Obama and Romney Enter Last Lap
Now is the time: The presidential campaign in the United States is in its final lap, ending November 6. Yesterday night, Tuesday, the third and last debate between Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney took place. In the first of these encounters Romney triumphed over a surprisingly apathetic Obama; in the second one, Obama fought back and got the edge over his rival; in the third debate, the scale was tipped in Obama’s favor. Romney made no glaring errors, but the president took the initiative. To set some very balanced predictions straight, it will all depend on the frenetic rhythm of the speeches and announcements of the next 15 days.
Yesterday’s debate was centered on foreign policy. Romney again confirmed that he tends to feel more comfortable talking about political economy. In matters such as the Arab Spring — which motivated an initial attack by Romney — Iran or Israel, both candidates expressed some divergence, although the issue of the attack to the American consulate in Benghazi, used tactlessly in the second debate, almost disappeared yesterday. But in general, there were more areas in which they agreed: from the convenience of completing the American troops’ retreat from Iraq in 2014 to the inconvenience of sending forces to Syria. This could give the audience the idea that Romney lacks a foreign policy program different from Obama’s, which would not invite considering a change in the White House.
Obama exuded confidence at all times and made good use of his accumulated experience during his presidential term. He brought up Bin Laden’s death, a central success of his administration, without a doubt. He did not pass up the opportunity to treat some of Romney’s comments with irony, and the fact that one of the summaries of the Republican’s strategies was particularly vague — “My strategy is very clear: chase bad guys” — did not favor Romney. Not to mention how Obama took advantage of certain statements by the Republican to remind him that they differed from those held a little while ago. This raised doubts regarding his coherence.
As we claimed above, Romney moves better in the dialectic battlefield of economy. For this reason, he insisted on the fact that he would create 12,000 jobs and added that a good foreign policy depends directly on the good economic administration of the country. If wealth is created, you can act with force where you deem that necessary, he stated. However, if that wealth is not created, the defense of security and national interests will remain limp. By the end of the debate, the urgency polls by several TV networks agreed that discrete majorities pointed Obama as the winner of the night.
It is worth mentioning two significant themes absent from the debate: the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, which Obama promised to close but is still open; and Europe, almost nonexistent to both adversaries. They did mention some countries from the Old Continent briefly, but in a session in which no less than 40 nations were cited, Europe’s presence was testimonial, not to say irrelevant. That gives a reason for reflection by both candidates and, of course, by the European heads of state.
Yesterday’s debate was centered on foreign policy. Romney again confirmed that he tends to feel more comfortable talking about political economy. In matters such as the Arab Spring — which motivated an initial attack by Romney — Iran or Israel, both candidates expressed some divergence, although the issue of the attack to the American consulate in Benghazi, used tactlessly in the second debate, almost disappeared yesterday. But in general, there were more areas in which they agreed: from the convenience of completing the American troops’ retreat from Iraq in 2014 to the inconvenience of sending forces to Syria. This could give the audience the idea that Romney lacks a foreign policy program different from Obama’s, which would not invite considering a change in the White House.
Obama exuded confidence at all times and made good use of his accumulated experience during his presidential term. He brought up Bin Laden’s death, a central success of his administration, without a doubt. He did not pass up the opportunity to treat some of Romney’s comments with irony, and the fact that one of the summaries of the Republican’s strategies was particularly vague — “My strategy is very clear: chase bad guys” — did not favor Romney. Not to mention how Obama took advantage of certain statements by the Republican to remind him that they differed from those held a little while ago. This raised doubts regarding his coherence.
As we claimed above, Romney moves better in the dialectic battlefield of economy. For this reason, he insisted on the fact that he would create 12,000 jobs and added that a good foreign policy depends directly on the good economic administration of the country. If wealth is created, you can act with force where you deem that necessary, he stated. However, if that wealth is not created, the defense of security and national interests will remain limp. By the end of the debate, the urgency polls by several TV networks agreed that discrete majorities pointed Obama as the winner of the night.
It is worth mentioning two significant themes absent from the debate: the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, which Obama promised to close but is still open; and Europe, almost nonexistent to both adversaries. They did mention some countries from the Old Continent briefly, but in a session in which no less than 40 nations were cited, Europe’s presence was testimonial, not to say irrelevant. That gives a reason for reflection by both candidates and, of course, by the European heads of state.