But before you watch it, do me a favor: don’t focus just on WHAT he says here, but also on HOW he says it. He is very deliberate. Haughty. Self-righteous. Barack was “in high dudgeon”, as a relative of mine used to say.
And despite all that, he was also lying through his expensively whitened teeth:
But before you watch it, do me a favor: don’t focus just on WHAT he says here, but also on HOW he says it. He is very deliberate. Haughty. Self-righteous. Barack was “in high dudgeon”, as a relative of mine used to say.
And despite all that, he was also lying through his expensively whitened teeth:
Last night, during the second Presidential debate, President Obama and Mitt Romney engaged in one of the most heated exchanges of the campaign yet. When asked by an audience member about the lack of enhanced security in Benghazi prior to the attack on the Libyan embassy, President Obama stammered through a lame response that ultimately failed to address the question.
When Romney attempted to address the President’s inconsistencies in his excuse making, the moderator managed to forget her position and came to the aid of the President.
It’s not like this is a complicated question. Actually, if either of my two sons avoided a question to this degree, I’d automatically assume they were guilty of whatever I asked.
The deep scandal is sending a U.S. ambassador into a jihadi hive protected by a skeleton crew of possibly treacherous locals supervised by a notably inexperienced contractor. Stevens was a sitting duck. And the next time the Unicorn Prince feigns outrage by claiming it’s “offensive” to accuse him of playing politics with what happened, Romney had very well better point that out.
On the offensiveness scale, leaving the U.S. ambassador to suffocate to death while jihadi degenerates overrun his threadbare security detail ranks a wee bit higher than accusing Barack Obama of — gasp — focusing unduly on his own reelection.
Wednesday night was this election cycle’s first debate between President Obama and Governor Romney, and I’m struggling for ways to place it into historical context for comparison:
Super Bowl XXIV, when the 49ers destroyed the Broncos 55-10? A nail-biting, back-and-forth affair.
Secretariat winning the 1973 Belmont Stakes by 31 lengths? Closer than it looked.
This was a massacre so complete, the CNN &MSNBC crews were both in full freak-out mode immediately as it ended. What else can you call it when you have James Carville saying, “Mitt Romney came in with a Chainsaw?”, and Chris Matthews is spitting the words, “What was Romney doing? He was winning”.
They saw what Isaw: Romney was warm (yes, warm), highly prepared, and had an almost unnatural grasp of the facts and data. He was respectful of the President without being obsequious. Romney didn’t miss a step the entire night, and you could tell he was enjoying himself out there.
Conversely, Obama looked like the guy who can’t decide what to order on the menu.
Now, if you somehow missed the excitement last night (and if you did, seriously: what were you thinking?!?), here’s the debate, in its entirety:
—–
And, last but not least, there’s this:
In CNN’s flash-poll last night, there was one stat that trumps all the rest (and the rest are pretty good, too): among the Independent voters polled, Romney juuuuust nudged past Obama by a 75-17 margin.
75–17. In favor of Romney.
Ooooof…. That’ll leave a mark.
—–
This is all about momentum; nothing’s been decided yet. But, in a race that is statistically tied, a complete drubbing plays into the psychology of both the candidates and the voters. No question: there were some fence-sitters who are now firmly on the Romney/Ryan side after last night.