Then, "community organizing." Well...was he successful at it? Logic tells us there are both "good" and "bad" community organizers. Which was Obama?
Then politics. He started in the Illinois State Senate..handed a sure-thing Democrat district, where he ducked most votes.
Obama then tried for the big leeagues..a House seat. Incumbent Black House Democrats either die in office, or are run out of town by a scandal. There was no opening, so Obama attempted to force his way into the game.
He challenged Rep. Bobby Rush, and what happened?: He lost, rather, he got clobbered. Rush beat him by a 2:1 margin.
Delicious aside: Pretty neat that to date it's two "Rush"es who've made life most miserable for Obama.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS LIFE, OBAMA FACED A TOUGH, SMART, DISCIPLINED, ORGANIZED OPPONENT.
It was a slaughter.
Then, 2004. The teleprompter gave a speech at the Democrat Convention, and the teleprompter leapt onto the national stage. Obama ran for the open Illinois senate seat, and won, mainly because the sordid details of GOP opponent's sealed divorce records magically leaked all over the place.
He beat Hillary for the 2008 Dem nomination. His inability as a debater was masked by her equal ineptness. And Hillary went easy on Obama in the debates, fearful of antagonizing the black vote.
Then he bested a tired, listless McCain in the debates, and the election, when the country was just plain tired of eight years of Bush. Obama uttered nothing but banal platitudes, and won easily.
In his first term, Obama has avoided the press, and press conferences to an extent not seen since the end of WW II, preferring instead the soft interviews of local media, and the fawning acolytes of "The View."
Again, remember, the ONE and ONLY time he faced a capable, organized, candidate, Obama lost badly.
Thus, we can reasonably deduce that Obama didn't fail Wednesday; he wasn't somehow "off his game"
What we saw was indeed Obama at his best. That's it...that's ALL he has to offer, to bring...and it's just not enough.
FYI
No, the problem is there are still too many idiots in this country who STILL haven't or won't accept that his debate performance was indicative of his "A" game.
I think Hillary DID go easy on Obama...at the parties command....How’d that work out for you Hillary??
His handlers may try (will try) to get him to fight back in a way that is alien to Obama.
He has been trained and conditioned to expect the world to be handed to him on a silver platter (all he has to do is smoke a little choom, get laid back, and let the world come to him). If he tries a new persona, he may fail even more miserably than last time...he may even crack.
Obama is the empty chair, empty suit president.
I am stealing a theory from the comments section in Friday’s wsj: the president suffers from short term memory dysfunction (CRS), which prevents him from marshaling an apropos rebuttal to what Romney has just said, or Lehrer’s question, in the first place. It’s a serious disadvantage in a freewheeling debate. Personally I think it will be less so in the “town hall” format of the 2nd round. (not even addressing fact that Obama’s essential positions are anathema to most people and indefensible).
We finally got a glimpse of the real Obama during the Denver debate. This product of lifelong affirmative action went up against someone who has actually worked and achieved his entire life, and the results weren’t pretty. (for Obama)
Everything this pretend president touches turns into a confused mess. I feel certain that if his sealed history were subjected to the light of day, his entire scholastic and political record would reflect similar results. He has demonstrated a pathetic lack of ability to organize, tell the truth, or lead.
I think Obama will do a little better because he will be pre-programmed with a few more zingers. He can deliver a speech, but I have NEVER thought him to be particularly intelligent. He just uses a good vocabulary and an attractive delivery cadence, and marries it with faked demeanor of a “cool”, smart a$$ punk to give the appearance of competence and confidence..
Obama has neither history, sound policy, nor fact on his side. His arguments for his governance, four more years and Romney’s shortcomings are ALL based on a pack of lies. My prediction: he will have more fight in him at the next debate, but he will be out-gunned by the truth, logic and sound, reasonable policy proposals.
And to top it off Romney was rather kind and gentlemanly. He really stuck to basic facts and economic principles.
Romney barely scratched the surface.
It is racist to hold Ubama to the same set of rules as Romney.
Thats simply not so.. your analysis is deeply flawed.. Obama did not mention any of the things his campaign has invented
and promoted with hundreds of millions of dollars.. even up to the day of the debate..
...ON PURPOSE...
Its is/was scripted for Romney to WIN.. (to save face)
because Obama will eviscerate him in the next two..
(You know... the two just before the election..)
Its mind boggling how slow republicans can be..
Not even embarrassed by playing PollyAnnas GLAD-Game..
**Note: No doubt about it Saul Alinsky was so far ahead of republicans they have no defense against his schemes.. and machinations..
No, Obama is like a typical Communist apparatchik, a gensec, full of Marxist ideology and nothing else.
The irony of course is that by the advanced stage of the Soviet Empire the apparatchiks spouting the empty phrases no longer believed them, unlike the academic marxists of the West who remain true believers having never experienced the consequences of the radical policies they propose, or having somebody to blame for their failures, unlike again those gensecs who could no longer blame the Western Imperialists.
With Obama, James Taranto may be too polite to say it, but there is no there there.
can’t argue the analysis. :)