see candidates duke it out ... this is about the future of America and should be cool intellectual discussions than a 7th grade school yard fight.

doesn't do it, then a street fight. Some days I think most of the world is still on the 7th grade playground.

Last edited Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

In 7th grade, we didn't have a playground.

Anyway, I agree...and I avoid news MSM because they're in the same sports scoring mentality.

This isn't a game, for godsake! (I'm yelling at the friggin pundits, not at you)

Although Romney did win the bullying and spewing shit from the pie-hole contests.

Addendum: Which one acted more presidential? I'll let you decide.

Even if viewers see the debates as a sporting contest, those are usually moderated in some fair and impartial way by a referee or umpire who calls balls and strikes, throws penalty flags, distributes yellow and red cards for fouls, etc.

The problem with the debate isn't so much that people viewed it as a sporting contest, it was that the referee let blatant fouls go unpunished.

I'm looking at you, Jim Lehrer.

over him ... Jim Lehrer wasn't even a moderator, he was just an observer.

Not my call but it was his.

It was the President's job to improvise, adapt and overcome. He didn't do his job. And he knows it.

The President did not improvise and overcome the situation. His performance will be the measure that future participants use so that the opposition isn't allowed to define you negatively while you never do the same.

You hit the nail on the head.

Jim Lehrer discussed the parameters of the debate to follow. The networks did not carry this part of the debate. Cspan did. So plenty of people are quite misinformed as to what Lehrer's rules were going into this debate.

It would serve the country better for them to include the moderator's comments at the start of the program so everyone knows what the ground rules were and how involved the moderator was going to be in "playing referee". It serves no one to exclude that and only pick up coverage once the candidates take the stage.

regardless if their ideas have crippled the country when they've had control in the past. Root for our team (party) at any cost.

this is the highest office in the land and a bald faced liar has no place in there.

a Jerry Springer show, then the vote can be held American Idol style, that's what seems to appeal to many Americans anymore.

are a substance of sort, mittwitt substance, very slimey ... ew.

Noise is not a measure of winning. A liar is simply a liar..not a winner...ever.

Congressman Ryan get away with lying, they called him a bully. It's just that, in the scheme of things, we rather be called "strong and mean" than "nice and meek".

Now, when and if President Obama stands up, they are going to call him "angry black man". <<<----Know this. Expect this. In fact, their side will cal him worse. <<<----- Know this. Expect this.

If President Obama defeats Romney too handily, this will give Romney the "underdog" position. The "underdog position" is Barack Obama's forte. It *always* has been.

Don't scream at anyone anymore. Tell them since Mitt Romney "whooped" the President sooooo badly, you *REALLY* expect Mitt to "finish the job" Tuesday night. In fact, if Mitt Romney can't SEAL THE DEAL this Tuesday, he is just showing that he is incapable of the office. Then, the debate becomes about Mitt needing to defeat the President, not the other way around.

I hope this makes sense. I promise I am on your side.

the american macho image is involved. can't be nice. Don't you remember the 'chimp', if you ain't for us, you're against us. frontier mentality. forced march mentality. keep marching. don't whine, don't stop

If you're losing it with your husband, who is an Obama supporter, for simply having a different opinion than you about the debates, then I think you're into the election a bit too much. Perhaps you need to take a step or two back, take some time off before you say or do something that you would really regret.

Sage advice.

Yeah, it's not like there is anything at stake here. It isn't like Medicare is on the chopping block. Its not like two supreme court justices will be up this term, with reproductive health rights among other issues at stake. What's the big deal?

I'm with skidmore. This election is a big fucking deal. Scoring points for aggressive lying is idiocy. Buying into the official narrative in some misplaced sense of objectivity and fair play is stupid beyond comprehension.

There's no point in finger wagging at the OP like that.

Blowing your top at your spot for disagreeing with you over a debatable point is a preventable action. It isn't just "shit happens", it is a preventable moment.

Despite the fact that said spouse supports and is going to vote for Obama, simply because said spouse doesn't view the first debate in the way we do?

Yeah, I think that you're carrying things a bit far if that is the case. Allowing niggling little details to damage a relationship is wrong, and frankly if you're of the same mindset as the OP, if you're willing to damage a relationship with a spouse, I'm glad I'm not married to you as well.

by detracting from the truth that was spoken by the President, I would be happy to give you the same feedback. AND my relationship with my husband is stronger than this one rant. We've been through a great deal of adversity before we found one another and it would take more than this to destroy us as a couple. Said spouse is more than happy to have her man and could care less what you think.

I work on that every day. Some days go well, others not so much.

What a pedantic thing to say.

If so, well. . .

Do you always exaggerate like that?

I lose my shit with my husband over politics.

And Vice verse.

Maybe we should focus on the OP on not judge the marriage. That isn't cool.

and trying to always get the last word. That's how some people 'win' discussions. But we should hold our presidents and candidates to a higher standard.

you have to deal with things as they are and not as they should be..

Aggression is appreciated here over intellectualism - like it or not. So you want to be intellectually correct AND aggressive.

the movie.

but hubby was right. pres blew it big time! i dont know how or why people can base their vote on a 90 minute debate, BUT THEY DO! I just hope he and his advisors learned what THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, that these republicans are low life, vile, disgusting liars, and will do WHATEVER is necessary to win. THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY!

Americans are, and it has nothing to do with IQ. The republicans learned this a long time ago, so they pander to the baser instinct of man. I'm not saying that's good, but you make a very good point that some are stupid enough to base an entire election, the past 4 years of this country and the future on a 90 minute debate and vote on the basis of a 90 minute debate.

From what I understand from some reports that I saw about focus groups, the men liked the "bravado" of the "bully", even if he were interrupting the process, and the women were totally disgusted by it.

Am not saying this is "universal" by no means, but it seems to be an interesting prevailing thought.... and alot of has to do with socialization.

And now that the media narrative has conveniently reversed its stance on how well (or not) "style" rates, the board has been "reset", but they still give Rmoney/LyinRyan a slight "advantage" (win + draw) because they "said so".

I still think that outside of hundreds of millions that they reap from the "horse race", they are realizing who is going to win, and so they have to do a universal smack-down in a freakish insistence on "leveling the playing field".

...mentality about the debates since the beginning. They have slammed the President early and often with virtually nothing said about Mitt's constant lying. Pissed me off to no end.

I was VERY disappointed in the hysterics of Big Head Ed and Tweety. I never expected to see that kind of behavior from those two clowns, and I never will again because I no longer watch them.

MSNBC's Bashir, Sharpton, and O'Donnell were the only ones who kept their heads and called Mitt out for the liar he is.

It's the deniers keeping the debate alive on this board

It's all part of the show.

If you reduce it all to a show then people feel free to change the channel.

And let's face it,....Republicans are a long standing rerun....

Ask him if he acted like that in an argument with you if he would win.

I think it is pretty much a settled issue.

It is not as important as the media makes it sound, and first debates are usually lost by incumbents. This is a little factoid that most folks round these parts do not want to understand. It is really not a big deal. Just like Joe's performance is really not that big of a deal, even if I loved it... VEEP debates have yet to influence an election in real term.

But speaking that as a truth is not tearing anybody down... or I guess the President himself is tearing himself down.

The next one is being treated like, "Ding" "Round 2!! and the crowd goes wild!"

This is offensive to people who actually listen to words instead of waiting for a knockout.

substance is a side issue.

I hate it that this is the case, but a Lincoln Douglas Debate, a hell of an oratory exercise if ever, would not go well these days.

but there was a lot of oratory too.

And no, I am not kidding, debates or candidate forums, starting from your lowly city councils and school boards, all the way to the Presidency, ARE theater.. what people are scoring candidates on is their on stage performance... facts, we don't need no stinking facts.

Of course there are two main eye glasses people look at this things quite honestly... the partisan lens, which is always etnertaining and tends to magnify it when their candidate does well or badly. This is why DU looked like somebody died, and FR they were not too overly enthused by Romney either... mirror, mirror and all that, without watching it I knew it was something closer to a draw. Which by the way, it was, with an edge on the theater side to Romney... (And part of that is the moderator, Lehrer should never ever again moderate any forum, not even for dog catcher)

Then there is the non partisan side. And unfortunately for many of the undecideds who ARE NOT familiar with the issues, given current cultural imperatives, would give the edge to Romney... we like an agressive performer, as long as they are not women (Then they are well the B word comes to mind) or minorities.

This is why Obama has such a tight rope to walk by the by.

But they are theater, and the incumbent usually loses the first debate.

You may not like it, but this is the way it is.

By the way I have watched and scored and fact checked far more debates than I care for, and we are far from done.

Often it's a way of responding to negative ads but Obama has had FOX "News" effectively running a 24/7 negative ad for four years.

But Romney was the one to come out and play the victim of vicious untrue attacks and acted like everything on FOX "News" was 100% reality. This left most of the viewing pubic wondering what he was talking about because they don't watch that crap.

Regardless, the sports analogy got so bad some of the commentaries speculated that Obama was tired because he got some anniversary sex. That's a throwback to the football star being told not to have sex before the big game because it will "sap his strength". The types who believe this are the types to fall asleep on top of a woman, thus giving her the opportunity to demonstrate her strength when she shoves their limp ass off of her to go to the bathroom.

And for the record, when even POTUS tells you "I blew it," well he blew it.

And the sports analogy is beter than the war analogy, at least in my mind. That said, there is a very valid reason he might have been tired and that is poor planning on their part if that was the reason. If you are living in the flatlands and you arrive at a city 5K above sea level, yup that may have an effect.

We are familiar with it. Whenever we travel to Mexico City, a little higher, but not by much, than Denver, we take a day to more or less adapt and the height still kicks our ass.

Damn shame it can't be a cerebral thing.

a knockout. really. There were 4 or 5 knockouts before that debate. that is why we were winning by large numbers.

Romney is a second rate candidate too and everyone knows it. (Probably even him)

Ohio, New Mexico, etc.

I have heard many on DU called that for saying the same thing. Do you really mean that many on DU would vote to hide the Presidents post were he to say that here?

On edit: I just am trying to point out how foolish some on DU look with all their concern troll talk, I only use your post as a vehicle, please don't take this post personally.

We don't have to agree with the President. Sometimes he listens to these pundits too much.

moment do I believe he really thought he "lost" the debate.

partisan glasses... but then again, job requirement, not to.

Another debate, in a much smaller pool (as in city council). The Tea Party Candidate did horrible, but if you ask her advisors and supporters she did swimmingly well.

The ones who moderated it and observed it, knew otherwise.

the DU island if he talked like that here. By DU standards you should be ashamed of him and divorce him today.

Second your husband is right. You and many here don't understand that the debates aren't for us, they are for the undecided. You and many others including me are already going to vote for President Obama, many others are already going to vote for Romney. The debates are only a performance and the best actor wins the undecided. Vice President Biden knows this. Hopefully President Obama does now. Substance have very little meaning in a debate that is a debate in name only.

You know who you are going to vote for, why did you watch the debates? I suspect for entertainment. I didn't bother, it would not have changed my mind either way, why should I waste my time on it? Did you expect it to change your mind?

but then again we watch debates must of the people on DU would never do... as local political reporters we have to.

They are fun exercises... and to those family, friends and top partisans show up... which is fun truly.

I had something better to do for the first debate. I did watch part of the VP debate. But I know them for what they are, entertainment for the most part. They really have no meaning for us, our minds were made up before we even knew who President Obama's opponent was going to be.

You can kiss and make up after Obama wins!

There are a lot of other rounds, including one Tuesday night.

Tell him no boxer dwells on past rounds. It's over. Move on.

Watch for a very different performance from both candidates on Tuesday.

And Joe's performance has in turn teed it up for the President. Perhaps, when all the dots are connected, the final chapter of the debates will not bear a whole lot of resemblance to what transpired during and after the very first one. It's always better to begin from a perceived disadvantage and move upward from that, rather than the opposite.

You are both right.

You are right that President Obama did far better than he is being given credit for; likewise, Romney did far worse.

Yet he is correct, in that the public perception is that President Obama did not do well, and that Romney did.

These are two distinct issues. Both are important.

I acknowledge this but it just irks me to no end that too many Dems were so ready to give a beating to the President and not hold Romney accountable for the constant stream of lies coming out of his mouth.

I think some of the damage could have been lessened by showing some support for the truth.

is that you get the last laugh. Actually, the last three.

This week, President Obama will nail Romney. Fast and hard.

Next week, he will devastate Romney.

On Election Day, he will win an impressive victory.

In boxing terms, you can count on that, just like the referee will count "ten" over a battered Willard Romney.

You nailed it.

I think those of us who have some understanding of the nuances of the issues are more appreciative of the president's performance.

However, i'm concerned about voter perception, and i think that's reflected in the words of DU'ers who have been critical of the president's performance.
* Many voters don't keep up with politics like those of us at DU. They can't know in real time that Romney was spouting impressive-sounding lies.
* The media is trying to whip up the ratings, so they're making this election entertaining. What better way than to choose winners and losers, and turn it into a 'survivor' reality show.

The president is waging an uphill battle trying to reach people who can make a difference in this election-- he's trying to reach people who can make intelligent decisions with the facts and are not blinded by ideology. He need to fight with every tool he can get. Telling the truth is not enough. He also needs to aggressively call out the liar, corner him, throw him off balance.

I don't know your husband but would think he's a high information voter since he lives with you. He may also be an avid sports fan. No matter how much we know better, what we watch on tv does have a subtle influence. Advertisers know how to manipulate us, and political campaigns are no different. Sometimes, we fall for that BS without realizing it.

The exchange between you and your husband reflects what i'm also seeing among DU'ers. We may have some different opinions, but we are all on the same side. We want President Obama to win. Perhaps a bit more understanding and empathy is needed in the way we talk to each other, especially in the coming weeks before the election.

(when, in fact, I was an amateur boxer -- so that was LONG ago!) my good friend Rubin Carter asked me, "What do you have when a wise man argues with a fool?" The answer is simply two fools.

I agree 100% with your analysis of the DU disagreements on debate #1. More, while I feel safe in saying that the only fools on DU are the shit-stirring trolls, we can all still benefit from taking the good Hurricane's words to heart. It's not to say heated discussions and debates are not a good thing -- they certainly can be. But we should concentrate on expanding everyone's thinking .....which can and must include our own. And then, and only then, can such conversations have value and be meaningful.

If you lets someone set the pace and lie the whole time and never call them on the lies you are doing a horrible job

I was so frustrated and angry that I could not sleep.

I have had the same argument with a few people and they are also supporters of President Obama. My best argument is that i was right in the past. They doubted when I said he would beat McCain, pass healthcare reform, repeal DADT, and do a smackdown on Trump.

Stay strong but somehow I think your hubby got the message. LOL

And maybe he deserves an apology for what happened.

President screwed up big time, We all have to admit that.

Vp biden wasn't perfect, but he did way, way better then the president.

A DU posted, somewhere, the idea that MR needs to hit it out of the park next time. He "won" the first because he came on with a new personality and position. (That may be his October surprise.) But that act only works once. He will have to come up with a stunner. Meanwhile, the President remains steady, composed, and likeable.

The proof will be in the pudding, election day. But in the mean time, have faith that the President's campaign is well calculated. Think of the infamous caption to the photo of Barack Obama wearing shades: Chill, I got this.

Show Biz Bugs...

That is why winning on the "style" of the performance is extremely important.

To be able to sort out the lies would take a lot of time and research. Time that a lot of people working hard to keep families running, don't have.

Style has won over substance.

When you're living in a country where base-born idiots and their child have a top rated tv show (honey boo boo), that should tell you everything you need to know about the electorate in this country. It's beyond pitiful that they can tell you everything those ninnies say, but cannot discern mittiot's lies at face value.

has mannerisms when Ryan spoke that said, "folks, that guy is lying so much that he breaks me up". President Obama is a refined person, but the President can't allow Romney to fucking lie then cap it all off by painting himself as a generous man that cares for the little person.

Exactly how does a person debate another person who is debating themself. Not possible. I think the Prez knows better now. Obama might have been somewhat naive to think Romney was going to be a man with scruples, not the pathological liar he is.

I also find myself continually getting involved. I read your post and wanted to comment.

You have to stand back and apply the generally accepted ideas of what constitutes winning and what constitutes loosing in a debate..

Remember this:The purpose of the debate is to win votes and gain support.. that did not happen...



Before the debate the biggest fear Democrats had was that their base would become complacent and not vote, while the Republicans feared their base would become depressed.. All that has changed.The race has tightened..all since the debate..

Couple of points for you..to be taken in a friendly spirit!

You and many others seem to think that lies automatically out themselves. You think people can somehow detect them and that truth has some kind of power on its own to win out over them. Therefore, the argument goes, the liar looses. Sorry that is not only false, it's dangerous.

This country, and the entire history of humankind, has proven that idea untrue.

Sadly, half the population either does not care or is too damn ignorant to know what the facts are.. I am willing to bet that more people can name the three stooges than three members of the Supreme Court...How many listen to Rush, and think he is a paragon of truth? And how many feel the same about FOX news? Need I mention Ann Coulter and countless others without ruining my lunch?

When Romney lies and Obama either does not challenge him or does so weakly, then that lie is believed by those that don't know the real truth....and that is exactly what happened again and again.. (And dont blame the media for not doing what Obama should have done..)

To make it worse, many people are influenced by very superficial matters. . . the entire advertising industry is testimony to that!..
Can you really tell me that a bald headed man or a man with a long beard or who spoke with a lisp, would not have a severe handicap in running for President no matter how qualified?

Perception plays a real part and on the split screen when Romney stood facing the President and the President looked down ..for whatever reason.....sadly, that gave the false impression of a man unable to reply.
..
Combine the two..unchallenged facts and submissive attitude, and the impression was of a strong determined individual with a list of things he wanted to do. . ....flawed and full of bullshit though it was... verses a man who was unable to defend himself or his administration..

And in the close the final speeches reenforced that impression. Romney talked about his "plan" and his vision .Obama ticked off some generalities that came off like some empty campaign speech.

Those are the hard facts that so many cant seem to understand or deal with.

Honestly, .I felt sick during the debate..wanting to shout, " Look Up. Defend yourself. Go on the attack!" but it never happened.

(Please dont give us a false choice by saying, " Would you have preferred he stood up there for 90 minutes and shouted lies?" )

Of course, you will feel differently about what you saw because you, unlike many others, knew Romney was lying and spinning and moving away from his previous positions, and that colors your perception of who won. But its not people like you Obama was trying to win..


Fortunately, that debate did not happen the day before the election so there is time to change course, and still two more debates to go..

My prediction; Next time President Obama will be more aggressive and take the fight to Romney calling him out again and again and he will hold his head high and stand his ground...as he should, and as he must!

And that will prove Obama agrees with your hubby! If not, why would he change?

You were wrong. Your hubby was right. You better think of some way to make it up to him..

The entire thing is well-written and well thought out. You make spot-on point after point.
Bravo

The image from the debate and the appearance of victory are hugely important. It is widely accepted that Kennedy beat nixon with attitude and appearance as opposed to actual substance. The President was terrible.

Tell me this, if he did just fine, why has Romney bounced so much in the polls since then? The President looked like a loser, that's why.

the President smiling absent-minded-ly, the President nodding his head as to agree with Romney when Romney was mouthing lies. If that debate was a piece of clothing that I owned, I would have burned it long ago.

Only difference is her husband is a revolting Republican and he is angry she is a Democrat. He listens to Limbaugh and Fox news. She gets Ed, Rachel, and Chris Hayes. She will overcome!

SInce when can criticism not be given in a constructive manner and not so that it looks like you are giving props to the opposition? Romney lied repeatedly. Style is not everything and truth counts.

But so are other Obama supporters.

Ever since JFK got himself a nice tan for his televised debate with Nixon, nonsubstantive style has been a big part of televised debates.

In a perfect world we would win purely on truth, but with the world as it is we need style too.

Again my point is that there is little gain in "blowing your stack" at an Obama voter whether it be your hubby, du memebers, or anyone else.

In business (and every aspect of life), there are people who can take charge and lead. As much as it pains me to say so, Obama failed there. You do NOT have to lie or shout or be rude to lead. Sadly, many people here are trying to make excuses and pretend like those are the only ways to lead.

Fortunately, we all know it was an off night and things will be different the next two weeks. However, to throw our head in the sand and pretend like it didn't happen or make excuses denies us the ability to learn from our mistakes.

Now, I don't know what your husband was talking about, but Obama's lack of leadership that evening should definately be acknowledged and learned from, so it doesn't happen again.

because he didn't stand up there and tell the truth. He hemmed and hawed and looked at his lectern.

Hopefully he will be better prepared this week.

All others, yes. My spouse has moved decidedly to the left since Dumbya, having supported that idiot in 2000, but moving bit by bit to our side over the next 8 years. In 2008, the change to Obama's camp was made, if not complete. I think we're finally there this election. The kids, though, have always agreed with me. [url=http://www.cosgan.de/smilie.php][img][/img][/url] Kids have an innate sense of fairness and the 2000 election flat-out appalled them. (ETA: My kids are old enough to VOTE now! )

And don't listen to anyone telling you you're "too into" this election. Nonsense. It's important. If you can't stand up for your own views, you're not into it enough, especially in your own house.

I happen to agree with your point of view on that debate, btw. Steamrolling lie after lie over people does not make a winner. It makes one the loudest and most obnoxious, but not a winner.

men wanted a boxing match and women wanted to hear positions.

All the women I know thought Romney was a bully jerk and thought our president was regal yet tired.

Not one man I know felt the same way.

Now maybe younger women are not stuck in this mold- I am mid 50's, so perhaps I should preface it with middle aged and older women.

But we are not a small group- in fact we are a very important demographic.

My husband was all about defending the President's performance and believed it was all strategy, that Obama didn't bring up the 47% because it would have given Mitt a huge audience to disavow those words. I was apoplectic for days after the debate. But hubby, and the folks here at DU, talked me off the ledge.

perhaps all the women that I know are a particular personality.

I do think it had a lot to do with one's point of view and the media clearly has no people with my point of view.

My husband thought he did fine too.

However, others didn't agree.

The McDonalds-ization of American politics

I'm betting he understands too.

This is a contest for votes and what counts is who is perceived as having told the truth..

Sorry, but that is just the way the world works..

This is not to say I believe in lying but a lie will always win out among the informed, if it is allowed to go unchallenged

Ask John Kerry about the Swiftboaters next time you doubt that..

if no one points it out to them?

We all respond to aggression, positively when our guy is whacking the one we perceive as dangerous and negatively when we feel threatened, but it takes cognition to recognize that, enjoy it, but to move past it when it comes to making rational decisions. If you can't do that then you get suck in the emotional brain and think that's all there is.

Doesn't mean your husband id dumb, but for some reason that emotional response is louder in his head than the rational one, imo. And that's not just on the debate, but on the whole election/government philosophy.

It doesn't matter how he does it. Politics ain't beanbag.

Romney moved the numbers in his direction, so he won the debate.... no matter how you think about the way Romney did it.

I'm afraid for the future of this society if these wingnuts steal another election, and it comes out as disappointment every time they hit a double instead of a home run (ack, another sports metaphor, sorry).

According to all I've read, Mitt Romney won the first debate by virtue of his more aggressive STYLE, combined with the president's apparent lack of push-back against the LIES Romney told, repeatedly, all that seemed to matter was APPEARING strong and forceful as far as I what I read and heard from the talking heads.

Why then is it that when VP Joe Biden showed the same traits against Paul Ryan, adding to his debate performance in-the-face challenges to Paul Ryan's comments and proposals, that Biden recieved luke-warm praise from most media observers ?

May be democrats should instill some fear into the media. The Tim Robbins line in one movie where Robbin's character observed that what was needed to stop yuppies from buying up poor people's houses was "a fucking riot". Maybe democrats need to start unleashing the SEC on networks to harass them like republicans do.

Of course Skidmore you are correct on technical points, Obama kicked ass - but DU will not decide the election!

Obama seemed as if he had the flu was was listless, and as much as you wish John Q Public was as bright as DU, they are not and their votes count. Tuesday, Obama needs to put on a much better "show" or we could be in real trouble. Is it crazy that people judge based on punch count vs truth? --- of course!!! Welcome to reality TV.

A lot of people want a show.
It's not what Obama said in the debate, it's how he said it. He needs more energy.

Obama was smart and spoke his truth ... he really didn't have to say a word ... he hung back and let Romney spew his lies and hang himself ... the old adage "don't argue with a fool people won't know which is the fool" certainly applies here ...

Word to the Ladies ... When my husband is oh soo sure he knows best I just laugh and crow, "cock-a-doodle-doooo" ...

talked about. The one time that stands out in my memory where he backed down (and to this day does not yell anymore when discussing things) is when I told him quietly and without emotion.."just because you are louder than me doesn't mean you are right".....I was and still am very proud of that moment!

Romney go unchallenged. I was so disappointed that night that I could not sleep. I was so proud of Joe Thursday night, I was shouting with joy.

care more about facts than stage presence. While facts and empiricism matter, they take the back burner to showmanship. In fact, just look at the VP debate. While I was also rejuvenated by how Biden manhandled Ryan and his lies, look what the VSP (Very Serious People) and American public were mostly concerned with; whether or not Biden acted too aggressively, was rude, or smiled too much.

Did they care about the facts or the substance of the debate? Not particularly. Facts and substance are secondary in today's political climate of ideological wars and disinformation.

While I am sympathetic the OP's pain, her anger is misplaced. Telling truths and facts will not win this election. It is unfortunate, but the sad reality of our current state of affairs.

I hope Obama comes out swinging next debate. Joe Biden should prep him.

what I get out of this is americans are a VERY shallow people. They like flash and lies over substance any day, every day. Right? right. So Obama has to ball up his fist and pound the liar into the ground to be perceived as a winner right? Truth and facts are shit to the american people. Never show niceness or intellect in the arena. The lions will eat you. Sorry, I went off on a rant. forgive me.

American prefer flash over substance. This is nothing new. Take a look at the fist nationalized Presidential debate - 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Many claimed that the two candidate tied on verbal substance, but Kennedy was the clear winner due to his appearance and delivery.

Nixon was pale and underweight from a recent hospitalization. He appeared sickly, sweaty, and discomforted. Kennedy was smooth and charismatic with golden bronze skin from weeks of previous campaigning in the open. Even Kennedy claimed, "It was the TV more than anything else that turned the tide."

"Up to that point, politics had not really been played out on television. "It was very much an entertainment medium," says Schroeder. "It wasn't a place for serious discourse." After the debate, how you presented yourself, what you looked like, how you sounded and whether you connected directly with audiences mattered, says Larry Sabato, political analyst at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

While I believe it is unfortunate, presentation and delivery matter. Getting up on the stage in a listless, passive manner, allowing your contender to go unchallenged in his fabrications while simply talking facts will not win debates.

Reference: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html#ixzz29KCC9vgH

Don't let anyone tell you different. It was the first debate.

Joe kicked ass. Joe wouldn't have needed to kick ass if Obama had kicked ass. Obama wouldn't need to kick ass in the next debate if he'd kicked ass in the first debate.

Obama did the right thing for the long run in the first debate. Whether he did it intentionally or not.

Joe kicked ass. Showed how you kick a liars ass. Now there's a 'framework' for kicking a liars ass. There wasn't a framework before.

Obama is on track to kick ass in the election; that's what's really important.