Associated Press
President Obama at a Los Angeles event last night.
Eight years ago, after the first debate between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry, there was a broad consensus that the challenger easily outperformed the incumbent. But after the event, the president simply didn't believe the assessments, and it "took his top aides some time" to convince Bush otherwise.
For what it's worth, the same is not true of President Obama, who seems to understand all too well exactly what happened last week. David Axelrod told CBS yesterday, "The president is his harshest critic."
We saw a glimpse of this last night, when Obama attended an event in Los Angeles, speaking after performances from a series of pop stars. After complimenting their flawless presentations, Obama added, "I can't always say the same."
Glenn Thrush had a fairly detailed report on the president's acute self-awareness when it comes to the events of Wednesday night.
"You could tell he was pissed," said a person close to the president, "But it wasn't like the end of the world. It was like, 'That wasn't good. The next one has to better.' No apologies. No hand-wringing." [...]
At first, Obama didn't think his performance was a complete disaster. But he began Thursday morning by watching excerpts of his own performance and was especially struck by his own tentative, grim demeanor -- especially when he and a more relaxed Mitt Romney were broadcast in split-screen. It was worse than he thought, according to one person close to the situation.
An Obama aide told Politico, "He had real clarity about what had happened."
What's more, according to his aides, the president has been determined to bounce back, and "seemed to be a totally different guy on Thursday. Gone was the distracted, deer-in-headlights mumbler. In his place, suddenly, was someone doing a pretty good impersonation of Obama '08."
Of course, the number of Americans who saw this fired-up president was tiny as compared to the number who watched last week's debate, but the evidence suggests Obama looks at the debate as a wake-up call.
Leave a Comment:
Oh? Will he mention
No? Ok, let's do the economy. No really. The real real economy. Like what is happening to household income.... to consumer spending power and why that is important to an (ahem) You know... consumer economy? You want to be a harsh critic, ask yourself this:
(hint: Wrong answer: "education education education" -- or ---
"technology technology technology"
We been there, done that. Try again.
Who is Christina-Taylor Green?
What would you suggest? Cut taxes? Drill, baby, drill?
I would suggest that people elect more Democrats to Congress to team up with a Democratic president, people who care about education, infrastructure (including alternative transportation), the environment and creating a humane workplace. The President can't wave a magic wand.
No doubt the president's performance in the debate just plain sucked. I'd like to have seen him call out at least one or two of the 27 lies Romney told in 38 minutes.
As for the economy, Obama has the right idea, and the Jobs Act would go a long way toward reducing unemployment while fixing our crumbling infrastructure, but that can't even come up for a vote in congress, since it would work, and we certainly can't have that!
Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts also won't work, but that's all the opposition offers. Business is already sitting on trillions, but they certainly will not hire until the demand is there to require more employees, more production. Business has little confidence for sure, but it's not fear of regulation or taxes that prevents expansion. It's fear of not having the consumer demand required to justify expanding.
Any president, no matter who it is, can suggest legislation, he/she can veto, but a president cannot legislate. Until we replace our current congress with members that will work for the betterment of the average American, things aren't likely to change.
I agree, it took thirty + years to get where we are today. It's not going to change in one or even two terms and expecting it to do so is just not living in the real world. It's certainly not going to change with our current congress.
I am embarrassed to admit that I had forgotten Christina-Taylor Green's name, and had to Google up the name. She was the talented 9-year-old girl of considerable promise who got killed in the Tucson shooting that wounded Gabrielle Giffords. In other words, John wants to know if Obama will address gun control. I'd love to have Obama do something about the "let's all carry hand cannons to the mall" mentality so many Americans seem to have--but the NRA has so much power that gun control is something a "third rail" issue.
Missed his chance. Should have addressed those issues and corrected the lies during this debate. With the next debate being on (foreign policy?) it' will look like he was back-peddling. Maybe he can get to Hempstead a little earlier so he can get "acclimated".....
The next debate is not going to be a time to address huge-trend-issues and nook-and-cranny issues. The public would be completely lost about the huge trend in policies and ideas that have caused the mess we're in. It's 30+ years of failed conservative economic ideas of (government-bad, unfettered-market-good) that is the entire reason the U.S. and the world is in the shape it's in. Hell, Obama doesn't even realize that.
Guns will not be discussed. There's been 20+ years of Democratic stupidity and spinelessness on that and it's not going to come up lest he try to fight a battle it simply can't win right now. Unfortunately, climate change won't either but it should.
But Obama damn well better know that Romney-Ryan is a complete fu king disaster for not only this country but the world. And he better get that across somehow.
Hey I forgot who Anders Behring Breivik was until I was kicked in the stomach remembering . One of the healing properties of the mind is to avoid thinking about the unthinkable . Some unthinkable thing which happens every time it seems when people put down their insecurities and pick up their vision thingy . Now there is some real cat nip to the fear and doubt crowd who are composed between the confusion of what they imagine and what transpires .
A smart man learns from his mistakes.
A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.
A wise woman could have saved them both a lot of trouble.
"He had a real clarity about what happened."
No sh!t, Sherlock. It was a totally disgusting performance that started during the first two minute segment when The Obomination called for more corporate tax cuts. What the f*** is it with dumbocraps who continually try to out repuke the repuknicans and end up 'salvaging defeat from the jaws of victory'?
If Obama thinks that he is his own harshest critic, it is because he has not heard me...
Vulture/Voucher in 2012
Proving that two rights do make a wrong!
A fool and his freedoms are soon parted. Wake the F up people.
A far as I'm concerned, for Obama, the gloves come off in the next debate, period! Counter each and every one of Willard's whoppers with the facts...and look him right in the eye when you do it!
4 more 4 44
Obama/Biden 2012!!!
That's not really practical. There's too many lies to tackle each and every one. What he has to do is expose the most important ones and make it clear to those fools who are taken in by a liar feigning forceful conviction, that the liar is simply a LIAR. But Obama has to get his facts absolutely correct. And nail Romney as the liar he is.
The next debate is on Social Issues, where I expect the President to completely dominate. For all his self-righteousness, Gov. Romney is on the wrong side of history on social issues evolve, so there's absolutely no chance for him to come out on top here. None. It's not 1912 anymore.
And the debate after that is on Foreign Affairs, to which we've all see how ham-fisted and childlike the Governor is in that space.
Things will get better. Remember, Obama is a last-inning kind of guy. While I wish he were there for the whole game, the last inning is always a rush.
It seemed strategic - let Mittens
talk, and talk, and talklie, and lie, and lie - except about that 47% stuff so that he couldn't lie his way through that; and, then the follow ups will be to compare what he said during the primaries and campaign versus what he said during the first debate.Our president's closing argument will eviscerate Mittens, so he should enjoy his "bump" while he can.
II would like to see President Obama ignore what Romney says, totally dismiss him as if he doesn't exist at the next debate. "I don't know who you are and the American people surely don't know who you are, so, with all due respect, I'm going to ignore you!"
He needs to address Republican obstruction and infastructure. If he needs an embroidered hankie to remember, I'll start stitching.
I actually think that has promise. But he needs to nail Romney on some outright lies, first just to make it clear Romney is a liar.
The problem is the topics. The opportunities will be rare to do so is my guess.
The idea of presenting the polite and courtly Sen Mitch McConnell as anything other than an American of patriotic and wise mien , is a certain loser of an idea in Tennessee .
if you were to provide evidence that the world was about four billion years old why I believe the vapours would be received from Arkansas .
That means offering an idea with the an established inability to be received as a thoughtful and wise political debator , the horror of incivility taking precedence over the truth in factually based debate . Contradicting the small but insane christianist crowd in America you might need a more subtle approach .
There is some doubt as to the efficacy of the right wings economic approach , which could be exploited . Perhaps a little wandering through the decline of the middle class where it started , and which ungentlemanly policies were responsible for the dasterdly class warfare that is being waged against the middle class . Why I do believe that might work , as we have all been witness to the key implementations of that decline . From the deregulatory passions to the regulatory authority asleep at the wheel . The chances are we might get an escaped bride or bridegroom to talk about that , because no one else is going to be on the news who aint dead yet .
I'm not convinced Obama's performance at the debate was so horrific. If you listen to our MSM, you'd thought he was a complete failure, didn't know his own positions (it's hard to know Romney's, they change so often), or didn't make a convincing case.
Did he blow an opportunity to point out Romney's lies? Yes.
Did he point out Romney's switching of positions? Yes, but not as forcefully as he could have.
But debates are about positions, ideas, convincing arguments, pointing out weaknesses in your opponent's arguments...meaning, what is said is more important than your delivery.
If Romney delivers lies and recently switched positions confidently and forcefully does that trump consistent, difficult to argue against positions (we know this because Romney had to switch positions and lie over and over instead of debating 'head on' with Obama), by the president who admits he could have confronted the lies more.
Why do you give the debate to the guy who switches his own positions a month out from the election, who lies (even fabricated 'evidence') but delivered the lies better than someone who makes a better case and doesn't rely on lies?
I refuse to give Romney a debate that he flip-flopped and lied in with a better delivery. Obama could've done better but at least he didn't flip flop and brazenly lie. He didn't deliver as we expected but, for someone like Obama, that didn't mean he couldn't form sentences or was unable to explain policy positions. I'm not giving the debate to someone who lied and took positions he's never taken before and will switch them as a tactic to avoid a real debate about your own positions.
Substance over delivery.
How do you debate an etch "a" sketch?When someone,anyone, call's him on one of his falsehood's he flip flop's and say's the opposite.Romney is a man with no core value's that is trying to lie his way into the White House.
I'm more cynical about this issue. We've all at one time or another met slick "fast-talkers," and the sad fact is that fast talkers sometimes succeed. Style does sometimes win over substance, and well-presented stupidity can prevail against poorly presented wisdom.
I am reminded here of AM radio hatemongers who, back in 2008, made fun of Obama for his tendency to speak in short bits punctuated by "um" and "uh."
As the Old Testament puts it: "Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment give off a foul odor; so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor." (It's Ecclesiastes 10:1.)
@scholar1890,
"Fast talkers sometimes succeed" only if you let them. You enable failure when you make excuses for liars. You lie, you lose, period.
You could say, 'Romney did not win because he lied and switched many of his positions but currently, because our MSM is driving the narrative and Obama isn't pushing back on that narrative either, the public seems to be influenced by an MSM that wrongly gave the debate to the guy lying.' Not to mention, the fact that, in the words of Paul Krugman, "the Press can't handle flat-out untruths."
What I won't accept is, "there's nothing we can do about it, we have to accept this pathetic, disingenuous tripe that liars sometimes win." They only win if people like you and the MSM continue to enable this false premise.
Liars DO NOT WIN debates. Flip-floppers DO NOT WN debates. Try standing up for truth when you get the chance. Otherwise, guys like Romney will continue to lie with impunity. Hold your politicians responsible. Otherwise, expect more lies from politicians whose lies you'll also ignore.
I personally felt Romney seemed like a cheesy car salesman who was lying to get you to buy a his piece of crap car for twice as much as it's value. I just wanted to smack that idiotic smirk off his face. I didn't find him more presidential than Obama I found him to be an obnoxious rude idiot that wouldn't shut up to allow anyone else to speak, is that really what we want to represent our country. Not me!
Yes! Couldn't agree more.
Since everyone in the media seems determined to judge the debate only on style, not substance, they need to step back on the hype and take a 2nd look at Romney's performance. Admittedly, Romney surprised me a bit as he came on stronger and less flustered than I'd expected. It was clear he had really rehearsed for the show. But style-wise, I don't think it was as lopsided as the drama critics have been suggesting. Obama wasn't super-dynamic but he didn't make any embarrassing mistakes or gaffes. And as you said, Romney seemed too amped-up, nervous, shifty, smirking. The talking heads really need to cool it with the theater criticism: in general they are not very good at it.
It shall all be revealed, or reviled..
Rmoney lied through his teeth, next time you have my permission to say, "that's not true".. and "That's not true either.." or better yet, "Nothing you have said so far this evening is true". Call him Mr. "Rmoney" once too for good measure.(/snark, for all you pleasantry purists)
There were a dozen or more spots when Obama could have delivered a better "gotcha" moment. If only he'd said 20% tax cut instead of $5B, or simply asked "how big IS your tax cut, Governor?" etc etc
But the fact is, the first debate was the challenger's to lose. Only Bob Dole managed to lose the first debate as a challenger, in all video-recorded history.
Yes, yes, if Obama had won, Mitt would be done. But just as likely he could have been TOO aggressive and given Mitt a sympathy vote.
29 days and two more debates to go. To misquote Mark Twain "The reports of [Obama's] death have been greatly exaggerated."
"... especially when he and a more relaxed Mitt Romney were broadcast in split-screen."
You know, it's funny. Reaction to the debate might depend on how you watched it. I didn't see the 'split-screen' version (though it was running in the other room of the bar I was in). Rather I saw the online version from C-Span -- delivered through the internet and projected on a screen. World of difference.
Obamapologists.. It's a new word! I wonder if I can use that the next Scrabble venture?
If it isn't too much to ask, of course.
Rachel, your piece showing how incumbent presidents are often shellacked by the challenger in the first debate was insightful. Could it be as simple as the president arrives with the weight of the world on his shoulders whereas the challenger merely needs to be full of himself?
We'll have to settle for the Meat Loaf strategy, I suppose. Two out of three ain't bad.
Don't want to sound picky, but frankly it's not how many positive policy statements Mr Obama makes - there's tons of these - it's how he deals with a mesmerizing bare-faced shape-shifting liar that counts. I mean, how do you do that without seeming to be rude?
First debate Obama was circumspect. Next debate I think he just has to be rude.
I so agree with the previous posts. I watched on cspan, t I felt he looked at Romney plenty. I think he also got so disgusted with Romney's hyper aggressive steamroller behavior, that he couldn't believe he had to say much, and he was digging his own grave, with all the lies. He was rude and I wonder if Lehrer was astonished at his manic behavior. I thought to myself, " I don't want this guy anywhere near the "button". He may have thought he (the president) had to be circumspect, but next time I want to see the guy who handled the repubs at their congressional retreat in early 2010. This crap about needing a teleprompter needs to die, he didn't need it that day.