Cross-posted from mediadeconstruction.com.com
I've been seeing a lot of glum, "house is on fire," "Obama lost the debate" loser talk here on Kos. I say non-sense. President Obama did exactly what he needed to do. Follow me below the fold on why.
After watching the debates tonight and scanning through the reaction, there are some things that have really bothered me about the “Mitt Romney won” narrative that seems to have developed. The first thing I would like to point out: the immediate reaction, in the press, the punditry, and most voters, stems from the presentation from the two candidates. The comparisons of body language, energy, and general appearance are, of course, superficial, and only drive the first news cycle or two. Romney’s preparation, the expectation from his base, and his own political tendencies all but guaranteed he would come out attacking energetically. On this, he succeeded. He came off as energetic, and did a good job memorizing and delivering the zingers his campaign staff had prepackaged coming in to the debate.
President Obama, on the other hand, faced a different situation. President Obama needed to remain reasoned, above the fray, and clear. The general narrative I have been seeing has been “Obama seemed defensive.” Well, one of the few unfortunate accompaniments to the incumbency is a record that, yes, you must defend. President Obama did a solid job clearly explaining specific actions he has taken in his presidency on a wide range of issues. The mere breadth of issues covered by President Obama when discussing specific things he has done reflects his efficacy in getting things done (although I fully recognize this will not be part of the public take away from the debates). In addition to defending his record, President Obama laid out a detailed vision he is offering for the next four years and detailed positions on the issues at hand. Mitt Romney did not, even when offered opportunities by Obama and Lehrer to provide specifics on taxes, Medicare, replacing Obamacare, and replacing Dodd-Frank. Romney ducked, instead taking the time to continue to attack President Obama.
Now, here’s the point: Romney’s energy, constant interrupting, and talking over people made his presence seem dominating enough to win over immediate reactions. People saw his energy and said he won. Everyone seems to be forgetting, however, that the debates will be discussed and dissected by every news outlet from now until next Thursday. Such analysis, after temperatures have cooled, will invariably look to the substance of what the two candidates said. I know people wanted to see Obama go after Romney’s lies and hammer him over his distortions, and the disappointment that he didn’t is palpable. However, upon further reflection, President Obama made the right call in a way that will pay dividends in the coming weeks. By not allowing Romney to drag him into a tit-for-tat contest of name-calling and lie corrections, President Obama maximized the use of his time by staying on message and laying out a detailed and specific plan for a multitude of issues. President Obama didn’t need to call out every lie; that’s why we have a free press. Over the coming weeks, Romney’s attacks will all be checked and all of the falsehoods will be widely discussed. By drawing the contrast on the depth of his plan versus the empty rhetoric of Romney, after the falsehoods in his attacks are laid bare, the narrative carrying the day will be Romney running fast and loose with the facts and still providing few details on his plans. We already see evidence of this mere hours after the debate with headlines like this: “Romney goes on offense and pays for it in first round of fact checks”.
Finally, by making the mistake of running heavy on energetic performance and light on substance, Romney ran the risk of talking off the cuff and revealing important and damaging things about his own world view. Take this nugget that Mitt Romney dropped for instance:
The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.
Mitt Romney essentially argues, “Deductions for off-shoring American jobs can’t exist or I would know about them and have been benefiting from them.” Mitt Romney, running on job creation, implies he would fire his accountant for not making him aware of the tax deductions he could be getting for firing even more people. Mitt saying such a thing unscripted speaks even more to how Mitt truly views the world. Never mind that there is evidence that these deductions for off-shoring exist, and never mind that Republicans protected these deductions with the same energy that Mitt used in talking down the moderator. The very fact that the above quote about the deductions was Romney’s reaction to them tells you all you need to know about how much he cares about the middle class.
President Obama laid out a clear, detailed vision, and Romney did not not. OFA now has a veritable treasure chest of lies they can use in ads and pressroom talking points. Democrats can run the media circuit citing all of the fact checks about Romney’s lies. And that quote, that money quote, better find its way into some ads. While Romney won the initial reaction, and maybe a day or two of headlines, I think that will change dramatically over the next few weeks as analysis shifts from initial reaction to substance of argument.
Chill the fuck out people. President Obama's got this.