The second United States presidential election debate, held on October 16 between the incumbent Barack Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney at Hofstra University in New York State, was dramatically different from the first. Perhaps buoyed by running mate Joe Biden’s win in the vice-presidential encounter, President Obama was unrecognisably more assertive about his facts and his achievements. Governor Romney stopped trying to connect personally with the 82-member audience of undecided voters and gave his full attention to the tussle, which saw both men walking around, attacking and counterattacking as the tension rose palpably and the moderator repeatedly reminded them to address the questions. Predictably, Mr. Romney criticised the President’s economic record and plans, but that was because he was himself under fire, and he stretched the facts in the process. For example, Mr. Obama’s comment that Romney companies outsource jobs to China brought the reaction that the President’s own pension funds had investments in China — yet the point refers to Mr. Obama’s pension from his Illinois senatorship, and the incumbent drew laughter when he told the multimillionaire Mr. Romney, ‘My pension’s not as big as yours.’ Mr. Obama, for his part, had to work to answer an attack over the reduction in licences to exploit energy resources below federal land; his reply that the companies involved had to use the licences or lose them did not really register in the din.
The only foreign policy issue the candidates covered in detail was the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The President did not really answer the question about who was responsible for not responding to the consulate’s request for more security. Mr. Obama, however, rose in stature with the comment that for him national security is not a party-political issue. Mr. Romney’s attack on the administration’s alleged inactivity over Iran — whether Iran is really a threat to the U.S. went unexamined — and his accusation that the President wanted to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel brought a sarcastic reaction from Mr. Obama that he had pulled the country out of Iraq, killed Osama bin Laden, and was leaving Afghanistan. But given voter anxiety about jobs, the focus was unsurprisingly on the economy. Mr. Obama deflected criticism of his economic record by stating that the challenger will not close the loopholes that help corporations make tax-free profits from offshoring or outsourcing. Mr. Romney will have startled his own team by saying he would raise federal grants for college study. While it is the President did not get as much political capital from this debate as Mr. Romney did from the first one, this election remains a close contest.
Keywords: US presidential poll, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney
With 13 general elections to the Lok Sabha and numerous elections to the State Assemblies since 1952 having been held, caste,religion,region and such other extraneous factors still weigh more with our electorate while voting than contestants' other credentials.Instead of these considerations fading away after so many elections and growing political awareness,the caste factor is still at play right from choosing candidates for contesting up to ministry making.On the contrary a black Obama in a predominantly white society is able to make it to the White House based solely on his policies and programs.Extraneous considerations do not influence the US voters.The largest democracy has to come a long way to catch up with the mature oldest democracy with discerning voters.
I live in the US, & have keenly watched the election campaign. Romney
has recently changed his position on many issues, recently. Be it
Medicare, abortion, or equality of gender. He is a millionaire
himself, & believes in helping the richest in the country. Romney has
declared tha he would repeal the now famous Obamacare. He believes in
tax credits for the rich, who he calls ``job creators`. Of late
however, he has gone to repudiate all he has said in the last 18
months, these issues, but that is not working with voters.`
By stark contrast, Obama is pro middle class & believes they need a
helping hand. He believes in reforming healthcare, creating more jobs,
tightening consumer protection, gender equality, cutting defense
spending & putting an end to wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.
All efforts by the right wing to make Obama, a one term president are
bound to fail. People believe he is genuine, principled and needs a
2nd term. He is a statesman that the world stage needs.
At one stage Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh offered on his own to appear before the JPC. The Congress did not okay it perhaps for fear of possible spilling of the beans by Dr.Singh to the embarrassment of the Congress. When our leaders are so much jittery to appear even in camera, how can we expect them to meet face to face to discuss policies and programs in a nationally televised event. We are very very far off from practising a live democracy at work.
USA is a great country where as the India is one of the poorest country in this world. Every day more than 1000 dying without foods. This is the only country in the world having Nuclear Power but the people are dying every minute without foods.
The incumbent President has a great disadvantage as he has to defend
his past performance when the nation is still unhappy in many fronts
particularly the the economy and the high level of unemployment.
Given this handicap, Obama did make a bold attempt to woe the voters
with main emphasis that he wants more time and Mitt Romney will make
matters worse. Romney gave an impression of a politician shifting
stands to suit the occasions particularly with his now infamous
statement behind closed doors that 47% of Americans are not paying
tax.
The moderator had a delicate job with the combative debate .Probably
she exceeded her brief when she intervened to confirm that Obama
called the attack in Benghazi , as an act of terror.
Said and done, it was nice to watch politicians debate on policies and
seek vote.
Open and public debates set in an adversarial, hostile setting have been part of American democracy even from President Lincoln’s days, in the 19th century and have served the people well. This harkens back to an earlier era of warrior-kings when the leader of one faction battled the other, man to man to decide who would rule. But now it is a war of ideas, plans and words, not of weapons. This model can be extremely well suited for the Indian environment, as we are habitually argumentative and love Sivaji-like dialog. Imagine televised debate on the burning issues– e.g. Kundankulam, Coalgate or reservations for promotions between Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Adwani or between Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr. Narendra Modi. At local elections there can be debates among MLA and MP candidates. People can (see and hear the candidates present their cases, defend their records or proposals directly – and not through middlemen, and) select a better quality of our leaders.
Please Email the Editor