Disrespectful? Au contraire - he did what had to be done which was to swat smarmy little Ryan down like a fly. Joe had facts - Ryan was again pulling the Republican tactic of avoiding facts and proposing generalities and bromides.

Joe kept changing the subject and avoiding the questions. He acted like an old style Chicago ward politician.

Just like Romney was in the first debate only Romney was worse: more condescending, showing no respect for moderator or the President, and with a creepy stare (does he blink, what is he on?) Subsequent polls have proven you wrong.

So you are by all means soft core republican.
Biden won.
When your opponent cannot give an answer to the question but tries to lie and talk about something else then the other party is going to laugh.

Biden's demeanor was embarrassing. CNN is posting polls Ryan 48% Biden 44%---I agree with it.

If Biden was rude, what was Romney last week? What is good for one is good for the other. Biden was the clear winner. He had the facts, he knows his stuff. Ryan could not and did not answer direct questions.

I trust you've never become a trial lawyer - because with your ideas you would fail miserably. Joe did what had to be done - and treating an opponent with condescension is an acceptable tactic under certain circumstances. Last night was one of those circumstances. When the bloody h--l are Mitt and Ryan going to give us specifics on their tax plan, what deductions will be cut, etc? Why are they so afraid to level with the voter?

It's easy to respect an honest debate partner. Lies have to be called out. Romney walked all over Obama with complete fallacies, and it was important not to let it happen a second time.

Majored in Debate?

Did you go to Whassamatta U?

Biden didnt show weakness - he exposed it. Ryan looked like a little kid getting schooled by his grandpa. VPs are supposed to be the attack dog types - they dont worry about looking Presidential, and Biden made the most of it.

I like that we're bringing this word 'malarkey' back!

Agree!!!!

Wow.... you are delusional......

I happen to agree with Barbara. Name calling is petty sus. Everyone is entitled to have their opinion respected if not agreed with.

Do you honestly think Romney and Ryan do, when they keep changing their stances on practiclaly every single issue plus they have no specifics on anything.

To Logansdad:
Your description sounds more applicable to the Obama/Biden team, except that they like to call it "evolving."

"Do you really think a undecided voter looked at that debate last night and watched the VP of the United States of America laughing during topics that are extremely crucial as someone that is a man to take serious?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57531059/poll-biden-takes-debate-over-ryan-uncommitted-voters-say/

He won them over by 50-31% last night.

CBSnews aka liberal bias new....what a great reference Jeff.

Please demonstrate how this poll's methodology is liberal. Sound arguments require facts and data, Cord.

Obama would have gotten more done if the GOP had "gotten out of the way" and voted through their policies, a lot more would have been done, and the recovery would be a lot further along. But they have pursued scorched earth politics with two goals: keeping a promise to some dude called Grover Norquist - not their constituents - and ensuring Obama would be a "one-term president" (Mitch McConnell. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/25/126242/mcconnell-obama-one-term/) Since then GOP fillibusters have reached an all-time high, and governing came to a grinding halt. SO if there is anything wrong with the Obama record is that congressional productivity ground to a screeching halt.

Basic idea - cut taxes across the board by 20% (yes that includes high income earners), then eliminate loopholes for the high income earners, which makes up for the 20% cut. The Dems act like the loophole cuts don't exist because Romney won't identify specific cuts, however, he has said they would only impact high income people. The potential elimination of the mortgage deduction would apply only to the high income earners (over $1,000,000) and would not affect the middle class. But he doesn't want to say this because it hasn't been voted on and approved by congress. Romney is a businessman and he knows that you manage by putting out overall goals and then working within the organization to develop strategies to achieve those goals. It basically comes down to trust. Given Romney's track record in how he has managed his businesses, the state of Massachusetts, his finances, his family and his life, I have no doubt that he would be successful at managing the country.

As a resident of the great state of Illinois, I can honestly say that I do not trust Obama to manage this country out of the recession. He did nothing substantial when he was a Senator and has failed in his efforts to stimulate this economy.

For those of you who say that Biden won the debate, I must have been watching a different debate. He doesn't have the temperament or the class to be Vice-President, let alone possibly the President. If he's so great, what has he been doing for the last 4 years?

Jo Ann,

I have to say I respectfully disagree with the logic that effective governance means not identifying your specific ideas because they haven't been agreed to by Congress. You're basically saying we should just trust Romney/Ryan won't hurt the middle and lower class, even though Ryan's acclaimed federal budget proposal relies on massive cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, education, food stamps, and "broadening the tax base" to eliminate the things like the mortgage deduction, which in fact is primarily (70%) a middle class tax break. I'm sorry that I don't take these guys at their word -- the country deserves specifics that have been sorely lacking from their campaign.

On the issue of Joe Biden being fit to be Vice President and what has he ever done -- he helped secure the Senate’s approval of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia; he played a lead role in ending the war in Iraq, traveling to the country eight times since being elected; and oversaw the implementation of ARRA. You can say you didn't like that he was aggressive last night, but to say he hasn't done anything as VP is simply not true.

Unbelievable how Biden "did not know" about embassy security requests and blamed the intelligence community then turns around claiming the Iran threat is overblown and they will be unlikely to get a bomb for a long long time, if ever, based on his trust of the intelligence community! I expect both of these issues to blow up in the next few days.

Biden clearly plays both ends at once and plays loose with the truth. He is willing to blame anyone else but the Obama administration.

Biden was all about winning debating points with lies and misrepresentations and fear tactics if necessary. Ryan was about debating substance, respectifully and intelligently.

When will the Obama administration admit they were completely unprepared for the 9/11 anniversary and stop trying to shift the attension to Romney for asking a question?

Keep drinking that kool-aid for the D-party.... repeating their sound bites without facts and trying to create Class Warfare. Vote for the Dems in November and wait to see what happens to your income in 2014 when all these mandates go into effect. But, like typical non-thinking sheep, you'll blame President Bush. God help us all......

"Basic idea - cut taxes across the board by 20% (yes that includes high income earners), then eliminate loopholes for the high income earners, which makes up for the 20% cut. The Dems act like the loophole cuts don't exist because Romney won't identify specific cuts, however, he has said they would only impact high income people."

So just take his word then, but the independent analsyis has shown Romney's plan will actually raise taxes on the middle class and reduce taxes for the wealthy.

Well, the magic growth from tax cuts worked in 2002. Oh, wait. No it didnt.
I guess it worked in the mid 80s. Hmmmm. Nope.
Well, at least we know the tax increase in the mid 90s killed growth. What? The highest growth we've ever had happened then?

Its the same Bush crap re-warmed. Not sure why people dont learn.

Actually the tax cuts did work in the 80's and in 2002 the effect was obscured because of the Iraq war. Bush should have reconsidered the tax cut and not gone through with it and the deficit might not have grown so much. As far as the Clinton tax increases, let's get real, the growth in the 1990's was due to the growth in the tech industry. The economy was booming so it could handle a tax increase. I'm not saying I agree with deep tax cuts, I'm just explaining the rationale that Romney is using and given the choice between him and Obama, there is no contest. Obama is an amateur and has probably never managed a p&l in his life. (I bet Michelle did their finances).

"[I]f you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters," he proclaimed, "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." Obama.

They are running on their record and their detailed vision for the next 4 years -- this GOP talking point makes no sense. Just this last week, for example, the campaign has been talking about lowering the unemployment rate below 8%. While that's still too high, that represents significant progress.

Take a look at their policy positions, which again are detailed and highlight their record so far: http://www.barackobama.com/issues?source=primary-nav

Then take a look at everything they've accomplished in the last four years.
Here: http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/
and here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/11/1118960/-What-has-Obama-Done-Here-Are-194-Accomplishments-With-Citations-reposted-from-the-PCTC-Blog

Again, the facts, not unfounded talking points, matter.

He was laughing because of the shameless lying and misrepresentations presented by Paul Ryan.

Perhaps if Ryan finally gave some quantifiable facts instead of generalities, platitudes and bromides, Jow wouldn't have had to trat him like a mediocre freshman debater.

Ryan had the too wonky to get an actual answer out thing going. Biden had the crazy Uncle Joe who shows up drunk and then mumbles the last half hour thing. Biden

Ryan has the dreamy blue eyes. Biden has the good teeth. Ryan.

Ryan is handicapped by a batshit crazy Republican Party that will say and do anything to win the White House. Biden is handicapped by a batshit crazy Democrat Party willing to say and do anything to keep the White House. Draw there.

Ryan is a young punk. Biden is an old punk. Ryan.

Ryan played the dead Dad card. Biden played the dead wife and daughter card. Biden.

End result: 2-2 Draw.

Biden is a master at misrepresenting facts and truth and hiding behind an overly aggressive posture.

He says he means what he says- like blacks are going to be put back in chains if Republicans have their way....A radically obscene comment which should get him fired from teh Vp position in itself.

As soon as Rodney gets elected, 3/4 of the states will pass a constitutional amendment, to void the Supreme Court Ruling? Who knew he had so much power!

Hey Billy, Thanks for your comment. Yes, this piece is listed as an opinion piece, but I do think it's fair to say—based on post debate analysis—that people found this debate more interesting than the first. I think that's based on both candidates making a better case for how their platform differs from their opponent's.

Considering that Ryan put forth no specifics but, instead, generalities, platitudes, bromides and a fair share of outright lies, he deserved to be treated like a pretentious not-to-bright toddler. What this debate established is that the Republicans are counting on there being just enough not-too-bright people who will let their generalities and obfuscation slide and vote for them to teach all the "moochers" and "takers" a lesson.

How bout you talk about the obstruction taking place in congress that prevents this country from getting better. So quick to put everything at the Presidents feet, but unwillingly to remember your 7th grade constitution lessons. This country has a thing called "checks and balances". When a party makes up its mind that it is more important to stop a president from re-election then help out this country on the right track, the country suffers. How can work get done when one party thinks compromise is a bad thing? That's what our constitution is built on.
You ask if we are better off than we were 4 yrs ago. Please save me the talking point. We are growing jobs instead of losing them. We were in a recession now we are not. Our biggest national threat, Al Qaeda not Russia, is weak. No one says we are where the country should be, but to claim we are worse then the free fall we were in 4 hrs ago is plain idiotic.
Hopefully before you post another right-wing talking point disguised as an unbiased concern, you can actually attempt to sprinkle in some truth here and there.

@Kris Musgraves: Checks and balances are out-dated. It was a reactionary system set up against an unfair monarchy. It is now just the source of gridlock. I don't know of a single democratic country that separates executive and legislative branches of government. The party that gets the most votes runs the country and gets to do (or not do) the things they said they were going to do if they got elected. If you don't like what they did, you get to fire them. In the US today it doesn't matter what any president promises if the other party won't work with him. And the last 4 years have been about Republican rejection of every effort to create joint legislation, which may not have offered them everything they wanted, but had many of their wishes incorporated, and they refused to play ball.

So checks and balances are a joke in my opinion and make us a laughing stock. (You may notice that NOT ONE Eastern European country chose our system of democracy - they all chose parliamentary democracy.) Let our elected officials do what they said they were going to do - "get out of the way" - and if enough people don't like it, you fire them. It would be SO much better.