After last week's disastrous debate performance, Democrats in and around the president's camp are privately pointing fingers at each other for Obama's failure in Round One in Denver.
Arianna and Nicolle Wallace debate why Romney won and how Obama adjusts. But if your opponent is a quick-change artist and fibber, how should you reply in a non-whiny way? The women then agree about "media bias" and Fox's 2007 Obama "too black" tape.
The first presidential debate of the 2012 season happened this week, and (it pains us to say) the only person who called the outcome correctly was Chris Christie.
Obama's performance was stunning in its ineffectiveness. What should've been a slam-dunk became a wild air ball from half court. Should he lose a month from now, historians will mark his defeat as having been snatched from the jaws of victory in Denver on October 4th.
Why do politicians believe they can lie and not get caught? Particularly in this age of the Internet and its army of professional and amateur fact checkers, the chances of lies standing up under the glare of the inevitable cyber-scrutiny are slim to none.
Back in hoary antiquity -- say, prior to the presidential election of 2004 -- a secularist's voting preference was fore-ordained. To wit, a secularist voted for the Democrat and the Democrat only. But things have changed.
Over the next two weeks, when you hear that Romney is a debating machine or that Obama is too smooth to fail, don't listen. We're not looking for the candidate who exceeds expectations. We want the best person for the job. For the electorate, the best way to win the expectation game is not to play.
Defending free speech is easy when everyone agrees with the speech -- it's defending odious and reprehensible speech that is always the harder path. More on this subject next week.
Lesbians, and liberals, and Clinton, oh my! What a week! I spent time in the belly of the beast: Charlotte, NC for the DNC. I have to admit, they put on a good show.
As an innocent bystander who watched from home and tried to follow the most important prime-time speeches and then channel surfed for different pundit reactions of both conventions, here is my assessment of the two presidential conventions of 2012.
Bill (the Walking-SOTU] Clinton scores arithmetically. VP Paul (Bunyon) tells tall tales. Clint more memorable than Mitt. Kerry asks, "Is OBL better off today?" And POTUS thinks like lawyer, speaks like preacher, jokes like stand-up. Bounce: Romney +1, Obama +5, says Gallup.
What is striking about Kerry's stewardship in the past two years is the comradeship he has forged with foreign dignitaries and with Republican committee members to create a small, effective bastion of bipartisan cooperation on matters essential to the nation's national security.
President Barack Obama accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party with a humble, values-oriented appeal to the voters who elected him in 2008.
The contrast between a strong Democratic Party and a flaky, unstable, flip-floppy Republican Party has prompted the GOP to spend the week whining and pooping their big boy pants about how the Democrats are being so mean.
In the tale of two party conventions, Massachusetts Republicans will find their decades-long challenge.