I've read a lot of excuses over the last couple of days for President Obama's debate performance, from the utterly ridiculous - 'He was thinking about his wedding anniversery!' - to the marginally less ridiculous - 'He was thinking about Turkey and Syria!' - to the somewhat reasonable - 'Governor Romney's pivot took the President by surprise!'
Here's another to consider, from the Washington Post's Dana Milbank.
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. Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, 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. The White House had supposed that Obama’s forays into social media — town hall meetings with YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the like — would replace traditional presidential communication. By relying on such venues, Obama’s argument skills atrophied, and he was ill-equipped to engage in old-fashioned give and take.
Putting aside Mr Milbank's predictable, smarmy jabs - "He is a president, not a king"; "For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry" - intuitively, at least, there's some sense in this argument. Debate is a skill which benefits from regular practice, and talking with aides isn't the same as taking questions from reporters who are actively trying to trip you up.
Notice something else in Mr Milbank's article.
Towson University political scientist Martha Kumar, who keeps a running tally of Obama’s media appearances, tells me he has had 19 solo news conferences in the White House as of Sept. 30. That compares to 26 for Ronald Reagan at the same point in his presidency, 59 for George H.W. Bush, and 31 for Bill Clinton. Obama had more formal news conferences than George W. Bush (13), but Bush engaged in many more informal Q&A sessions with reporters: 340 at this stage in his presidency to Obama’s 105. (Clinton had 585 at this point, the elder Bush had 309 and Reagan had 135.) (emphasis added - OCL)
Perhaps one of the greatest debaters of our generation, Bill Clinton needed to be all but physically restrained by his staff from taking questions from reporters. President Clinton thrived on sparring with the press pool, and it showed in his ability to think and respond on his feet.
From what I've seen over the last five years, going back to the last presidential campaign, this isn't President Obama's style, and it's not suddenly going to become his style over the next week or two, either. The President is a very intelligent man, of course, but this isn't about intelligence - it's rhetorical agility, a different skill altogether from the ability to, say, critically evaluate information and discern nuance, both of which I believe President Obama possesses.
The President can, however, work on his debate skills, if he chooses to do so, and a press conference or answering a few questions from the press gaggle between campaign stops would provide a good tune-up.