OBAMA AND THE DEBATE

Grace Meyer sets out the position:

‎”Isn’t it obvious that Obama performed so terribly in tonight’s debate because he believes in nothing? He cannot defend his positions, because he is bereft of convictions. A hollow man will tend to be blown and buffeted by sudden shifts of the wind.

Obama’s essential emptiness serves him well when he is the receptacle of liberal projections, and the situation is grimly comical when he is the object of right-wing lunacy e.g., that this operative of Wall Street is a socialist.

If Obama was socialist, if he knew or cared about the degradations inflicted on ordinal people under neo-liberal capitalism, he would have been capable of delivering counterpunch after counterpunch to Romney’s smirking, privileged, aging frat boy, glass jaw.

Trouble is: He could not defend himself against Romney, because Obama possesses nothing inside to defend.” – Grace Meyer

We might pause to consider whether Romney actually won the debate. He might have won the battle but lost the war. It is not the case that Romney’s case was overwhelming. He had moved his positions. He still needs the “right wing” base who voted in the Primaries to vote in the Presidential Election. His positions are contradictory. Some of the claims he made were preposterous. For example, he implicitly denied the reality of climate change. And yet in the opinion of those who know about these things, his performance was markedly better.

I thought they were both arguing the same case, with the judgement that Romney would be worst than Obama, who does not sprout the nonsense that Romney’s economic policy and outcomes would be different than the extant situation. None of the candidates really addressed the critical issue of joblessness, low wages, the cost of health care, increasing inequality, or finalization of the economy.

Some of the remedies are obvious, but because the political system is rigged by the money power, they are politically inexpedient. Instead of thorough going economic and political analysis, from both candidates, there is a mush of equivocation, talking points and spin. The third party candidates, from the Greens and the Justice Party, on Democracy Now were easily able to cut through these atmospherics.

So it can be argued, allowing there are differences, but the choice is really to select the person who can maintain an equivocal rhetoric to maintain the status quo, then Obama won the debate. He had the advantage of incumbency, and unlike Romney did not have to give the appearance he was going on the attack.

Still appearances matter, and now the fake election looks real again in the eyes of many. “This race, is still Obama’s to lose”.

Paul Jay and the Real News Network are on the case:

1. A Masterful Liar defeats a man without Conviction – Leo Panitch.

1. Why didn’t Obama attack the Bush Years – Jeff Faux

********************************************************************

Related articles

• At Truthdig, Robert Scheer supports the fake choice contention and Robert Reich hopes against experience that Obama will take the debate up to Romney’s  changing positions.
• Craig McMurtie, Obama fires back after lacklustre debate (ABC News).
• Alex Kane, 10 Most  Shameless  Romney Lies - Debunked (AlterNet).
• Igor Volsky, At Last Night’s Debate: Romney told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes (Trughtout).
• Romney wasn’t stellar, but Obama fell short (cnn.com)
• Gore says altitude threw Obama off during debate (wtvr.com)
• Obama campaign readies post-debate counterpunch (cbsnews.com).

About these ads