During the earlier debates, I thought Obama was skillful, but sometimes lost. When he didn’t know a topic, he just punted (remember his rambling answer on Russia during the last debate). But tonight he seems to be at his logical, calm, rhetorical best. What strikes me is how different he is from candidate Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton was a folksy, at ease, and hugely knowledgeable debater. But every statement from Clinton always seemed wrapped in a veneer of insincerity. Even when he knew a topic cold, you couldn’t really be persuaded that he believed what he was saying. His criticism of George H.W. Bush always had an edge. Obama is very different. Sometimes he seems out of his depth. He doesn’t show his cards. Listening to him, I’m left wondering what he would actually do as president since he relies on a lot of uncontroversial, good government bromides. But he seems more serious, less angry, and more trustworthy than Clinton. In these times, that makes him a better debater.
advanced search
June 2013
-
Articles
-
The Case for Drones
Kenneth AndersonThe United States can now wage war in a more nimble, low-risk, and humane fashion than ever before.
-
The ObamaCare Blame Game
Tevi Troy
Fiction
-
Past Due
Christine Sneed
Politics & Ideas
-
Gray Matter Chatter
Robert HerrittA review of Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld's Brainwashed
-
Vali of Doom
Sohrab Ahmari -
Beyond Good, Quite Evil
Andrew Roberts
Culture & Civilization
-
Exit Laughing
Rick Richman -
How Hitler Destroyed German Music
Terry Teachout -
Widow's Peak
Fernanda Moore -
Turncoat in a Toga
Stephen Daisley -
The Los Angeles Times Earthquake
Andrew Ferguson
John Podhoretz
-
The Second-Term Curse
John Podhoretz
Threat Assessment
-
Disappearing Red Lines
Jonathan S. Tobin
Letters
-
Republican Recovery
Our ReadersResponses to Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner's "How to Save the Republican Party"
Enter Laughing
-









