How President Obama Won the Debate

President Obama won this debate by being President Obama. The formula was simple, really. Tell the truth. Don’t waver. Say what you mean. Don’t play around with long complex answers. Made it simple and to the point. In the video above, the president points out that he mentioned that Benghazi was an act of terror on September 12, the day after the attacks.

Here’s exactly what the president said:

Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.

Benghazi has been a weak spot in President Obama’s foreign policy armor. He and his team were slow to jump on this and put out the cinders before it was a big fire. I agree that questions remain. I admit that I don’t understand exactly what happened. I don’t understand the security situation. On the other hand, I haven’t seen or heard of any information that would suggest that President Obama didn’t act on intelligence or advice that would have saved or protected the ambassador.

Robert Reich points out why the President won:

Obama told voters what Romney’s plan was for women (take away their freedom of choice), and for Hispanics (allow police to stop them and demand proof of citizenship, as in the Arizona law “that’s his [Romney’s] policy, and it’s bad policy.”)

He took responsibility for the security lapse in Libya, but made sure Americans understood the danger in Romney’s shoot-from-the-hip, rush to judgment approach to foreign policy.

And the President explained why the way to create more jobs and to get the economy back on track is to strengthen the middle class, in sharp contrast to Romney’s trickle-down redux.

Romney was as combative as in the first debate, but our newly-invigorated president made Romney’s combativeness look like that of a child in a tantrum rather than a principled adult with facts and detailed proposals to support his position.


2 Responses

  1. I loved the president’s comment, as Mitt kept digging himself a bigger hole on the Rose Garden presser, “Please proceed, Mr. Romney.”  Good on Candy for being able/willing to blow the whistle on the play right there.
    Romney went beyond combative to physical bullying in this debate.  I admire the prez for keeping his cool.  I would have had to give Romney a kick in the groin.  “No means no, Mitt.”

  2. Simply put, I don’t think that Mitt Romney would be a good president. I don’t think that his ideas will help the average American worker. I don’t think that they will help the middle class. We can get bogged down in the nuance of whether Mitt Romney is a pathological liar or whether he can actually relate to the average American but I don’t think that any of that matters. The bottom line is that he has ideas that are not can help the average American family. Right now, more than any time in my life I think it is critically important that we enact legislation that helps the average American. That’s our way forward. I’m not sure which direction Mitt Romney is going to lead us but I don’t think the direction is forward.

Subscribe for updates!
Errington C. Thompson, MD

Dr. Thompson is a surgeon, scholar, full-time sports fan and part-time political activist. He is active in a number of community projects and initiatives. Through medicine, he strives to improve the physical health of all he treats.


A Letter to America

The Thirteeneth Juror

Where is The Outrage Topics