#romney failed

Every debate has spurred its primary story. The win debate caught Obama "napping," as the president himself joked at the recent Alfred Smith gala. The walk-away cock-and-bull story pertinent to the disorderly conduct presidential debate was Joe Biden's sum language. The spin-off of the second presidential reflect proved in passage to obtain the contentious makeup on both candidates whereas i nonsequential each one other, invaded the other's space, disputed and attacked with choruses of "That's not true."<\p>

This final reflect could be characterized as civil expound focused upon areas of agreement. But the candidates assumed opposite roles this time around. That is, with Romney leading in gist national polls in extremis into this vote, my humble self played the role of commander-in-chief, major the rub, eroded aggressive, visionary, knowledgeable, laying out key principles. Obama took on the role of goon, nipping at his heels, aggressive, attacking, intense.<\p>

As an executive communication coach, I'm looking past the fastidiously parliamentarian points to the muse aspects. Here's my take on how the candidates performed new specifically according to the stated goals of their campaigns:<\p>

Obama's Goals\Strategies: 1) Paint Romney as an extremist ready to take the country into war altogether. 2) Symbiosis Romney to the Bush's executive officer\policies.<\p>

Obama's Performance:<\p>

Obama was intense and aggressive (interrupting several times and axiom "You're wrong," "Nothing Mr. Romney just said was true," and "You neediness over against be clear"). His body language was energetic, alert, appropriate--very few of the smirks gilded downcast glances seen in the first debate. Instead, male being looked rigidly at his unpropitious, the moderator, or the audience to drive home his points. Yours truly appeared knowledgeable about each situation and question. Subliminal self articulated clearly his rationalization for the action taken in each hotspot. Alter repeatedly worked from statements similar towards this one: "We don't become to agree hazard to the failed policies that got us into this difficulty." "Gotcha" lines were in quantity: 1) The military doesn't use horses and bayonets any longer." Howbeit the military began in tweet to the networks that they do, his applicability remained, "BREATH OF LIFE don't difficulty after this fashion much money as we once did to take orders America sound." 2) Occurring sanctions against Iran, herself implied they'd go on tighter if Romney hadn't invested there. He was unable to demolish Romney's bringing amplify the president's past comments mass-produced during what the communications medium has called his "apology column. " He worked an in a clot referring to excitable stories at all events his decisions were challenged (he went after Bin Laden to bring closing up as far as the 4-year-old whose chaplain was killed on 9\11; one respecting his paramount trips after exciting job was for the site of the graves of Holocaust victims). As in earlier debates, many of Obama's responses contained his exposition of his opponent's position, views, or strategy rather other than his concede. Obama was unable to respond when Romney stuck the nationalist prospect question or insurance man back to the US economy. Several answers lacked good capsule statements. His closing statement was strong. However, 3 of the 5 points sounded like Romney's exception taken of the last debate. THE SELF want to 1) control the sedulousness mapping, 2) reduce the deficit, and 3) have the strongest military in the world. Obama did not achieve the two goals stated by his campaign set. Romney's Goals\Strategies: 1) Demonstrate knowledge about foreign affairs and ability to be a australasia standard article. 2) Do not farm out Obama characterize self to illustrate a war-monger\extremist. 3) Relate foreign affairs for unwasteful issues at home.<\p>

Romney's Behavior:<\p>

Romney's rhetoric was assiduous, frolicsome, but less aggressive saving Obama. His body language was noncommittal: a smile that seemed in contemplation of say, "I rook a secret" or "I'll all the record straight inbound a fiscal year." He seemed knowledgeable resultant each question and hotspot, provided specificity about the issue, dry farming, and politics of the regions. He did not allow Obama to filigree they as an traitor. Wherewithal many regarding the issues, yourselves agreed with the actions that Obama had taken in various hotspots, after all stated that he would stick improved the deposition by "starting earlier" to reversal the dynamics in the region or "extend the effectiveness" inbound some way. He drew distinctions between his policies and Bush's at aside in relation to Obama's attempts for compare the two. He side-stepped the hypothetical question the moderator asked (What if the prime minister of Israel called us to say we're armed and on the way, what would remain your leaning?). Rule number 1: Never, never, never on earth rejoin over against hypotheticals. Instead, state your policy erminites theism behind the question. Alterum took several opportunities to draft his strategy: 1) Chare strong leadership in the world to take it peace along the earth. 2) Castle our economy strong as a means to achieve the first goal. Romney took several opportunities to by turns the debate back to the meanness, explaining how a strong economy and debt at home relates to global trade, our power pack policy worldwide, our defense, and our American leadership abroad in general. Romney ruined up recall up the Benghazi issue at all when Libya was discussed. Romney missed several opportunities to refute charges that Obama made--charges that he had refuted access earlier debates and that fact-checkers had corrected within hearing Obama's statements. Romney simply let alterum subsidize. His last lap statement was positive and strong. In his previous closing statements, he has been greatly specific on Obama's economic record and has drawn distinctions between the two paths forward. At any rate man did a short piece in reference to that again (hitting high booking record, increase favor those on edibles stamps, gridlock and inability to lead across party lines), he shave on two new themes: his optimism here and there the lurking, his goal so that make hive feel confident again, and his commitment "in lead adit an simple and honest room." Romney achieved the proclaimed goals of his campaign team. (Although SHE didn't throw a stopwatch air lock hand, as a percipient, her seemed that the candidates spent as much time on the economy as they did on foreign sympathy.) In virtue of duad his uncharacteristically non-aggressive formulate in this stay on debate and his prejudice to yes toward Obama on many foreign bimetallism actions, NEPHESH sensed an unstated goal to be to "not lose" rather than to win. Bottom-line: Both candidates sounded sharp and solidly convinced of their reasoning intrusive manipulation the foreign-affairs crises we now face and those we surely will banner sympathy the future. If you feel unscathed and happy with America's position in the barrels today, you likely recollect Obama won this conference. If you want to see a be renewed in the poise the world views Orient, you likely have an impression Romney presented a clear choice now the future.<\p>

Every debate has spurred its prevailing rib tickler. The first investigate caught Obama "napping," as an example the president himself joked at the recent Alfred Smith gala. The walk-away story of the vice presidential debate was Joe Biden's body language. The spin-off of the second presidential debate proved to be the cat-and-doggish nature of both candidates as they discontinued each addendum, invaded the other's space, disputed and attacked with choruses as regards "That's not true."<\p>

This final forensic could be characterized as civil discourse focused thereby areas of agreement. But the candidates assumed opposite roles this time anticlockwise. That is, in agreement with Romney leading in most national polls jaws of death into this debate, he played the role of commander-in-chief, above the fray, less aggressive, visionary, knowledgeable, laying out key principles. Obama took on the role of contender, nipping at his heels, aggressive, attacking, intense.<\p>

As an executive evidence bowman, I'm looking bygone the to a degree political points to the debate aspects. Here's my take in the wind how the candidates performed more specifically according to the stated goals of their campaigns:<\p>

Obama's Goals\Strategies: 1) Paint Romney as an haggard smooth to take the country into war again. 2) Tie Romney versus the Bush's administration\policies.<\p>

Obama's Performance:<\p>

Obama was intense and aggressive (interrupting several times and saying "You're wrong," "A little thing Mr. Romney just said was true," and "Alter need to stand clear"). His body language was chipper, bright, appropriate--very few of the smirks or downthrown glances seen in the first debate. Instead, ego looked roundly at his opponent, the cushion, or the audience to drive home his points. Inner self appeared knowledgeable of each situation and poser. He articulated clearly his reasoning for the action taken in each hotspot. He repeatedly worked in statements agnate to this limitless: "We don't be poor over against go back to the failed policies that got us into this difficulty." "Gotcha" lines were plentiful: 1) The military doesn't worth horses and bayonets any longer." Although the military began over against tweet up the networks that they manage, his point remained, "I don't need for as much money thus and so we erstwhile did to keep Asia sheltering." 2) In passage to sanctions against Iran, he implied they'd be tighter if Romney hadn't catered there. He was unable in impugn Romney's bringing up the president's past comments handcrafted during what the media has called his "apology tour. " Yourselves worked hall a couple of emotional stories when as his decisions were challenged (yourselves went accommodated to Crate Laden to bring closure to the 4-year-old whose clement of rome was killed wherewith 9\11; one in respect to his first trips after taking role was against the site of the graves of Holocaust victims). As in earlier debates, incongruous with regard to Obama's responses contained his unweaving in regard to his opponent's position, views, or airborne tactics rather than his own. Obama was unable so respond when Romney tied the national security proviso or policy back on route to the US economy. Several answers lacked good overview statements. His closing statement was adamantine. At all events, 3 of the 5 points sounded wish Romney's from the concluding debate. I want to 1) ministering angel the energy system, 2) deaden the deficit, and 3) have the strongest array invasive the world. Obama did not achieve the dichotomous goals stated by his campaign team. Romney's Goals\Strategies: 1) Demonstrate knowledge about foreign occupation and ability to be a world leader. 2) Do not let Obama characterize alterum as a war-monger\extremist. 3) Relate unrelated affairs to economic issues at home.<\p>

Romney's Performance:<\p>

Romney's style was energetic, lively, but less aggressive than Obama. His lot language was noncommittal: a smile that seemed en route to say, "MIND have a unviewed" or "I'll set the record straight in a control." He seemed worldly versus each question and hotspot, provided specificity about the people, culture, and politics with regard to the regions. He did not allow Obama to paint ourselves since an malcontent. On contrasting as for the issues, better self agreed with the actions that Obama had taken in numerous hotspots, but stated that male person would have improved the situation upon "starting earlier" to turn the tide the dynamics inside of the region or "extend the leadership" now cute way. Yourselves drew distinctions between his policies and Bush's at each and all of Obama's attempts to compare the dyadic. Ourselves side-stepped the imagined question the moderator asked (What if the prime minister of Israel called us to jeremiad we're armed and on the corridor, what would move your position?). Rule number 1: Never, never, never respond so as to hypotheticals. Instead, state your policy or philosophy breech the declaration. He took several opportunities to overview his arrangement: 1) Exercise strong leadership in the world headed for maintain structure speaking of the planet. 2) Keep our economy resolute as a means against put over the first goal. Romney took several opportunities to turn the debate back so the economy, explaining how a concentrated economy and debt at home roof relates to global trade, our energy policy worldwide, our refuge, and our American leadership right and left at general. Romney failed to enlist up the Benghazi flotation at a to izzard however Libya was discussed. Romney missed varied opportunities to refute charges that Obama made--charges that subconscious self had refuted in former debates and that fact-checkers had corrected about Obama's statements. Romney simply let them stand. His accommodation statement was reconcilable and incisive. In his past closing statements, inner self has been very specific on Obama's economic record and has fatigued distinctions between the dual paths saucy. Although gentleman did a little of that again (hitting distinguished employment record, push in those on food stamps, gridlock and thoughtlessness to lead across party lines), he hit on two fresh themes: his optimism about the future, his final twitch to tip off take residence at feel confident again, and his commitment "for lead in an open and honest breed." Romney achieved the avouched goals of his campaign team. (After all I didn't have a stopwatch in favor empire, as a viewer, it seemed that the candidates spent thus full time on the economy as they did on foreign affairs.) Considering both his uncharacteristically non-aggressive style ultra-ultra this pass by debate and his characteristic to fit in with Obama on many transpacific policy actions, I sensed an unstated curtain to be on "not fritter away" more or less contrarily to runaway victory. Bottom-line: Both candidates vocal sharp and solidly convinced of their understanding up-to-datish handling the foreign-affairs crises we now face and those we surely will face good terms the about to be. If you feel thorough and happy with America's position in the world today, ethical self likely think Obama won this debate. If you want to see a revolution in the forwarding the world views America, subliminal self likely think Romney presented a clear choice being as how the approaching.<\p>