dayman

Those are the 3 things the debaters take issue w/ themselves in debate and campaigning!...so focus the entire thing on those then end w/ the tribal dysfunction in Washington. You aren't taking issue w/ it...you are making them stay on the topics they take issue w/ themselves. Both candidates were literally just saying whatever they wanted tonight...and nothing was said. Make them focus on these 3 issues b/c that's where they get testy about it...and chime in yourself too (yes I know this is taboo) to make sure it happens and stays focused....then end w/ #4. I have no doubt as a just an ordinary guy...not very smart...I could have moderated better than this schmuck. I mean...like I said earlier I don't have high expectation for debates...but this one was bad and yes I admit it was less bad for Romney (though IMO not that impressive b/c I don't see why it would be but clearly worse for Obama) ...but this isn't really a politically charged point b/c of perception it is just my honest opinion that it was in fact a low point amongst low points in terms of how it went....structurally. And btw w/ those questions as a framework Tony Reali should moderate w/ a mute button.

It really was a bad debate. I get the premise and understand why they thought it would work "ask broad question (3rd grade question) then give 2 minutes then try to run the show" but the show was never run. If I ran the debate I'd have spend 1.5 hours on about 3 or 4 things which we ALL know are the big "lies" or "half truths" both sides take issue with. 1) $5M tax cuts when deficits are an issue. Romney...Obama says that's your plan b/c w/ out more it is. Obama has a different plan you say doesn't do anything and is just politics. You to go at it for extended time.Go for a while. 2) Obama...you DO take $700Bish out of Medicare through a complex negotiation w/ hospitals. Romney says it hurts medicare. You say it doesn't. Go..for an extended time. 3) Mitt...you say Obama picks winners and loser. Obama you had a reinvestment act and that's what he's talking about. Go for an extended time (this should be half the debate...45 minutes...most important part of the last 4 years nobody talks about a lot of good and bad in that bill flesh it out). 4) Mitt you promise you can get things done b/c you worked w/ a democratic Mass legislature. Obama you said you could work together last campaign. The political system is hyper partisan tribal power struggle not viewing the governing of this country as a trustees for the American good but as power to be won and maintained. Explain how during the next 4 years you would hope to change it, and what America must know TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE for you to change it, and if POLITICAL reform is important the national good. (No matter how the timing the last 20 minutes MUST be left for this point) 4 points....go...that's it...1.5 hours...no 3rd grade questions w/ 2 minutes and then nonsense...cut both guys off when they steer off the topic but let them go when they keep on it...these are 4 things to get out of the way right off the bat...the most important 4 things.

He was oddly not willing to step through several wide open doors. It was bizarre. That said, there was nothing said by either candidate. I would give Obama a "D" and Romney a "C-" ... it really was a pathetic debate and the moderator was terrible he was not qualified not only did he not moderate once responses got going but his questions were just...taken from a 3rd grade Q&A. The debate helped Romney no question (he was low anyway it damn well better have) but all in all I'm surprised nobody is talking about the quality of the debate as a whole. It was terrible. Maybe it's just me...and I know some will think I'm just partisan for saying it but I will say Mitt did a bit better than Obama...but the bottom line is debates are usually not great but this was one of the worst. I mean...literally...Mitt said nothing...Obama said nothing...neither guy said anything. Usually both guys say mostly nothing a bit of something. Tonight was just brutal to watch as an American.

Take notes and come tell me what was so impressive by either candidate. I've trolled through it twice now and agree that Mitt did good (certainly based on his expectations) but am sort of baffled by the take-away that he had a bunch of amazing points. I don't see where they are...not saying they aren't there...but I don't know where those who see them think they are.

While I think Romney was nice and aggressive and it helped him (the debate as a whole) I'm really not sure what debate you and many others listened to. This debate was (IMO) even worse than a normal debate and certainly didn't "morph" into an "actual debate." I was not impressed by either candidate, Obama looked very average and hence he lost. I'm not really sure what about Romney has everyone so high...and I say that to ask..what about Romney had everyone so high?

Since nobody thinks we're on the path to playoffs any more than we were then the answer would be no...if you asked me.

lol...actually a good little point you make here...

Obama won on sound bytes? I missed them I guess... To me the thing helped Romney. But the overwhelming takeaway I have is just...how terrible the entire debate was. It was sad b/c it was like the moderator said going in "I'm going to keep these guys on point and make them go back and forth, on point" and then after the first 5 minutes he said "I'm going to sit there and do nothing and let them both just say anything."

whao there let us not get carried away...never said CNN was a real channel hehe

CNN just has them side by side at all times. Good coverage except the stupid "undecided voters" thing at the bottom which should be blown up and then burned and then shot into space

this might be the most toothless moderator in history

oh lord Big Bird not Big Bird hehe

"throw out the studies...I saw one today you would raise taxes" hehe LOL this first segment has been brutal on both candidates IMO..."new format" is a failure so far..."new format" basically seems to be "have no moderator" from what I can tell

This is just awkward so far...I'm embarrassed for both of them.

You forgot that the tax policy centers take on Mitts stated policy. That will probably come up 3 times OMG did you see that handshake! Debate over!

It would be a good thing for that to happen for both candidates...thing is you would need a amazing moderator respected by all who is smart etc....so it's not possible.

I saw a story that said they've met personally 3 times...all briefly...as in a minute or two max. Handshake and how do you do and move on.

Blah blah. No **** the debates are pivot exercises and boilerplate stump repackaging. But they do provide some interesting responses regarding policy also. And in any event, if you are "the sort of person" who is interested in seeing a significant event in the Presidential race, you would be interested to watch tonight. In any event, I'm not here to defend the debates as some great thing. But tonight could be interesting.

Any reason anyone can think of? We're not great out of the division either but it's not that bad. Would you say perhaps we are not very talented and if a team knows us then we're dead in the water? Perhaps we're out coached? Perhaps we don't "get" the urgency of division games? Is our division just good? This is killing us. We're the punching bag of our own division.

Well...most of what you said is true. That said, for someone who spends time on PPP I would think it would be worth watching anyway.

What are you all expecting, and hoping for?

Bring back Merriman, sign Bob Sanders, sign TO, sign Ocho. Superbowl

I'll be happy if we just look like an NFL team for 4 quarters.

!@#$ it. Bring back Merriman.

Meh...I'll buy it for acceptance speeches. But lectures and other speeches can go as long as 2 hours (including Q&A) if they are truly captivating.