After the sudden shift in the polls toward Governor Romney these past few weeks, President Obama was under tremendous pressure to make up for his lackluster performance in the first debate. Thus, it was obvious heading into the debate that he would be going on the offensive. Well, those looking for fireworks were not disappointed!

This debate was a townhall format, rather than a lectern or table set-up seen in the first presidential debate or in the vice presidential debate. The first townhall debate came in 1980 between President Carter and his challenger then-Governor Reagan. This style of debate takes a group of undecided voters and allows them to ask the candidates questions. It's pseudo-scripted question asking, since the moderator pre-approves each question and can ask follow-ups if the candidates go off topic. This debate format lends itself well to interpreting body language and determining how well candidates directly connect to the average citizen.


On rhetoric, both candidates sparred with force. They both had their moments, but nothing was really a knockout punch for the other's campaign. Actually, town hall debates are not generally known for decisive wins, aside from the 2000 one in which Governor Bush blew off Vice President Gore's attempt at an aggressive move with a simple dismissive nod.

Many of the questions were meant to trap the candidates in a corner, for better or for worse. This leant to interesting answers, as well as dodges. For instance, one questioner posited the often cited but easily debunked premise that women are paid just 72% of men in the workforce (Why don't companies just hire the "cheaper" women, then?) as an attempt to shift the discussion toward the so-called "War on Women". There was also a question asked about the handling of the Libyan terrorist attack to corner President Obama.

Obama hit hard on Romney's ambiguous tax plan, and Romney hit back on failed campaign promises of Obama from 2008. It was a tug-of-war for attention that left many questions by the audience unanswered.

The moderator, Candy Crowley, showed a moment of unabashed bias in favor of President Obama when she actually jumped to his aid and tried to fact check Governor Romney on calling out Obama's attempt to blame the Libyan attack on a response to a YouTube video posted 3 months earlier. Here is how it played out:

1. Romney said that Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack for 2 weeks
2. Obama told Crowley to check the transcript of his speech from September 12th
3. Crowley just happened to have the transcript on her desk and said that Romney was wrong on the accusation.
4. The press started cheering.
5. Obama asked Crowley to repeat what she said louder.
6. Crowley repeated what she said.
7. Obama thanked her.
8. Crowley said quieter that Romney was right about other members of the Obama administration blaming the YouTube video.

There are a few critical issues with this:

1. Crowley was prepared to come to Obama's aid, showing her bias.
2. Moderators are not supposed to "fact" check during debates.
3. After the debate, Crowley said in an interview that she was incorrect in her assessment and that Romney was right, after all.
4. There is countless evidence to support Romney's claim, including Obama's speech to the United Nation in September.

As for body language in the debate, there was the constant play between both candidates to show the aura of alpha male. I mentioned earlier the moment between Gore and Bush, when the former tried to invade the personal bubble of the latter. In the case of Obama and Romney, both men invaded their spaces through the entire debate. If they got any closer, they would have been stomping on each other's shoes. One moment that stood out early was when Romney was talking, and Obama tried to interrupt. Romney assertively told Obama that he wasn't done, and Obama said a defensive "okay" and sat down. After this moment, the aggression was fairly equal.

Overall, both candidates held their ground, but they also dodged and weaved questions. They seemed to connected at times with the audience, but most of their eye contact with toward the moderator. I give a slight edge to Romney for his more decisive jabs against an incumbent's record (which is what turns undecided voters), but as I said already, there was no major knockout. Obama held his ground well. The real losers of the debates were moderator Candy Crowley (for her failed attempt at fact checking), the press behind the glass wall (for cheering for Obama loud enough to hearing on the microphones inside the room), and Michelle Obama (for disruptive applause after Crowley told the audience to remain silent in respect of the candidates).

What did everyone else think?