In chess;

[greiner3]

The object is to capture the king. ANY other piece is expendable as long as this objective is obtained.

With that in mind, some of the greatest games involve sacrificing even the queen. This leads to a forcing mate, if the person on offense is astute to be able to see x amount of moves further than his opponent.

This is also accomplished by knowing how his opponent will react in certain situations and taking advantage of these 'tells.'

I have long recognized President Obama's apparent knowledge and skill at the game. He knew Romney would and could take him down if President Obama used his record on the economy.

Yes, yes, I do know that he has done wonders with getting us out of possibly the end of America's 'Golden Age' and plunging the world into complete devastation, politically and economically. This would lead to worldwide anarchy and the wars that would inevitably follow would lead to a worldwide power vacuum.

Ok, my point is that President Obama's showing last night was a must. He has 2 debates to go. His record with the next 2 debate topics are shining examples of what the, still, undecided voter will remember in the 2-3 weeks prior to election day.

Right now Nate Silver has President Obama's chances of winning the election at 86.1%. Intrade's percentage also dropped from a little over 70% to 66.1% this morning. I believe the other 'betting' sites also gave Romney the same small percentage gain.

Nate's article posted this morning concerning last night's debate gives Romney a 'field goal.' Nate says it will take a week to see if Romney will get any or how much of a bounce because of this.

President Obama can flub the next 2 debates. That would be terrible, bordering on catastrophic.

BUT, President Obama has proven himself time and time again he does not break under pressure. Don't forget this, and I regret I can't find that picture that came out 4 years ago;

Don't worry, I've got this!

CHECK AND MATE!

[oviedodem]

1. I do know this, Romney gave Obama more ad material than they know what to

do with. In this day and age ads seem to go further than these debates.

[bemildred]

2. Yes, I would say O offered Rmoney a gambit and he took it.

Except, O didn't have to offer anything to get Rmoney to attack.

[flamingdem]

3. Problems I saw: Obama's closing remarks were odd

He mentioned something about Romney would agree that he is imperfect. Not the right tone.

Romney mentioned the 718 billion taken from Medicare 2-3 times and Obama didn't respond.
I know there was so much shit being thrown against the wall by Willard that it was hard to pick out what to attack but I think Obama played Nice Guy too much for undecideds who look for strength.

He also essentially complemented Romney about social security and how they'd both treat it the same way. That is not helpful in defining the Repuke plan to destroy the safety net.

I thought Obama won because Romney like a bully but it looks like that doesn't get demerits in punditland. This perceived "weakness" of Obama was a problem with Democrats around the tax cuts for the rich last year, I think he has to turn that around to get people to the polls.

And I think he knows that.

[Carolina]

4. Sorry but

this ain't no fucking chess game.

And the other side doesn't play by any rules! It flat out cheats.

[Democat]

5. That's what we said about Kerry in 2004

Obama didn't need to play chess. He could have ended the election tonight with a strong performance. That would have been a win in any game. He can still win, but let's be realistic.

[Chan790]

6. "He could have ended the election tonight with a strong performance" is just untrue.

It doesn't matter how many times people say it or want it to be true, it's not true. If it were true, Obama would have gone on the attack and ended it. Instead, he let Romney dig himself a hole. Next time, he'll start kicking dirt onto Romney's campaign and bury him in the last debate.