Post debate day
President Obama at a campaign rally at Sloan's Lake Park in Denver, Colorado Thursday. (Photo Credit: AFP/ Getty Images)
October 4th, 2012
01:03 PM ET

Post debate day

MDT
10:05AM THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks at a campaign event.Sloan’s Lake Park, Denver, Colorado
11:35AM THE PRESIDENT departs Denver, Colorado. Buckley Air Force Base

CDT
3:40PM THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks at a campaign event. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
5:05PM THE PRESIDENT departs Madison, Wisconsin. Dane County Regional Airport
EDT
7:55PM THE PRESIDENT arrives Joint Base Andrews
8:05PM THE PRESIDENT arrives the White House. South Lawn


soundoff (42 Responses)
  1. JS

    Funny how Obama seemed to take issue with many of Romney's comments from the debate. Only problem is he is a day late. This morning in Denver Obama was bashing Romney for some of the things he said last night. Odd how this brilliant Obama seemed to have no answers for Romney last night, but this morning he is full of it.
    Obama's ignorant talking heads are out this morning telling their lib blind followers their party lines for the day. One of the best ones was the campaign director telling people "Romney was an attack dog, we do not need an attack dog".
    Libs wake up – an attack dog is exactly what this country needs after 12 years of Bush and Obama.
    Vote for Romney and let him attack the problems.
    Even Bill Mahar says Obama needs the teleprompter.

    October 4, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Lionel

      Obama was being presidential. A good, honest man that he is. Obama will win this election because people are not stupid.

      Romney was the school bully like he is. I guess he must have imagined hold down that boy and cutting off his hair during the debates.

      October 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
      • ThatsIt121

        He wasn't being presidential, he was simply facing the truth of his failures for the last 4 years, without response. And if the only argument you have against Romney is that he was a school bully; then you must be facing the truth as well.

        October 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
      • Kool-Aid Police

        Lionel if I've told you once I've told you a thousand times, quit dropping acid so early in the day. Your delusion and alternate reality suggest you need some serious mental help.

        October 4, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
      • Caramon

        Lionel, if you read some of the reviews you would find the President was not acting very Presidential. Even Bill Maher and Chris Matthews, two of his biggest fans, said he didn't look good.

        Maybe President Obama wanted to push Romney to the ground like he did to that other student. It is in his own book.

        October 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
      • rosco

        HELP can some one help me find Obamys backside?? it was kicked across Colorado last night, and is still missing

        October 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
      • Howard

        Ly'n L ... Your blind devotion to 'Dear Leader' ... your Fuhrer, is touching ... but it's time for you to leave the Obama cult. Defending Obama, who lost, and who can't loose like a good sport, just makes you both look bad. Obama was given a chance ... and, in the past 4 years, he has nearly destroyed America. NOW, it's time for Barack and Michelle to abdicate their throne, so Mitt Romney canbegin repairing the excessive damage caused by Obama's terrible policies. Good bye Barack, Michelle, Nancy, Harry, and Axelrod ... and, GOOD RIDDANCE !!!

        October 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
      • Steveo

        School Bully? Ridiculous! Not sure what you were watching last night but the difference in their body language was stark! I said before and I'll say now, I don't expect the same type of performance from Obama, the next time around. But a far as last night goes! He was pretty much the invisiible man!

        October 4, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
      • JS

        Lionel – you love Obama more than our country. Shame on you and your lib friends. You are an Obama shill. Given your constant comments, I wouldn't be surprised if you are someone on Obama's payroll working in the WH.
        If you can't admit Obama had his clock cleaned by Romney last night just stop posting. You have NO CREDIBILITY here.

        October 4, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
      • paulstewart2

        I think Obama won the debate. Why? Well all Romney did was attack the President and say that everything he has said in the past is not what he said. In short, he's not telling the truth again. On top of that he is aggressively attacking the President as being "failed" and not having done enough. This is simply not true. Voters will see right through this.

        What was Obama supposed to do? Attack Mitt? What the President did was stay true to his own vision and views. Somehow, people think that a whirling dervish of falsehoods and double and triple speak is a winner? Naw. Obama is trying to have a discussion and Romney just wants to dump on him and hope nobody notices his own inconsistencies. He is also Etch a Sketching but in small steps, little by little, to claim that he is exactly like Obama on the issues that matter to Americans. Because Obama has it right.

        Mitt can't be trusted. And who really knows what he believe and what he will really do if he had the power of the Presidency? You know what, I am pretty sure I know what he would do and it would not be pretty. 

        http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13017922-its-the-dishonesty-stupid

        http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12903382-michele-obama-and-bill-clinton-lay-out-at-the-rnc-just-how-much-obama-believes-in-america-does-mitt-romney-believe-in-america-or-something-else

        October 4, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
      • jean2009

        .I believe there is a difference between what a candidate states is their goal (not a promise) and what can actually be delivered with a two party system (not a dictatorship).

        But what a proposed candidate like Romney said in a closed room to contributors who are basically buying and paying for him to fulfill their wishes if elected....yep! He feels exactly that way about the 47% and meant exactly what he said. He can prattle all he wants to about caring about the 100% of the people...but as the old saying goes "its too late the horse is already out of the barn"

        As an old lady of 77 who has voted in each election since old enough to vote, and who has raised two sons....I can tell you...This man has serious flaws of character that have shown themselves time and time again as not being presidential material. He just doesn't man up when caught.

        How many dogs do we need to have chained on the roof of a car, or a person with a military deferment who protests FOR others to fight and die instead of just thanking his lucky stars and keeping quiet, or a bully who cuts another student's hair, the man who has stated "he likes being able to fire people"...and the lie after lie and flip flop after flip flop on every issue once it is found he was obviously originally on the wrong side....look at his disavowing Romneycare....anything to cover his behind.

        Really, this is not presidential material, this is a grown spoiled rich boy with no moral compass that wants a toy of power. You are entitled to your opinion..but that is my honest assessment of Mitt Romney. In all my years I have never had a candidate that scared me more.

        October 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • km4candles

      Obama can talk great when he has a script that he can follow. But as people saw last night, you take the script away and the teleprompter away and the man is lost as last year's Easter egg.

      October 4, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • seebs

      Problem is, Romney's gonna attack his problems, not our problems. To Romney, the 47% of people paying no federal income tax (and 95% of whom are paying other taxes) are the problem. Gays are the problem. Women are the problem. And those are what he's gonna attack; poor people, minorities, anything else that gets in the way.

      Competence is not a great attribute to seek out in someone who wants you and everyone like you gone from the world.

      October 4, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • Howard

      THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN SEES THAT ROMNEY IS FOCUSING ON JOBS ... SO, TWO DAYS AFTER HE MAKES THAT POINT IN THE DEBATES ... ABRA KADABRA ... THE JOBS NUMBERS IMPROVE ... AFTER 4 YEARS OF BEING OVER 8% ... AND, AT THE SAME TIME, OBAMA ACCUSES ROMNEY OF LYING ... OBAMA, AXELROD, AND THE ENTIRE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ARE SOOOOOO DISHONEST, AND CORRUPT ... IT'S SICKENING !!

      October 5, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
  2. Jay in NC

    Obama has finally stopped blaming President Bush.

    He has a whole new tactic: blame (future President) Romney.

    October 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • november2012

      obama, after his phony Michelle and ME comments, did say he inherited this economy...and ending up by doing the same thing...other wise...yes you are correct and I'm with you.

      October 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
  3. acdcguy

    Oh this is going to be fun, watching how libs spin this one because we all know Romney crushed Obama. Oh, and Al Gore already used "it was the altitude" , which I really don't think that one can be beat!!!

    October 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  4. christian

    While the press has a legit point about Obama looking stiff and uncomfortable, I don't think he "lost" the debate in terms of substance. Its still true that Romney's numbers don't add up and that he is not likely to be a friend to the middle class. His support of "less regulation" never helps the poor and always makes the rich richer

    October 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
  5. Kool-Aid Police

    Obama didn't even want to be at that debate, he's so used to everyone treating him like a messiah he is totally lost when he actually has to think.

    October 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • rosco

      Wheres all the Obam fans Today ??? must be to embarassed to come out after last nights shelaaaacking
      back to view for obammy he can take them women, he showed his true colors YELLOW

      October 4, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  6. rla

    I can't help but wonder if Obama Supporters wake up in the middle of the night, having had fitful dreams of Romney taking over the world and ushering in the Apocalypse, and shout "He's lying!" I just picture them in their little footsie Huffpo pajamas in their "Yes We Can®" bedding, their little tin foil hats all askew and dented from their restless night. It's such a cute image.
    "There, there, little Obamakins. It was all in your head. It isn't real. Now go back to sleep and try to have sweet dreams in spite of the wreck Obama has made of his presidency."

    October 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • JS

      Actually, libs wake up and watch MSDNC to get their talking points.

      October 4, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
  7. MrBeenThere

    Obama took notes...... it's hard to debate someone who you have know Idea what he stands for from day to day. But Mitt put it in BOLD in front of the Nation he can't walk back his facts and figures now. I think the Pres. is playing a game of chess with Mitt who only knows how to play checkers. Lets see where this leads......

    October 4, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
  8. MrBeenThere

    Is Mitt capable of telling the Truth ???? What Truth does he believe ????
    Some interesting reading about the faith and what he believes:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/07/exclusive-brigham-young-s-great-great-granddaughter-on-mormonism-and-mitt-romney.html

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/6267/does_mormonism_encourage_lds_people_to_lie/

    http://ideas.time.com/2012/06/13/the-root-of-mitt-romneys-comfort-with-lying/

    October 4, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  9. acdcguy

    Oh this is going to be fun, watching how libs spin this one because we all know Romney won big time. Oh, and Al Gore already used "it was the altitude" , which I really don't think that one can be beat!!!

    October 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
  10. november2012

    people think obama will do better next time..I don't. What we saw last night is obama. He did well when he was attacking Bush and the GOP or anyone else in his way...assault, manipulate facts, get people upset and angry...this is who he is, nothing more. NOW, BO has to explain his own actions and lack of...he has never had to do this...ever. He suffers from narcissism so he is incapable of self examination. This guy was never presidential material and will never be, and we are seeing this...finally. Last night obama was angry and smirky..and a cowering persona, not what we want for the leader of The United States of America...not even close.

    October 4, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • Steveo

      Hate to disagree with you but I do. Axelrod is going to have him ready. Yet at the same time you have a point because from what I hear Obama give a energized speech today (w/ teleprompter support!)

      October 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
      • NOvember2012

        I don't think obama can look relaxed and confident...even today he is telling people "the Romney you saw last night isn't the real Romney". Come on...I was taught that you give it your best shot and if you get your hind end kicked so be it..take it like a man and go on. You see its about character, Americanism, vision, freedom, and morality...speaking from the heart. obama can't compete with this.

        October 4, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
      • JS

        I agree with you Steveo. Obama obviously thought he had it in the bag and didn't do his due diligence. He will be better next time. The problem for him is things in this country aren't getting better.

        October 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
      • jean2009

        Oh but things are getting better...yesterday I drove by a new subdivision of new housing being built. .

        October 4, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        Jean, Ohio has a Republican Gov. , right? and most of your House is Republican, and one Senator. Yep, Republicans know how to get things working. Glad to hear that they have done a good job for your state.

        October 5, 2012 at 3:24 am |
      • jean2009

        Yes, and he is reaping the benefits of having a democratic governor before him to lay the ground work for a good economy.

        October 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
  11. Anthony

    Can Obama bounce back? What a silly question. Of course he can. Before the debate, Romney was the person who had dismissed 47% of the US population as victims and pundits were writing obituaries for his campaign. One good debate and nobody remembers that Romney had run a horrendous campaign. Excuse me, Romney's campaign is still horrendous, and he is still a horrible candidate. If Romney can bounce back from the 47% tape, Obama can bounce back from a bad debate.

    Hint to the Obama campaign: the 47% tape is still out there. Ask the voters if they can believe the person who faced off against Obama at the debate, because he is the same person who spoke at that private fundraiser. Who do they believe, the Romney at the debate or the Romney who spoke to the people funding his campaign?

    October 4, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
  12. jean2009

    Now, Ryan and Romney want to double down on doubling down on Medicare. Every senior knows that Medicare will need to be adjusted, but vouchers are not the solution. Vouchers would only make the system for seniors more costly and less secure.

    It would, first, take away the free preventative care and extra prescription drug assistance that the Affordable Care Act added to Medicare. It would also leave current seniors with higher out-of-pocket expenses in the future, because drug providers could go back to charging their higher prices.

    For example…Before Part D Drug Benefit the co-pay through my regular insurance was $28 for a 90 day supply of the generic drug which I had been on for several years. in 2006, under the new Part D that prescription costs me out of pocket $18.00 co-pay for the generic 90 day supply, in 2009 the co-pay deceased to $8.00 generic (same drug same count), and in 2010 to $4.00; today the out-of- pocket co-pay for the same generic and most other Tier 1 & 2 generics for a 90 day supply is $0…yes zero.

    Now think of what that co-pay would be for a prescription that is maybe a Tier 4 drug if it goes back to the co-pay price before 2009 levels. Today all three of my prescriptions are Tier 2, but that is not the case for many elderly.

    This is not the only problem for a voucher system for those already on SS Medicare their insurance premium costs under a voucher system will increase about $6,400per year, for those just turning 65 their cost will increase $11,000, and those just turning 54 would pay an extra $59,500.

    Increased drug costs and higher Medicare premiums. By repealing the Affordable Care Act, the Romney-Ryan plan would raise health care costs in retirement by $11,000 for the average person who is 65 years old today.
    Increased long-term care costs, including increased costs for nursing home care, because of cuts to Medicaid. A substantial share of Medicaid spending pays for health care costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

    The Romney-Ryan Medicaid cuts mean a loss of over $2,500 annually for seniors currently on Medicare who also rely on Medicaid. Unlike the Medicare voucher system that would begin in 2023 the cuts to Medicaid would begin almost immediately.

    For seniors who will become eligible for Medicare after 2022, the financial harm would be even worse.

    This according to studies by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Center for Progress Fund.

    For extra reading I find the article in Forbes “Why Ryan’s Medicare Fantasy Doesn’t Merit Adult Conversation” by Michael Waldholz…who sums up the whole notion as hogwash.

    According to statistics from The Commonwealth Fund research done for CBS News the Romney/Ryan Plan would leave 72 million people uninsured by 2022. This compares to 37 million who will be uninsured under the Affordable Care Act. According to the same research immediately 12 Million more people would be uninsured under the Romney/Ryan plan, than under the Affordable Health Care Act.

    The study also found that Romney's plan would cost Americans more money. People who choose to buy health insurance on their own would pay 14 percent of their income, compared to only 9 percent under the ACA,
    The Commonwealth Fund stated. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation added that repealing the ACA would cost a federal budget deficit of $109 billion between 2013 and 2022.

    This is why Health Care reform on a national scale is better for America than a voucher system, and also is why we must not elect Romney-Ryan.

    October 4, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • Frank Marshall Davis

      Obama plans to really outdo himself in his second term, no more of these piddly 1.4trillion decifits, he plans to get the debt to $30trillion and make any recovery impossible. Knock off the Daily Kos/MSNBC talking points, we've heard them all.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • november2012

      the CBO is ran by an obama appointee...a leftist. It is not nonpartisan. Good try. Romney mentioned them too....hung obummer with his own rope and that was funny.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
      • jean2009

        According to you anyone who isn't wearing a brown shirt or a white sheet is a leftist.

        October 5, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • howden

      im sorry to say frank that if you knew exactly what this voucher plan was and had any understanding of economics you would understand a fe points. so i will help the best i can. First this "voucher system you speak of is an either or option. you can have the Medicaid/Medicare system or you can go find your own. Now when you have insurance companies competing for business on that large of a scale do you really think they are going to lure seniors away from the choice of medicaid/medicare to get higher premiums, more cost, and less coverage? Come on man i know libs are brainwashed but you actually have to listen to the purposed plan in its entirety. I am a disabled veteran and have needed surgeries. do you think i went to government appointed doctors? hell no! i went to my private insurance because the care is better. However, if i could not have afforded my own insurance yes i would use the government. Thats all the plan does is give people a choice.
      Romney made a pretty good point regarding the 716 billion dollar cut into medicare/medicaid but i think he did it in a wrong way. Obama is not cutting that money from the actual number of dollars they get just the amount they pay hospitals and doctors. How does it affect seniors then? Romney was absolutely correct when he stated doctors and senior care centers will stop taking those people if they get there money cut. Now why would they say or do that? Have you even looked at the private cost of assisted living or any program that requires medical attention capabilities round the clock? it is rediculious! If the government cuts or limits the amount of money that can be charged for care basic economics of cost vs profit dictates they will no longer be able to help these people. I have already gone on long enough but if you want to see something really scary look at and i mean really look at obama care. wow! that plan puts so much red tape to get care in emergency events its just bad. great for those who arnt sick though and great for preventive medicine. but when it really counts its seriously lacking.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • november2012

      medicare is the vehicle that drove health care off the cliff in America...and it needs to be reformed...on a bipartisan basis...and obviously obama aint the guy to do it, he does not work with others and he certainly is not king of America...maybe Kenya...not America.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
      • jean2009

        What drove the economy off the cliff was two unfunded wars, tax cuts for the upper 2%, a bloated military budget, deregulating bank oversight, and an unfunded drug benefit.

        Block grant funding is like musical chairs—a risky game. You get a fixed number of chairs (block grant funding), regardless of how many people are in the game. Which means when times are bad more people will not be seated. Those are facts.
        When federal funding does not automatically increase in hard times, states can do only three things—
        1.) Cut the number of people who are eligible,
        2.) Cut the assistance each person gets or
        3.) Increase state spending to buy more services…meaning the state then needs to tax more.
        Which means states will cut services, or when times are good redirect their excess grant money for other uses…meaning those funds will not be available when needed, and in the end it will cost the federal government more…not less.
        I would rather trust the federal government to provide the funds when needed, rather than having 50 state governments squandering block grant money when times are good and then come back repeatedly hat-in-hand for a federal bail-out when times are bad.
        Look at the number of times the Federal Government has had to take a state to court for the mismanagement of federal grant monies?
        FOR EXAMPLE:
        Wisconsin: The Community Development HUD federal block grants which were misused. Milwaukee County had to repay the federal government for the misuse of block grant funds.
        New Hampshire: Is trying to find a way to cut its state budget by $35 million due to mismanagement of Medicaid block grant funds which they owe back to the Federal Government.
        New York: City of Buffalo-The Office of Housing and Urban Development defies anyone to grasp exactly what is happening to block grants that disappear down Buffalo's black hole:
        Detroit: Double billed the Michigan Human Services Department for $3 million or more, of block grant federal funds.
        Block grants, only opens the door for more greed and fraud…instead of less hogs at the trough the problem is compounded by 50 states worth of State hogs having access. It will be another mismanaged pork laden feeding frenzy.
        Why would states be interested? For one quick cash, as they face the worst fiscal crises in two generations brought on by deregulations of safety nets and unwarranted federal tax cuts, many state leaders such as governors who will be long out of office, and who might be tempted to take the money now and let someone else worry about the future later. Funding for the proposed changes in Medicaid, for example, would be front-loaded, giving states more money in the first years, but would reduce funding for health care coverage in the later years. Guess who suffers when that happens?
        May I say does that remind you of George W. Bush and the mess he left?
        States in the past have been worse at shepherding taxpayer funds from the federal government than the federal government.
        Once block grants free the federal government from its obligations to administer, set standards, and fund social programs, there’s one thing you can count on—fewer chairs and more families cut out of the game. But this is no game…since it will result in . More hunger, more homelessness, more inequality, and more destitute citizens.
        What is a block grant and why is it a bad idea? A block grant is simply a lump sum grant of money Congress sends to states to use for a specific purpose. RESULTS volunteers are quite familiar with block grants because of work with the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which is a pool of money Congress allocates to the states each year designated for child care assistance. While block grants are appropriate in some cases, when it comes to low-income programs like SNAP and Medicaid, they could be disastrous.
        Ironically, one of the criticisms of SNAP by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (D-WI-1) is that its costs have skyrocketed. That's exactly what is supposed to happen in a bad economy. More people lose jobs, their incomes go down, and so they turn to public assistance for help. Because of this, enrollment for safety net programs increases as do the costs of covering more people. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that SNAP kept 4.4 million people out of poverty in 2010. What Chairman Ryan seems to ignore is that, when the economy fully recovers and people's income rises, they no longer need public services and costs once again go down.
        Block granting SNAP and Medicaid would undo these protections. Transforming these guaranteed benefits to a system where benefits are contingent on a fixed amount of funding each year would inevitably result in cuts to enrollment and services. First, block grant funding would likely fail to increase at the same pace, if at all, as food and health care inflation, thus forcing cuts. We’ve seen this happen with welfare when it was block-granted in the 1990s as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF). Second, SNAP and Medicaid would also not be able to adequately respond in economic downturns, as they have recently. When more and more people need services but you have a fixed grant of funding that is unlikely to be increased during a recession, people will be turned away to fend for themselves. Finally, states could also be tempted to redirect block grant funds to other areas, putting further strain on already scare resources. As a result, millions of people would fall into poverty with their government essentially abandoning them. This is not the America we want.

        October 5, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • rosco

      Nice copy and paste job

      October 5, 2012 at 11:13 am |
      • jean2009

        Thanks...look out there is more incoming.

        October 5, 2012 at 2:40 pm |