I can't believe anyone would think Obama is a great speaker/debater

It's not a CONSPIRACY idiot. It's groupthink. They are all liberal and they support Obama

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BSE_saVX_2A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

3:18

 

How did a person of your intellect level actually get through a page of 1984? I would think a book like Curious George would be more to your pace.

There's a reason why Santorum believes that smart people will never be under the wing of the right...

 

For the MSM, any black dude who can put together a couple of marginally coherent sentences in standard English is "articulate".

 

Anyone who does not think that the MSM have been totally in the tank for Obama since 2008 is brain dead.

 

Anyone who thinks the media wants anything but a close race is brain dead. The media doesn't attract viewers if Obama is perfect, people will stop watching. Look at Shaq and the Lakers when they swept the Nets. That was the most under-watched finals in the modern era of the NBA. People want a close race, regardless of the side because that draws everybody in. Does MSNBC take the product that Fox news has an mimics it a bit, sure. Why do they do that? Is it because they really back Obama? No. That's easily seen. If it benefits them to turn their back on Obama or the left in general they will. Other networks (aside from MSNBC and Fox News) are a bit more on the level. They want a close race. They want ratings. They hate and love both sides.

 

If they wanted a close race, why have they spent the last month telling us that the race was all but over?

 

Yeah, maybe MSNBC told you that, but for the most part what I read was that it isn't over until November. Most media outlets said Romney needed to make a big push in the debates. Is that false? If Romney came out flatfooted and sounded like an ass then it wouldn't be a race. Furthermore, everyone knew the debates would set the stage for the final round of this race. This couldn't be more perfect if it was scripted. Everyone is glued in to watch the last five minutes of the fourth and both teams are tied. The superbowl doesn't even have this level of drama...

 

They said Romney needed to make a big splash because he was doomed if he did not. What's likely to happen next is that the MSM kicks Obama around for a couple of days in order to lower expectations for the next debate. Then they will declare Obama the winner in the next round and for the rest of the campaign the narrative will be Obama as The New Comeback Kid.

 

I don't think anyone other than an Obama supporter would say Romney came across as a puppet or recorded/rehearsed. Most people that I've heard, including pundits, have agreed he came across as passionate and energetic as well as "knowledgeable" in the sense that he had deep competency to discuss each issue. (Whether he was accurate is for another thread!)

1) Yep. And I don't think he was anything like Obama as a debater. That's an odd comparison the OP made.

2. Yep.

3. Yep.

 

I guess everyone saw something different. To me, a person with that much eb and flow to his responses doesn't sound like he is actually processing the question. His retorts were quick and his flow was strong. Most people I know, when they process something it comes together in pieces, and while the flow might not be strong the message is. I felt like Obama had no rhythm, and I guess to some that seems like he's unprepared.

 

Look, conspiracy theories are cool when you're 14 and you just finished 1984 or Brave New World, but when you're an adult its just delusional. If anything the next debate will be that Obama barely edges Romney and it will go to the final polls. Romney did need a big splash, not because he was drastically behind but because it's the fourth quarter. You can't put your C team in to start the 4th. That's all that was being said. If you read that to mean he is dismally behind and Obama had this in the bag then you are reading far too much into things.

 

Last night certainly was not the best debate Obama has had. He doged the challenges from Rommney by , deliberately, mischaracterizing the challenges. That really threw me off. Especially when Rommney started the Constitution talk, what was the President waiting for?
OTOH, I am not sure Rommney is all that clear on the topics he touched upone. For example, I think Rommney is coached on Dodd-Frank. Obama could have pinned him right there, but instead talking about balance of things.

In the end, a typical debate, lots of big stuff without really getting into a clear road map for the country. I will give the edge to Rommney, but that doesn't mean he did all that much better.

 

For the last damn time - it ain't a conspiracy it's groupthink.

Look, if W had been in office when our Lbyan ambassador was killed, the MSM would have used it as an opportunity to trash his Mideast policy and to rip on the security measures at State. Further, they would have been very skeptical about trying to pin the blame on some obscure video when the preident knew in hours that it was not a spontaneous act. But, Obama is the president, and so the story was about Romney's so-called gaffe and a "hateful" video.

Then there was the 47% video. Once again, had this been Obama, it would have been minimized or ignored (like the Khalidi tape that the LAT has but refuses to release)

Put these all together and the media narrative until last night was that Romney was a gaffe-prone gumbah headed to a devasting defeat in November. They'll back off that narrative for a couple of days to create the Obama comeback narrative. It will also allow them to claim that they are not biased - as if two days of mild Obama bashing makes up for 4 years of fellatio.

 

Yeah, it's a good thing W wasn't in office when some dudes flew planes into some skyscrapers in NYC and killed 3000 people. Otherwise the MSM totally would've pinned it on him!

Oh wait, he was in office, and they totally didn't...

Sure, it got brought up eventually (far too late after the fact and by nobody in the MSM)... but seriously, it's time to grow up and stop making excuses.

 

The difference between a conspiracy and group think is paper thin, it's that one is actively done and the other is passively done. Either way it's sad that you think this is what's going on. If Obama made a video where he said that he does not cater to half the nation it would have destroyed him if anything. That would be the smoking gun the right is looking for. It would go to show a pattern in that Obama is not willing to cross the isle and work with the right. This is what Romney tried to tug at last night in the debate, but it didn't quite work. This video on the other hand confirmed a lot of pre-existing stereotypes set by the right, and that is why it was devastating. It isn't because there is mass media conglomerate trying to validate the president. If you really believe that BS why don't you just go buy tons of ammo, build yourself a bomb shelter in the woods and cut yourself off from society once and for all. You might as well do it before you get reprogrammed. 2 + 2 = whatever Obama says it equals.

 

When I'm trying to convey a point, I often speak in a slow and measured way. I'm giving thought to exactly what I want to say and how I want to phrase it. There are often gaps in my speech while I try to think of the best way to put something. These gaps are accentuated by my non-use of filler words like "uh" and "um". When I see the president speak, I see him doing the same thing I do. I see him giving serious thought to what he's saying. This is not a negative for me.

 

It's clear that Obama did not have a rehearsed set of soundbites and talking points to hit. He was giving slow, measured, methodical answers. Not exactly TV friendly. Romney, on the otherhand, spat em out like he had been sitting in a room reading flash cards for weeks. Effective, but the problem is he trampled all over his own platform and principles in the process. Those bite sized soundclips of him completely contradicting himself are going to work great in some ad buys.

 

I don't see how Obama's points are measured and calculated. Simply put, they were without substance and full of mischaracterizations. Under-preparation is an understatement for Obama's performance in the debate. Seems to me he just doesn't have a good justification for what he did when challenged. Yes, I understand some of that are results of politics, but you will never hear from someone like Clinton ever speak that lame.

 

Lacking substance, yes. Mischaracterizations, (relative to Romney?) no.

Being cautious about what you say does not imply it is chock full o' data.

It means you're being careful not to contradict yourself, misspeak, or say something outrageously stupid or silly.

I agree he was not ready for such a tidal wave of BS and flipflopping, but that probably comes from 2 things.

1) The last debate Obama had was 4 years ago and Romney has been on the regular debate circuit for a while now.

2) Obama has the lead and is playing not to lose, meanwhile, Romney was absolutely desperate to score some points.