No...not racist puppets. But these two came out fighting.
A much different debate than the one two weeks ago. Either the town hall style better suited the President, or he took the previous ass kicking to heart. He was more eloquent, concise, and kept the dumb "ummms" and "ahhhs" to a minimum. Regardless, as I said last time, I don't know how much debates matter (probably not a ton), but the President returned with a, well, presidential performance.
Here are my TOP FIVE (QUICK) THOUGHTS ABOUT LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE:
5) Binders Full Of Women
While discussing the diversity of his Massachusetts cabinet, Mitt Romney claimed he searched through "binders full of women" while looking for qualified female candidates. BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN! *Oops.* Within an hour, a Facebook group called "binders full of women" had about 100k likes, and the strange quote was heavily trending on Twitter. Mitt had gained ground with women after the last debate, but failed miserably on the question of equal rights for women tonight. When he was challenged on his stance, he used the anecdotal "binders full of women" speech that was an insensitive non-answer to the question. Horrible soundbyte.
I find it funny that a Mormon, someone whose religion is, fairly or unfairly, associated with polygamy, would have a BINDER FULL OF WOMEN! Anyway...
4) "You Are The Last Person To Get Tough On China"
I hope I'm remembering that quote right, but that's an example of how the President debated tonight. When Romney claimed he'd get tough on China with sanctions, Obama fired back with that quote and Bain Capital's history of outsourcing American jobs to countries like China. I don't know that his performance will reverse the Romney momentum, but he stood tall on his record and withstood Romney's attacks, which was a 180 from the first debate. (also, for what it's worth, I doubt either will get that tough on China).
But having said that, I find Romney to be a very effective debater. He's incredibly solid when attacking the Obama economy (he has you convinced America is one job loss away from being a flea market), and he also has a knack for pulling out convincing, specific statistics and studies (whether true or not) when he goes second. He knows Obama won't be able to attack his points in the current debate format, and uses the fact that the last point made is often the most memorable (which is why its weird he opened himself up to the 47 percent question at the end of the debate). But, in general, he's better at this than the President.
Didn't anyone tell Mitt not to piss off the Latinos? On the subject of immigration, Romney spent the entire time opposing Obama's DREAM act, without proposing any sort of reasonable alternative. He needs the Latino vote in Nevada and Colorado, and didn't do much to endear himself to them.
The Zack Morris promise was back tonight (TVs in every classroom and cheerleaders in every locker!), as Mitt waxed poetically about lower rates without increasing the deficit. When the President challenged him on the fuzzy math of his tax plan (there are NO ways the numbers add up), all he could say was, essentially, "trust me." When the moderator asked him to elaborate, he assured the nation that it would add up. And he sounded like an asshole when he said it. When numerous independent studies claim otherwise, and after the President's explanations of how it would add trillions to the deficit, Mitt refused to mention anything that resembled a specific. He had a chance to explain himself, and instead got flustered and resorted to a defensive stance that made him seem like an elitist. Like that smug boss who wears that "this dick won't suck itself" face all day long.
1) Benghazi and the "Act Of Terror."
This will be the moment people remember most about this debate. During the utterly pointless argument of whether or not the President denounced the assassination of the Libyan ambassador on the night of the attack, Romney smugly stuck out his chin and definitively claimed Obama never uttered the phrase "act of terror" during his rose garden speech. Unfortunately for Mitt, not only did the President defend himself by telling him to "check the transcript", but the moderator actually corrected his false claim on the spot. It's not often lies (or misconceptions) are called out live during debates, but it happened here. Absolut Embarrass. Even irrational right wing morons like SE Cupp claimed that was a misstep for Romney, and irrational right wing morons like SE Cupp generally never admit to such things.
There ya have my pointless two cents. But as I mentioned before, I assume this election was decided weeks ago in favor of either candidate. This country is so divided, I don't believe there's all that much middle ground. And, because of it, you won't see a shit ton of change no matter who wins.