What a difference 12 days makes.
I never bought into the notion that President Obama needed to crush Mitt Romney in their second debate, effectively forcing the Republican to flee from the stage in tears. What the president needed to do was show some genuine fight -- for his supporters, for his agenda, for his record, for reality, and ultimately, for his job.
Obama did all of that and then some last night, delivering the best debate performance of his career in national politics. Take his final response of the night, for example.
The question was fairly straightforward: "What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate?" Obama offered a spirited defense of his vision of government, but just as important, he used it to pivot to a devastating critique of Romney's controversial "47 percent" video.
The president hadn't brought up the recording in the first debate, and let it go by without mention last night, right up until the very end, leaving Romney no chance to respond. I half-expected Obama to drop the mic when he was done.
For more than 90 minutes, the president reminded voters why they'd elected him in the first place, giving supporters who started drifting away two weeks ago a reason to return home. The mistakes Obama made two weeks ago -- the hesitancy, the stumbling, the uncertainty -- were gone, replaced with a forceful president, ready to make a passionate appeal for a second term.
Mitt Romney, who won fairly easily two weeks ago, was an equally clear loser last night. It's not that he was awful -- the former governor continues to have an impressive ability to regurgitate the script he's memorized -- but he was simply outclassed and overpowered by a fired up, well prepared president. We'll explore some of the key issue areas throughout the morning, but Romney's performance was marked by evasiveness, dishonesty, belligerence, and missed opportunities. It's almost as if he expected the same lackluster president who showed up two weeks ago to reappear, and was caught flat-footed when Obama beat him badly.
In Denver, Obama had the substance on his side, but Romney's style carried the day. Last night, it was the president who excelled in both. Republicans thought one more dominating Romney performance would make him the frontrunner with 20 days to go. Instead, it's Obama who bounced off the ropes.
At a certain level, it's odd to think a 90-minute forum, after years of governing and months of campaigning, would significantly affect the race, but I don't think it's an exaggeration to say Obama's chances of winning a second term are noticeably better this morning than they were 24 hours ago.
Leave a Comment:
Obama did not throw punches but laid a blanket over the head of the snake. He was open and forthright rather than brutal. Mitt has no idea how to be civil or diplomatic. All Mitt knows is how to lie cheat and steal(and pout).
Lie & cheat - 4 DEAD in Libya
I presume you have a point, Jesus? And, BTW, 14 died in Bengazi. 10 Libyans died defending the Americans. That should give you some idea of the scale of the attack.
If your main concern is the economy and your stupid enough to believe that this president offers the best leadership for economy you dont deserve a job.
Absolutely!
@Jeff Sepp: When making future posts regarding other people's intelligence, probably best to learn the difference between "your" and "you're." #justsayin
Denver was a bitter anomaly. THe president came back with an energetic and blistering evisceration of Mitt Romney and his narrow list of proposals that would destroy America. There is no way anyone could score the debate as anything but a solid victory for the president and a setback for Mitt. Romney returned to his usual style of gaffes, awkwardness and verbal pratfalls. He looked small, weak and petulant in stalking after Obama on stage and getting his facts wrong multiple times. The lasting image of this night will be Romney getting smacked down for a lie by the moderator, losing his footing and losing the debate in one excruciating moment. Obama has seized the momentum again. - - progressive
I agree. I think it's safe to say expect Candy Crowley to be attacked for the next few days over how she handled the role of moderator, especially for the correction she did to Romney's inaccurate claim. Personally, I'd like to see her handle all the debates.
I don't see a whole lot of attack, but even she admitted Mitt Romney was in the right on Libya.
just so you know.... Candy Crowley has already owned up for her mistake. Something the president will never do. Libya will be a hot ticket item on the final debate, and Bob Schiefer won't go so easy on the president.
It's a Bucket List day for me! Obama is appearing at Cornell College in Iowa this morning, and I was invited by the campaign to be one of a few volunteers who get to meet with the President. It will be a brief meeting with photos, but I'm elated to know that I will shake his hand and say to him in person "Well done, Mr. President!"
And I'm officially jealous...Can I come with you please...sniff, snifff...
Pass on the "well done!" from all of us at the Maddow Blog too!! :-)
Tell him you are speaking for millions of us.
Well, I'm back. What an awesome experience! My time with the President was brief; basically shook his hand, he gave me a man-hug, and I said (as promised) "Nice job last night Mr. President," we smiled for the camera, and as I walked away I told him we're going to keep pushing these next 3 weeks to get him re-elected.
So all you - get out there, knock on doors, make phone calls. GET OUT THE VOTE. Every vote matters. In 2004, John Kerry lost by an average of 2 votes per precinct. Don't think that our efforts don't make a difference. They do.
KJ
I hope you get a copy of the photo and post it here for us so we can live vicariously through you.
Obama reminded voters why they elected him four years ago, connecting the dots from the progress made to his vision for the next four years. He tied Romney to Bush, and even managed to paint him as more conservative than Bush. He called Romney on the carpet for every lie, with solid facts and near-flawless delivery.
Barak threw elbows. Mitt got hurt.
"Regurgitate the script" a wonderful turn of phrase. That's all he has , that's all any of them have, talking points , not ideas. My 5 point plan , MyTax Plan ...I have a theory and my theory is , that is to say, the theory is all mine and I have a theory.
Go pound sand Mitt
Ann Elk for President! :-)
You can tell how "low-information" the undecided voters were who thought Romney would be better on the economy. All he did was repeat "I know how to fix the economy" and "I have a five point plan" without ever saying how he would do it or mentioning what the five points are. If that's enough to convince you, I hope the Nigerian spammers don't have your email address!
Don't forget the SixStudies, Redshift.
Herding cats is a piece o' cake, compared to the job of POTUS. It is a wonder that anything positive gets done, with the group of elected 'morons' in congress, all trying to feather their own nests, while denying same to members of the opposite party.
So, every four years we chose a POTUS, "Hoping" for "Change". Some vote along party lines- unthinking, just pull the R or D lever. About an equal number don't bother to vote at all.
That leaves a small number of easily swayed folks, who go for style rather than substance. The ones who watch "Reality TV" and believe it is reality. Last night they liked the Black Guy. But, like Chinese food, the 'thrill that runs up their legs' is a fleeting one, and Americans and small children are not known for a lengthy attention span. Maybe the TV commercials do serve a purpose, after all.
I don't understand why Romney supporters are angry with Candy Crowley over her fact-check of the Benghazi remarks. She actually saved him. It was obvious by his body-language and facial expression that he thought he had "got" the President. It is very plausible that had she not interjected, that Romney would have carried on that attack and ended up looking even worse on the topic than he did.
I really don't think so. He got his ass smacked on live, national television, and by a woman, of all things. I'm guessing that had to hurt a LOT. After all, women are only good for storing in binders and getting home early so they can cook dinner, not for talking back to Mitt Romney.
If he had continued to ramble on he would have probably left thinking he'd done a good job on the topic and his supporters would have "Yes, sir"-ed him into thinking they had a brand new talking point to beat Obama over the head with. Crowley shut him down for good on that one, and I'm thinking Obama shut him down pretty handily on the "your pension is invested in China" thing, so that's not just one but two talking points in the dirt as of this morning.
Agreed, Freddie.
Most of the casual viewers are not as "down in the weeds" as we all are, and last night may have been the first time they got to see Mitt, live and unscripted.
I think it was inappropriate for Crowley to interject her thoughts at that moment. It only interrupted the tempo of the debate. She later generally agreed with Romney. The admin had, until recently, been digging a bigger ditch for itself. As more info has come up, it is becoming clear the initial story of a tape inspired riot was wrong. To throw intel under the bus is foolish since now we know the State Dept was hearing real time what was happening.
Tom- I'd refer you to the NYT the last couple of days, as their reporting has shown that the people that they interviewed on the ground said that the protests originally were because of the video.
Tom, you are so right. In that chaotic place with all factions involved it is not at all surprising it takes time to get facts , it does not happen instantly. Attempting to best Obama on foreign policy is ludicrous.
Tom -- to say she later "generally" agreed with Romney is extremely misleading. Crowley only agreed that the Obama administration did keep talking about the video being a factor, and in fact it's still unclear whether it was (as VeryVerySad points out.) She has not changed her statement that Obama talked about it as an "act of terror" the very next day, because that is plain fact.
Any one who has actually watched the tape of the Rose Garden comments by President Obama knows that it is simple fact: He called it an "act of terrorism". Those were his exact words and it IS on tape.
Anyone who says differently either is lying or is ignorant and hasn't bothered to find out the facts. NEITHER speaks well of a presidential candidate. Either Romney should have found out the facts or he should have told the truth. I don't care which is was; it speaks badly of him.
Ouch
Sorry iibs! CBS poll of debate watchers found it was a tight victory at best for Obama, but on the critical question of who best could handle the problems of the economy, Gov Romney had a 20 point lead over President Obama.
And for that question, and for the questions on the problems with our deficit, who best to handle taxes, and who best to handle health programs, Romney also led by large numbers over Obama in the CNN flash poll of registered voters that actually wached the debate. When it came to the question of who best to handle foregin affairs issues, Obama only eked out a 2 point lead over Gov Romney, most probably a statistical tie.
I doubt that either candidate did to much to influence the undecided vote, but mostly shored up support with their own bases last night. CNN asked the question in their poll, as to whether the debate changed anyone's decision to vote for either candidate, and 25% answered they were more inclined to vote for their candidate they were supporting before, and 48% stated no change.
Most notably, the hystetical issue the liberal media and Obama surrogates had been trying to drum up again, "abortion", did not even get a mention. Obviously, the liberals had been beating an already well dead horse there as the USA Today/Gallup Tracking poll and the ABC/Washington Post poll just recently released showed Romney having closed the gap in women voters support to a tie, or statistical tie nationwide. I suspect this is the last we hear on that dead issue.
CBS poll? Bwaahahhaa. What's next, you're going to cite one of R-Money's 'studies'?? Thanks for the laugh this morning.
Do you know if you stop listening to Druggie Rush and stop watching Faux Fake and BS Gnewz your IQ will go up by 10 in just 24 hours?
LOL, good one Phenner!
I have had the Privilege of meeting Bill Clinton four times during his presidency, and I always came away from it with knowing that if the man hadn't been president he would have been the single greatest car salesman in the history of the automobile. The man could sell anything and and the republicans hated him for it him for it.
I think that last night Obama simply reminded us all of what we already knew he is nothing less than a political Rock Star. He has the capacity to unite the democratic party and to give people a vision of what could be, and the republicans are scared to death of him.
Sadly rock stars have no substance, and sadly good salesmen are notorious for selling us something that we don't want or need. Good speeches don't fix problems. We have learned that over the last 4 years.
What do you think of marathon liars & flipfloppers?
No one likes liars and flipfloppers, that is why Obama has to go.
Four years of an empty chair filled with hot air is enough.
Mitt's veracity will be like a breath of fresh air after the last four years.
"Mitt's veracity"? Surely you jest. Really??? Now THAT is the funniest thing I've read this year. Romney has shown that he will say anything, anything at all, even things that he knows to be untrue in order to gain the office of President. That's your guy? He's an oily snakecharmer and anyone who truly believes that this guy has your best interests at heart deserves to get stuck with him. I just hope enough people are intelligent or interested enough to do their own research and vote the other way, because the rest of us don't deserve to be saddled with a condescending, arrogant, chauvinistic liar such as Romney.
I know Rachel lives in Massachusetts, just like I do. Would you please, PLEASE talk about Governor's Romney's record in Massachusetts? A record of absenteeism, his 800+ vetos and 700+ overrides and his dismal approval rating (48th out of 50 Govs when he left office). Why is the Obama campaign allowing him to get away with looking like the golden boy of MA when he is disliked in a very bipartisan manner here?
Because it would have taken another full hour of uninterrupted time for Mr. Obama to talk about all of Mr. Romney's mendacities.
Excellent point, but I would rather that Obama talked about those vetos/overrides! (He missed a chance last night, when Mitt bragged about his bi-partisan work as governor!)
So many lies & flip flops, so few days. Try Steve's list.
Glen Johnson reporting on boston dot com this morning was beyond awful. It read like a Faux News piece. He claims Romney 'stood his ground' and that Obama was 'evasive'. No mention of the instant fact check where Romney embarrassed himself with an incorrect challenge of Obama.
That fish smell beginning to hover above the things Mitt Romney utters in political tongue is beginning to take on a most pungent odor! Something is fishy in the policy proposals, campaign rhetoric and general demeanor of Mitt Romney, and I for one know just what to do with rotten fish! -Kevo
THERE IS NO CABINET IN MASSACHUSETTS! I dont know how he was using this so called binder of women for, but the Council is elected. The secretary of state is elected. The attorney general is elelcted. The Lieutenant Governor is elected. What was he talking about, HIS CABINET for. I am more confused by what Mitt Romney says than I have ever been.
Maybe he was waxing nostalgic about that time he took a trip to Rhode Island and had a milk shake!
You know when he was served by that studious college coed who had to look up from her binder to wait on him, ask him what flavor of ice cream sort of thing!
You know, one of Mitt's endless fool's errands!-Kevo
He confused looking for staff with looking for wives.
We all are & by the way, he did not answer the question.
I have a question. During the remarks made about energy, Mitt let it be known that he knew of the technology that exist in this country that could completly make us non-dependent on out side sources of energy. Yet he wants to build a useless oil pipeline from Canada. Can anyone confirm if thats what I heard?
I think he spoke of the pipline first while claiming that it would create 60,000 jobs.
Why then build a pipeline? Best to invest in our highways and bridges.
As Ann Romney said, "Stop it!'
rj4612, who gave you permission to THINK?
Besides, Canada needs the money, China needs the oil- and Mitt has investments over there!
I wish SOMEONE would ask these elected idiots how Canadian oil running down the middle of our country to be sold on the world market is going to help us be energy independent. And 60,000 jobs? Even the Canadian company says only a few thousand at best. Besides, most of the pipeline is already built, or how did they have that tar sand oil leak that they couldn't clean up already on our soil and water?
Phenner -- with the expansion of the military we will be able to annex Canada after which the Canadian oil supplies will be ours and will supply both the domestic and international markets. Plus the expanded military operations will allow for more military jobs. This allows for many and varied investment opportunities! 54 40 or fight!
No matter what he does, I just don't like Romney. Not that many months campaigning and he's convinced me that he's inauthentic, he's untrustworthy, and he's clearly invested Mitt Romney rather than in America.
I couldn't watch last night (I was working late) but chatting with $HERSELF this morning we've finally pinned down Romney's basic model. He's the salesman who lives by the dictum,
Or....a dick that lives by sales.
"Is separating the wheat from the chaff as easy as it sounds? How do ordinary citizens tell the difference? How do we try to make it real? Compared to what? …"
After all, there are only two things that float to the top: cream, and something vastly different in character than cream. But which is which?
Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/10/distinguishing-wheat-from-chaff.html
the President took a switch to Willard
hee hee hee
It's sad that that's true. The ignorance of that undecided focus group scares me.
The so-called focus group last night...
The one man who raised his hand, and says that Romney won the debate and would be voting for Romney.
He said he voted for Obama '08, yet he said he "always" vote Republican!?!?!
I look to the debates to give me a sense candidates' ability to bring facts, reasoning and persuasiveness to the table, knowing that 99% of the elected person's time will be spent in less public spaces. Obama brought that to the table last night.
It's disconcerting to me to imagine Romney flitting from point to point, loose on facts, in diplomatic settings. Or in tough negotiations with Congress. Or in guiding his speech writing team leading up to critical appearances.
I have a question, did mitt say that he knew of technology "right now" that could make us non-dependent on outside sources of energy (oil)? yet he endorsed building the oil pipeline from Canada. He mentioned the pipeline when he spoke of creating 60,000 jobs.
Can someone confirm this. If this is what I heard, then why bulid a pipeline from an ourside source? Better to invest in our roads and bridges?
By the way the reason mitt stubled on Libya, is that he started to believe his own press. For a minute he sounded like one of his own talking points and he tried to sell it to the viewers and failed.
I caught that too - You got it just as I remember, too. I thought Obama missed an opportunity to point out the unrealistic prospect of total energy independance, as well as chide Romney on the independance bit (Is Canada now part of the USA?)
Canada is not part of the USA, but I would much rather buy oil from them than support countries that breed terrorists that want to harm us. I would much rather send my money that direction when I purchase a gallon of gas.
You really don't have that choice. Canada's oil is owned by multinational companies who want to send it to refineries in Texas and then sell it on the world market. The U.S. does not get first dibs. We don't buy it from Canada at all.
They include Canada by saying "North America" in all the right spots, same as the oil company commercials. Mitt will start to say "this country" or "the US" and then correct himself. Check the transcript.
THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT
Romney believes that allowing a woman with a career go make dinner for her family is leveling the playing field? Seriously? The mere suggestion that's an equality issue faced by women in the workplace is astoundingly stupid.
Romney's a man who's believes that a woman's place is in the home, but he's also a political pragmatist aware of the demographics needed to become President. But rather than give up his sexist view of a woman's role, he's merely expanded it and given it a progressive twist: you can work and still be home in time to hand your husband his scotch, pipe and slippers. His version of 'women having it all' I guess. It's also a polished, focus-grouped attempt to hide your way of thinking because you want to become President.
I don't think Obama was the truthful one last night. Lots of mistruths. I don't think the needle moved at all last night. This election is going to come down to whether or not a person thinks the last four years brought some improvement to our country and if 4 more years of the same is what we need. Four years should have been plenty of time to put in effect policy to make changes. Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Obama falls into this category. Obama has an agenda. He is on a path that never waivers and never adjusts to situations that come up. He has stuck with the same old policies working or not. I did not hear ONE SINGLE statement that alluded to any changes, that alluded to the fact that maybe his ideas were not moving our country forward, or that maybe some things that he had tried maybe did not work. He believes that he can fool the American people into believing that everything is lovely.That leads me to believe that we will get 4 more years of the same. A Great leader is constantly evaluating progress and making adjustments. Admits when he made a mistake and that things did not work. Communicates what was wrong and how he would right it. Obama can only communicate that he needs four more years. To do what? What is his plan? How would he make changes to make things better? Either in his arrogance or ignorance he offers nothing new and different. I cannot stand four more years of the same. Our country will go down the tubes and we will have suffered 8 long years and who knows if we can ever recover from the debt and joblessness that we have now and will incur. Perhaps if he would offer any new ideas we could justify voting for him, but he does not. History has shown that recessions usually end themselves. Hopefully that will happen sooner than later. But Obama has gotten in the way of progress. To everyone: men, women, whites, blacks and hispanics,the huge concern should be jobs, the deficit and the debt. Where are his answers to that. More of the same? Our nation has watched the debt soar under Obama. It is time to tamp that down. Time to make a change.
First may you all go to www.thename.ph to read about the REAL God and the truth of Jesus. What I would like to say is that, maybe I am mistaken, the boat was on fire and sinking from neglegence from its captain. People were jumping off. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month, wall street was a disaster, the housing market collapsed as well as many banks, the auto industry went bankrupt and people were not spending money. 4 years later things are trending up now, and you are saying that he has failed? Failure would have meant the end of the US (which was much closer than people know). He spent money on bailouts (being paid back as we speak) and prevented a total and complete collapse. The great depression lasted how long? And not only that but the deficit is around the same as when he took office. I will concede that some things could have been done better, but seriously the boat is floating again and the Republicans know that Obama has set up the economy to start a major comback so they want the presidency to take the credit when it comes around. Obama took the criticism for so many things that he could have thrown people under the bus for but did not. THAT is a leader. Not someone who has an opinion one day that is changed when it doesn't resonate well. A LEADER does not hop back and forth between what he believes more than 5 times in less than a year. I was undecided, but Romney lost my vote when he showed that he is willing to put on any face to gain approval. What happens if he becomes president? Which Mitt will we get? And I am still waiting for the specifics on his plan LESS THAN A MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION. Sorry I am not ranting against you persay, but am very turned off by the way this election has played out.
Actually Obama has set us up for another recession, which will start between now and mid 2013. It will happen no matter who is president. At least with Romney we will come out of it.
@ILMG you are amusing though.
I agree with you jes33. I really don't understand how people can believe that we are better off now than 4 years ago.