.

What Happened to Obama?

Why Was Obama's performance in the First Debate So Shockingly Appalling?

I am stunned.  I knew Romney was a good debater, that he was desperate to connect on a Hail Mary pass to resuscitate his dying campaign, and that he would come out swinging.  But I thought the President would eat him for lunch (or in view of the hour, dinner).  Obama had conceived and executed a brilliant campaign, as he had in 2008.  Now, he had so much to work with.  Romney has been on both sides of many issues, the Flip Flopper in Chief.  No matter what he said, no matter where he came out on the issues, specific or not, Romney was vulnerable to attack as unworthy of belief.  And there were gaffes galore to explore, the 47 percent video just the pick of the litter. 

So I settled in on the couch with wife and friends to watch Matador Obama play with and ultimately destroy Bull Romney. The contest was going to end last night, with the President building on his already substantial lead, his lengthening coattails assuring continued Democratic control of the Senate. It was not just we Democrats and other progressives who shared these expectations; Republicans and conservatives like Joe Scarborough and company had been excoriating Romney and his campaign staff for weeks and had all but pronounced him dead and buried. 

Plenty of ink has already been spilled noting that it did not work out that way last night. But what we are seeing is not just surprise at the Democratic Commander in Chief having a bad night. We are seeing, and sharing, shock and disbelief at the magnitude of the loss, of the breakdown, and at our inability to understand it and the reasons for it. These feelings are at the root of the outrage at the President and his staff expressed last night for the first time, almost unanimously, by the talking heads on MSNBC, led by Chris Matthews.  In our household, these feelings have lingered through the night and into this dreary day.  Why, we ask, why?

This is a President who has fought two wars he inherited (and didn’t want), who took the fight to Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban with surges, Special Forces, helicopters, and drones. He also coordinated the attack in Libya.  But he could not bring himself to attack Mitt Romney, in the most critical debate of the campaign?  When he himself was being attacked for virtually the entire 90 minutes of the debate? He knows, mustn’t he, that no campaign can be won by refusing to attack one’s opponent? Yet that is precisely what we witnessed. The President allowed himself to be a punching bag, through relentless attacks by Romney, through lies and flip flops about the Romney tax plan, the Romney health care plan, the Romney deficit reduction plan, and the newfound Romney concern about jobs for the jobless 25 million and rest of the under-employed 47 percent. Romney even repeated his perverse glee at firing people himself, noting that he was going to give the ax to Big Bird, moderator Lehrer and many of the folks at PBS and NPR whose livelihoods depend upon the government’s support of public broadcasting. Yet not one word was heard from Obama, reminding us of Romney’s earlier gaffe on the subject of firing people, or of any of the others. 

The explanations we have heard from the campaign and others so far—we wanted to stick to the issues and have an adult conversation with the American people; Obama just did not prepare properly or long enough; Obama did not want to appear angry and un-Presidential—just do not explain what happened. Obama’s television ads in swing states, like Romney’s, are neither adult conversations on the issues nor devoid of attacks; and one can attack one’s opponent, on the issues and on character, with a smile and a rapier rather than a sneer and a mallet.  

So what accounts for the appalling performance last night?  Was it a conscious strategic choice not to attack—thereby betraying weakness to the American people at this critical stage of the campaign—or was it the unconscious product of a personality, developed over many years, that shrinks from personal confrontation?  One cannot help but recall Obama’s seeming inability to confront Republicans in Congress over their intransigence and obstructionism borne of an intense desire to destroy Obama’s presidency, to prevent his re-election, even if it meant taking the country down with him.  One wonders whether the same explanation is at the root of both seemingly inexplicable phenomena.

We may know more after the second and third debates.  We will also see in the next few days how big a bounce Romney gets from the President’s unbelievable performance. It may be that those still undecided are too few to throw the election to Romney. But the American people do not cotton to weakness. They may not articulate it, but they sense it and turn away from it, which is why Chris Matthews and the MSNBC crew were howling in dismay last night.       

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Bruce Kelly October 11, 2012 at 03:41 AM
Are we really better off than we were four years ago? Lets take a look at the facts since January 20th 2009: Unemployment was 7.7%, now 7.8% - hasn't really gone own in nearly 4 years Median Income was $54,983, now $50,964 Gas per gallon $1.80, now $3.92 National Debt was $10.6 Trillion, now $16+ Trillion Americans on food-stamps was 28 million, now 46 million Employed Americans was 142 million, now 139 million total US Afghan war deaths was 400, now 2,100 from Obama’s failed/doomed surge Black unemployment rate under Obama now 14.4% Bush final deficit $448 billion… Obama AVERAGE deficit $1.5 Trillion.. Total Bush 8 YEAR deficit.. $4.889 Trillion.. Obama 4 year deficit $6 Trillion. And since January 20, 2009 there have been 23 million people who are unemployed or have given up looking for work. Barack Obama Feb 1st, 2009: "I Will Be Held Accountable…For fixing the economy...if I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” Clearly we are not better off than we were four year ago, so my only question to you Scott is what the hell are you smoking?
SPK October 11, 2012 at 04:29 AM
Yes, Bruce. But only BHO promises to punish the rich and the successful. That makes me feel good. These are people who deserve to be taken down a notch since their gains were ill-gotten or from lucky genes. Use the power of government in ways never before attempted in the US. Can't wait for his next term for the really big damage to be done.
jeff meyer October 11, 2012 at 08:13 AM
Bruce Kelly: If Scott is smoking anything it has only made him wiser. You have a very selective memory indeed. Think back four years ago and remember that our nation's economy was on the brink of insolvency. COLLAPSE!!! POTUS W. was as invisible then as he is now. The two unfunded, credit card wars were still in progress and in chaos with no end game in sight. No POTUS since FDR entered Office and had to encounter and reckon with such miserable circumstances. How can you blame POTUS Obama for this economy and keep a straight face? He has steadied the ship and we are moving forward. POTUS W. was handed a budget surplus and ran out of DC and left a disaster. However, I agree regarding Afghanistan. We should remove our troops ASAP. Jeff Meyer Tuckahoe, NY
Ann Fanizzi October 11, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Remember it is the Electoral College that really elects the President so unless Romney wins the popular vote in key electoral states,, it doesn't matter whether he is captain of the debating team for a night.
Bruce Kelly October 12, 2012 at 02:51 AM
Jeff: Whatever he's smoking it's causing him to cherry-pick but not necessarily be wiser. This is worse economic recovery in over 100 years, even worse than FDR's 1st term(1933-37). Economic growth is at 1.3%, heck! at this juncture in 1936 economic growth was at 13.1%! Many economists are now saying we could be heading back "officially" into another recession next year. Overall, the objective facts do show we're really not better off than we were four years ago. Oh, another thing: FDR's sucessor Harry Truman has the motto, "The buck stops here." meaning he took full responsibility from day one and never tried to blame the mess and problems he may have inherited on his predecessor FDR. Advice President Obama has yet to follow.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »