The instant (liberal) commentators, whether on ABC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC, could not contain their frustration with what they saw as Obama's poor performance. The truth, however, is (a) he has never performed well without a teleprompter, and (b) he has never had to face a real opponent in a debate. He did debate Hillary during the primaries but he didn't have to defend his left wing ideas in those debates because he and Hillary agreed on them. McCain, the Maverick, was so deferential to Obama that it was hard to call their match-up a debate. In his times in Chicago, as in school, there were no challenges to Obama's left-liberal ideas. In those settings, he could mouth liberal platitudes and his audience would think him brilliant. Tonight's debate was a new experience for him.
Some of the liberal frustration is because liberals live in a bubble. Consider this from a nominal "news" story in The Hill:
And while Romney hit his marks, Obama missed opportunities when he failed to mention two of his campaign’s most effective attacks against Romney — the GOP nominee's tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital and the comments about the "47 percent" captured on video at a private fundraiser.The reporters, steeped in their own propaganda, don't realize something that Obama seemed to understand full well: Obama could not bring up those cheap shots tonight because, in a debate format where Romney would be there to rebut them, they wouldn't survive.
Was frustration with Obama confined just to political junkies? Apparently not. On Fox, the Frank Luntz focus group agreed: Obama lost big.
The stakes in this election are big. Obama's policies could easily lead us to a Greek-style governmental collapse. With tonight's debate, America may have taken a step back from the abyss.