Game Changing Debate

People keep asking whether the first presidential debate was a game changer. The answers are typically diplomatic, usually focusing on the dynamics rather than the answer to the question.

Please, allow me:

  Yes, it was a game changer…for certain…no doubt.

Prior to the debate, Barack Obama had the world believing that while “maybe” he wasn’t doing a very good job, there was no reason to believe Mitt Romney could do any better (what a courageous strategy). Romney’s performance went a great distance toward clearing the air on both points: there is no “maybe,” and Romney is the better choice.

I was amused and shamefully delighted by the response from Obama supporters; “What happened?” “Where was Obama?” “Why didn’t he….”

I saw the same Obama I've seen since 2007, and I heard the same dead accusations. Obama was the same soulless, broken record I expected him to be, and I brook no excuses.

The only difference between the Obama at the debate and the Obama everyone is used to was Mitt Romney standing right in front of him armed to the teeth with passion, conviction, knowledge, and good old-fashioned accountability. Obama was that guy at the bar talking a big game about his time in combat only to be suddenly confronted by an actual combat veteran.

Of course, it seems Obama’s struggles usually occur under those circumstances. On talk shows and in interviews, where his presence is enough, he does great. On the stump, on the road, at town halls, when he is simply orating, he’s just fine. When confronted by someone who would not be satisfied by a catchy phrase or too oft repeated slogan, however, Obama stumbles; and we have seen him on his face before.

Only the folks with rose-colored glasses are actually surprised, but of course since they aren’t concerned with his substance, their votes haven’t changed.