Benghazi--Will Obama dodge this bullet? No.

Updates below.

It's now been seven weeks since the Benghazi attack and the murder of four Americans; the story is still in the news, thanks only to Fox News and the blogosphere. The alphabet news agencies are protecting Obama with their extreme incuriosity about the story. However, I don't think the story is going to go away. I also think that Obama had better pray that Romney wins this election, because otherwise he eventually will be frogmarched out the front door (or maybe the back door) of the White House.

Fox News has been doing some great work on this story, led by Brett Baier, the anchor for Special Report, (one of the best people working in journalism today, IMO), and including reporter Jennifer Griffin. Without Fox News pushing this story, likely we would still be blaming the video trailer. This report is from Jennifer Griffin on 26 October: "CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say."

David Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post on 30 October: "Lingering questions about Benghazi." "Fox News has raised some questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration."

Jennifer Rubin, also writing in the WP: "Obama needs to come clean on Benghazi." "So how about it, Mr. President--who called off a rescue and why? President Obama, a little more than a week before the election, won't tell Americans what happened. Well, why should he--the press doesn't hound him, the liberal elite still rushes to his defense, and his White House attack dogs bark 'Politics!' whenever legitimate questions are asked."

PJ Media has some excellent articles about Benghazi. More than one of their writers are saying, not just impeachment for Obama, but treason.

From Bob Owens, 29 October: "Questions for White House Over Benghazi Just Beginning." "Our consulate staff was abandoned and left to die." Owens links to another article he wrote on 26 October: "AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire."

Bill Kristol at The Weekly Standard has "Ten Questions for the White House." "The president was, it appears, in the White House from the time the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began, at around 2:40 pm ET, until the end of combat at the annex, sometime after 9 p.m. ET. So it should be possible to answer these simple questions as to what the president did that afternoon and evening, and when he did it, simply by consulting White House meeting and phone records, and asking the president for his recollections."

Well, we assume Barry was where he was supposed to be--but maybe he wasn't? May be he was out somewhere with the choom gang? But of course that's only my own speculation.

Bob Owens continues: "These ten questions alone [from Bill Kristol] could end a presidency, but they are far from the only questions swirling around Benghazi. As noted earlier, we face the question of what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi without security."

Another writer at PJ Media, Roger L Simon, writes this: "Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi." "Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them." Simon wonders if Obama and others were covering up "more than their ineptitude?" What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day, the anniversary of September 11?

Then there's long time Democrat pollster Pat Caddell, who blasted the mainstream media suppression of the Benghazi story on the Jeanine Pirro show on Fox News Saturday night. Bad enough, he said, that this White House, this President, this Vice President, this Secretary of State, are apparently willing to dishonor themselves and this country for the "cheap prospect" of getting reelected--"willing to cover up and lie." But the worst thing--"the very people who are supposed to protect the American people and the truth, the leading mainstream media, and I said in a speech a week ago — because I’m stunned. I’ve never seen in an issue of national security like this, but I will tell you this, I said it then they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy and then enemies of the American people."

Obama's rebuttal was pathetically lame, as have been all of the fabulist stories about Benghazi coming from him and his administration. He had a 15-minute interview in the Oval Office (O is too much of a coward to have an actual press conference with the White House press corpse) with Michael Smerconish, an "MSNBC contributor," according to his biog. I wonder how many times in that interview O used the phrase, "What is true . . ."? Just like the Sec'y of State, Obama said that he takes "full responsibility" for the circumstances of the attack. And in his mind, what does that mean? Anything? I hope we the American people get a chance to show him what that means.

There was also an Obama sighting on MSNBC's Morning Joe show, where "a defensive and obviously irritated President Obama took on the demeanor of the offended party when he was questioned about his handling of the Benghazi debacle," writes Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart Big Government: "Obama to Morning Joe: 'I do take offense at critics of Benghazi." Well, Champ, "taking offense" and denying wrongdoing aren't the same thing,

Update: I was trying to think of the name of the other reporter at Fox who has been all over this story--it's Catherine Herridge. Wow, there's a post today at one of my favorite blog sites, Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft: "Catherine Herridge: State Department Culpable in Death of Ambassador & Three Americans." Hoft reports that Herridge, a Fox News foreign policy analyst, told Greta Van Susteren on Wednesday: "From what I see the State Department has culpability in the death of the US Ambassador and three Americans."

Yes, he thinks we're stupid

This is O's plan for the next four years. Hilarious. Evidently his strategy was to wait until after the debates to print the 3.5 million copies of this glossy, cheesy little 20-page booklet (where almost every page has a picture of--you guessed it--Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm. If he'd published it sooner, Romney would have eviscerated his "plan" during the debates.

Here are a few of the comments I'm reading about O's plan for the next four years:

Rich Lowry at Politico: "Obama's pathetic picture book." "As an artifact of the diminishment of President Barack Obama, it is hard to top his newly released pamphlet, 'A Plan for Jobs & Middle-Class Security' . . . . If the pamphlet works, it deserves to join the ranks of the classic picture books of all time, right up there with 'Go, Dog, Go!' and 'The Very Hungry Catepillar.'"

Paul Ryan is mocking Obama's new brochure on the campaign trail, calling it a "slick repackaging of more of the same" and a "comic book."

Obama, on the other hand, seems to think this little booklet is something quite swell: small-business creation (oh, when did he get religion on that issue?); a manufacturing policy; green jobs (!); and "education"--whatever that means, except that he's throwing a sop to the teachers' union. He keeps talking about hiring "millions" of teachers, and I simply don't know WTF this guy thinks he means by that. When did hiring teachers become a function of the federal government? Oh, he will also "find cuts where needed." And build roads. I keep hearing him say that he's going to "give" veterans jobs--building roads. Why does this O-tard think people want jobs building roads? Pass out the shovels! Besides--wasn't that what the stimulus money was for? I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand this guy's brilliant plan. Oh, yes, and he's going to ask the wealthy to pay a little more. I think he also has a line or two about energy in there.

Breitbart TV has a video of the Morning Joe gang mocking Obama's "plan." See it here. "Nothing new"--heh. One of the commenters writes this: "Listen to the tone of disappointment and resignation among these three. Whatever her name is [the snarky blonde, Mika Brzezinski--but I imagine the guy knows that] is acting like she's waiting on the limo to take her to the funeral; Joe is acting like a high school football coach hearing a story about his once football star, now gay, son has done; and Mark Halperin is completely resigned to the fact that his boy is finished."

The Columbus (Ohio--major swing state) Dispatch has an editorial by David Harsanyi: "Obama's jobs plan doesn't add up." "Members of the middle class will be pleased to learn that their children's future will feature marginally smaller class sizes and work as a midlevel functionary in a green-energy factory. According to the president, the best way to grow the middle class outward (whatever that means) is to strive for more menial-labor work in an unproductive manufacturing sector. Forward."

Even the NYT reports that the document contains "no new proposals, and was derided by a spokesman for Mr. Romney as a 'glossy panic button.'" The article uses the word "frenetic" to describe this past week of O's campaigning. The article also makes clear that O's schedule and the "tenor" of his appearances makes clear that "his primary mission now was to energize his own supporters and get them to vote . . . ." Good Lord. Maybe O is in worse shape than I thought, if that's the report from the NYT.

What Losing Looks Like

I'm experiencing wild mood swings as the election nears. Some days I know Romney is going to win, and even win big. Other days I'm terrified that Obama will be put back into office. The yard signs for O are starting to pop up in my (very liberal) town here and there. As I drive by another one that just appeared in one of my neighbors' front lawns, I wonder how anyone with a brain can even think of voting for this clown again. I (sort of) understood the first time--first blackety-black president, blah, blah blah. But not this time. Those signs depress me.

However, there are other signs that give me hope, such as articles like these:

This one is from the website Redstate, the article by Erick Erickson: "Obama's Hubris Will be His Undoing." Erickson says that although O has clearly lost North Carolina and Florida, he won't stop spending money in those states and redirect the resources to Ohio--and why? Because "[t]hat would convey weakness and demoralize the base."

Some of these articles already sound like a postmortem on O's campaign.

This is from Real Clear Politics, by Ben Domenech: "Obama's Blunder Was Ceding the Center." "If Obama should lose this election, many will say it was because the economy was weak and because the president is black. Actually, it will be because he fought it as a failed progressive rather than a successful centrist."

And this one from Commentary, by Jonathan S. Tobin: "Dems Begin the Post-Obama Blame Game." "New York Times political writer Matt Bai has fired the first shot in what may turn out to be a very nasty battle over who deserves the lion's share of the blame for what may turn out to be a November disaster for the Democrats."

Here is Matt Bai's article at the NYT: "How Bill Clinton May Have Hurt the Obama Campaign." "[I]n recent weeks, starting with the first debate, the challenger has made a brazen and frantic dash to the center, and Mr. Obama has often seemed off-balance, as if stunned that Mr. Romney thinks he can get away with such an obvious change of course so late in the race. Which, apparently, he can."

I particularly like this one, another from the NYT, this one in the "Opinion Pages" (if they didn't tell you, it would be impossible to tell the difference between their straight "news" and opinion--but I digress), by Ross Douthat: "Obama's Aura of Defeat." "Losing campaigns have a certain feel to them: They go negative hard, try out new messaging very late in the game, hype issues that only their core supporters are focused on, and try to turn non-gaffes and minor slip-ups by their opponents into massive, election-turning scandals. . . . A winning presidential campaign would not typically have coined the term 'Romnesia,' let alone worked it into their candidate's speeches."

Then there's an article by Rick Wilson at ricochet: "The Inflection Point": While Romney draws "astounding crowds" at every event, "Obama is largely reduced to trawling college campuses for political jailbait, stroking the shreds of his coalition in the increasingly desperate hope of getting at least a few salvagable video clips out of each day. Big Bird, binders, and bayonets don't comprise a sweeping vision of a second Obama term and it shows. Vice-President Malaprop wanders Ohio diners, touching people's food and getting biker chicks to sit in his lap. It's a campaign in trouble, and they know it."

It also seems like the one thing O always had going for him, his likeability (not that I ever understood people who swooned over how "likeable" the guy was, but that's just me), is apparently not working for him anymore. In Breitbart's Big Government, Dr. Timothy Daughtry writes, "Letting Obama Be Obama." "Under pressure from an apparent Romney surge, someone--perhaps even Obama himself--has decided to let Obama be Obama. But, considering the strong narcissistic streak that many observers have noted in Obama's character, that decision could prove to be one of the more colossal tactical blunders in recent political history."

According to today's blog at the Weekly Standard, O called Romney a "bullshitter" in a recent interview in Rolling Stone magazine. I honestly think people expect better of their president than that--I honestly do; that sort of dismissive attitude against an opponent is hardly "likeable." I haven't read the article, which is "Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview," by Douglas Brinkley.

Not that newspapers are particularly relevant these days, since journalism has been participating in its own demise, particularly over the past four years. However, there are still interesting signs out there from the tree-pulp press that things aren't going well for O.

Take a look at the front page of this morning's The Des Moines Register--this was posted on Twitchy this morning.

Then there's the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, which has decided to make no endorsement for any presidential candidate in 2012 (and of course--you guessed it--they endorsed O in 2008).

Finally, there are the signs from late night TV. This is from American Thinker, by Daniel Joppich: "The Rats Are Leaving the Ship." Ouch. "Quite possibly the wall around Obama is coming down. The Lefties in the media are subtly trying to distance themselves from BO. They want to be able to say, 'Hey, look, I was tough on the guy.'"

It's the Cover Up, Stupid

We had damn well better get some quesitons at tonight's debate from Bob Schieffer, CBS News's oldest dinosaur of the lamestream media, about the Obama administration's Benghazi cover up. There seem to be two lines of thought about this: 1) Schieffer will ask some tough questions because this his last-hurrah, and he wants to protect his own legacy; and 2) Schieffer will protect Obama and his own leftist bias because this is his last-hurrah. I vote for number 2, considering the article (link below) written by William Bigelow about Schieffer's 2008 debate bias in favor of O.

Here are some interesting thoughts about Benghazi (and other issues) that we can keep in mind for tonight's debate:

In the WSJ, James Rosen: "The Three Benghazi Timelines We Need Answers About."

At PJ Media, Roger L. Simon: "Should Barack Obama Resign Tonight?"

At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey: "CBS News: Why didn't we send the military to rescue Benghazi personnel?"

This is from the NYT, which for the past four years has covered for Obie and his administration all day long, by David E Sanger: "Monday's Debate Puts Focus on Foreign Policy Clashes"

This is from Breitbart Big Peace, by Joel B. Pollak: "Fact Check: The Obama Doctrine, From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe."

From Breitbart Big Journalism by Joel B. Pollak: "New York Times Caught Editing Iran Story After White House Denials."

From the WSJ, Dorothy Rabinowitz: "The Unreality of the Past Four Years."

From Breitbart Big Journalism, by William Bigelow: "Bob Schieffer's 2008 Pro-Obama Debate Record."

Here's another one, suggested by a reader: From the New York Post, by Amir Taheri: "Anatomy of a failed foreign policy."

And another one: From the Washington Examiner, an editorial: "Killing bin Laden is not a foreign policy."

The Candy Man

Updates below

I made a mistake. I thought Candy Crowley would be fair and I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Her "moderation" of the debate was an embarrassment to herself and her profession. Not unlike Obama, she was in over her head, and she showed herself not up to the job. In fact, she was so bad she made Jim Lehrer of the first debate look like a genius. She couldn't control the two debaters (although she tried), she was unable to keep control of the time, she inserted (threw) herself into the debate to throw Obama a lifeline on the Libya question, and, frankly, she chose stupid questions. I'm sure the left loved her.

Actually, she probably did exactly what was expected of her. Again, as in the first debate, Obama had a more-than 3-minute edge in the amount of time he spoke. In a 90-minute debate, that's significant. So can Romney have seven minutes of extra time in the last debate? Some wag this morning is calling Crowley Obama's "tag team partner."

Despite all of that, Romney gave a good showing, especially when he was answering questions on the economy. Obama was declared the winner, as expected, by the lamestream media. He would have had to set his hair on fire for them not to say that he won. All he had to do this time was show up with a pulse to have a better showing than in the first debate, but I'm not sure on what criteria they think he won, especially since he still isn't able (or willing) to tell voters why he wants another four years and what he'll do with them. I think he may know what he wants to do, but he also knows that if he shares his plans with the voters, he won't stand a chance in hell of getting re-elected. The CNN snap polls gave Romney a 58-40 edge on the economy, a 51-44 edge on taxes, and a 49-46 edge on health care. But Obama won the debate. Haha. On this question: "Did Obama offer a clear plan for solving the country's problems?" --38 yes, 61 no. But Obama won the debate. On the question of who is the stronger leader --Romney 49, Obama 46. But Obama won the debate. Based on what?? That he showed up and didn't puke on his shoes?

Complaining about the debate set-up or the moderator after a debate is a loser's game. It's "unsporting" to complain about the conditions after the game is over, since it makes your side look like they couldn't hold their own. But I would like someone to tell me how those 80 "undecided" people were chosen to be in front of the candidates last night. How were these people chosen? Does anyone know how they were proven to be undecided? How do you prove a negative--"No, I have not made up my mind." There was the young Latina woman sitting in the front with the camera on her much of the night. Did you see her body language? Did you see her looking daggers at Romney all night? Her question: What are you going to do about the millions of immigrants without green cards? Uh, I think those used to be called ILLEGAL immigrants, but evidently, just like "terrorist," to utter the phrase "illegal immigrant" is verboten. In my view, if you're an "undecided" voter at this point, then you're really too stupid to be part of this process. But what do we do? We give these people a front row seat at the debate.

Update. Here's what little I could find about how the "undecided" people were selected for the audience of the second Obama/Romney debate:

They were all from Nassau County, New York.

They were found by Gallup through phone calls where they were asked if they lean more toward Obama or Romney.

"If voters identify as truly undecided" then they're invited to participate in the debate. But how that miracle of identification is made, who knows?

The voters met with Crowley ahead of time to "discuss" their questions. The ones she chose were questions all America is sitting on the edge of its collective seat, waiting to be answered: Mitt Romney's tax plan (how about a question about Obama's tax plan--or any plan, for that matter); workplace inequality and contraception access (seriously--this is what we're voting about?); assault weapons (??). I think my favorite was the question for Romney--how are you different from Bush? Where was the parallel question about how Obama's failed administration is different from Carter's?

On her blog, Ann Althouse says that Erin Burnett from CNN said that these supposedly "undecided" voters voted overwhelmingly in 2008 for Barack Obama. I wonder what "overwhelmingly" means? Can you imagine the leftist outrage if it was known that these so-called undecided people "overwhelmingly" voted Republican in the last election?

Althouse points out that Crowley was snarky towards Romney ("Governor Romney, I'm sure you have an answer"). Alternately, she seemed to prompt Obama, suggesting the substance of the answer. "Almost patronizing," said Althouse. I thought Crawley came across in those moments like a stage mother prompting her brilliant child.

Another update. This is from Breitbart's Big Journalism: "Crowley Interrupts Romney 28 Times, Obama Just 9." To put this into context, Martha Raddatz interrupted Paul Ryan 15 times and Joe Biden only five. She kept saying to "Mr. Romney" (that's Governor Romney to you, Ms. Crowley) "I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to." She didn't.

This interjection from Crowley is priceless: "Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you. Make it short."

Another one: "If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you." Do I even need to add that she never asked Obama to sit down?

Hilarious. One of the commenters for this article suggests that we have another debate, same format as this one, but let Ann Coulter be the moderator and choose the questions. Haha.

Romney Campaigns, Obama Crams (uh, maybe)

 

Romney in Lebanon, Ohio

Updates below

This is Romney in front of a crowd in Lebanon, Ohio over the weekend. Of course the lamestream media will never report this, but Romney is said to be speaking in front of "2008 Obama-sized crowds" these days--in Ohio!

Where's Obama? They've had him hidden away at a 5-star golf resort in Virginia for the better part of a week. "Debate prep," is what they're calling it. I guess Camp David wasn't available. He also stayed at a golf resort in Nevada when he did his, um, prep work for the first debate, so actually I'm all for this strategy.

O evidently did a radio interview on Friday, and he told the radio host that "he never thought" during last week's presidential debate that Romney got the better of him. "I do think that on television it was clear that I was being too restrained when Mr. Romney was telling his tall tales. But the truth is, when you read the transcript, everything I said was true and a lot of what he said was not." Obama seems to think his only problem that night was that he was "too polite." And I do believe he really believes that. Having been brought up by a toxic narcissist, I recognize the signs: in their own minds, which is the only place that matters, narcissists can do no wrong. I'm sure O simply believes that the knuckle-draggers out there just aren't smart enough to realize how truly stellar his performance was that night.

Oh please God, let this fool continue to believe that he did just fine in the first debate. I was happy to hear that he's still using John F-ing Kerry to play the part of Romney. How that makes any sense whatsover is beyond me. Oh, they both were elected to political office in Massachusetts. And they both have money, although Romney made his the old fashioned way and Kerry got his from his wife. Romney is a decent, God-fearing, hard-working man who loves his family; Kerry is a nasty S.O.B. patrician snob. Well, it worked for O so well the first time, it will hopefully work out the same way again. Oh, and most hilariously, the moderator, Candy Crowley, is being played by Anita Dunn.

Crowley and Dunn

I've noticed that O Team has recently dropped the "liar" word from their lexicon. Evidently they figured out through their internal polling that, except for their leftist base, which is obviously going to vote for them anyway (or stay home), Americans don't like that word. I noticed that even "Axe" Axelrod didn't use the word on the Sunday shows.

I'm a little bit confused about why Obama is having to "cram" (the word being used by O Team) for days to get ready for this debate. Does he not know the issues of his own administration? Where's he been for the past four years?

The New York Times believes that "obviously" Barry doesn't need any help with his facts, so what he's spending six days working on is his style--seriously: Obama is learning "how to accuse Mr. Romney of twisting the facts without seeming rude." And who is Obama studying for style points? Smilin' Joe Biden! Watching the VP debate aboard Air Force One, O was heard to say "That was pretty good!" again and again at crazy Uncle Joe's zingers.

The NYT says that Tuesday's debate will be a chance for Obama to "come out swinging," although he "must not appear desperate." We are told that Obama is "working on how to answer questions posed by the audience in a respectful way." I fell off my chair laughing when I read that. If Obama had taken any real questions during the past four years from anyone other than his chosen sycophants, then he wouldn't have to be "working on" how to answer questions respectfully. This is maybe the most pathetic thing I've ever seen written about an American president. Obama just keeps taking us to new lows.

Update. Oh for the love of God. The audience for Tuesday's debate, in a townhall format, will be made up of UNDECIDED voters chosen by Gallup. If a person is undecided at this point, then you are either a complete political naif or you are a moron. In either case undecided voters have no business having any role in this debate. Give me people on the right, people on the left, libertarians, progressives--whatever. But undecideds? Good grief.

Even if this idea made any sense, how does Gallup go about proving someone is undecided? This is just ridiculous.

Update #2. This is where Obama has been locked up for his "debate prep." It's a five-star waterfront golf resort in Virginia. Three golf courses. BUT HE DIDN'T BRING HIS CLUBS! These people on the O-Team really think we're stupid. Enjoy it, dude. In fact, I hope he enjoys every day of the rest of his life, living off of our dime. I mean that. Just as long as he goes away for good, he can play golf every day of his freaking life, if that's what he wants to do.

New and Improved O-Team Strategy: Romney Is a Liar

Updates below

First came the pre-debate strategy of lowered expectations--Obama was "rusty" and "out of practice" because he's been working so hard at his day job. Yeah, like sitting around on the couch with the women of The View. Or playing his--100th?--round of golf. Or not showing up for his security briefings. Or meeting with his Cabinet twice. Yeah, he sure has been busy.

Now comes O-Team's new and improved post-debate-flop strategy, proving that Obama is not only a loser, he's a pathetic, sore loser: Obama's "Truth Team" has decided to push the narrative that Romney is a liar. "I've never heard so much whining or seen such unprofessional bad form from a top presidential campaign official," writes Keith Koffler at the White House Dossier, responding to senior White House political advisor David Plouffe repeatedly calling Gov. Mitt Romney a liar. Said Plouffe when asked what adjustments the O campaign will have to make for the next debate, "One of the things we're going to have to adjust to is that dishonesty." Plouffe also called Romney's debate performance "theatrically aggressive." That's right, Mr. Plouffe, we sure don't want an aggressive-type personality in the White House, that's for sure. We want Mr. Cool from the choom gang.

Hilariously, O was out on the stump on Thursday, doing his best version of the Comeback Kid. As the head of an administration that has had, shall we say, more trouble than most telling the American people the truth (such as the recent disaster in Benghazi, just to name one event--or how about, "You have to pass it to find out what's in it"--hahahahaha), it seems highly ironic to hear this coming from Mr. Truth: "You see, the man on stage last night, he does not want to be held accountable for the real Mitt Romney's decisions ... If you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth," Obama said. Naturally he didn't have the guts to say that to Romney's face on Wednesday night, instead making the statement while reading off of his teleprompter and standing in front of a hand-picked group of screaming, fainting, swooning Obamabots.

Updates

Obama's debate performance was an even bigger disaster than the media initially reported. This morning Gallup has Romney tied with O--a 5-point boost in Romney's poll rating since the last Gallup poll taken before the debate. Rasmussen has Romney down 1 point in Ohio and up 1 in Virginia. Ohio, Virginia, Florida--O Team has spent millions on anti-Romney ads in those states, "to build a fire wall," Michael Barone writes, in order to block Romney from getting a 270-vote majority in the Electoral College. "[T]he first numbers suggest the fire wall may be crumbling. We'll see if it holds."

There's a good article at PJ Media by Victor Davis Hanson: "Anatomy of a Disastrous Debate Performance." Hanson makes the point that almost no one argued after the debate that Obama came even close to winning--"so great was the risk for even a toadying media to look ridiculous and so clear-cut the ineptness of the president." The article points out the in what "weird fashion" Obama has been offering teleprompted counter-arguments on the campaign trail--arguments he didn't have the skill or brains to offer on his own during the debate. O has become "enfeebled" by his preference for brief appearances on favorable, celebrity TV and radio shows. His prior debate experience is thin and against undistinguished debaters: "His real and only political interests (and skills) are in caricaturing opponents, in a sort of trash-talking sports fashion . . . or in whipping up a crowd."

But watch out, Hanson warns. Obama will benefit in the next debate from dismal expectations, and the media will be prepared this time: "The realization that another rant by a liberal commentator could cement the reputation of Obama as an incompetent and add to the image of a hopelessly inept president will temper post-debate anger."

Affirmative Action President Loses

Updates below.

Awww. Just look at their confused, sad, and angry faces. The Left had a meltdown last night after their Affirmative Action President lost the debate. Our Barack Obama evidently thought he would get extra points just for showing up. You can't blame him for thinking that, really, since it's always worked that way for him in the past. Imagine the confusion he must have felt last night when he came up against an opponent who was competent and prepared. It may have been a first for him, when that AA filter didn't work.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, seemed to enjoy the debate. At one point he even said, "This is fun, isn't it?"--and sounded as if he meant it.

In the week prior to the debate, Obama oh-so-cutely told the media that debate prep was "a drag": "Basically they're keeping me indoors all the time. It's a drag. They're making me do my homework." Well, evidently "they" weren't successful in getting Obama to prepare for the debate, since he came prepared with what looked like his "C" game (typical AA grade inflation). Some wag said, when hearing that, "He brought his C game? How do we know this wasn't his A game?" Heh.

My take on O's performance is that what we saw last night was the real Obama, unplugged from his teleprompter, without his presidential prerogative to turn his back on questioners or the ability to give his favorite answer, "My way or the highway." I've never bought the idea, constantly pushed by the Left, that O is a great orator and the smartest president evah. As Byron York wrote in the Washington Examiner, in what sounds like unintended although hilarious understatement: "Obama, on Wednesday night, looked like a president who hasn't had to face many sharp challenges lately." No Kidding. William L. Gensert at American Thinker had another way of putting it: "When you spend 4 years with a compliant media, you never need to be well versed on policy and detail, and he assumed it would be the same last night. . . . And if the man wasn't such an arrogant, nasty ideologue when the deck is stacked in his favor, I would feel sorry for him."

Some of the comments about last night, all from O sycophants:

"He sounded like he was defending a doctoral dissertation. His thoughts ranged from lengthy to endless."

"It's a little early for Obama to fall on the ball."

"Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney."

"Tonight was a rolling calamity for Obama. He was boring, abstract, and less human-seeming than Romney."

[My personal favorite] "How is Obama's closing so fucking sad, confused, lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight."

Maybe one of the best quotes from last night came from Stuart Stevens, a top Romney advisor: "I don't think Obama had a particularly bad debate. He's had a bad four years." Ha.

Updates. Peggy Noonan has been ragging on Romney every chance she's had, so I almost skipped her column in the WSJ. But this is funny: "When Mr. Romney gave him the sweet-faced 'You're a cute little shrimp' look, and he gave it to him all night, Mr. Obama couldn't even look at him. When Mr. Obama stared down and nodded at his notes it looked, as someone observed in an email, like his impersonation of a bored wife." Hahaha.

John Sununu, once-governor of New Hampshire, and one of the sharpest Romney surrogates out there, called Obama lazy and detached. When asked if he didn't think that O's performance would improve in the next debate, Sanunu said, "When you're not that bright you can't get better prepared." The Emperor Has No Clothes.

And from my favorite political website evah--Michelle Obama's Mirror--

 

"Back in the game, back in his comfort zone; debating himself. And WINNING!"

 

This photo can't make O Team very happy--this guy is obviously only comfortable when he has his security blanket, the teleprompter.

 

This article by Lisa Fritsch at American Thinker ("How the Liberal Media Ruined Obama") makes the point that the sycophantic liberal media has done Obama no favors: "Obama has been brought up by an adoring and overindulgent liberal media who have coddled him for the last eight years" and have continually mislead O into thinking he would never have to answer for his record.

Notice how his feet almost touch the floor

Obama before his speech at the U.N. He seems pretty pleased with himself, but I'm not sure why.

Here's a great article by Hugh Hewitt at the Washington Examiner: "Obama's poker tells." How can you tell when O has entered the land of thinly disguised fantasy or obvious dissembling during the debate with Romney on Wednesday night? Watch for these five tells, including my favorite, O's parade of straw men (his favorite too, it seems). "He will set up arguments that have never been made in the service of Republican goals that have never existed, and then he will denounce both."