If Obama wins the Presidency, we won't look back on this debate as the moment he did it, as my disgruntled colleague suggests. But he didn't lose it tonight. Obama was much better prepared. It may have been the first time in his life he actually had to study for an exam. He spent a lot less time looking at his shoes.
Romney was pretty much the same guy who showed up at the first debate: well informed, reasonably quick on his feet, a little over excited and repetitive at times. He did a very good job of focusing on Obama's dismal economic record, though not as good as I think he could have done. I thought Romney was a head slightly through most of the debate until the Benghazi question. At that point the advantage turned to Obama and he held onto it.
Obama ducked the question and gave us a lot of highly peppered word salad. Romney could have pointed that out, saying something like: if I ever have to answer such a terrible question, I won't try to avoid it. He could have laid out the simple fact that the Administration couldn't get its story straight for weeks. He could have pointed out that the Administration's idea of dealing with the debacle was go after an idiot who made a film that had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of the Ambassador.
But he didn't. He got bogged down over the word "terrorist" and that allowed Obama to slip out of the net. Jon is dead spot on about moderator Candy Crowley's interjection at that point. It was inexcusable. It was not her job to take sides or correct either participant. And as Jon said, she was clearly wrong.
All that said, I think Obama might actually suffer from Romney's failure on the Benghazi question. Every story about the debate is going to mention the question and thus keep the issue on the front pages for days more. If Romney had a stronger answer, it would actually be easier for the sympathetic press to ignore it.
I am guessing that this debate marginally helps Obama in so far as he recovered from the first one. That helps shore up his base. I don't see any reason to expect that it will do more than that.
Update: I withdraw the word "disgruntled" above.
Update: as Jon notes, the CNN spot poll gives the win to Obama but the issues to Romney. He wins big on the economy (58/40), taxes (51/44), and marginally on health care and "strong leader". If that is really what the voters take away from this debate, Romney wins big again.
I am not disgruntled. I am telling it as I see it.
Posted by: Jon S. | Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 11:08 PM
You certainly sounded disgruntled. I didn't intend that as a criticism, I merely called it like I saw it.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Dumb: meet Dumber.
Posted by: larry kurtz | Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 08:19 AM
The comment by Romney to Obama during the debate; “You’ll get your chance in a moment, I’m still speaking” may be the spark that energizes the black vote. It was a white man telling a black man to sit down and shut up. Does this make Romney a racist--no, and he probably doesn't even realize how that comment could be perceived as racist. But it was racist to the black community. I'm like Romney since I didn't make the connection either but my kids (30 somethings) in VA and NC tell me that their friends are talking about the racist overtones. I'm not sure it will translate into voters going to the polls but the undercurrent is there.
Posted by: GeneK | Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Gene: I watched the entire debate without once thinking about the race of the two debaters. I can't believe that anyone who thinks that Romney was racist for insisting on his turn to speak doesn't assume in advance that Romney was racist.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Friday, October 19, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Mitt Romney is white supremacist. He quotes his former BYU professor: http://www.youtube.com/embed/1...
From an Alexander Zaitchik piece posted in Salon:
"In that, they are true disciples of the late W. Cleon Skousen, Beck’s favorite writer and the author of the bible of the 9/12 movement, “The 5,000 Year Leap.” A once-famous anti-communist “historian,” Skousen was too extreme even for the conservative activists of the Goldwater era, but Glenn Beck has now rescued him from the remainder pile of history, and introduced him to a receptive new audience."
http://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/
Posted by: larry kurtz | Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 08:38 AM