Open Phones: The "Listener Elite" Judge The Debate

Thursday, October 04, 2012

US President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney share a laugh October 3, 2012 at the conclusion of the first presidential debate. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GettyImages)

President Obama and Mitt Romney squared off in the first general election debate of the 2012 campaign last night. Listeners, the "media elite" seems to have given Romney the win, but do you really think it was that lopsided? Let's convene the "listener elite" to evaluate the debate. How were you watching? Who did best, on which points? Let us know!

→ Post-Debate Resources: Transcript | AP Fact-Check | WNYC Live-Chat Transcript

→ Your #ListenerElite Twitter Reactions

→ See Full Video and Video Highlights Below

Comments [63]

Add in Truth content and consistency with previous statements and positions and Obama wins hands-down! Candidate Whopper is giving me a headache from all of the flip-flops.

Oct. 10 2012 06:54 PM
Jim B

There are people who were undecided and could only make up their minds on the basis of this first debate? Really? Absolutely amazing!

Oct. 05 2012 02:04 PM

Get real. If this radio host, crowd and audience, which is probably one of the most liberal in the USA outside of Berkeley, Madison or the Ben and Jerry's factory, is doing everything to convince themselves that the debate was a "draw"... then Romney clearly won the debate.

I'm an independent, voted for Obama in '08 and was on the fence until watching last night. Romney is obviously a hard worker, sharp, and well-prepared. It's clear he knows how to analyze complicated situations, form an opinion and act with leadership to solve a problem.

Obama acted like a law professor who'd lost his briefcase. He routinely hemmed and hawed, rambled and was flat-footed. I'd love to play basketball with him and think he's no doubt a much more inspiring and interesting individual. But I'm not looking for a friend. I'm looking for a President.

Romney 2012.

Oct. 04 2012 04:21 PM
wiseoldbird from MA/NYC

I have to agree with many of the more obvious observations of your commentators and callers concerning "style." BUT Presidents must not be elected as if a candidacy is simply another contest on TV. In fact, Obama looked tired, perhaps a bit distracted but NOT grim, humorless, thrown off by the structure of the "debate," neither by Romney's robo-scripted attack nor by his pasted on supercilious "smile."

Looking at Obama, I thought about the implications of events unfolding behind the scenes the day before/day of the so-called "debate", for eg.: the Syrian bombing of Turkey and the broader implications of the Turkish response for NATO/the USA. I wondered what other issues--more important than a so-called "debate"--had been preoccupying the President before the evening. Romney came across as slick, a thinly molded "presidential package." Obama came across as the man responsible for an inconsistent economic recovery whose origins were not of his making--a recovery whose future is mired in domestic and international financial problems, for the security of the country, for exiting foreign battle grounds and for the well being of all-- not least the least fortunate among us--now and into the future. Each point of the Obama agenda from day one has been deliberately mired in right wing Republican head holds on the economy and by Congress to the dis-advanatage of the rest of us--not to mention the unrelenting right wing attacks on Obama's race and ethnicity.

I for one hope that the behavior of banks, international financial houses, the military and the need to engender a new industrial complex, as well as policies to exit what has been a devastated economy in the midst of an election year as well as an unstable middle east preoccupy President Obama considerably more than the superficialities of a so-called "debate".

One more note: As frustrated as Jim L. appeared with candidates running overtime in a format designed to ensure that, did anyone actually count who used more air time? I thought Romney's responses to Jim L.'s attempt to move on were a bit rude--even as I thought Jim L. caved in to Romney more than he had to.

Oct. 04 2012 02:03 PM
Kate from Washington Heights

I wonder if it would be possible to have an analysis like the one between Nixon and JFK - I think if I'd listened on the radio only, I would feel that Obama had won. I watched on TV and felt Romney did a LITTLE better - the problem with the Prez being MAINLY that he looked disdainful and seldom looked at Romney - ie, did what McCain had done to him in 2008 - and that he came off as apologetic. He shouldn't have said "Sorry" to the moderator, and he should have claimed victory over the last 4 years.

Oct. 04 2012 11:57 AM
Bill from LI

Romney used no real zingers .... Obama acting unflappable unfortunately, he looked impotent in the face of so many uncontested bald faced misrepresentations thrown out by Romney.

Oct. 04 2012 11:57 AM
Bill from LI

Romney was blinking...seemed like 3-4 times a second. I found it distracting.

Oct. 04 2012 11:51 AM
Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

"Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS had trouble keeping the duo within time limits for responses, especially Obama, who ended up speaking four minutes longer than Romney."

Oct. 04 2012 11:21 AM
glork from Glen Ridge, NJ

Re: Caller Diana- "Bullying?" "Bullying?" What debate were YOU watching?

If you thought THAT was bullying, haven't you ever been to middle school?

Oct. 04 2012 11:18 AM

I am sooo disappointed he gave Romney the media and spin for the next week or more. Yes Romney lied, lied and said whatever he thought the American public wanted to hear BUT Pres Obama let him get away with the lies, with taking over the debate it was not the substance of the debate that will hurt Pres. Obama thinking people will vet for themselves what was said. What will hurt Pres. Obama is the visual, he looked and sounded like a school boy who didn't do his homework, he did not look like the intelligent, thoughtful articulate leader that he is and Romney looked like a commander-in-chief the headline readers, the less educated, the easily swayed, they may abandon the President to their ultimate detriment. The President had the momentum now he will be playing catch-up.

Oct. 04 2012 11:12 AM

Hear that? It's one giant ECHO devoid of critical analysis, independent thought or intellectual honesty.

It's more like the Listener Echo Chamber than Listener Elite.

Oct. 04 2012 11:10 AM

@gary from queens -

That's because Romney continually went over his allotted 2 minutes. Read the transcript...It's Mr. R not Mr. O whose responses are full of fillers. No doubt the President suffered somewhat from NOT having been a part of Survivor GOP.
It would have been pitiful if Romney didn't 'win' the first debate. Obama will be more on the offensive without losing his politeness. Let's see how Romney holds up.

Oct. 04 2012 11:08 AM

I don't think debates are a game that one side can win or lose. But what I did hear were a number of things where one side believe one thing and the other side believes another. It was very good for getting both men to state their positions, and I can now cast my vote based on those positions. If anyone is still undecided after last night, well, then they just to not want to decide. Let's Vote!

Oct. 04 2012 11:01 AM
fuva from harlemworld

I think that it's not so far-fetched to wonder about Obama's desire to be prez another 4 years...He's nevertheless the better choice in these hard times.

Oct. 04 2012 10:55 AM
gary from queens

I must have been watching a different debate than most of you.

Everytime Romney was talking, I could hear Jim Lehrer trying to but in, trying to interrupt Mitt. Watch it and you'll see. Lehrer interrupted obama just ONCE.

I also heard Obama repeat that Mitt had no details to his plans. it just so happens that Mitt and Ryan have more details that Obama. Dems have no budget for 3 years, no plan for entitlement reform, or tax reform.

I laughed when Obama said his plan is on his website. A WEBSITE IS NOT A PLAN!!! You must draft the legislation and wait for CBO analysis and the opposing party to offer compromises and amendments.

Obama deftly turned the tables on Mitt. This is why the Romney team and Romney himself will not prevail. No smarts.

Oct. 04 2012 10:48 AM
Ben from Brooklyn

I am a supporter of the President, but I disagree with Brian - it was not a draw last night. Mitt Romney clearly won. He was more cogent, concise and pointed with his remarks and rebuttals. What was most disappointing to me was the President's inability to grab on to opportunities to shut Romney down during the debate. He should have brought Romney to task regarding his tax plan instead of continually repeating the $5T+$2T statistic. The President sounded less convincing because his points rambled in comparison to Romney and he was longwinded. The more effective debater will always sum up his point in fewer words than his opponent - Obama did not do that.

This was just a forum to display an ability to speak "off the cuff", not a referendum on the capability of a candidate, therefore, my I remain an Obama supporter.

Oct. 04 2012 10:48 AM
Richard White from Levittown

Hard not to read body-language/non-verbal behavior of Obama and see he isn't super-happy to be running for President again!!! He is sending a clear message of being tired, distracted and maybe disinterested? Michelle must be working hard to try and motivate him...

Oct. 04 2012 10:47 AM

BO was brilliant?? FDR??

Mitt was a bully???

It's the job of a good debater to DEFEND HIMSELF!!! Obama was barely awake!!

Sorry, BO stunk!

And, I HATE Romney!!

Sorry folks, we're NOT going anywhere if we don't remove and SMASH the rose-colored glasses!! The rose-colored glasses have been a problem since day one of the administration!!!

Oct. 04 2012 10:46 AM

Re: Dems always standing up for Obama. I'm a Dem --may not be one much longer if they insist on being Neolib Corporatists, trying to please their money masters-- but I've never thought Obama debated well. He doesn't extemporize well. He is NOT Bill Clinton in terms of those Mad Skilz.

Anyway, I'm too liberal for Obama. (Hat tip to Vastleft's 2L4O)

But I was surpised to hear that Brian considers describing an action by Romney, seen by everyone who watched snippets or whole Republican primary debates, that Romney affirmed he would not take $10 dollars in cuts if it required $1 in additional revenue.

Is telling the truth about another person now an attack on that person? Really?

But, Romney was much smoother and did interrupt both Obama and the moderator, Jim Lehrer, much more than Obama did, at least when I was listening. I kept wondering when Lehrer would take control of the debate; he never did. Well, possibly on the very last time segment.

Romney is a consummate salesman, and he will say anything and everything or deny he said those things, preferably very rapidly, to win a sale --or attain power. I saw Romney as Prof. Harold Hill of The Music Man -- a snake oil salesman.

Good luck to our country; there's not much real choice in this election. Obama actually admitted there's not much difference in his approaches to SS and Medicare. I hope this isn't true; I hope our following generations won't be mauled by Wall Street and private for-profit insurance companies.

Where are the ice floes when we'll be needing them to let old people put themselves out of their looming economic and health caze misery? I detest that Romney thinks people on SS and Medicare will be glad to sell out their children, other people's children, just because Romney says those over some mid'50's age will still get SS and Medicare as we know it. He makes me feel somehow dirty when I hear him pander in that way, actually expecting us retirees to agree with him. BTW, if present seniors get to keep traditional SS and Medicare, Republicans will then scream that is unfair to those who are younger and work to cut the programs sometime in the near future. I can just hear Sen. Simpson holding forth against the old moochers sucking on the government tits....

Put not your trust in Corporatists, especially Republican Corporatists on steroids like Romney.

Oct. 04 2012 10:46 AM
Robert from NYC

Never mind, I looked up rope-a-dope. Hm, interesting.

Oct. 04 2012 10:45 AM
Dubya from BK

Romney made an excellent point, Obamacare is a good idea, but the timing was wrong. Fix the economy first, then implement when people feel good and can afford the price premium.

Oct. 04 2012 10:44 AM

I agree that I was expecting more gaffes from Romney and a good rhetorical trouncing from Obama. BUT, I also agree that if you actually listened to the "details" of each plan Romney's contained a lot more magical thinking; for example that he's somehow going to close the ENTIRE deficit through tax cuts (for the very wealthy) and that he'll magically earn the money by switching public systems like education and healthcare onto voucher systems. At least Obama offered a dollar for dollar amount in regards to his plan of tax hikes for the super wealthy and cuts and reforms to things like military spending and healthcare (vis a vis the affordable care act). I still don't think anyone who's really listening could find Mitt anything but slimy, but I really expected more of a slam dunk from the President. I have little hope for the Biden/Ryan debate (Biden's nuts and Ryan will just lie his face off) but my fingers are crossed for the next Presidential debate. I want to see more campaign Obama! Less cool and collected Presidential Obama! Motivate your base, dude.

Oct. 04 2012 10:44 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Saying Romney won, is like saying Palin won her VP debate because she didn't "fall apart"

Romney carried himself very well, by exceeding expectations and keeping composed? Obama kept his grenades in his pocket but to all the people that said he didn't "use the 47%" - it is a debate, not a comedy roast. This is just round one.

Oct. 04 2012 10:43 AM

Bully? Hello? Sorry if poor little Obama felt "bullied"? What the heck kind of country is this where we are worried about bullying the president. At 18% real unemployment, the president NEEDS bullying.

Oct. 04 2012 10:42 AM
CK from Westchester

Romney was "attacking"? Seriously, is this the first debate the caller and some writers have ever seen? This was mellow. Y'all should see an aggressive debate.

Oct. 04 2012 10:42 AM
JT from LI

The caller Danny thinks it was a win because people won't be paying attention when the facts are checked. So he knows Romney stretched he truth, i.e. lied, and thinks the people are too stupid to follow up. We know the right is, but hopefully independents aren't.

Oct. 04 2012 10:42 AM
Eliford Backfro from Astoria

You know what we need more of in our political analysis and commentary? Sports analogies, because they are both evocative and insightful.

Oct. 04 2012 10:41 AM
Dorothy from Manhattan

I didn't last very long with the debate -- too much like watching a train wreck. Reading about it online today, I wonder whether Obama really wants to be president for another 4 years. He seemed more like a really smart office clerk than a leader. But Romney's math didn't make sense. And he's not called "Flip" for nothing.

Oct. 04 2012 10:41 AM
Rochelle from Jersey shore

Was any else exasperated by the moderator's performance?

I got my 10 yr old to watch part of the debate. She was in and out of the room but sat down when Romney said he would cut PBS. Her eyes went wide and she yelled "What about the children!" She is officially interested in politics now.

Oct. 04 2012 10:41 AM

Why is Brian sticking up for Obama? Obama's a nice guy, but he's a weak sister and he failed last night. Forget all this rope-a-dope nonsense. He LOST. Get over it.

Oct. 04 2012 10:39 AM
Robert from NYC

Yeah Brian, even if what you like to think is the case to satisfy yourself, Obama did it wrong. And what the hell is this rope-a-dope thing anyway?!

Oct. 04 2012 10:39 AM
fuva from harlemworld

The Obama rope-a-dope (Ali)? Hope so.
Yes, there are constraints on O that inhibit the robustness of his responses. But he needs to handle this better, lest the uninformed masses be duped by Romney's artifice...O really needs to practice distilling complexity into clear, concise terms folks can understand, and delivering them with gusto...Sometimes I wonder if, by lying with some of the dogs on his team, O's become too (compromised? conflicted?) to take the logical, available, winning positions, and dead the nonsense. He gave Romney mad passes yesterday. Wow.

Oct. 04 2012 10:39 AM

Obama was too cautious, passive and conservative, trying to sit on his lead and run out the clock, probably on the advise of his team. He had a million openings to attack and counter attack and simply passed -- although he had a clear advantage in truthtelling during the entire debate.

Oct. 04 2012 10:38 AM
Frank from Lindenhurst

It was Christmas in October for the usual suspects in the media. For those of us who haven't salivated since the conventions, anticipating the body english or micro expressions from which to concoct sensational headlines, the content seemed stale and the contest uninspired.

Oct. 04 2012 10:36 AM
CK from Westchester

What tiny percent of the watching public can actually be turned to one or the other candidate? Just reading and hearing the responses, the Dems are solidly backing Obama (no matter what). The Repubs are solidly supporting Mitt (no matter what).

What on earth could either candidate say to sway the voters? And how many (2%) can really be swayed?

(And I believe Rope a Dope was Mohammada Ali).

Oct. 04 2012 10:36 AM
Robert from NYC

Actually caller, Romney did look like a buffoon but people like yourself don't see it because you support him anyway for whatever reason. But you're right, these same folks saw a brilliant performance by a buffoon and didn't really hear him saying nothing, I mean he said nothing but said it so well that you, and many others, buy it.

Oct. 04 2012 10:35 AM
Mireille from Brooklyn, NY

Did he just call Obama a buffoon?

Oct. 04 2012 10:34 AM
Marcos from the Bronx

Obama succeeded in his '08 campaign because he ran as a progressive.
He has failed as a president because he's governed as a centrist.
He failed in this debate because there is no way to argue with the right from the center. And if he will cut spending which benefits the 99% and thus deepen this depression, we have no reason to want him to win.

Oct. 04 2012 10:33 AM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

I was disappointed with this debate, but I certainly don't feel Mr. Romney won. He certainly didn't understand the concept of debate rules; Mr. Lehrer had trouble shutting him up. In addition, he kept repeating himself, but still offered no solutions to the problems he claims exist.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama - who, by the way, I think looked just fine except for when he was staring at his feet while Mr. Romney ranted - should have taken more opportunities to attack - within the debate parameters, of course. When they discussed Simpson-Bowles, Mr. Obama had a perfect opportunity to point out that Mr. Ryan was the one who ko'd it. On the other hand, he seemed to have ignored it. He also missed the opportunity to refute the $716 billion out of Medicare business. He addressed it partially, but he needed to make a more direct approach.

Mr. Romney is neither articulate nor well-mannered. He constantly interrupted both President Obama and Mr. Lehrer.

Oct. 04 2012 10:33 AM

It sounds to me as though Romney wants to create "Romneycare" to replace "Obamacare" which is a form of "Romneycare" in the first place.

This seems a very sad form of personal egotism and too pervasive condescension to the people at the effect of the law. It doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is what it is.

Oct. 04 2012 10:31 AM
Ben Alexander from Bloomfield, NJ

I'm very surprised that people are saying Obama "lost" the debate and "looked frazzled." I watched the whole thing, and to me, Obama defended his accomplishments well and made good points about what Romney was missing. In my view, Obama kept his cool and succeeded at not letting anything Romney said get to him. Romney looked nervous bordering on desperate. Yes, Obama played it safe and refrained from using certain attack lines that people were hoping for, and yes, he did let one or two of Romney's charges go unanswered (like the bit on the Medicare cuts), but generally I think Obama did better.

Oct. 04 2012 10:31 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

For me, the main "takeaway" from the debate was that I now feel that my earlier impression that Romney might not be the "empty suit" I thought he was based on my limited earlier exposure to him. But I did not really know anything about Romney, other than being a good-looking rich boy. He certainly was well prepared style-wise to hold his own in this debate. He certainly sounds and looks better than Bush did. Obama did look tired by comparison.But then, Obama might have decided to hold back for now only to release his big guns later as we get closer to election time. It may just be a tactical decision to hold back for now.

Oct. 04 2012 10:30 AM
Jan from Westchester County, NY

I thought it was odd that Obama kept looking down at his podium. It made him seem disengaged and tired.

Oct. 04 2012 10:30 AM
dan k from Park Slope, Brooklyn

I thought Obama did just fine, but he should have asked how Romney, after already stating he won't budge an inch on new taxes, will simultaneously sit down with democrats to find compromise??

Oct. 04 2012 10:29 AM
JM from Manhattan

President Obama's opening set the filter for the rest -

He did not want to be there... He preferred to celebrate his anniversary with his wife.

Maybe, "political pudits" could view the rest through this very HUMAN lens.

Oct. 04 2012 10:28 AM

why did obama keep saying

"when romney becomes president" "on his first day" etc.

rather than "IF elected"


"IF he were president"

Oct. 04 2012 10:28 AM
John A

What does the proverbial used car salesman do? Talk real fast. Romney was standing on the gas with a confusion of facts. Like in the Honda commercial with that other salesman rattling: "We have buttons, buttons controlling other buttons, buttons inside of buttons." Talk on, motormouth.
Disrespecting Jim Lehrer was to be expected, but still did't win any points with me.

Oct. 04 2012 10:27 AM
Yogasana from NYC

I wondered which Romney would be President? The Romney that continually changes his positions based upon the audience he's addressing or the Romney that continually changes his positions based upon the audience he's addressing? The Romney that lies about his 5 trillion dollar deficit or the Romney that lies about his 5 trillion dollar deficit? The Romney that will not provide any details about what he would cut out of the budget or the Romney that will not provide any details about what he would cut out of the budget? The Romney that expects Democrats in Congress to roll over on his very right wing agenda or the Romney that expects Democrats in Congress to roll over on his very right wing agenda?

No matter how much Romney smiles are tries to look 'Presidential' he still appears to be terminally constipated.”

Oct. 04 2012 10:27 AM
Camille from NJ

It was a "rough draw" as Brian said, with maybe a slight edge to Romney for better eye contact and a slight edge to Obama on substance.

I think the pundit class wants a horse race, and is trying to reframe the debate after the fact.

Oct. 04 2012 10:26 AM
Linda from NJ

As far as "Romneycare" being successful in Massachusetts, it should be tested in at least 3 other states in other parts of the country. MA is one of the richest states in the country. MA covers East. South - Georgia; North, Michigan; West - Washington.

Oct. 04 2012 10:26 AM

You're right, Brian, it was a draw. Yes, it would have been better of the Pres mentioned the 47% comment, and I would have liked him to emphasize more that the bank bail out actually made money for the government, and some other things. But it was most certainly not a terrible performance. The assertion that Romney "won" is puntosphere overkill.

Oct. 04 2012 10:26 AM
CK from Westchester

It's funny to read these comments. It's clear that Dems will all say Obama won, did great. Republicans think Romney was poised, well-spoken. He won. Both sides are looking just through their own political lens. I doubt that anyone here who's already taken sides could possibly give an open view of what was really presented.

And as a matter of fact: why would you think either is honest, candid and concerned. They're just there to get elected. And I for one think our choices of candidates is pathetic.

Oct. 04 2012 10:22 AM

Romney has picked out the handful of progressive innovations that obama has championed, and stated that he would also champion them.

If one does not assume he is lying, then his candidacy is arguably more attractive then before the debate.

This ought to be a lesson to Obama for not having the fibre to be the progressive politician many had wished for.

Oct. 04 2012 10:21 AM

What about the comment by Romney that Obama spent 90 Billion on green energy. Is that factual true?

Oct. 04 2012 10:21 AM
Ellen from nyc

To me, Romney came across as a snake oil salesman. He has the smooth, unruffled aspect of a management type that can smile even as he eviscerates. Watching and listening to Romney made my skin crawl.

Oct. 04 2012 10:19 AM
Helen from Manhattan

I think Obama didn't do as well as I expected, in terms of appearance and speaking, but I still think he won the debate. I think Romney did a lot of broad comments with very little substance and a lot of borderline hysteric comments. Romney was just so aggressive and had so few specifics that I really didn't gain any idea of what his plan was, except to be "better than Obama". I found it really off putting because I felt like it was very patronizing. While I was a little disappointed in Obama's delivery, I hardly think he lost the debate.

Oct. 04 2012 10:16 AM
Chris from New Hartford CT

Seems the two candidates operated under different paridigms. My daughter, at the Kennedy School, says all are absolutely obliged to keep to the facts. That is Obama's realm...opposed to Romney, from often involves some obfuscation, omission and deceit.

Oct. 04 2012 10:14 AM

So -- which questions will be redressed to debate #2?

Oct. 04 2012 10:13 AM

There are three more debates to go. Obama was playing with Romney, letting him get cocky and then in the last two debates - closer to election day - he's gonna start slapping him around. This is my fervent prayer.

Oct. 04 2012 10:04 AM
gary from queens

Shuckin' and jivin'

Obama won the debate.

Dem pundits feel obama did poorly only because Obama failed to mention the "47 percent" gaff, or Bush's mistakes, and stuff like that.

But the debate coaches probably told both that they were things that could boomerang in a debate.

Romney could deliver the zinger, "Hey, Mr Obama, I'm running for president, Not George Bush!"

And you dont want to give your opponent an opportunity to explain and defend himself on any particular gaff.

After all, the whole idea about demagogery is to exploit what someone said when that someone cannot rebut it, like in TV ads. Duhhh.

And Romney could have gone nuclear too, with the video that came out yesterday about obama's racial demagoguery in the 2007 speech.

No, it was about expectations. Dems just watched clips on dummy cable TV all year. They saw Obama Shuckin' and jivin' in campaign speeches.

THAT was what they expected. Instead, Obama appeared to them weak. But in reality, he was calm and collected.

Romney, on the other hand, was huffin and puffin. He seemed out of breath. With that fake smile, he was on the defensive too often. Such as being forced to repeat his denial of the false charge that he'll raise 4 billion in taxes.

He SHOULD have said, "Mr. Obama, you can repeat that false allegation 100 times, but i will only say this one more time, blah blah." And then go on the attack.

Speaking of taxes, this was a good example of Romney accepting not only the Democrat-media narrative, but also their lying terminology!

Mitt should have turned to the camera, as Obama did at one point, and said:

You've heard Mr. Obama say several times that he wants to raise revenues. But use of the word "revenues" is a fancy new term of art invented by Democrats. What he's really saying is that he wants to raise TAXES. Revenue is NOT taxes. Revenue is the total gross income to the government. Revenue often goes up when taxes go down. Revenue can also go down when taxes are raised, as Mr. Obama intends to do in January----the beginning of the socalled taxageddon you've been hearing about. So whenever you hear mr obama utter the word "revenues", he really means taxes. But I will not deceive you. When you hear me say "taxes", I will mean taxes. And when I say "revenues", I will mean revenues.

And he should have mentioned at least once that raising taxes on the wealthy is a drop in the overall budget. barely enough to run government for a month etc.

Oct. 04 2012 09:53 AM

I think the substance is what matters in a presidential debate. Maybe Obama wasn't at his best, but Romney just lied most of the time. Even some things that weren't lies were really misleading.

Oct. 04 2012 09:45 AM
Gianni Lovato from Chatham

If perception were reality Romney could be considered by some as having had the upper hand in this debate.
Reviewing the video, this morning, I found Romney's body language very aggressive (i.e.: assertive).
Obama's effort to look dignified, controlled and cool, might have backfired somewhat, by appearing too humble or detached, even to some of his supporters.
All told, in my humble opinion, last night winner was Big Bird and the loser every concerned American between the age of 1 and 112.
Too much smoke, mirrors and hoopla, not enough substance.

Oct. 04 2012 09:43 AM
carolita from NYC

I wonder if any dems mercilessly bashing Obama for having "no-balls" or calling him "O-bomb-a" have read the news lately and clocked just how much crap the POTUS has on his plate (and probably more incoming)) as he stood there last night listening to Romney's sputtering, hysterical yammering and thrusty interrupting in that gilded cage? Can you imagine standing there while the (you know what) is hitting the fan, back at the office? He's the POTUS, not some yahoo who's memorized a bunch of zingers and painted his face a different shade of flesh for every debate. I'm amazed at the cannibalism demonstrated by Dems whenever their own Presidents fail to be perfect. I thought Obama was fine, if a bit rusty, and it's not like anyone who WAS going to vote for him is going to change their mind, unless they're just fickle and crazy. And it's not as if anyone who's read a paper or heard the radio or watched all their friends' youtube links for the past few months is unaware of Romney's 47% remarks, or any of his other gaffes. Give people credit. And for goodness sakes, when will Romney learn how to pronounce the "social" in "social security"? He keeps saying "sosul." It's ridiculous. Who pronounces it like that? Is that a thing?

Oct. 04 2012 08:13 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.