I figure this is the place to put this since the third debate is about foreign policy and this will inevitably come up:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

I don't know whether it was just the reporting I was exposed to or not, but I'm under the impression that Romney had significant gaffes on nearly every overseas trip he's made in the last year, which doesn't do anything to help his quest for national leadership, in my eyes.

It says a lot for our place in the world theater, IMO, that Obama is particularly beloved overseas.

Wasn't the reporting. He pretty much upset everyone he visited. Britain really doesn't like him, the EU doesn't like him, and while Israel doesn't like him they'll probably endure him if he goes to war with Iran.

Sadly for his relations with the rest of the world, he comes across as being as gaffe-prone as Dan Quayle. Worse, in fact. Never thought I'd ever hear myself say that.
There were so many better candidates for the Republican nomination - why on earth did they choose Romney?

Thanks for the article but even if they gave poor intel until the 22nd it makes me wonder why Obama blamed the video in his speech to the UN on the 25th. Hopefully he'll finally answer this question tonight.

I don't think the American public like Romney much, either. He fits neatly into two stereotypes we typically revile:

1) In business, he made an absurdly large fortune being the outsider corporate strongman who came into a company, reworked things, fired a bunch of people, and moved on. Investors may like those sorts of people, but the vast majority of the populace hates that archetype.

2) In politics, he's that most reviled of creatures, the flip-flopper. He'll say anything that he thinks will get him ahead. He's been documented doing it over and over and over and over again.

It speaks volumes of the right's hatred of Obama that they appear to be so behind a man like Romney who would otherwise be pretty handily booed off the stage. I find it amusing to think that the right would be as supportive regardless of the candidate, whether it were Gingrich, Perry, Cain, or even Bachmann. Ron Paul wouldn't ever be allowed to hold the candidacy, of course, because he's not pliable enough.

I disagree with your characterization of Romney, but we'll leave that aside a bit and assume it's true.

The right has always been opposed to Obama, 2008 and 2012 both. It's the center that's swinging. Romney is winning independents by ~19% right now depending on what poll you read. Some states he won by double digits he's in serious danger of losing this time around.

Perhaps step back from your viewpoint on the left and wonder what about the last 4 years made them switch so drastically? If he had a record of success you wouldn't see type of swing regardless of however you feel about the right's opinion. The election isn't driven by hate, it's the natural and expected result of what happens to the incumbent party in a bad economy.

If I was the sort for conspiracies, I would think Mitt Romney was fashioned off of 80s-90s teen movie villains. The sort of evil millionaire who tries to bulldoze the mall before the heroes can get together and do something silly like turn his hair purple before he has to go to a board of directors meeting.

I agree with Atlictoatl that it is weird he is loved so much. I refuse to blame it on something as simple as them hating Obama, or something so silly as them all being racist. Though there are definitely individuals out there with those reasons.

Obama has a lot to answer for in this debate, but I don't feel like Romney's solutions are exactly better. Obama ran on promises of ending engagements, shutting down torture, an attempt at peace. There are instances where he tried, but in a better world he would come out and explain the intel that made him back pedal from a lot of that. If he would just come out and say "This information made me escalate in X country, and that was unfortunate."

But this is America, and not wanting a fight is more of that 'weakness' that makes you impossible to elect.

2 years. The last 2 years.
And I believe its because the average voter can't comprehend that congress can prevent the President from doing anything.

Last I checked he was President for 4 unless you're making some other point you haven't explained. He had full control for 2 years and passed policies that directly lead to historical defeats in the 2010 elections. To say his policies were only unpopular for 2 years is unsupported by reality.