools have been fooled for four years - enough of that already.

And he has no clue how he's going to get America out of its current morass. So sad for you - and so sad for all of us that he's so lame.

This in response to the fact that Obama won the debate. In short, more Republican whining. Again.

blah blah with the constant liberal bashing of the south blah blah balyhoo...

I didn't bash the south, my friend, I 'bashed' the racists in the south. Learn to read. [Evidently yer no Road Scholar too] And, of course, calling legitimate criticism of the racism and racists in the south as 'bashing" its the standard southern apology for southern racism. And southern racists.

Newsflash: There are racists in the South. Newsflash: the Civil War was about slavery. Newsflash, southerners lie to their children about that fact, and about racism in the South.

The facts are matter at hand are simple and plain: Whereas Obama leads Rmoney is the West, in the Mid West, in the North, Romney crushes Obama in South. More so than any other previous Democrat.

Gee, which of these Dems is not like other? Gee, which one of these Dems is subject to the birther nonsnese? Where is the birther nonsense most popular? Gee, why is it that Republicans. led by the South, don't believe that Obama is a Real American™?

The South is racist. More racist than other places. The only people, ironically, who don't call this spade, er, a spade, are southern apologists like you. And we've heard your BS for generations. All about your peculiar instituion, and southern relatavism.

Heh, Road Scholar.

Love it Dananator.

"No doubt. Obama didn't show ANY class and as I said, he showed his thuggish side and that was beneath him. But typical and expected from Obama."

@bass4funk:

Do you really think that what Obama did was thuggish, or are you just throwing words around? If you truly think that was thuggish, then I suggest you venture out to South L.A., Compton, or any other neighborhoods along those lines to see the true definition of "thuggish". LOL

Women have a right to decide what they want to do for their bodies

Does that include female babies with beating hearts and functioning minds? Guess they don't have the same rights as other women do.

The question is how much worse/better would the economy be if Cheney (or Rumsfeld, etc.) had continued after Bush. Also the widening disparity of wealth has never proven good for any healthy economy historically.

Brutalizing Obama with a long string of fulfilled promises.

That should be unfulfilled of course.

Won't move the needle.

Gun loaded. Pointed SHOT IN FOOT: Binders of women. Brilliant! LOL. GO President OBAMA!

"Obama is our best hope"

This is foreboding.

Even???? Obama slammed (like mj from the free throw) dunked the debate with Mitt Romney . It wasn't close by a long shot. Stop dreaming republicans.

I got 99 problems but MITCH aint one...hit me!

I know, that sounds like I'm crying in my beer

Yes, it does. 'Cause Omama won.

He won.

He won the middle. And He got the base fired up and ready to go.

So sad for you.

it was the moderator/Obama cheerleader

And yet, more whining from the Republicans. Again.

Laguna,

Meh. Most people have already decided on who they are gonna vote for. In fact, this election has seen the least amount of variation, the least amount of swing in the polls. In short, we are not paying attention to the debates that much.

Now, you're gonna say, But what about Rmoney's jump after the first debate. Well, that comes from Rmoney having the same problem as McCain: he was still worrying about his base in October. LOL. So he tacked to the middle sharply, and did it while punching Obama with lie after lie. Disgraceful Republicans hate the black guy so much, they didn't care that Rmoney was singing like a MA liberal. So long as he went after the Black Guy.

If you, or anyone, thinks this ain't about Obama being the Black Guy, check out the cross tabs on all those national polls. See where Rmoney is getting his big bounce....?

Yeah, the Deep South. And Texas.

Meaning, white racists whose states DONT MATTER for the electoral college, just as California dont either.

Rmoney can read the polls in CO, and in OH. That's why he is sweating. 'Cause he knows unless Obama gets caught with his John Thomas in some interns mouth, Rmony is l'histoire.

And I'm Lovin it™

This just in: The latest Gallup poll has Romney leading Obama 50% to 46%.

I guess Gallup is in the tank for Romney, heh heh.

I liked it when the black guy in the audience said that he had high hopes for Obama in 08,but not so high now. Then he asked Obama what are you going to bring down high prices. Obama said we got Bin Ladin,and put Wall Street in check etc. Totally avoiding the guy's question. I also thought it was good that Romney mentioned about operation Fast And Furious. Oh the look on Obama's face. He was drinking alot of water too...

@Sushi

Always Chicken and Spinach, if you don't like it, shows how you feel about veggies.

@jump

I can understand if you're republican and agree more with romney in general, and that you want to promote the side you believe in, but I want an honest answer to this question: Compared the first debate to the second debate, objectively speaking, do you not think obama did way better than he did last time? Objectively. Honestly.

I think as far as general rhetoric Obama did a bit better, no spin. However, when it came down to attitude and credibility and particularly mannerism, Romney did way better. Again, not spinning, both were hot- headed, but for one, there was a bias going on from Crowly, it was evident and if people couldn't see that, then they are living on planet Mongo. Every time she interrupted, she would never allow Romney to finish, while Obama went on and on with his usual talkative self, he needed to push hard this time, the stakes were high for the Dems, it's Nut-crunch time, I get it. But he didn't have to be so obnoxious. Both made good points and both were good on the defensive, but attitude means a lot. It would be different if people could say, Obama wins hands down, undisputed, but it was a relative tie and for the president, that is NOT a good thing, he wants to be ahead and exceed. For Conservatives, this is a huge plus, because it means, people are THINKING SERIOUSLY and that's a good thing, especially for the independent voters ( like me) It was a good debate, although, I can't stand Obama, he didn't wuss out, he did a decent job, minus the attitude.

There, NO spin.

Just finished watching the whole thing:

Couple of thoughts, 90 minutes is to long, they really need to cut it down to 60 minutes and hold the candidates to the two minute answers. It devolved toward the end and also to many times during the debate to just how many times both Romney and Obama could repeat their talking points.

My personal opinion: Obama couldn't really defend his economic record and policy results, though to his credit he did give a spirited defense of them and made a much better showing. I felt Romney made his business and private sector experience to be a very real acceptable alternative to them. Since I do freely admit my bias in regards to Romney economic views and policies, my judgement is of course to be suspect if that is an actual fair view of the debate.

But in trying to be as objective as I can and stepping back a bit outside of my admitted bias, I just don't see the needle being moved much at all towards Obama's direction after this debate. The economy and who can best get it going strong again is the main driver this election and Romney even in the snap polls after the debate on who is best able to handle the economy are all clearly showing that it is Romney the one the voters are trusting much more on than Obama on the issue.

The economy and who can best handle it is really where the election will be settled in 2012 in my opinion.

Serrano, your material is getting really tired.

Amy Sullivan writes in The New Republic about "Mitt the Jerk" (A woman's view of the debate):

"I’d like to suggest that in the second presidential debate on Tuesday night, we met Mitt the Man. He’s always been there, surfacing briefly at the Republican National Convention to implausibly claim that he has always believed wife Ann’s job raising their sons “was a lot more important than mine”—as if Romney sincerely believed that for decades he pursued a less important career path. For the most part, however, Mitt the Man had been under wraps until he emerged in full-force at Hofstra University. Just who is he?"

"Mitt the Man gets his way by talking over you and not stopping until you give in so he can make his point. Which he may have forgotten by then, because getting his way was the point."

"Mitt the Man can go from charming to testy in two seconds flat because while he has tolerated you as a female colleague, he will not allow you to disrespect him and his authoritah!"

"Mitt the Man is not self-aware enough to realize that he can be easily goaded and that you are pushing his buttons."

"Mitt the Man feels sorry for you as a single parent and your sure-to-be-screwed-up kids."

"Mitt the Man cannot help but disappoint you because his chivalry is all about saying the right thing as opposed to doing the right thing."

"

@stranger

Lol! You are the most partisan pro-republican poster on the forum, and that is saying A LOT!

You don't know anything about me, NOTHING, I am NOT a partisan unlike most you or most people. I have said repeatedly many times, I don't have much care for either parties, I will criticize both, it's just that Dems talk a lot more and really a lot more trash and have destroyed this country and put it in dire straits draining it, bankrupting it and Dems have NO idea as what fiscal responsibility means, they think it's something you fry in a pan, that's why I am more hard on them, but both sides have their faults. However, when it comes to the economy, and as a business man and owner or job creator, I really don't trust Dems and before you start blabbing about Bush, I was very hard on him for his outrageous spending. Now that we cleared up the air on that, now you know that I am NOT a partisan fact and if you read my last post to Jim you would have known that, but I forgive you anyway. ;-)

What's wrong with Jim Lehrer?

“The suggestion that anybody on my team, whether it’s a secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team, would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive,” Obama said But true. They played politics when after 911 happened.

JTDanManOct. 17, 2012 - 12:25PM JST : Is that a fact? I though you don't believe in those things.

This is what I said, "Facts and truths are relative. Facts and truths are base on one perception of reality." You believe what Obama says to be facts base on you liking him. You liking him have influence you in believing that he told you the facts. Those who disagree base on what they see the facts to be otherwise. Some people are critical thinkers while others are not.

Obama won on a technicality. An "act of terror" and "TERRORISM by TERRORISTS" are not the same thing. School and movie theater shootings are acts of terror too, basically anything that makes people "terrified" is an act of terror.

The point was that Obama was blaming a Youtube video instead of clearly stating that terrorism by terrorists was to blame and that he was actually going to find them and do something about it.

I wouldn't put as much stock in something like this if it happened on Fox News, but when MSNBC's undecideds were swayed toward Gov. Romney that tells you all you need to know about how this election will turn out.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbcs-undecided-voter-panel-swayed-romney_654728.html

RR

Romney's bringing the Libya incident was a disgraceful attempt at a cheap shot.

Heh, ubikwit, those of us who actually watched the debate know that it was the moderator/Obama cheerleader who initially broached the topic.

RR

@JT

Once again, you are on some serious spiked kool aid

CBS debate poll 37% Obama, 30% Romney 33% said it was a tie. 500 people phone polled on the economy 34% Obama Romney 65%

CNN debate on the economy 7 points Obama, 18 points Romney

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/oct/15/gallupusatoday-poll-women-voters-flocking-mitt-rom/

Even msnbc, WOW and I am really shocked!

http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/10/17/msnbc-undecided-voter-panel-leans-more-toward-romney-after-debate/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/obama-maintains-lead-over-romney-in-post-debate-abc-post-poll.html

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-closing-gap-ohio-poll-numbers-crowds-rise-012303541.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/poll-romney-leads-obama-in-florida-20121011

If you want to say Romney has a problem with likability, I can't argue with that, but on the economy, Obama loses big time, really BIG.

Sure yabits, just call other posters complete fools because they can accept it when others admit when they're wrong.

"the black guy in the audience said he had high hopes for Obama in 08, but not so high now"

Oh, he'll still vote for Obama. What, he's actually going to vote for Romney? Ha ha ha

The 47 percent Mr. Romney "in-elegantly" spoke of were not of this group of contributors, Mr. Obama, and you know it.

You're honestly trying to say that those rich contributors who paid $50,000/ plate for that dinner meeting were folks on social security, veterans, and students? REALLY?

Mirai Hayashi :

No.

Many Obama supporters are takers, not contributers, and don't care if the economy improves, as long as their welfare check arrives on time. Working and becoming independent, are not top priority.

This is a different group entirely than the group of people Obama represented in the debate; people on SS, Veterans, students looking to win Pell grants, or scholarships for college, etc. These are not victims, or takers- Whatever funds they receive, they pay into, in some form, and Obama using them as an example of "victims", rather than the latter, says to me he panders to emotion, rather than in the truth.

yabits: "President Obama's appropriate slap-down"

Appropriate for Democrats/liberals, apparently, lol.

If the remarks are wrong, then Romney himself is wrong - wrong for America"

Cripes, yabits, the man has admitted he was wrong to say what he said, but you can't accept that. When is Obama going to learn to admit when he's wrong?

Mirai is right, Ross Perot's endorsement of Romney is nowhere near as relevant as Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Obama, lol.

This election is still all about the U.S. economy. Tonight's debate made it crystal clear to us voters on Nov. 6:

If you like this terrible economy and persistently high energy costs and debt, then vote for Obama.

If you want more jobs and an economy that works, then vote for Gov. Romney.

RR

At least Obama was awake during the debate, which was a giant improvement. But those of us what actually saw the debate saw he was still outclassed in energy of presentation and, of course, has a dreadful record he could not defend. Overall, Obama held his own but comes out of this debate a big loser by not being able to win decisively.

There is nothing now to stop Gov. Romney's momentum.

RR

Romeo, I agree with you Obama droned on and on; Droning is indeed his specialty. And I agree Romney continued to remind of Obama's economic failure. But neither are news. Candy Cowley seemed less like a moderator and more like an Obama cheerleader, obviously biased. I think Howard Stern would have done a better job.

"Obama outpunches Romney"

Well, he did out-interrupt him.

CBS debate poll 37% Obama, 30% Romney 33% said it was a tie. 500 people phone polled on the economy 34% Obama Romney 65%

CNN debate on the economy 7 points Obama, 18 points Romney

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/oct/15/gallupusatoday-poll-women-voters-flocking-mitt-rom/

Even msnbc, WOW and I am really shocked!

http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/10/17/msnbc-undecided-voter-panel-leans-more-toward-romney-after-debate/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/obama-maintains-lead-over-romney-in-post-debate-abc-post-poll.html

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-closing-gap-ohio-poll-numbers-crowds-rise-012303541.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/poll-romney-leads-obama-in-florida-20121011

If you want to say Romney has a problem with likability, I can't argue with that, but on the economy, Obama loses big time, really BIG.

Gee, ya think maybe they are fighting over something...uhm important.

Snippy is not the way to do that. One can be forceful and respectful at the same time.

Once again, Obama gets biAtched slapped again, Owned, signed, sealed and delivered. Even David Gergen had to admit that. Obama was much too hostile, not good, not good. Romney kept his cool. let's see.

3) Romney's worst moment: Getting caught in a, uh, misrepresentation of Obama's Libya speech. When the previously doormat-passive moderator steps in to point out you've got your facts wrong... ouch.

Another big missed opportunity was on the Libya question, he totally mishandled his approach. He got caught up on that incorrect statement and lost all of his momentum on that question and didn't pick it up again for a while.

On the Libya question.........The Moddie is now walking it back hard.

Candy Crowley: Romney ‘Right’ That Obama Didn’t Call Libya Terror, But Thought ‘He Picked The Wrong Word’

Crowley said that Romney’s was “right” in that the Obama administration spent weeks refusing to say that the attack was terrorism, but she thought at the time that “he picked the wrong word.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/candy-crowley-romney-right-that-obama-didnt-call-libya-terror-but-thought-he-picked-the-wrong-word/

"Obama outpunches Romney"

Yeah, according to a majority of some 500 people polled, lol.

@Herve

Not so sure about that. Obama droned on and on about what he wants to do in the next four years, but Gov. Romney consistently pointed out the things Obama has not done in the past 3 1/2 years. We voters will remember that.

As for Obama, despite being helped out again by the moderator, he wound up not laying a mitt on Gov. Romney.

RR

Obama's a rock star w/o a clue on how to run an economy. Romney has solid business experience and has created wealth.

The problem with america is that americans think the ability to create wealth is akin to killing babies.

Where do people think all the free money the dems hand out comes from? What do they think is going to happen when the government makes it virtually impossible to create more wealth, and all the current wealth is spent?

Candy Crowley Fact Checks Mitt Romney On Libya before 50 million American TV viewers.

Google: Candy Crowley "He was right"

Gov. Romeny wins. "Journalist" Crowley loses.

RR

@Jump

Someone has to inject some sense of reality to all this liberal madness. Go figure.

A good lively "debate", heavy on rhetoric, light on facts. Coke or Pepsi? But speaking out of turn is unacceptable. That may suit pundits on CNNMSNBC, but shows weakness in the candidate. Choose "C", other, or none. Just neither "A" nor "B".

@Serrano

ROFL

"When he said behind closed doors that 47% of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility," said Obama, "think about who he was talking about: folks on Social Security who've worked all their lives, veterans who've sacrificed for this country, students who are out there trying to, hopefully, advance their own dreams, but also this country's dreams, soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now, people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don't make enough income."

Phooey.

The 47 percent Mr. Romney "in-elegantly" spoke of were not of this group of contributors, Mr. Obama, and you know it.

Obama's modus operandi : Using oily condescension to appeal to those who think with their emotions, rather than with logic, reason or fact.

Obama: “When he said behind closed doors that 47% of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility,” said Obama, “think about who he was talking about: folks on Social Security who've worked all their lives, veterans who've sacrificed for this country, students who are out there trying to, hopefully, advance their own dreams, but also this country's dreams, soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now, people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don't make enough income.”

Oh for cryin' out loud, Mr. President, Romney has already acknowledged that statement as wrong, and has said "I was completely wrong." This was a cheap shot beneath the dignity of the President.

@Mad

Every bit of money helps

Mirai HayashiOct. 17, 2012 - 11:46AM JST : Obama wins on facts again...Libya response was triumph

The facts speaks for themselves. Facts are base on interpretations.

"Obama stuck around 10-15 minutes signing autographs and taking pictures"

He got the charisma!

"Now that Gov Romney's had his arse handed to him on a plate"

Sure, just make up stuff and post it, sheesh.

Obama is in real trouble now - Ross Perot has just endorsed Romney. ( "U.S. on unsustainable course" )

My favorite parts of the debate was when Romney called Obama out on his BS about not cutting oil permits, but even better than that was wayching "The One" cringe when he was called out for having investments in China and the Caymen Islands, despite constant whining from liberals about Romney having them.

Sweet.

RR

@JT

Yep you said that. That just about says it all. And that is not what Americans think. American think facts are stubborn things. Communists, post-Modernists, salarymen, and Republicans think facts are socially determined.

But liberals and Dems are always on par when it comes to dealing with reality, eh...lol. You guys crack me up.

@Mirai

Well, yes, he is relevant.

Good News! Hot off the PRESS!

http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

Romney looking Good!

@Mirai

Perot is yesterday's news and TOTALLY irrelevant.

To YOU. That's YOUR opinion. ;-)

What's up with the writer of this news telling us what they ate for dinner? Who cares, except Sushi?

DanMan: "Obama 37 Romney 30 Tie 33"

Hmmm... 30 plus 33 = 63... So, 63% didn't think Obama won? This can't be...

I see Obama took a cheap shot at Romney's 47% remark in his closing remarks, trying to equate the 47% to all Social Security recipients, etc. Gosh, I would have thought this sort of thing was below the president...

@Mirai

Ross Perot's endorsement is as relevant Kim Kardashian and Snooki's endorsements.

Perot was a successful businessman Snooki and Kardashian are successful for something else and it's not business so it is quite relevant.

"Presidential" this debate is not. They are squabbling like a divorced couple.

Funny, On the debate, the polls are out, but like Biden, Obama was rude and as usual had the deer in the headlights and the Obama really looked and had NO, let me repeat, NO answer to Benghazi. This man has NO ethics, typical Chicago gangsta politics, dodge, evade. I will admit Obama had more time and more windbag to spin, but Obama. like Biden was rude and smirk.

The difference between the first debate and this one is Obama said nothing, louder.

The ass-whopping that Obama got was just pitiful, I almost felt sorry for him.......almost.

As far as jobs are concerned:

OBAMA: "And what I want to do is build on the 5 million jobs that we've created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone."

THE FACTS: As he has done before, Obama is cherry-picking his numbers to make them sound better than they really are. He ignores the fact that public-sector job losses have dragged down overall job creation. Also, he chooses just to mention the past 30 months. That ignores job losses during his presidency up until that point. According to the Labor Department, about 4.5 million total jobs have been created over the past 30 months. But some 4.3 million jobs were lost during the earlier months of his administration. At this point, Obama is a net job creator, but only marginally.

@Serrano

No doubt. Obama didn't show ANY class and as I said, he showed his thuggish side and that was beneath him. But typical and expected from Obama.

Another big fact on Obama's outrageous spending.

OBAMA: "Let's take the money that we've been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America, roads, bridges, schools. We do those things, not only is your future going to be bright, but America's future is going to be bright as well." THE FACTS: What Obama didn't mention is that much of the money that has been paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was borrowed. In fact, the government borrows nearly 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Thus using money that had been earmarked for wars to build schools and infrastructure would involve even more borrowing, adding to the federal deficit.