A late comment on the first Obama-Romney debate:
Adam
Serwer noted: "Important question about post debate coverage is whether
media focuses more on Mitt's superior performance or his dishonesty."
An Atlantic Magazine reader from Canada:
This
election should not be close, Romney and Ryan should not be even in the
running to run your great country, a finger on the trigger, the power
to start another war, strip millions of their safety net, their rights,
their American Dream.
Andrew Sullivan: "Romney came across ... as insufferably smug."
Other comments from the web:
He
also came off as testy and officious at times, especially when dealing
with Lehrer. Rude, like a guy who cuts you online at the DMV and acts
like you're out of order for being bothered.
Romney pulls his entitled douchebag crap. Scolds Jim Lehrer, demands last word.
Romney
went all out to ‘win’ this round, madly shifting policy positions,
making dodgy assertions and committing to specifics that his base
abhors. Romney dodged and weaved impressively. But Obama forced him to
take stances and policy positions. All these will be fact-checked to
death and Romney will have to clarify, rationalize and reverse many of
the things he said on stage with millions watching.
What will
emerge: a man willing to say anything to get elected.
Romney
was smiling that terribly insincere smile of his. ... Shameless liars
are more resourceful and bouncy because they have no moral code
constraining them.
The
underpinnings and foundations of that performance were fundamentally
dishonest. ... But don't let that silly problem detract from the
performance as a whole.
The Canadian reader ("This
election should not be close, Romney and Ryan should not be even in the
running") articulated a terrible premonition many of us have had for
months. Our media, and possibly a majority of the electorate, are
judging an election, in which the fate of the experiment in government
"for the people" (in Lincoln's words) may be decided, by the debased mob
rule psychology of "Survivor."
