You switch on the German media the night after a presidental debate, you think they have been to some distant planet. This clueless attempts to manipulate are best ignored. A collection of the more reasonable commentary from the United States follows, emphases are mine:
“I think it’s unequivocal, Romney won. And he didn’t just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do is basically draw. He needed to continue the momentum he’s had since the first debate, and this will continue it….And the high point is when he devastatingly leveled the charge of Obama going around the world on an apology tour. Obama’s answer was ask any reporter and they will tell you it wasn’t so. That’s about as weak an answer you can get. And Romney’s response to quote Obama saying that, ‚we dictate to other nations,‘ and Romney said, ‚we do not dictate to other nations, we liberate them.‘ And Obama was utterly speechless.
What Obama did is he kept interrupting, interjecting and his responses were almost all very small, petty attacks. The lowest was when he’s talking about sanctions that are old. ‚When I was working on sanctions you were investing in a company in China.‘ I mean that is the kind of attack you expect from a guy who is running for city council for the first time, that’s not what you expect from the president.” Charles Krauthammer
„Mitt Romney had a job tonight and that was to come across as a plausible commander in chief. It would have been very damaging to him if there had been areas of the world and subject matters raised by the questions or raised by the president that he didn’t seem to really know anything about. I didn’t detect such a moment. He seemed to me smooth, and fluid and well informed about all the matters that came to hand and he had something to say about all of them.” Britt Hume
“Mitt Romney’s aim was to present himself with the demeanor and grasp of foreign and national security issues of a president of the United States. He succeeded. President Obama sought to make Romney appear unqualified to be president and commander in chief. He failed. And that was the story of the third and final presidential debate.” Fred Barnes
“In the third debate, Obama had to show in 90 minutes that the first two debates were a fluke, and that Romney was not presidential enough to end his tenure. He did not do that by any means; for all his pique, interruptions, and attacks, Obama scored few points against the workmanlike Romney who knew that he simply did not have to lose. In any debate, when the two score comparable points, the more aggressive and petulant usually comes off less well, especially given that Romney’s tone and expression were more like the reflective performance of his wildly successful first debate. The take-away quotes and sound bites from the debate will favor Romney. I predict that either Obama will not gain traction from his performance or, more likely, his standing will continue to erode as the public becomes assured that Romney is not only more knowledgeable but more likable and steady, especially when the pressure was on him in this final debate and the president went all out to call him both untruthful and uncaring.” Victor Davis Hanson
“Obama behaved like a challenger in trouble and Romney acted liked a candidate with something to lose. That tells you something about the poll numbers both of these guys are looking at. Meanwhile, Obama looked a bit desperate at times, particularly when he was staring at Romney as if to force the former governor into spontaneous human combustion.” Jonah Goldberg
Sehr geehrter Herr Bender, kann es sein, daß es Ihr Job ist, hier grundsätzlich jeden Artikel zuzuspammen… und auch die Echolalie in den Beiträgen (Coulter — Retard) ist einfach nur anstrengend.
Dear Irwin,
Alessandra is a TV critic, not a political correspondent. So of course she has a whole different take on the debates.
One can’t help being in awe of the New York Times. The ingenuity it displays in running down Mitt Romney, if applied to a more useful project, would be a national treasure.
Consider Alessandra Stanley’s report (comment?) on Candy Crowley’s performance as debate moderator, and Romney’s reaction. “Mr. Obama kept his eyes on his Republican opponent, whereas Mr. Romney’s gaze kept straying over to the moderator, Candy Crowley of CNN, peevishly calling on her to give him more time…”
Ms. Stanley is such a keen observer that she can discern the difference between the gazes of the disciplined, steely-eyed president and a weak opponent who could not control his gaze and prevent it from straying (“roam about without fixed direction or purpose”)—not to the floor, or the ceiling, but to the moderator. Why looking at the moderator, a key figure on whom a candidate can reasonably be expected to gaze, represents “straying” is unexplained.
Consider, too, Romney’s alleged peevishness. The peevish challenger (“easily irritated, especially by unimportant things”) was annoyed by no small thing—the decision of the impartial moderator to allow the president ten percent more of the valuable debate time than she allowed Romney. Picture what the New York Times would have said were the reverse the case.
There’s more. It seems that Romney “reverted to type as a man as passionate about rules and procedure as policy. He even asked her to intercede by calling her name three times, ‘Candy, Candy, Candy,’ a recall of a much-mocked moment in a Republican primary debate when he repeatedly asked Anderson Cooper of CNN to referee a dispute.” There you have it. Romney’s devotion to fair procedure is to be mocked, proof that he really has no passion for what matters most, “policy,” because he cares as much about the small matter of procedure, something that surely is not high on the list of concerns of a president who issues waivers from work requirements, allows tens of thousands of illegal aliens to remain in the country, advises companies not to obey the law requiring warning of potential lay-offs.
Worst of all, Mitt Romney obviously doesn’t have what it takes to play in the big leagues because he is too easily rattled. When “Ms. Crowley backed Mr. Obama’s version of events [in Benghazi]… Mr. Romney stammered a bit … blinked … and never quite got back on a steady confident foot.” The moderator violates the rules and double-crosses Romney, not to mention the audience that relied on her for impartiality and the committee that picked her for the job of impartial moderator; the president is so pleased at her rule-breaking intervention that he asks her to repeat what she said more loudly; and Michelle Obama breaks the rules against audience participation by leading the audience in applause. And Romney “blinks.” He could justifiably have wept.
But the rival candidates are equal in one regard. “Both men are tall, slim and elegant.” But there is a difference: “Mr. Romney inherited an aristocratic air; Mr. Obama is naturally regal.” Oh.
Mensch Andrej: Jay S hat es doch so dargestellt, dass neutrale Kommentatoren Romney als Sieger gesehen haben. Ich habe nur drauf hingewiesen, dass es da auch andere Ansichten gibt.
Und dieses Vorurteil dass die Medien in den USA alle linkslastig kann ich nicht mehr hören. George Will sitzt jeden Sonntag bei Stephanopoulus am Tisch und auch die NYT hat zwei oder sogar drei konservative Kommentatoren,wenn man Friedmann dazuzählt im Angebot. Und David Gregory von MTP wuerde Ich auch nicht zu den Demonraten zaehlen wollen. Aber die Ergebung passt natuerlich so schoen in Ihr Weltbild.
Also dass ist doch Ammenmärchen wass Sie da postulieren.
Hinzukommt, dass mit den neuen Medien, auch die verrückten aus der rechten Ecke ihre Meinung unter das Volk bringen können. Siehe Ann Coulter die ein Tweet abgesetzt hat, dass
President Obama ein Retard sei.
Und Tatsache ist doch dass alle Umfragen Obama als „Sieger“ dieser Debatte gesehen haben
, wass das auch immer heißen mag. Es ist dann schon komisch wenn Krauthammer et al was anderes von sich geben. Womöglich haben die eine Wiederholung der ersten Debatte gesehen.
Horses and Bayonets muss Ich noch was sagen. Da sich Fox heute genoetigt Romney zu helfen Weil er da Wie ein Schuljunge aussah.
Hey Jay S reden wir noch mal kurz über ein Stueck der Bilanz von President Obama.
Osama ist Tod
Gaddafi ist auch weg, und Zwar ohne dass die USA in einen Krieg gefuehrt hat wie im Irak um einen weiteren arabischen Despoten abzuservieren. Die Tage von Assad sind auch gezaeht.
Der Iran wohl wirtschaftlich vor dem Ruin stehend auf Grund der Sanktionen, und so Wie es aussieht Verhandlungsbereit.
Sicherlich werden jetzt Sie Oder jemand anders hier auf Benghazi hinweisen. Und ich gebe zu dass das eine Schande ist. Und es muss natuerlich geklaert werden warum die Botschaft nicht besser geschuetzt wurde bzw. warum es dort ueberhaupt eine gab, wenn Ich Sie nicht Schuetzen kann. Aber da President Obama Osama erwischt hat, und auch diese Piraten vor ein paar Jahren, bin Ich Mir sicher dass er auch die Hintermaenner dieses Anschlags erwischen wird,
Sie betonen ja selber immer wieder dass President Obama aus Chicago kommt. Und dann wissen Sie ha auch that’s where the toughest MFs‘ come from.
Gut, Herr Bender, Fakten sind Ihnen ja zuwider. Aber in den USA ist das mit den Journalisten nicht viel anders als hier:
„Preparing for a panel discussion on the media, the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands commissioned a poll of 673 journalists,[…]
A total of 31 percent described themselves as “very liberal” or “liberal” compared to just nine percent who identified themselves as “very conservative” or “conservative,” with 49 percent maintaining they are “moderate.”
In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists) surveyed 547 journalists and media executives,[…]Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.
Um das Mal in Ihre Sprache zu übersetzen: Die meisten Journalisten sind richtig gute Menschen, sind für Umwelt, Robbenbabys, Frieden und so, und wählen -natürlich- immer brav die Demokraten, besonders natürlich Obama.
Die, die ständig lügen, kleine Kinder Prügeln, Afrika ausbeuten wollen, und repulikanisch böse denken, die sind klar in der Minderheit.
Achso, der Link:
http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp
Also es gibt natuerlich auch andere Stimmen:
New York Times : Romney sounded confused and incoherent, and offered no idea of substance.
But of course that is just the mainstream media who are all in the tank for President Obama.
Also typisch JS wieder nur die zitieren die Romney als Sieger sehen und dabei verschweigen, dass er doch in allen Punkten Obama zugestimmt hat. Talk about Manipulation. Und Wie gesagt den schoensten Satz des Abends ( no more horses and bayonets) unter den Tisch fallen lassen ist Doch wirklich zu Schade. Aber es bleibt a horse race das ist auch klar.
Das Team von Real News from the Blaze sah das übrigens etwas differenzierter und hat Obama sogar zum Teil einen „Sieg“ zugestanden.
Aber Romney war so schlecht nicht, als das es ihm schaden dürfte, aber er hatte wohl, wie bei der letzten Debatte, ein paar „missed opportunities“. Wenn davon welche gesessen hätten, dann würde Chris Mathews jetzt mit Herzinfarkt in der Klinik liegen. So faselte er was von „Victory“…War aber zu erwarten, wenn es nicht ganz eindeutig ist, wie bei der ersten Runde.