I know why Obama had such a poor debate showing!

1. 83

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   O was ahead in the polls - especially in the battleground states. The media came to him and said something like, "Hey, give us a break, Mr. Prez! You know we're behind you, but if the race is declared over, our ratings will fall through the floor! We need the appearance of a close race! Whatcha say, BO? How 'bout throwing the first debate?"
   
   After much consideration and the quick appointment of a special search committee to appoint a special advisory committee to appoint a personal debate research team, Obama said, "Oh, okay. What the heck?"

   replyreport
   1. 63

      ptrg777posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Like Gore said.... It was the Altitude.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      paintphdposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hmmm....sounds good.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      One pundit attributed Obama's lackluster performance to his being in a prevent defense mode with the objective of avoiding errors and protecting his lead. Big mistake.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph, I like Gore's explanation better than either of ours. lol

         replyreport
   4. 78

      Ann1Az2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He didn't have his teleprompter.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         paintphdposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thats the magic of teleprompters, It's almost as good as having a lier consultant who makes sure you don't tell the same one over again....at least not to the same audience. The Pres has got his work cut out for him in the next debate that will be on the economy. How does he possibly defend that record? F. Lee Bailey could'nt defend that one.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Ann1Az2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I miss John F. Kennedy. Talk about being able to answer questions off the top of your head! He'd put both Obama and Romney to shame in the debates.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               paintphdposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               That's because we don't have presidents with a spine anymore, they're voted in by illusional propoganda, star studded promotions and glitz to gain likeabilty from an uninformed public who's totally unaware of their candidates ideaologies and agenda's. A public who most of the time cannot name any members of the presidential cabinet without google. That's why team Obama was savey enough to target the youth in 08. they knew how uninformed they were. That's why the adults have a duty to take back this government. Many of those youth he fooled the first time are adults now and have repented their naievity. Obama finally get vetted in this run. And a debate is his worse nightmare.

               replyreport
2. 75

   livewithrichardposted 12 years ago

   Or maybe he had a heads up on the jobs report and knew that if he let Romney stomp all over him that he could use that jobs report in the next debate to gain unstoppable momentum and beat Romney up on all his claims that O has done nothing good in his 4 years.

   replyreport
3. 76

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   Habee, I when I saw the email notice of your thread I just had to log on and see what you'd discovered! Seriously, the media are having a field day.
   
   So I concur it's media related. However, my personal take (actually, it's Jon Stewart's) is that  he threw the debate so Chris Matthews would finally stop tingling in his leg over him.
   

   replyreport
   1. 83

      habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
4. 83

   lrc7815posted 12 years ago

   Oddly all the comments here on this forum make sense to me and it could have been any one of the logical reasons that caused the debate debaucle.  Isn't it sad that we can't even have a good debate in this country any more without a conspiracy?

   replyreport
5. 0

   HowardBThinameposted 12 years ago

   What goes around, comes around, and Obama was great in 2008, but this time, he's the one with the record to defend.
   
   And that's tough because he failed in so many areas.
   
   There's no reason to think he will do anything differently if given a second chance.
   
   Time for a change.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sure we'll see a very different Obama in the next debate.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I think you're right. Hopefully, he'll prepare for that one.

         replyreport
   2. 75

      livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Therein lies the problem with your logic because in the eyes of the majority of his constituents he has succeeded more than he has failed.  As we all know, this country is deeply divided on the issues and the POTUS has no intentions on trying to swing the R vote.  He needs to secure his D base and the R's I's and D's in the middle.  It's those in the middle that will determine the outcome of this and every election.

      replyreport
6. 72

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   Isn't the next debate on foreign policy?
   
   Good luck defending the actions in Libya!
   
   
   edit:  Third debate, strictly foreign policy.
   
   Next debate, both domestic and foreign policy!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah good luck defending disposing of a brutal dictator who has funded several terrorist attacks on Americans with zero loss of American life, god what a disaster. Then he will have to somehow deal with the fact that some terrorists, some of whom have already been captured, killed an ambassador there...
      
      Wow that is going to be tough.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         paintphdposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Hmmm, and then there's the part about Stevens prior communications that he felt endangered that somehow seemed unimportant. And then there's this crazy talk of a infamous 9/11 anniversary the president  felt he should celebrate in Vegas. He may have gotten that memo had he attended at least half of those presidential briefings, but Whoopi and Letterman cannot be kept waiting. His minions whom he sent out to lie to the American public a full week after the attack holding fast to the youtube tale didn't help his image. But he's kissed the A$$ES of every dictator in every terrorist country in the middle east, so we should all be thankful they no longer wish to detonate themselves in our town squares anymore. It was a nice touch for him not to meet with any leaders at the UN. Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs already knows Obama, as he would say "HAS THEIR BACK" since he turned his back on the popular 2009 uprising of the Iranian people against the Ayatolla's. But getting back to Libya, at least that hateful dictator Moammar Qaddafi isn't a threat anymore. Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Magarief Love's the United States. Why you could have knocked him over with a feather when he found out those pesky Ansar al-Shariah and al- Qaida were in the vicinity of the U.S.Consulate on 9/11 of all times.  I don't think anything else will be said about this BUMP IN THE ROAD.

         replyreport
      2. 67

         innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You're sounding more and more like a neocon everyday Josak - it's quite disturbing. Does a life only have worth if it is an American life? What about all those dead Libyan children Josak? How about the fact that Libya is now in an even worse state than it was?
         
         It's incredible what people will advocate if they feel it somehow represents their 'side'.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No I just believe ind democracy and the righteousness of popular revolution. No of course all life has worth, but the President is as commander in chief responsible for the lives of US forces directly, if moves can be taken to prevent their harm then they should be and that was done. Additionally I believe that overall Obama's policy in Libya reduced the number of deaths that would have otherwise resulted and maximized those deaths on those I consider to be deserving, being the Libyan armed forces and the Libyan dictatorship administration.
            
            Libya is going through a state of transition, those are never easy, but getting rid of people like Gaddafi opens the way to improving the state and to people building it in an egalitarian society. No country should cling to a tyrannical despot because they are scared of the disruption it will cause.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So, in short, there are those that deserve to die if it brings about a society that you agree with?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  In short you wont catch me crying about the death of mass murderers and torturers particularly if they were supporting a tyrannical dictatorship. I was once involved in a similar process back home. Proper trial is better but not feasible in this scenario.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     So you would support the assassination of the President of the United States?

                     replyreport
            2. 72

               Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The POTUS takes an Oath to defend the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic.  How exactly was Libya a threat to the national security of the U.S.?   
               
               Also, if you could provide any evidence that Ghaddafi was targeting civilians (more than NATO)?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Gaddafi has sponsored and trained terrorists for attacks on the US several times costing hundreds if not thousands of American civilian lives in plane bombings and hijackings.
                  
                  Gaddafi has a long record of executing anyone who voiced opposition to his government, al of whom were civilians. This was one of the primary reasons for the revolution.

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     ??? What happened to the forum????
                     
                     
                     Anyway, What was Ghaddafi doing within the past two years to justify a mass murder of civilians by NATO forces?

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Gaddafi has been murdering his own citizens for decades and also hundreds of American citizens. There was a revolution which we aided that had some (actually quite few) accidental civilian casualties. The US supported the people of Libya who wanted democracy and that was successful, just like Obama's foreign policy.

                        replyreport
                        1. 72

                           Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           NATO air strikes were responsible for the massive destruction of Libyan civilian and defensive military infrastructure, bombing ports, highways, warehouses, airports, hospitals, electrical and water plants and neighborhood housing, in a war of ‘terror’ designed to ‘turn’ the loyalist mass base against the Gaddafi government. The mercenaries did not have popular backing among Libyan civilians, but NATO brutality weakened active opposition against the ‘rebel’ mercenaries.
                           
                           In the aftermath of NATO’s destruction, the ‘rebel’ mercenaries showed their true talents as death squads: They organized the systematic execution of “suspected Gadfafi supporters” and the pillage of homes, stores, banks and public institutions related to the defeated regime. To “secure” Tripoli and snuff out any expression of anti-colonial resistance, the ‘rebel’ mercenaries carry out summary executions – especially of black Libyans and sub-Saharan African workers and their families. The “chaos” in Tripoli described by the mass media is due to the ‘self-styled liberation’ forces running amok. The only quasi–organized forces in Tripoli appear to be the Al Qaeda-linked militants, NATO’s erstwhile allies.
                           
                           Is it too much to hope that a War Crimes Tribunal could be organized to prosecute NATO leaders for crimes against humanity, for genocide against the people of Libya ? Can the brutal link between costly imperial wars abroad and increasing austerity and domestic decay lead to the revival of an anti-imperialist peace movement based on withdrawal of imperial troops abroad and public domestic investments for jobs, health and education for the working and middle class?
                           
                           http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-s-war … en-heroes/
                           
                           When civilian areas are targeted, the death tolls are in no way accidental!
                           
                           So Ghaddafii had murdered thousands, and in retaliation NATO murdered thousands.  Since they were coordinating with their Al Qaeda allies in Libya, in what way is NATO any better than Ghaddafi?

                           replyreport
                           1. 67

                              innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              BOOM truth bomb!

                              replyreport
               2. 69

                  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  So, I guess context is out the door on this one too?

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     The context is the abysmal failure of the Obama administrations foreign policy and his inability to defend it!

                     replyreport
               3. 60

                  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  How exactly was Iraq a threat to the US, the Repubs still savaged them though. Are Iran really a threat to the US, or does Israel just say so? Either way, Romney agrees that war with Iran is justified.
                  
                  I've never agreed with the war in LIbya, but I think you'll find that O did not risk the life of US citizens in the same way that Romney is prepared to risk them to please Netanyahu.

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     The federal government of the United States has committed more horrific acts in its BS "War on Terror" than any other entity on the planet.  If Romney is elected, I will still oppose American acts of terror!
                     
                     
                     Libya was an illegal operation, it should have been decided by the American Congress, not the assassin- in chief!

                     replyreport
                  2. 61

                     paintphdposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Is Iran a threat to the US. Why no, not at all. All the ied's used to kill our soldiers were traced back to the the land of Oz. Terrorist assassination plots in New York City that were thwarted by US intelligence along with the help of Israeli intelligence was traced back to Machu Picchu....REMEMBER. The lion share of all of the bombs used by Al-quaida against American interest the world over; and their planning, has Iranian fingerprints all over them. Iraq wasn't a threat to us either, except for the fact Saddam Hussein had a fetish for mustard gassing thousands of innocent civilians...He was known to cross his borders and allow his sons to rape and pillage their citizens at will. Perhaps Bush got fed some bad intelligence on Saddam's amassing weapons of mass destruction...but karma can be fed to you in a least expected form sometimes. Obama only allowed US aid to the Libyan uprising because Qaddafi  was slaughtering innocent people. If you don't think US aircraft was a "RISK" as you said to those brave pilots, your misguided. If you would suppose that any American president would not stop the completion of a nuclear weapon by a lunatic who vowed to use it upon completion against Israel or any country, your simply delusional and borderline psychotic. If you think we live in a vacuum on this planet, or that we shouldn't intervene where evil rears it's head, you should study the history of the second world war and see that evil unchecked abroad will soon be in your city. That being said...I don't like war, wish we could all get along. That's not possible because the Mullah's are pissed that their followers are being suduced when they see capitolist based societies with a better life of freedom, creature comforts, and opportunities to do something other than heard sheep, grow poppy, and beat the burqa's off their women if a man looks at them. living conditions in a semi-free country threatens their goals of a world under Sharia Law, and that's why our symbols of capitolizm were targeted on 9/11. That's why they'll aways want to blow themselves up where ever we are, and as long as we'll let them.

                     replyreport
7. 68

   Charles Jamesposted 12 years ago

   Although Obama has a lead in the opinion polls the election is decided by who actually votes. The mittens are voting "agin" and they are more motivated to vote.
   
   Obama needs to galvanise his voters into thinking this is a close election so his more marginal supporters actually vote. Otherwise Obama could easily lose.

   replyreport
8. 77

   drbjposted 12 years ago

   Simple. Bad pot.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      paintphdposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't think about the pot angle....maybe thats what Gore was referring to when he mentioned altitude

      replyreport
9. 70

   Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

   The influence of debate performance on many voters is unfortunate in my opinion. Winning or losing a TV debate has about as much to do with presidential qualifications as a victory on the golf course, tennis court or arm wrestling. The debates distract the public from the specific domestic and foreign policies of the two candidates--on the budget, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Pentagon budget, women's rights, civil rights, foreign policy and so forth. The format and time constraints don't permit a thorough and honest discussion of all the public policy issues that are important to the country and all Americans.

   replyreport
10. 62

    American Viewposted 12 years ago

    The real reason Obama did poorly was Michelle was pissed at him. She was mad Obama was debating on their anniversary and told him in advance , NO sex that night.

    replyreport