That actually might work. Seriously though, he might want to give Romney more time to talk. The more that man talks the less people like him. The more he talks the more he contradicts himself. For example in the last debate he said he wants to bring jobs to the US by making the US more attractive to the investing class. The problem is he wants to do it by making it easier for the investor class to invest off shore. Obama wants to make it more attractive by making offshore investing much more expensive. Romney also wants to pin the bad economy on Obama saying he didn't create jobs and 5 minutes or maybe less later he says "Government does not create jobs, government does not create jobs, government does not create jobs." So which is it? I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. The government doesn't directly create jobs(except for public sector), but the government can make it more or less easy to invest. So, let Mitt keep talking, perhaps people will figure out on their own that Romney is a con man. Or they will see Romnesia in action.

that as long as Debate #2 Obama shows up, we're good. The thing is - he actually has a foreign policy record to go on, the Twit has nothing. Well, there was that one international tour.....

I think people are tired of war and even more tired of watching tax dollars go to war and even more tired of hearing about how another body is coming home in a casket. At least I am and I am a bit hawkish, but I think we need a much better reason to go to war, than "they got our oil."

that a vote for Romney is a vote for war. Ask the country if they want more wars. Because when 17 of your 24 foreign policy advisors are Bushies, that's what you get.

Being a warhawk may appeal to the R base but a turn off for independents.

I think this country is war-weary to the extent that even some Republicans would go soft, flip or stay home, if this could be communicated effectively. I have nothing to base this on but my suspicions though.

The president has to come prepared to show that Mitt Romney would reduce our status--and therefore our security, around the world.

Mitt Romney has proven himself to be two things that do not bode well for a president. He is clearly unlikable and clearly a liar.

He's offended our allies and come off generally looking like a doofus. His comments that the Russians were our greatest foe TODAY (?!) gave the Russians an opening to crack wise about CURRENT talks! He seems to think that we can fight a 4-front war if need be, after all, we are AMERIICCAAAAAA!--we can do anything. And he seems to think we can do it alone since he is actively annoying our allies.

He's from that same huddled camp that thinks America won WWII by itself.

And what's up with throwing Israel n the President's face every day? US-Israeli relations are fine. For a party that fears, above all, appearing weak, they sure are in a hurry to figure the best way to totally and completely service Israel.

Meanwhile, President Obama's approval ratings internationally are through the roof and the GOP is left to say that the president is loved by "furriners"--not mentioning that those foreigners include Great Britain, Germany, France, etc., you know, just the greatest allies the U.S. has ever had.

And we need those allies to assist in the protection of our national interests. And
many times our interests and the interests of other countries intersect. But if they don't trust our leaders, if they dont LIKE our leaders, they have incentives to allow us to shoulder more of the burden than we otherwise might. And that burden is measured in blood. In treasure. In diminished capability to address OTHER security issues.

We already know that the world does not like Mitt Romney. But If you were a foreign leader, friend or foe, would you TRUST Mitt Romney on anything?

bring all of these excellent points up.

Other. Seriously, this is the topic where Obama should show who is in charge. So, first, get the facts about Libya. The protests in Cairo were first. Were they the result of the video? The following days there were protests all across the Muslim world and they were about the video. There were protests about the cartoons from Denmark; there were protests about the Koran burning, so it is not as if this notion was irrational.

But there is always the fog of war when it takes time to get all the facts.

And I am reminded of the suicide bombing in Beirut, in 1983, killing more than 200 Marines. Did anyone go after Reagan the way they are going after the President? Can we use some "compare and contrast?"

highway" foreign policy that burns international bridges instead of building them.

CIC or diplomatic experience. Zip. Nada.

Game over.

regarding his proposed 359-person military council

has planned but I know he has some really big guns he can hit Romney with on this topic.

I'm looking forward to it.

In all spheres Obama's foreign policy has been excellent. His ME policy is a success with the end of Qadaffi, a good deal of respect for the US by the new governments, the defeat of Al Qaeda, the fact that Iran agreed to negotiations, us leaving Iraq, and Israel still being a strong ally.

When Rmoney attacks Obama, Obama should respond with an achievement rather than dwell on defense. When he's not talking about his accomplishments, he should talk about Rmoney's inexperience, embarrassing foreign tour, foreign bank accounts, and connections to China.

Romney will probably try to attack him on little details like not traveling to Israel or meeting with Bibi more often. Romney will probably take things out of context too. Pres Obama needs to be aware at all times that Romney is going to be playing dirty tricks.

I agree with much of the above suggestions.

"The governor and I have had unique exposures to other cultures. I lived in Indonesia as a child, and Mr. Romney spent two years in France."

but it certainly (so far) doesn't seem to have had the effect that the first debate had, despite a bigger viewing audience.

what Romney said in 2007:

Will Mitt Romney be able to flip flop on this statement as he does almost all others especially in light of the current Libyan situation and unrest in the ME?

“it’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” [bin Laden]

Trade is a foreign policy issue, so that's the perfect setting to hammer Rmoney on his economic treason. Bring up Sensata and his #Romnesia regarding his public tough talk about cracking down on China in while doing business with the Communist Chinese government (mentioning "Communists blunts" the right-wing red baiting).

Obama should mention that we are still engaged in Afghanistan and soldier suicides are still at an all-time high so NOW is not the time to be picking fights with Iran/China over things that can be resolved at the discussion table.

He should also mention that we spend billions more on defense than many of our enemies and THAT is the big driver of our national debt. FORCE R-money to give up debt or give up pre-emptive war; it will split his base.

this out like a sports match... best of 3 wins the vote (currently generally considered 1-1, not counting the VP debate). President Obama will KNOCK it out of the park.