Two Words: Wrong and Republican

[Rilgin]

I am dissabpointed in Obama's performance. I somewhat understand the desire to appear presidential and not directly attack Romney with the 47% lines and attacks on Bain. They are personal attacks. Deserved but personal.

However, it is somewhat amazing that the debate preparation didnt tell Obama to wrap Romney in the cloak of being a Republican. The most unpopular political group in America right now is the Republican congress. He can attack Republican ideas and policies and tell the American people that Romney is a Republican without looking like he is personally attacking. It is clear that the Republican Brand is not a great identifier coming off the Conventions. Romney can not score similar points by labeling Obama as a democrat.

Second, he has to use the word "wrong" in referring to the differences between Romney and his policies. He cant say "he believe that such policies are not the best way to give us jobs. He has to say Republican policies are "wrong" and use that word often. No matter how much Romney lies and switchs, Obama can say we have used Republican ideas before and they have been proved through history to be "wrong".

My own staged line for this debate would be to connect historically each time through American history we have tried Republican Ideas they have led to great or lesser depressions and economic crises and I would have those debates. The punch line could easily be that old great chesnut: "Insanity is trying something 20 times and expecting a different result the 21st."

Anyhow, I blame Obama's prep team for not coaching Obama to use the word republican and identify Romney as a Republican and not to call Romney's policies directly "wrong". Neither of these would stop Obama from looking presidential.

I hope that the preparation for the rest of the debates goes better.

[Summer Hathaway]

1. The Prez

is still ahead, and that won't change. He is also running one of the most effective political campaigns I've ever seen - and I've been around long enough to see more than a few.

"I blame Obama's prep team for not coaching Obama to use the word republican and identify Romney as a Republican ..."

I think we all know he's a Republican. No further identification was necessary.

[Scootaloo]

2. I think Obama knows quite well what he's doing.

he doesn't have to knock Romney around. Tonight, Mitt Romney spent most of his speaking time throwing himself into the ropes.

Obama did just fine. He let Mitt Romney speak for himself, which is about the best way to show what a fuckface Mitt Romney is. Another sharp point; Obama was very careful to be respectful of the moderator, while Romney spent his time running roughshod over the format. This makes him look nervous, pushy, impatient. It's not a good look for him.

There's no need to wrap Romney up as a Republican; in fact that would have just played into Romney's attempt to portray Obama as "divisive and partisan." Jim Lehrer introduced him as the Republican nominee. Everyone watching knows Mitt Romney is a Republican. it doesn't need to be harped on, it's a given. This is why Obama also tanked Republican policies, without ever pointing fingers. It looks petty, especially when you're already in a position of strength.

[Rilgin]

3. You seem to think that he gained ground by not debating

You are thinking of how you respond rather than objectively. This is a debate. He has to tell why the other person's position is "wrong". He did not do that and the polls rating the debate show that without any question at all. Not only the MSNBC and other liberal pundits but viewers rated Romney as winning the "debate". The CBS and CNN snap polls show large margins. We can debate whether all of Romney's claims were lies or if he was too aggressive but it should not be Democrats that stick their head in the ground and pretend inconvenient facts don't exist. Romney gained traction in this debate and denying it is stupid.

Does this mean the election is lost? NO. Obama is still ahead and there is spin and ads and more debates. However, Obama could have basically ended this election tonight. His campaign and Romney's idiocy and especially the great Democratic convention allowed the Obama campaign to totally thwart any message coming from Mitt and to paint their own picture of Mitt.

In this debate, Obama said he agreed with half of Mitt's policies and on disagreements he didn't directly challenge Mitts assertions. He is constrained by his position of president and doesn't want to get in the gutter. However, if you cant say someone is a liar, you have to say they are "wrong". If you are debating policies with someone who is saying their policies are better you have to say they are "wrong" over and over while explaining why yours are better.

It should have been obvious that they should have developed a debate strategy which would continue to marginalize the Republican Party in the same way that his campaign has done for the past month which brought him a lead. This would not be for me or you. We can live with him just coasting. However, he is trying to win an election. It would be for the 60 Million Viewers who watched this Debate who have to see him fighting for his job and directly debating his opponent.

[Scootaloo]

4. Yes, I know the media and pundits say Romney "won."

We already knew that was going to happen. No matter what, Romney was going to be hailed as "winner" in the first debate. It's meaningless, simply a drama injection for an otherwise predictable (thus boring, thus low ratings) presidential race.

And the trouble with Romney is that he wasn't just lying here and there. Everything he said was fake and a lie. Not just that, but he was firing these lies out like a damned machine gun, to the point of talking over and interrupting both the moderator and the president, in his hurry to get all that bullshit out. The point of doing this is to fluster the opponent, to confuse them and hopefully bog them down as they correct the minutae of your spew. This is called the gish gallop. A good galloper will include some actual fact, so that their blather can't just be dismissed out of hand (Mitt forgot that part) and will have another barrage ready after each answer his opponent gives.

The best counter-tactic is exactly what Obama did. Narrow the topic. Choose one thing out of the gibberish, and make the discussion about that, forcing the galloper into a corner to either defend or abandon their bullshit.

Now, for Obama's part, yes, he does agree with several of Mitt's policies; like, oh, his landmark health care plan. What stating this does, is either force Mitt Romney to admit that he has nothing to offer that the seated president doesn't, or it forces him to argue against his own positions... Neither of these are a winning prospect for a challenger.

And then there are the people at home. Despite some popular rhetoric, most Americans are pretty good at this "thinking" thing. They see Mitt Romney repeating his bullshit over and over again, while Obama addresses the questions. They see Mitt Romney trample all over hte moderator and interrupt his opponent, while Obama doesn't. They hear Romney say he wants to create jobs by firing people, and thinks PBS should be cut (and he decided to spotlight Sesame Street rather than Masterpiece Theater, the moron). They see Mitt Romney suddenly doing this weird, awkward, bleeding-heart "i feel for you!" act, after he gets pounded by his own words about the 47%

I don't know if Obama "gained ground." But I'm damn certain that Mitt Romney LOST ground, from his own performance.

[Rilgin]

5. Yes I got it. You like Obama

Your main claim seems to be that "no matter what" the Media would have labelled Mitt the "winner" of the debate. You then go on to claim Obama in fact won. When I read your post, I think the exact opposite. No matter what Obama did or didnt do, you would believe he won the debate and did the right thing.

This is bubble thinking and bubble thinking should be left to the Republicans. The media and the pollsters have some bias and follow scripts that attach to candidates. But those debate scripts usually work the other way. Tuning the night time polls into their opposites. For examples, Gore was seen as peforming well the night of his debates and this view was changed by the Media over time. That was not the case last night, the immediate reaction was exactly that Romney gained traction and that Obama was defensive. Democratic spin was all defensive and explanatry. Accepting inconvenient truths should be a democratic response and should distinguish us from the embarassment that is the current Republican party.

The Obama campaign has been great to date in defining Romney. I thought the Democratic Party Convention was the best convention I had ever seen and I was not surprised by the bounce Obama got from it. I have a mixed view and I am not a huge fan of Bill Clinton since much of the financial deregulation came in his watch. However, I thought he gave the best political speech I have heard. Read again what I typed. I dont like someone and I thought he did well. And again read, I think the Obama campaign has done a pretty amazing job of defining Mitt. I also am willing to face the fact that Romney actually gained ground in reversing this definition in the Debate. There are lots of opinions of how to do it better but it starts with a recognition that there was a problem with Obama or his debate strategy last night. Hopefully, they are smart enough to adjust rather than just ignore an inconvenient fact as you seem to want to do.

[Scootaloo]

6. Yes, I'm just a cheerleader who thinks he's the messiah.

[Rilgin]

7. Not sure where that fits in.

Look at what you wrote again. You wrote (paraphrased) that no matter what Romney would be seen by the Media of "winning". I didnt write that you did. This can be true but it is also the case that when the Media does it, it is rarely that night. It takes place over time.

The immediate response of media and viewers alike was Romney gained ground and that Obama was defensive. Obama wasnt a total failure and some aspects of the debate could present Romney with problems because of fact-checking and the failure to follow the right wing line in charging up his base. The campaign will continue on from this point and hopefully the Obama campaignn will recover.

However, Romney won the instant reaction. Dont blame the Media for that. Obama's debate strategy or execution was not great and more importantly not effective. Go on from there learning from it. I just regret that we as democrats let them get any traction.

[Legin_01]

8. It's Republicans, stupid

What I find most annoying is that Obama almost always avoids the word Republican. He needs to say that it's Republicans who are the problem, that its Republicans who are obstructing progress and keep hammering it home to the public. He needs to point to all the Republican controlled state legislatures and point out the damage that they're doing. He needs to tell people that they must vote out the Republican house and bring in people who are interested in progress. I don't understand his strategy of not naming and shaming the Republican Party. I am really baffled.

[DURHAM D]

9. I agree.

He won't call them out directly.

Welcome to DU.