Two pillar-quality takeaways from last night’s Presidential debate:
• Mitt Romney’s shimmering brilliance as a mature, confident, composed, organized, rapid-thinking, physically unflawed, imposing, mostly but not entirely linear-thinking debater came as a gift-wrapped surprise to many. Why? This marked his true national, prime-time debut as a vastly informed, experienced leading man, in his maiden appearance as a solo act.
• President Obama, in full, awkward, constant rhetorical retreat following his clunky anniversary wish to Sweetie, was unmasked for the first time as the dull, mediocre student he was in college days, a blemished record understandably and elaborately hidden until now. He was the turtle to his opponent’s gazelle. Accustomed to one-note fawning crowds uninterested in inspection and fainthearted questioners mechanically cowed by his presence, he was terrified of direct confrontation, having grown psychologically fat without competition. Spoiled as an untrained brat, he has not been challenged since facing Hillary four years ago when he was in a different place. Key to his failure was the fact his resumé and his shaky character have been astoundingly unexamined since emerging five years ago last February as the only known ineffable personality in America. An arrogant, aloof bully boy by nature, he continually decomposed before us because the rival he has taunted for months from a safe, remote corner, stood in front of him for the first time, daring the hollow bully to shout even a sissy insult. In response, the President alternately waddled, wobbled, melted.
Meanwhile, Back Home
Surrounded by adoring, full-throated, unswayable admirers of the President, I watched the debate from the front row of seats at the hugely crowded, pregnantly anticipatory, spark-fired Eso Won bookstore in the bosom of Leimert Park Village.
Without having separately polled the spillover audience, I would vaguely estimate that it is possible I was the lone conservative in the room. Talk about a prostitute in the pews.
Dr. Anthony Samad, of whom we have written three times in the past week, was a gracious, unblushingly partisan host.
His best take was when he emphasized the desirability of bringing together the community in a single setting, even if it is for the purpose of an act as untraditional as gathering before a large television screen.
Football players know about going on sound. Had you judged the 90-minute spectacular by crowd reaction, you would have suspected Mr. Obama led from here to Sunday.
Happily for one of us, reality walked through the door at debate’s end.
Dr. Samad invited comment from the realistically disappointed audience.
The first two gentleman, ardent but intellectually honest Obamaites, found truth undeniable.
“My immediate reaction would be that the Republicans will be pleased about Gov. Romney’s performance because he was very aggressive. They were saying all along he needed to take it to the President. It really doesn’t matter whether he was telling the truth. They wanted to see somebody challenge the President on every position. That’s what he did. Now he was a little overaggressive, a big bully-boy at some points, but they like that, too. I think they are going to be happy, which means he might get a little bump in the polls.”
“I am extremely biased,” said the second. “I think President Obama did a great job. I think Romney also did a job, much better than anything I have seen. I think the Republicans are pleased with his performance as well. We just have a whole lot of work to do between now and Election Day,” and the woman beside me shouted, “Yep, we do.”
