Posted on 10/17/2012 10:29:27 AM PDT by lbryce
When the evening began, one observation dominated the conversation: “If President Barack Obama has another debate like the last one, the election’s over.”
When the evening ended, I was struck by a different thought: If Obama had performed this way at the first debate, the election would have been over.
In every debate, whatever the format, whatever the questions, there is one and only one way to identify the winner: Who commands the room? Who drives the narrative? Who is in charge? More often than not on Tuesday night, I think, Obama had the better of it.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I don’t think Obunghole won.
Don’t know what debate the writer watched, but it wasn’t the one I saw. obama had a couple of good moments. But Romney was terrific and looked like someone who is capable of solving our fiscal problems. The anger on obama’s face also demonstrated his inability to deal w/disagreement.
Hopefully debates at a presidential level are about more than who can best master the art of buffalo — facts, even those verified outside the forum, matter.
As usual, Yahoo commenters are reliable to tear down these so-called journalists.
Of course the left feeeeeels that bongo won - he stuck to his talking points and was (almost) as disruptive as Bidet was.
All bongo brought to the “debate” was his boilerplate talking points. If pressed to explain or substantiate he deflected or blathered. Since that’s the default MO of the left they naturally interpret it as a successful campaign.
I submit that the audience was not amused.
B) the election was over the minute a majority of Americans had a chance to see & hear Romney without the media filter.
I don't think either "won" the debate, more like a draw, with a slight edge to Romney because he scored on some good points, plus he took on Obama AND the moderator, who did everything she could to steer the debate for Obama's benefit. She was even arguing against Romney at one point.
One thing I am getting sick of is the constant pressing on Romney for details. Where is Obama's details? What, on some website somewhere? He gives even more vague answers than Mitt yet no one calls him out on it.
No wonder they like Obama so much, given a choice, they always pick a loser just like dear leader.
Well Jeff in order for you to have thought Obama won is you accepted all his lies as facts. Based on truths Mitt won going away.
Why doesn't anyone at the GOP speak up about it? It is quite doable to create some sort of penalty process against moderators who are hardly moderate in their favoritism towards left-wing candidates.
They should insist on a 50-50 conservative/commie moderator split. All commie moderators really sucks.
If by winning Greenfield means Obama was able to get away with his many lies, then I guess Obama won. But I doubt he got away with them. In fact, I’ll bet the studio audience knew he was lying about Libya and probably sensed he was lying about a number of other issues. The Luntz focus groups tend to prove that. As far as overall presentation Romney came off much better. Who appeared to sell himself and his ideas for the future better: Romney or Obama? I’d say Romney looked and sounded much more knowledgeable and confident to tv viewers than Obama.
I beg to differ.
Greenfield used to write for The National Lampoon, as did P J O’Rourke. Now that he’s become a leftist hack, Greenfield’s bio doesn’t mention this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.