Being substantive and factual is what makes for good debating. But since the PDC began planning America's all important debates in the '60s, debate templates have undergone real changes in form, and in particular, validity.
Whatever I can do to help reelect President Obama and provide him with a majority in both houses of Congress so as to end the gridlock in Washington, D.C., I will do. I urge all other voters to do the same.
The Christian Science Monitor calls the energy transition claims made across the world clunky, offering that history suggests it can take up to 50 years to replace an existing energy infrastructure. The problem? We don't have that long.
Romney's knowledge is so flimsy and his declarations so cliché-ridden as to betray a distinct lack of comprehension or interest. As for Obama, residency in the White House has provided experience but has left him without strategic design or a modulated sense of national interests.
As pundits prepare to dissect every word that comes forth from Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in tonight's debate, their analysis is likely to once again lack examination of the most immediate and critical effect these major events have on campaigns: online fundraising.
Americans overwhelmingly want to know: What can the U.S. do to reduce our troop presence in Afghanistan; what is each candidate's Middle East strategy; and how can we address nuclear threats such as Iran?
This year, it's gone a little nuts. Both parties' conventions, and all the debates have been surrounded with assessments by teams of experts who sound like, and in many cases are, personal advisers to the performers.
Will the media ever truly be a good vehicle for women and their stories? Not unless women have the option to run the show, ask the questions, and answer them in their own voices. For when women are invisible, their voices are not just lost, their victories are as well.
Left unchallenged, the apparent validity of Romney's assertions may well lead to his election as our next president. But there is a challenge to them that Obama can make when Romney predictably raises these points again in the next debate.
I spent most of the debate riveted by the screen, and was focused on the point-counterpoint. But whenever I got up to get something to drink, the difference between the two men's voices was remarkably stark. One sounded presidential, the other just sounded a bit lost.