On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:02:48 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>7.10.2012 16:59, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>>> My opinion:

>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
>>> Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
>>> moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.

>>> Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
>>> out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
>>> Obamacare.

>>> I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
>>> factcheck on the run...

>>> Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
>>> government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
>>> doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
>>> milk as much profit as they can.

>> I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
>> Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.

>> So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
>> like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
>> comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
>> hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
>> Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
>> suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
>> policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.

>> So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
>> or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
>> I suspect Obama had more actual substance.

>Well if your impression from the debate only was that Romney criticizes
>but doesn't have the cure himself - then I think Obama succeeded on
>exactly what he wanted to succeed at...