A.M. Roundup: Obama energized in second debate







David McCumber offers five hits and five misses. (Hearst)





























James Conte, Long Island assemblyman, 53. (Newsday)


Here are some national headlines…

Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit stepped down. (AP)

Maggie Haberman’s six debate takeaways. (Politico)


Happy wedding to…Libby Post and Lynn Dunning-Vaughn.

What you missed yesterday…


Et cetera…


  1. jdunphy says:


    interesting, because it seems millions are sitting around to fund legislative pay raises. So we see the Governor use money better used on infrastructure and pay cuts to everyday middle class State employees to fund his friends in the ligslature pay raises.

  2. EriK says:

    Nice to get some unbiased commentary on the debate. Oh wait,

    BLAKE ZEFF is a veteran political strategist, writer and commentator. A former presidential campaign aide to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton…

    Alexis Grenell is a Democratic political communications strategist.


    Overall, not the game changer that the President needed. His unwillingness to answer the Libya question was a mistake. It means this will continue to be an issue, sure to come up at the next debate. Romney misplayed this golden opportunity to highlight the administration’s feckless spin. “Moderator” Crowley wrong-headed “fact check” covered for the President’s false narrative of the killings in Libya. Of course she walked back her intervention after the debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=athcyCTnTTs

  3. Bob says:

    “and they brought us whole binders full of women….”

    Jon Stewart should just go ahead and hire Romney as a writer.

  4. Chip D says:


    He wasn’t as well-spoken as the first debate; I think a lot of that had to do with the format. He provided vastly more specifics on what 4 years as POTUS would look like under him. He did give up some perfect opportunities to give Obama the knockout punch, but in the case of Libya looked kinda caught off guard when Crowley got involved.

    As for substance, Romney won hands down. He provided more information and was mostly in control of himself, but didn’t have that spark we saw the first time around.

    Obama was hands down much better this time around, but let’s be honest he was so bad the first time I don’t think he could have gotten worse. Obama didn’t provide much detail in what the next 4 years would look like or HOW they would look different from the first 4 years. He was even vaguer than Romney (yes that is possible), he spoke about getting MFGing going again, but didn’t provide any plans on how.

    Obama spent most of his time attacking Romney, which shows Obama’s biggest play right now is to make Romney look unacceptable as a replacement. But that’s Obama’s only real play now because the mass majority of Americans agree the Obama policies haven’t put us in a better place than when he took office. Obama did look more in control of the debate; he did a good job of pushing the “strong” and “angry black man” line without really crossing it. He came close when talking about politicizing Libya (which he’s done 100′s of times with OBL), but in the end he failed to answer almost every question he was asked.

    I think Obama got a slight win in this debate. Both the CNN and PPP? poll gave him a 4 to 5 point win, but they were within the margin of error. Hands down Romney provided more information, which most neutral parties agreed with, but Obama was more aggressive. Both polls also showed Romney again won hands down on the economy, which we all know is the number 1 issue. As for long term, I see this only bumping up each person’s base and maybe, just maybe, giving Romney about .5 point bump from undecided’s… But it only matter what the people in Ohio thought.

    Debate format:
    I think this was the worst debate I’ve seen. They should have had both men sit at a table like the VP debate. The two of them walking around and getting in each other’s face wasn’t pretty. It was embarrassing to watch two grown men act like high school jocks. As for Mr. Crowley, she did a bad job, she couldn’t control either men and let them blab on, not answer questions and go over the time limits.

    On a side note, did anyone else notice Obama whining about not getting “enough time”? According to CNN, get got almost 4 more minutes of talking time. I guess if he didn’t interrupt as much he might have been able to speak more?

  5. gecannon says:

    The Hofstra debate
    I agree that Barack reversed the image from Denver..perhaps it was the more flexible town hall meeting format…perhaps it was the realization that he had to take the fight to Mitt directly.

    Mitt actually gave a good legal brief for affirmative action when he described how he ordered his governor’s staff to find qualified women for his Mass. administration.
    He was responding to the question of equal pay.
    He did not however directly answer the question of how to more equalize pay between male and female workers.

    The exchange on the Romney tax plan was good; and Barack finally directly attacked.
    Mitt can campaign on the sexy,attractive mantra of reducing everyone’s taxes by 20%…that is always red meat to every tax payer.

    It is the math that reveals the myth behind Mitt’s plan.
    Barack outlined the cost of a 20% cut in income taxes (which includes income,estate,corporate,capital gains)…a cost of $5 trillion over ten years.
    When Mitt’s call for Defense increases of $2 trillion over ten years; and maintaining the Bush 2 tax cuts, another $1 trillion, that totals a loss of revenue, or increase in spending, of close to $8 trillion over ten years.

    Making this $8 trillion revenue neutral by cutting,eliminating, loopholes,deductions cannot be done without hitting the middle-class hard.

    Mitt’s tax plan is a carnival hat trick; a con of trying to find the pea (the tax loopholes) that will make the plan work.

  6. gecannon says:


    Unfortunately , Mr. Gibson wants total repeal of Obamacare.
    A more conservative, productive approach would be to support some changes,tweaking, in the law; but allow the ACA law to go forward in implementation.

    The important question to ask is if Obamacare is repealed, the projection is that 40-50 million will be uninsured by 2014.
    How will Gibson deal with this?

    As part of the GOP demand for Obamacare repeal is the myth that this law cuts Medicare benefits by over $700 billion for ten years.
    This is the myth that is being promoted, non-stop, by the Norquist/Rove super-Pac ads.

    In a recent good AARP article, this myth of $700 billion being cut is explained:

    “MYTH 5: The new law “raids Medicare of $716 billion.”





  7. Chris says:

    Somehow I doubt that Libya is going to decide this election. Sorry.

  8. sammy says:

    Obama answered the Libya question well. He made it clear, that unlike Bush, he was successful in going after Bin Laden, and will go after the terrorists in Libya who attacked the embassy.
    Obama could have done better; he could have mentioned that Romney’s foreign policy advisers are essentially the Bush-Cheney foreign policy team, and that a Romney presidency could lead to war on Iran, just as Bush went to war on Iraq, instead of going after those who have attacked us.
    I wonder if even the Repub/Tea party bloggers here will admit they want a return to Bush foreign policy, which of course affects domestic policy (putting trillion dollar wars on the credit card)…or will they deny that Romney’s foreign policy team is the Bush-Cheney team?

  9. Andy says:

    Obama took responsibility for the Libya attack, enough said. Romney has now lied about every issue, you just don’t know what to believe from him.

    We are on the right track. We need a congress that will work with the president. We should not go back to failed policies.

  10. Stateworker says:

    We need a president who will work with the congress not vise versa, as to the failed polices of the past 3 1/2 years Andy is right.

  11. State-Worker - 4- Life says:

    And in other news 133 NYS Troopers just graduated in the most recent class. A graduates starting salary is $66,000 a year.

    Why bother? These men could make more staking out the local Dunkin Donuts at any number of villages on Long Island.

  12. EriK says:

    “Somehow I doubt that Libya is going to decide this election. Sorry.”

    You are correct about that. I think the race will turn on:

    What Exactly Would Barack Obama Do With a Second Term?

    That and the economy still sucks.

  13. optivity says:

    “Obama answered the Libya question well.”

    sammy, what debate were you watching last night?


    Q: It’s Kerry, Kerry Ladka.
    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great to see you here.


    Obama allowed the assault on the Libyan embassy because he is just like Bill Clinton, who was distracted by interns and scheming how to make millions when he left the White House and allowed 911 to take shape.

    There are a lot of Dems staying home on November 6th. Obama has failed to show what he will do to improve the economy.

    Scare tactics on Medicaid cuts only work on old people. The truth is they are living too long and sucking the life out of the future generations of Americans.

  15. JoeSchmoe says:

    Chris and Andy.. Libya won’t be the sole issue that decides the election. It will will be made at the 3rd debate which is foreign policy.. Andy the only liar here is Obama and he got caught last night. 12 days after the attack he then declared it a terrorist attack, not in the Rose Garden like he said and even the moderator and CNN had to pull back on those statements. He had his UN ambassador hit 5 Sunday talk shows and say it was because of a film. Obama went to the UN and in his address said this was a result of a film.. Liar Liar Liar.. The investigation has already proven this all to be false.. Obama has also helped install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Libya and in return they kill our ambassador. Putin in laughing at Obama, our allies don’t trust us, China is giggling over in the corner and Obama has distanced himself from Isreal. The third debate will put the last nail in his political coffin as Romney is going to hammer home his failures on all of those fronts.

  16. Dale Gribble says:

    If people were not listening when BO called Mitt out for his “Sketchy deal”.
    Then you people get what you deserve!

  17. sammy says:

    What a crock, JoeSchmore. President Obama said this was an act of Terror as soon as it happened.
    Unlike Bush/Cheney/Romney/Ryan, President Obama pursues DIPLOMACY.
    Doe we want another Repub presidency taking us into WARS?
    War on Iran? Troops in Syria? Troops in Libya?

  18. EriK says:

    sammy, please stop typing in all caps and check the transcripts of the President’s remarks at the UN and on the View. It was all about that stupid YouTube clip. Nice to see the President is now ready to take “responsibility” is he ready for consequences?

    Speaking of YouTube, Jimmy Kimmel provides more evidence that we are all doomed.
    Who Won “Last Night’s” Debate?

  19. Chip D says:

    Why don’t people read the speech and decide on their own?










    It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi


    When the Gadhafi regime came to an end Chris was there to


    Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is

    I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the
    those who loved them back home.




    Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very




    Obama doesn’t make even mention “acts of terror” until 3/4th of the way down, after he talks about 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan. Any non brainwashed person can see that he was talking about attacks in general and not the attack in Libya!

  20. Bump in the Road says:


    Nobody’s talking about wars. People are talking about why the President is so evasive in discussing the details of Libya. Of course the answer is that he thinks killing OBL is all he needed to do – that Al Queda is on the run. An organized attack on our embassies doesn’t fit the storyline.

    He didn’t call it an act of terror when it happened – he instead criticized Romney for criticizing him. Using the word “terror” in a sentence isn’t the same as calling the attack an act of terror. Given that he later went on to call it a “bump in the road,” which must be so comforting for the families of those killed, then went on to speak to the “international community” about how it was all caused by an internet film, apologized repeatedly for said film, and talked about how we’re investigating it with those hard hitting news ladies on the View, I would say he was less than decisive in characterizing the incident. That we’re now parsing his words is simply evidence of that.

    You seem to be confusing time and geography. Bin laden has nothing to do with Libya so Obama talking about Bin Laden is essentially Obama avoiding the question asked in favor of talking about something else. And Bush isn’t in office anymore. Obama isn’t running against Bush so whether or not you want to suggest Bush “failed” is irrelevant. Bush may not have captured or killed Bin Laden, but his policies did get us on the trail. If you see that as failure, so be it.

  21. Lana says:

    Most of us aren’t stupid enough to believe that the President is responsible for the acts of the Islam Radical Insane Clown Posse Cowards, or the Wallstreet criminals, or the failures of big bank criminals or real estate criminals. I was alive during the Bush years, not asleep. The Republican Party has made itself look like a bunch of idiots blaming the President for things that happened on THEIR watch.

  22. Crusher says:

    Does Willard realize what a fool he looks like when in the same debate he promises he’ll creat 12 million new jobs then tells Obama “government does not creat jobs.” I hope that the competetive staes are getting s steady diet of Mitt debating Willard with video clips of all the contradictory positions this opportunist has taken. He got throught the primary debates because his opposition was a disgraced for Speaker, a crazy lady from Minnesota, Pizza Caine, Rick “two of three things” Perry and a former Pa Senator that was sent packing by the people of that state after a 20 point defeat. Oh by the way, how much is Obama beating Willard by in Massachusett’s polls? The man had not a prayer of being re-elected if he had the courage to run for re-election in that state–they had seen enought of Willard in Mass!

    Willard sure did not distinguish himself from Bush when given the chance last night! He cannot–Willard = Bush3. Anyone want to go back to that disaster?

  23. youngteacher says:

    Too bad all that Obama did during the entire debate was knock down Romney’s plans. I am a democrat who would have liked to hear how Obama would change his plans from the past four years. Too late…I am voting Republican. Obama is just too risky of a choice in every aspect. When people have nothing good to run on, they just put down their opponent.

  24. Lana, Sen Chris Dodd and Barney Frank provided the subprime mortgage collapse by requiring lenders to provide mortgages to minorities while allowing them to charge high interest rates backed by the taxpayers through fannymae and freddiemac. Did you forget the dems cotrolled congress for Bushs’ last two years? You might have been alive but in a coma!

  25. sammy says:

    When Obama had a poor performance in the 1st debate, I admitted it, even though I’m an Obama supporter.
    Did a single Repub/Tea party blogger here admit that Obama dominated the debate last night?
    It seems that the Repub/Tea partiers have a huge ego investment in their side winning.

  26. Don says:

    Sammy- too bad Bush/Cheney aren’t running for office. Changing the subject, deflecting, and blaming others for obama’s failed policies won’t work anymore. People see what is happening- and will not stand for an apologizer and chief- a complete and entire failed presidency- one of words- hope, change, forward-words, not a plan- that add up to failure.

  27. Huh says:

    Which party decided to go to war against Islam again?

    Oh yea the chicken hawk republicans.

    All this blood is on your hands….Guess you didn’t realize the mess you were getting our men and women into. Congrats.

  28. Huh says:

    How come republicans are not demanding we look into the lie of WMDs?

    Instead they are debating why the administration was cautious to a bombing a terrorist attack.

    If republicans win expect a war with Iran.

  29. Dale Gribble says:

    What does it matter what you label an attack. As long as you call it senseless and promise to hunty those that were responsible.
    Everything else is just symantics



    The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts

  30. Chip D says:

    Dale Gribble,
    But the attacks were because of the YouTube video right?

RSS feed for comments on this post.