Sunday Roundup

We didn't need the Long Island Medium to predict that the Sleepy-Time Obama from the Debacle in Denver would be replaced at this week's Hofstra debate with a much feistier POTUS -- or that the town hall format would lead to more verbal sparring than the locked-behind-a-podium approach. The breakout star of the event was Romney's "binders full of women" comment, an awkward turn of phrase that unleashed a bevy of tweets, Tumblr gifs, and video mashups. The top TiVo takeaway had to be Romney's epic fail as, eyebrows shooting upward, he tried to nail Obama on the words the president had used to describe the attack in Benghazi -- a dramatic moment highlighted by Candy Crowley's instant fact-check. Before the debate, I suggested that the real-time, crowd-sourced fact checking that has become a staple on Twitter should be made a standard part of the debate process. Candy's sharp memory demonstrated why it'd be so useful.

Add your voice to the conversation on Twitter: twitter.com/ariannahuff

 

 

 

Comments

[jordandennis]

10:11 PM on 10/21/2012

I my self have not seen this debate but by this little article I can tell if romney had used a betterb form of words he may have won this one

[in for the long haul]

10:06 PM on 10/21/2012

The only time Romney raised his eyebrow was the only time Romney thought he actually caught Obama in a lie. All the other times he questioned Obama on his integrity was to make a false statement of his own. He knew Obama statements were true but knew a fair percentage of those watching would not question the facts if he called Obama a liar.

[Revoltaire]

10:04 PM on 10/21/2012

Except Candy's memory wasn't so sharp, which she later apologized for. Instant fact checking would be like more Twitter brain-farting. It's best to let the people debate, and then, when they mislead, it will come out in the coming days, or their opponent can correct them.

[Mary Catter]

09:55 PM on 10/21/2012

When the President didn't allow Bin Laden's bullet-riddled body to be displayed, I knew then he was serious about protecting his countrymen/women abroad and here at home. President Obama, unlike Mitt Romney, recognizes the Benghazi attack shouldn't be used as political football because too many lives could potentially be at stake. Those inserting themselves in this very fluid investigation in hopes of garnering political favor should seriously be redacted from seeking the highest office in the land. In the only area in which he has received full support from Congress, the President has done what George Bush couldn't or wouldn't. He got Bin Laden and then some.

[FlorentUSA]

09:53 PM on 10/21/2012

The format of the last debate was also very theatrical. In that sense the candidates were forced to demonstrate their charisma. But I don't know if this aspect was good for the debate in itself. Although one thing appeared to change the tendency in favor of Obama: Romney's self-confidence. He showed more arrogance than real knowledge or empathy. Strong moment when the audience applauded Candy's fact-checking. Hopefully the next moderator will have the same strong interest in fast fact-checking the debate. This way the candidates have to pay attention to their lies more than to the color of their suit.

[Eddy123]

09:51 PM on 10/21/2012

I am still talking about Bain, is this in Americas Interest????
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20121021/OPINION02/310210028/Mike-Connell-Did-Mitt-Romney-Bain-kill-Sperry-s-

Romney is downright scarey.

[babybuda]

09:34 PM on 10/21/2012

The dishonest and deceptive editing of the actual words our President spoke on the twelfth by Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallice was shameful and is an affront to the fourth estate and our Nation.

[Eddy123]

11:59 PM on 10/21/2012

Don't watch faux news, change the channel, everytime you tune in you add to their ratings and diminish your mental health. Faux news is not news, in my opinion it is a hyped of Carnival show.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

[babybuda]

06:55 AM on 10/22/2012

I don't  ,MMFA keeps me aware of everything I need to know about that propaganda outlet.

[ckheadhunter]

08:23 PM on 10/21/2012

Hi Arianna !
1.agreed on that PO was feistier - otherwise the election would be over.
2.the comment "binders full of women" wasn't a big deal,blown out of proportion from the media for obvious reasons and not used by MR in any demeaning way.
3.PO did not use the words "terrorist attacks" at his speech in the Rose Garden in relation to what happened in Benghazi.it took him 14 days while stating on several talkshows during that period that the incident is still being investigated despite the fact knowing from the get go that it indeed was an act of terror.

[in for the long haul]

10:21 PM on 10/21/2012

You leave me confused. You say it took 14 days to call it a terrorist attack then end by calling it exactly what it was an act of terror. An act of terror caused by enemies of the US.
In contrast was invading Iraq an act of terror? Is attacking Iran and planing another war an attack of terror? These were and could be by Politicians of the US

[ckheadhunter]

01:01 AM on 10/22/2012

it was an act of terror,act of terrorism or a terrorist attack.but it took PO 14 days to call it exactly that despite the fact that they immediately had proof it was a terrorist attack.many in the media talk about a cover up.some going even so far in saying PO could loose reelection about it.regarding the situation in Iraq and Iran:i call that declaring war.the terror attacks or acts of terror committed on 9/11 started it all with the US declaring war.declaring war and acts of terror are 2 totally different things.

[chillywinds]

07:02 PM on 10/21/2012

I dont expect POTUS to win a second term, he cleans up the mess Republicans leave behind save all our a--es from eating our young. Save the economy, auto industry, give us health care, kill OBL who murdered 3000 plus of our fellow citizens, I could go on and on. But yet the slick CEO, with no respect for his country that bets against us everytime gets to win by lying, trickery, sleigh of hand. If I were Barack I would give them back their Country because his work is done. Mitt will give the 1% all they need. Knowing that your vote can be bought. Carry on

[Eddy123]

09:42 PM on 10/21/2012

I don't agree , the only reason Bush won the last election was because of a butterfly ballot.

Yes, there is a possiblity he could have fixed Ohio with the voting Machines , but hanging chads and butteflys ballots were the issue

Obviously the teabaggers wanted to suppress the vote by blocking early voting, that has failed for them. People in Ohio are far more aware of what it means to have companies busted up and jobs sent to China.

Romney plays on peoples fears and anxieties but has no real solutons.
Check out Rollings Stones , google up Greed and Debt the true story of Mitt Romney and the Federal Bailout of Mitt Romney. It is truly a nightmare and I am sure many people are aware of this.

[imaginethat]

10:17 PM on 10/21/2012

I sadly agree and it kills me to know that. I lay it all at the feet of the faux noise channel.

[Unca Wiggilie]

06:02 PM on 10/21/2012

Bravissima, Arianna Huffington! __ A most accurate assessment...
And truly, your fact checking suggestion puts you up in the Oracle class!

[FromthePitofDespair1]

05:37 PM on 10/21/2012

Thomas Paine (forgive me here) said the number one role of a leader of a country is to insure the security of his/(her) citizens.

The one thing being lost, despite that we elected Obama to end the wars, is Romney's short fuse and that he is already talking war(s), Syria and Iran, just for starters. The NeoCons are emerging from their holes. Of course, no one is talking about this. Instead, it's Candy's hair.

We deserve what we get.

[pstaub]

10:29 PM on 10/21/2012

Obama has left the world in worse shape than when he took office. He has given Al Qaeda hope that they can indeed live without Osama bin Laden. The greatest American military achievement in the 21st century and Obama blows it by not securing an embassy on a 9/11 anniversary. He deserves to lose for that, even were there not record unemployment and record debt.

[FromthePitofDespair1]

04:20 PM on 10/24/2012

Yea, ok. Let's put a reactive rich white guy with no military experience and no real world experience in charge to start some new wars. GREAT IDEA! Are you going to send your sons? Because Mitt sure as hell is not going to send his.

[HekmagaJuximaxx]

05:37 PM on 10/21/2012

"Binders full of women" also evokes a dark specter from the past: Dossiers. Remember those? Everyone with anything to lose was afraid that the government, or some shadowy, unseen agency, had a dossier on them. Dossier spillage was threatened on an almost constant basis. And this occurred, not only in movies and in the back of my mind, but also probably for real.

[mkcrosson]

09:35 PM on 10/21/2012

Real. Give me a break already. Everyone know exactly what he was saying i.e., that he went out of his way to ensure that qualified women were fairly represented in his cabinet. Get over it. To pretend to not know what he was saying makes you stupid and ignorant.

[tootrue]

09:50 PM on 10/21/2012

Except that he didn't "go out of his way".

The binders (of women's resumes) were collected before the election by a group that wanted more women in government.

They presented the binders to Romney and said they expected him to put more women in his cabinet.

Believing everything "he was saying makes you stupid and ignorant."

[imaginethat]

10:22 PM on 10/21/2012

So your defending a character who says:
He was for the Stimulus before he was against it.
He was for universal healthcare before he was against it.
He was against the auto bailout before trying to take credit for their rescue.
He was for a woman’s right to choose before he was against it.
He said he never had the desire to serve in Vietnam before saying he longed to be there.
He was for minimum wage before he was against it.
He was against returning to the Reagan-Bush era before saying he was for it.
He was for Stem-Cell research before he was against it.
He said he didn’t care about the 47% before saying he cared about the 100%.
He was for the assault rifle ban before saying he was against it.
He was against signing the Tax pledge before being the first to sign it.
He said he saw his father march with MLK before admitting he never saw it.
He said he was a big game hunter before he said he wasn’t.
He said corporations were people before saying they weren’t.
He was for a path to citizenship before being against it, before being for it again.
He was for the TARP before he was against it.
He was for Roe v Wade before he was against it.
He was against people going to the Emergency Room before he was all for it.
Whats that make you?

[dogwatch]

05:12 PM on 10/21/2012

Will three sessions of bickering really determine who shall be our next president? If so, then a skilled divorce mediator should be the moderator. Is fast talk, laced with half truths and untruths, the skill needed to run this country? The tone of recent comment on who is leading seems to conclude that the presidential race finally comes down to who can out bicker whom in three short sessions. Divorce court, the format for choosing a world leader. Good luck, world.

[LewisWalsh]

04:20 PM on 10/21/2012

The MSM denounces those who do not vote as lazy low intellect individuals. My experience tells me something quite different. As members of a very large political block, they cast their vote by not voting. Most recognize the manipulated and corrupt system for what it is and refuse lend respect or credibility to it by participating.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12223-transcending-the-wedge-issue-that-divides-democracy-activists-to-vote-or-not-to-vote

[SeekerOne]

07:55 PM on 10/21/2012

Inaction is not action, it's entropy.

[gerald schneider]

04:07 PM on 10/21/2012

The problem HP.... is that candy was WRONG... and OB cannot bear to call it a terrorist attack. Read the transcript....

in the rose garden POTUS was clearly talking about that video and only later referred to terrorist attacks in general

You call this reporting.... the voters are getting their information elsewhere... and the liberal media is beginning to fail(newsweek)

[jerry57]

06:37 PM on 10/21/2012

"liberal media is beginning to fail(newsweek) "

Repeat after me, "Printed media is beginning to fail . . . printed media is begging to fail" There, lesson one is complete.

[giftsthatpurr]

10:21 PM on 10/21/2012

1. "Time" coutd be called "liberal;" "Newsweek" has always been conservative.

2. These mags are printed, and just as printed newspapers and other paper magazines have "bitten the dust" so goes "Newsweek". It is because of the Internet.