Even though we've had three presidential debates, Nooners is still (still!) predictably obsessing about the first one.

What he couldn't do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn't afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.

But that's what he did.

And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren't there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn't have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it's never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety.

Seriously, teleprompters? That's so 2009, Nooners.

Anyway, to recap, Obama wins two out of three of his debates with Mitt Romney, neither of which involved teleprompters. But the only one that counts is the one he lost.

Nice grading scale!

Oh, and polling showed that George W. Bush lost all three debates to John Kerry. But I guess that was 2004, when the debates didn't matter because the guy who lost was a Republican.

DOWNLOADS: (131)

PLAYS: (1464)

Embed

So the conventional wisdom is that President Obama won the third debate, correct? I've read all the articles and watched the debate and I also concluded the same thing. Here's a rundown of all the snap polls conducted after the debate. They conclude that Obama won easily. So I was interested to see how Bret Baier's Special Report roundtable discussion handicapped the final debate. I expected some disagreement, but what I heard was downright other-worldly. Did they watch the same thing over 50 million Americans watched?

Here are some excerpts. The entire "all star" roundtable video is posted for you to peruse.

Some choice quotes:

A.B. Stoddard: I thought President Obama at times was defensive and a little bit desperate. He was obnoxious but I think he won the debate in that he did not lose the debate.

Stoddard did say that Romney flip flopped around on many issues, but then said: "But he did not make a mistake and he did not fall on his face. He did not want to get into a fight with Obama."

Charles Krauthammer: Obama I think was attacking all the time, interrupting a lot, and the clip we saw about the Navy stuff was a perfect example of why I think he (Obama) failed last night. It was small, condescending and off the mark.

Stephen Hayes: Mitt Romney was playing to not lost the debate and I don’t think he lost it. President Obama was playing very seriously to win the debate and I don’t think he won the debate. Does the President’s condescending and disrespectful treatment of Mitt Romney hurt him with Independents? I think there’s a real chance that it could. This was so far beyond the line of acceptable Presidential behavior in my view. The mocking you just played there...

The all-star panel agreed that the moment of the night was when Romney attacked Obama for going on an apology tour, and they thought he was devastating -- without even mentioning that he also happened to be lying outrageously. This segment is so insanely out of touch with reality that it reminded me of what happened to Captain Kirk and his mates when they beamed up on an evil doppleganger ship and crew from another reality.

I've been watching the immediate reaction by the Beltway villagers after the final presidential debate and I have to say I'm dumbfounded. Mitt Romney instantly morphed from his Neocon cocoon and instead of wanting to nuke Iran, he turned into a butterfly of world peace. He even brought his tie dye shirt with him. Not a peep of outrage from the media.

If President Obama suddenly changed every position on foreign policy in the final debate the media would be destroying him. FOX News would be calling for a Darryl Issa investigation and then claim liberal bias if Obama wasn't hearing calls of impeachment from the entire media for having the audacity to lie to the American people at, of all things, a presidential debate, the holiest of holy traditions in American politics.

On top of that, Romney has crafted a narrative that has him now winning the election handily. I'm not kidding, but why should it surprise anyone? It's what conservatives do.

(h/t Heather for the video)

DOWNLOADS: (113)

PLAYS: (672)

Embed

Bill O’Reilly was obviously frustrated that Mitt Romney didn’t attack President Obama over Fox News’ pet faux scandal, Benghazi-gate. But instead of owning up to that or admitting that Romney lost the debate last night, O’Reilly went on Fox & Friends this morning and attacked Bob Schieffer, the moderator, for not asking the “penetrating question” to President Obama, “You screwed (Benghazi) up. I don’t know what happened there. Please explain it to me.”

Can you imagine the non-stop Fox News hissy fit if a debate moderator had said to Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan – or any Republican candidate anywhere – “You screwed up” anything?

You know O’Reilly has gone over the edge when Fox News hosts start advocating on behalf of a “liberal media” debate moderator after a Republican loss. That's exactly what happened next. The Curvy Couch crew erupted, arguing that Schieffer had correctly raised the subject and it was up to Romney to smack Obama with it.

O’Reilly answered, “Look, why don’t we have Dr. Phil, then, moderate? Alright? If these guys aren’t gonna ask penetrating questions and hold the answerer accountable, why do we have them?” He went on to complain that Schieffer’s question on Libya was too “wishy-washy.”

But if Dr. Phil had been on the couch with the rest of them, he probably would have quickly recognized that the one O’Reilly was really vexed at was Romney.

“If it were me, Obama’d be a puddle after I got through with him," O'Reilly said later. "…Obama wanted to prove one thing: that Romney’s a poseur… that he doesn’t know what he’s doing and he changes his opinion every hour on the hour. And in order to do that, you have to be confrontational. But Romney could have easily parried that by saying, ‘You – this is incompetence.’ See, that’s the word that I would have used. ‘This is incompetence in Libya. We don’t know what happened there, a month and a half and it’s four Americans dead! You gotta explain it!’”

In a side remark, O’Reilly also said to Steve Doocy, “You’re rootin’ for Romney,” (as if O’Reilly isn’t). Instead of denying it, Doocy chuckled in agreement.

How do you know Obama won last night? Because of rather sad, right-wing acting out like this.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for Sarah Palin to attack Coulter for using the word, 'retard.'

I know, I know -- IOKIYAR*.

*fixed

CNN has a group of 25 undecided voters in some room in Orlando, but not one Latino. #ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmm

— Michael Skolnik (@MichaelSkolnik) October 23, 2012

As they have with every debate, CNN ran a focus group of 25 panelists during the debate. Here's the breakdown of these so-called undecided and likely voters:

We're going to be following exactly what they're feeling as they watch the debate. I want to give you more information about our focus group tonight. A racial breakdown -- 76% of the focus group is white, 20% black, 4% asian. Remember, we're not really talking about representing the community here in Orlando. We're talking about a very narrow sliver of people who say they're both undecided and likely voters.

Hmmm. Does that mean they think Latinos are all zipped up and delivered already, that there aren't any who might still be undecided? It's Orlando, for heaven's sake, and they can't dredge up one Latino voter for their panel?

That's really too bad, because the Latino vote could be the deciding bloc in this election. Latino voters do not move as a homogenous block -- there are conservatives, there are liberals, and there are independents who make decisions based upon some key issues. From the group Latino Decisions, some insight about the impact of the Latino vote in swing state Colorado for CNN's producers:

The Latino vote will help determine the presidential election. If one is not convinced, playing around with the Latino Decisions’ Latino Vote Map for a few of the battleground states with a sizeable Latino population ought to change your mind. The basic equation for each state is quite simple: the marginal (dis)advantage for one of the candidates among Latino voters multiplied by the Latino proportion of the electorate equals the net effect of the Latino vote. The Latino effect thus comes down to two variables—marginal group preferences and relative turnout. If one approaches zero, the Latino effect approaches zero. And in a state like Colorado, now one of the closest battleground states with a sizeable Latino population, how this equation plays out quite possibly determines who passes the 270 point in the Electoral College.

Yes, well, I'd say Florida would be one of those states. Last week's CNN snap poll reported weird, skewed results too, and at the time I challenged them on the value of reporting anything if they overweighted for Republicans by a ratio of 70:30. My point then was that any result coming out of that kind of group is meaningless for an overview look at reactions. It only matters if you care what Republicans thought. And this week, we have a panel with no Latinos in a state with a lot of Latinos. So CNN's results this time around only matter if you care what white people think.

If, on the other hand, you care about what the electorate thinks, try a more balanced poll. Or better yet, just make up your own mind and forget what the "panelists" think.

DOWNLOADS: (293)

PLAYS: (3413)

Embed

I guess that the Romney campaign could try to spin this that Mittens is a "man of the ages," but I think this has to be one of the better zingers that President Obama landed at the foreign policy debate.

Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq. But just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now. And the -- the challenge we have -- I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy -- but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.

Oh ouch. That left a mark.

And leave it to the liberal blogosphere to quickly capitalize on such a great meme. Matt Ortega put together "1980scalling.com" astonishingly fast for your amusement and edification:

Romney's "Cold War Mindset"

Republicans, Democrats And Russians All Have Suggested Romney Was “Stuck In A Cold War Mind-Set.” “Mitt Romney’s recent declaration that Russia is America’s top geopolitical adversary drew raised eyebrows and worse from many Democrats, some Republicans and the Russians themselves, all of whom suggested that Mr. Romney was misguidedly stuck in a cold war mind-set. But his statement was not off the cuff — and it was not the first time Mr. Romney had stirred debate over his hawkish views on Russia.” [New York Times, 5/11/12]

Constantly Referred to Russia as "the Soviets"

“The Romney Team … Seemed Dated” On Foreign Policy With References To “Soviets” And “Czechoslovakia.” “Still, it was the Romney team that seemed dated. Pierre Prosper, who was an ambassador handling war-crimes issues for President George W. Bush, accused Mr. Obama of appeasing Russia by abandoning plans to put a missile defense site in ‘Czechoslovakia’ — a nation that has not existed since the early 1990s. John F. Lehman, a secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, said the ‘Soviets’ were capitalizing on Mr. Obama’s weakening of the American military.” [New York Times, 4/26/12]

Be sure to scroll down to the game at the bottom.

President Obama wins in convincing fashion.

According to a CBS snap poll 53% of uncommitted voters handed the night to Obama, while only 23% said Romney was the winner, and 24% are undecided.

The actual polling numbers will not be in until later this week and any reflection of the debate in the numbers will only be felt in the coming days. But the early reactions to the debate, show Obama is the clear winner.

What did you think?

Live video from your Android device on Ustream

Tell us what catches your eye and your ear in this third and final presidential debate between President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

DOWNLOADS: (126)

PLAYS: (1862)

Embed

Nooners, who predictably scores the debates 1-0-2 for the GOP so far (win for Romney, draw for Ryan, draw for Romney), wags her finger at the President for being too mean to Mitt.

What the president said at the debate was nothing he hadn't said on the trail. His campaign has been personal, accusatory and manipulative. But there in the room on a tiny stage, for a sitting president to come out with that kind of put-down—I couldn't imagine a JFK doing it, with his cool, or a Jerry Ford with his Midwestern decency, or a Reagan, or the Bushes. When you are president, you don't stand next to an opponent and accuse and attack. You keep a certain almost aesthetic distance. You know the height of the office you hold. You let the debate come to you, and if at some point you get an opening to uncork a joke or a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger criticism, you move.

Uh-huh. Let's roll the tape on a portion of the first two Bush-Kerry debates in 2004.

BUSH: That's totally absurd. Of course, the U.N. was invited in. And we support the U.N. efforts there. They pulled out after Sergio de Mello got killed. But they're now back in helping with elections.
My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq.

BUSH: I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has. As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts.

Let me finish.

The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at, the very same intelligence. And when I stood up there and spoke to the Congress, I was speaking off the same intelligence he looked at to make his decisions to support the authorization of force.

BUSH: The only consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win.

BUSH: I can see why people at your workplace think he changes positions a lot, because he does. He said he voted for the $87 billion, and voted against it right before he voted for it. And that sends a confusing signal to people. He said he thought Saddam Hussein was a grave threat, and now he said it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

BUSH: No, I can see why people think that he changes position quite often, because he does.

You know, for a while he was a strong supporter of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He saw the wisdom -- until the Democrat primary came along and Howard Dean, the anti-war candidate, began to gain on him, and he changed positions.

I don't see how you can lead this country in a time of war, in a time of uncertainty, if you change your mind because of politics.

BUSH: You remember the last debate?

BUSH: My opponent said that America must pass a global test before we used force to protect ourselves. That's the kind of mindset that says sanctions were working. That's the kind of mindset that said, "Let's keep it at the United Nations and hope things go well."

Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein.

BUSH: That answer almost made me want to scowl.

He keeps talking about, "Let the inspectors do their job." It's naive and dangerous to say that. That's what the Duelfer report showed. He was deceiving the inspectors.

BUSH: You tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone.

There are 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we're going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you know, you're going alone. And people listen. They're sacrificing with us.

BUSH: I don't think my opponent has got the right view about the world to make us safe; I really don't.

First of all, I don't think he can succeed in Iraq. And if Iraq were to fail, it'd be a haven for terrorists, and there would be money and the world would be much more dangerous.

I don't see how you can win in Iraq if you don't believe we should be there in the first place. I don't see how you can lead troops if you say it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.

BUSH: You're right, what does matter is a plan. He said he's for -- you're now for capping punitive damages? That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then.

BUSH: He's just not credible when he talks about being fiscally conservative. He's just not credible. If you look at his record in the Senate, he voted to break the caps -- the spending caps -- over 200 times.

And here he says he's going to be a fiscal conservative, all of a sudden. It's just not credible. You cannot believe it.

And on and on.

Not at all accusatory or attacky!

Give us all a break, Nooners, and go back to your Manhattans.

DOWNLOADS: (150)

PLAYS: (2844)

Embed

Rather than admit that their guy, Mitt Romney, didn’t just lose the last debate but specifically blew it on the right wing’s pet witch hunt of Benghazi, Fox has been trying to blame moderator Candy Crowley both as a scapegoat and as a dust cloud of distraction. But this morning, Fox & Friends kicked both the scapegoating and the distraction up a notch by starting a new witch hunt for Crowley’s head.

For those not following the issue, Crowley halted Romney’s rude and disrespectful attack on Obama for supposedly not using the words “act of terror” for 14 days when referring to the attacks on the American consulate at Benghazi. Crowley interrupted to say that Obama had, in fact, used those words. And he did, the very next day. But on Fox News, fact-checking in a debate is bias – when the facts are not in the Republican candidate’s favor, of course. Can there be any doubt that Fox would be cheering Crowley had she done the same thing to Obama?

Now, to up the ante, Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson started calling for Crowley’s firing.

I thought this was the defining moment in the debate… I was stunned. You literally couldn’t have a more destructive moment in a debate. You couldn’t more clearly help one candidate against the other. This is the kind of moment where, you know, people’s careers are destroyed. In a normal world, you couldn’t work in journalism again after doing something like that.

Well, unless she had caught President Obama in a falsehood. In that case, she might have been offered a job at Fox News on the spot. Then she could have joined birther Heather Childers, still playing an objective news host on Fox, even after she sent a tweet asking for “thoughts” as to whether or not the Obama campaign threatened to kill Chelsea Clinton in order to keep Bill and Hillary Clinton from spilling the beans about then-candidate Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Or birther and bigot Lou Dobbs, now at Fox Business but a regular on the News Channel.

Speaking of Dobbs, Carlson was on Dobbs’ show last night where he compared Crowley to John Wilkes Booth. Now THAT'S journalism, Fox style.

Host Steve Doocy (and colleague of Childers and Dobbs) had no problem with anything Carlson said. Instead, he went on to claim that “(Crowley) had to walk it back” and “she later on debate night said, ‘Yeah, Romney was right.’”

Actually, she didn’t backtrack.

But Carlson said, “There’s the smoking gun. What’s shocking to me is, where’s the outcry from journalists? I mean, that kind of behavior, arguing the opposite case in a debate, when it really matters, on behalf of the incumbent president – that discredits journalism itself. …You would think her colleagues would be up in arms. She’s not been criticized by one working journalist outside of Fox and The Daily Caller that I’m aware of."

As Carlson spoke, Doocy interjected, “Sure.” He later asked with obvious hopefulness, “Anything happen to her?”

Carlson answered, “If she’s still working in journalism next week, it will tell you everything you need to know about the deep corruption of the American media… Where are her colleagues? Seriously!”