Is it interesting that both Romney and Obama agreed rules are needed, then ignor

1. 62

   Perspycaciousposted 11 years ago

   Is it interesting that both Romney and Obama agreed rules are needed, then ignored the debate rules?
   
   I felt there was intent in Obama taking more than two minutes to make up for losing "five seconds" and that a comparison of the actual time each candidate was allowed to talk would not show the time was evenly distributed.  It was also interesting to me to notice that Romney spent the time, when Obama was talking, either looking at Obama or referring to his notes and making notes; while Obama looked less often at Romney and, when he wasn't looking at his own notes or making notes, he looked at the moderator.  Perhaps a body language expert among us could comment on any significance to that.

   replyreport
2. 0

   thegeckoposted 11 years ago

   Kind of the opposite of when President Obama ran against Senator McCain. I feel as though our president was a bit off his game tonight.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      thegeckoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Here's a thought... after their time is up, cut off their mics. It's not like they don't know when the clock is winding down o.O

      replyreport
3. 77

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Painful to watch. Painful to listen to.
   Very interesting to see the green and yellow lines for men and women undecided voters reacting to each candidate's comments.
   I want to smack Obama. He missed so many opportunities to rebut.
   Romney was beyond prepared. He was out for blood.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The difference in time was Obama +5 minutes of actual debate time.  That is nearly 10% more, if Lehrer's portion of the 90 minutes counts.

      replyreport
4. 72

   rafkenposted 11 years ago

   As is often the case, many men of power believe that rules are absolutely necessary   but not always applicable to them. After all, what is the point of having power, if you have to be governed by rules and how can you be expected to remain powerful, if the masses are not restricted by rules. Power could be defined as the ability to make rules that OTHERS must live by.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Diana Grantposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That sounds about right.
      
      My father always said "rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."  And that's what he taught me. Isn't it also called "thinking outside the box"?

      replyreport
   2. 59

      swordsbaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How can anyone be expected to follow laws when those who created them are exempt?  It's not 'thinking outside the box' and it's not right.  Laws that congress enacts frequently have language in them that exempts congress from those same laws. BAD.

      replyreport
5. 72

   lone77starposted 11 years ago

   Living overseas, I'm lucky I don't have access to watching that junk.
   
   I get enough clips and snippets of American news on YouTube and don't miss the slide toward oblivion.
   
   Just look at these 2 videos on the Republicrat and Demopublican conventions and how they've stopped using the rule of voting and Roberts Rules of Order. All a sham!
   
   RNC Scripted:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE
   
   DNC Scripted:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY
   
   As far as the Corporate Party, which runs both Reps and Dems, it doesn't make any difference who wins the election, just so long as it's one of their two guys.
   
   A 3rd party win would really throw a monkey wrench into their plans to dismantle America -- a plan which is, so far, running along very smoothly. Hitler would be envious.
   
   Just look at HR 347 -- making it a felony to protest. America is effectively dead. It would take a miracle to revive our beloved land. Too many of its citizens are brain dead and brainwashed by the Corporate Party media propaganda.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      ithabiseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ouch! Why so negative? "That junk" may have its frustrations, but it is every American's opportunity to make him- or herself informed about who they're putting into office. As bad as it gets, I can't afford to be jaded about it. Too much at stake.

      replyreport
6. 0

   huckelburyposted 11 years ago

   It was business as usual, which means that a stronger moderator is needed for these performances. Jim Leherer is capable, but he didn't maintain control to ensure the debate followed the agreed format. The "debates" are nothing more than theater, each side telling a different story. After all, the electorate doesn't vote for policy issues only personalities. Again, business as usual.

   replyreport
7. 59

   swordsbaneposted 11 years ago

   Not really interesting as it is entirely expected.  For the same reasons that they tell us they'll do all these wonderful things when they get in office then not do it... all they wanted is to get votes.  They'll have no end of excuses for WHY they didn't obey the rules.... most of them having to do with their opponent somehow validating it.
   
   Why people continue to vote for these two parties is a mystery that is beyond confounding.

   replyreport
8. 90

   Rock_njposted 11 years ago

   I thought one of the rules was to keep Big Bird out of the debate.  ;-)  I wasn't able to watch all of the debate, but the parts I saw seemed pretty even to me.  I think Obama must have taken a laid back approach on purpose to not seem overly agressive, and perhaps this approach backfired, but he did get his points across and so did Romney.  The debate served its purpose of letting the American people see the candidates in a different light without the media/campaign lenses.
   
   Having just one moderator took some of the spontaneity out of the debate.  It's better when you have three moderators for different backgrounds throwing curve balls at the canidates.

   replyreport
9. 87

   My Esotericposted 11 years ago

   Astute observation :-)
   
   I listened to almost all of the debate with my eyes closed so I could focus on what was said.  It wasn't until listening to the CNN commentary afterward did I become aware of the body language you mention.  I thought the following:
   1. In content, it was a draw
   2. In truthfulness, it went to Obama
   3. In style, it went to Romney - hands down
   4. In sticking, on message, I think it went slightly more to Obama because it seemed he got Romney to weaken or change is stand on tax cuts and Medicare
   5. In curtousy to the moderator, Obama; Romney seemed like a rude bully to me (other than Obama's "5-second" diatribe)
   6. In preparedness, Romney
   
   It seems like the national impression, according to CNN, is that Romney won this thing going away, accept in the 39 person focus group where it was a draw; 8 people deciding to vote for Romney and 8 people deciding to vote for Obama; the rest remained undecided.
   
   I was happy to see neither went for the jugular, which the CNN commentators seem to constitute debating, and did mainly stick to this issues, so, in my opinion, if anything won, the debate itself won.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Rock_njposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for that interesting debate analysis.  Interesting that you listened to the debate instead of watching it. The first Nixon/Kennedy debate had dramatically different opinions regarding who won based on if it was viewed or listened to.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      ithabiseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent analysis and I think you're right. I too felt Obama was more truthful.

      replyreport
   3. 62

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I seem to recall other debates having a bell which went off when given times had expired.  It could have helped in the first 2012 debate.

      replyreport
   4. 87

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That would be a good idea; a loud, persistant bell, lol.

      replyreport
10. 87

    alifeofdesignposted 11 years ago

    I chuckled when I logged onto Hubpages and noticed your question. I was thinking the same thing last night.
    
    I recall in years passed the camera would pan over to the light behind the moderator that indicates to the two candidates they their time is up. I would have liked to seen that this year.
    
    I'm not sure if the overall time for equal between the two men, but I find the discussions that take place after such debates often more interesting than the debates themselves.

    replyreport
11. 73

    lburmasterposted 11 years ago

    It is highly entertaining and brought a few laughs from me. However, why did Obama need to take so many notes? He could always film the debate and watch it later making notes at home, which means he does not consider Romney a threat and chose to ignore him. They both just took up time and barely reached major issues.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I will guarantee he considered him a threat the day after the first debate!

       replyreport
12. 86

    MizBejabbersposted 11 years ago

    Yes, that is interesting, especially since neither had anything of any new substance to say. If there had been some real rebuttal on either side, I can see their going overtime, or at least attempting to go overtime. I am disappointed in both of them, especially Obama because he missed so many chances for a real defense of his policies. BORING!!! Too bad he can't hire Bill Clinton to stand in for him on the debates. This political correctness is getting out of control!

    replyreport
    1. 87

       My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       What a great idea, having Bill Clinton Stand in.

       replyreport
13. 60

    violetheavenposted 11 years ago

    Oh my...... I laughed so hard when I read this!  It is so accurate.

    replyreport