Tonight's guests:
- Dan Rather, anchor and managing editor of "Dan Rather Reports" on AXS TV
- Jonathan Alter, Bloomberg View columnist, MSNBC political analyst and author of “The Promise: President Obama, Year One”
And here's executive producer Bill Wolff with a special guest with a look at tonight's show (All jokes aside, this is actually a pretty good look at how the show comes together. All of a sudden a new detail or a new story or a new idea and the whole show can be overhauled.) [Also, soundtrack.]:
Leave a Comment:
Obama knew exactly what he was doing. He was setting Romney up for Round 2 where the audience will be larger and comparisons can be made without the possibility of any acceptable refutation. If he had challenged Romey on every turn of his BS, the debate would still be going on! So he just let Romney rave on!
Ahh, another 11th-level chest theorist. I'm sorry Narvick, I support Obama, and I was very impressed with the DNC this year. But Obama didn't fail this one on purpose. I don't even blame him - how do you prepare for your opponent to abandon every position he's touted for the last year? That was an incredibly good strategy on Romney's part, but luckily for us, I'm pretty sure it was a one trick pony.
Obama's going to nail him in the second debate, I think. Not because he planned to, but because he knows the game now. I also feel like the president didn't have skin in the game before; Romney's campaign has been a joke from day one. Obama's campaign has been running like a well oiled machine. So when he got on stage, he figured he could cruise through it, without paying attention to what Romney's strategy was. If the president is as smart as I think he is, he's going to come to the next debate prepared for anything - right up to Romney getting into his face and calling him racial slurs.
Agreed! The more I think about it the more I remember that Pres. Obama is always playing the long game. For him this is chess, not checkers. Think about how the Bush tax cut expiration, payroll tax cut expiration and the "fiscal cliff" are all lined up now. I believe Pres. Obama and the Dems are holding ALL the cards going into those negotiations.
My other thought about Pres. Obama and the debate is how weirded-out I always get, at first, when I'm watching a baseball game and they walk a batter and load the bases - only to strike out the next batter.
@Cokehead
Cute, but specious at best.
Take a look at the past, say, six presidential "first debates" before Obama's. Incumbents (sans the indubitable Pres. Clinton) have always lost. Bush lost to Gore. Reagan lost to Mondale. Et cetera.
Good thing we had a President Gore and President Mondale! /sarcasm
You did get a few things right, namely: Obama is going to nail Willard in the second round. Not "by accident" or because of some cosmic alignment or what have you, but because, as Narvick stated and as history dictates, Romney set himself up for failure.
Obama knows what type of slimy beast he's dealing with. It's only a matter of where to push and what to stab.
Anyways, love your show Rachel!
Just keep telling your self that fantasy! It is embarrassing how ignorant you and the other people are that feel that way!
@TDY255 Anyone who has followed the campaign thusfar is well aware that Romney shook his etch-a-sketch right there in front of us, on national TV. Even if the American public were totally devoid of any memory of his past statements, multiple videos exist of him proudly presenting the very set of ideas and policies Obama made numerous references to and they are freely available online to remind us. But now suddenly none of that is supposed to count any longer?
Every day, he and his campaign demonstrate that they honestly believe the rules don't apply to them. How can anyone possibly trust anything this man ever says again? I feel personally insulted by his absolute disregard of fair play and his assumption of superiority to the other 98% (or even 47%, if we want to be generous). Why don't you?
I concur with this explanation..You're one of the only people saying this..and I believed this from the get go...Just look at his change in tone during the rally in Colorado the next morning..the contrast in his level of energy..and his responses to some of Mitt's assertions made during the debate were in stark contrast to his, quiet, passive, non confrontational demeanor on debate night...It got people talking..It astounded and upset his supporters but didn't change their support..If anything it energized it.. .those in his corner who thought he was tired, intimidated, or weak would naturally want to protect him...his supporters rallied around him and defended him against Mitt's lies...It made them pay special attention to the numerous inconsistencies in Romney's statements....He gave Mitt free reign to spew his nonsense...like walking away from everything he's been proposing for the past eighteen months.and lying about Obama's proposals.. Mitt came in swinging, but also took full advantage of Obama's hesitation to punch back.....He was like the bully in the schoolyard...Only Mitt became the real victim...the victim of a clever political strategy meant to confuse and confound Obama's contender.. and it worked.. ..Thanks for validating my suspicions...I believe this passive (or passive-agressive) debate style of Obama's was contrived..a clever political stragegy without a doubt.
Inquiring minds want to know more about the NO PANTS RULE.
Srsly.
Sort of an amazing mental visual I'm having right now, supplied by subway riders in NYC.
I'm pretty sure the rule is that Rachel is not permitted to wear blue jeans on the set when she has to stand up during a segment. Then she has to wear dress pants (she also takes out her contacts the second the show is over).
She apparently also has to follow the fight club rule as well--you do not talk about the no pants rule!
Yes, but wouldn't boxers be EPIC?
That's the most obvious explanation of the rule, but if that was the case, I'd expect the show's producer to be aware of it.
Last night Mitt Romney showed just what how rude and arrogant he is. He was rude to both President Obama and the moderator. He should have been told to be quiet on more than one occasion last night.
As a corporate escapee, I'm sad to see management nix the jeans.
It's those small touches that make the mood of TRMS unique.
And more proof that corporations take the fun out of EVERYTHING.
Last night during the debate Mitt Romney was rude to both President Obama and the moderator of the debate. There is no excuse for that, you can disagree without being rude.
President Obama is someone I'd gladly invite into my home seems like the kind of person you can have a reasonable conversation with even if you disagree, Mitt Romney not so much.
Unbelievable misinterpretation or bias thought of the debate. What about Obama saying he had 5 more seconds and then rambles on for another minute. Get a life!
Being rude ANONYMOUSLY on the internet, TDY255? Get a life!
Rachel, dear Rachel, I'm having harder and harder time watching your shows which I used to love. Repeating the same point 10 different ways for 15 minutes may fill up time, but it becomes hard to follow. Make one feel like in church, not that I've ever attended one. If it's hard to fill the time, maybe just invite more people and let them talk.
I don't remember the numbers that Romney used last night but they don't seem to make sense. Wasn't it 3% of small businesses have 50% of employees under 250,000 and 25% of all employees? That seems like an awful lot of employees for such a small number of small businesses. Of course, the Koch brothers are considered small business too because they're the only owners. Small business isn't always as it sounds.
Chick is a goof ball !! I tune in to watch her silly crazy spin !!
Her spin is embarrassing - how stupid and ignorant the people are that believe this biased garbage!
What is she saying that is biased and what is she spinning and how is it so embarrassing?
I wouldn't even bother asking for an explanation, Cartoonthenews....generalization..no substance..no logic in TDY255's comment is pretty typical.... anyone who would make these kinds o generic statements is the opposite of Rachael Maddow.. intelligent..factual..logical.. If it makes sense, apparently it's "spin."
I love Rachel but last night with Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews was different. I actually threw the remote across the room.
Tonight just a few moments ago she mentioned "bed wetters" in relation to those on the left that are beside themselves about the debate. The real "bed wetters" last night was Rachel, Ed and Chris. Who knows how many votes they cost the President.
Rachel, Ed and Chris you go on and on with your rant - I thank you for helping Mitt with your garbage.
Mitt doesn't need any help...His own garbage is giving him all the "help" necessary.
I love Rachel but the real "bed wetters" she was talking about is herself, Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz. There's no telling how many votes they cost the president.
It's just that true!
Rachel you threw in the towel last night for Obama. This election is far from over and Romney is going to screw up again. There is to much going on with this guy and his lies and being a phony about taking care of the middle class are the start. He wants no middle class, just a two class society. To him he forgets who built this country. His dad must be stirring in his grave. George at least had a heart. If Romney gets in I guess I will shoveling horse @!$%# at Anns stables for $9.00 and hour as there won't be any other jobs. Also you have to slow down your speech. To fast for me and would like to hear what you say so I can critique you. So be careful what you say as I will be back.
Rachel...give the man a break. He is running the country...as well as running for President. He is not an attack dog with debate coaches at his side daily...teaching him exactly what to say and how to say it to win the election to get more tax breaks for the rich and improve the "trickle up" mentality of the Republican party ideology.
Rachael in your presidential debate rundown tonight you left out some important information, why? In your elaborate history of presidential televised debates, particularly first debates you left out some very relevant information that I can’t imagine you are unaware of. In the 1980 debates between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, the Reagan team had the benefit of having the stolen debate preparation notes of then President Carter, notes that were then available to Ronald Reagan’s practice debate partner, representing Jimmy Carter, columnist George Will. Even though the Reagan team was substantially ahead in the polls, they nevertheless accepted the purloined debate notes and sought to profit from them. When it came out later after the election this incident became known as Debategate. Of course this is just another incident of when elites conspire in this way it is just a “scandal” but if you or I did it we would be facing criminal prosecution. Nevertheless your leaving this information out of a lengthy report of who won or lost does presidential debates does not comport with what this viewer and longtime listener expects of Rachael Madow, particularly since younger
viewers may not be aware of this historical information, so what’s up? Who is doing your research?
Last night I was excited..no, gleeful about the Presidential Debate which was televised last night. When it was over however, I felt as if I had fallen into a "Tim Burton" style video.
Why? These are a few of the items I found most distasteful and dishonest. I will keep the list short.
1) It's hard to watch something when one side,which I will call the GOP side, had recently decided (within 24 hours of the debate time) to change every last platform plank, opinion and public remarks in their platform.
2) Even more so when the side (once again, GOP) abandoned all of its' prior views for a quilt of stitched together platitudes.
3) Was it really a coincidence how the Romney camp celebrated, much like the Seattle Sea hawks did after that bad referee call against the Packers?
It will be interesting to see what the Romney folks bring to the table for the next Presidential Debate. When the truth is not included in the parameters of one's debate strategy it really opens up quite a few alternatives that can be used.
The only problem with the next debate - Candy Crowley who is a Republican so again we'll watch her licking the Republicans @!$%# off of their shoes just as she did when Bush ran and won in 2004. She couldn't hide her politics if she tried!
I don't know if the Democrats or the Republicans started the practice of transference. But everything the Democrats say or have said about Bush or Romney or Republicans is now being said by them about the Obama campaign. For example, the Romney campaign is saying things like the president is "lazy", "tired", "uninterested", terms used to describe Bush. Romney is saying "trickle down government", the long held view of failed Reagan economic policy. In addition, if someone of consequence doesn't publicly call out Sununu as a jerk and a jackass they don't deserve to be on the airwaves.
Rachael in your presidential debate report tonight you left out some important information, why? In your elaborate history of presidential televised debates, particularly first debates you left out some very relevant information that I can’t imagine you are unaware of. While your report was replete with caveats concerning debate outcomes, somehow you left out this one. In the 1980 debates between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, the Reagan team had the benefit of having the stolen debate preparation notes of then President Carter, notes that were made available to Ronald Reagan’s practice debate partner, representing Jimmy Carter, columnist George Will. Even though the Reagan team was substantially ahead in the polls, they nevertheless accepted the purloined debate notes and sought to profit from them. When it came out later this incident became known as Debategate. Of course this is just another example of when elites conspire in this way it is just a “scandal” but if you or I did it we would be facing criminal prosecution. Nevertheless your leaving this information out of a lengthy litany of who won or lost presidential debates does not comport with what this viewer and longtime listener expects of Rachael Madow, particularly since younger viewers
may not be aware of this historical information, so what’s up? Who is doing your research?
Even Romney's "zinger" about the president not being entitled to his own facts was a re-hashed paraphrasing of another politician's (can't recall whom) original line, "...you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts."
Stand up for Big Bird and Elmo! We just got back from our OFA.WY call group. We call people in CO. There are only about seven of us at most. Almost all of the people we talked to are more committed than ever to vote for Pres. Obama because of the lies Romney told last night. They're even contributing. We just call to see if they're committed to vote for the President and if they're registered and if they have time to volunteer. We don't ask for money. We made 400 calls. It was more fun tonight than ever before and took longer because people wanted to vent. Stay strong Obama supporters. Voters are smarter than the Rs think we are. :)
That is GREAT news.
If I were President Obama I would show up at the next debate and every time that Romney lied, he would say, "Let's go to the video." and then proceed to show Romney on the campaign trail saying the exact opposite of what he just said. No better way to show the world what a liar he is than having the damning video evidence.
I can't believe the Pennsylvania election officials responsible for misleading the public - those lucky scoundrels. They got called on and booked by TRMS's State of Corrections. Perhaps I should toss out ethics and try my hand at being sneaky...
Obama knew very well the importance of this sensationalized national exposure. I for one am shocked that most everyone who covered the debate on TV just jumped to the conclusion that President Obama blew it! I really don't believe he did and I'd like to offer a different perspective.
Over the last four years I've learned that President Obama is incredibly smart, competitive, pragmatic, prepared; he operates on many levels and has a naturally flexible and insightful worldview. I believe he was totally prepared and "on his game" last night.
It is common knowledge that Romney has been studying intensely for months, especially these last few weeks, every second. I think Obama was quick to figure out that Romney had been coached and scripted for every possible strike Obama could give. I don't think Obama would give Romney the satisfaction of playing into Romney's pre-existing expectation of throwing out a zinger or a quotable sound bite at Obama's expense. Thus, Obama's perhaps amenable willingness to thwart a Romney counter attack was the reason he seemed passive.
In 2008 Obama spent so much of his debate time correcting McCain's "Misinformation" it leads me to believe he might have made a decision to allow Mitt to give himself enough rope to hang himself with his inevitable lies. Obama knew that the fact checkers were there at the debate in full force (to fact check his own self!) I applaud President Obama and am proud of his efforts to give us honest answers and focus on his plans for the next 4 years.
He lost this 15 round debate by TKO!
Am I the only person who thought Mitt looked like a deer in the headlights last night? Yes, he was aggressive and on his game, albeit lying, but there was this frightened look behind the pasted-on smile. He may be equally scared of losing AND the prospect of winning and actually being President. He must know he will be the pawn of the tea party if he wins. As for Obama, I think he was unprepared for a guy to act in such a bazaar manner and change all his positions. Not giving Obama much slack because he did too many things wrong but he has to pull it together now. They don't call it a race for nothing - it's not over til it's over.
You are so misguided and obviously out of touch with the reality of the obvious.
Obviously out of touch with the obviousness of obvious!
Apparently TDY's word of the day was obvious
Rachel, please find another outside commentator, other than Rather. He's interesting but laudability, is long past given his missteps with W and CBS.
I find myself in disagreement with his pronouncements, saged as they appear and have more faith in Lawrence O'Donnell's magic touch.
Find someone else, perhaps Moyers to use as a sounding board.
Just 'sayin.
Also, why has the White Horse Prophecy not made the rounds in this cycle?
Oh, Rachel, Rachel, Rachel... Using 15 minutes to cover the history of First Debates was such a waste of your (and my) time and brain. You could've summarized it in 2 minutes and then said, "Don't worry, Democrats."