Of course not . SADLY when you get to a point where you can pretty much predict what the panel members will say , than we are at WWE level ..

Obama is getting hammered by the media, with some good cause. Often it's the current narrative that the collective consciousness will embrace, instead of critical thinking.

I think it's pretty well stipulated on both sides, that our President did not bring his A game on the first debate.

But through my democratic lens, I see the economy moving and recovering, albeit slowly, but the numbers are going the the right direction. The other side sees conspiracies and fudging reports through their GOP prism.

Obama has his work cut out for him on the next debates. I do believe these debate impressions are important and Obama by nature is not an overt Bully. We shall see if the President can step up to the plate in a forceful, yet presidential demeanor. I'm concerned.

A BIG NO!
What we saw was Romney working a crib sheet he drew from his pocket to his podium. Like a Snake Oil Salesman, he sold a product for every ail.

The President was caught on the wrong foot, with little he could disagree on from the pitch of the Salesman, without calling him a quick change artist.

This was not the Romney reported by the Press for the last year.

We know Congress does not like it, they have fought the President over it - and if the cure for the ails stands from Romney, he too will run into the same wall of opposition.

I think the next 2 Presidential Debates will be very different, now Romney has disclosed his tactics of becoming more like the President.

Why vote for an imitation, when you can have the real thing, in known quantities?

Arnold?????................oh, please! Wasted your airtime with that one!

ABSOLUTELY! This exercise provided an opportunity to see the real difference between an individual with business experience and success as well as leadership experience and success VERUS a community activist. I am optimistic that voters will decide to make the intelligent decision, and elect someone who will finally provide the best solutions to our current economic and international dilemmas.

I felt the president was over-prepared.

What befuddled him, it seemed was Romney's total change on many former stands. It looked like the president was taking it all in and trying to be safe and factual, knowing that in the long run, Romney was working himself into a corner.

That puts Romney out of tricks. If he does it again, he'll definitely appear to be unbelievable to his own supporters, or the "middle" believers, who have his support for now.

In regard to Romney's attacks on Obama...bull@!$%# baffles brains, again....

The race may have temporarily changed, but it won't last.

Newt made the most stupid statement this morning when he said "Small business owners first thought everyday is how much tax they'll pay" (I have paraphrased here). If as a small business owner your first thought of the day is how much tax you'll pay don't worry, you won't be paying any because your business is bound to fail! Focus every day on how to grow your business.

The first thought of the day should be "How can I build my business"? If you are successful be proud to pay your taxes and help to keep this great country you live in moving forward.

As a first generation immigrant and small business owner I celebrate being able to and happy to pay my fair share to contribute to the country that gave me such an amazing opportunity.

I used to be a Democratic Senatorial District Delegate and this trickle up poverty isn't what I signed on for. Hillary would have done a much better job getting the US back on it's feet and back to work. Obama is no Clinton. What Bill Clinton had Barack Obama couldn't even borrow to get. Clinton had true bi-partisanship, Obama couldn't bribe a vote from legislators, even in the Democratic Senate! We don't need another 4 years of this BS. We don't need a do-over president, we need a do-er. Obama couldn't make a profit in a lemonade stand, he'd give away all the product and earnings and have too much overhead. I want a real businessman to turn our suffering economy into a surplus economy. I want someone who has proven success, and can demonstrate it in his own life. I want the same opportunities for my kids that my folks had for me, I want my kid to be able to find work when he graduates in four years. That's not going to happen under Obama. Anyone who says it will is full of it, just look at his record. Are college graduates able to find work? Hell no. Obama's gotta go.

Because so much is riding on the regain of control of the White House by the Republican Party, no detail can be overlooked by strategists to manipulate voters. They have not forgotten the successful (well documented) union- influenced strategies used against Nixon during TV broadcasts of the Nixon vs. Kennedy debates. Screen actor Ronald Regan’s televised image was carefully framed against uncluttered pale blue images of sky, as he spoke with great conviction and emotion. Sometimes it wasn’t whether he actually answered a question but how confidently he responded, though sometimes evading the question, but we admired him. Similarly Clinton was able to charismatically cross the aisle and garner votes. Visual imagery has a very powerful yet subtle influence on our “take” in what we witness. Directors often use that during debates and panel discussions to influence thought. It is less effective if you are aware of such bias by the network or the personal views of the director who punches up the image on the screen to specifically include the negative reaction of adjacent panel members when one member is trying to bring home a point. At the least it is highly distracting. More often it can make the speakers comments highly ineffective. When the director saw Obama looking down at his notes, was that his opportunity to influence our view with split screen? A more unbiased way would be to keep all as split screen or none split. Pay attention to those maneuvers on panel shows as well. Maybe if enough of us expose that “creative” editing it will not be exploited so effectively to interfere with an unbiased view of political agenda. Combine those tactics with the often unbalanced selection of “opposing” panel members. Are you listening David?

Because so much is riding on the regain of control of the White House by the Republican Party, no detail can be overlooked by strategists to manipulate voters. They have not forgotten the successful (well documented) union- influenced strategies used against Nixon during TV broadcasts of the Nixon vs. Kennedy debates. Screen actor Ronald Regan’s televised image was carefully framed against uncluttered pale blue images of sky, as he spoke with great conviction and emotion. Sometimes it wasn’t whether he actually answered a question but how confidently he responded, though sometimes evading the question, but we admired him. Similarly Clinton was able to charismatically cross the aisle and garner votes. Visual imagery has a very powerful yet subtle influence on our “take” in what we witness. Directors often use that during debates and panel discussions to influence thought. It is less effective if you are aware of such bias by the network or the personal views of the director who punches up the image on the screen to specifically include the negative reaction of adjacent panel members when one member is trying to bring home a point. At the least it is highly distracting. More often it can make the speakers comments highly ineffective. When the director saw Obama looking down at his notes, was that his opportunity to influence our view with split screen? A more unbiased way would be to keep all as split screen or none split. Pay attention to those maneuvers on panel shows as well. Maybe if enough of us expose that “creative” editing it will not be exploited so effectively to interfere with an unbiased view of political agenda. Combine those tactics with the often unbalanced selection of “opposing” panel members. Are you listening David?

Here is the thing, Obamma is going to win, and this Romney happiness is worth two new cycles, capped by Sunday morning. So did Romney change position, I really don't think so, he still looked stupid to me. I watched the trend line from CO undecided, and the President won on average about 60% women. Women vote, men bitch, this election is over. Sorry Romnettes, you may need campaign another 10 years to get another chance.

One poll questioned 100 people and the second poll questioned 1000 people as the Media gives Mitt the lead, wow! Good to see ABC is getting Ann Romney as host to get votes and it's her first real job in 41 years as she has been a stay at home from even after her 5 sons married with families of their own. Ann will now see what earning a check and seeing her first W2 form. NBC is doing it's part to push votes for Mitt as the host of Meet the President is doing a campaign fundraiser for the Romney/Ryan ticket. I wondered why the stations were not fair and balanced. Maybe Meet the Press should now be called Meet the Romney Press as it seems Mitt Romney is in control. At lease the World, United Nations and the Terrorist get to see the first openly corrupt United States Presidential Election much like the ones Dictators use.

Why is Jennifer Granholm on the show? She ran Michigan into
the ground. Why would anybody in their right mind value her opinion?