News is reporting that Obama was more assertive this time around.
What are you thinking?
A much more aggressive President Barack Obama showed up to the second presidential debate Tuesday, which at times devolved into angry crosstalk with Republican rival Mitt Romney.
President Obama was under pressure to perform dramatically better at this debate—held at Hofstra University in Long Island, N.Y.—than the one held two weeks ago. Gov. Romney's energetic performance at that first debate quickly boosted him in the polls, with some recent measures showing he and the president in a virtual tie among likely voters.
Romney kept up his Denver demeanor, attacking Obama on his jobs record, failure to pass immigration reform, policies in the Middle East, and other issues. But this time, instead of simply repeating portions of his stump speech, Obama was ready with specific retorts and counter-attacks. The president frequently accused Romney of twisting facts, occasionally interrupting him as he spoke.
At one point, the debate almost became a shouting match over whether President Obama had cut back oil extraction from public lands. Obama repeatedly said Romney was lying about his claim that oil production was down, pointedly saying, "Not true, Governor Romney." (Politifact ranked a similar claim by a conservative super PAC "half true.") Feeling the heat, moderator Candy Crowley took the candidates to another topic.
Read the rest here.
No, actually, I didn't watch the debate. I cued up Thirteen Days on my home theater (rather apropos, considering the date) and watched most of it.
If I didn't watch the debate, it's because I shout enough at the TV as it is. It's a bad habit I indulge in too much, and so I opted not to watch something which would only exacerbate my tendencies in that direction.
I did watch it - against my better judgment. I've already taken advantage of early voting so I've cast my die. However, I do have to give credit to the President. As opposed to the last debate, at least this time he didn't come impersonating a zombie. He actually stood up to Romney. One thing I took away from it is that these two guys do not like each other! As to "hitting one out of the park," maybe not. But, he did break it off in Romney more than Romney did to him. Overall, I'd give to the President. But, that doesn't mean it will necessarily translate into votes this coming November. I fear what Daniel said is correct. Americans want instant gratification; without worrying about long term consequences. In politics, it's the same as the guy wanting a steady diet of triple cheeseburgers to satisfy his immediate wants. He's not even considering the long term consequences of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.
She said, I can't be here until 7 or 8 o'clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o'clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.
No one is talking about this statement by Romney today and it's very telling, what he's really saying, is if you hire women you'll need to be willing to 'make concessions'. It's very obvious oh golly gee whiz, that Mr. Romney thought it made him look like a wonderful white knight for hiring this 'woman', when the point was no woman needs a savior but rather an equal opportunity. We certainly wouldn't want this turd to help us up the stairs to the glass ceiling, talk about out of touch! What in the Dickens indeed!
Sarah, I am so glad that John and I weren't the only people in the world to stop what we were doing the minute he said that last night to turn around, yell at the television!
Oh I so agree with you Sarah. Woman are now making more money than men and so it is more common to have men do more work around the house or be househusbands and take care of the kids.
I watched it. It's a sad commentary that hardly anyone seems to care about the lack of actual policy debate. We're used to two politicians calling one another liars, with no agreed upon basis for validating facts. Should the fate of a nation - indeed the world since US energy policy over the next four years will hugely impact climate change - comes down to whose body language and voice tone are more dominating?
Yeah I agree Ruth - just a sad commentary on what it has become.
Yeah, I say we get America to just scrap the voting this time around, put Obama and Romney into a big room together, and have them fight to the death! That's actually not a bad idea for every elected position.
Yes, the president was far more assertive this time around. I personally think he won the debate. But I'm surprised that more people are focusing on Romney's lie about how Obama responded to the Libya crisis but not Romney's lie about unemployment. Romney said that when Obama first took office, unemployment was at 7.8% and that it's still at that now. That is an outright lie, unemployment was at at least 10% when Obama took office. Am I the only person living today who was alive back then?!
Yeah Chris - at least Obama was awake this time around.