I just spewed several thoughts to my bride about an hour after we watched the debate. I'm proud to say that although I was initially bummed by Ed Schultz' and Tweety's analyses, good ol' Rachel broke my fall long enough to get to the computer to see what you all had to say. Obviously, everyone has different perspectives—not unlike what we've been observing here over the last couple of years—but thanks to all of you for your thoughtful commentary and inspiration, and here's what I'm taking to bed:
(It's a Kos-pile, you know what to do)
There's an old saying, "when you fight with a pig, you both get muddy, but the pig likes it." Okay, hold that sentiment. Then there's a diary elsewhere entitled "How Do You Debate a Liar?" Talking my wife down with my insights from the MSNBC crew and here, I came up with the above title and the reasoning behind it. I couldn't count the lies rMoney spewed—my bullshit meter bent its needle in the first thirty seconds. But I realized that President Obama had two choices: he could engage or he could stay out of the sty, act presidential, and articulate his points.
Someone mentioned Jello™ and I won't try to regurgitate the essence of the sentiment except to use it, and the fact is, if you are debating someone spewing lies at the rate seen tonight, it's an Herculean task—and impossible, frankly—to try and grab each one and throttle it in the time allotted. First it takes from the time you might better be able to employ to make your own case and second, when trying to grasp a tendril of gelatin, you invariably create three or four more. One can't keep ahead.
So, staying out of the mud and staying on his own message was exactly the right thing to do. $716B out of Medicare? Yes, it's a lie, and it's been debunked regularly and often since it was first articulated. But in a debate, trying to correct the prevaricator will only net a "nuh, uh" from him, and nothing is gained. "I'm not proposing $5T in tax cuts." Another lie, and acknowledgement and attempted refutation again results in no more than a tie on the point. In both cases President Obama would have gotten muddy and only come out even.
So, presidential was the best choice. Optics. Because in a few days, when all the fact checkers and pundits have had an opportunity to work the numbers, the consensus is going to be "pants on fire!" and the scoring of the debate is likely to move back to no worse than a tie, rather than a rMoney victory some low information reactors are celebrating at the moment. Because a lot of people will remember that one of the candidates acted as a bully and the other acted presidential.
Now, it wasn't all beer and skittles for President Obama (I love being able to say President Obama, and I'm hoping to be able to say it for another four years)—while I didn't think his head appeared down in submission like some of the talking heads did, it might have helped to make more eye contact. Yeah, I know, I wouldn't be able to look at the smirk-meister too much either, but the subject is optics. And let's not forget that the smirk was making a statement in optics, too, as was the bullying.
So, all in all, I understand why we didn't see President Obama fight back—it would have been unseemly…bad optics. But he didn't roll over, either. And I'm prepared to see what the sentiment is like by the time the vice presidential debate takes place next week. In the meantime, we can continue our GOTV mission.
By the way, I despise Al Sharpton. To me, he was forever stained by the Tawana Brawley affair, and he can never be rehabilitated to me. I never watch his show, and I start reaching for the remote whenever his turn comes up in a panel discussion. However, tonight, he laid out some cogent analysis that I thought was articulate and on point. It's a theme worth carrying in the week we need to see the results from this debate. But, Tawana Brawley.
RIP Jim Lehrer and the debate format.