yep, this debate was supposed to only be about the economy.  The next debate should be the most diverse, focusing on both domestic and foreign policy.  The last debate is supposed to focus soley on foreign policy.  

Honestly, they need to have more debates.  If they can have 20+ debates in the primary, you'd think the general election could fit in more than 3...

I'm British, btw.

Don't worry, we don't pay attention to any other countries, really, just the US.

I'm currently living in Hong Kong... the Presidential debate is all over the news, here. Usually goes in to how Romney will label China a "currency cheat". I was surprised when I moved here, and started talking to people... they all knew who Romney was.

In the UK, it's not entirely rare that people don't even know who our rulers are. I would wager more than 70% of the population couldn't name more than 2 or 3 current cabinet members.

yeah, same could be said for americans to be honest.  I mean, I follow politics pretty extensively, and I can only think of Clinton off of the top of my head.  I mean, I know most of the other cabinet members, but Clinton's name is the only one I can think of right now.  I could google search and that would probably jog my memory, but I would say most Americans couldn't name their cabinet members either.  

If his skin color was a negative factor then how in the hell was he elected in the first place? Without the vote of millions on millions of people who are quite a few shades lighter than himself he couldn't have become elected the 44th POTUS. Please tell me you aren't from merry ol' Englund because last time I checked your country is older than ours and I have yet to see a black King or Prime Minister come out of that Island. Such is the case for Australia or Canada eh or any other coutry that spells color the wrong way. His skin colour (color in American or Yank) is of no matter. It is strictly his policies and inability to deal with the "massive economical burden" you eloquently pointed out.

As for the congress not wanting to work with the president I think you might have it backwards my friend. Sure they aren't his buddies but.....

Republican House Bills for Health Care Reform:

H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478

all say the Republicans did in fact want to work on health care with the president. Unlike PPACA (Obamacare) which was forced through using seedy tactics like reconciliation which is reserved for annual budget issues etc. But you won't hear about these because you aren't supposed to. Not to mention the Republican House has passed a Constitutionally mandated budget as required while the Senate and President have failed to do so.

I will however, stipulate on the disfunctional politicians statement.... Anthony's Weiner + Facebook anyone?

That could only be considered a "Spin" if Romney had policies to attack the presidents record with...If he had attacked the presidents record with superior ideas instead of "He's failed, so I should get the job and that's all America needs to know," I wouldn't be calling his moves defensive. The point is he had nothing to offer, because if he opened his mouth on any actual policy he did have Obama would have bounced him around the room like a the flip flopper he is...

He got nailed multiple times with the 5 trillion dollar tax cut, which he vehemently denied while his tax policy does cut 5 trillion dollars and never specifies the supposed holes and deductions he was going to close. He also completely avoided answering for the 2 trillion dollars that he was promising the millitary which was not asked for and not wanted. His moves would only be considered offensive if he actually intended to gain ground, which he failed to do...It was like watching a solider throw his rifle at a nuclear bomb and screaming "I WON!!!!!" right before it denonated in his face.

There was more substance in the Bill O'Rielly vs Jon Stewart debate. I can at least say that Bill was on the offensive and hammered a couple of a really good points through.

What you just said in no way implies defensiveness.  In fact, it implies just outright agression.  Your examples, especially the one with the soldier throwing his rifle at a bomb actually describes no defense.  

Im not saying romney won, i think they performed about the same, but if you think romney was defensive because he spent the time attacking obama, then all i can say is you need to look up the definition of the word.  

And once again I disagree with what you think it implies...Romney has been backed into tha corner by his less than appropriate remarks and is costing him this election at this point...he had nothing of any substance to use as a weapon so he attempted to use the persons record against them because he knew if he tried to speak on his own policies he would once again be handed a flip flop and sent about his buisness...He came out swinging, but it was from a place of defensiveness not a place of confidence. His behavior could ONLY be considered Offensive if he had a more sturdy platform and his attacks came from a place of conviction, backed with actual substance...his tactic was to be subversive by using the current presidents record, which worked for the first part of the debate, but in the second half he was gased...

Once again I point you to Bill O'Reilly's performance in the Jon Stewart debate. I don't like the guy, but he has beliefs, he has conviction in them, and, as a result, he did a really good job of putting Jon on the defensive despite the fact that I think Jon ultimately handled him very well...and that is impressive because Jon is a very slick debater.

You could also look at our debate as an example of this...10 bucks says you think I'm the one on the defensive.

well, are you defending your position or not?  

What you are doing is twisting words around to mean something completely different.  If you had said "Romney is attacking because he has nothing to run on" then I would have nothing to say to you.  However, you are saying "Romney is being defensive by attacking the presidents policies because he has nothing to run on" now that doesn't make sense.  

Look, I'm not debating Romney and Obama here, I'm debating your use of the word defensive and how you are using it.  THAT IS NOT WHAT DEFENSIVE MEANS!  

If Romney had been on the defensive, he would have been DEFENDING his own policies or lack there of.  (key word, defending)  Instead, he mostly ATTACKED the presidents record.  (key word, attacked)

It is really quite simple.  

I'd suggest you look up how defensiveness can manifest...

Defensiveness is natural and appears in one of two forms: Passive/Victim thinking - the conflict might hurt me so I will lay low. Or Aggressive/Competitive - I will aggressively argue in hopes of winning the conflict.

Ok, yes people can be agressively defensive, but since romney controlled the topics in the debate, it was obviously not an agression based on defensiveness.  

This conversation is just going in circles so i will just leave you with this.  All politicians attack each others record.  The more a politician has to stop and defend that record means less time attacking and scoring political points on their oponent.  That is their job and they ALL do it.

Now, either every politician in the world is defensive, or your definition is way too broad.  Ill let you figure out which is which.  Cheers.