Seeing numerous DUers try to spin the debate

[cali]

in a myriad of ways reminds me of Freepers declaring the polls are all bullshit.

Why can't people just deal with reality? I'm as partisan as they come, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let that blind me.

To believe that this was all some elaborate trap that the President set for Mitt or that he's playing 3 dimensional chess or that he actually won the debate, one would have to believe that he wanted headlines blaring that Romney won decisively. One would have to believe that he wanted to come across as listless and stumbling.

I don't believe that this debate as a discrete event, is fatal to President Obama's campaign, but it wasn't a high note. He didn't do well. He needs to do better in the next debate. That's the reality of it.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

1. Amen ;-)

[piratefish08]

2. kick

[CatWoman]

3. Cali,

I'm unchanged from my immediate reaction.

I don't think Obama did too badly as all Romney did was lie.

It takes time to counter all the bullshit Romney was fast and furiously spewing.

That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

[cali]

5. That's your opinion. Unfortunately, that's not the general takeaway.

[CatWoman]

18. yes, it is my opinion

you sound as if you have a problem with that.

I was simply stating my opinion.

I'm not bruising for a fight.

[Jackpine Radical]

155. I think the "general takeaway"

may change in the next few days.


and not in Willard's favor.

[CthulhusEvilCousin]

31. Group Think

Group Think is what created the general takeaway. My first impressions were incredibly positive, and I was only shocked later when I heard all the hand wringing. It was like looking into a different world. Everything I saw that was good, all of a sudden was seen as something entirely alien to my observations.

[gateley]

49. I was driving in my car all alone listening on the radio -- group think played no part

in my impression or reaction.

We all interpret things our own way. The majority of reaction was not positive for Obama.

But so what? He's certainly not down, and I have no doubt he'll win in November.

[Glitterati]

92. I, too, watched it alone

(because I am alone), and came to the same conclusion.

It's ONE day in a year of campaigning. Personally, I think he's damned well entitled to an "off" day once in a while.

And that debate will NOT determine the election.

[gateley]

101. Agree. I think we were just all stunned that Romney did a total 180 and it wasn't

what we've been hearing for the past year, plus that Obama didn't put up more of a fight (he was probably shocked too ).

I'm not the least bit worried one debate will determine the election.

[Glitterati]

134. Exactly

I kept thinking, where IS Obama? But, in the scheme of things, that debate means nothing.

[chervilant]

154. Also,

history tells us that Hitler was applauded as a charismatic, effective speaker. Look where that took Germany. The M$M can spin this every which way they like; it won't change the fact that Romney is NOT a suitable candidate for POTUS.

[chervilant]

143. Excellent point.

Plus, I think Mittens was coached to within an inch of his life. The sheaf of papers he squirreled up to the podium probably helped, too.

We can ill afford to pretend our 'idol' cannot possibly have feet of clay, so to speak. Just like the rest of us, Mr. Obama puts on his pants one leg at a time.

[AverageJoe90]

119. Yeah, he could have been a tad more assertive, I think.

I'm convinced now that he's saving his best plays for later. And a lot of people out there had a very negative reaction to much of Romney's flip-flopping and other bullshit, not the least of which was his wanting to ax Sesame Street.

[obamanut2012]

96. My takeaway was that Romney seemed to be a tweaked out bully

Who was not only smirking and lying his ass off, but also was cheating. Obama was okay, which is all I expected, and came off MUCH better than Romney.

I was shocked to see all the doom and gloom and negativity on here, because I did NOT see Romney as either winning the debate or making himself look good. I can tell you, I follow a lot of very liberal regular folks and pundits, and they saw the same debate we did.

[easttexaslefty]

144. I agree

and I certainly don't unilaterally agree with everything Obama does. (I'm significantly to the left of him on many issues)

[zeemike]

139. That was my thought too.

And the gr990 thinks like the TV tells them to think...cause to not think like the group thinks makes you a nut case....how could you not see it that way..
And the measure of winning is how much you attack and how hard...and that is the measure they use...the only measure.
And welcome to DU.

[landolfi]

159. Me too

I was watching MSNBC and I asked my wife if they were watching the same debate. If you ignore most of what R$ said as bullshit, he didn't say much of anything and looked like the nasty arrogant out-of-touch self-admiring you-can't-touch-me-because-I've-already-got-away-with-a-bunch-of-shit-you-don't-even-know-about soulless POS he is. I thought R$ proved beyond any doubt that he will say anything to get elected or whatever else he wants, as if we needed any additional data.

[librarylu]

177. I have your back

Maybe I just haven't seen enough brilliant Obama speeches on YouTube but I thought he was great - and all without the aid of a handkerchief.

I did think of Duane Gish when Romney was spewing forth.

In my book Obama won - hands down.

[ywcachieve]

58. And what you posted is YOUR opinion, cali.

Many don't agree with you.

[Solomon]

78. Thank you. This is such a stupid post.

To think that Romney "won" the debate is spin to me.

How many times do we have to see this with Obama?

[Astazia]

181. I agree with you Cali,; Couldn't watch MSNBC, and then today, an epiphany

A few hours after the debate I came here & tried to find something less rabid than Chris or Ed...& over the days I have thought about this more strategically i.e. as in what should President Obama & his team do besides prepare to speak truth to unqualified. He needs to be more engaged in the moment & win the arguements & kick that SOB in the next two debates?

Now we all know that that scum sucker Rmoney lied through his teeth, came out fighting and completely reversed his positions (on the surface) & walked over the moderator, & at times, the President. So what to do? Here's what I thought;

We know that Rmoney gets flustered if he gets caught up. I don't know who reads DU (hopefully the Obama campaign), but my idea to make these next debates throw that Bully SOB off his game...(since he thinks it is a game, truth be damned!) Keep in mind my fellow progressives, t's not little nor is it a game Let's not forget we do have a bully on our side..."The Bully Pulpit"! Best of all...we have the truth & that DOES matter.

So I started thinking...(smell the smoke) & had an epiphany. What if POTUS uses his opening statement to slam that entitled prick? What if he argues using past less, flip flops, etc for the first minute & pivot to what he wants to put forward in the debate. Zingers are only good if you are the one putting out three opening. Putting Rmoney on the defensive from opening statements would fluster him & we know what happens when he offers 10,000 dollar bets.

Anyway, I am moving on, phone banking for our candidate for Congress, Mark Takano, & hoping that since our President saw the tapes of this last performance & will figure out how to kick this motherfucker's ass for the good of our country's future.

I have thought about this for days, & I believe there will be a turn around for the better. He just needs to come out aggressive. The country will be behind him if he respectfully takes the offensive and permanently wipe that fucking smirk off Willard's face...and his little wife too! (wicked witch cackle)

[dkf]

9. Review the closing arguments...it's obvious who prepared better.

Obama was far ahead so I think he took it a little lightly. He will do better next time.

[gateley]

65. One commentator said complacency is a classic error for an incumbent, and with

Obama inching ahead in the polls, that may have played a part.

I'm thinking they were as shocked as we by the show Romney put on, and Obama just wasn't prepared for this version of Mitt.

Really, the guy has been saying the same damn things for a fucking YEAR, who would have anticipated he'd slither onto that stage and do a 180 out of the blue?

I don't think it was any brillant strategy, either.

Next time they'll be prepared and wipe the stage with Mittens.

[dkf]

82. Apparently Romney pulled the same thing on Shannon O'Brien for the governorship.

I don't blame Obama for that though. He is not the one who researches Romney's earlier debates.

Early on Romney's team was messing up. I think Obama's team let him down this time.

[gateley]

87. Agree, and I'm sure they ALL learned from this blindsiding (if that's a word).

[DonRedwood]

43. mine too...

And I've posted why I feel that way--no need to be dismissed for having an opinion.

[Cali_Democrat]

56. +1

[obamanut2012]

94. +1

[chknltl]

148. Plus one here CatWoman

I thought our President did just fine. With hindsight, I have not changed my opinion, instead that opinion is reinforced.

[Raine]

161. Completely agree with you. My first impression was Obama did a good job and that hasn't

changed one bit.

[dkf]

4. Maybe it was the altitude after all.

I know I'm a mess when I go to Haleakala Crater.

On the other hand Romney's team brought him in early to get acclimated. It's the first time the Romney team outdid the Obama team in terms of prep.

[vi5]

6. I agree....and even worse...

were the people declaring that even though he clearly lost and didn't perform well that all of a sudden the jobs numbers rendered the debate results and impact meaningless. And their logic in most cases was that "if they supported Obama when the number was higher then they definitely support him now that it's lower". When the reality is that they were supporting him DESPITE the higher unemployment numbers because he was winning the personality contest against RoboRomney. So all of a sudden when he lost what was essentially a one night personality contest, the numbers were important whereas when he was winning the personality contest the numbers were meaningless.

It's pathetic and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us. I just remember all this optimism in 2004, right up until election night and we all know how that turned out. Although in response to that statement I'm sure the same people will say "OHIO WAS STOLEN!! KERRY SHOULD HAVE CONTESTED IT!!!"

The right definitely doesn't have a lock on myopia and delusion.

[MjolnirTime]

7. You can't let it go, can you?

[Permanut]

8. Depends on what you call spin..

He didn't do well? Okay, if this is an American Idol dial in type of thing, where we get to vote on assertiveness and "owning that stage", but under standard debate conventions, 27 lies in 38 minutes makes Romney the loser.

[MADem]

53. This OP sure smells like some pretty fetid "spin" IMO. nt

[Cobalt Violet]

111. I smell it too.

[Vietnameravet]

122. You said the same thing about my posts...

[MADem]

173. Oh, you mean the "Mitt Won" and "What is wrong with Democrats" posts you slapped up? Yeah, I did.

Keep on keeping on--have you read that TOS link I provided for you yet?

I noticed you had the sense to delete the worst of your comments. You do know the admins can see the stuff you deleted, I trust?

Yeah, you're just "keepin' it real"--and I have a bridge to sell you. Remember these cheery words of yours?

Mitt Won

Lets stop denying it..Mitt won

You cant win a ball game playing mostly defense

Mitt was very aggressive in presenting his side; making lots of charges and deflecting the few and very weak attacks by the President.

Romney's tax plan is a load of crap, wishful thinking and fuzzy math, but you would never know that from the confidence he projected and the "facts" he presented. Obama should have hammered him but he didn't.


Psychologically, Romney was was looking straight at the President, exuding confidence and determination; Obama was looking down..like a whipped dog with no fight...his speech hesitant..just an occasional flash of confidence or willingness to fight..even his smile seemed like a pathetic attempt to charm the audience into liking him after he got beaten and hoping to win that way..

Romney's star went way up and he may well become president..'

Fuckin' sad..very sad and very disappointing..


I don't know it there will be a chance to correct this...

I know a lot of people will disagree and resent my saying this ..

Just keepin' it real..hope I am wrong

http://election.democraticunderground.com/1251118038


With that fetid turd of a post, you lost the Credibility Games with me. I don't buy that "Oooooooooooh, nooooooooo, DOOOOOOM and GLOOOOM!!!" horseshit--particularly when the wind is at the President's back and everyone, from the major newspapers to the cables/networks, agree. You're the only one who hasn't heard the word on Sesame Street, apparently.

I read your nasty, Debbie Downer, demotivating posts, and I need some air freshener. There's a stench about them, frankly.

[obamanut2012]

98. As well as totally breaking the debate rules

[haikugal]

10. Totally Agree...

Obama didn't show up with his A game. It was like watching a boxer throw a fight and left me wondering what was going on. We hired him to fight for us in 08 and unfortunately what we saw in the debate was the Obama that kept giving everything away to the GOP in an effort to work across party lines regardless of the stated fact that their whole approach for the duration of his presidency was dedicated to making him a one term president.

He's done many things that make me go WTF?? This ranks up there with the others.

[OldDem2012]

11. How is it possible for a guy who lies his ass off to be declared the winner of anything?....

...Since that's my OPINION, does that make me a Freeper or something like that? Seriously?

[Starboard Tack]

46. I guess you never played poker.

The debate is what was won, not the election, nor the hearts and minds of Dems. There are lots of skillful debaters out there who are full of shit and lots of genuine folk who can't talk their way out of a phone booth.

[treestar]

12. Why not?

The Rs would do it. And it is a matter of opinion. The pundits "spun" the debate. Then everyone jumps on their bandwagon. that's not necessary. Just because Tweety's emotional needs are not met is not a standard.

If Rmoney told untruths, he loses points.

Plus no one scores the debate in any manner. It's just a matter of values. So the ones who think domination is everything have Rmoney as "winning." Or those who think the voters are stupid and you have to be showy for them. If that were true Obama could not have won.

Energy and fast talking are not goods in and of themselves.

[speedoo]

13. Is it spin to say it was a good thing not to bring up the 47%?

Or was that over reaction?

Is it spin to say Obama should have thrown caution to the winds and instantly react to every Romney lie?

Or was that a good call, avoiding the ABM label?

Plenty of spin, or over reaction, on both sides IMO.

[KittyWampus]

14. You mean it's not possible that other DU'ers MAY ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU? I think he did well.

Not great. But well.

Others agree with my assessment.

Maybe the issue isn't that WE are deluding ourselves as kneejerk reactionary partisans.

Maybe the issue is that some DU'ers expect everyone else to agree with their own opinions.

[cali]

20. Not me. The bounce in the polls that Mitt is getting and virtually all the pundits from

the left as well as all the headlines declaring mitt the winner. This isn't about my opinion. It's about FACTS. duh.

[LiberalAndProud]

129. Which polls?

I saw rasmussen and that other right wing thing the day after the debate. Naturally they showed a game change. It fits their agenda. We expected a 2-point bounce and that's what Romney got -- in 2 historically biased polls. Is it possible that you give them weight because they fit your perception? I think the reason I discount them is because I always discount them, but maybe my perception is clouded by expectation as well.

If it will make you feel better, I'll concede that Obama lost. I hope that improves your day.

[MADem]

174. What bounce? I saw Obama up one point BEFORE the jobs report came out. Duh? Yeah--DUH. nt

[bhikkhu]

15. I'd say, personally, to learn from failure you have to look at it realistically

On the one hand, I think the campaign of effective counter-measures began the morning after, and has gone well. But it was good to read that Obama thought he had done ok, but realized quickly, studying the recordings, how badly it had all appeared. I expect to see a much better showing at the foreign policy debate.

That one might have an even larger audience. I hope the moderator has taken a look at Romney's techniques as well and has a plan to not be rolled.

[woolldog]

130. where did you read that?

link please?

[bhikkhu]

151. From Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82091.html

Sorry it took me a bit to find it.

Its a decent article, and I always appreciate the behind-the-scenes perspective. As said, I fully expect a much better next debate, and all evidence of pragmatic and intelligent adaptation. Obama has always had the capacity to pull off the unexpected and inspired when really necessary.

[woolldog]

164. Thank you!

[Glitterati]

136. I sincerely wish

their microphones would shut off at the allotted time frame.

[savalez]

16. I'm sorry you think unhinged lying is winning.

[cali]

21. Yes, in this case unhinged lying and a demeanor I found overbearing and smarmy won the day.

One more time: It's not my opinion, it's the facts on the ground.

[savalez]

50. see #48

[ywcachieve]

66. Pres. Obama won with facts.

[H2O Man]

26. Please.

The OP did not say anything to indicate its author "think(s) unhinged lying is winning."

A serious discussion, like a meaningful debate, can only happen when those involved participate at a honest and open level. Accusing someone of holding a position that they did not express is a tactic that violates those conditions. More, it is not even acceptable for a 7th grade debate contest.

[savalez]

48. I meant to say

"some" and not "you". I could correct it but that would throw off this thread.

[H2O Man]

110. I suspect that

a correct statement is far less likely to throw off a thread, than an incorrect one. But that, of course, is just my opinion.

"Some" would be accurate -- one need look no further than the corporate media coverage of the debate for evidence of this. I find it encouraging that more journalists are focusing on the fact that Willard Romney was pathological in his spouting of absolute lies.

[LuvLoogie]

100. LOL! So, by your definition

There was no "serious, meaningful debate," given Romney's steamrolling lies! You guys sound like a Romney adviser!

I'm sure the President should have been more concerned with protecting your fragile egos and not let you all get so embarrassed. You're all pissed because you think the President made YOU look bad. Jesus H. Go out and take a walk. Get yourself an ice cream cone. And don't forget to vote.

[H2O Man]

106. Silly.

You are a silly one, with a hilarious lack of insight.

[LiberalAndProud]

17. No! I'm right and you're wrong!

I'm just kidding. I agree that he needs to bring a new energy to the next debate, but in my view, the first debate wasn't the catastrophe that so many here perceived. I'm going to repost from an earlier thread, because it explains why I believe that Mitt Romney lost.

. . .

Romney caught Obama off guard. Still, I believe Obama's instinct to play defense was the right one. We have had smatterings of discussions here about gender perception. This is mine. What I saw was Obama checking his temper in the face of provocation. A couple of times he breathed deep and gathered himself, but he did not explode in anger. He looked tired and care worn and that reminded me that he has other things on his mind beyond landing a zinger or two for political theater. Mitt's lies pissed me off, and I was terribly annoyed when they said, "We mostly agree." My blood pressure sky rocketed every time. Still and all, the words that some DUers would put in Obama's mouth don't strike me well when I imagine President Obama speaking them. Perhaps they would have been momentarily gratifying, but ultimately not as effective as the message discipline that Obama exercised.

Do I think it was planned? Beyond the resolve not to pound the 47% angle, no, I don't. As I said, I think Obama acted from instinct. Watching the drama play out over the ensuing hours helps me to trust his instincts.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

41. at first I was upset that Stenchy was getting away with his little show....

but later, I was more sure that not reacting to the game was the best possible response.

And yeah, I was dismayed at how tired and "passive" the Prez. seemed.

But you say it very well....Despite not being at the top of his game (as he himself says) he went with his instincts, and we see clearly: his instincts are wise. Trustworthy.

[Indpndnt]

132. Amen.

[ananda]

19. It wasn't a trap or manipulation or 3-d chess on Obama's part.

It was his only possible avenue to remaining a viable candidate,
and that was telling the truth and staying on his own message.

It has worked to his advantage because he didn't change game
plans and remained on track. That's why I have been saying he
did just fine.

If Romney "won," it was definitely a Pyrrhic victory. He was a
bully, showed glee at firing Lehrer and killing Big Bird, and lied
I believe at least 27 times.

Even if Romney gets a short term bounce from this debate, it
won't last long because Obama is not changing his tack. He
is drawing huge crowds, putting out great ads, and his people
are on message wrt Romney's lies.

[defacto7]

124. Hear, hear!

[Sugarcoated]

22. There is no doubt Obama was not at his best, to say the least,

but he had the intelligence, I think, to make the best of the situation. Mittfalca used the Gish Gallop tecnique. It threw an already not at his best Obama off by a Sherman Tank verbal attack with so much bullshit it was astounding. Obama was steady.

Mittfalca, just by the nature of being himself, threw out a plethora of lies and flip flops to give Obama much to work with in round two. Now these most recent flips are on debate record, so it will be incredibly hard for Mittfalca to weasel them without looking like, well, a lying weasel.

But to the original point, I agree with you, it's a stretch to characterize it as brilliant, but, it was a smart strategy considering he was so off his game in the first place.

[trumad]

23. And seeing you post shit like this..

is exactly you.

[K8-EEE]

24. Am I the only one who thinks THEY BOTH SUCKED??

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Honestly I preferred Obama's boring, disengaged, distracted say-nothing thing to Romney's Lying On Speed, but they both lost and so did Jim Lerher, the whole thing was a mess and I was surprised to see everyone call it for Romney! I suppose the low expectations, etc., but in the long run I think his sucky perf will haunt him more than the President's sucky perf, cuz lies have a way of coming back to you.

ooops fixed typo in title on edit

[ywcachieve]

44. LOL... you made me laugh..... your title caught me off guard.

[NYC Liberal]

25. The hysterical "the election is over!" and similar chicken-little cries have been just as bad.

The immediate reactions were, for the most part, extreme in one direction or the other. Only now are we starting to see some good, level-headed analysis of the debate and its aftermath.

All I'll say here about it is that the impact of the debate will not be as bad or as long-lasting as some people apparently believe. Stories about Romney's lying coupled with the drop in the unemployment rate will make any bounce Romney gets (and there's no doubt he will get one) short-lived.

[Fgiriun]

27. Exactly

Obama had the opportunity to gain unsurmountable momentum. The race would have been over, the only question would have been how large a win.The greater the margin of victory for Obama the greater the pressure for bipartisanship on republicans

[Jack Sprat]

28. Time to move on.

Not disagreeing with you, but don't dwell on the negative too long. It's obvious Obama must perform better at the forum style debate upcoming. I personally think he would be better off hammering Romney on his past stances on Medicare and Social Security any chance he gets. Expound on what it would mean to place the future of these programs in the hands of a Romney/Ryan administration.

When the foreign policy debate arrives, Obama should be able to kick Romney's butt

[gulliver]

29. I understand the kind of Chicken Little, anxiety tail-spin stuff...

...that a lot of our side engaged in after the debate is hard to avoid. That old fear monster creeps up, and some just can't help abandoning ship or running for the hills. Obama stood his ground, but a lot of our side's debate audience high-tailed it. Our pundits self-flagellated on-air. It was ugly.

Had our side kept face, the media would not have run amok against Obama like it did. Had we held out for the importance of substance, had we pointed out the sweat beads on Romney's lip and his teary, humiliated appearance...well we would have had a much better result.

Obama's audience on the left lost the debate. Often you don't lose until you admit you lost. That's part of the weird, illogical chemistry of rhetoric. Many on our side and in our media simply don't understand how things work. They ironically crave rhetorical bombs on their TV, and when they don't get them, well they toss bombs into their own positions.

[ywcachieve]

52. gulliver, great remarks.

[Chorophyll]

95. "Often you don't lose until you admit you lost...

...That's part of the weird, illogical chemistry of rhetoric."

Well put, and I agree. Looking back, I really wish that the people on MSNBC had taken a deep breath and responded to the content of the debate, rather than the theatrics. The other side is very good at claiming victory no matter what, and that tactic (unfortunately) has a lot of influence on the public. We should learn how to use it.

[druidity33]

104. THIS times 1,000! nt.

[brush]

149. You are exactly right

I watched it with other campaign workers and we all thought the President won and were absolutely astounded at Tweety, Rachel and Big Ed's hysterical, over the top reaction and bashing of the President. And then the gushing over Romney allegedly being in command and assertive and winning. I was thinking for a minute I was watching FOX. There was nary a critique of Romney. No mention of the multitude of lies, or of the dog-whistle comment equating the President of the United States with his "boys" and knowing when a boy is lying. They should be ashamed. They are allegedly progressive, left-leaning pundits and they can't just ignore or not be sensitive enough to recognize something like Romney slyly calling the President a boy. It was purposely done by Romney of course. Surrogate Sununu even followed up the next day saying the President was lazy and not too bright. That's an even louder whistle. I mean when you call a black man lazy and not too bright you're really calling him a black n_ _ _ _ r. These bastards bared their fangs and are going all-in-racist and our pundits are gushing over their "win." I'm still disgusted because they are still saying Romney won over a listless, disengaged, depressed, off his game Obama without mentioning Romney's flim-flam man, shape-shifting, lie and racist-enfused performance. I expect that kind of crap from FOX and CNN but not from MSNBC.

[uponit7771]

185. +1!

[Kalidurga]

30. How many attack ads did Romney get out of this?

Obama won. I think his debate performance was fine. It wasn't a winning performance, it didn't need to be. It didn't even need to be good, I think it was better than good, but fell short of great. It had some great moments though. And he did have a lot of other things on his mind. It was his wedding anniversary night and my guess is he was thinking a lot about the last 20 years and they were probably pretty great, guessing from the way he was looking in Michelle's direction. In any case it doesn't matter if the strategy of rope a dope was planned or not, this is how it is playing out.

[bigtree]

35. btw, I counted twelve that the Obama campaign reeled off just YESTERDAY

here's yesterday's collection of a string of video ad responses from the President and others using actual news sources to relate the lies in Romney's presentation:

Mitt Romney's Disdain For The Middle Class: He Said It, He Meant It

Mitt Romney Didn't Tell the Truth About Medicare

Mitt Romney Misled Voters About President Obama's Clean Energy Record

President Obama on the First Debate: "Romney was fact-checked by his own campaign."

Mitt Romney Misled the Middle Class About his Tax Plan

Mitt Romney's Misleading Health Care Plan

President Obama on Mitt Romney: His Extreme Makeover, His Tax Loopholes and Big Bird

Mitt Romney's Misleading Tax Plan

Mitt Romney Claims He Wants More Teachers: Not True

President Obama in Fairfax, Virginia: "We're Moving Forward." -

President Obama's Full Speech from Fairfax, Virginia - October 5th

Mitt Romney Isn't Telling the Truth


full videos with youtube links: http://www.youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcom

[Turborama]

169. ^^^This Reply Is Full Of WIN!^^^

Thanks, bigtree. I wish I could rec it.

How about posting it as an OP?

[bigtree]

32. I'll tell you what this reminds me of

. . . the myriad of other DUer belittling threads you've posted in the past few days.

Now folks here who disagree with you on the debate -- pose a different viewpoint and argument -- are 'Freepers.'

So says Cali.

[cali]

55. A) that's not true. I certainly have not posted a myriad of threads belittling DUers

and B) I did not say Duers are freepers. C) Putting words in others mouths is hardly an admirable thing to do, bigtree.

[bigtree]

186. I'm sure you don't think you're belittling DUers on this

. . . you thought calling my opinion 'childish' was just fine and dandy. I call it a personal insult. But, you know this . . .

I think you certainly are belittling DUers with a different take on the debate in the several threads I've read that you've posted on this subject. This one is a doozy. Saying that certain posts here that you disagree with 'remind' you of something freepers do is just amazingly crass. To me, it's the same as calling those folks freepers. You can easily leave out the insults toward those who have a different position than you on the debate, but you thought it was fine and dandy to compare their opinions expressed to 'freepers.' I don't think you would give anyone else room to parse the insult you wrote in your op. But, you want room to compare their opinions expressed to 'freepers.' How did you expect folks to take that? It's slippery and an insult to intelligence to try and hedge that remark of yours. You wrote it and I'd be amazed to find folks who are fine and dandy with their opinions dismissed by you as 'spin' and reminicent of something 'freepers' would do. YOUR words, not mine.

[tarheelsunc]

33. Romney obviously won the style game by a substantial margin. However,

Obama won the substance game by an even greater margin. Most American people seem to choose style over substance, unfortunately.

[frazzled]

34. Because it wasn't the reality I experienced

As opposed to many on this board who were hyping the debate in advance and proclaiming Obama would "sweep the floor" with Romney, I knew that wouldn't be the case, and came in with much lower expectations. I'd watched all of the many primary and general election debates from 2008, and I knew this was not the arena in which he excels. My expectations for Obama were therefore exceeded.

Sure, I was upset in the beginning when he didn't swat down the $716 billion falsehood, but I thought he was more clear and smiley, energetic, and assured than usual in this debate. I did note several points at which he pointed out that Statement X was not what Romney had been saying for the past 18 months; and how he kept driving home the $5 billion in tax cuts, which Romney suddenly demurred on. So my main reaction was not to critique Obama, but to scream at the lie after lie that the hyper and scripted Romney was repeating. I kind of understood Obama's not taking up the time to get his own message across by engaging in too many "rebuttals" (which would make him look defensive and weak, putting Romney in the upper position). And by the end, I thought Obama had done pretty well. I certainly wasn't sitting there thinking, "wow, that Romney sure won this thing." I honestly didn't.

As my husband (who debated in high school and a little in college) said: you can't argue with a lie.

My question to you is, why are you so intent on emphasizing what you see as Obama's weak performance as opposed to emphasizing Romney's distortions, dissimulations, agressivenely high-strung manner, or any other factors? If winning a debate is all in style, redefine style and support the candidate you prefer by critiquing the OTHER guy's style.

My advice for the next debate? Obama should do whatever he's going to do, but WE should stop critiquing him and instead praise his performance, whatever it is. That's what Republicans did every time the doddering, mumble-mouthed, slightly dementia-addled Ronald Reagan opened his mouth. I remember how upset I would get when they called him the "golden orator" or whatever it was: because I always thought he was a mess.

[Big Blue Marble]

40. In our media-driven world,

your personal perception does not matter. Of course, we
watched a different debate, then the media 'experts' or
the general public. I always think my candidate looks smarter,
wiser, and more clever than the other guy. I have learned
that I cannot judge; my biases get in my way.

The media was ready to seize on a Romney win as they
want a horse race. Obama's advisors are paid to understand
the media and the perception game. Where were they????

They let Obama done and Obama and they have let us done.

[frazzled]

45. I don't think I was being biased by "my" candidate

As I said, I'd watched probably 18 debates he'd done in 2008, and I said he was fairly lousy at it. I truly thought he did better both than I expected and that everyone else seems to think. That's just me: I often have opinions that are counter to the mainstream.

I remember I used to belong to a book club filled with some pretty smart women. And almost every frickin' time I'd love a book, they'd generally hate it. And every time I found a book maudlin or expected, they'd love it. What can I say? Henry James can thrill me where he leaves others cold, and I'm not always impressed with the latest Booker Prize winner. I'm not going to throw myself into self-doubt about my judgments, however, just because everyone else has a different opinion. It's the one area in life--my opinions--in which I feel secure.

Four years ago almost everyone here thought John Edwards was the bee's knees. And I thought he was a smarmy, untrustworthy panderer. I trust my opinions—for myself alone—which doesn't mean I'm always right or that you have to agree with them. But I objectively did not see Obama being as bad as some think in that debate.

[Big Blue Marble]

93. I absolutely agree with you.

Of course, we did not think Obama did that badly. I have watched
every debate going back to Kennedy/Nixon and I always think my candidate won.

I had to accept that I am not a good judge of what I am biased toward. It
is always hard to be objective almost no one is. You and I are entitled to our opinions.
But we are not the ones who will determine this election. It is the low-information voters
who are easily persuaded by what they hear. They do not watch the debate. They only
hear the background buzz post debate. Therefore the problem in
these debates is reality does not matter only the post-debate perceptions count.

That is why the Reagan team invented the "Spin Room" in the first place,
to make sure that the media and the public perceived the debate the way they
wanted it perceived.

I also agree with you on John Edwards. I,too, saw him as untrustworthy. Even
my daughter was his supporter. There was something about him that did not
connect with me.

You

[alsame]

36. Completely agree. Denial doesn't help, that's why

I'm sure the campaign will do things differently for the next one.

Yes, Romney lied his ass off, but that doesn't excuse the President's dismal performance. He's had to deal with lies and BS before and has handled it effectively.

Remember when he visited the Congressional Repubs and took questions for over an hour? He wiped the floor with them.

[Hyper_Eye]

125. That was a great reminder.

He did great at that event. One thing I noticed though is that he has one quirk that was on display at the debate and was visible here as well. When a criticism is thrown at him or his policies he has a tendency to smile. I don't know why he does it but I have noticed it many times. It doesn't look good when he is looking down at the notes and every time a harsh line is thrown out he gets a big smile on his face. If he had maintained eye contact with the Governor and not smiled during those lines he would have looked considerably better.

[Big Blue Marble]

37. The denial here is disturbing.

If we are going to move ahead, the Obama Team has to regroup, and reboot.
IMO, the debate was a disaster, because it reset the tone of campaign in
the media. And that is what matters, the perception. We can argue
the reality until we are blue in the face. (forgive the pun), but it does
not shift the media perceptions out there.

It has been deemed a fail for Obama even more than a win for Romney. And it has breathed
new life into what was a very demoralized campaign which was losing support from its super backers.

And my even deeper concern is what it will do to the down-ticket races and
our chance to regain the house, which is critical for the success of an Obama
second term.

In order to regroup, we need to acknowledge that it was an epic fail on
his part. I have watched many, many presidential debates, actually since
they began, and this was the worst one I have ever seen. I cannot understand
why the President was not better prepared to put the final nail in the
Romney Campaign. Instead he gave them the opening they were wanting.
Very sad.

[MADem]

51. You're just so wrong.

We have no need to "regroup."

Why don't you give Big Bird a call, and ask him for some guidance?

[Big Blue Marble]

61. Well we had better do something different.

Call it what you want. In our media-driven world full of low-information voters,
Obama's debate 'performance has shifted the entire election meme, your
reactive response to the contrary.

I am hopeful it can be shifted back. But why in the world did Obama and
his team lose his excellent strategic advantage which he held prior to the debate?

Wiser heads than you and I are asking this question.

[MADem]

105. No we do not need to do anything "different." Nothing needs to be "shifted back."

Your fears are so "three days ago." I can tell you how to get to Sesame Street, you will find the wisest heads there to assuage your pointless concerns.

The talking heads are touting a horserace for several reasons.

First--eyes on the screen equals an ability to jack up ad prices. Increased ad prices equal increased profits. Increased profits mean job security and pay raises for those little putzes. It's not rocket science.

Second--Corporate media arms are frequently associated with corporations that are associated in one way or another with the military - industrial (- Congressional) complex. Touting rMoney the warmonger means more sales for putzes like GE and General Dynamics if they can slide him in. Even they're realizing this is a faint hope and a very long shot--the attempts to herd the masses have failed spectacularly, thanks to Twitter, Facebook and assorted popular blogs and websites.

Third--Traditional television is struggling to stay relevant. My generation, the ones in front of me, they're the TV set. But the ones behind me, they get their entertainment from all sorts of places in all sorts of ways. News channels, nightly news? Fuck that shit--they'd rather hear it from Jon Stewart or "the internet."

Fourth--Playing the "Ewwwww....what are the UNDECIDEDS thinking?" game is a lame attempt to try to create faux suspense. It falls flat and seems fake because that is just what it is. Anyone who is still truly undecided at this stage of the game is too fucking stupid to feed themselves or operate a motor vehicle, never mind have the capability of registering, or casting a ballot, to vote.

Obama is doing just fine. I just listened to a discussion about rMoney's lies on MSNBC, which was followed by a commentary about undecided/low information voters being the most likely to NOT VOTE AT ALL. So be still, your fretting, naysaying heart.

The talking points of this weekend are this.

--rMoney talked loud and often, and he LIED. Over and over again.

--rMoney walked back his forty seven percent comments.

--Big Bird won the debate. Jim Lehrer lost.

You need to keep up. Or stop being so frantic. Your concern sounds very manufactured, especially given all the subsequent media coverage that has played these points over and over and over--in papers like the NYT, LAT, Boston Globe, on all three TV networks, on all the cable newsers save Faux, etc. Spend a little time surfing the channels and the net, and you'll read what some of the "wiser heads" are saying--it's the opposite of the "concern" you are expressing.

We don't need to do anything "different." Obama needs to just keep on keeping on, and let rMoney keep digging that lying sack-of-shit hole he's enthusiastically boring.

[obamanut2012]

112. 100% this

I was accused the other day of "drinking the Kool-Aid," because I didn't perceive the debate the same as some of DU's so-called "Big Guns."

Sorry, my opinion and perception are just as valid as anyone's, and not seeing the debate as some horrible disaster for Obama doesn't mean I'm sucking down artificially-flavored sugar water.

[MADem]

175. Big Bird won that debate. rMoney "won" a first impression that was not lasting, and that he will

pay dearly for, defending and justifying his lies, from now until the first Tuesday in November.

You aren't wrong, and you aren't alone. The word on Sesame Street is that Big Bird won, Lehrer lost, and rMoney handed his ass to himself with every lie he told! That's what everyone's been saying for the last three days, on every channel save Faux.

[Big Blue Marble]

162. I am glad you are not on the President's re-election team.

I assure you they are doing a lot to shift the momentum back just
as any coach does at half time when his/her team has lost the momentum
whether or not they are still ahead on the scoreboard.

You will see a very different President come the next two debates.
He will be prepared, focused, coached, and ready in a way he was not
last week.

As I said I am grateful that you are not in the strategies sessions telling
him to just stay the course and never mind the media.

And by the way, I am not frantic and do not appreciate your simplistic
personal attacks or question my loyalty. I have been closely following politics for over fifty years.
I have been through thick and thin, on the ground and then some.

Actually, your personal attacks only weaken your arguments. As they say when
you do not like the message, attack the messenger. You are very transparent.

[MADem]

172. I've done plenty to elect Dems to national office, and I'm glad you're not "advising" Obama.

He'd be fucked if he took your whining "advice."

I deliver scores of votes to the polls--even on "off years." I am well known for my contributions to the Democratic party, and I've been at this over a half century, too. So we can play that little game, not that it matters.

I am not "personally attacking"--that is what people say when they don't like being challenged. They'll say it twice when they've got nuthin', too.

Your comments ARE frantic, and your assertions are spurious in the extreme. Seems very odd that you're the only one doing the hand-wringing, breast-beating, and crying, when every major paper and network/cable newser is talking up a great jobs report and rMoney's "serial liar" problem. Oh, and Big Bird. Let's not forget the Big Bird.

I truly can give you directions to Sesame Street, if you'd like. You might want to check the word on THAT street.

[Big Blue Marble]

180. It is becoming clear that you are someone who must have the last wordl

in any debate so I will give that to you. No arguments or further debate
from me. I give to you the last word that you so crave.

[MADem]

182. It most certainly takes one to know one!

[progressivebydesign]

59. So denial means NOT agreeing with YOU?

It was not an epic fail. Romney came off insane... and rude.. and did NOT get new support because of it.

[Big Blue Marble]

64. Denial means avoiding stepping outside of your own limited perception

and looking around to see how others are reacting. The polls
over the next few days to say the least, look like they are going to
be very painful.

This was avoidable. The Obama team missed a major opportunity to
put this away. At the very least, we have now lost precious time and
have to play defense just when our offense was roaring down the field.

[obamanut2012]

114. Exactly

That is exactly how I saw the debate, and the FACTS you also mention (no new support, and Obama even gained some ground with Indie Women) show our perception was a valid one.

[HipChick]

38. Seeing numerous posts accepting the spewed Romney debate lies

and feeding into the media frenzy on needing to declare Romney a winner begs me to differ..

Romney has been running for president for about 8yrs, and has one day in the spotlight...oh yeah, he's winning...NOT!!

[Whisp]

39. something has been bothering me...

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 04:59 PM - Edit history (1)

If Romney was lying throughout the whole 90 minutes, and I think most of us here agree about that -

How in fucking hell could he win the debate? Amongst the Right, sure. Maybe throw in a few Aynians or three, but democrats that are usually supportive of the President call him a loser because he didn't do some phoney song and dance like Mittser did?

Honestly, people are thinking threatre more than reality here. Is this really how far the right has dragged you that you would take some clown acting like a jerk as a winner?

[OldDem2012]

42. Well said! Thanks! nt.

[Whisp]

74. the disturbing message here is that Lies Work on democrats too.

Democrats will overlook lies as long as those lies are real whoppers and if the President didn't shake his fist in front of the lie mongers nose or play pong - which Mitt wanted - he wanted a brawl and Obama didn't deliver, therefore, Obama won.

[obamanut2012]

115. Thank You Thank You Thank You

You said it better than I have.

HE LOST THE DEBATE.

[brightertomorrow]

126. whisp that has really been bothering me too

Can you imagine if the President had put on a big show full of lies and acted like Mitt? Would the media have declared him the winner? Absolutely not, they would have jumped all over him for lying. So why doesn't Mitt have to live by the same standards? In what world is the winner the one who tells all the tall tails and lies his butt off? Not in mine. The media that night was determined to make Mitt the winner as they want a closer race to sell tickets as hubby would say. Honestly I have no idea how the President even kept his cool. Not sure I could have.

[MADem]

47. Big Bird Won--Jim Lehrer LOST. That's the bottom line. No spin.

Mitt RMoney was revealed as a LIAR. A stinking, unashamed liar. Obama was perhaps "too" restrained for some, but he didn't give the GOP ONE SINGLE TALKING POINT--rMoney gave the Dems DOZENS.

People who want Obama to "come out swinging" want Obama to be something other than what he is. He's not a spitting, crazed angry man. He IS professorial. He always has been.

Again, what are people talking about--after that initial "Ewwww, rMoney won" stuff force-fed to us by talking heads (but not repeated in any social media or blog) in the hours after the debate?

Are they quoting Obama's missteps? NO. He didn't MAKE ANY. Every quote of his stands as factual.

Are they talking about Big Bird? YES.

Are they talking about and re-playing/compare-contrasting rMoney's LIES? YES.

It's not what the Talking Heads say, any more. They don't get anything right (who won Iowa, again?).

It's how people feel--and people feel WORSE about rMoney now than they did before he took the stage and started bullying Jim Lehrer and threatening Big Bird.

[Indpndnt]

79. +1M

We pointed out the importance of Willard's putting a face on cutting PBS. Big Bird's face, loved by millions. We were told the point was "stupid" and we needed to "move on."

Yeah, right.

90 minutes decided nothing, but gave many rewards by highlighting Willard's many lies and shifting positions. He had one day of 'victory' and now he's on his heels. Again. And Obama is flying high with his jobs numbers and the tens of thousands who turn out to his rallies, who are obviously not whining about one debate.

Great post, MADem.

[MADem]

85. It's why those same idiot "talking heads" that claimed a rMoney win have spent the last three days

yammering about Big Bird and showing some of the hilarious pictures that have popped up on FB and Twitter, etc. They are followers, not leaders, of public opinion. Social media is leading them around by the nose.

backatcha!!!

[obamanut2012]

116. The Big Bird.Sesame Street thing is STILL all over twitter

That means something.

[Indpndnt]

121. All over Youtube, too, with little kids crying and begging Sesame Street be spared.

Nope, not going away. Not a chance. That story's got wings - AND legs.

[obamanut2012]

123. People who don't use social media don't get its influence

And how it's very much a barometer of issues and memes.

[Indpndnt]

127. True. At least the MSM is reporting on the Big Bird phenomena.

Even if they do it incredulously, scratching their heads. At least, it's being reported on all the major networks. It's out there and it's huge. People don't get that. Even here. We're "stupid" and need to focus on "bigger issues." Yeah, okay.

Here's to you, obamanut2012.

[Blue_Roses]

183. yep.

People who want Obama to "come out swinging" want Obama to be something other than what he is. He's not a spitting, crazed angry man. He IS professorial. He always has been.

Bingo!

[progressivebydesign]

54. YOUR opinion, and you're entitled to it. I frankly know from my friends that Romney came off cokedup

and the biggest asshole is history. He LOST more than he gained. But then.. some folks are just little rays of sunshine.... who enjoy being the one that finds the worst in everything.

[blue neen]

57. I feel the Obama campaign is dealing with the reality of it.

They are moving on and preparing for the next one.

As for the DU reality of it, we can move on by concentrating on things like the positive news about jobs yesterday.

[CreekDog]

60. that's good, you call people here freepers

would you please make up your mind. i mean a few days ago, you resented getting called freepers or right wingers and now you're plastering the term on tons of people here.

hypocrisy or stupidity.

[renie408]

62. I agree. Not one of his high points.

I do think NOT mentioning the 47% or some other things was deliberate to avoid allowing Romney the chance to defend those comments in front of an enormous audience. But his over all performance was poor and losing that debate does him no good. Hopefully he will bring his A game for the next one.

I think the chess game started after the poor performance and the spin is part of that.

[Chico Man]

63. I'll be honest

Obama won the debate. The media spin is a reflection of the moon.

[backscatter712]

67. I'd say the debate didn't hurt President Obama very much.

Yes, he should have thrown more punches, but the fact is that Romney came across as a lying, cheating, bullying scumfuck son-of-a-bitch dirty rotten bastard, so his "victory" isn't counting for much.

How did Romney "win?" Only in the contest of who made the biggest alpha-primate dominance display. If we were a troupe of gorillas voting on who gets to be the silverback, Romney would win.

But we're not gorillas. We're supposed to be evaluating the candidates' positions on the issues and their capability to lead the nation intelligently.

And Mr. 27 Lies In 38 Minutes gave us an Epic Fail with those criteria. He showed himself to be a liar, a cheat and a bully. And the people who are voting for President, not Silverback saw through his bullshit. And it's showing in the polls, which still show Obama to be in the lead.

[renie408]

76. I'd say he has lost electoral college votes and 3 pts of national support, so I would disagree.

Ultimately, the guy who WINS is the guy who wins. And since Romney's numbers have jumped UP and Obama's have jumped DOWN, I am guessing that Romney actually DID win the debate. Obama's performance Wednesday night made Chris Christie quite correct, Thursday we woke up to a different world.

Obama went from an over 4 pt national lead to a 1.4 pt national lead and his electoral college estimate dropped by 20 votes. This is a tight election and we can't afford that shit.

[backscatter712]

113. How long is that going to last?

I'm betting it's a temporary bounce, because rMoney stirred up the teabagger psychopaths who like bullies.

But the more people think about the debate, the more people hear about Romney's lying and bullying, and the more people see Obama as one who doesn't like to do primate dominance displays, but stays cool and collected.

If Romney got a real victory, he'd be in the actual lead by now, but he didn't - he just got a dead cat bounce. People still have PTSD from eight years of Bush, and they really don't want another asshole in the White House.

[renie408]

135. I really hope you are right.

[gateley]

68. +1

[JI7]

69. i don't see anyone saying what you are claiming, but it was smart of him not to bring up the 47

percent and other things Romney had rehearsed phony answers for. so those who complained about why didn't bring up the obvious were wrong on that.

he should have done better by being more stronger and passionate when speaking of his own positions. but he has always been this way in debates. even with mccain and the primary. at least he didn't make any huge mistakes or give the media anything to replay over and over again which could hurt him.

[meadowlark5]

70. Despite whether Obama's showing was a tactical plan or a flop

there are many beneficial by-products coming from that debate.

Romney was exposed as an even bigger flip-flopper and liar to a huge audience.

He targeted a pretty innocuous institution (Big Bird and PBS) that many people of both parties love - with no real justification.

Boss Rove and the Koch's are now going to keep foolishly funneling money towards Romney instead of all down ticket where dems don't have as big of a cash arsenal to fight back with. If Obama had performed spectacularly, the race would be all but lost for Romney and all efforts would have been made for the repubs to get the senate and house.

With the good employment numbers and Romney really not changing many people's minds based on his single, one and only attempt to impress - I feel fine about how the debate went. Now Obama is justified in taking him down in the next debate. He won't be viewed as an "angry black man" because his policies and agenda are being questioned. People who saw that debate will think to themselves that the pres has every right to just destroy Romney. They will be salivating for it. They still may not get it, but I sure hope Obama makes that egotistical rich man look small, deceitful and out for no one but himself and his rich friends (and owners).

[byronius]

71. Strange thing -- most people who didn't listen to any of the commentary thought Obama did fine.

Like me.

I did four years of high school debate, coached, judged, went through several serious debate camps.

In hard debate terms, Obama did fine.

In fluffy-assed reality-show terms, framed by billionaire's minions, maybe not so well.

Too bad we're such a fucking ignorant nation. Makes everything harder. The poison of Citizen's United is moving toward the heart.

[etherealtruth]

73. The debate was hardly Obama's shining moment

I was very disappointed in his performance. am not sure I would characterize his performance as "listless and stumbling," ... but I certainly do not classify it as strong.

I don't think the debate changed many minds (if any minds).Come November, I will vote for Obama ... that is all that really matters.

[craigmatic]

75. You're wrong. Politics means supporting your party on stuff like this debate. Do you think the repub

party would've said mittens failed if he did badly in the debate? Hell no they still would've acted like he won. Democrats really need to learn to lie and tow the party line.
That debate was boring and really one of the headlines could have been that romney was so desperate that he tried to talk over everybody and switched positions from what he had been saying since the conventions. Now that's what really happened.

[7worldtrade]

77. Reuters Ipsos poll holds steady - good news in poll out just now

plus many good internals for Obama

I can't post yet, not around long enough. but here it is, although its not a headline like the other polls.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/06/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSBRE89509B20121006

[railsback]

80. Your opinion

Right now, Romnuts is getting lambasted in the media for making so much shit up. How about Obama? No? Oh, freep! Checkers!

[judesedit]

81. Pres too busy for bs. Mitt busy planning lies, ways to cheat, per usual. Drugs came in handy too

What's new? Winners never cheat and cheaters never win. Rob-me was in such "different" form you could see the surprise on Obama's face. Too funny... if it wasn't so serious. Go Obama. Please stay the way you are. This is no time for the likes of Rmoney clownish tactics.

[Bjorn Against]

83. I don't think he did great, but the matter of who won is subjective

There are lots of people who believe he did win the debate and those people are not necessarily wrong, in their eyes he did win and their opinion is no more spin than your opinion is.

My own personal view is that Romney won on style but lost on content. In the short term this debate will help Romney, in the long term however Big Bird is going to cause a lot of harm to his campaign and the lies and inconsistent stances will certainly damage him in future campaign ads as well.

Obama looked weak but he did not give the Republicans any major gaffes to use in ads against him, it was not his shining moment but it was not a complete disaster either.

Please remember that your view of the debate is just as much based on spin as everyone else, there is no objective way to determine the winner of the debate it is all a matter of opinion.

[barbtries]

84. i understand that the president was lackluster

but his opponent was FULL OF SHIT. i can't overlook that and cede the win under those circumstances and it sickens me that the media has done so.

[SCVDem]

86. Letting Mitt Be Mitt!

By playing a passive, it exaggerated Romneys brusque, boardroom ways. Those would be the cold, fuck-em all reminders to his speeches and lies.

Obama is letting the public analyze this because he just kinda laid there and let Mitt tire himself out. We all know that a little Mitt goes a long way. Here was a lot of Mitt.

Round 2 starts with Joltin' Joe.

He will not disappoint!

[PlanetBev]

91. Looking forward to full tilt Biden

I'm thinking he'll put a collar and leash on Ryan and take him for a walk.

[Glitterati]

99. Oh boy, so am I!

No pressure, Joe. Just be loveable yourself.

[obamanut2012]

118. I would love for Biden to make a marathon message

"At least my last VP debate opponent didn't fudge her marathon time... which I believe was significantly better than your actual time, Mr. Ryan."

Then, a Biden eye roll and guffaw.

I love Joe Biden.

[PlanetBev]

88. One definate thing Obama needs to avoid the next debate

Never, ever repeat that line "Governor Romney and I agree on this". All that does is make it easy for your opponent to blur the line between themselves and you. You might as well bring your opponent a lawn chair and an iced tea.

[patrice]

89. More spin. Or is it only spin when someone else says it. Fact: there are a variety of

perspectives; there are a variety of ways to look at the debate, which one you're comfortable with depends upon who you and what your circumstances are. Your perspective belongs to you & however many other people share the way you look at things. Your perspective is not that of others with less specialized information, voters who have less of an attitude against, or for, the President, i.e. the authentically un-decideds don't necessarily see it the way that you do. It is quite possible that, except for what calls itself "the Left" and its desires to count what may or may not be Leftie political coup at all costs, the effect of the debate was pretty close to even: Obama, Romney, Either.

You should take your own advice, that is, unless you just want "the Left" to be associated with "I'm right and all of the rest of you are wrong" at all costs, a little like some fascists we all know of who go under a different label.

[Logical]

90. I usually do not agree with you on anything, but you are correct on this. The DU needs a reality....

check. We got our asses kicked on the first debate. We need to learn from it and fix it for #2, #3 and #4.

[JNelson6563]

97. Oh please. You love to go negative.

Anytime, anywhere for any reason. To try and convince anyone of anything else is epic spin.

Physician heal thyself.

Julie

[ProSense]

102. Doesn't require much

spinning: Romney sucks.

Ipsos/Reuters Daily Election Tracking: Obama 47% - Romney 45%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021485353

[CakeGrrl]

103. Didn't do well in the face of pathological LYING? I disagree.

He did what he could - let the liar run his mouth.

What did you want to see? A "You're a liar! No, I'm not!" pissing match? That's all it would have been.

I seriously want to see someone play that out to the end, not just stop at calling Romney a liar. How would that have played out on TV?

Obama did fine in the face of such blatant lying. When the takeaways are hanging Big Bird around Romney's neck when there isn't an ad running with footage of him doing a 180 turnaround on his policies, I'd say the President came out ok.

Tell me what Romney gained? I mean, an actual positive.

[grantcart]

107. we must be seeing different forums becaus I see critical threads

Running about 10:1.

In any case comparison with freeerville is absurd. They are blind in their absolute hatres of Obama and little else.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

108. Obama himself reviewed his performance and says he didn't realize at the time how badly he did.

There has been a promise to do better.

Still, Romney proved once again that to know him is to dislike and distrust him.

Obama actually favored better only because Romney was so pushy.

Do you remember in the debate in 2000 when Gore kept hovering over Bush within striking distance? At one point Bush turned and saw him standing there and said, "Hello." It doesn't matter the bulk of what is said, it's impressions. The impression in this debate was that Obama passed up opportunities and Mitt came off as the stereotype of the dominating boss even to an American Icon like Jim Lehrer and his attempt to appear moderate failed utterly. The main thing that people know about the first debate is that Mitt is the jerk who went after Big Bird.

It's not that Obama won, it's that Mitt showed that he was used to pushing people around and is a liar.

[Blue_In_AK]

109. I have no idea whether he was setting a trap or not,

but I personally honestly didn't think he performed that badly. Ironic since I'm ordinarily not a big Obama fan. I just thought R$ came across as an arrogant obnoxious ass, and Obama wisely let him expose himself. Obviously he couldn't come out on stage with all the videos that contradict what R$ was saying. He could have gotten into a "he said, he said" argument, but I think it may be more effective to emphasize post debate that Romney was actually debating his previous self, and we have the video to prove it.

[AverageJoe90]

117. Obama could have done a little better, I think, but you can't deny one thing:

He's really good at the rope-a-dope. And given how people reacted to Romney's bullshit, and that the Reich-Wing has been unable to come up with any Obama soundbites, one can't help but wonder if this was indeed a play.

PBO is a guy who can calculate risk. And I think he knew he'd be at a greater risk if he played all of his best cards in just one round......think about that.

[-Steph-]

120. Just because you have an opinion of the debate, doesn't mean everyone who doesn't share it is wrong.

Maybe more people felt that Romney won the debate based on aggressiveness, style, or what have you.. but we all measure these type of things based on our own personal beliefs of what is important and what matters to us. Just because John Doe thinks whoever attacks the most is the winner, doesn't invalidate that I might base my own personal decision on an entirely different set of standards. There may very well be more John Doe's out there than me, but it doesn't mean I am somehow trying to spin things or living in an alternate reality just because my own opinion may not be that of the popular one.

I don't think Obama was at his best, however I don't think he did poorly either and I really don't think Romney came out with some kind of landslide win based on anything that I value highly. It's not spin, it's just my personal opinion.

[hauweg]

128. No need to rub it in.

Edit: watching the debate was frustrating enough. Why do we need just another thread about this? Whatever the reason was, tactics or just fail, at this point the focus need to be on the upcoming 2 debates. I'm guess I'm just tired of still reading about it...

[laundry_queen]

131. Totally agree.

I "watched" the debate, and by 'watch' I mean listening to it and glancing up now and again while studying for a midterm. Listening to it, it definitely didn't seem as bad as the reaction I saw after. I thought Mitt was a rude asshole but I didn't find the President very inspiring either. They both went wayyy off topic too often. The one thing that bothered me the most was the President just letting Mitt get away with his lies. He didn't have to get mad, or aggressive, just a passing comment that went something like, "Oh, so you aren't calling for 5 trillion in tax cuts - so this is a new plan again? I didn't get today's memo on plan changes." Or "So you're saying you DO have a plan for pre-existing conditions...so that's today's plan? Because it doesn't sound like yesterday's plan. It's hard to keep track when you don't give me the daily plan change memo. Could you explain that plan in detail for us?"

Bill Maher said something interesting last night - that for some reason the one zinger Obama had was not well received in the 'focus group' and he said that it's because he's black. Perhaps that's true, perhaps their research showed that any zinger from the President rated poorly so they tried to stay away from one-liners or anything 'confrontational' as much as possible. However, there were so many more things - the body language, the droning on about policies while not addressing Mitt's lies...just one comment about 'that's not what your plan calls for, is this new? Did you change your mind again?' could've done a lot. It wasn't a zinger - it's just pointing out the truth about Mitt's dishonesty and his willingness to say anything to get elected.

Hopefully the second one will be much better. I don't think the first debate was a game changer, and I do think the media exaggerated, manipulated (ie CNN's stupid poll) to get a closer race (CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge said as much a day before the debate, that US tv was desperate for a horse race) however, the President could've put this election away and didn't.

[MindMover]

133. Everybody has one .... after some review and introspection your opinion is becoming

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

the "spin"

[mechtech]

137. Is this what they teach in high school debate classes these days?

Is this what they teach in high school debate classes these days?
Lie and lie, and repeat myth after myth, interrupt the host and interrupt the opponent, all while wearing a sickening smirk, and you will be declared the winner… be polite, stick to statements based on facts and reality, while remaining calm and collected, and you will be declared the loser.

[Denzil_DC]

138. Pretty much all debates are won or lost in the post-debate spin

Congratulations for adding to the tally for Romney.

Seriously, it's not a sporting event where you can measure a definitive winner or loser through action replays. Some things work, others don't. The media was going to call it for Romney unless he fell off the stage and crushed Lehrer, and even then they'd have called it a draw and high-fived.

Romney spouted a lot of hot air that excited his base because they chose to ignore his actual words, and it's coming back to bite him. Obama came across as subdued while talking about real and sometimes quite complex issues and some folks are pissed at him because of that. Obama set out his stall and gave away very little specific that can be used against him. Romney, on the other hand, told 37 palpable lies and counting.

All this post-debate energy would be better spent talking about Romney's lies, Obama's positive messaging, and spreading those far and wide. Or, I don't know, phonebanking or canvassing.

[rock]

140. Your view is that you can distinguish "spin" from "reality"

a trait which you accuse so many of us to be lacking. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion as we are entitled to ours. Strangely enough we usually take that very same viewpoint about our own views. Hmmm, now for some reason I want to repeat my opinion about the debate the other night (which I have made several times on DU):
1) Romney won the "high school debate for class president";
2) Obama won the "presidential" debate.
Clearly only one the two showed presidential qualities (and one behaved like a high-school punk). This is clearly an opinion but one that I hope will be proved in the comprehensive polls that will show up once the dust has settled and ultimately on election day.

[lunatica]

141. Drops in. Finger wags. Never returns.

Typical Cali bullying.

[rock]

145. Now, now

We love cali and enjoy his/her posts.

[lunatica]

153. If you like having a new asshole drilled into you I would agree

She's mean. She proves it yet again in this OP. I've told her in the past too.

[mattclearing]

187. Speak for yourself. n/t

[sevenseas]

142. Romney was like a brat stealing fruit.

As much as it hurts, we need to stay honest.

That debate went on like Romney was some cartoon brat stealing fruit, piling it up high in a pie shell, and then shoved it up Obama's ass.

Obama was too polite, and slow, and tired, and let Lehrer interrupt him when Romney refused to be interrupted.

Romney was in control of them.

Control is the key word here:

The President of The United States has to show HE is in control, not the brat stealing fruit.

We have Obama's back, have reached deep in our pockets to donate, and now he needs to show some balls.... by AT LEAST telling Romney he is a liar instead of letting him get away with all the fruit.

[hue]

146. I definitely believe that President Obama's soft response was deliberate!

Our President has a team of industrial psychologists and political scientists studying/scrutinizing the statistics of possible public responses/outcomes on many levels to everything President Obama does and says as well as how He says it--just as Rmoney does.
I actually think the Repubs and sheeple were the most disappointed with the soft, amiable, way in which our Pesident came across. The emotional response from the viewers is absolutely the most important response from this debate as well as any other public presentation from anyone. The cognitive content is less than 5% of what will be remembered.

I think President Obama's gentle, "not going to be drawn into a fight with fantasies" approach was an excellent surprise!

[justiceischeap]

147. He lost the debate but won the spin.

That's the way I'm seeing it. Big Bird, being honest, and the job's numbers pretty much wiped out the poor performance.

[mzmolly]

150. I am among those who don't believe lying, with a frenzy is a debate win.

Sorry.

[Vietnameravet]

158. Its a win if you can get away with it,,and that night Romney did..

but there is always a day of reckoning

[mzmolly]

166. Unfortunate statement regarding our media and their failure to

see the "Gish-Gallop" technique for what it was.

Regardless of how debates are scored, I don't believe the debate in question, will result in a practical win for Rmoney.

[brush]

152. Disappointed in our side

I watched it with other campaign workers and we all thought the President won and were absolutely astounded at Tweety, Rachel and Big Ed's hysterical, over the top reaction and bashing of the President. And then the gushing over Romney allegedly being in command and assertive and winning. I was thinking for a minute I was watching FOX. There was nary a critique of Romney. No mention of the multitude of lies, or of the dog-whistle comment equating the President of the United States with his "boys" and knowing when a boy is lying. They should be ashamed. They are allegedly progressive, left-leaning pundits. They can't just ignore or not be sensitive enough to recognize something like Romney slyly calling the President a BOY. It was purposely done by Romney of course. Surrogate Sununu even followed up the next day saying the President was lazy and not too bright. That's an even louder whistle. I mean when you call a black man lazy and not too bright you're really calling him a black n_ _ _ _ r. These bastards bared their fangs and are going all-in-racist and our pundits are gushing over their "win." I'm still disgusted because they are still proclaiming Romney won over a listless, disengaged, depressed, off his game Obama without mentioning Romney's flim-flam man, shape-shifting, lie and racist-enfused performance. I expect that kind of crap from FOX and CNN but not from MSNBC.

[Vietnameravet]

157. You must have been watching a different Tweety, Rachael and Big Ed..

They certainly did call our Romneys lies and the big complaint against Obama was that he did not..and they said much of what you just said..

[PDJane]

156. It's just theatre,

and means little or nothing. Did the president lose? Not in my eyes, but then I may have different standards. I expected both parties to talk to me, not to each other, and to have real things to say. Under those standards, Mitt didn't win.

It's just a matter of what one expects.

[Vietnameravet]

160. How about this

Lets quit bickering and turn lemons into lemonade..

This can be a wake up call to over confident Democrats and Obama can emerge much stronger!

[heaven05]

163. well

after 4 days of recrimination, second guessing, arm chair quarterbacking, hand wringing I can't believe that the american people won't be able to see the mitttwit for the obnoxious liar he is. We eventually show that we are a smart species. I had a sinking feeling in my stomach the morning after but after almost four days of wondering what our Prez was doing in not cutting the mitttwit off at the knees I've come to realize, just speaking for me, that I don't need to know what he was doing. He has the intellectual capacity to handle the mitttwit, no doubt in my mind. mittytwit has been examined and found wanting. no doubts. I have faith that the mistakes, if any, made by our Prez will be rectified. I just have to trust that there are some teeth left in the old Democratic Party. period. He's human also, I am trying to keep that in mind . With the mittytwit, as far as his flip flops, outright lies, obfuscation, try to remember that with all it is, "fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time". reality isn't always as it seems. can't wait for this week, vice-Prez/lyinaynryan. go team!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DisabledAmerican]

165. People have different views

You are upset because your view isn't being backed as the reality is the same as person who claims only their view is allowed. You right now calling everyone who has a different view of the Debate as a so Called Freeper is the same as you asking the mods to ban half of DU just for having a different view. Two wrongs do not make a right and this view point is very dangerous. Just because we do not agree with you is no reason for you to call a 3rd of DU trolls. You are going down a dangerous road here just because some do not support your view.

You were the first to set there say others were calling you a troll on that night now you are calling others a troll out of revenge. You are doing double wrong. Instead of understanding people have different views you are asking for DU to ban users just for having a view point different. You show more disrespect for all other DU's here then you are showing for yourself. You could have agreed to disagreed instead you wish to have the population of DU banned just to suit your point of view. This is a dangerous thread and I'm surprised a moderator of the forum does not lock the thread because all this does is cause issues. This thread should be locked big time and everyone agree to disagree.

[L0oniX]

167. Alert FAIL.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This post is trying to cause issues with DU in calling people trolls. The person is trying to say unless another agrees with her view we are all trolls. Very dangerous standards for DU to have.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Oct 6, 2012, 06:50 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Are you reading a different post? The sentiment expressed here is the exact opposite of what you are claiming it is.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Whatever. pffft!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: To the alerter: Come on, you HAVE TO have something more exciting going on in your life....zzzzz take the dog out. Put your cat on a leash if you do not have a dog.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It seems like the offending poster alerted on him/herself in order to make a point? Did I get that right?

[Skittles]

184. I LOVE the advice to take your pet for a walk

yes INDEED

[robinlynne]

168. agreed. and I'm more worried than you are. I dot know if he can get back up to a 10 point

lead in the swing states. If the election is close the repugs WILL steal it. easily.

[Astazia]

170. I agree with everything you posted. Couldn't Even watch the news...

Then I came here & tried to find something less rabid than Chris or Ed...& over the days I have used my thoughts on this in a more strategic direction. I was thinking about what should President Obama & his team do besides prepare & definitely be more engaged in the next two debates?

Now we all know that that scum sucker Rmoney lied through his teeth, came out fighting and completely reversed his positions (on the surface) & walked over the moderator, & the President. So what to do?

We know that Rmoney gets flustered if he gets caught up. I don't know who reads DU but my idea is to make these next debates throw that SOB off his little game cause it's not little at all.

So what if POTUS uses his opening statement to slam that entitled prick? What if he argues using past lies, policy flip flops, etc for the first minute & pivot to what he wants to put forward in the debate. Zingers are only good if you are the one putting out the opening. Putting Rmoney on the defensive from the opening statement would fluster him & we know what happens when he offers 10,000 dollar bets.

Anyway, I am moving on, phone banking for our candidate for Congress, Mark Takano, & hoping that since our President saw the tapes of this last performance & will figure out how to kick this motherfucker's ass for the good of our country's future.

I have thought about this for days, & I believe there will be a turn around for the better. He just needs to come out presidential & aggressive. The country will be behind him if he respectfully takes the offensive and permanently wipes that fucking smirk off Willard's face...and his little wife too! (wicked witch cackle)

[NYC_SKP]

171. "Shit Just Got Real."

[Skittles]

176. I absolutely agree

[ncav53]

178. Sorry but

Sorry but just because someone says 1 + 1 = 3 more stylistically doesn't mean it's correct. Obama won on substance and facts.

[doc03]

179. +1

[D23MIURG23]

188. The best thing Rmoney got from that debate "win" was talking heads proclaiming him the "winner"

All his positions got debunked the day after, and the only thing he said in the debate that was remembered afterward was about firing big bird. There is as much substance to the good press he has been getting as there was in his performance. You can call that a "win" I guess. I think it is more like an "impression of a win".

I didn't buy some of the things that were said on DU afterward. This was not a brilliant strategic move for Obama, it was probably more of a lost opportunity. But before you tar us with the freeper brush, consider that the MSM was so disbelieving that Rmoney didn't go down like the titanic, that they have blown his nominal "win" completely out of proportion. I don't think the DU has spun the debate more than they have (EVEN MSNBC FFS) and I certainly don't think we merit a comparison to the freepers, who are no doubt cooking up conspiracy theories about how David Axelrod fabricated the recent employment report, as we speak.

[dog_lovin_dem]

189. I don't view debates/campaigns

as sporting events, and therefore, don't think the president either lost or won.
My husband and I watched the debate on PBS and as soon as it was over, turned it off and watched a movie...missed the after-show meltdown by the media.
Both of us agreed that Romney was overbearing, callous, and obviously lying through his teeth, and that Obama was honest, mature, and genuine. I was following the live threads on DU, as well as a friend's posting on facebook. What struck me was the sudden change in perception following the debate. Those who had been slamming Mitt throughout the debate and praising Barack for his poise, were suddenly doing the opposite. It was surreal.
I have a difficult time understanding why people can't accept that we all have different perceptions and opinions. Stating one's opinion isn't spinning, it's sharing an opinion.
We are never going to agree 100% on everything. There's no reason to attempt to make those who don't see things from your point of view feel that their opinion is less valid than yours. We're all in this together.