That's contradictory.

The Big Bird thing is all people will remember and that was a disaster for the Mittwit. Like someone said, he didn't pick Nova or Masterpiece Theater or something pointy headed. He picked Sesame Street to go after. That's pretty dumb.

On a formal debate there are rules that are enforced, and penalties for violating those rules (banned from competition, lost scholarships, etc.).

The "rules" in political debates are softer and squishier, and the only score that counts is the election result, which has many more factors going into it.

Frankly, it's a minor detail whether Sesame Street gets public funding or not (I bet Nickelodeon would snatch up Sesame Street in an instant if it became available; if I were a broadcast network executive, I would too - it can't cost much to produce, and it's iconic). There's much more to make people vote for Obama than "save Big Bird".

Republicans have targeted Big Bird and Sesame street for years. Back in the nineties they claimed it promoted communism.

It is more about what Big Bird and PBS presents to most Americans. I watched my first foreign films on PBS long before there was cable. I learned so much about environmental issues and other topics on PBS that were and still are not covered by the major networks or even cable. Big Bird and PBS represent a lot more than you realize.

The Rs have forever been against the existence of PBS. It's part of their total privatization thing. Still, it was stupid for Rmoney to use Big Bird to stand for PBS.

Points well-taken. I'm recovered enough that I'm looking forward to the next debate. I suspect it will quite different from the first!

Hard to tell.

Why not immediately jump on Rmoney's lies and flip flops? If Rush were "disappointed" that Rmoney didn't cause Obama to get angry, would he be indulging in that on air?

No wonder the right retains so much power in this country. Even their 40% or so is too much. Democrats just lay down and let them get away with it. They rely solely on the presidential candidate, who has to look calm and collected. And then instead of helping, they start trashing him for not meeting their needs!

If Democrats and liberals fought back or even had a pundit who actually fought as hard as Rush does for the right wing, the right would be far more marginalized.

Hell, I was very upset afterwards, but once I read others' threads and listened to Al Sharpton, I began to calm down a bit and realize it wasn't the end of the world.
I don't think anyone will be as hard on Obama as he undoubtedly is on himself. He has worked so hard campaigning (for months, practically non-stop), not to mention running the country--he must be exhausted. And to know his performance was lacking and that he let people down must be pretty upsetting. We have to keep the faith and do whatever we can to help. And cutting him some slack is a good beginning.

n/t

Obama was very calm. I could listen to him, but Romney? He makes me want to puke.

Next time Obama is going to slash his ass.

People (debate watchers) are already all over NPR this morning, pointing out Obama's responses/points
sounded way too scripted. I more or less agree.

I hope you're correct about what's "coming" in the remaining debates-- but I doubt it. what we saw last
night was "pure Obama", i.e. the need to appear civil, calm, professional.

Is this effective in debates? I dunno... Rmoney channeled Grandpa Reagan fairly well last night.
this is the kind of bullcrap voters appear to like

"thanks".

I'm hardly "like all of them". I'm merely pointing out how the voters think...

are you denying they weren't _dumb_ enough to voter for Reagan-- twice?

and then the Bush cabal?

Romney did not come across as likeable or more favorable like Reagan did, according to the polls.

I think you're confused.

Romney totally said this bullcrap: "I think the American people are much better at running things than
the government".

Reagan said that-- about a million times.

I don't know why any pol would channel the LOSER stumpy McCain. Unless of course, they want
to lose. I think we agree Rmoney wants to win

His favorability did not go up after the debate. People may have thought he won, but they didn't find him any more likeable.

I missed the debates and probably will skip watching these. My only source for the debates was DU.

But what I saw was what appeared to be a very weary President Obama. I can be incredibly articulate and "on my game" myself. But not when I'm lacking sleep for multiple nights in a row, at which point I start rambling losing my way when I try to try to put 2 + 2 together. He struck me as over-tired. They need to make sure he has enough rest ahead of each debate. Of course, he's been busy running the country....

Romney at first appeared positive and Reagan-like. It wasn't long before he came across to me as incredibly rude and obnoxious. Of course, I'm from a generation where you didn't bulldoze your way over everybody and anybody trying either make their point or moderate a discussion.

I also thought he was petty and whiny when he demanded "his turn" and lectured Jim McLehrer about how to run the debate ("He went first so I get to go last. Waah!Waah! Waah!&quot .

I wasn't fact-checking at that point, but I quickly lost track of what he said when he started talking everybody down. I don't care how much he was smiling and seeming "genial." He wasn't, and it also wasn't long before a certain creepiness took over his smiling. He was walking a fine line between assertiveness and aggressiveness. I'm hypersensitive and to me he had fallen over the line within 5 minutes.

But then I lost the station and gave it up. So I don't know how the rest of it went.

But attacking Big Bird? I missed that segment and will have to go back and watch. But really, how many parents in the US have depended on Big Bird to be a great babysitter for their youngsters while they were cleaning, cooking, etc. with one eye out?

I think the President did poorly in the debate and turned it off after 30 minutes. Romney had nothing to lose in this debate and I do not think the Obama team was at all prepared.

Big difference between Republican debates consisting of a million other candidates and his one on one debates way in the past when he was more youthful.

Now... He looked more Nixon like when he debated Kennedy.

with their 10 to 15 second answers are only one part. There was the debate for Senate in MA and the numerous campaign appearances. Romney had to come out swinging and really had little to lose in this debate. That he is a serial liar has been more than evident. Why would he not lie at this event?

I simply don't think the Obama team was ready for the ferocity or the Romney assault or the volume of lies.

I hope going forward that they do better, but this was not a good evening for the President.

Obama will blanket the swing states with ads calling out Romney's lies for the next 5 weeks. This will kill him. People will see these ads over and over.

Anyone who thinks this campaign doesn't know what they're doing when, for the past 4-5 months, they've been running one of the best campaigns in modern political history, hasn't been paying attention.

The President’s laid-back demeanor is what pisses most Democrats off!! We need him to go on the attack!!

Really? President Obama has showed his backbone plenty of times and won. His style is to lay back and let his opponent hang himself and then go in for the attack. It is why he has been the most successful democrat in a long time. You cannot debate liars. You first have to let them spew their lies loudly and clearly. Then you go after them.

And that's something 'certain people' will never get.

Bye bye!!

Obama was.....Obama.

I suspect Obama will not let Romney get away with the flat out lies in the next debate, but he will do so in his calm Obama style.

We are not the party of crazed lunatics. Anyone watching, in the middle, wondering which person seemed more like a crazy lose canon, would see Obama at the more trustworthy of the two, IMO. Rmoney came off as edgy, temperamental, and someone who I would not want handling a crisis. It's people in the middle, who I think saw that Romney has no particular path and would bow down to any whim set forth by extremists in his party.

i work with a couple right wingers. if they bring up the debate today i plan to just accede disappointment in obama's performance. puff them up if you will. let them feel good for a minute.

the president better bring it next time or the time after that though eh.

disclaimer: didn't watch. get too frustrated with LIES, and nothing is going to change my vote.

It's all well & good to go on a reconnaissance mission, but I just don't want our poll numbers to come down too much in the meantime.

Remember there are other people's seats at stake too eg. The Senate

Don't you think that Obama has "debated" with others...say world leaders since he was elected?

I'm worried that he didn't address Romney's inconsistent words and I think that was a mistake.

Having said that, I think most people have made up their minds about who they will vote for and the debates will make little difference.

They're not with a moderator asking questions, and an audience grading the answers. They are either the summing up of discussions that assistants have had for days before, in which you're trying to persuade the other side to agree with your policy stance, or informal talks with individual leaders who are more or less allies. This kind of 'debate' is done more for the US by the ambassador to the UN, or Secretary of State, not the president.

again. That is what we heard for 4 years. That's how we ended up with Bush tax cut extensions (leading to a deficit that O's now getting pummeled with), and a teabagger Congress.

You either fight back or you don't. He didn't.

Despite having the most obstructive congress I have ever seen in my lifetime,President Obama was able to pass many critical pieces of legislation. Despite having members of congress openly declare treason and state they wanted to destroy his presidency. President Obama let republicans speak their ugliness and allowed the public to see what they were like.

How often republican members of congress beat their chest and strutted away only to find themselves defeated by President Obama.

Al Sharpton gave the best post game analysis IMHO, it was like a defendant up on the stand who gives a very good testimony but the truth remains: all it showed was a guy who is a good liar. I watched Romney closely last night, I watched his eyes, his facial expressions, the way he was swaying back and forth and he still appears to be an unstable man. I do not think any significant numbers of people will be affected by what we saw last night.

I saw the same thing that you did. Earlier this morning I wrote something about MSNBC reporting being sorry except for the "Rev".

He more or less leaned against the ropes and did not counter punch much. Yes, he got a few body shots, but he more or less let Mitt's lies speak for themselves.

Like Ali, Barack Obama knows Mitt is going to end up face down on the mat. He just doesn't want him there in the first round.

In classic rope-a-dope, you let your opponent pummel you while you lean against the ropes. You tire him out and give him hope. Then, when he least expects it... BAM! KAPOW! On the mat... Face down!

The Obama team has been brilliant so far. I cannot think that this debate outcome wasn't planned.

Until then it is just a theory.

They were the last words spoken by Trump supporters. They were the last words spoken by republicans in congress before they lost on issues like healthcare reform and DADT.

You're describing Republicans. And you're describing people who have imaginary delusions.

Most of us here are rational people who are responding to something we actually saw and are concerned about.

Isn't it a normal reaction to be concerned about the fallout from a poor debate rather than assuming that some deeper secret mission is at work?

I'm not discounting the possibility that Obama may have had a certain strategy in mind, but when even loyal Democrats are saying Obama had an off-night, isn't that something we should learn from?

Donna Brazile, a major supporter of the President, said last night on ABC that Romney had a good night.

That Obama would mop the floor with Romney.

See how that worked out?

I think this approach is risky.

in the next debates or change his tune in any way Obama can and should nail his hide to the door.

President Obama let Trump travel around being a loudmouthed buffoon. Then at just the right time he humiliated him. When President Obama gets finished with Romney it will make what he did to Trump look merciful.

That was my reaction immediately after the debate. Romney's manner and words are coming back to haunt him. Already this is being touted as a "gender issue" because so many people found Romney to be a bullying liar. Yes, I am a woman and was turned off by Romney's behavior but I know males who also felt the same.

It seems the line coming from republicans is that they represent the He Man Women Haters and Romney is their King Cave Dweller. Republicans are once again going to learn the hard way that Americans are tired of them and their ancient politics and behavior. Romney in his arrogance and nastiness just gave President Obama and democrats a lot of ammunition.

Trust me President Obama will handle Robme much better in the next debate.

I watched last night and I can honestly say that Obama was not the person I was hoping to see. Many on the blogs today are blaming Jim Lehrer. Well, you can say what you want about the moderator, but, the fact is the President has to come out "SWINGING" on these outright LIES from Rmoney!! He didn't come across as the man in charge and he let Rmoney roam all over the place. Never mentioning the 47% or the fact that we are a nation of welfare... I hope O comes out punching next time. Maybe he's using that old Ali tactic called "Rope a Dope". We have the dope and he's Mitt Rmoney!!

for some things so if he changes his tune in the next debates even a bit Obama can and should jump all over his ass for it because now Romney has painted himself into a smaller corner and he wont be able to dodge as easily.

Mittens with all kinds of faux confidence is going to be a good thing. Just watch.

...but what I witnessed last night was a President who wanted to be anywhere but on that stage as Romney used lie after lie to walk all over him. Obama went into this debate strong and limped out looking confused and aloof. This was his opportunity to drive another nail into the coffin of Romney's campaign and he blew it big time.

it's just who can gang up on the little guy thing. Expectations on Willard were such that if he didn't win the night , that would have been news. I don't need that sort of tension right now anyway..

I've heard that for 4 years.

Just wait until the second term when Obama can fight.

I'm a decided voter and Romney doesn't get that vote. I'm sick and tired of just waiting for Obama to truly FIGHT for the masses.

It is annoying now, because the media can't get over their analysis of how the debate "looked" visually. They are too busy talking about the icing to even bother tasting the cake. I want some analysis of substance! I'd like to hear more about RMoney's LIES and DISTORTIONS.

done more of a recon in force style, and that is why he supposedly "lost". But rmoney is now going to face a withering barrage.

Many of the people who watched the debate will believe everything the candidates say. None of it may be true, but the people don't know that. Obama was not aggressive enough and, yes I realize it's not in his character, but he needs to come out in Debate #2 as an attack dog, being a fact checker on what happened in Debate #1. Yes, the Mittster lied through his teeth in several statements, but the fact that he (Mittster) was aggressive will change the polls and make this election appear much closer than it should be.

When all the talking heads went nuts for Romney, I was confused. If nothing else it was a tie. Romney blatantly lied and just because Obama didn't do a Joe Wilson and yell "LIAR" he wasn't aggressive, he was aloof and uninterested in being there.

I felt the president explained what he's done and what he'll do and pointed out Romney's "inconsistencies" in a non-confrontational manner. Imagine if he had gone on the attack. The angry black man analogy would have been dredged up from the 2008 election again. Obama always has to walk a fine line because of how the repubs will spin it against him. I thought Romney agitated, huffy and smug. I guess that's considered "enthusiastic" and "driven" in the pundit world.

You don't want to get drawn into a back and forth with a
narcissistic liar like Mitt Romney. You just let him blab his
way to his own demise.

Obama will get the last word in subsequent debates.

I know that Obama's policies represent my view of the world much more than Mitt's, but the American electorate votes also very much by style over substance (otherwise Kerry would have won over W.), and Romney "looked" good. (note the quotation marks)

I am a bit frightened now. Romney was slipping, and Obama need not have given him a chance to regroup. I really wish it hadn't turned out the way it did.

He had a chance to BURY Romney last night, BURY him. Those were the expectations. Why hold back and give Romney any light at all? Just off the downballot implications that strategy is absurd. Now the Republicans have a hard on again when they were about to reach for the Viagra.

Just fighting to a draw would have been a win for Obama. Just showing some damn fight at all would have been a win.

Sure Obama is not done, but damn, why give any life to this guy or conservatives in general?

POTUS had the opportunity, and the ammunition, to leave Mittens in a bloody, sobbing heap on the floor.
Why he chose not to do so is beyond me.

Leave no doubt in the voters' mind, sir.
End him at the first opportunity, dust off your lapels, look into the camera and say the diplomatic equivalent of "I'm the PRESIDENT, motherfuckers" and walk off stage.
End of game.
Period.