2012 politics

Post-Debate in Denver Obama went ranting on Romney saying he is not for Real, he is a Liar…

“In fact, as Faulkner reminds us, the past is never dead and buried-it isn’t even past.” –Obama in Dreams from My Father.

…and yet, Mitt Romney stunted Obama’s main-stream-media with his substantiated, political zingers debate… that even the weird liberal guy who donated $1millon to Obama’s Super-PAC said that “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter” —Bill Maher. And then, Matt Latimer states: “Bill Clinton was not there to coddle him”…) (Read more here)

The first time I got a bloody nose as a kid, I felt powerless, scorned and humiliated the following day.  I had no other tool for personal vendetta other than to rant my frustration with my friends. Of course, I was looking for sympathy and some understanding; even though I knew well that I got beaten up for bragging too much excess egotistic-cockiness. I underestimated my opponent as slow and weak…. I was wrong.

This is my analogy of the post-presidential debate and particularly when Barack Obama went to the Denver, Colorado and Wisconsin rally mouthing jokes as a continuation of his desire for a second-serving at the White House. Clearly, Obama is still reeling from the blow Mitt Romney gave him at the presidential debate and he’s feeling spiritually scorned after Mitt Romney called him on his first four years of failed economic policies.

But more than failed economics, this debate also impacted the president’s ego like nothing before.  Being the most respected and powerful man on earth of unrivaled social-objector for four years and getting pounded right in front of millions of viewers (about 65M). My friends, you don’t win a presidential debate by being a policy expert. Obama flunked his first presidential debate by violating all the basics of a good debate. Here are some of those basics:

  • Outline moral values by contrasting them with that of opponent’s.
  • Empathy and enthusiasm is a must connection.
  • Transmit the message clearly and in a simply form for all audience.
  • Don’t be faked and force smile at the opponent. Speaks what you believe in.
  • Project authenticity of ideas that the audiences can mirrored and identify with.

Obama failed to do any of this. Instead he talked about policy details (again) in a professorial style, perhaps, as a defense mechanism to avoid being bullied around by an aggressive business man who unleashed a barrage of four years of repressed punches. Barack Obama’s seemed to be having a bad flashback  to the little boy he was once which left him with an egg-sized lump on the side of his head by an Indonesian kid while living with his step-father, Lolo Soetero.

Clearly the president was unable to defend himself against Romney’s direct piercing eyes and fast speech that overwhelmed him and resulted in painful egg-sized-lumps. However, this first debate unfolded something never seen before with Mr. Obama and that was his inability to defend his point that stunted the Obama main-stream-media. In my view, the second upcoming debate surely will show a different Obama but the damage is already grass-rooted and imprinted in peoples mind and it’s not easy to forget.

On the other hand, the “smoke and mirrors” of the CNN’s anchors and political pundits sat watching the debate wit frozen shocked-faces by the end of the show: “what the hell happens here…?”. They could not believe what they saw; even the staunch democrat boldly guy, James Carville had no choice but to admit that “Obama did not want to be there”. Let’s remember that these guys of CNN are all Obama lovers since day one and would all fight for him to the death. (That’s the way they make their payroll…)

Mr. Obama looked angry and had a skirmish smiled devoid of sincerity during the harsh exchanges and he refused to look Romney in the face when he politely accused him of four years of failed policies. He was left with no alternative but to recoil his attention and hide in his notes-taking while Romney keep exposing his arguments. Obama looked lost sometimes gazing at the camera in a lecturing professorial style to seem, consciously or unconsciously, presidential but to no avail, the load of… horse-dung was too much to shake it up.

Clearly, Obama showed an inability to call Romney out on his policies. Why didn’t he call him out on so many things shown in the anti-Romney ads? This is something that I will never know, only Michelle Obama know the truth, she knows her man. Didn’t he do his prep work before the debate? I think not:  “they’re making me do my homework”? He said jokingly in an interview (Read more about his self-confessed laziness)

Was Obama being too confidant (presidential cockiness went to his head, perhaps?) on his strategy and his team miscalculated Romney’s chivalry? Was Obama bothered to be on the stage facing his most dear foe: a fat-cat evil-rich-corporate-capitalist as Mr. Romney? That’s how he seemed to behave in the view of one the most important debates of his life; the entire nation was looking forward to seeing these two men on stage. Perhaps this debate might be one of his most defining moment since it is already archived in the history book as one of the worst-epitomes of Obama’s public debate.

The lack of Obama’s energy that night to counter-argue, what most people believe Obama does best as master orator, was exemplified the next morning when Obama was back in his comfort zone away from his rival and free to call Romney a liar and “not being truthful with the American people”. He nuanced in Denver’ stage with a sardonic anger: “We had our first debate last night, and when I got onto the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. He does not want to be held accountable for the real Mitt Romney’s decisions and what he’s been saying for the last year.”

I find this rant undignified and improper for a man who is the current president accusing a rival who might be the next president of not being “real” and claiming to be someone he is not.  Why did he make such ranting? Was the little boy with an egg-sized-lump on his head upset  and throwing a tantrum?

In his second term, if reelected Obama will face the truth of his own needs and lack of inner aggression visible in the debate; he will need to be able to transform his political appeasement actions into a more directly and feisty power against a recalcitrant and gridlock Congress/Senate. I hope that his fathers-void and abandonment along with his mothers psychological injuries free him to exercise his full power against his opponents. (You might be wonder what Mom/Dad had to do with the debate…?)

Nevertheless, right now there is a polarized ideological political dilemma in America and it was clearly defined during the first debate in which Romney’s desire for the White House was shown, visible and commendable. The man knows his business stuff and I hope the GOP/Te Party will let him do the right thing without constraining him into a straight jacket.

Now, the American people need to solve this imprinted dilemma in their minds through their civic votes and it is apparent that we have a fight between Romney’s Social-Pragmatism and American constitutional morality vs. Obama’s plasticity of social humanism-and idealism. The choices between this binary-duality for the nation next’s Commander-in-Chief has become much more acute and will impact the nation for better or worse.


Here’s the first debate presidential script, jugged for yourself.

“ROMNEY: And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world.

Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.

ROMNEY: But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it’s on the table. That’s probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent.

But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this — this is not — this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure.”  Read more.


About Mar Defoe

USA WORLD -Is an independent interdisciplinary blog that writes political commentaries from a variety of multicultural disciplines and under different categories: world affairs, literature, USA politics, satire-graphic-design, technology, psychology, academics, cultural studies. This blog allows others bloggers to partake in our 21st century world issues.


Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: