for more information about afge and membership, visit afge.org. >> what you think a tree can be? can it be stronger than steel? can at treat be biodegradable plastic? can it be fuel for our cars, or clothing, or medicine that fights cancer? with our tree cell technology, we think it can. weyerhaeuser, growing ideas. >> i can tell you that if you

are to elect president obama, you know what you are going to get, a repeat of the last four years. >> this week on "inside washington," the second presidential debate. >> governor romney does not have a five-point plan. he has a one-point plan. governor romney feels comfortable having politicians and washington is setting the health-care choices for women. >> every woman in america should have access to contraceptives, and the president's statement of my policy is totally wrong. it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in benghazi an act of terror. >> get the transcript. >> he did, in fact, sir -- >> a few laughs at the al smith and dinner in new york. >> i am well rested after the night-long at the first debate. >> so little time, so much to redistribute. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

>> this is a close race. at week's end, a national gallup poll gave mitt romney his largest lead so far. the president was looking good in the battleground states of iowa and wisconsin, however. this on the heels of the second presidential debate. the president showed up for this one and it was. a lively. >> have you looked at your pension? mr. president, have you looked at your pension? >> i have not looked. it is not as big as yours, sir. >> they almost look like they were going to duke it out. >> how much did you cut the budget -- >> do you want me to answer the -- >> the macho stuff made some viewers uncomfortable. romney won the first debate hands down. who wanted this one, evan?

>> obama won its lightly, but not by so much that it puts romney away. mark? >> i agree. the interesting thing was that viewers of the fox news by three out of four thought that romney won, and viewers of msnbc thought three out of for that obama won. ->> nina? >> it took me overnight to think about it and decide that obama want principally because romney became increasingly agitated by the end of the debate. i don't think it was -- there was not clear knockdown. >> charles? >> i am with the woman spectator who said she liked it because it was near to fisticuffs. frazier-ali, surrounding each other, in a ring, literally,

with spectators. what i wanted to see was the secret service outburst in and tackle romney, pin him, and have candy crowley that administer the 10-count. that would have been the best debate ever. are fortunate, it ended with a whimper rather than a bang -- unfortunately, it ended with a whimper rather than a bang. >> did we learn anything about these candidates and their positions and policies that we did not know before? >> i think that voters says they're not telling the truth, because they are not. neither candidate is telling the truth in these debates. when romney comes out and says "i will make sure you get a job," he cannot guarantee jobs. his plan is a phony plan to get jobs. this idea that they will suddenly create jobs is not true, and people know it. >> he says he will create 12

million jobs, but i read somewhere, moody's said that whoever is president, there will be 12 million jobs because of the way the economy's going. how would you characterize the demeanor of the two candidates, starting with mitt romney? >> the problem the president has is that he has been at two different people in the first two debates. to some degree, mitt romney, but not to the degree that the president has. he was passive and listless in the first debate. this time he came out and mentioned all the things he failed to mention in the first debate, whether it was romney's tax rate being lower than that of a special education teacher or the 47%, romney essentially grouping troops in afghanistan tonight as moochers and freeloaders because they don't pay income tax when in combat zones. right thatt's nina as it went on, romney was

peeved, he was upset. the equanimity and consistency of his first debate was not present. i was reminded of mike huckabee's line about romney and 2008 -- i want to be a president who reminds people of the person who hired them, not the person who fired them. >> speaking of the economy, it is the number-one issue for voters. who won on that issue? >> if you look at the polls, romney was 18% on that issue after the debate, and another poll, the cbs poll, 31%. i agree with my colleagues to some extent. romney won on points with a lot of jabs. it was a minor, narrow victory, and that overcame the one haymaker that romney landed where he gave a great answer -- >> you said obama. >> i'm sorry, obama came out with a loot of jabs.

romney had won a great answer at the 1-hour mark where it the guy said "i voted for obama, i am disappointed," and he gave a devastating takedown of obama's record. i think that overall, obama won on jabs. that is why you got this reaction, the seven-point reaction overall in the flash calls for obama, but romney won on the economic issue. since the economic issue is the most important, it will be a wa sh in terms of its effect on the election. >> nina? >> in a way, obama could not and cannot overcome the damage in the first debate, because what happened in the first debate is that romney became acceptable. he did not look like the mean, rich guy who was sort of

thoughtless and unconnected from the real world. once you make somebody acceptable, it is very hard to make him unacceptable. they had made him unacceptable, and when obama did not keep the heat on in that first debate -- i don't know if it will be a decisive mistake, but it was a really serious mistake. >> and let's keep going, and i also want to talk about the women's vote. >> we've made a concerted effort to find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. i went to a number of women's groups and said, can you help us find folks, and they brought us whole binders full of women. >> that one went viral almost immediately. what was it that set wittman off? >> the binders full of women. that did not really bother me. what bothered me was finding out the next day that the romney people did not approach the women's groups and asked for suggestions. rather, the women's groups

approach romney and said that you don't have women, you don't have women anywhere, you need to get women. >> a number of polls indicate that president obama's lead with white women is shrinking, and i'm talking about not women who only vote republican, but college-educated women who are generally liberal on social issues moving towards romney. >> i talked to a smart republican over the weekend who says that all of this is about who you want to be married to. in the very first debate, obama was so peevish that he would not want to be married to that guy. and romney was kind of moderate and reasonable and might actually listen to you. that is what turned around the polls. but in the second debate, i thought that romney, by treating women like commodities, bags full of women, briefing books full of women, he lost a little ground. >> direct your e-mail to evan thomas, not to any of us. [laughter] i think i.t. is very simple.

romney at the same effect on women in the first debate as he did on men. obama had spent $150 million on negative ads as a guy who is completely different when the wife of a steelworker he laid off dies of cancer and the widow were looks in the camera and says, "mitt romney does not care about my wife or anyone." and then romney stands up, as nina indicated, and shows that he is a reasonable guy, not a guy who was completely heartless, and all of that advertising, which affected men and women together -- that is why you got this change. >> i think the case could be made that romney essentially came out for affirmative-action when he said let's go looking for women in. that is the bane of

conservatives' existence, it just bothers them so much. this is what mitt romney said,. > -- let's go find some women. >> you mean to serve in his cabinet. >> secondly, romney is in a mad dash to the middle. contraception, universally available. immigration, no roundup. add to that affirmative action, and you have a guy who is taking positions now that if he had taken them in the primaries, he would have lost, he would have been rejected by republican primary voters. what obama does to respond is five times mentioned planned parenthood. that becomes his mantra. i don't think that abortion is the overriding issue to every woman in america. it is an important issue to a lot of women, but -- >> he did not mention abortion. >> he just keeps talking about

planned parenthood. he never once mentioned the labor union member, he never once mentioned any of the traditional democratic constituencies. >> i don't think that for the swing voters, issues are really what matter -- to dig myself into a deeper hole here. i think it it is the comfort level. do you feel comfortable with this person, and metaphorically your husband? >> obama mentioned planned parenthood but not abortion -- let me just finish. about 10% or less of what planned parenthood does is abortion, i think considerably less. what he did mention is contraception. romney got around, he did make a mad dash to the middle, and said i am for access to contraception. he did not say it should be included in your insurance policy. >> that is exactly the point. that is not a mad dash to the

center on contraception. it is a way to correct this calumny by liberals that republicans want to close pharmacies and prevent women from getting access to contraception. all he is saying is that sandra fluke, who makes $165,000 a year if she goes into the private sector as a graduate of an elite law school, does not need to be subsidized by the average american, who makes $50,000 household, to get contraceptives. she can shell out $9 a month. it is not a question of access, it is a question of whether you want to compel catholic institutions to include it in a plan against all of their doctrinal believes. the public and say no, but it is not a question of access and -- republicans say no, but it is not a question of access at all. it is the talking points that democrats accepted, and romney was correct in. >> let me correct that here. the republican platform for the

first time calls for the elimination of all abortion -- not in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, but all abortion. this was mitt romney's convention, these were his delegates. he cannot distance himself from that platform and pretend that he is mr. planned parenthood himself. >> the suggestion that anybody on my team, with your secretary of state, our u.n. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we have lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. >> evan, how did the president handle that one? >> he won that round. he stood up to romney and seemed strong. the facts remain murky here, but there is no question that was a good moment for obama. >> charles? >> it was, because romney did not answer it. but unfortunately for obama, romney gets one more shot at this because there is a debate on monday.

that to me was the biggest gaffe of the year with the president said he is on the record in front of 70 million people that he is offended by the implication that anybody on his team had misled the nation on what happened. this is after his u.n. ambassador goes on five shows -- not one, five shows -- and spins a tale about demonstrations spontaneous about a video that becomes violence. there was no demonstration, there was nobody outside, there was no riot. this was a deliberate cover attack. it was not only members of this team who misled the nation. is obama himself. he claimed in the debate -- he took credit for calling it a terror attack on day one. here he is a week later on letterman asked about it, and he says that we don't know if it is a terror attack, we are investigating. everybody knew at the time that the video had nothing to do with the benghazi attack, zero. he misled dramatically,

repeatedly, he and his team. that is hanging out there, and romney has a chance to hit it out of the park on monday. i think it could be a really pyrrhic victory that he had on that question in debate number 2 and will hit him in debate number 3. >> pyrrhic victory, mark. >> charles, sadly, is wrong, for the following reason. you have to subscribe to a great master conspiracy theory from an administration that has not demonstrated a capacity for running a two car funeral that often, that this is so well organized and orchestrated and so stupid as to put the u.n. ambassador on five shows where she will be corrected. this was wrong, no question about it, but let's have no questio -- let's be blunt about the politics of this going into monday. who took one for the team? the most popular woman in america, hillary clinton. for mitt romney to go after barack obama, he has got to go

through hillary clinton, at a time when women are the holy grail of the election. that is not difficult, that is an impossible task for him. >> nina? >> it seems obvious to me that there was a screw up at relatively low levels. i am not clear about what the intelligence said right away to the president. certainly the vice president suggested in his debate that they had been told initially something different. and there is no reason to send susan rice out to line if she was going to get exposed immediately. >> here is richard clarke, who worked for president george w. bush and president clinton and was actually in the reagan administration. "mitt romney seems fixated on why washington did not know it better clarity and sooner what went on during a terrorist attack. it is the kind of question that comes from someone with no experience dealing with terrorism or crisis management or combat." >> i don't think that americans

are going to cast their votes based on this. this the classic kind of washington talk show, who knew what and when. in any case, no matter what the facts are, it just does not seem that it is a voting issue. >> it is an issue because it is about honesty, transparency, and leadership. if you want to go through the list of ways in which it hurts obama, the idea that he would have the secretary of state go out there and take the blame instead of taking it himself -- he nominally said -- >> he did say at -- >> he nominally did -- >> nominally? >> we just heard mark say that she sped up and said "i am the one responsible." yesterday they found a new scapegoat. dianne feinstein said that the director of dni gave that information. this is not a trivial issue.

this is the first assassination of u.s. ambassador in 30 years, the sacking of our embassy, a huge humiliation and defeat, and tragedy all wrapped up into one, and this president repeatedly misled the nation about its nature and origins again and again. i think it is a huge issue. >> let me ask a general question about the debates. what kind of monitor do we prefer? do we want somebody to jobs in and does follow -- who jumps in and does follow-up questions? is that what we want? >> here is my argument. every sunday over the year, we get 300 hours of sunday acquisitions, the tim russert idea. here we have a 4.5 precious hours were instead of that, we want to see the two men on their own with a referee who simply keeps time and allows them to deal with each other. this is a unique way to do this. that is what the debate is about. you had a lincoln-douglas, you did not have candy crowley intervening. i think that in general, it

ought to be left because it is a unique opportunity. >> it actually happened in the debate between elizabeth warren and scott brown in massachusetts. all the moderator did was keep time. >> i think that a good debate, like potter stewart on pornography, "i know it when i see it." what has been fascinating is the partisan divide. liberals excoriated jim lehrer the first debate because mitt romney won. conservatives knocked candy crowley because barack obama 1. -- won. martha raddatz has basically escaped unscathed from criticism. i am interested in what i can learn from these debates. i learned a lot in the first debate. i learned what mitt romney believed, what he was willing to tailor his position for the general electorate, that barack

obama did not show up and was not engaged. the reason i did that was because jim lehrer gave them the time to do it. i think candy crowley did a good job. i think martha raddatz did a good job. i don't know the formula for an ideal debate. >> is that the formula, stay out of it? >> it seems that there are two courses. even have a moderator who holds their feet to the fire a bit and asks them serious questions and does not let them che wiggle around. martha raddatz was the best example of that. if you are not going to do that, just let them talk to each other and have the buzzer for time. >> what about the town hall format? >> i think it is completely phony. i have an impossible standard, which is that you leave them alone, except every once in awhile where it they say something egregiously false. >> but you cannot do that too is the judge? in the last debate, crowley came

on the obama site on the issue of the terror statement, and she said it is fossett let's not argue she is right or wrong. but when obama denied that there was a decline in production of oil and gas on federal lands, and there is a decline of oil production and gas on federal lands, so why didn't she intervene? it was an egregious mistake when obama said "not true." you have to pick and choose. you cannot have that standard. the point is, you do that on the sunday morning shows where you are one-on-one and you don't allow them to escape. hear what you have to do is if there is a falsehood, you have to trust that the other guy will counteract, will make the point. he may not get a resolution, but that is the only way to do it in debate. >> did you feel in the town hall format that date or connecting? >> i think the town hall format was really good. first of all, these are undecided voters and i thought the questions were high-quality questions. i thought they were reflective

and serious. i thought the failure of either man who had gone through the strutting, a swaggering, macho act, you want to rumble in the parking lot? -- they did not connect in any way with the voters or the person asking the question, that i could see. >> that last question that some ask, which is what trait about you is the most misrepresented, in your view, and what can you tell us to override that -- and neither one of them basically answer the question at all. >> which is why a it is so fecit they are not really engaging with people. -- which is why it is so fake. they are not merely engaging with people. >> you would like to have them -- >> that is not what happened at that debate. >> william jefferson clinton did. >> if you have his gifts. >> i am talking to you, i am

talking to nina, and now i am talking to charles. >> do you think that happen? >> no. i should not talk, we have a monitor here. [laughter] -- moderator here. [laughter] >> you are not looking at a debate for the facts of it, for god's sake. what you're looking at is how they interact -- >> a journalist should act like a journalist. >> no, you should have a timekeeper and that's it. >> i am already seeing the reports of tonight's dinner prix "obama embraced by catholics, romney dines with rich people." [laughter] >> the unemployment rate is the lowest since i took office. i don't have a joke here. i just thought i would remind everybody. [laughter] >> he has a compelling new campaign slogan, "you are better off now than you were four weeks

ago." [laughter] >> we needed some laughs, mark. >> we needed some laughs, and stephen colbert is not in trouble. [laughter] what is missing from the debates is a scintilla of humility or humor. in neither one of them has said, "i screwed up, i was wrong." neither one of them has been able to say a single self- deprecating line. these are self-serious man for whom self doubt is a total stranger. it is nice to see them at least smile at the dinner, and thank goodness for the cardinal for bringing them together. >> but i did not think the jokes were terribly funny. president of the united states, republican standard bearer, as you may be the next president, and you cannot get better jokes than this? >> it reminds you of the days of ronald reagans and tip o'neills

when politicians could get together and be friendly and warm for a moment, and we've got to get that back. >> the jokes were fabulous. they were hilarious. obama u nu was good jokes, i did not know romney was. i think he will make a great comedian in chief, which is one of the things we will require in our president. >> last word. see you next week. >> "inside washington" is brought you in part by the american federation of government employees, proud to make america work. for more information about afge and membership, visit afge.org.

! steele: thanks, lucy. darling, here's a list of places you can reach me.