Did Romney ‘WIN’ The Debate?

[Segami]

Exclusive: The instant analysis after the first presidential debate — even on liberal-leaning MSNBC — was that Mitt Romney was the decisive “winner.” But Romney not only ducked the specifics of his plans but looked sneaky and nervous in doing so, writes Robert Parry.

"..In the debate that I saw, Romney seemed to be on the defensive, in large part, due to the incoherence and incompleteness of his arguments. And that reflected itself in his body language. He shifted nervously, blinked rapidly and displayed a forced smile. It looked like he was about to tear up during his closing remarks. I saw a man struggling at the end of his rope. By contrast, Obama looked, well, presidential. He was never flustered and mounted vigorous defenses of his policies, offering details about what he had done and what he would do. Yet, he didn’t sound overly defensive or whiny, a big risk in such a setting.



One could fault Obama for not being more aggressive with host Jim Lehrer, who curiously seemed determined to stop the President from exceeding his time limit while letting Romney ramble on. But that is more a criticism of Lehrer, who behaved like PBS types often do – they go weak in the knees when a Republican talks about slashing the subsidy for public broadcasting, as Romney pointedly did. So, I came away from watching the 90-minute debate thinking that Romney had come as close to melting down in front of a huge national audience as anyone I have ever seen in my half century of watching presidential debates. Pundits often fall back on the cliché that “no one landed a knock-out punch,” but this was as close to having one candidate lying on the mat as I have ever seen, although it was mostly Romney doing the damage to himself.



Yet, immediately after the debate – even on liberal-leaning MSNBC – Republican commentators were given the floor and allowed to set the tone of the meeting. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow deferred to GOP campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, who gushed over Romney’s performance. The verdict was “Romney won.” Everyone on the set except for Al Sharpton fell in line. Ed Schultz blasted Obama for not lashing out at Romney and especially for not blasting Romney’s portrayal of 47 percent of the U.S. population as irresponsible moochers. For the past several days, pretty much every pundit I watched had predicted that the “the 47 percent” comment would be the centerpiece of the debate, but I never thought that was likely, having watched Lehrer handle other debates. He almost never goes for the “gotcha” question, favoring bland policy discussions.




- The Times also did a solid job of assessing the claims and counter-claims from the two rivals. And the Times’ lead editorial took Romney to task for his mendacity and Obama to task for not holding the Republican accountable. But how to explain the behavior of the TV commentators, especially those on MSNBC, whose instant “spin” on behalf of Romney surely influenced the opinions of millions of Americans in their own assessments of who won? Though MSNBC has done a relatively good job of creating some balance in a cable TV environment that Fox News has tilted sharply to the right, its hosts are under corporate pressure to present themselves as neutral newscasters in situations like Wednesday’s debate. (Remember the trouble that Keith Olbermann encountered.) So, aspiring careerists like Rachel Maddow can be expected to demur in a situation like Wednesday night. After all, for her there are grand career opportunities, like a regular gig on NBC’s “Meet the Press” or possibly even replacing David Gregory as the host, a big step indeed. So she immediately turned to Steve Schmidt, who did what you would expect a Republican political operative to do in such a case. He spun the outcome for Romney and did so with such confidence that he seemed to influence the remarks of MSNBC show anchors, Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews, who promptly fell in line.






cont'


http://consortiumnews.com/2012/10/04/did-romney-win-the-debate/

[MADem]

1. This is why social media is important to young people--hell, all people.

I am the first to roll eyes at "the facebook" and "the twitter" because I am an old asshole and these are not "my" toys, but what "social media" had to say about the debate was 180 out from what the corporate media had to say.

What's interesting is that corporate media could NOT CONTROL social media. They also didn't PAY ATTENTION to it, either. This is why, two days later, the early shows are just NOW getting around to showing us pictures of Big Bird flipping the bird at Mitt.

Corporate media can't keep up. They're also not relevant--they are not the only game in town, they are not the only place to get "the word." They also aren't saying things that many of us believe, so we turn them OFF when they start bullshitting us.

So, I tip my hat to social media, because that's where the true temperature is taken with regard to this debate. The corporate media has a fat old bastard at the head of the long shiny table, barking orders, and telling people who work for him how it's gonna go. He can't control the people tweeting and posting on facebook.

[KharmaTrain]

2. The Mighty Wurlitzer In Action...

...or what's left of it. Remember, going into the debate, Bishop Willard had nothing but bad news and losing news cycles. You could just hear the exasperation from all segments of the unhinged bubbleworld as they are desperate for their "Great White Hope" to take down the evil colored fella. All the angst we're hearing here for the past two days have been a constant in the bubble for the past three months as the Stench made one mess-up after another. He desperately needed a win...and moreso...his disgruntled supporters. Few of them are in love with the guy but he's their ticket to the power they lust.

On substance, Willard lost the debate to himself. As you so properly note he talked himself into a lot of corners he'll have to deal with, but that's not unusual for this guy. He's a snake oil salesman who will do or say whatever he needs to close the deal. His lies and boorish actions were purely theater to get the "empathy" to jumpstart his morbid campaign. The wingnuts...desperate for something to glam onto...are running with this "victory" for all its worth. They're certain this is a "game changer" and will say so over and over until its so. It's all they've got in a vain attempt to try to become relevant in an election where the numbers are getting further away from them...and more importantly, they're seeing erosion downticket...and could face a total repudiation at the ballot box.

The good thing is the expectations game has changed. After taking his "victory lap" Willard now has to top that performance. What does he do to maintain the momentum? What I'm seeing are the last gasps of a failed candidate and campaign that will soon overplay their hands and sink their fortunes even further...

[madaboutharry]

3. Great article.