Mitt Romney and Barack Obama debated last night. Bob Schieffer won. The newsman didn't become the story as Candy Crowley did in the last debate. He asked questions and let the candidates answer. The combatants should learn to agree without being so disagreeable. On China, Syria, Libya, Iran, and Afghanistan the pair played "me too" but acted as though a chasm of difference separated them. This is less a commentary on the candidates than it is on consensus. That's what defines U.S. foreign policy. There isn't a lot of dynamic thinking on it. Last night's debate proves this.
Every single opportunity to hammer the President was wasted. Even the softball on Russia, where Romney could have knocked it out of the park was utterly wasted. "The Arab Spring" is only hailed by the left, the center and right are suspicious, and he did not take the opportunities given to him. Every softball pitched by the President was a check swing.
Romney has, apparently and predictably, surrounded himself with Bush-style neocons WRT foreign policy. While this will keep me gainfully employed, it does not bode well for the rest of the world.
I would also add that, because the debate was up against MNF and game 7 of the NLCS, the media gets the ONLY say in who won the debate and what sound bites become the dominant theme. For this reason, Romney needed to be agressive ON EVERY point, and he COULD have been if he had been prepared well, and willing to take a bold stand on Russia, Iran, and the Middle East as a whole. He should have fired his debate prep staff after the LAST debate. Obviously he didn't....
I have to agree. Although Romney looked much more in command and Presidential, the problem I had with him is that he did not take the Incompetent and Chief to task strong enough on many of the issues.
One thing is for sure - when Obama says "let me be clear", he isn't, and rarely if ever explains what he is being clear about.
That would be Incompetent IN Chief.
Or as he likes to be referred to, "President I Got Bin Laden".