Well, pardon me for repeating myself, but we’ve just been treated to another sure sign that the Obama media cult is the littlest bit worried about Wednesday’s debate. This time it’s in the form of a “Political Memo” in the New York Times from CNBC Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood.
Mr. Harwood’s memo, “Debates Can Shift a Race’s Outcome, but It’s Not Easy,” takes a different tack from Gwen Ifill’s debates-don’t-really-matter op-ed in yesterday’s Washington Post.
Al Gore, for example, lost his debates with George W. Bush because of some “minor factual inaccuracies,” “poor makeup that gave [Gore] an orange tint” and (special note to Mr. Obama) a “condescending, impatient demeanor.”
Read the whole thing to get the full treatment, but suffice it to say that Mr. Harwood concludes by reminding us about the Walter Mondale-Ronald Reagan debates in 1984. Mr. Reagan did poorly in the first but wiped the floor with Mr. Mondale in the second. “’I said to myself, this is probably over now,’ Mr. Mondale said. He ultimately carried one state, his native Minnesota.” “These debates are the one chance to change how they look at him, and how they look at Obama,” Mr. Mondale is quoted as saying. And, finally, “The lesson of his own experience? ‘That’s a high hill to climb.’”
I, for one, look forward to seeing the post-debate spin.
I expect that pretty soon, we will start hearing that not only are the debates not important or necessary, but neither is the election itself.
oh I can tell you the post-debate spin. Mitt Romney will be excoriated for daring to ask the president about [fill in the blank: Libya, Iran, unemployment, college transcripts, etc.]. and Barack Obama will be praised for beating expectations, considering that he's not that great at debating and all.
Debates are very important, the two candidates answering questions and responding to the answers of the other. But in this race There is no real need for them as there is no question as to who will lead this country back to prosperity. Do you want an idividual who has no practical job experience, no business experience and up to this point shown no leadership. do you want the doophis in the WH that has had almost four years to turn things around and start us on a road to recovery, but has instead done everything he can to make sure that the turn around hasn't even started let alone the beginning of recovery. Or you want an individual who has proven business experience, who with some fellow investers started a business and built it from zero to a company worth billions. A man who has helped people through some very trying times and has the heart felt compassion to bring this country out of it's very trying times. For me the answer is obvious for others no so obvious, so we're stuck with the debates.