Somewhere between Mitt Romney going there by comparing Pres. Obama to “his boys” and Romney’s third different bald-faced lie about his tax plan, Obama fell back from a debate strategy of being reactive to an actual performance that, for long stretches, was merely passive. (Or to put it more bluntly, in the word of the inimitable Charlie Pierce: “…if you’re going to play rope-a-dope, sooner or later, you have to come off the ropes and throw a punch…. Otherwise, it’s just a way to get yourself punched in the stomach a lot“.)
By contrast, Romney acted like a “scrappy underdog“, and executed his campaign’s strategy of not letting the facts get in the way of what he wants to say.
For Obama supporters looking for good news out of last night’s debate, it’s worth recalling that—with the notable exception of Bill Clinton in 1996—incumbent American presidents usually perform poorly in their first debate. Sometimes—as with Reagan in 1984 and W. Bush in 2004—they improve in later debates. Sometimes (H. W. Bush in 1992) they don’t. And, as James Fallows pointed out weeks ago, Romney handles debates better than almost any other aspect of campaigning for office while the opposite is true for Pres. Obama.
Regardless, I bet David Axelrod woke up this morning wishing he’d been able to do more to counteract all the reasons why Obama wasn’t better prepared for last night:
“A president has every reason to postpone or avoid mock-debate sessions. The schedule is full; the necessity to play-act is demeaning; emergencies crop up. And thus a president avoids practicing skills that are indeed different from what he does day by day. “This is one of the reasons incumbent presidents tend to lose the first debate,” David Axelrod told me. “Generally, they have not had a debate for four years. You do your press conferences, but there are no time limits or rebuttals. We went through the most gifted sparring partner anyone has ever had last time, in Hillary Clinton. We don’t have that this time.” Even allowing for possible flattery of a former foe who is now an invaluable member of the Obama team, the point remains: an incumbent president is never challenged the way a mere candidate is.“
On the other hand, Barack Obama is a fierce competitor. (Just ask anyone who plays pickup basketball with him.) I’m going to inch out on a limb and say that Obama will be much sharper in the next debate.
What are your thoughts about the debate?
Crossposted at: http://masscommons.wordpress.com/
