Edited by Jonathan Douglas
Barack: The Return
Without a doubt, Obama was considerably better, as well as more engaged, focused and aggressive. And above all, he was more attentive to the constraints of the electoral arena than during his first debate on Oct. 3.
He didn’t lack in energy, for example, when he put Romney (who fiercely denounced the White House’s failures) in his place at the time of the attack on American representation in Libya. Obama thus skillfully used (and abused) his presidential stature to remind us that he had received the remains of the victims while his opponent stirred up a polemic during the dramatic circumstances. As trivial as it is, the exchange on Romney’s personal investments in China, a country that the Republican condemns as a bad global player, will have at least pleased the Democratic base. Summoned by Romney to watch where his own pension fund was placed, Obama responded: "I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours, so it doesn't take as long."
Despite the revelation, as expected, Obama was an “alpha male” and finally eager for a fight. The debate has not provided a great deal of background information. The two candidates have once more presented vague and incalculable competing financial and economic programs. [This has] certainly been to the disadvantage of the Republican, who is once more incapable of clearing up which financial loopholes he intended to get rid of to lower tax rates on revenues without aggravating the deficit. And which social class will benefit the most from these liberalities?
In this debate forum, a public question on immigration policy has taken credit for revealing ambiguities from both camps. Romney was the most anti-immigrant of the Republicans during the primaries, a particular point that cost him dearly in light of today’s Latino electoral base. Obama, from this point of view, has not been so clear. The number of ousted illegal immigrants has never been more numerous than during his mandate, and his hesitation to propose a real reform for immigration to Congress is explained as much by the aggression of the right-wing as by the unemployment of American blue-collar workers.
Viewers hoped that [the debate] would inform them about the candidates’ plans. The debate, like the former, was above anything else an occasion for each of them to expand their capital of sympathy, a “likeability” essential to boosting electoral participation, and coax the few undecided [voters]. For the moment, if Romney lost this evening and has not returned to his distant, clumsy image from before the first debate, he has [at least] seen his unexpected dynamic from Oct. 3 slowing down and perhaps getting stuck soon. Obama has finally proven that he is in the race. It recalled his strange paradox: Despite the talent for embodying hope that he showed in 2008, the president still seems incapable of [being] truly reassuring.
He didn’t lack in energy, for example, when he put Romney (who fiercely denounced the White House’s failures) in his place at the time of the attack on American representation in Libya. Obama thus skillfully used (and abused) his presidential stature to remind us that he had received the remains of the victims while his opponent stirred up a polemic during the dramatic circumstances. As trivial as it is, the exchange on Romney’s personal investments in China, a country that the Republican condemns as a bad global player, will have at least pleased the Democratic base. Summoned by Romney to watch where his own pension fund was placed, Obama responded: "I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours, so it doesn't take as long."
Despite the revelation, as expected, Obama was an “alpha male” and finally eager for a fight. The debate has not provided a great deal of background information. The two candidates have once more presented vague and incalculable competing financial and economic programs. [This has] certainly been to the disadvantage of the Republican, who is once more incapable of clearing up which financial loopholes he intended to get rid of to lower tax rates on revenues without aggravating the deficit. And which social class will benefit the most from these liberalities?
In this debate forum, a public question on immigration policy has taken credit for revealing ambiguities from both camps. Romney was the most anti-immigrant of the Republicans during the primaries, a particular point that cost him dearly in light of today’s Latino electoral base. Obama, from this point of view, has not been so clear. The number of ousted illegal immigrants has never been more numerous than during his mandate, and his hesitation to propose a real reform for immigration to Congress is explained as much by the aggression of the right-wing as by the unemployment of American blue-collar workers.
Viewers hoped that [the debate] would inform them about the candidates’ plans. The debate, like the former, was above anything else an occasion for each of them to expand their capital of sympathy, a “likeability” essential to boosting electoral participation, and coax the few undecided [voters]. For the moment, if Romney lost this evening and has not returned to his distant, clumsy image from before the first debate, he has [at least] seen his unexpected dynamic from Oct. 3 slowing down and perhaps getting stuck soon. Obama has finally proven that he is in the race. It recalled his strange paradox: Despite the talent for embodying hope that he showed in 2008, the president still seems incapable of [being] truly reassuring.