Skip to main content

View Diary: Reality and the post-debate responses (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Would you please elaborate for me how we wouldn't (5+ / 0-)

    be believing our own spin by not saying in public what we know to be true. Is there a super secret fort somewhere that we can use to discuss our missteps?

    Did you read the article where it said the President utilized the "early reviews" in forming the opinion that he had done poorly. Did you want a second debate performance like the first?

    •  Ok, how about this (8+ / 0-)

      The President didn't have his best performance last night. He's running a campaign at the same time as he's holding down his day job as leader of the free world at a time of unprecedented challenges both here at home and around the world.

      Governor Romney was certainly energetic, but listen to what he said. He lied repeatedly about what he had previously said he would do, and he continued to refuse to tell the American people any specifics about what he plans to do should he be elected president. You have to ask yourself: is he hiding the details of his proposals only because those details are just so good?

      Something along those lines.

      •  Of course he lied. Why do you think so many of us (7+ / 0-)

        were upset with the President? He didn't call him out on any of it. The public sure as hell wasn't going to find out about Romneys lies from the press, he'd been doing it the whole campaign.

        Look, I really hope the President has the best term of any President ever. But, it will never have a chance of happening if his friends don't let him know when he's going down the wrong path.

        •  Lot of room between constructive criticism (7+ / 0-)

          And the meltdown of epic proportions people like Matthews, Shulz, and many a poster here had.  

          •  I gave my strongest constructive criticism (6+ / 0-)

            online for it to be recorded and noted and attended to, and I did that politely, recalling President Obama's basic tendency to respond and react to strong words stated out of care alongside his tendency to dismiss hair-on-fire stuff (which has been long noted).

            It was because it has been his style to come back with a vengeance when he gets it wrong that I knew the first debate, even though I didn't really care he did poorly per se (it seemed like a "whatever" to me), because that's been his style, I stated clearly online what I thought: please do better next time because that wasn't good, and I want you to win.

            I think there's such a distinction between going into meltdown panic mode to explain yourself and being direct.

            If someone's shrieking and angry, and we've all been in that situation in our lives, it's hard to hear them and easy to tune them out. If someone's firm and clear about their disappointment, we tend to constructively respond to them. That's why I tried to respond to the first debate without the screaming panic, but firmly and truly (I didn't think it was a clunker, but it sure wasn't good).

            I had full trust that Obama would win the next debate with enough sensible feedback. I'd have bet money on it. It is his style going way back. When you think he's down, and when he sees it, he bounces back. Like the Rev. Wright speech on race. Like with Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. He bounces back if he sees his supporters didn't like what he did.

            But he also does seem to tune out true panic. He seems to respond better, in my humblest observations, to firm, calm, sensible critique. I'm glad for those of us who gave that to him.

            And all that aside, why are we doing this post mortem now?

            WE JUST WON THE ELECTION. Handsomely. With new States and swing states too. With a very Progressive roster of new Senators. Why look backward right now? If there is a benefit to doing this right now, I can't really think what it is?

            •  I can't figure it out either (5+ / 0-)

              Enough about the debates. We won! The Repugs are making up new shit about Petraeus and Benghazi as we sit here shredding our clothes over something that happened on October 3rd!

              Sheesh! Enough.

              I'd personally like a few more moments dancing on Rmoney's grave instead of having a pie fight about who was righter about the first debate!

              We Won! Let's act like it!

              In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

              by vcmvo2 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:37:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  One point I'd like to make to make to your comment (3+ / 0-)

              though I agree, we won so let's move on.

              The only review that we know the President heard for sure was from what some are calling Matthews hair-on-fire critique. We know because the President joked about it. I'm not aware of any evidence for your contention that he tunes that out. Sure a lot of people do but I couldn't say that the President is one of them.

              •  Evidence like that he posted to this site (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                once and then dropped his account. I guess that was one thing I was thinking of. And watching him for the past few years in general.

                Sorry to not be more specific... we're having a household issue right now, suddenly...

            •  I love your comments (3+ / 0-)

              But I also think reflection is always great after an election. It's never easy to just walk away from a presidential campaign without at the very least sharing war stories with each other.

              It's all part of it. Reflection. I think it's a good thing.

              And I really do owe a debt of gratitude to people here who kept their heads, which in turn helped me keep mine, which in turn provided me an opportunity to be the calm one during the stormiest days to Obama supporters in my life.

              So many of them apologized to me the day after the election, but I just smiled and gave them a hug.

              They are the unfortunate ones. They only read the headlines and listen to the screaming.

      •  you are calling... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink, bdop4, jec, Matt Z, Laconic Lib

        Romney out from a POV where you know he was lying and when and about what.

        That's not true of the vast majority of the 70 million people who wathced the debate, seeing Romney sounding perfectly reasonable, and the president spending half his time nodding in apparent agreement and the other half looking down as if he's guilty of what Romney is saying.

        That was horrific and needed to be called horrific, stat.

        "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

        by JackND on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:01:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He needed the jolt (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jec, JackND, Matt Z

          I know the CV is that debates don't matter, blah, blah, blah.

          But the fact is that it's the only time candidates directly interact with each other and viewers see how well each candidate's positions stand up to the opposition.

          It's an event that has happened at some level throughout the history of humanity. In the beginning, it was mortal combat between two champions. Today, it's rehtorical combat between two ideologies.

          Either way, the outcome impacts a very deep strain in our cultural psyche and Obama needed to know how important these contests are. I don't think he would have gotten the message if we had softly delivered "constructive criticism."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site