There are few places more strongly Democrat than Portland, Oregon, the city of artists and aspiring writers on the west coast. It’s immersed in the ‘90s Clintonian enthusiasm. It remains that the performance of the president two weeks ago with a challenging Romney triggers little enthusiasm. In the voter registration office on Killingsworth Street, the fascination for Obama was much greater before the debate than after 90 minutes of monologues spaced out by Jim Lehrer’s impalpable questions.
Killingsworth Street was filled with African-Americans, retired teachers, a veteran, small entrepreneurs and local civil servants, amongst whom only a few clapped with assurance when Obama opened his speech with his wishes to Michelle for their wedding anniversary while she was sitting in the audience at the University of Denver. While looking at the camera, the president stressed that “if you are 54 or 55, you might want to listen,” responding to Romney’s proposal to revise the health care reform — referred to as Obamacare — which the president said he liked and joked that he’d become fond of the term “Obamacare” to reassure those who already are retired.
As for the rest, the supporters seem to suffer from the “Romney effect.” The former governor of Massachusetts did not say anything memorable but, standing on stage next to Obama and dressed with a nicer tie and a perfectly tailored suit, he appeared potentially presidential for the first time. As absurd as it may seem, Democrats were not prepared for this. In the Obama world, Romney was already broken apart for all his mistakes and was a victim of the inconsistency of his proposals. But he was also crushed by the president’s personality. This is demonstrated by the fact that Obama, to the country’s stupor, refused to use the 47 percent joke against him. (Romney said in a private event that that percentage of voters was lost because those who are supported by the state vote for Obama.) He did not mention the questionable performance in jobs creation at the company run by Romney, Bain Capital, and he did not take advantage of the Republican candidate’s flip-flopping tendency to contradict previous statements. Was that too lenient? It would seem so; Democratic campaign strategist David Plouffe justified himself by saying that facts such as the "47 percent" comment were already known to everyone, so it was not necessary to underline them.
As a result, Obama was forced to play defense and insist on what has been achieved rather than promising hope and change. His tendency to interrupt the moderator, not respect the allotted time to speak and grin while Romney spoke did not evoke the strength of the dream and the "Yes we can" slogan of 2008 anymore; he seemed to overflow with the arrogance of power. 40 million people watched the presidential debates, but few listened to them. And based on the content of those debates, Obama's defeat seems to be much less marked. Romney has confirmed his reputation as a "no-plan man." He does not explain how he wants to change the health care reform, remains vague on how he plans to finance his tax cuts and avoids giving details of how many Wall Street rules he want to withdraw.
The joke that Obama made about Romney’s plans, asking “is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans secret because they are too good?”* was surely well-timed, but it didn’t make up for an evening that went wrong.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Usa2012: Barack e Mitt visti da repubblicani e democratici
Ci sono pochi posti in America più solidamente Democratici di Portland, Oregon, la città degli artisti e degli aspiranti scrittori della costa ovest, immersa negli anni Novanta dell’entusiasmo clintoniano. E perfino qui la prestazione di Obama nel dibattito di mercoledì sera con lo sfidante Repubblicano Romney suscita poco entusiasmo. Nel Centro per la registrazione dei votanti, in periferia, Killingsworth Street, la passione obamiana è assai più forte prima del dibattito che dopo un’ora e mezzo di monologhi intervallati dalle impalpabili domande di Jim Lehrer.
Tra base di Killingsworth street, quasi tutti afroamericani, ex insegnanti in pensione, un veterano, piccoli imprenditori e funzionari locali, si registrano solo un paio di applausi convinti: quando Obama esordisce facendo gli auguri per l’anniversario di matrimonio a Michelle, seduta nella platea dell’Università di Denver, e quando il presidente scandisce guardando in camera: “Se hai 54 o 55 anni forse ti interessa quello che sto per dire”, in risposta a Romney che proponeva di rivedere la riforma sanitaria (“Obamacare, ormai sono un fan di questo nome”, scherza il presidente) per rassicurare chi è già in pensione.
Per il resto anche i militanti sembrano soffrire l’effetto Romney. L’ex governatore del Massachusetts non dice niente di memorabile ma, lì sul palco, accanto a Obama, con una cravatta migliore e un vestito tagliato perfettamente, per la prima volta appare presidenziale. E per quanto possa sembrare assurdo, i Democratici non erano preparati a questo: nell’Obamaworld Romney era già distrutto dalle sue stesse gaffe, vittima dell’inconsistenza delle sue proposte e schiacciato dalla personalità del presidente. Lo dimostra il fatto che Obama, nello stupore nazionale, ha rinunciato a infierire sulla battuta del 47% (in un fuorionda Romney ha detto che quella percentuale di elettori è persa perché i mantenuti dallo Stato votano per Obama), non ha nominato le dubbie performance nel creare lavoro della società guidata da Romney, Bain Capital, e non ha approfittato della tendenza al flip flop, cioè a contraddire affermazioni passate, del candidato Repubblicano. Troppa leggerezza ? Parrebbe di sì, lo stratega elettorale democratico David Plouffe si è giustificato dicendo che punti come il “47%” erano già noti a tutti e non era necessario sottolinearli.
Risultato: Obama è costretto dal ruolo a giocare in difesa, a rivendicare quanto già ottenuto invece che promettere speranza e cambiamento. La sua tendenza a interrompere il moderatore, a non rispettare i tempi, a sogghignare mentre Romney parla non evoca più la forza del sogno, il “Yes we can” del 2008, e tracima nell’arroganza del potere. I dibattiti presidenziali li guardano in tanti, 40 milioni, ma li ascoltano in pochi. E stando ai contenuti la sconfitta di Obama pare molto meno netta. Romney ha confermato la sua fama di “No plan man”, l’uomo senza un piano. Non spiega come vuole cambiare la riforma sanitaria, resta sul vago su come pensa di finanziare gli sgravi fiscali, evita i dettagli su quante regole vuole rimuovere da Wall Street. “Forse i piani di Romney sono così vantaggiosi per le famiglie americane che non si sente ancora pronto a rivelarli”. La battuta di Obama ha il giusto tempismo, ma non basta a salvare una serata storta.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The economic liberalism that the world took for granted has given way to the White House’s attempt to gain sectarian control over institutions, as well as government intervention into private companies,
The madness lies in asserting something ... contrary to all evidence and intelligence. The method is doing it again and again, relentlessly, at full volume ... This is how Trump became president twice.