The Debate That Made the Race Real

Obama arrived at the presidential debate looking tired. He did not take many opportunities to attack his Republican opponent, who turned up ready and armed with all the relevant figures. It was Romney’s night, but the Democrats can console themselves with the past.

Something strange came over Barack Obama on his way over to the stage in Denver tonight (Thursday) at the first presidential debate between himself and the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. The sharp speaker, the man who usually knows how to cut down his opponents at election rallies and who stands at the forefront of a very successful campaign, suddenly decided to act stately, presidential, considering himself above the political dispute. This could have been the right decision, had this not been the height of the political debate, the moment at which Obama should have given his best.

“Obama didn’t turn up to the debate” said fellow members of the Democratic Party, who held their heads in despair during the 90-minute debate. Obama allowed Romney to attack again and again, gave the upper hand away, and in many cases didn’t even bother to retaliate. Oddly, it was actually media commentators who cared to refute many of the claims made by Romney in the debate. (For example, that Obama invested $90 billion in unsuccessful clean energy companies or will cut over $700 billion from the Medicare program are claims which have been checked in the past and were proven to be inaccurate.)

Obama frequently gazed downwards, to the stand in front of him, and simply looked as though he was tired, disinterested, or possibly just showing the arrogance of a president who considers it beneath his dignity to reply to the accusations of a political opponent. One of Obama’s few lines of attack was the fact that Mitt Romney refuses to elaborate to the people of America on his ideas while maintaining a sort of vagueness, behind which stands the fact that his plans will be carried out at the expense of the middle class. While this is a valid point, it is not sufficient to hold up an entire debate. It is difficult to give the claim that Romney’s tax cuts will cost $5 billion any basis, when Romney insists this is not his plan.

Particularly bewildering was the president’s decision not to use the heavy ammunition he possesses against Romney. He didn’t once mention Romney’s 47 percent speech, in which the Republican candidate claimed that half of Americans see themselves as victims and do not take any initiative to improve their future. Obama also did not talk about Romney’s past at Bain Capital, a company that has a record of firing thousands of workers in order to put more money into the pockets of investors and capitalists.

So why did he do this? Possibly it was to appear presidential and highlight the differences between himself and Romney. Maybe it was because he thought that Romney would stumble over his answers and Obama wouldn’t need to get his hands dirty. Or maybe the president simply underestimated Romney’s level of preparedness for this debate. Trailing behind in polls with a faltering campaign and growing resentment within his own party, Romney took the stage: ready, armed with all the figures (though not all correct), all the answers and most importantly, a strong will to attack. He was ready to storm forward and found himself facing an unmanned goal.

It was Mitt Romney’s night, which went to prove that his dullness occasionally pays off. He prepared for days and stuck to the script that he had composed with his advisors. But his main achievement was that he managed to appear serious. The American public was used to seeing Romney as this sort of heartless businessman caricature, lacking any depth or emotion. This time, entering the stage was a well-spoken, reasoned man with an established outlook. This, it must be said, is exactly what America wants to see in its president.

David Axelrod, Obama’s senior advisor, in an attempt to provide an excuse for this, rightfully stated yesterday that the opponent is always more successful than the president in office during the first debate. He also explained, again rightfully, that the question is not who wins in the “theater of the moment” but who delivers a consistent and relevant message to the public. But the fact is that Axelrod and his colleagues at the election headquarters in Chicago are facing many sleepless nights. Their hopes that the debate will complete Romney’s fall have crumbled, and now they must present the president with new ideas: refresh their tactics, prepare in new ways for the next debate and begin retaliating to claims.

The Democrats can console themselves with the historical facts. John Kerry, who played Mitt Romney’s role in Obama’s mock debates, can tell the president first-hand that a victory in the debates does not necessarily lead to a victory in the elections. After all, Kerry was announced as the winner in every one of his debates versus George W. Bush in 2004. The Democrats can also turn their attention to the millions of Americans who have already exercised their right to vote via early voting and will not have witnessed the debate.

But there is one fact on which they cannot disagree. The debate in Denver gave Mitt Romney the push he has needed for the past few months. It may not be sufficient to drive him past the finish line on Nov. 6, but it certainly has made him a real contender in this race.