Skip to main content

Obama lost the debate tonight.

He lost MISERABLY.

He did so without a single gaffe and without a single factually incorrect statement.

So he lost the battle, but won the war. Join me after the orange noodle for why.

It's simple.

During that 90 minutes, Mitt Romney directly contradicted himself on past statements in debates and on the campaign trail with nearly every sentence out of his mouth.

The Obama campaign now has all of the material it needs for every ad from now until November 6. After 90 minutes of Romney prevarication, every last statement can be played in an ad followed up by a directly contradictory statement either from a GOP primary debate or from a stump speech.

Obama's performance tonight had nothing to do with putting points on the board.

Obama's performance tonight was all about letting 50 million Americans watch Mitt Romney's convincing language speak for itself so that it can be placed directly opposite of Mitt Romney stating the exact opposite of what he said in the debate.

50 million Americans will now see Mitt Romney's beautiful  statements from tonight's debate be directly refuted by none other than Mitt Romney.

IMO, this was the most brilliant performance of using a debate for pure political advantage in the history of American presidential politics.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And he looked miserable doing it (8+ / 0-)

    I'll believe my lying eyes than MSNBC.

    Yes Mitt, I do believe people are entitled to food.

    by Rustbelt Dem on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 09:17:55 PM PDT

  •  IF OFA, Priorities and allies do as you suggest (7+ / 0-)

    Then yeah, I agree you may be onto something.  

    Obama and his guys historically tend to look weak during the climax of an action chain, but they tend to finish strong, and also in retrospect they always seem to have been right.

    Look:

    2008 Campaign, Healthcare fight, Debt Ceiling battles, Foreign Policy (remember Cheney's megaphone early in the Obama administration?)

    Looked like he was being pushed around, but he'd always FINISH strong. Also looking at them now.

    I'm going go out on a limb--and I may be wrong--and argue that the Obama guys know what they're doing on this one.

    Based on 'ze facts' they shouldn't even be competitive after all.

  •  The Media won tonight (6+ / 0-)

    Now it's a horse race, the media's wet dream.

  •  Obama's team plan came through in 2008 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Hey338Too, jayden, gffish

    when many were urging him to fight more. The same thoughts occurred to me that this was not an "off" night but a "planned, reasoned response."
         I sat there aghast at the lies Mitt was spouting, not to mention the total turn arounds on some of his positions. That he would still have the nerve to mention the $716 billion medicare "cut" that has been debunked and debunked, then to talk about how he wasn't cutting taxes for the rich, etc. I can't believe he didn't trip over his flip-flops, but I know the information will be put to good use.

  •  I do not care how many times it shows up in pop (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NMDad, Gooserock, cishart, Zornorph, Odysseus, RodE

    culture.

    In reality, you almost never allow yourself to suffer a loss just so you can maneuver the person around you, especially not in the first debate on a narrative of huge momentum for your side.

    You are one step away from Fox & Friends level when you try to spin this as part of a grand plan. Obama may be able to successfully capitalize on these things as part of his ad and future debate strategy, yes. That is different from intentionally trying to lose.

    •  Ad material is everything (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, Glinda, gffish, KenBee

      Debates are nearly meaningless in the end.

      And there will be no more powerful message than ad after ad of Mitt Romney debating himself, which is what the OFA has now.

      •  Ads are also nearly meaningless at this point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jayden, gffish

        They will continue to be run because there's nothing else to be done with the money and they have some effect, but advertisement's huge diminishing returns curve is well-known.

      •  BTW, you know what would have had huge impact? (6+ / 0-)

        "OBAMA SEALS THE DEAL: After three weeks of mishaps, Mitt Romney was obliterated in the Presidential debate. Is there any hope left for his campaign?"

        That's the news story that would have run.

        •  Never could have happened in this debate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gooserock, ahumbleopinion

          There was no way to refute everything Romney said, Every last sentence out of his mouth was a lie.

          Better to save it all up and let Romney refute himself by letting him debate himself in ad after ad after ad after ad after ad after ad.

          •  Think 21st Century. An Obama Quip of Social Media (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ConfusedSkyes

            fact-checking while we debate would be the zinger.

            I spend 14 hours a day earning my living in 17th century technology and I'm a decade older than our antiquated President.

            --Who we desperately need to catch up.

            We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

            by Gooserock on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 09:43:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  True, (0+ / 0-)

          But with the strategy that Romney used (one that I'm not sure has ever been used to that extent) the only way to respond may have been to let Romney hang himself.

          Romney lied about everything. And if Obama called him on it, Romney would have simply lied again. You can't argue with a liar unless you allow people to see that they are in fact lying. Which is what the ads will do.

          I'm not delusional. I would never claim this was part of Obama's master debate plan, that would be a suicidal debate strategy. But we've never seen a liar quite like Romney.....he doesn't really care if he's caught, and like Al Sharpton said in the post debate coverage, he doesn't seem to realize that we have all of his past debate and speech positions at the push of a button.

          Now, while Romney is a calculated lying machine, he is most certainly going to be caught because he's sloppy and only thinks "who do I need to impress today" not "can they see what I said yesterday". The problem is, anyone who pays attention know that he's lying, but Republican voters don't care 'cause he's a Rpeublican. What we need is a way to show "low information" voters that all Romney did was spew a shit-load of attractive lies. The ad can do just that.

          Basically, you can't debate Mitt unless you can prove tothe average low-information voter that he's lying. And because they don't pay attention, the debate stage was a risky, yet stratgic way of doing that.

          Like I said, very risky (so it coudn't have been the only strategy, I hope) but if it works it could be a death blow.

    •  Also (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ahumbleopinion, KenBee

      It would have been impossible t refute all the lies. They knew Romney would be lying throughout and any attempt to actually refute the lies would have made the president look petty.

      Now, they can let Romney refute his own lies.

    •  No You ARE Fox/Friends Level nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Walt starr

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 09:31:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not outlandish. It's Obama. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Walt starr, ljb, cdsmith80

      See:

      2008 Campaign
      Healthcare implementation
      Debt ceiling
      Foreign Policy stance
      DADT

      Obamas METHODS always seem passive and weak.  His OUTCOMES are usually suspiciously sort of what he wanted. On eof the more disciplined politicians I've seen--begins with the end goal in mind.  Many are emotional about the process, and indifferent about the goal.  Obama seems to put conviction and heart in the goal but is unemotional and detached form the process.  

      •  Not denying that Pres. Obama favors a long game. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ash Tree, Odysseus, mirandasright, KingTag

        But intentionally allowing your opponent to recover when he's in a very weak media position is not part of any competent long or short game. If President Obama could have delivered a KO, he would have.

        •  Been reading your posts... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ConfusedSkyes

          ... and I am not sure that the President intentionally lost.  My feeling is that he played by the rules and Rmoney had a better night, for now.  My guess is that what we will also be seeing, in addition to ads, is a series of retractions made by the Rmoney campaign similar to those made after the MTP appearance.  They have a LOT of statements to unwind here because the press is going to be asking a LOT of questions about what Mitt said.

          Mitt's been saying he wants to lower tax rates by 20% for 2 years, tonight he basically said that wasn't the case because the new rates have to be revenue neutral.  So in reality the rates may be lowered by 3% - and everyone loses their deductions?  How's Rmoney going to square that?

          He basically said tonight that the oil company subsidies were on the table to lower the corporate rates to 25%, but $2.8B probably amounts to a .01% rate reduction for business.  And I'm sure the oil company execs were pleased as punch to hear about this during a debate - especially since they're spending $1B to get him elected.

          Mitt said tonight that he doesn't want to cut Education.  He flat out said that.  There are tea baggers that are sharpening their knives right now over that statement.

          Lastly, his $17K bucket suddenly became a 25 or 50K bucket (I think he said just to pick a number).  That little faux pas could leave a mark.

          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

          by Hey338Too on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 09:53:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You obviously weren't paying any attention (0+ / 0-)

      in 2008.  Go back and watch the debates in sequence.

      This is  how it's done.

      Additions to Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus: New synonyms for "inelegant": 1."stupid", "ignorant"; 2. "devious"; 3. "delusional"

      by Glinda on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 09:48:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree. That was clearly their strategy. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Walt starr, jayden, Glinda, gffish

    They decided that they're willing to take a temporary hit in the media and maybe even the polls to win the race.  They do have a ton of material to hit Romney with, and I have little doubt that Biden will be great in his debate, and Obama in his second debate.  Obama is such a great politician that I'm willing to give him more benefit of the doubt on this sort of thing than almost any other politician.

    But still, I do think Obama could have played that strategy while still being more pro-active in defending his record (30 months of private sector job growth) and refuting the absolutely worst of Romney's prevarication aka $716 billion.

  •  Like Kos said....Prevent Defense. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Walt starr, profundo, Odysseus, KenBee

    Gave up some yards, sure. But no touchdown.

    And its 52-20 in the 4th quarter........

    "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

    by TheHalfrican on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 09:31:08 PM PDT

  •  The arrogance of mitt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Walt starr, gffish

    was amazing.  Most of us wee widdle 47%ers understand that all to well.  I agree with you on letting mitt be mitt too, why bother to debate a man who clearly debates himself over and over again.  It is patience that wins out at the end of the day.  You cannot expect to catch a wiley fish on the first cast, go get that old movie "On Golden Pond" and you will see what I mean.  Mitt has filleted  himself so all can see, now watch all of his minions finish finding their false teeth on the floor so they can try to save his sorry ass to his base.  One down and two to go, lets just see how this all works out.

  •  rope a dope :: liars lie (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee

    lies are like money in the bank

    'mission accomplished'

  •  We can all say that here (and elsewhere), (0+ / 0-)

    ...but I'll believe it when I see it.  I don't see anyone handing it to Obama tonight.  I didn't watch, so I don't know.

    The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early....Well, what are we waiting for? There's no deadline on a dream!

    by Panurge on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 09:59:54 PM PDT

  •  This makes absolutely no sense (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish, Ash Tree

    and it sounds almost as pathetic to my ears as the Republicans crying about the polls.

    Do you think Romney wasn't going to make the same assertions if the President had refuted his lies with facts and figures?   Couldn't the same commercials be made after the debate?

    Why did President Obama have to look disinterested and unprepared for this?   Please explain.

  •  running out the clock (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee

    First of all, I don't concede that Obama lost this debate.  I'm just not buying it.  From Obama I saw confidence and clarity.  From Romney I saw contradictory ideas and a hint of desperation.  Was it close yes, was it a tie maybe.. but that's the plan.  It's Obama's election to lose, and he is not going to throw long when all he has to do is play it safe and run down the clock.

  •  Rope-a-dope... (0+ / 0-)

    only works if you fight back when the opponent thinks he has you on the ropes. Obama came to a knife fight armed with a legal pad.

  •  I hope you are right... (0+ / 0-)

    The DNC needs to be using this stuff immediately, but now with the reduction of states that will get exit polls, the campaign needs to focus on swing states and win over those voters.  I think they have the money, which Romney and the RNC doesnt as they just borrowed 20mil so they can get over the clutter.  In fact, Romney is relying on robo calls because of the cost....

  •  I hope that was the strategy (0+ / 0-)

    I think it's foolish to assume that Obama's strategy was o simply stay quiet the whole time, but it's completely reasonable to think t was part of his strategy....and probably the only part that worked.

    It's simple, if Romney lied 2 or 3 times I'm sure Obama woudl have been willing to call him out on it. However, Romney lied nearly every time he opened his mouth, so calling him a liar on every single issue woud have made Obama look childish and would only feed into the notion that Republicans and Democrats are the same (an opinion held by many independents, and one that only someone who never pays attention would believe....meaning a lot of independents). Undecided voters would have seen that as Obama just using the standard political response of calling your opponent a liar and wold have assumed it was just part of "the game". In short, it would have lessened the impact of Romney's lies.

    I'm happy that the Obama campaign is using footage from the debate, it gives me a sense of validation that it was part of his strategy. I've only seen one clip from the debate used in an ad, but Romney gave Obama 45 minutes of lies to work with so I'm betting we'll see more in the coming weeks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site