Obama Eastwood’s Himself-Update

After spending some time reviewing clips from the first presidential debate here is my judgment. If you read the transcripts, Romney still wins by a comfortable margin. For whatever reason, I thought that Obama had narrowly won by that standard just after the debate was over. I was clearly wrong.

If you had listened to the debate without the video, you would likely have concluded that Romney won by a wider margin. I would note, however, that I have heard from a few Republicans who only listened that they thought Obama had won.

For those who both listened and watched, the general judgment has been that it was the most one-sided victory in the history of these things. I certainly agree that Romney was very strong and Obama very weak.

However, I still think the general reaction to the debate is out of proportion to what happened on the Denver stage. Romney was very strong, perhaps as strong as one can hope for in a presidential debate; but he wasn't quite the Hercules that many Republicans now seem to think he was. Obama was weak, but he wasn't nearly as bad as many on the Left seemed to think. In fact, he was about what I expected him to be, given the context. Obama has never been very good on his toes when he had neither a teleprompter nor an adoring crowd before him. If I am right that both sides overreacted, what is the explanation?

Dana Milbank at the WaPo has the best interpretation of what happened to President Obama:

In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday's emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush. Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, Obama has shied from mixing it up with members of Congress, too. And, especially since Rahm Emanuel's departure, Obama is surrounded by a large number of yes men who aren't likely to get in his face.

That is surely the story. Obama has been praised as a great communicator and he has presented himself as someone who could bring both sides together. In fact, he was only good at reading aloud and only looked good as a speaker when the crowd cheered his every word. When he has neither advantage, as in Denver, he is not impressive. Instead of exposing himself to challenging situations over the last four years, he has assiduously avoided them. He likes soft-serve interviews with movie stars and friendly talk show hosts, but has little time for press conferences formal or otherwise. Milbank says that the result of this is that "Obama's argument skills atrophied". It might be more accurate to say that they never had a chance to develop.

This is not merely a political defect; it is a functional defect in a President. "Shying away from mixing it up with members of Congress" has kept Obama from acting effectively as Chief Legislator. He is uncomfortable in a room where he has to argue with people who do not defer to his excellence. It also explains why he failed to do one thing that he genuinely thought he could do: bring the peoples of the world together and restore America's good name abroad. To do that, you have to sit down and reason with folks who do not automatically applaud your every flourish.

It is no surprise that Obama has exposed himself to unscripted press conferences less frequently than Bill Clinton. Clinton was a natural raconteur. That Obama has done so less frequently than Bush 41 or 43 is telling. Those two could barely construct an English sentence but they walked out their nonetheless. Obama stayed mostly in hiding.

Milbank nails the reason that the reaction to Obama's performance was so bad on both the left and the right. He calls the debate "Wednesday's emperor-has-no-clothes moment." He is not the only one to draw on that metaphor. For all of his adult life and especially over the last five years, armies of well-intentioned folks have been telling him that he is wonderful in lieu of actually requiring him to do anything even vaguely impressive. He won the Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything at all for the cause of peace.

Wednesday was the moment that everyone suddenly noticed, many for the first time, that the emperor was not only naked but virtually invisible. The New Yorker cover gets it right. Not only the clothes but the emperor was missing. He is, as I have been arguing, the man who wasn't there.

I am guessing that the moment won't last. I am sure of this, however: if Obama is reelected, it will mean four more years of shielding himself and us from reality.

UPDATE

Brit Hume at Fox Sunday confirmed by view of the debates. 

What I would say about this is that this idea that Romney won the debate because Obama basically didn't show up, I don't buy that. The Barack Obama, I heard on that debate stage was the Barack Obama I have been listening to now for four years. He sounded very much like himself. I don't think he was terribly bad. I think he has a very weak case, and I think the circumstances in the country present the challenging candidate with all kinds of opportunities. Mitt Romney was on his game and took advantage of those opportunities.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

... unless Reality pierces the shield.

[D]

The definition of "winner" has been equivalent to the most garrulous, dishonest, and ravaging of the rules of order. That needs to stop because it makes us all complicit in being false. I do not think that a loud liar wins. Please define winning, if you disagree.

But it has also been equated to seeming "presidential". A president has to deal with some pretty obscene and dishonest rulers of sovereign nations. There is no persuading someone who acts like that, and you cannot order them arrested or killed. It seems that the best way of dealing with such unflinching bigotry and lies is to speak the truth as consistently as possible, and carry on with what else needs to be done.

There is also a lot of history in argument and conflicts in *not* responding to aggression. What Obama did do was lay out what was true. There is no need to attack Romney for all the flubs, as they will continue to haunt him, and will be easy targets for the next debate as well.

There *is* a need to bring reason to this emotional and vitriolic campaign season. Watching Obama in the debate was relaxing and reassuring. He made the case -- by example -- that critical thinking can thrive even in the face of an inconstant rhetorical blitzkrieg.

[Truth101]

Politics is like pro-wrestling except people still think it's real.

[Bill Fleming]

Do you have a prejudice against introverts KB?

[duggersd]

As you mention, Ken, President Obama is not much of a speaker when he has to speak off the cuff. Here is the thinking of a bunch of people from a leading univerisity http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/05/Obama-Supporters-President-Should-Have-Teleprompter-At-Debates. This President has a record that can only be defended by lies. The jobs number is a case in point.
If Obama is an introvert, he has the biggest ego in history for an introvert. Perhaps Al Gore is right. It is the thin air. Watching the debate was somewhat relaxing and reassuring. Before this, I had serious doubts as to whether Romney could pull it off. This shows what happens when someone is passionate about what he believes or only spouts lip service. President Obama is a collectivist at best. When he spouts free market principles, he does not believe it and it shows. It showed Wednesday night.

[diane]

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King's horses,
And all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

[Bill Fleming]

Oh boy. Brietbart.

[Jon S]

Bill, Lincoln and Reagan were introverts but they had no problem working and talking with people. Reagan certainly held many press conferences. To be an introvert (and here I speak from experience) is not simply to isolate yourself from people, as Obama appears to do. I think it is a combination of his introversion and a supreme arrogance where he really believe that no one has anything to teach him about anything. He doesn't feel he should have to justify his arguments, as his own awesomeness is self-justification, and he bristles at the notion that anyone is good enough to criticize him. Milbank says in his piece that with the departure of Rahm Emmanual Obama has surrounded himself with a bunch of yes men. That is precisely what Obama wants. It may prove his undoing, although I continue to think his chances of re-election are excellent.

[Donald Pay]

When you look at substance and honesty, Obama won. That conservatives want people to look the other way, says a lot about them, not Obama.

Unlike Romney, Obama didn't have to resort to throwing most of his two-year campaign to pander for the ignorant class under the bus, for example. Romney ceded all points about the need for government regulation to Obama. On the points he didn't cede, he was pandering to the monied class, not the ignorant class. Of course, Romney being Romney, he took it all back the next day.

The question we all need to ask is why we would elect a liar and a buffoon, when we can elect a competent leader.

[larry kurtz]

ten k on ken’s view up that dead horse’s poop chute.

[Bill Fleming]

Well see, Jon. Suffice it to say I know a lot of folks with the same attitude as the one you describe, many without nearly as much justification as Obama has. He's a pretty cool customer ;^)

[Bill Fleming]

"Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose the former and have seen no reason to change." — Frank Lloyd Wright

[Stan Gibilisco]

What about hypocritical arrogance?

[William]

I'm almost certain that - although Obama wants to be better prepared for debate #2 - I don't think they know how to prepare. He's never been in this position before. He might not even be able to accept that he is in this position.

Obama is surrounded by people who don't have a clue how life exists outside their self imposed "bubble". They are so busy projecting, they fail to understand that not everyone sees things their way. So I am not sure Obama can overcome his own narcissism and that of everyone who surrounds him.

Romney is actually in control. I think that in an attempt to assert himself, Obama will become less cool, more agitated. At that point, Romney will win.

[Donald Pay]

It was well played by Obama, classic rope-a-dope. Romney thought Obama would be hounding him about the 47 percent comment, and had some apology/zinger ready for that. Obama laid off, and just let the blustering fool continue to bleed from that self-inflicted wound. Romney was grim faced and continually on the attack, but nothing really landed, and Obama just smiled and laughed at the fool. Romney had to essentially throw the cuckoo right under the bus to make it look like he was somewhat reasonable, though he bowed to them in making a politically suicidal attack on Big Bird. Then, of course, in classic Romney style, day later he disavowed everything he said, except, I guess, his threat to kill Big Bird.

I don't think Romney will get the rope-a-dope strategy next debate. I think the big fool is toast.

[duggersd]

Perhaps Obama did not bring up that 47% because he did not want to see Romney mention the Obama race baiting videos..... Bill, sorry if you watched a video and because the producers are from someone you don't care for. Try refuting what they said.

[Bill Fleming]

When I click on your link, I get this, DuggerSD:

"Server Error in '/' Application.

The resource cannot be found.

Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.

Requested URL: /Breitbart-TV/2012/10/05/Obama-Supporters-President-Should-Have-Teleprompter-At-Debates.

[Ken Blanchard]

"D": "winning" means winning. In sports, you have more points at the end of the round. After a political debate, your chances of winning the election have improved at least temporarily. The impression that Romney won and Obama lost was almost universal. You would just about have to be a sycophant to disagree.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: yeah, its only those conservatives who think Obama lost. Like the conservatives at MSNBC or on the New Yorker Staff. It seems pretty clear now that Romney's position has improved overall and in several key states. To claim that Obama won is absurd. To claim that he is also playing "rope-a-dope" is self-contradictory. See "sycophant" above.