It got to be a little heavy by the end. I admit to watching more the ball game, the Bears-Lions and Franklin & Bash. I watched snippets and got just enough of an idea of things. I couldn't take Obama's hiss at the end of each pluralized word. I was spinning in circles like a dog.
The fact is Obama actually is, however amateurish, conducting foreign policy and naturally would have a debate edge. Only a complete, dithering fool wouldn't be able to use this advantage. Romney would have to have possessed special international credentials or been some sort of expert in order to really punch out Obama in the debate.
Obama also had a this weird stare-down thing going. It's almost as if he was trying to control Romney's mind with eye lasers or something. "Kneel before me, Mitt"
I guess if there's anything Obama felt he had an edge it was with foreign policy hence what appeared to be a more confident demeanor.
It was hilarious watching the two try to out Bush themselves for their foreign policy rhetoric is basically the extension of Bush II. Had Gary Johnson been allowed to debate I'm sure it would have made things more interesting. In fact, if anything, all this (ironically) seemed to do was vindicate Bush!
For the record, while Obama "got" bin Laden, I wouldn't push it too far either. The Democrats were extremely unhelpful and pessimistic (recall Reid's "it's lost" quip) during the Bush campaign to get bin Laden. So much so I did quip that they'd be the first to claim credit if they got him under their watch and/or if Iraq succeeded. The fact is the killing of the guy was a foreign policy continuum left over from the Bush doctrine. Obama didn't end it and let it go. It was bound to happen and he's lucky it fell under his watch is all. It's one of those "even a monkey" could have done it things.
The drone strikes are especially controversial. For a party that espouses "we only make more terrorists by our actions" philosophy, it's remarkable this is not applied to drone strikes that have been known to kill innocents. Both candidates support the strikes.
Egypt is increasingly unstable. Under Obama's watch, the people of Egypt voted the Muslim Brotherhood in. True when a government is uprooted people tend to vote for the nationalists to fill the void and this may very well be "a bump"but in the meantime they're starting to make noise about wanting nuclear weapons.
Romney should have pulverized Obama on Benghazi. That shit is not acceptable. They messed up and need to explain why. I guess Mitt was snake bit and didn't have the confidence to do it.
Whatever. Of the two, Obama was the one skating most because it's clear he's unclear.
Cocky and unclear is not a way to go through life let alone trying to be a leader.
All this to say, as I've pointed out for the last couple of years, Obama's foreign policy is less than impressive and seems incoherent. And there's that whole not attending over 50% of intelligence briefings problem.
Alas, someone in the "in" confirms the suspicion as Rosa Brooks does in FP.
Couple of excerpts:
"...If President Obama lacks a clear strategic foreign policy vision, it's partly because the strategic planning shops within the White House's National Security Staff (NSS) and the State Department have been marginalized and disempowered. Within the NSS, the Strategic Planning Directorate has been reduced to a speech-writing shop, without the clout to bring senior officials to the table for longer-term strategy discussions. At the State Department, thePolicy Planning office -- once run by such legendary figures as George Kennan and Paul Nitze -- was handed off, after Anne-Marie Slaughter's departure, to a young lawyer whose credentials include ample brains and a stint as a Clinton campaign aide, but no prior foreign policy experience..."
"...President Obama promised to ensure transparency and competence in government, but too often, nepotism trumps merit. Young and untried campaign aides are handed vital substantive portfolios (I could name names, but will charitably refrain, unless you buy me a drink), while those with deep expertise often find themselves sidelined.
Cronyism also reigns supreme when it comes to determining who should attend White House meetings: increasingly, insiders say, meetings called by top NSS officials involve by-name requests for attendance, with no substitutions or "plus ones" permitted. As a result, dissenting voices are shut out, along with the voices of specialists who could provide valuable information and insights. The result? Shallow discussions and poor decisions..."
"Getting out of his bubble may not come naturally for Obama. As Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, put it in an unguarded moment, "The truth is, Obama doesn't call anyone, and he's not close to almost anyone. It's stunning that he's in politics, because he really doesn't like people." [Ed. note: Tanden later clarified her words, tweeting "I was trying to say how President Obama, who I admire greatly, is a private person, but I deeply regret how I said it. I apologize.]
***
Line of the night came by way of the President (which happened to be the most tweeted moment):
It was Obama's comeback to Romney's attack about the decreasing size of the U.S. military. "We also have fewer horses and bayonets," was the reply.
Good one.
Update: I heard the rest of this. Obama later went on to say something to the effect "we have these battleships" which came across as condescending. That hurts the zing-o-meter.
Anyway.
Obama is America's Stephane Dion. Remember him? The former ineffective Liberal leader who was a professor? Dion didn't have leadership skills. He had academic skills. Big difference.
Obama is not a natural leader. Even the way Romney sat at the table showed that.
***
Overall what's the verdict over the three debates? Since I'm lazy at the moment, I will call it a draw. But Romney's knock out in the first debate may yet prove the decider. Like in sports you have to always be "on" or you lose, Obama couldn't afford that luxury anymore a St. Louis Cardinals pitcher could.
Man, the Giants made St. Louis pitchers their bitches.
"True when a government is uprooted people tend to vote for the nationalists to fill the void"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, people tend to vote for a "strong man" when a country is in chaos. A "strong man" becomes a kind of father figure in the mind of those who are fearful and feel helpless.
I agree. And those strong men tend to be nationalists. And liberals, in turn, tend to like nationalists who are strongman.
ReplyDelete