Tonight's Presidential Candidate Debate...

Yeah.

I think that was part of Romney's game plan though -- try to goad him into being Angry Obama. I think Obama realized that and wanted to avoid it but just couldn't figure out a middle ground, where he registered his disgust without turning people off.

I think there were ways and he missed the opportunity.

If Romney tries it again, he'll probably be more ready for it.

Another thing that bothered me was the split screen and his reaction shots. He (Obama) was just looking down taking notes too much. Looked weak/ passive when Romney was looking at him and making accusations.

Aunt Bee started a thread on this with an NPR by-line.

I've never agreed with his need to avoid that stereotype. He looks like a wimp in body language, and nobody feels threatened by him. He should not be so damn scared of being the angry black boogeyman. He should be willing to be bolder.

But I get his desire to not come across as his lecturing self, his body language then is usually not great either. But that would have been better than his body language while just fuming under his breath.

The first time Romney pulled the "nevermind" he should have not just commented that Romney did so but simply put the question to him.

Dude, did you just change your entire platform right before the debate or not? Would you be willing to to an entire about face again? The next time it is politically expedient?

He merely made the accusation and let it go. All he had to do is press and repeat. He didn't even need to get angry, just not let go.

I was baffled by how badly he performed. I don't think we'll ever see him do that badly again. And I agree, Romney's camp can't count on the next time being that easy (what are they gonna do now? Flip back to the old Romney positions for the next debate?).

Obama needs to come ready not just to fight a clearly different foe, but to fight one that is trying to sidle up next to him. And it's easy too. In a race for being "Mr. Middle Class" Romney's full of easy weaknesses to pick at. Obama was just too slow about moving away from attacking the Romney of the primaries.

Romney spent the last couple of weeks thrashing around on the right for votes and that seems to be Romney they fully expected to see.

Anyway, should be interesting to see the next debates. Obama won't possibly do as poorly as he did. And yeah, he looks really bad when he looks down (he has a bad chin for that posture, and should avoid it).

What I'd love to see is a break from the scripted, practiced stuff next time, saying something like,

Last debate I was not at my best. To be really frank, I was thrown by the outright lies you were telling, Governor Romney [eye contact and a slightly forward posture here]. I will admit -- I didn't expect that. I expected to debate the issues, and I welcome that debate. I did not expect my opponent to completely reverse his positions and make utterly untrue statements time and time again. [responding to some sort of demurral from Romney], I'm not the only one who thinks that, Governor Romney. [Picks up a stack of index cards, reads a quote from each one, throwing it down with some disgust afterwards.] Factcheck.org said: (quote) Politifact said: (quote). [etc. Have four or five really strongly-worded ones.]

[Looks back at Romney] Now, nothing can surprise me. Let's go.

I agree with this --- indeed, with all you say in this post. The only point where we differ is that I don't think Obama can improve with better preparation. As Paul Krugman helpfully points out, Obama has long been strangely lethargic about pushing his economic agenda (note that this Op-Ed is over four years old). So yesterday's performance was perfectly in-character for Obama; I don't expect him to re-boot into some different character on short notice.

It is bemusing to note the sometimes tortured rationalizations of the true believers here. Obama has come a very long way on sometimes vague assurances of increasing prosperity through government management of the economy and increased redistribution of wealth through various policies. At the same time he has, with very few exceptions, simply carrried the water for his principal constituencies; organized labor, environmentalists, progressives, etc. Partly as a result, he is hailed as some kind of omniscent wise man and hero, when, in fact there is very little in his record to suggest the truth of that widely held myth.

He has generally avoided unstructured encounters or dialogue with either the press or any other forum, apparently preferring to hold himself above the fray and reserve his remarks for solo statements from the throne. To a very large extent the press (or at least those with access to him) has given him a free pass on this.

I strongly suspect that at least some of the dazed ineptitude we watched during the debate was simply his reaction to this unaccustomed direct challenge in a free flowing debate. His lofty status may have more to do with the sycophancy of those who usually surround him than his own merit. Shades of the Emperor's New Clothes....

Yes! He was giving party platform planks as answers. Being genuine will almost always pay off (unless you are a born asshole).

I could not believe that he was not willing to go off script. It was amazing to me. The movie wasn't even the same genre he prepared for but wasn't willing to wing it.

Love the speech angle you wrote for him. I think he will include some of those elements (at least some kind of acknowledgment of not having gotten his message across this last time is important, to deflate the hot air, like ours even, of his stumble).

Can I make a quick point of style? You may want to search for an adjective other than "tortured" to go with "rationalizations" from time to time. It mixes things up a little. When you use the same adjective all the time --- as you currently do (google it if you don't believe me) --- your vocabulary comes across as a little thin.

That said, you make a valid point about sycophancy, and the role it plays in the exaggerated expectations about Obama's debate performance.

It might sound weird to say this, but what Obama had to do, and what he has shown himself plenty capable of, is do better ad hominems. He just brought the wrong ones to the table and couldn't change gears for some reason.

These two party systems are, because of their design, more about vilifying your opponent than pushing your own plan. I do not think that is the intellectually honest thing to do but I do think it is correct game theory for the voting system America has (which favors politics based on what you are not instead of politics based on what you are).

Romney moved right next to him, and Obama's attacks were missing. He needed to change his angle, but instead kept lofting them up for where Romney was.

If I were running the Obama campaign, I would announce today that for the next debate Obama will be preparing with two debate partners-- John Kerry will fill in for the first Mitt Romney, Richard Durbin will fill in for the second.

"That way", I would have Obama say, "I will be prepared for whichever Mitt Romney shows up".

You're right. And yet I would bet you a month of A2K's ISP rent that this is not going to happen.

that really was odd and awkward - stylistically things went downhill from there for Mr. Obama (which I wouldn't have believed without hearing/seeing it)

at least Mr. Romney improved after his "five boys" bit which felt like a forced piece of shtick to me

Thank you for what I'm sure was a well-intended suggestion. However I suspect the consistency of my description also has something to do with the consistency of the behavior described. I don't think I'm in any great danger of being seen as being limited by a "thin" vocabulary, though I'll readily concede that the repetition of the phrase could be annoying to someone who is sensitive to the truth in it.

Aren't there two more debates?




source

Thank you for what I'm sure was meant to be a well-thought-out retort.

good points

You are quite welcome .

That's too big a bet to take on such a vague thing. I think Obama has made such attacks and it would be about splitting hairs over how much so etc.

that would work if there were some Fox News said, Wall Street Journal said choices in the mix. Particularly Fox News. Gotta go with sources people* are familiar with.




* non-political junkie type people

Tortured or merely convoluted, the rationalizations tend to smell of desperation.

The folks on MSNBC had simultaneous aneurisms last night and then began their rationalizations, the most ridiculous of them being the Reverend Al's Rope-A-Dope theory: Obama let him get in all those punches so that he could expose them as lies on the stump today.

I can still recall the sick feeling I had throughout the first Bush/Kerry debate as I watched a presidential deer in the headlights mutter about how being the president can be so hard. W, however, bounced back for the following debates, and there's a very good chance Obama will as well.

It would be utterly astounding if he shows up at the next one as ill prepared as he was for the one last night, but no amount of preparation can cure him of his Narcissism, and, much to the delight of his adoring fans, he will come with payback in mind. We'll be treated to a nasty O rather than the simply annoyed one we saw last night.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his thin skin couldn't take a feisty Romney stand-in during his practice sessions, and it may not hold up for one during ensuing sessions. It's entirely possible, although alas unlikely, that he could go too far during the next match.

Frankly, I see no point in the massive spin effort that commenced immediately after the conclusion of the debate. Nothing the Obama campaign says can blunt Romney's victory and their spokespersons look petty and false when they try. Better just to acknowledge the president was off and move on. It's not as if he lost the election last night.

It was a good night for Romney supporters and those who just want Obama to lose, and the victory can help him win if he follows up with the same themes in advertisements and on the stump, but he also can't lose in the next two debates as clearly as his opponent did. Not sure at all that he can pull off another result like last night but I'm confident he'll hold his own in the next ones.