POTUS Debate II: The Empire Strikes Back at the Wrath of Electric Mittensaloo

[merithyn]

From beginning to end, that whole vignette went to Obama.

I think the same, but Obama did have a big advantage in that exchange - Mitt can hardly say that he takes responsbility for what happened, or that he feels terrible when he greets the coffins coming home or when he grieves with the families or whatever. Next to that, any attacks would look fairly petty.

I would have thought that saying, "Look, we handled that poorly. We shouldn't have gone on the attack the day after, but we were so frustrated and angry that we lost four good people that we made a misstep" would have been a good thing, but I know plenty of people who don't believe that an apology over something like that is a positive. Besides, as Mitt's wife has said time and again, Mitt never apologizes. Ever.

[Kleves]

From the POV of a man, it seems to me that the main problem with Mitt's woman response is that he betrayed the gender stereotypes while trying to show how understanding he is.  It's almost like he went "Employers have to be flexible enough to not put too much on the women's shoulders during that time of the month."

That's the impression I got as well. I think the "binders full of women" was pretty innocuous, and really just shows how desperate some people are for a meme.

[Kleves]

I would have thought that saying, "Look, we handled that poorly. We shouldn't have gone on the attack the day after, but we were so frustrated and angry that we lost four good people that we made a misstep" would have been a good thing...

I agree that could have been an effective line, but I don't think Mitt knew anyone had died when he made his initial statements. My impression is that he was essentially trying to play politics when he made his statement, thinking that all that had happened was that our embassy had been trashed or something, but that it kind of blew up on him when it turned out that Americans had died.

[garbon]

What bothered me about the comment was that none of the initial candidates were women, despite the fact that he had "binders full of qualified women". It took him requesting them specifically before they were trotted out to be vetted.

But isn't that better on him then? He had sexist advisers and said no get me women candidates. 

As for the flex time thing, I had to explain to my single, childless female friend why that was so important to parents. She said, "If it's important to parents, why did he only mention it in regards to women? Don't men need it, too?" Which, to me, kind of sums up the problem.

Because the question was about equality for women? I thought also at the time that really what we needed to be discussed was gender equality but it really isn't in vogue to talk about issues for men as well.

Meanwhile Obama gets a pass when he spent most of his time talking about his daughters and single working women in his family. Oh and the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Libya answer is a debate 'moment' because Romney fucked up.

I am not sure that will have a big impact. It looked bad on TV, but the media (maybe not MSNBC) has been pointing out that Romney was substantively right about what the president said (the video caused the attack), even if he was technically wrong about the words the president used.

If that is what the media is saying, then the media is wrong.

If you actually read the transcript of his remarks, Obama said nothing at all about what caused the attack.  All he said was that there was an" attack", a "terrbible act" and an "act of terror" and he praised the Libyan security personnel who helped fight to defend the embassy. The perpetrators were simply referred to as "attackers"

He did make a reference during the speech about not wanting to "denigrate the religious beliefs of others" but he made no connection between the video and the attack on the embassy.

Fact is that Obama (unlike perhaps others in the executive branch and unlike Romney himself) did exactly the right thing and did not make any comment on the cause of the attack or the identity of the attackers before the facts were in.

[The Minsky Moment]

Mitt kept trying to "catch" Obama in a lie, and Obama just said, "No, really, just keep going."

Exactly.
I thought overall Mitt was mostly very solid, just as good as in the first one.  But a couple of times he tried to cross-examine Obama like a trial lawyer in a courtroom, not realizing that this was completely the wrong forum for that kind of tactic, and that there was no judge to force Obama to limit his response to the confines of his question.  He did the same thing on the drilling of federal lands issue and on the pension/investments in China issue.

[merithyn]

But isn't that better on him then? He had sexist advisers and said no get me women candidates. 

I suppose to a degree, but my gut tells me that it was more of a "I can't have all white men in my cabinet; get me color and heels, stat" than it was "I need different perspectives, how about we get some variation in backgrounds for the cabinet." I think that comes from the way he continued on with his response.

Because the question was about equality for women? I thought also at the time that really what we needed to be discussed was gender equality but it really isn't in vogue to talk about issues for men as well.

I agree completely. When I heard the question, I was annoyed. If there's inequity, then address that there is inequity, regardless of gender, race, etc.

Meanwhile Obama gets a pass when he spent most of his time talking about his daughters and single working women in his family. Oh and the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what Obama even said. I tuned him out about 10 seconds into his response since it seemed to have nothing of any real substance. Your comment makes me think that I was right.

I disliked the question, I disliked Romney's response, and I tuned out Obama. That topic, imo, was a wash with neither winning so much as Romney losing it. That being said, it didn't really show him as being this awful sexist pig as it solidified the idea that he is old-fashioned when it comes to his view of women. I doubt that's really news to anyone.

[garbon]

I can dig that.

[Josephus]

A friend on FB posted this: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html

Turns out Romney was way off on the gas prices thing four years ago. Gas prices were $2.66 when Obama took office, which was down from $3.48 the month before that.

Romney gets his facts wrong?

[Viking]

So while it was silly (and easy to laugh at) - I'm not sure how Romney's binders of women answer translates into sexism.  Is it sexist to say that you made you were able to hire women candidates and allowed female staffers with children flex time?  I can see it seeming like bullshit rhetoric given that it is a) Romney and b) his stance on reproductive rights but that's about it. 

It doesn't, he wanted to find qualified women for his administration and he sent the call out to potential allies in this. He was sent lots of CVs, he filled binders with those CVs and he staffed his administration with lots of women.

It's not even a gaffe, It's a deliberate misrepresentation of Romney. I don't think it is fair to call Romney a sexist, his entire party in south of the mason-dixon maybe, but not him.

[derspiess]

Mitt kept trying to "catch" Obama in a lie, and Obama just said, "No, really, just keep going."

Exactly.
I thought overall Mitt was mostly very solid, just as good as in the first one.  But a couple of times he tried to cross-examine Obama like a trial lawyer in a courtroom, not realizing that this was completely the wrong forum for that kind of tactic, and that there was no judge to force Obama to limit his response to the confines of his question.  He did the same thing on the drilling of federal lands issue and on the pension/investments in China issue.

Agree.  But there was a judge (not a very good one but whatever) and she ruled in favor of Obama on the Benghazi point.

[garbon]

A friend on FB posted this: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html

Turns out Romney was way off on the gas prices thing four years ago. Gas prices were $2.66 when Obama took office, which was down from $3.48 the month before that.

Romney gets his facts wrong?

Darling, do keep up. We've already note that Meri's fact-checking friend was piss-poor on his hunt.

[Viking]

Mitt kept trying to "catch" Obama in a lie, and Obama just said, "No, really, just keep going."

Exactly.
I thought overall Mitt was mostly very solid, just as good as in the first one.  But a couple of times he tried to cross-examine Obama like a trial lawyer in a courtroom, not realizing that this was completely the wrong forum for that kind of tactic, and that there was no judge to force Obama to limit his response to the confines of his question.  He did the same thing on the drilling of federal lands issue and on the pension/investments in China issue.

Agree.  But there was a judge (not a very good one but whatever) and she ruled in favor of Obama on the Benghazi point.

Well, technically Romney was right (but not substantively). The rose garden statement condemned the attack without specifying it as terror and then went on to assert that no act of terror will ever (yada yada yada)... It's almost the reverse of a non-denial denial, in this case the non-attributive attribution.

I think Obama was being subtle, possibly trying to prevent the terror label from being stuck on the attack before he knew exactly that label would be stuck on. In any case Romney's challenge was trivial and nonsensical on this issue and while he might technically have been right he was substantively wrong.

[merithyn]

It doesn't, he wanted to find qualified women for his administration and he sent the call out to potential allies in this. He was sent lots of CVs, he filled binders with those CVs and he staffed his administration with lots of women.

It's not even a gaffe, It's a deliberate misrepresentation of Romney. I don't think it is fair to call Romney a sexist, his entire party in south of the mason-dixon maybe, but not him.

As has been said, it wasn't that he said that so much as the things that he said around that statement that was... sketchy. I don't consider Romney a sexist, but I don't believe that his view of women in the office is really all that far out of the 1960s or 1970s, either. Harmless, but not really progressive or egalitarian, either.

[DGuller]

Back in Rose Garden, was Obama referring to Al Qaeda?  A lynch mob killing Americans is also an act of terror, even if it's not as organized as 9/11.