Was debate #1 a Pyrrhic victory? (Unintentional Laff Riot)

The Berkeley Blog ^ | October 4, 2012 | Dr. Robin Lakoff, professor of linguistics

[Tublecane]

It’s weird to me that anyone could write as if no “narrative” fits Obama lying or being a bad speaker, while apparently there is one out there to cover Romney winning the debate but not really. Not that it surprises me that an Obama cheerleaders could want us to think that, but because they would argue it so blatantly and inartfully.

When they talk about “narrative,” obviously, they mean MSM narratives. Which is simply what they all tell eachother. Naturally they’d come up with all banner of stories to explain away anything good Romney does or happens to Romney. Certainly they don’t tell stories to eachother about his Obama has no clothes and isn’t a great campaigner. Firstly because they can’t stomach him losing or admit they were wrong in 08.

I get all that. But don’t come out and tell us. At least play the “old news” game: Romney winning was last week; let’s move on. Don’t talk about “narratives” which only matter to you and your friends.

[CommerceComet]

But don’t come out and tell us. At least play the “old news” game: Romney winning was last week; let’s move on.

Obviously, this article was nothing but rationalization for Obama's poor performance. I really doubt Obama's people have masterminded this plan that calls for him to blow the first debate.

Obama's supporters could be correct in saying that overall this debate won't matter. The response in the aftermath of this debate puts me in mind of the first Reagan-Mondale debate where Ronald Reagan was far less than sterling in his performance leading to whispers of senility. Fortunately for him and the nation, Reagan rebounded big-time in the second debate and put those concerns to rest. It would be foolish for Romney supporters to assume that Obama couldn't have the same type of turn around, particularly with Obama's cheerleaders in the press exaggerating his performance.

[Diogenesis]