So we now know, if this 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 shirked his prep on the assumption that he would be easy to defeat.
I’m not so sure yet about there being any statement from Obama right after the debate to the effect that he initially thought he had won, but that is what the Daily Mail reporter is reporting!
But the shirking, and the contempt for Romney’s ability? That’s confirmed by a campaign insider.
What can one say? Well, I once said some nice things about Obama in my partial defense of his literary interests, but that was also a close analysis of his…er, “composite-ing.”
Paul Seaton, a good friend of mine, compliments me somewhere below on my efforts to be fair and balanced on matters political…thank you, perhaps my many years as a pro-life Dem has helped me there. But compared with Lawler and Ceaser, I’m losing it with Obama. Or put it this way: I’m glad they’re trying to be fair to the imaginary Obama that exists in many good Democrats’ minds, but I somehow can’t bring myself to conduct that task of measuring him by standard political analysis, of assuming the comparison with others who have held the office can this time be the reliable guide. This president is way out there in his willingness to lie and in the extent of his own self-delusion. I honestly think the most sober, subjective thing you can say on the subject requires all the caps, italics, and exclamation points you can find: