How Obama and Romney Are Seen by the Republicans and the Democrats

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.