Not getting the analysis from someone who didn’t bother to watch it?
Pray for America
He watched it, just not real time.
And I pretty much agree with his position which I will summarize as follows:
Obama did not have a bad night. He did as good as would be expected in a debate where notes and teleprompters are banned. He isn’t very good and never has been when he has to write his own script on the fly.
Bottom line, IMHO, we will see the same thing in debates 2 and 3.
And when he finally did watch it belatedly, he had the benefit of having read and watched the opinions of those who formed their opinions the hard way, in real time, live.
I don’t have much respect for those who think they’re above the fray, too cool to be bothered.
I stopped reading after “Who wants to subject themselves to that?” The answer was me.
bray, I watched it. In fact I watched it twice. The point I’m making, in case you missed it, is that Obama was doing his best in an unscripted environment. It’s just that his best isn’t very good. Romney was good, but Romney is always good. You don’t head a company Like Bain and not be smart, and a good presenter. I tried to think why people thought Romney was better than they expected and Obama was worse. The only reason I could come up with is that they got their information from the MSM because Obama is presented as “almost Godlike” and Romney is depicted as stiff and unappealing. So when you see them side-by-side and neither one lives up (or down) to expectations, you get the reaction that we see to the first debate.
The problem for Obama is that he’s not going to get any smarter in the next few weeks.