The reason Crowley corrected him was because she was there, in the Rose Garden when Obama made the remarks. She corrected him because she knew Romney was wrong.
From my earlier prediction:
My snapshot from this debate was Romney, strutting forward, chin out and ready for attack, jumping on the fact that Obama never said it was a terrorist act. He was poised for the knockout punch and suddenly had the wind taken out of him by Obama and Crowley when they said that no, Obama had indeed stated it was an act of terror.
You could see Romney’s body language just itching to throw that punch, but shot down and royally pissed. At that point, for me at least, Romney came across as the asshole CEO boss who didn’t like to be told he was wrong and somebody was damned well going to pay and be fired for this screw up.
If I were coaching Obama for the next debate, I would try to find a way to get Romney riled again on any number of points. Mitt doesn’t handle being caught in a lie well. He is slick, and can twist facts quickly, but when he is actually forced to admit/hear something he has said is wrong, he gets visibly tense and defensive. I am obviously not a fan of Romney, but there is a mean, vindictive streak in him that I did not know he had. I would do my best to get that to show up again in the final debate.
I’m sure you think so. I’m also sure you think last night’s debate was a bad one, and that Obama’s devastating remarks to Romney’s blatent lies were bad responses, and that his presidency is also a bad one.
But, your value judgments aside, you’re not doing much to support any of your cases.
I don’t feel like digging through the transcript, but here is a decent opinion column headlines on Drudge today that sums it up.
It goes on to give more specific examples.
But this is all qualitative . The quantitative evidence is even more damning. She interrupted Romney 26 times and Obama only nine times, despite the fact that Obama spoke 9% more and was almost always given the last word.
If you have two kids and one is well-behaved and the other throws paint on the walls, do you give them both a time-out?
The YouTube video was mentioned in the initial reporting.
From the front page of The New York Times, September 13, 2012:
Also:
And:
Now, when I turned the page to A14 on that Thursday, and finished reading about the 14-minute American-made video, my :dubious: meter when up. But then I put the headline and the article in context and realized something.
Wrong! The administration said “it was clearly a complex attack”. Reporters actually interviewed the attackers (some take issue with that..) and the attackers referred the reporters to the YouTube video. So in the days after the attack, the attack was described as complex. What more do you want? Coordinated? Contrived? Calculated? WTF!
Holy shit!! She actually picked questions asking about Romney’s tax plan?? How colossally unfair to poor Mitt! I can see why you’re so upset now.
Of course it was. Even many Obama supporters acknowledge that Crowley at the vary least overstepped her bounds. It was overwhelmingly biased and that is the whole narrative today, rather than the substance of the debate. How is that not a failure?
I wouldn’t go so far as calling them “devastating” but I do agree that Obama had a good night and was on top of his game, so you are wrong on this one.
It’s not as bad as I thought it would be, but overall I’d say he was better than I hoped in some areas and bad in others. I judge him on each issue on the merits.
I know you wish the few of us that are still here that disagree with you would just leave and have this be another Democratic Underground. Sorry. Not going to happen. Today anyway.
In their defense, that was about the third time that Romney had drug the debate into a “nah, ah… that ain’t true”, “is so true!”, “nah ha..” type of exchange. Then he’d pulled that condescending “I just want to get that on the record” trying to make Obama repeat something… then just as he turned around all smug about to say something more, she cut him off at the knees and, really… who was expecting that? It was a bit Monty Python-esque, so I don’t begrudge them their momentary loss of composure.
The “act of terror” thing was a fail for Romney not just because he was wrong (and once again came across as someone who politicizes national tragedy in the pettiest ways possible). He also came across as weak and uncertain in his accusation, especially after Crowley contradicted him.
From the transcript:
Am I the only one whose ears homed in on this note of diffidence? My first thought on hearing this was “How are you going to accuse the President of failing to say something appropriately, and not be 100% confident that you’re correct in this characterization? That is not confident leadership. You going to call someone out on someone, be right and know you’re right.”
To me, Romney didn’t perform all that differently than he did in the 1st debate. He continued to disrespect the moderator and the rules of the debate. His tendency to lead with “I don’t” or “I didn’t say that” or “I’m not in favor of” rather than strong, positive, assertive statements such as “As president, my administration will do X, Y, and Z” made him look just as defensive and insecure to me as he did in the 1st debate. He made more gaffes this go around, but he struck me as being less agitated. Being able to pace a little probably helped his nerves. He still tried to bully, though. Seemed forced, like he’d been coached into adopting this debating style recently.
What was different this time was that Obama was crisper and more concise. More alert and focused. You didn’t see the wheels turning in his brain as much. He did a better job attacking the things Romney said during the actual debate rather than addressing what Romney had said at previous times. There was less rattling off strings of numbers and more plain language assertions. The same calmness and level-headedness that he showed in the 1st debate was present in this one, but it was received better because he sounded more eloquent this go around.
The fact that the undecideds appear a bit undecided on who won this debate should not surprise anyone. Their house could be on fire and they’d be unsure as to whether to evacuate.
So cherry picking one part of a single poll = tied.
Gotcha.
He unambiguously called it an act of terror the day after it happened. Do you disagree? If so, look at my post above where I explain all about topic sentences.
An act of terror is a terrorist attack. Do you disagree? If so, why?
He said at the debate he’d called it an act of terror in that speech. Do you disagree? If so, lemme show you the transcript.
Romney said he hadn’t. Do you disagree?
The moderator corrected Romney.
There’s nothing ambiguous in this chain of events. Romney unambiguously screwed up the facts.
Now, you might say that Obama should have used that language more, and that’s a legitimate subject of debate: that’s your opinion, to which you’re entitled. The other thing, though, facts–well, it’s well-known whether you’re entitled to your own set of them.
I’m not sure what the Republicans are trying to insinuate over the Terror/not terror issue. Obama doesn’t look any better if it was “simply” a mob that got out of control. In fact, security efforts would be much more indicted if they were overrun by an “angry mob” instead of a military style attack. Everyone rallies around a president who is in office during a terrorist attack. If Obama was truly playing politics he would have condemned the “act of terror” daily for a few weeks. Instead, “it was clearly a complex attack.” Just like the real world, full of complexity.
Well don’t plan on getting that from Romney. As much as he’d like everyone to believe he was responsible for it, he wasn’t
Back in the good ol’ days when gas was $1.86/gallon :rolleyes:
Think Progress documents 31 Romney “myths” in 41 minutes.
Myths is a polite way to say it. And I would argue that they missed some.
I guess CNN was trying to rewrite reality when they published this on Sept. 21st?
The intelligence community claims that they informed Washington within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack. Yet, the administration sent Susan Rice out to all the Sunday shows claiming there was no evidence of a “man made disaster”.
That’s a bad response to my post.
See how unsatisfying it feels to be told that somethng is “bad” now? It’s just a waste of everyone’s time to tell each other the previous post was “bad.” Hope you can agree that specifying the perceived flaw is more conducive to anything resembling a conversation.
Maybe. I think 30% of so of people in the polls thought he won, and I bet a lot of them were democrats. But I can concede this point for the sake of argument if it makes you happy.
Here’s where you go off the rails.
I didn’t say that “Democrats considered the first debate a tie.”
I said this:
“Those of you who thought Obama decisively won: I bet you thought he tied the last one and were surprised by the results.”
First of all I’m saying “I bet” clearly indicating it’s an opinion.
Secondly, I’m addressing “Those of you” meaning the posters here on the SDMB and not all democrats.
Third, I’m not saying all of the posters here think that, just that the ones who’s bias led them to believe that Obama dominated this debate are likely the same ones who were genuinely surprised to see he lost the last one.
I posted a link to a thread on the subject to show that such people do exist, and even started a thread about it which is still on page one of the elections forum.
Clear now?
I’m trembling in my boots.
Do ya think that just might have been because Romney was not playing by the rules and NEEDED interrupting? Or in your world, can Romney just do whatever the hell he want’s because… what? Jim Lehrer let him get away with it last time? Because he’s a CEO and therefore the boss?
On this point, I agree completely. Romney’s attack could have been a solid one, but he lacked focus and appeared not to have his facts straight.
It was sloppy.