Did something more important than winning & losing happen at the first Presidential #Debate?

Election 2012

MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE that President Obama lost the first Presidential debate. Polls show it. Pundits announced it. Even his most ardent supporters are bemoaning it. They're rushing to provide excuses for his loss. “The air in Denver was too thin.” “He was too busy governing to prepare properly.” “He was distracted by his wedding anniversary.” “He looked tired.” Funny, he didn't look tired to me. One even played the racism card: “He had to be careful not to appear as an angry black man.”

Click to enlarge

In truth, I was surprised by how well he debated. President Obama has never before shown a flair for extemporaneous speaking. Each time he turns away from the teleprompter, we are drawn into an adventure filled with malaprops and misstatements, much like George Bush. However, during the debate, he remained focused and stated his case with authority. I recorded and studied the event carefully, and never saw him falter. Tired? He never yawned. He didn't look at his watch. He was attentive and reacted instantaneously when something humorous occurred. He never once missed a comment or a question, and never asked for anything to be repeated. Still, everyone seemed to think that he was tired. Why?

That was the question that plagued me as I studied the debate and reviewed audience Tweets or listened to the post debate commentaries. The only conclusion that I can reach is that the President and his supporters were confronted with something far worse than a personal loss. They were confronted with the fact that they have no record to run on. They have no message except to blame their predecessor or attempt to libel their opponent. 

The moderator attempted to help the President by phrasing every question in a way that invited him to define his opponent's positions and proposals and then differentiate his. He began each topic saying, "What are the differences between you and your opponent." How else could anyone respond but by first defining the opposition?

Obama used this opportunity to misstate Romney's proposals in the same terms that have been used in his attack ads. Much to his credit, Romney didn't attack Obama, he attacked his record. He cited irrefutable facts that clearly demonstrate that Obama's progressive principles have failed as when he stated that "Trickle down government is the flood of your failed policies." When Obama complained that subsidies to "fat cat" corporations, such as $2 billion per year to oil companies, indicate misplaced priorities and that budgets reflect "where your heart is", Romney correctly observed that his Administration has invested "$90 billion in green jobs - that's the equivalent of 45 years of oil subsidies." 

In the past, debate moderators have protected Obama from such attacks. Jim Lehrer tried it just once in the beginning and Romney brushed him aside to press his attack. Throughout the debate, the President looked away from the audience and his opponent, as Romney attacked other failures of this Administration.

The Obamas after the First Debate 2012. Expressions tell the story. (Click to enlarge)

We didn't need anyone else's opinion of who won or lost the debate. Obama's look told the story. He didn't lose, he surrendered. I wonder if he fails to be reelected, we will at last repudiate his ideas and the progressive ideology that drives them.