If you go to the big debate thread below, you’ll see that I offer a couple theories for why Obama did so poorly. You’ll also see that Kate has one I find worthy of further consideration.
But whatever collection of explanations we adopt, Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary offers one that feels particularly likely:
His body language and long-winded lectures betrayed not just a man who didn’t adequately prepare for the format, but also a man who has no respect for his opponent or the ideas he put forward.
This would explain why both the explanations I offered below could be right. A) his performance basically reflected the real Obama (i.e. sans teleprompter), and B) he didn’t seriously prep. There’s evidence Obama was conscious prior to the debate that he’s not a great debater (i.e., that he had some inkling of A), but it simply didn’t matter, because at all times he seriously thinks he is the One, the man with the masterful program/campaign, and perhaps is even stupid and blinkered enough to 75% believe his own spin about Romney. Thus, B). He shirked real preparation.
BTW, what could be more essentially divisive than such a contempt for one’s opponent, for 40% of one’s fellow citizens?
And non-inner circle Democrat, do you see how the contempt extends to you?
October 5th, 2012 | 10:17 am
Carl, for non-partisan evenhandedness, or political science objectivity, you’ll have to address Romney’s 47% percent comment, if you want bring up the contempt theme.
October 5th, 2012 | 11:38 am
I’m just happy that the debate has chipped through the veneer. His brilliance and charisma and intelligence and hope and change I never believed, but after 5 years of non-stop Obama-love, I almost thought that I was going crazy.
I want to gloat about his bad debate performance, but that would be bad form. Besides, the president might win re-election.
October 5th, 2012 | 11:45 am
Gloat away John…the long overdue HE HAS NO CLOTHES moment is finally here!
October 5th, 2012 | 12:02 pm
Well if he underestimated Romney on Tuesday, he is unlikely to now. Also, Mitt seemed to come armed with a whole new set of views, as usual. Having debated myself for several years, surprise is a potent weapon, and I think Mitt achieved it. But I don’t think he’ll be able to come with a whole new set of views next time. At least I hope not. This constant rebranding is getting tiresome.
Do I think Obama has contempt for me? Not in the least. I have absolutely none of the various sets of views of Mitt Romney, and I’m not nearly as handsome. And by no stretch of logic that I can make does contempt for someone with several different sets of views translate into contempt for whole bunches of people who have one view that opposes them all.
And here we go again with the fantasy of Obama as prima donna. This is also tiresome. But I gather we must endure it until 2016 even if Obama wins. After that we can let the historians settle the matter.
October 5th, 2012 | 2:51 pm
The only thing particularly novel about this observation is that its author can’t be accused of having made it on the pages of National Review.
I do not know what it is about the left that the continually and compulsively make their politicians into demigods.
During 2007-2008 we were constantly told how brilliant Obama was-one writer used the adjective “incandescent”. There was the quip about Obama watching us watching him, and the peculiar and disturbing comment about having a thrill running up a leg. Even people who should have known better were taken in-Peggy Noonan called him “elegant”-but I think a most men would bristle at such a characterization.
Properly disposed people were skeptical. They saw no published papers, no record of success outside Harvard, withheld transcripts and papers, disturbing associations-just manufactured celebrity, some charisma and fury being vented as ambition. Some of us gasped (is he really that arrogant and foolish?) when he surmised that his political arrival meant the lowering of the seas. We saw the little slips (“corpse-man”) that showed a complete reliance on the teleprompter.
Sooner or later every gold calf is shown to be false. Just as JFK wasn’t the impeccable man of integrity and vigor that he was portrayed to be-we know know Obama is just another politician, but it took a couple years, rather than decades.
If there’s something “tiresome”, its the roadies who refuse to admit that “hope and change” was nothing but a vacant slogan. It’s time to admit that Obama isn’t a superhero-he’s just a man and a conceited one at that-a common affliction, especially among the political class.
October 5th, 2012 | 3:51 pm
The 47% remark was pretty bad, for reasons Peter explained well here. It reflects a kind of economic determinism regarding voting that is ugly coming from whatever side of the political spectrum. It was also, we must add, a staple statement of the Tea Party and conservative talk radio, especially the more libertarian and economy-focused members of the those communities.
October 5th, 2012 | 5:48 pm
Well if we’re going to start psycho-analyzing the president I want to join the fun:
I’m agreed with Joseph regarding the narrative of Obama as prima donna – at least when grading against the curve of the typical liberal-political celebrity.
To deploy Occam’s razor here, I think Obama is just an extremely bright guy who is used to being the smartest guy in the room, and doesn’t easily cope with situations where he is clearly getting out shown. I vividly recall some of the rhetorical fist fights between he and Hillary in 08 (someone who shares the same intellectual vain-glory as the president). When Hillary landed a good punch, it showed on Obama’s face and in his body language.
Obama’s predicament is that this isn’t 2008 and he has a (I’ll be diplomatic here) very imperfect record wrapped around his neck like an albatross preventing him from some of the artistic license he put to such good use in 2008 when portraying himself as the post-partisan ubermench.
His problem is exacerbated by the fact that he is facing off with someone who is just as sharp (though not a performer like Obama) and who has the work ethic to familiarize himself with the exruciating details of Obama’s policy failures.
What we saw on Wednesday was an otherwised skilled boxer getting cornered by a slugger who was using Obama’s own record against him.
I fully expect Obama will be coming out for bear in the next debate, but whether he can find a way to slug back at Romney while maintaining the persona that got him cross-over appeal in 2008 remains to be seen. I’ll be impressed if he pulls it off.
My prediction: the next two debates will fall somewhere between favoring Romney by a small margin to a complete tie which will be enough for Romney to pull ahead since Romney will have achieved his objective which is to reveal to the voters that the caricature that Obama had been painting of him was substantive enough to bloody the One and Only Obama – national cognitive dissonance will ensue.
October 5th, 2012 | 7:25 pm
“while maintaining the persona that got him cross-over appeal in 2008 remains to be seen.”
Voting is a one-time, usually binary, decision involving a comparison, whether it is a comparison of candidates or of qualifications. Popular opinion about a public figure is a far more stable matter.
Obama’s strength and Romney’s weakness lie just here. Obama’s ratio of approval/disapproval ratings have consistently been significantly higher than either the Republican or the Democratic Party. Each of these three has a positive ratio, more people approving of them than disapproving of them.
Romney, up to now, has had a negative ratio. He will be doing quite well if he reverses this and finally shows a positive ratio of more people approving than disapproving of him a week from the debate. After that, he has to catch up with both of the parties and the President himself. It’s a little late to be running either on his personality or off of Obama’s.
The key for Romney is the answer to the “if the election were held today” question. If he has a clear and unequivocal lead on this one by Friday, November 2, he has good chance of winning.
But no more than a good chance. The electoral vote structure favors Obama far more heavily than the popular vote totals do. It depends as much on where Mitt makes up ground as how much ground he makes up. He cannot rely on the Great Red Swath alone.
In either event the “There, I told you, Obama is a real….” (You fill in the blank.) is largely cheerleading rather than a significant part of the game.
October 5th, 2012 | 9:44 pm
Here’s Spengler’s brutally honest analysis of the Gifted One’s patological personality:
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/10/04/the-character-test-in-the-2012-election/
October 6th, 2012 | 5:16 am
So here is a more kindly explanation from Dana Milbank on why Obama was so unprepared for last Wednesday’s debate: self-imposed insularity.
“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 … 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…
… This insularity led directly to the Denver debacle: Obama was out of practice and unprepared to be challenged. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-president-obama-doesnt-meet-the-press/2012/10/04/ac688c8a-0e78-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html
Which is an interesting contrast to this account of Romney’s preparations for the debate:
“During the mock debates, Portman engaged Romney as if they were testy undergraduates at the Oxford Union. Portman, acting as Obama, hammered Romney on every part of his agenda, sometimes to the point of belittling him … Romney told reporters that Portman was getting under his skin. “I’m just glad I won’t be debating Rob Portman in the final debates,” Romney said, smiling. “He’s good.””
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329465/romney-s-playbook-robert-costa
Maybe needing to feel like your the smartest guy in the room has very practical consequences.
I’m sorry. Is that me cheerleading again? ;-)
October 6th, 2012 | 8:52 am
My five-point response to these astute and balanced comments is as follows:
Give me an “N!” NNNN!!!!
Give me an “A!” AAAA!!!!
Give me a “K!” KAAY!!!!
Give me an “E!” EEEE!!!!
Give me a “D!” DEEE!!!!
What does it spell? NAAAKKED!!!!
I said, what does it spell? NAKED! NAKED! NAKED! NAKED! NAAAY-KED!
October 6th, 2012 | 10:42 am
Paul,
if you go to the IRS web site:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0%2C%2Cid=133521%2C00.html
you will find out that the 47% figure is not far from the truth. That’s about how many pay nothing, or less then 1% of the Federal Income Tax.
Now there will be a significant number of retired people who have only SS for income, & the way the tax code is, they will pay little or nothing. This group is living on current workers paying into SS, like a giant Ponzi scheme. After I retired, I got my payments into SS back in about 3years, including interest accumulated in my payments. Since then we have been living on the payments of current workers.
Looking at the economy, & demographics, with less workers entering the workplace, then leaving, the trustees may have to move the insolvency date for SS & Medicare up from 2034 & 2023. And with the increasing US debt, those dates may move up even faster.
Here is a comparison between the Obama & Ryan plan, look & weep.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AP726_1wedge_D_20120905181504.jpg
October 6th, 2012 | 10:12 pm
Looking at J. Bob’s comment, I would have a couple of questions for him:
Are you preparing to go back into the workforce 10 years from now or less at whatever job level for which you are still competitive?
Are you ready to let go of your 80/20 Medicare coverage for vouchers to private insurers?
Now, of course, J. Bob and I are probably about the same age, so the issues are somewhat different for us than for the Generation X folks which I suspect includes most of the bloggers and most of the commenters here.
If you are a member of Generation X, I would have the following questions for you:
Do you currently make above the median income of $50,000? If you do, do you expect to work for a living until you are either physically decrepit, mentally demented, or dead? If not, how do you intend to acquire enough wealth to manage the sharp drop in your employability after age 55, and the distinct possibility that you might live at least 20 years longer?
If you don’t currently make above the median income what are your realistic prospects for rising above that level? If they are less than ideal, in what way other than wages, salaries, and tips are you planning to stop living from paycheck to paycheck, if you haven’t stopped already? For even your employability will also decline after age 55, and you might live longer than that if you are actually able to afford and obtain regular health care in the immediate future.
I think it’s time that those who espouse the Conservative point of view to render it’s consequences back into human terms, put their own name, address, and income into the blanks and do the math for their own bottom line.
As for me, I already have done so, and am prepared to have my life shortened by somewhere between about 5-10 years in consequence, if the Conservative point of view prevails.
October 7th, 2012 | 1:40 pm
And this just in from CBS. It appears staffers from inside the leviathan that is the Barack Obama campaign are further validating my earlier post-mortem of the debate. Granted they are spinning it as John Kerry’s fault, but the underlying narrative is that this president is the victim of his own “Barack O Bubble”:
Norah O’Donnell: “Some Democrats say [Obama's] campaign needs a wake-up call. Bill Plante is here with that part of the story. Bill, you’ve been talking to your sources; what are they saying?
Correspondent Bill Plante: “Well Norah, they’re simply upset and really outraged. They blame the President’s team, first of all, for not preparing him to meet the challenge of an aggressive Mitt Romney. They say that nobody in the room challenged him, including the guy that he was debating with, John Kerry, because, as they say, he wants to be Secretary of State so he’s not going to get in the President’s face. And Presidents are used to deference; they’re not used to people challenging them like that. So they think that the debate prep was terrible, but they also fault the President himself for not understanding that Romney was going to be more aggressive.”
This is getting dangerously close to placing the blame on the guy in charge. I wonder how long it will take for the president to own it. Answer: likely never.
I’m sorry. Is that me cheering again? ;-)
October 7th, 2012 | 8:02 pm
@ Paul Seaton-
Did you listen to the actual sound bite (yeah, the edited one missing 2 -3 minutes directly following the words aired)?
Or do you just swallow whole the talking point and spin from Obama & Co.?
First of all, the 47% referred to VOTES, not people. He never said he didn’t care about those people. Ever. He said he could never get their votes because they are more interested in the THINGS and entitlements Obama promises them. (Did you see the “Cellphone Lady” video last week? Wonder what all those people who were so certain Obama was going to pay their rent, buy them a car, and so on if he won, are thinking right now…
The Left is astonishingly generous with other
people’s money (Hey, did it ever occur to you and your liberal pals how much more good all that money raised at those incessant $40,000-a seat dinners would do if it were applied directly to the charitable causes the left are so fond of). For the supposedly smart successful people who donate the bucketloads of cash to a campaign which plows through it without thinking. Precisely because it IS other people’s money.
The continuous echo of the Left to use the “47% thing” to hit Romney, expecially in the next debate, might just come back to bite you all in the butt. Romney thinks like an organized businessman who analyzes problems, sets his goals and then makes a plan to achieve. Such was the case when Romney analyzed how he could win the Presidency, and he recognized there was a certain base he wouldn’t be able to capture because they are focused on the THINGS Obama promises, not his governance.
(Interesting how the Left also has selective memory when it comes to “THE ONE.” His comment – said in a private setting at a fundraiser, exactly like the one Romney attended — about most of Middle America clinging to their guns and religion was just a prelude to his arrogance, bigotry, and divisiveness we all now recognize as Obama’s signature.
The video released last week of Obama appearing at a black campaign event in 2008, revealed a slimey politician with the ethics and morality of a toad, as he put on an obvious phony “Southern Black” accent to fire up resentment and hatred of “them” (White America) as taught to him by his mentor, Rev. Wright to whom he gave a big “shoutout.” How many weeks later did he throw his esteemed Rev. right under the bus because politically, it was becoming a liability.
Those of you who support this man who keeps no promises, blantantly lies, and leads coverups to potential scandals (can you say “Fast and Furious” gun program? Or maybe you like the way Obama and his administration has been running an obvious cover-up of the real facts concerning the rape and death of our Ambassador to Libya and 3 other Americans — a horror and a blantant act of Terrorism, something our President denies exists.
October 8th, 2012 | 12:02 am
Joseph Marshall:
“Obama’s ratio of approval/disapproval ratings have consistently been significantly higher than either the Republican or the Democratic Party.”
Joseph Marshall, have you been unconscious for the past 2 years or are you simply incapable of critical thinking?
Do you really not have a clue why Romney’s negatives have been so high? Have you heard none of the incessant barrage of Romney bashing by the Obama campaign, and the obligingly repetitive MSM? “Romney is one of those evil venture capitalists who care about no one and nothing in the pursuit of money!” “Romney tied his dog to the top of his car.” (even if it was in a kennel. What a barbarian!) Romney owned Bain and Bain capital took over a steel plant, and an employee lost his job and 5 years later the employee’s wife died….so Romney’s a murderer.” “Romney’s a murderer!” “Romney is waging a war on women!” “Romney has never paid taxes!” Romney’s an evil mormon says Harry Reid — not at all the exemplary Mormon that Harry Reid is. As per Harry Reid. Obama not being able to fix things is all the Republicans fault. They are nothing but obstructionists. Never mind that Obama’s attitude has always been “[his] way” or the highway. Because, “[he] won.” (said he)
The volume and degree of lies has been astonishing. Almost but not quite, as astonishing as the use of it to distract from Obama’s failings and should-have-been scandals.
The bottom line is that there is nothing that Obama and his campaign haven’t done or will not do to hold on to power. Nothing! His loyalty is of convenience so long as it is of use to him. The most recent and blatant example is the in-our-faces cover-up of Ambassador Steven’s horrific murder and the three other Americans. But never mind! This guy was only serving his country in one of the most dangerous places in the world, but his death is just too bad. On with campaigning and Las Vegas! Send out the surrogates to sell an obvious lie to the people and make sure the media amplifies the message and asks no inconvenient questions.
October 8th, 2012 | 12:34 am
There is nothing defensible about Obama and his minions’ behavior and misuse of the power of the Presidency. From the questionable manipulation of Congressional rules to pass Obamacare (which to this day, few, if any, know exactly what is in it including numerous new taxes — on the middle class….just wait!) to his interference in the bankruptcy of GM where first-in-line creditors (the bond holders) were subordinated in favor of the Unions at his orders and his giving away of 1/2 of Chrysler to Fiat(for not a penny — just “intellectual property” of making small cars) never mind all the people who one seems to remember all the people whom he put out of business by closing dealerships (unless an owner was a big donor and/or had the right political connection) and all the people he put out of work as a result. (Anyone ever wonder why jobs numbers aren’t the net of jobs destroyed and jobs created?) From his “czars” with budgets totalling billions but answerable only to him (not Congress as per the law) to his “Executive orders” circumventing the law, his “Interim appointments” whether Congress is in session or not, to his Attorney General who determines who will be prosecuted based on race” and what states they will sue for passing laws they deem to be unconstitutional (even when they only seek to enforce our national laws which Obama and his Administration not only refuse to do, but order federal officials to do likewise.” And let’s not forget his starstruck ways, preferring to rub shoulders with celebrities and athletes than attend to the most serious national issues.
It goes on and on. This arrogant, conceited man has tarnished the Presidency of the United States, with both his domestic and foreign policies.
The only thing more frustrating and saddening than the fact that this man has never been questioned, never been critically scrutinized by the media which have wholly abdicated their responsibility of a free press, is the reverence accorded this man by so many ignorant or disiterested people who continue to think he will lower the seas (after all, he said he would), and question nothing themselves, even the most obvious.
Sorry for the rant if it offends everyone — but after these last 3 1/2 years in which I’ve seen things happen in our America that I could never have imagined, and having read one too many comments exuding the worship his followers exhibit without reasons to do so other than, perhaps a blind allegiance to a political party instead of assessment of the man, it…just spilled over.
October 8th, 2012 | 9:58 am
Mr. Simon, once again, this medium concealed infinitely more than it reveals. If you happened to know me, you wouldn’t have any doubts or concerns about my views of the respective candidates. I posed the question, or raised the topic again, because my good friend Carl Scott has an admirable quality of fair-play and acknowledging inconvenient facts which are often ignored or distorted in political discourse. I thought bringing up the topic of contempt for one’s fellow countrymen in connection with President Obama merited a revisiting of candidate Romney’s remarks, or at least acknowledging that there were grounds for such queries addressed to Governor Romney. I could have been wrong in this thought, but it in no way was motivated by partisan hackery. As it happens, Governor Romney said after the recent debate that he “was just completely wrong” in what he said. (I sent a link to the interview with the repudiation to Carl, who might be able to post it.) Not to belabor the point, but about about your binary framing of the possibilities of the meaning of my query: tertium non datur. Take care.
October 8th, 2012 | 10:24 am
John Marshall,
A full response wold take to long, but let me say this, I remember WWII quite well. I also remember the rationing, & having a garden. I remember learning about living a life where necessities were more valued then want, & a warm pair of mittens & coat for Christmas was most welcome. A set of 6 small toy soldiers was a dream come true. I also remember that sight of evictions, with furniture piled in the street, & children on welfare who were most thankful for a pair of winter shoes.
In particular, the fable about the Grasshopper & the Ants. About a happy care free grasshopper, how he hopped his way through summer singing away, until winter set in. Then reality set in, & he was saved by the ants, that worked all summer getting ready for winter.
When my wife & I were married ( she also came from what would called now days poor, but normal back then), you might say we agreed to live like the ants. That is, watch our $’s very carefully, & spend on what was necessary (good education for our children, & teach them about saving & $’s). No, we did not have a “vacation” every year, or much longer, & the new “used” car had to last at least 10 years. We would visit relatives & stay with them, with the kids sleeping on the living room floor. In short we lived what would be called simply, & saved for the autumn of our lives.
As far as your question about going back to work after retiring, if necessary yes. Starting at a job of $0.25/hr, I paid my way through a local Catholic College.That work included cleaning toilets, standing by steaming meat kettles, pouring hot metal, shoveling sand all day in the sun. Wasn’t fun, but it paid for an education, and leaned many things useful later in life.
As far as Medicare, I have to wonder if that program is more a curse, then blessing. But if vouchers gives us the care I grew up with, in a small town clinic, I can live, on my allotted time, with that.
October 8th, 2012 | 4:18 pm
J.Bob, I admire your tenacity and motivation. But without prejudice, your opportunity to do this occurred largely in a time when both interest rates on savings (not investment, savings, with FDIC insurance against bank failure) paid interest rates between 3-7% depending on the current economic situation and buying a house with a loan was virtually certain to store equity for the retirement years.
That world has been utterly destroyed. It ceased to exist in 2002 with the outrageously ballooning spending for the Iraq and Afganistan wars and the compensating action by the Fed to hold some semblance of prosperity in this country by pushing interest rates down to a level which brought down the home mortgage industry, destroyed massive amounts of personal home equity, and made saving with both safety and decent return impossible for the ordinary person. The Fed has made it clear that it will continue this policy indefinitely.
You had a level playing field. Someone starting out now where you started has nothing of the kind. Period. The winter store of food the ant is saving is constantly being raided through manipulated gasoline price spikes and uncontrolled and unregulated Stock Market bubbles that have forced the poorest of the hard working out of a job over and over again, eating up every accumulated savings and forcing the out of work to repeatedly live off credit cards between jobs at usurious interest and fees.
Even an ant can’t save for the winter if the fields have been burned to the ground by repeated brush fires.
October 8th, 2012 | 8:39 pm
“Joseph Marshall, have you been unconscious for the past 2 years or are you simply incapable of critical thinking?
Do you really not have a clue why Romney’s negatives have been so high? Have you heard none of the incessant barrage of Romney bashing by the Obama campaign, and the obligingly repetitive MSM?”
Of course I have a clue about this. But it is beside the point. Whatever the reason for it, it is what Romney has to contend with and work around. Just like Obama has to work around his African last name. Romney’s finally doing pretty well at it at the moment.
I must say I find so many conservatives to be excessively “fact challenged”. We have the media we have. So now what? You don’t hear Romney crying in his beer about it. He and his campaign are too busy trying to develop a work around, because he needs one and pronto. In that very good sense he is a professional politician, and a grown-up.
Anybody can contribute some small work around to this, even if it’s only calling up your nearest Romney field office and trying to get a yard sign or a bumper sticker. Or signing up for as much political mail as possible. I know from personal experience extending all the way back to the Howard Dean campaign that if you get on enough of these lists you will have pollsters, plural, calling you for your opinion constantly. My household has been averaging about 5 polling calls a week since I live in a strongly contested state.
You will also get yourself a lot of trash mail from campaigns. But if you really care enough about the result, you can put up with it. That’s what grown-ups like Romney do, put up with it and keep scratching around for solutions. What you do or what I do won’t make problems go away like a magic wand, but it is a contribution, and a real one, even if a tiny one.
October 8th, 2012 | 10:06 pm
John Marshall,
there has never been, and probably never will be a “level playing field”. Most of what you get out of life is how much you put into it, & use your head for something other then a hat rack.
Growing up across the RR tracks from a “shanty town”, my dear 4’10″ mother was pretty direct in getting my “tenacity & motivation” going. It was more like “quite whining & get it done, or I’ll tell your dad”. That was a motivator most of the kids I grew up with had. We made the best of what little we we had (by modern standards), but in the process we learned, even when we failed.
October 9th, 2012 | 6:55 am
Well, J Bob, good luck to you, and may your life reflect the strength of your values and the example of your attitude bring hope to all who need it.
October 9th, 2012 | 8:31 am
Joseph Marshall,
first of all, an apology for getting you name wrong.
Sometimes in responding to quickly, especially on a blog site, one can miss the most important & obvious of things. In this case, prayer.
In reflection, there is no question that God gave us the wisdom to make use of the opened doors presented to us. While we have some control over local things, we have an infinitesimal control over the rest. We therefore come before God, & ask his guidance & help, to do our best, of what we have been given.
God Bless
October 9th, 2012 | 8:55 pm
[...] astounding story from the Daily Mail holds up (via Campaign Spot, which quotes the key stuff), that Jonathan Tobin and I were absolutely right about the reason for Obama’s stumble: he arrogantly believed his own B.S. about Romney, and [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact