Coauthor (with Elisabeth Wehling) of The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. www.thelittleblueblog.org
You don't win a presidential debate by being a policy wonk. Obama violated all the basics of presidential debating. The best defense is a good offense. You have to set the terms of the debate and press those terms. Obama failed. Here are those basics:
Obama did none of this. Instead he talked about policy details.
He needed to come on strong from the first sentence.
Democracy is based on citizens caring about and taking responsibility for both themselves as for the well-being of all. Government is the instrument that citizens use to guarantee protection and empowerment for all. We all, together, provide what is needed for a decent life. Individual accomplishment rests on what other Americans have provided and keep providing.
Building the economy requires public investment -- in public infrastructure, education, research, and much more.
Success is much more than money. It is your contribution to America as a whole -- whether it is teaching, raising children, providing food, healing the sick, making useful products, guaranteeing our rights and our safety, or running businesses that make life better. America needs us all. And we all depend on each other. Personal responsibility is necessary. But it doesn't
Obama made a lame attempt to correct Jim Lehrer's use of "entitlements." He should have pointed out that such money is earned through a life. People have worked for, and contributed earnings.
All policies rest on morality -- upon being the right thing to do. Obama needed to make the case that it is right, as well as to support women's rights, and gay rights, safe food, education, basic research, and on and on.
Obama believes this. To win, he needs to say what he believes, and press Romney.
Scott Blakeman: Did I Watch the Same Debate as My Fellow Liberal Pundits?
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Funny thing, chameleon Mitt almost seemed to be co-opting Obama's own personality and positions for the debate. Could Mitt even stop himself? He changes to be be like the person in front of him. It's his nature.
I think it would be more advantageous for Obama to concentrate not so much on giving full, accurate answers, but on saying what he wants people to remember about him and what he wants people to remember about Romney.
Usually I hate them when they don't answer the questions, but this time Obama got trapped in detail, sacrificing impact.
OBAMA 2012.
To say that Obama "lost" the debate because he didn't follow the criteria you list, implies that Mitt won because he did follow the criteria.
And that, I have a problem seeing. Did Mitt really come across as more trustworthy, authentic, and empathetic?
No. From my point of view he came across as aggressive and assertive, but not trustworthy. Perhaps I am not seeing outside my own biases.
Its important to note, though - Team Obama stated clearly before this debate, that their candidate was not going to come out swinging. He was not going to challenge Mitt, and he was not going to allow Mitt to have his "Zingers."
This leads me to believe there was a strategic reason for Obama's non-combative performance. He was drawing Mitt out, getting his opponent to overextend himself and it looks like Mitt took all the rope Obama could feed him.
He's flip-flopped on every policy position he has, before one of the largest viewing audiences he'll ever get, and mark my words Team Obama is going to make him pay for that every day until the next debate.
That's not to say Obama's performance wasn't flawed; or that his strategy isn't flawed. But it seems like a strategic move.
"[E]verybody's doing a fair share". This was the yawning Freudian slip Obama made at the end of the debate, about which I've only seen one article. It's about redistribution of wealth; taking from those that have earned and made something of their lives and just giving it to the have-nots, and this isn't about taking care of the truly needy. This man is trying to turn America away from its fundamental values. He should not be President.
This aligns well with Mitt's comments that 47% of Americans see themselves as victims and will never take personal responsibility for their lives; or, like Paul Ryan's comments that 30% of Americans don't want the American Dream.
Barack Obama, like most liberals (it's a different value system, let's face it), believes that someone who starts poor doesn't have to end up that way: they work hard, get good grades, stay in school and they end up starting businesses or becoming the next Bill Gates.
The way Mitt and Barack look at "the poor" couldn't be more different... and I'll guarantee you that a large swath of America doesn't agree on this either.
The thing is Romney excels at lying, taking every side of an issue and pretending to be something he's not - he fakes it till he makes it. Which, in a televised debate, where he can practice a performance because they are given the questions before hand, is a perfect venue for him to look good, or at least not incompetent.
He doesn't have to worry about the variables on the campaign trail like hecklers or awkwardly having to pretend to be human by interacting people well below his social/financial standing (in his mind). It's in those situations he fails and why nobody really has thought much of him.
Romney really is the definition of empty suit and empty suits do well in situations they can rehearse for.
I almost think even I could do a better job than Obama last night. It's hard to think he was carrying out a long game, rope-a-dope, or any clever chess move. It's much easier to say he came ill prepared and lethargic and indeed too wonky and wordy. Debates are to knock you opponents out with snappy punch and counter-punch, not professorial explanations.
Romney won the debate but may very well lose the votes with his performance IF the Obama camp can take advantage of his stupendous flip-flopping. You don't need intellectual integrity to be a great debater, you need to have it to be a president.
By intellectual integrity I mean providing a principle reason for changing one's mind. For example, I wouldn't call anyone for choice or pro-life unprincipled and wouldn't automatically call anyone changing their stance lacking intellectual integrity even if I disagree with their position. But they need to show why the change. Flip-flopping for political gain is not a sign of intellectual integrity. Obama failed to deliver many of his promises, but I don't see he is changing his position, his philosophy. He has core conviction whether you agree with him or not. What does Romney REALLY believe? No one knows. Maybe not even him.
Politicians stretching the truth? Nothing new from either party.
I'm sorry you believe Mitt Romney.