Aggressive Debate . Analysis.

Obama learned lines  from Joe Biden's rule book. I am Undecided who won this debate.

Wow wee! Pres. Obama defiantly got aggressive , but I fund a few weaknesses on Obama's part not as much to say to Romney who still has a lot of dust to settle . The fist debate Mr. Obama looked spaced out as far as being there .  Mr. Obama showed up for his second debate with Mitt Romney on Tuesday, and at moments their town-hall-style engagement felt more like a shouting match than a presidential debate. Here Mr. Obama took lines from Joe Biden's rule book . The two men challenged each other on the facts, talked over each other and stalked each other across the stage. Furthermore I could see that Obama looked "pissed off" , and displayed an attitude which I could sense Pres. Obama coming close to saying " That's a bunch of malarkey " .  Moderator Candy Crowley of CNN faced a difficult task all night in trying to keep to the intended format as both candidates insisted on answering nearly every charge from his opponent, regardless of the time limits The Moderator was herself "rude" to Mitt Romney cutting him off and trying to prevent Romney from getting an answer out. Crowley felt that if she could win one for Obama and change the election. Romney was debating both Crowley and Obama being cut off numerous times before he could make his point. Crowley even sided with Obama on Libya that he did call it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden. But why Candy did he take two weeks to come to that conclusion. Why did Obama on the view state that he didn't know if it was a terrorist attack he had to investigate. Why did Ambassador Rice state Ambassador's Stevens death was the result of a you tube video. Why did Obama apologize six times at the United Nations for the you tube video? Mr. Romney has charged that the administration has been slow to acknowledge that the Benghazi attack was carried out by terrorists, and he again challenged the president about his remarks the day after the attack.  That brought the strongest retort of the evening from the president who said he was offended at the suggestion that his foreign policy team would engage in politics when national security issues were at stake.  Mr. Romney then pressed on about the president’s remarks the day after the attack in the White House Rose Garden, challenging the president’s assertion that he had mentioned acts of terrorism.  Most of the debate focused on the economy, the president’s “Achilles Heel,” and a major point of success for Mr. Romney in their first debate.  Mr. Romney continued to make his points about jobs, the deficit, government spending and energy, but he didn’t seem quite as crisp as he was in the first debate two weeks ago.  Maybe it was the format.  Mr. Romney has often had problems relating to voters and questioners in settings like these and he didn’t seem as comfortable as the first time around. By contrast, the president was much more forceful, both in defending his record and trying to make a case for another four years in office.  This has been an area of weakness for the president, with many commentators complaining that he provides little in the way of concrete plans about where he wants to take the country if he wins a second term.  Mr. Obama didn’t offer much new in this regard. But it was the way he presented himself, with authority and conviction, that at least gave the impression he does want a second term after all, something even some of his supporters were openly questioning after his first debate debacle. Mr. Romney has his own dust to settle , I must say that Mitt has some qualities , but my concerns are . Taxes are important because it's  the tax dollars that also cut down the national deficit that Romney keeps graciously harping on.  The fact is this money has been owed forever and yes it is getting higher but it could a portion of that be his and other billionaires fault for placing there money in a country where they don't actually live.  Is that patriotic...highly doubt it. Mr. Romney caught Obama on this same question , where Obama also has investments in China . He said Obama, through his pension fund, also has “investments in China.” Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, did invest in firms that specialized in outsourcing during the years Romney ran the private equity firm. In using the term “pioneer” Obama was referring to a story in The Washington Post that detailed early investments made by Bain in companies that would become major players in outsourcing to China and other countries. In addition, Romney has a stake in a Bain investment fund that owns Uniview Technologies, a Chinese firm that produces “infra-red” cameras and surveillance gear. That investment did not occur until late 2011, long after Romney left Bain Capital. Obama deflected questions about his own investments in China with a joke. But independent reports have shown Obama holds shares in mutual funds that invest in Apple, Wal-Mart and other U.S. firms with operations in China. More serious questions about Obama’s record on outsourcing have been raised from critics on the left, which were not addressed during the debate. 

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

 I am UNDECIDED  here folk's , We HAVE two RICH guys running for Office . Obama could have turned up the heat even more. The five-point plan with no details. The lack of specifics on loopholes. The challenger's "plan" for what he'll do in place of Obamacare. The 47%. All were mentioned tonight but should have brought more into focus. On the other hand, Romney pressed the same attack points he's been hitting for weeks, if not months (the one exception being Libya). Obama has the potential to do much more in exploiting his opponent's vulnerabilities and on substantive issues. Romney can only repeat the same old. The question is, will Obama realize the potential and act on it?The debate was a joke, all planned questions on the few differences that the two corporate parties have. No mention of NDAA, no mention drone strikes, no mention of the bank bailouts and wall street cronism because both parties are agreed on those.What the independent network Democracy Now is doing, expanding the debate to allow third party candidates in would really test the two main party candidates and be far more interesting to watch. Third party candidates are people who aren't just interested in maintaining the status-quo, people who really care about the environment and see the dead-end destructive way of fossil fuels, and people who really care about human rights.The debate last night was basically two men stretching out their minor differences to make it look like they are not almost glued to the hip when it comes to policies.