Presidential & VP candidate debates

I saw a comment recently about Biden losing the VP candidates' debate due to his bizarre aggressive behavior, and how Obama 'lost' the first presidential debate "because he didn't interrupt Romney enough."  So I assumed the commenter was saying the “winner” is the candidate who interrupts the most.  The companion assertion is:  no interruptions at all is deemed to be bad. 

That doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.  In viewing the debates I didn’t give ‘points’ for interrupting, but what was said and how.  Indeed, I’d say a whole set of different characteristics were used by viewers to evaluate the candidates:  Confidence, thoughtfulness, being forthright, strength of conviction (but not arrogant,) and certainly intelligence.  Biden was one or two of those.  Ryan hit on all of them.

On the other hand, I think the deficiency on the part of the president's performance was passion in his answers/responses.  He doesn’t need to be hostile or uncivil to be effective, just positive, persuasive, ardent, and still factual.  

When someone refers to the constant interruptions by Biden (numbering 82 at one count) and says “Both parties do it," then I have to ask for an example of that behavior by a Republican candidate.  I can’t recall such boorish hectoring on the part of any GOPer, though it’s certainly possible if intemperate passion overrides civility for a brief moment, and it could be said the debates during the GOP primaries were heated.  Biden made it a practice for 90 minutes.  Also, as someone has said, “pointing to bad behavior doesn't excuse other bad behavior.”  

If there is an example of disrespectful behavior on the part of a Republican candidate, I will promptly condemn it, for what that is worth.  Perhaps Romney was interrupting Obama?  Not that I recall as significant, so was the commenter, above, asserting that Ryan laughed rudely during Biden's presentations?  Certainly not.  Speaking of which, did anyone think viewers were laughing along with the VP?  I really doubt it.  However, the Democrat base probably was thrilled about the "designated pit bull" for their party going after Ryan and challenging him viscerally; though most viewers were appalled.

No, the president also “lost” on substance, not just style, although the latter brought the most comments.  He did look listless and almost, I’d say, aloof.  As I write this on Sunday, October 14, here is a prediction:  Look for Mr. Obama at Tuesday’s debate (town hall format) to come on like gangbusters, double down on the VP's disgraceful performance in terms of hostility and discourtesy, and further erode his standing with all-important independents (now at 55-45 deficit.) 

In terms of polls, states are slowly turning "pink."  FL, VA and NC have moved from toss-up to "lean Romney."  PA, MI and MI are moving from the Democrat column to toss-up status.  CA moved 8 points toward Romney.  (Granted, he’s still down 22 points – hey, it’s LA-LA land – but that movement is nationwide.  

Bob Woodward on Fox News Sunday today said, 

     “Everyone has been kicking around this question, ‘Are you better off now than 4 yrs ago?’  But the question people want answered is ‘How are you going to make me better off in the next year, in the next 4 years?’  If you really look at the details, neither campaign has answered that sufficiently.”  

     That was a good point, but it’s the wrong question because I don’t think "the government can make me better off.”  If the government gets out of the way then businesses and individuals can do better on their own.  So the question should be, “How will your administration improve the business climate, ease regulations, and encourage businesses to hire."

Government can't create jobs, only businesses can do that, and they will do so when the economy expands so demand increases for a particular service/product of a respective business.