Laurence H. Tribe, a leading constitutional-law scholar and Obama’s mentor at Harvard, told me after Wednesday night’s debate with Mitt Romney, “Although I would have been happier with a more aggressive debate performance by the President, I’ve had to remind myself that Barack Obama’s instincts and talents have never included going for an opponent’s jugular. That’s just not who he is or ever has been.”
............
Will Burns, a Chicago alderman, who, as a student, worked for Obama in his (successful) 1996 campaign for the Illinois State Senate and his (unsuccessful) 2000 campaign for Congress, said that the format was too “loosey-goosey” for Obama, who failed to get aggressive with Romney.
“The President has always been someone who takes the truth seriously and has a great faith in the American people and their ability to handle big ideas,” Burns said. “He doesn’t patronize them. He uses the campaign as an educative process. He wants to win but also wants to be clear about his ideas…. He took complex ideas like Medicare and the debt and tried to explain it to people so they can understand them while at the same time not being patronizing. And he is doing this with an opponent who is completely dissembling on every issue! There is a certain brazenness about Romney. It’s like [Stephen] Colbert talking about ‘truthiness.’ Romney stood there, with his hair and his jaw and his terrific angles—and he lied! About taxes, about Medicare. Obama pushed back on the five-trillion-dollar tax cut or the way Romney’s version of Medicare would destroy Medicare as we know it. And Romney just tilted his head and said, Oh, no, it won’t. At some point, you have to believe that the facts speak for themselves.”
....
Comments
Interesting, thank you. Confirms for me, along with the other things I've been reading since the debate what I always suspected--he doesn't like hard Q & A where questions are a surprise and debates and isn't good at it unless he practices real hard (or has recently been thinking on topic.) No impromptu for him unless he knows what he'll be speaking on or has just been working on it. He likes to have time to think first. Hence, speeches are his preferred mode, if an interview, it is soft one-on-one and the type of questions are okayed.
The evidence is actually quite significant combined with the above article--presidential historian Martha Kumar has been watching him, tallying him, comparing his approach on this to other presidents. Now that he's been in his bubble, he has pretty much made sure he doesn't have to do hard Q & A, and is totally out of practice (Can't think of the last time I've seen a picture or video of him taking a question from a citizen he just shakes hands, and says hello, and I am recalling complaints from world leaders and Congresspersons that are applicable too..)
I can't find the first article I saw on this in the last day, which really lay out the numbers most strikingly, but here is Dana Milbank @ WaPo with similar:
There's more here from a McClatchy reporter:
http://www.kansas.com/2012/10/04/2515289/obama-debate-stumble-might-stem...
and in the same vein from Michael Calderone at HuffPo:
http://www.kansas.com/2012/10/04/2515289/obama-debate-stumble-might-stem...
Reminds me of how when he was inaugurated people were looking forward to lots of JFK-style press conferences with witty repartee and I was thinking: I don't know, that doesn't sound quite right, not like him.. And now I realize he's really gotten a break about lack of press conferences, how many have I seen? If he was a GOP president the media would be complaining a lot more, maybe it would have been better for him now if they had..
Suffice it to say, I am pretty convinced that he's not that great at this, pretty sure of just the opposite, and I hope he is finding the time to practice. It's not just about winning, as he probably still will win, but his appearances in the next two will affect his general population support in his second term. Especially with the huge number of viewers the first one got.
by artappraiser on Fri, 10/05/2012 - 3:59pm
And thank you for this link.
One of my reactions to the Remnick piece was that, for those anticipating that Obama will be more aggressive in the next debate, this information would seem to suggest either he will try to develop some pre-planned, sharper-edged remarks he thinks he'll have an opening to insert based on what is known about the debate topics, or he will conclude, if the poll results don't show Romney gaining any ground after the first debate, that he is best off sticking to his preferred style and approach to this format instead of trying to get out of his comfort zone.
Very difficult to develop in advance remarks going after Romney when one has absolutely no idea what he is going to say. He clearly has no problem departing entirely from what he has said earlier. And he has no problem offering a "program" which stands in any discernible relationship to reality, as in reality on the planet earth in the galaxy Milky Way, now. Basically, he'll say anything.
Part of what I thought I was watching was a conclusion by the Romney camp that if they were going to deceive and demagogue, they might as well go all-out and throw the kitchen sink at Obama with the hope of flustering or overwhelming him. (They may very well also have done homework on him yielding insights contained in the Remnick article and I would assume that they took a close look at his 2008 debate tapes to see what they could learn from those.) Thus, to take just a few examples from the other night, the viewer is supposed to believe all of the following coming from Romney about a hypothetical Romney Administration:
So where does one even start with such a Molitov cocktail of incoherence and deception?
I know that when I engage another person on some matter, if what they are asserting is false or wildly off base on many, many grounds, I find it difficult to know "where to start" in responding.
The Romney camp has already said they don't intend to be constrained by fact-checkers. One of my other reactions to the other night was that, given that the Governor appears to have no sense of shame or embarrassment about what comes out of his mouth, we may find out a bit more about whether, as some maintain, we really do live in a post-truth or post-fact age.
I can grant that the debate format is not one Obama is particularly well suited for, at least in the way debate performances seem to be currently judged (although whether a "loss" hurts him in the polls is a distinct question), while also saying that it's that much more difficult for him--or anyone--when up against an opponent who will say anything like Romney did the other night.
by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/05/2012 - 4:57pm
Saw this on the body language at the debate this morning. How much of it is objective observation and how much is just spnning. FWIW:
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 10/05/2012 - 4:32pm
Rick Hertzberg's take is online at The New Yorker's website: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/15/121015taco_talk_hertzberg
Nothing he wrote will come as a surprise to anyone here. My favorite excerpt, for its clarity, brevity, and therefore aptness of use going forward. for the duration, by those who want him to win:
Also this interesting thought:
What I am more inclined to do in interactions with others from here on out is to do exactly what Hertzberg says Democrats cannot do, and credibly portray Romney as an extremist, using his own words to hang him. When he denies his extreme, suddenly inconvenient ones, then the issue becomes one of the Governor's secretive and wildly dishonest campaign (even for a politician), reinforced by his continuing unwillingness to release at least 8 more of his tax returns as well as by his chronic duplicity.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/09/2012 - 12:05pm