So Who Won?

Obama came back stronger than ever, which I knew he would, and this is the Obama I voted for in 2008 and will vote for again. I wish he had answered some of the questions more directly, but overall, he was presidential and challenged Romney's lack of a detailed plan over and over. Romney was strong most of the time but seemed a bit awkward in light of Obama's attempts at pummeling him from time to time. The "binder full of women" comment from Romney killed him, and the idea that he is so sympathetic to working women... please. I am so sick of him using my state as a platform from which to shout his heroics. We ladies better get home and make dinner for the kids now; don't worry, the cabinet is stuffed with women back at work! We don't need equal pay, we have the privilege of working!

What I learned:
Obama does have a pulse or the altitude was better in New York over Colorado.
Candy Crowley should go to moderating 101class.
Romney was likable, knowledgeable and still held his own as he did in the first debate.
I do think it was a draw though.

A.

YOU DID, you should be plastered by now, with all that *BUSH* blaming.

My favorite part was Obama dodging the fact the he has investments in China and other overseas companies.

Please J. - you already know what you think, right??

And if you're going to get on a president for not passing legislation, remember that Congress passes and the president signs or vetoes. Presidents don't make laws.

I agree that Romney somehow trying to answer "gun control" with "single poor people ought to get married before having children" was a desperation move.

I think Obama was presidential in his demeanor and his answers. Regardless or whether I agreed or disagreed with what he said, his manner was presidential. The biggest issues for me were the handling of the Libya issue (and Romney having NO IDEA that Obama dealt with terrorism on the very next day), the incredible risk/damage from the rush of Romney trying to put out a press release before the facts were obtained (and remember, after 9/11, all Americans got behind Bush and didn't make it a partisan issue), and the problems facing women in terms of equal pay, the right to make our own decisions with our doctors, and the BS of companies being able to decide what medications we take based on our doctors' prescriptions.

I think it was really a risk by Romney to take on a "factual" issue and have to be corrected by the President AND the moderator. I think the disregard of the time clock (and I don't mean 10 seconds) and the rules was indicative of a candidate's willingness to level the playing field going forward.

ETA - I'm a little confused because you had some SWH comments and they are not gone. Anyway, I wanted to respond to one of the comments by saying that no one is talking down to anyone by saying that the president doesn't pass laws. There are a lot of people on Mamapedia who did not grow up in the US and/or may not have had civics classes, or who may have a language barrier - so they may not completely understand the way certain things are phrased. So in the interest of clarity, it helps to express things in more than one way.

Hmmm....oneanddone, I'm watching FOX news and that's certainly not what I'm hearing. I'd say although it was much closer this time around, Romney still won.
There were some issues that Obama dodged....like the pipeline. That was something I would have liked him to address, but not surprised that he didn't.
I would also like to say that I read the transcript from the rose garden speech and Obama did not directly call the attack in Libya a terrorist attack. He made a reference to terror, but only after several paragraphs about the 9/11 attacks. He never directly called the situation in Libya terror. And since we once again, had an Obama lover as a moderator, she got her facts wrong. I also loved how she called Romney "Governor Romley" at the start of the debate. Awesome.

Obama won this one! So now it's 2-1. I'm of course counting Biden's smackdown of Eddie Munster as a win for Team Obama!

Laughable. I can see why each side feels like a winner. I honestly think that Republicans are in denial. You gotta give it to 'em, though, they have awesome blinders. If they don't like it, then it simply doesn't exist...didn't happen.

I agree that President Obama should have barreled through his agenda while Democrats were in "power", instead of trying to make sure that the Republicans felt included in the decisions. He should have just disregarded their concerns--the way that they do--and pushed it all through, but he was being too diplomatic for that. And now...that opportunity is lost. Also, I wasn't the one in charge and am in no position to play armchair quarterback on this. No one ever seems to want to acknowledge how disrespectful Republicans have been to this President and how they declared that they would not work with him, no matter what he brought to the table. Yet he gets blamed for not strong-arming them, and he's too classy to whine about it.

Somebody made an excellent point last night that I had been arguing since the first debate. Big corporate guys like Mitt think that the rules do not apply to them, even rules that they agree to. Before the debates, they agree to rules, and he consistently breaks those rules almost as soon as it starts. How can you trust a guy like that? He tries to take over by telling the moderator early on how it's gonna be. "He got to say this, so now it should be MY turn to say that." That attitude is how I know that he only wants to be president because he thinks that he's due. I guess people who like him find that attractive, but I think that it's indicative of poor character, to change the rules along the way as it fits his desires. Anybody along for the ride has to follow suit in order to even play the game at all. There has to be structure, and he thinks that none of it applies to him. That's not being a good citizen, of this country or of the world. And then we wonder why people don't like us.

ETA: I am so sick of people talking about how HUGE Obama's deficit is. He put on the books the things that had been off the books--but still taking place and costing money--in order to deal with the actual spending. If your spouse buys a $500 pair of shoes each week but keeps it a secret, does that mean it doesn't happen? Does your lack of knowledge actually keep the money from being spent? Also, do you realize that you have to spend money to make money? It takes money solutions to solve a money problem, especially when there's that kind of urgency. If your house is going to foreclosure, the first thing that you need is an influx of cash. After the dust settles on that, then you can get some financial counseling and figure out how to pay your light bill, and maybe even get a more affordable house. On a small individual scale, that foreclosure doesn't even touch the radar. On the grand scale of countrywide, there needs to be an intervention.

The moderator was NOT defending anybody. The candidate brought her into it by saying that he wanted to set the record straight, and she "straightened" it so they could move on to THE POINT. His nastiness backfired on him, that's all. She didn't do it If Romney cares to belabor that moot point, it's just a matter of semantics.

Obama won hands down.

I find it interesting that there are some rabid Obama supporters on here that are willing to sacrifice the ambassador's life in Lybia so Obama could "win". Obama could have sent marines from the embassies in "highly dangerous" and volatile Germany, France, Holland, Great Brittian, Norway, Sweeden, Denmark, etc to bolster the non contingent of marines in "peaceful" Lybia.

Want to hear a joke? Ok. Here it is: "Obama is honest, has integrity and has the best interest of America at heart."

I've listened to CNN and FOX and CNBC. CNN is rabid liberal and if Obama fell off the stage they would report that Romney pushed him, even if Romney was 30 feet away. FOX is almost as far right as CNN is left. CNBC is somewhere in the middle and is a financial news network so they look at both candidates policies from how it will affect American economically.

For anyone that lauds Obama's honesty, remember, Obama was the one that said he would not run for office if he didn't cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Obama's deficit is far bigger than Bush's deficit if you measure both President's first four year's in office. AND Bush had to work with a bi-particin Congress. Obama's party owned congress his first two years so he could have cut the deficit if he had wanted to. Obama is just a tax and spend president that as proven he is horrible at foreign policy. (Terrorists, we are sorry our dead got in your way, kind of thing) (Can you hear my "pity me" voice?)

Heaven help us if Obama wins. We need four more years of Obama like we need more people on food stramps, Oh wait a minute. If Obama wins we will have more people on food stamps.

Don't know if its true or not, but the rumor on the internet is that Obama has asked defense contractors to NOT lay off anyone until after the election. Why? Because Obama's unemployment record is horrible and if the defence contractors laid off all their workers, Obamas unemployment record would take a big spike higher and show even more what a horrible job creator he is.

Good luck to all of us. Hope for change to a better economy and better employment if Romney wins.

ETA: Michelle P. your situation will be very common beginning late this year and all next year if Obama wins this election. And then Obama will take credit for less healthcare spending, when what it really is people in your position unable to pay the "deductable". (You did say $3000 or $4000 didn't you? That's a budget killing deductible!)

Obviously Romney won, and the American people will win if Romney wins.

Obama CANNOT change what he has done in 4 years, which has done nothing but take things from bad to worse. It was funny to hear him say some of the same things he said in 2008 again, and we gave him FOUR YEARS to get it done. He didn't do it, even with a Democratic controlled Congress and Senate. He is full of hot air.

Repeating incorrect facts over and over doesn't make someone right. Someone should tell Obama that.

Also, the moderator of course would correct anything Romney said. She was HORRIBLE and from CNN, do you really think there would be an unbiased response? Let's have someone from FOX do it next time and see the liberals throw their tantrums.

Edited: Oh My Gosh! If Obama was presidential in his demeanor I'm embarrassed for him! He was rude and ignorant. He didn't answer the questions, interrupted Romney, complained like a child, and enjoyed the fact that the moderator was a flaming liberal. That's a laugh if I ever heard one, that he was presidential.

Also, people should not feel so confident that Obama will just win again. He got in the first time for reasons I don't have to explain to anyone. He won't get in on that this time, unless people are more ignorant then they were in 2008.

Obama, no question.

But to your comments on equal pay for equal work. It's ok with you to earn 72% of what a man doing the EXACT SAME WORK as you earns if you can have flex time? Really - not ok with me. And men can have flex time too. Oddly - they can earn 100% of what men earn and still have flex time. How on earth can anyone in the world be in favor of this? If I were a single mom - I could no way afford to sacrifice 28% of my income for NO GOOD reason beyond owning a vagina. (and I may not exactly own it myself if the republicans have a say in that).

When you check the facts, Romney won again.

Biden lost. Laughing and giggling the entire time and then lying repeatedly doesn't count as a smackdown. Sorry. If one bothers to checks the facts instead of listening to the liberal spin his loss is undeniable.

However, it doesn't mean a thing. Who cares? I really don't.

OMG, no matter what happens at these debates.

I just got some information on the changes to my healthcare plan at work thanks to Obamacare. We are going from a $20 office copay to having a $3,000 or $4,000 deductible for a family plan before it will pay anything except preventive care and this includes prescriptions as well. So, other than preventive care, I won't be able to go to the doctor anymore, cause I won't be able to afford it. Not sure what I am going to do.

I'd call it a draw. But the panel being queried right now on TV has a larger group who changed their minds to pro-Romney.

ETA: (next morning) Just wanted to point out that the moderator was out of line doing "instant fact check" during the debate. AND she was WRONG. Just thought that was a bit relevant. She provided inaccurate information in defense of a candidate during the debate she was "moderating". She way over-stepped, AND she was wrong to boot. Yeah... that's fair. (cough cough)

"I think it was really a risk by Romney to take on a "factual" issue and have to be corrected by the President AND the moderator."

This made me laugh. Too bad the President AND Ms. Candy Crowley ended up being wrong. The President DID dodge the "terror" monikor.

I thought it was a draw. Liberal media will say Obama but the focus group of undecideds on Fox almost overwhelmingly said Romney will get their vote this time around and most voted for Obama last time.

Obviously the moderator, getting her 2 cents in, is voting for Obama.

No one won this one. Both candidates were NOT directly answering questions and the moderator was horrible.

When they would simply respin the question back like "How are you going to xxx?" and they would respond "we need to xxx" and drag it out but never really say HOW, it really bugs me. I want to shout "ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE!"

I didn't get to see anything but what was replayed this morning on the news. My kids and husband watched it though. One thing my husband said was hilarious was that at one point my daughter (9) turned to him and said "Why are they talking over each other and interrupting?" Hubby said he told her it was because it was a debate...at which point my son, who is in debate, said "That's not a debate...that's a full on whiny brat two year old fit." LOL!

The kids said it was stupid because they kept talking past their allotted time and never answered the questions.

One of my 13 year olds asked me why it was ok for them be asked a question...and then instead of answering that question, they answer some other question that wasn't even asked. I asked her what she meant and she said at one point Obama was asked about housing (I think it was) and he ended up talking about how he "got bin Laden." I tried to explain that both men had things that they wanted to talk to the public about, and they wanted to make sure they got it in...so they would throw it in whenever they could. She then said "What's the point of asking them questions then if they're gonna say whatever they want? When you want to know something, you ask us questions and if we start talking about totally different, you ask us to keep on task. She never did that." (She being the moderator.)

My opinion on the debates: Round One - Romney, Round Two - Obama.

The side who blames the moderator is probably not the winning side. And the side who doesn't hang around to sign autographs (and slinks off into the night to lick their wounds) is probably not the winning side. Just guessing.

The people who really lost are the american people since third party presidential candidates, who are going to be on the ballot, were not allowed to join the national debate. The presidential candidate for the green party was arrested outside the building where the debate was being held because she sat down and refused to go away. She wanted to make a statement about what kind of choice we're all really being presented with, and it barely made a blip in the news.

If you aren't backed by a corporate sponsor, you don't get a golden ticket to debate.

Obama won. Romney lost any women on the fence with the folders and the "I let a lady go home early to cook once." stuff. Whenever he tries to look sincere and in touch with women or poor people, it doesn't play well. Neither candidate seems to answer the other properly. They're operating on different facts. Obama answered every energy question perfectly, and Romney just insisted he was lying and vice versa. Romney did not appear knowledgeable about the middle east simply by harping on the delayed intelligence issue again and again. He still did that press release that was immature and unprofessional. Plus, Ryan's stance on middle east stuff and lack of specific answers in his debate was way too scary if he was to be left in charge.

Huh, funny, CNN called it a good debate on the part of both, but gave the edge to Obama.

I think the major loser tonight was the town hall format. The 2 min each, then 1 min of time to "share" for back and forth was horrendous. Neither candidate shared the 1 min.

The questions were shallow, predictable, and so were the answers. I think the first debate should be a town hall, and then the second should be more structured.

The lack of any foreign policy, other than the Lybia question and the traditional China jabs, was pretty bad.

I would also call it a draw. Strong performances from both candidates. I did wish that Obama had directly answered the question about whether or not the administration denied requests for increased security the day of the embassy attack in Libya. That seemed like a dodge to me and I really wanted to hear a clear answer. From Romney I had to laugh at the dodge on pay equity for women - as long as you're home by 5 getting dinner on the table it doesn't matter if you're paid less? But honestly, I enjoyed watching and thought they both looked energetic and well prepared.

One thing that I will find very interesting is, if he wins, watching Romney handle the GOP once he's in office. He's definitely not as conservative as the rest of the party so I have a feeling that if he were elected, he could easily be run out by the more ultra-conservative powers of his own party after one term.

ETA: I wish that Obama had taken a stronger stance on that nightmare of an oil pipeline from Canada. Blocking that was one of the administration's victories and he should be proud of it.

I can't even tell fact from spin anymore, on either side.
Both parties will claim victory, and find "evidence" to support it.
I can't wait for this election to be over. I used to get pumped during election season but the past several years are leaving me jaded.
Both parties/candidates have serious issues with staying on target, and telling the truth.
Maybe that's how it's always been (?) and I'm just now seeing the light. I don't know, but I'm not feeling hopeful, no matter who gets elected.
I just hope the wacko republicans who don't believe in science are voted out of congressional/senate office soon, those guys scare me more than anything else :(

A Draw? Clearly your political leanings are swaying your opinion.

Twitches Too...

I didn't watch it. I decided to spend time with the kids. I didn't really feel like hearing the same bs all over again...from either side.