Some basic realities...

[kentuck]

It doesn't matter what Romney says. At least, not to his supporters. All that matters is that he beat Barack Obama. It doesn't matter if he lies or murders someone in the process. Republicans hate Obama that much.

Also, do not create huge expectations for the second debate. Barack Obama is a terrible debater. He has never proven that he can debate with any passion. That does not mean he is not a great orator or cannot give a great speech. He can.

In the last debate, he did not do as terrible as people said and Romney did not do as great as people said. That was mainly the spin that was created from the expectations game. However, to listen to the Repubs and the media, this was the greatest Republican performance since Reagan in 1980. Really?

There are four weeks left in this campaign. There are four weeks to get out the truth on Mitt Romney. Nothing should be left on the table when this campaign is over. That includes his foreign accounts. That includes his $100 million dollar IRA. That includes his lack of tax returns. That includes his Mormon religion. What role does it play in his campaign? This is not beanbag. This is about the lives of a lot of people.

It doesn't matter if Barack Obama is no Daniel Webster. As Senator Obama said when he was running in 2008, if there are issues that we disagree with him about, then we should make him do it. It is up to us. We need to be more vocal about the direction we are going, not less.

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Obama is not a terrible debater...

Yeesh. I can't take anything you say seriously when you throw that trash out there. I'll give you he's not a great debater, but 'terrible'? Give me a fucking break. I've seen terrible debaters in local elections ... Jan Brewer was a terrible debater.

In 2008, Obama won a great deal of his debates against Hillary Clinton (according to post-debate polls) and won all three against McCain. Terrible debaters don't do that.

So, again, yeesh.

[kentuck]

2. OK...

I can see there is no way to lower the expectations with you. He is the greatest debater since Abraham Lincoln and he will kill Romney in the next debate. Feel better?

[Drunken Irishman]

3. He's not a great debater ... he's not a terrible debater ... he's just okay.

I think the format last week hurt him. He's not at his best behind a podium. His two best debates last go around were the 2nd and 3rd ones ... the town hall and the one where he and McCain were sitting next to each other.

Even so, he's not a great debater and I never said that. But I'm not going to downplay my expectations for him based off one eh performance. I think he can do better ... he needs to do better ... he will do better.

[H2O Man]

7. Although a mere

surface examination would suggest that you two strongly disagree -- and view Barack Obama's debating abilities very differently -- I would suggest that you might be making some similar points.

First, while I might not have selected "terrible" as the descriptive word, I absolutely agree that he is not "great" in the context of what current "presidential debates" are. The funny thing is that old Abe Lincoln's skills would most certainly not translate into strength in such modern forums. The sad truth is that his appearance alone would not "work" on television. And from all written records, ranging from his physical being to his in-depth thinking are the descriptions of a man who would be lucky to be elected to the House of Representatives today.

In the late 2007-2008 primary season, Senator Obama was generally an inconsistent debate performer. Many of the democrats who had found his 2004 convention speech electrifying were surprised by this. As you correctly noted, he did win some of the most important debates, including against Senator Clinton. No "terrible" debator could have accomplished this; Obama showed both skill, and the ability to make use of the energy from outside of the debates, to combine for effective performances.

McCain had shot his own campaign in both feet well before he and Senator Obama took the stage. Still, McCain posed some dangers in the debate on foreign policy. Yet Obama was able to make McCain's inner "angry old man" surface, which was at very least as important as any words spoken that night.

Before last week's debate, I posted that -- in boxing terms -- President Obama needed to concentrate on landing body punches. A "great" body-puncher can knock an opponent out with a single body punch. A "terrible" body-puncher is defined by his failure to direct blows below his opponent's head. And, an average body-puncher -- who may be inconsistent from fight to fight -- can concentrate on a slippery foe .... not wasting to many punches at the guy's head, which is harder to hit .... and instead "put money in the bank," or go to the body frequently in what he knows will be a long fight. No single body shot will score a devastating end to that bout, but each one will accumulate upon the one before it, and by the late rounds, the opponent becomes a stationary target.

Regardless of the media, or even of what anyone thought of Willard Romney last week, President Obama appeared flat in the debate. In my opinion, he seemed somewhat distracted .... his timing was off, to the point that I was pleased that he didn't throw any hard shots to Mitt's slippery head. He did land some body shots. I can respect that others see it differently: it wasn't a serious beating to Mitt's body. But I think that Barack Obama will pick up the pace in the second debate/ middle rounds, and inflict more meaningful damage. He can do that, even though he is not a "great" body-puncher.

The combination of those punches along with the energy of on-going events outside of the debate forums will take its toll on the Romney campaign.

Peace to both of you,
H2O Man

[kentuck]

9. Thanks H2OMan!

I used the word "terrible" on purpose. He was not terrible in the last debate and Romney was not great. Romney was expected by most folks here to do much worse and Obama was expected to do much better. That was the only difference in the debate. It was closer to a draw than to a knockout, in my honest opinion. However, it it vitally important that we not have the same expectations before the next debate or I fear the results will be the same.

[H2O Man]

11. You are right

about the expectations: on one side, there is a human being, President Barack Obama; his opponent is a non-human hybrid, Willard Romney/ Mitt Headroom. It's a made-for-tv drama, scripted by political powers that are not interested in having an honest debate of the issues between an elected US President, and an artificial being that the billionaires are hoping to cheat and steal votes for.

These debates are, of course, important. So much so that we have a responsibility to view them without rose-colored glasses, or while intoxicated on emotion. I appreciate that your OP is an honest and sincere attempt to wake people up to this reality.

[meanit]

4. The media

has been for Romney since the beginning, just like they were for Dubya. Nothing has changed. Romney just made so much of an ass of himself prior to the debates that they could not cover for him. Now that he put on a big bullshit show for the debates, he's their underdog. The rest of the debates will just be the media cheer leading him and updating his scorecard.

You are right that we should be beating the shit out of Romney and the GOP with everything on the table. We need to do this non-stop. We should not be timid or nuanced with the truth, because it's on our side. We have the right to boast or be "in their face" because we are right and they are wrong.

The only reason we have to worry is if we let them get away with their bald-faced lies.

[kentuck]

5. I think we saw the real Romney in the debate...

a moderate.

His problem is to make a deal with the Tea Partiers and the right-wingers in his own Party. IF he can beat Obama by being a moderate, then he can win back the White House for them, and they will have to accept that as enough?

Will they still support him if he is being himself? That is the question.

[meanit]

6. Romney is a chameleon

He will go with whatever works. If he gets in the Whitehouse, he will be indebted to a lot of powerful, nasty conservatives expecting a payback, and they will be indeed be rewarded. I have little doubt of that.
I'm not sure who Romney the man really is, but it's pretty clear who Romney the CEO is, and with his elusive moral center it seems that Romney the CEO is the one this country is faced with.

[H2O Man]

8. Well said.

[ncav53]

10. Better in the townhall debate

I think Obama will do much better in the townhall debate. He seems to be at his best when he is actually interacting with everyday people. Plus he now has a mandate to be more aggressive given that he "lost" the first debate. All he has to do his exceed his first debate performance and the media narrative will be "Obama makes a comeback."