I didn’t get caught up in all the hysteria of the first so
called Presidential debate. My idea of how this should have been done
is to stick them in front of a camera on a random day without
practice, preparation, or polish and don’t tell them what the
questions will be – oh and if either of them tell a lie, empty one
of those Nickelodeon buckets of slime on them.
But that's not what happened, and the
day after the carefully scripted and well rehearsed performance the
vast majority of viewers declared Romney victorious. It's very clear
that Truth, and Jim Lehrer were both losers, but is it too soon to
put Obama into that category.
Prior to the debate President Obama had
a ridiculous lead in the polls, so much so that Romney's funding was
in danger of drying up - the rumor being that the money would be used down
ticket to help Republican Senators. So consider this: with the
Republicans almost certain to retain control of the House, and
Democrats holding a narrow 4 or 5 seat lead in the Senate, would that
funding – if used to win the seats for the Republican Senators,
give them control of both the House and the Senate – a situation
that would make it extremely difficult for a Democratic President to
achieve anything. Maybe this was a risk the Obama Campaign was not prepared to take, and the 'loss' was intentional - to divert money away from the Senate race and into a candidate that the Democrats think they can still beat.
When the dust clears, it's unlikely
that Romney, as a result of this short lived victory and the
inevitable cash injection to his campaign, will gain enough political
momentum to catch President Obama and the Democrats will still hold
the Senate.
Watch for a more emotional and forceful
performance from the President on Oct 16th.
