Obama's Game Changes

Usually after a presidential debate, both sides spin the results. But after the first face-off between President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, Obama's exasperated handlers made no such effort. How could they when most opinion polls revealed that two-thirds of viewers thought Obama clearly lost?

Within minutes of the parting handshake, the liberal base went ballistic. Bill Maher, Chris Matthews and Michael Moore all but accused Obama of embarrassing the progressive cause. The post-debate spin focused not on whether the president had been creamed by challenger Mitt Romney, but rather on how that had been possible.

For a while, there were excuses galore. Was the meltdown due to Denver's high altitude? Perhaps the president was distracted over national security issues. Had Obama taken a pre-debate sedative for tension? Surely the rapid-recall Romney must have sneaked in written talking points on his Kleenex.

A few days later, there were accusations from the Obama camp that Romney had been "untruthful" in the back-and-forth -- a post-facto charge not leveled by the president in the middle of the debate, but only afterwards in his prepared campaign speeches.

Yet Obama was not that out of character in the debate -- at least not in comparison to his past performances. Obama's professorial detachment, his condescension, his long meandering answers, his avoidance of direct questions, his occasional petulance and his frequent verbal tics, stalls and stutters were all pretty normal for him.

Why, then, the hysteria over a typical Obama performance? Again, roll the tape of any prior debate, press conference or question-and-answer session, and what you see is about the same as we saw the other night.

What was radically different was not Obama's normal workmanlike performance, but two novel twists.

This was the first debate in which Obama has had a record to defend. In 2000, he ran for Congress in a primary race against Bobby Rush and attacked the incumbent. In 2004, he ran successfully for the U.S. Senate, offering all sorts of promises -- but never ran for re-election on their fulfillment.

In 2008, a blank-slate Obama ran for president and won by lumping in challenger John McCain with unpopular incumbent president George W. Bush -- while offering banalities like "hope and change" and "yes, we can!"

The debate with Romney, however, marked the first time in his national political life that Obama has had the harder task of defending a record of governance. That he could not make the case onstage for a successful four years suggests either that his record is nearly indefensible -- 42 months of unemployment above 8 percent, more than $5 trillion in new debt, record numbers of Americans on food stamps, anemic economic growth -- or that Obama believes voters don't care that much. Perhaps they will again be mesmerized by his promises of millions of new green jobs, more government entitlements and more attacks on the better-off who haven't paid "their fair share."

Barack Obama has always felt that it was enough to show up rather than to achieve. We all know that he got into Occidental College and Columbia University, was Law Review editor at Harvard, was offered a professorship at the University of Chicago Law School, and was elected senator and president. But we rarely heard of a significant record of actual achievement as a student, academic or legislator -- until his first term as president.

This was also the first time that Obama has faced a skilled debater. In Obama's 2000 debate with the plodding Rush, the latter coasted -- rightly assuming that his long incumbency would be enough to defeat the so-so challenger Obama.

In the 2004 senatorial race, Obama's main rivals in the primary and general elections imploded due to mysteriously leaked divorce records. The last-minute fill-in candidate in the general election, Alan Keyes, was deemed wacky and not a serious opponent.

Obama ended up mostly achieving draws when jousting with Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries. He won two of the three debates with nondescript presidential rival McCain by consistently attacking Bush and blaming the 2008 financial meltdown on Republicans.

In previous debates, Obama sounded not much different than he did last week against Romney. Obama customarily looked down, gave disjointed off-topic sermons, and stuttered uncertainly. That did not matter all that much, given that his youth and professorial air contrasted well with the inept Bobby Rush and Alan Keyes, and he appeared on camera as a fresh face in contrast to old, familiar, retread politicos like Clinton and McCain.

Obama's handlers know all this. No wonder what worries them is not that Obama was off his game against Romney, but that the game itself -- not Obama -- has suddenly changed.

Yet, there are still plenty of true believers, Juan Williams of Fox being the prime example, who will never admit that they see a flaw in the Black half of Obama.

Yes, he’s actually Arab, not Black, but they’ll never believe that either.

"Was the meltdown due to Denver's high altitude?"

Given that Denver's altitude is ~5,000ft, it's retarded to argue this point as the airplane Zer0 spends so much time in is pressurized to ~7,000 ft.

If Zer0 is so smart while spending so much time at ~7,0000 ft, he has to be smarter at only 5,000 ft.

“...was offered a professorship”

No, he wasn’t.

____________________________________________
You are correct. As you may recall:

0bammy was a Law Lecturer,NOT a Professor. (An article posted here within the last few months also reported that the numbers of students signing up for the courses he offered declined every semester. Furthermore he was a ‘no show’ for most faculty academic events.)

0bammy was NOT the Editor, a position based upon academic merit.
He was the Law Review President, an elected position.

I am surprised Hanson fell into the leftist propaganda.

I’m not so sure the debate was about personalities, comportment, body language, or strategy.

Liberalism has been put into practice and law under Obama’s watch, and every dastardly outcome was predicted by conservatives. There is no defense. We win on substance.

Tonight, millions will see Paul Ryan for the first time. They’re in for a surprise, because most of them have been brainwashed. Paul Ryan feels conservatism in his bones. He won’t have to play a role. Meanwhile, Biden’s job is to spin, and the spin will be recognized as such.

Another win for our team.

This caught me for a moment. Obama didn't debate Rush! Limbaugh is who I thought, naturally.

However, Obama DID debate Bobby Rush, A left winger democrat congressman from Chicago. Why? They're both ammo-less when it comes to arguments.

Still, VDH was right and I was wrong--once more!

Agreed. Although these are minor points compared to the main thesis, I’m surprised Hanson, of all people, got them wrong. Especially because he is a PhD in classics from Stanford University, was a professor at California State University - Fresno, was a visiting professor of classics at Stanford University, and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Fellow in California Studies at the Claremont Institute.

I think it is about Romney doing so well. Unless you have attended one of his live campaign stops all you ever hear from Romney is sound bites edited by people who loathe him. A 5 second clip here a 2 second clip there, very few have seen him speak or take questions live that aren't gotcha questions.

That is why BO's campaign is calling him a liar, they are trying to make the case that what we have seen in BO's commercials is the real Romney, but on stage unplugged, that is not Romney.

I am so pissed about BenGhazi that I can hardly stand it, I have no idea what to do, but for the press to ignore the deaths of 4 Americans on American soil caused by lack of protection from this Administration is beyond my comprehension of what is important to my fellow Americans, what has happened to us?

I watched the debate in 2004 with Alan Keyes, I saw then who Obama was and how dangerous he was! Allen Keyes destroyed him but liberals and blacks being who they are, they fell for the pretty faced empty suit, instead of the real american black man. I’ve seen black people on youtube say they are voting for BO because he’s black! But he’s not, he’s a dark skinned white Indonesian. He has nothing in common with american blacks. All of his perceived commonality is a creation of his handlers!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.