Muhammad Ali brought this wonderful term into our national lexicon thirty-eight years ago when he fought George Foreman. I hadn't been born yet (my parents hadn't even met, hell), but the Rumble in the Jungle was enough of a famous sporting moment that even I, at 27, have long known what it's referring to. Ah yes, that — that moment in a head-to-head matchup where one deliberately plays passive defense in order to both frustrate and confuse the opposition, hoping to expose their potential weaknesses. At least, that's the metaphor. Keep your pants on, progressives, because this is why President Barack Obama won last night's debate:
Before the ranting and raving starts, let me restate that: Obama WON the debate.
And did so handily. It's a simple strategy really, just your opponent box the air while you stay back, waiting. Just let your knockout come at the perfect time, say when that opponent has no more punches to throw and you've figured out the perfect opportunity to hit him at his weakest. It's basic strategy. When you're the superior force, defend yourself and save your blows. Strategy. Tyrion not Cersei.
This is exactly what Barack Obama did: he defended and let Mitt expose himself as the moderate that (by conviction or by circumstance) he actually is. Here's why this is important: Mitt's conservative base does not tolerate moderation. The conservative media outlets that today champion Mitt's apparent victory against the president do not tolerate moderation. Run-of-the-mill conservative voters don't like moderates. Evangelicals do not tolerate moderates. These are the constituencies Romney needs to turn out en masse come November, and they are not the sort that tolerate dissension in the conservative ranks. Mitt walked right into this trap last night, speaking in favor of "socialist" programs like Social Security and Medicare, railing against the banking industry, defending his record as a centrist governor of Massachusetts.
The president kept his powder dry. He chose not to mention Romney's "47%" remark, chose not to attack Romney on Romneycare, chose not to go after Romney in a direct way. That's strategy, not passivity or underperformance. The president will not keep his powder dry in debates two and three, mark my words; and Romney exposed his vulnerable points to a base that already isn't fond of him. Lacking the ground game the president has, Romney simply cannot afford to alienate his rabidly conservative base, despite the fact that, welp, he just did. Obama won the debate clearly by espousing a strategic view that wins the long game (no, not eleven-dimensional chess or anything ridiculous like that).