Obama choked. Big time.

Dude, you got off easy

I realize Romney lied, over and over. I realize that the Democrats are trying to point that out, and the president is trying to spin his way out of it. And some people actually think Obama "won" the debate. But debates are about image as well as substance, about appearing confident and presidential -- and speaking in a way that reaches the average undecided voter. That means using stories and simplifying things and delivering information in an understandable, linear way. Romney did that, beautifully. Obama did not.

I kept trying to find reasons to think Obama was doing well, but after an hour or so it was like watching a bad boxing match where one of the fighters is so punch drunk you with the ref would just step in and end it. And that's scary -- Romney is a dangerous candidate whose vision for the nation is as bad as GW Bush. Our guy needs to do a little better here.

And the killer is, he could have done it so easily:

Obama let him sail through 90 minutes with no mention of General Motors, choice, the 47%, union rights, dumping patients in the emergency room, the phony $716 million cut in Medicare, privatizing Social Security, Paul Ryan’s budget, Bain — you name it.

It's disturbing -- Obama can be such an inspiring speaker.I don't think he lost the election last night -- nothing that dramatic happened. But he could have pretty much clinched the victory if he'd been on his game.

And next time, can we have a real moderator who doesn't let Romney stomp on him like last year's grapes?




Obama's best line was "Whah [delivered in that fake southern accent that Democrats adopt] is Governor Romney opposed to mah health playun when mah playun is a Republican playun?"

Way to draw that distinction without a difference and to mobilize the base.

The truth is that Obama has been as bad and often worse than Bush II. Obama and Biden make Bush and Cheney look like Cheech and Chong on medicinal cannabis. Not the most important issue, but illustrative of how the Democrats will spare no expense to knee their base in the groin.

Don't misunderestimate the ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 10:09 am

Reality check.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 11:16 am

You are an ignorant jerk! $716 Billion has been taken from Medicare - just try an buy a Medicare Advantage Plan.

In 2012 there were about 12 choices now for 2013 there are 3 - that are so pathetic that you are probably better off just using your A & B and paying out of pocket the other 20%.

What is even worse that the F Plan for Medigap has double since Obama care was passed!

The $713 Billion is not phony it is crushing for seniors!

Posted by Guest ken pletz on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 11:28 am

I have to agree with Ken on this. Just a year ago (B.O. -- before OccupyWS), Obama's chief of staff, William Daley, talked about the need for massive cuts to social programs, which include Social Security and Medicare. Obama appointed Morgan Stanley Director Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R.), as co-chairs of Deficit Reduction Commission. Another of his appointeess, David M. "Dave" Cote of Honeywell International, is widely known as "Obama's best friend in the business community. "Obama's men" on the commission led the charge to cut social security and medicare at the President's behest.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 12:47 pm

Daley was a bankster as well.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 12:55 pm

Yes, JPMorgan Chase, no less

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 1:31 pm
Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

If taking a tough stance on medical cannabis is kneeing the Democratic Party's base in the groin, then.... um....... potato.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 11:40 am

If taking a tough stance on medical cannabis is kneeing the Democratic Party's base in the groin, then.... um....... potato.

Posted by Thomas on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 11:41 am

Obama didn't go for the "47%" comment, because he knows it's an out-of-context red herring that Romney was completely correct on, and likely prepared to strike down if it were ever brought up -- Obama will get 47% of the vote no matter what Romney does. While the media loves to masticate on it, if Obama were to bring it up, Romney could actually bring the whole quote back into context, destroying an enormous, albeit erroneous talking point for Democrats. Obama didn't go after Romney for Seamus the dog, cutting some student's hair as a preteen, or anything else like that because those are all completely petty arguments and below the stature of the debate. Romney didn't bring up Rev Wright or Black Panthers. It was simply below the debate.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

Debates rarely, if ever, change the trajectory of the election. This one will be no exception - there are two more presidential and one vice-presidential to go. Chill out.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 12:53 pm

Maybe he's "your guy", but you don't speak for all of us (progressives). In many ways, Obama is just as scary as Romney. The "D" behind his name has given Obama carte blanche to extend the reactionary policies of G.W. Bush, which he could never have gotten away with otherwise. Romney is merely the "less effective evil". Face it, President Drone has been far more effective at warmongering, attacking our civil liberties, etc., than his predecessor. During the Bush years, there was something resembling a protest movement against his policies: the wars, torture, the assault on civil liberties, etc. Nowadays, the sheeples have simply aquiesced to the same policies (now on steroids) because a so-called "Democrat" is in charge. This is a far more dangerous situation because it is an effective means of silencing dissent. To see how true this is, just inquire about SFBG's censorship of the story on Section 1021, NDAA, which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, in a military prison no less. I search this paper every day for some mention of it, and I always come up with the same result...nada! Blue pill, anyone?

Posted by 99 on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

Thank you 99. Weren't you on Get Smart?

Posted by Eddie on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

Thank you. At least you know what's been going on under Obama. You've been staying informed and not in D-partisan Denial or Excuse-Making Mode, like most people.

Tim wrote, "I kept trying to find reasons to think Obama was doing well..." Why? If you were watching this faux-debate farce objectively it wouldn't matter to you whether he was doing well or not. But as a D-partisan, that's what Tim was doing. Trying to find reasons to cheerlead for his Obama.

Tim and the others like to live in denial. They claim to not be partisan when they are clearly D-partisan. They are Dembots/Obamabots, like the people on that useless Dembot koolaid site DailyKos. D-Party allegiance is the #1 priority.

For those interested: Black Agenda Report wrote an article about Obama being the more effective evil. Google: Why Barack Obama is the More Effective Evil.

"Power to the people!
Let me say from the very beginning that we at Black Agenda Report do not think that Barack Obama is the Lesser Evil. He is the more Effective Evil.
He has been more effective in Evil-Doing than Bush in terms of protecting the citadels of corporate power, and advancing the imperial agenda. He has put both Wall Street and U.S. imperial power on new and more aggressive tracks – just as he hired himself out to do."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

yup, still battling the forces of KAOS, the international organization of evil ;)

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 1:45 pm

Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On

Although unemployment is the highest it's been since the Great Depression, the federal government should NOT enact any sort of WPA-style program to put millions of people back to work.

Medicare, Medicaid and social security are “entitlements” that need to be cut to relieve what they call “the deficit.”

Climate change treaties and negotiations that might lead to them should be avoided at all costs.

NAFTA was such a great thing it really should be extended to Central and South America and the entire Pacific rim. (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement has been described as "NAFTA on steroids".)

Banksters and Wall Street speculators deserve their bailouts and protection from criminal liability, but underwater and foreclosed homeowners deserve nothing.

Palestinians should be occupied, dispossessed and ignored. Iran should be starved and threatened from all sides. Cuba should be embargoed, and Americans prohibited from going there to see what its people have done in a half century free of Yankee rule. Black and brown babies and their parents, relatives and neighbors should be bombed with drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and similar places.

Africa should be militarized, destabilized, plundered and where necessary, invaded by proxy armies like those of Rwanda, Ethiopia, Burundi or Kenya, or directly by Western air and ground forces, as in Libya.

US Presidents can kidnap citizens of their own or any nation on earth from anyplace on the planet for torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial or murder them and neighboring family and bystanders at will.

Oil and energy companies, and other mega-polluters must be freed to drill offshore almost everywhere, and permitted to poison land and watersheds with fracking to achieve “energy independence”.

The FCC should not and must not regulate telecoms to ensure that poor and rural communities have access to internet, or to guarantee network neutrality.

Of course there really ARE such things as “clean coal” and “safe nuclear energy”.

Immigrants must be jailed and deported in record numbers.

No Medicare For All.

No minimum wage increases for you, no right to form a union, no right to negotiate or strike if you already have a union, and no enforcement or reform of existing labor laws.

The 40 year war on drugs must continue, and even mention of the prison state is unthinkable.


Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 1:59 pm


Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

It doesn't matter.

Obama will still win. Romney will still lose. And everything will remain the same.

The economy will continue to improve, even as the real standard of living will continue to fall. Seems paradoxical, but it really isn't. The "economy" as measured by meaningless tripe like GDP growth can improve all it wants, but only the 1% will see any benefits from that "improvement." The owners of the economy collect the benefits of the improving economy, while the other 99% will get austerity and cuts in real income, services, and benefits.

And the perpetual wars will continue, as will the torture, and renditions, and occupations, and extrajudicial assassinations (which kill way more people than those who are already illegally targeted for murder without trial), and warrantless wiretapping, and deportations, and spying on our citizens.

Don't worry, Tim. The Democrat will win, and the assault on our civil liberties, economic well being, and environment will continue unabated. But maybe just a little more slowly than if the Republican wins.

And the politics of this country will continue to drift to the right. 20 years from now the Republican will be campaigning to eliminate social security and medicare entirely, arrest anyone anywhere for any reason the government sees fit, and eliminate the minimum wage. And the Democrat will counter with a more "sensible" plan that merely raises the retirement age to 80, only cuts taxes for the rich half as much as Republicans, and allows arrest and secret detention only after a proper trial by 3 hooded miltary judges in a secret court (because due process and the rule of law needs to be respected, you know).

And if your corporate publishers haven't replaced you by then, you'll again endorse the Democrat, because after all, they're better than the Republican.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 8:01 am

And don't worry...unemployment will improve even when it's not improving.

For those interested, google: Paul Craig Roberts "Another Phony Employment Report"

Quote from his article:

"October 5. Today’s employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows 114,000 new jobs in September and a drop in the rate of unemployment from 8.1% to 7.8%. As 114,000 new jobs are not sufficient to stay even with population growth, the drop in the unemployment rate is the result of not counting discouraged workers who are defined away as “not in the labor force.”

According to the BLS, “In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force.” These individuals “wanted and were available for work,” but “they were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

In other words, 2.5 million unemployed Americans were not counted as unemployed."

google for the rest of the article.

(I read many comments about this BS report and no one believed it. Some wrote that even devout Obamabots didn't believe it.)

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 5:29 pm

If this employment report is bogus, then so were the other ones that showed 9% + unemployment. So were the ones during Bush's term. You can't pick and choose to believe those but suddenly disbelieve this one... well at least not if you're part of the "reality-based" community.

Look, I get it that unemployment has *always* been undercounted in this country. That's why when you hear about unemployment in Germany and France hoevering around 8-9%, vs 5% here or whatever, I always tell people to look at the U6 numbers for a better comparison. That's a more accurate comparison with the numbers they're reporting. If you compare the U6 rate, then our unemployment is historically higher than Europe's, where the government generally does a better job taking care of folks. When it's 5% here, it's really 10%. When it's 8%, it's actually 15%.

But what you want to do is totally intellectually dishonest. All through the Bush years, you guys had absolutely no problems with the undercounting of unemployment. But now that unemployment is going down, you're screaming that it's all a big conspiracy to rig the numbers.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. Anyway you slice it, unemployment is down significantly from the height of the crisis. It's still high, but it's always high in this country. It's because the capitalist system relies on a pool of unemployed to drive down wages. But at the moment, it's heading downward.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 6:18 pm

Did you google and read the article before you launched your attack? I didn't write the article. Paul Craig Roberts wrote the article. You can disagree with him.

"All through the Bush years, you guys had absolutely no problems with the undercounting of unemployment."

"You guys?" Are you implying I'm a partisan Republican and supported Bush? You're wrong. I never supported Bush. Couldn't stand him. The same with Obama. I'm non-partisan. I don't believe unemployment reports no matter who's in office and our unemployment is much higher than reported no matter who's in office. It's called deception.

Don't make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

ZeroHedge explains how the data was massaged to produce the 7.8% number:



Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 9:21 pm

My whole point is that this is nothing new. And it's nothing that the White House can directly control. Whatever you think the unemployment rate is/was, it's down from the worst of the crisis.

Could've been down more, if Obama had gone full-blown FDR New Deal, but it's still down.

You can't accuse me of being a big Obama partisan, but unlike some folks, I live in the "reality-based community."

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 10:02 am

"but unlike some folks, I live in the "reality-based community." "

Many people see themselves as one thing when it has no basis in reality. No one other than wishful-thinking delusional people (usually Obamabots) think that anything is better. I've not heard that from anyone, literally. If Bush were in office the D-partisans would be saying how terrible things are, but when their "savior" Obama is in office (with that purely symbolic D behind his name), "oh things are getting better." Yeah, for the 1% that he works for.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

you haven't been listening. Here's an article from that great liberal bastion, The National Journal, which tells you once again that *most* Americans feel they're better off than they were four years ago.

BTW... If you've been reading what you're responding to, it would be clear to you that Obama is not my "savior."

But we've already established that listening is not your strong suit. It will come as a great surprise to you when Obama wins re-election.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

It's about winning an election in November, not giving folks like you and I the spectacle we wanted to see or Romney having his bullshit crammed back down his throat.

Arguably all Obama needed to do here was tread-water, why is it surprising if that's all he did?

Wait until you see some poll numbers moving the wrong way before you declare this debate a loss... my understanding is Obama's approval rating is up, and he picked up more of the independent voters than Romney did.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 10:58 am

You had better wake up and smell the Statism buddy. If Obama is re-elected, God forbid, it is the end of freedom in America. I don't care who you are or what party you claim to support. This is not your father's Democrat party. Do us all a favor and gets some facts and stop reporting bull shit.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 11:40 am

Please give me some background on you. I don't need names or anything like that - don't want you to give up your privacy.

But can you explain what happened to you? Did you box for several years? Were you a running bk on the football team in high school and college and got multiple concussions? You obviously had some terrible head trauma - what happened?

Your case is scary. Maybe your doc can give you some meds? Maybe you aren't taking them?

Go out to SF General and tell them you think you need help. They will help you.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

Otherwise, I think your reaction to the comment is spot on, and any or several of the other possible explanations you listed are plausible root causes.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 11:37 pm

You had better wake up and smell the Statism buddy. If Obama is re-elected, God forbid, it is the end of freedom in America. I don't care who you are or what party you claim to support. This is not your father's Democrat party. Do us all a favor and gets some facts and stop reporting bull shit.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 11:43 am

You know, every time I hear the wingnuts, it makes me want to vote for Obama. I listen to hate radio sometimes, and I hear about this socialist muslim Kenyan Indonesian who wants to wreck American capitalism... this "statist," which I guess is some sort of big insult in the rightwingoverse. And I think to myself, "Who *IS* this guy? I want to vote for *that* guy!"

Then I realize they're just talking about the president. Unfortunately the reality is far different.

Keep it up though. If I hear enough of it, you may just convince me to support him again.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

"hate radio" complaining about the goofy right? As to statism, that is what the lefts problem with Bush was.

So good when the wacky left picks the scab that is the wacky right.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 1:54 am
Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 7:20 am

I'm new to the US but let me get this straight.

Obama's biggest achievement has been to copy a plan from the guy who's running against him?

Why doesn't Romney get stuck into him about that? Basically say "I invented it. It was never meant for the federal government. If you're going to copy my ideas, at least do it properly!".

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have drifted even further to the right since those days. Now, any kind of even mild insurance reform is toxic to the Republican party. So Romney can't own Romneycare because his base hates it.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

"As President Obama and Mitt Romney prepare to square off in Denver, Colorado tonight, we look at how the Democrats and Republicans manage to shut out all third parties from the presidential debates. The Obama and Romney campaigns have secretly negotiated a detailed contract that dictates many of the terms of the 2012 presidential debates. This includes who gets to participate, as well as the topics raised during the debates." [...]

"GEORGE FARAH: The Commission on Presidential debates sounds like a government agency, it sounds like a nonpartisan entity, which is by design, is intended to deceive the American people. But, in reality, it is a private corporation financed by Anheuser-Busch and other major companies, that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties to seize control of the presidential debates from The League of Women Voters in 1987. Precisely as you said, Amy, every four years, this commission allows the major party campaigns to meet behind closed doors and draft a secret contract, a memorandum of understanding that dictates many of the terms."


Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 6:02 pm

Instead there are a whole bunch of fringe parties who can have little effect. Perot was the last outsider to have an effect, in 1992, handing Clinton a victory.

Arguably Nader's Green Party gave Bush victory in 2000.

But that's the problem - third parties split the vote and let the "other guy" win.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 11:07 pm

Perot did not cause Clinton to lose. Assuming 100%of Perot's voters actually showed up to vote had Perot not been in the race (which wouldn't have happened -some would've stayed home), they still would've had to vote for Bush over Clinton 65-35. How would they have actually voted? The exit polls I recall said they would have actually voted for Clinton 55-45. And that makes sense. Perot was ideologically between Clinton and Bush. And his voters were primarily change voters.

Nor did Nader cause Gore to lose. Gore caused Gore to lose. What lost my vote was Joe Lieberman. He didn't have to pick Leiberman. But it sent a message to progressives that Gore wasn't interested in our votes. I wouldn't have voted for Gore even if Nader wasn't in the race.

That said, I was ready to go out into the streets to defend democracy when it was being stolen. Problem was, Gore was more interested in preserving the status quo than defending democracy. Yet another reason he didn't deserve the votes of progressives.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 9:49 pm