Barack’s EGO Cost Him The Debate [And It CAN Cost Him The Election Too]

Last night, like most grown adults in North America, tuned into the presidential debate to watch, what we thought, would be a beat-down of Tyson v. Holmes proportions. Instead what we got was a Hoosiers style upset, where the favoured team lost, not so much because they were outplayed by a better opponent, but because they UNDERESTIMATED their opponent. Obama’s lethargic, uninspired and ultimately charismatic-less performance could be summed up in ONE word: HUBRIS.

And for those of you who disagree with me that Barack lost the debate, you either watched a COMPLETELY different debate than I did, or you are judging it off grounds that DON’T MATTER. This is an election, and the point is to accumulate the most votes, and in the United States of America, accumulating votes is NOT predicated on being the most honest, statistically correct or factually honest – it’s almost ALL about STYLE over SUBSTANCEand Barack severely lacked BOTH.

Now I’m NOT saying that Romney’s debate win has got Barack on the ropes and has catapulted Mitt ahead in the polls (yet), but this was a W for the Republican party for ONE simple reason: Tonight should have been the Romney campaign’s DEATH BLOW. If this was Mortal Kombat, Mitt was spinning around dazed and unconscious on his feet while the words FINISH HIM blared on the screen in deep blood red. The blows should have included:

1) The fact that Romney has categorically disclaimed 47% of the country as free-loading douchebags who don’t deserve his time or attention.

2) Mitt’s EXTENSIVE history of cutting jobs during his time at Bain Capital.

3) Mitt’s unwillingness to pay an equal tax percent, even though he makes tens of millions of dollars.

4) The Republicans class wars on homosexuals, women, and immigrants.

5) The fact that OBAMACARE IS ROMNEYCARE.

6) The fact that HE got Osama and is slowly but surely scaling the troops back to end the wars America is in.

And if he stated those points with the passion that we saw he debate and deliver speeches with in 2008, he would have been the CLEAR winner and may have wrapped this election up to the point where he could have phoned in the final month like taking knees at the end of a football game. But instead Obama floundered through the debate, stumbled over his words, allowed Romney to state numerous mistruths RIGHT TO HIS FACE, and even let MITT [of all damn people] take HIM to task over HIS record in office.

Obama’s thoughts after Mitt’s unexpected showing…

Obama prattled on about personal stories about people he met on the road, which worked in 2008, but seemingly had little to NO effect in this debate. The reality is, many people are willing to blame the last four years of economic strife on Bush’s screw-ups, which Dubya rightfully deserves, but now people want to hear about POLICY instead of PERSONAL ALLEGORIES. But ultimately Barack’s DELIVERY is what lost him this debate. The idea that it seemed he would rather have been laid up under his wife on their anniversary, or even playing NBA 2K13 with Kobe Bryant, appears to be the TRUTH of the matter because his head nor his heart were into it. It just FELT like Barack stopped taking Romney seriously. But he needs to remember that Americans WILL elect the interesting idiot over the boring intellectual EVERY time, and you don’t have to go back to Dubya v. Gore to realize that - just start with Reagan in 1980.

In 1980, Reagan and incumbent president Jimmy Carter were head to head in the polls after their primaries, even though the majority of the country was UPSET at how Carter was running the country (sound familiar?) and Reagan [the underdog] ended up WINNING the election because of his OPTIMISM – the same optimism Mitt showed last night. The very same optimism that made Obama win in a landslide in 2008 – and the very same optimism he did NOT have last night. The STUPIDEST thing liberals can do is ASSUME that the rest of the country will see through Mitt and deny him their vote. Although Romney is still behind in popular polls, you may be surprised at how much ground he truly gained.

I realize that this was only one debate, but the fact that Mitt has pulled his campaign out of the gutter, re-energized his base (who had a LOT of concerns about him and his staff) and impressed some anti-intellectual undecided voters, has given him something Obama could have EASILY beat out of him tonight:

Hope.

This Is Your Conscience

When Lincoln Anthony Blades is not writing for his controversial and critically acclaimed blog ThisIsYourConscience.com, he can be found contributing articles for Uptown Magazine. Lincoln wrote the hilarious and insightful book "You're Not A Victim, You're A Volunteer: How To Stop Letting Love Kick Your Ass". He is also a public speaker who has sat on panels all over North America and the Caribbean.

36 Comments

  1. lincolnanthonyblades

    10/04/2012 at 4:58 AM

    Ladies & Gentlemen, What Did YOU Think About Last Nights Debate? Who Do YOU Think Won?

    • iluvwhoiluv

      10/04/2012 at 10:13 AM

      I think Obama is saving his HAM moments for later debates. I didn't care too much for the moderator at all. Obama could have done better, but on the same token, nothing was really that impressive about Mitt, either. I feel like for anyone to claim any candidate "won anything" from the debate last night is mistaken. It's a draw at best, from my perspective.

      • lincolnanthonyblades

        10/04/2012 at 3:12 PM

        I slightly disagree, because this race will be close enough to be won by undecided voters, and Mitt won some over last night. By no means do i think Romney was impressive, but I DO think Obama was very unimpressive, and if Jimmy Carter proved anything, an uninspired campaign + a high disapproval rate can = not getting re-elected.

  2. mena

    10/04/2012 at 7:36 AM

    The moderator sucked. ASS. He didn't have control of the debate from the beginning. Obama couldn't get what was in his head out of his mouth. Romney looked like a smug bastard whereas Obama just looked bored to death. I don't think it was about his ego but more about how he just didn't want to be there. They have a few more rounds but Obama definitely didn't go HAM and didn't call Romney out (except on healthcare) on much of anything.

    Also, one of my friends said it best, not too many people truly care about the debates but both parties still need to come out and show that they care.

    Mitt wasn't interesting and didn't deliver any significant blows. In fact, Mitt was just blah. It was the fact that Obama didn't attack that had me puzzled.

    • Lia

      10/04/2012 at 8:01 AM

      LOL, yeah Jim Lehrer definitely should NOT have been the moderator for a presidential debate. Waaay too passive.

      But I pretty much didn't learn anything new from the debate either. Obama still stands by his positions (but won't defend them the way he should), and Romney will pick whichever ones he thinks will get him elected. It's getting old on both fronts.

      Here's to hoping that the debates don't matter too much….

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/04/2012 at 3:13 PM

      Mitt didn't win this debate on his own accord, Obama just mostly lost it because of being disinterested – and thats HUBRIS. A debate is the EXACT place you need to give your effort.

  3. Lia

    10/04/2012 at 7:54 AM

    You said exactly what I was thinking: he underestimated him opponent. Talk about an upset…I mean, I am an Obama supporter, but let's get real: he lost the debate. I was confused, I felt like that should have been the clencher. He didn't refute enough of what Romney put out there, I didn't even like the way he put out a lot of his own positions. I know the rules of debate (even this poorly moderated one), but he had to know that Romney was not about to stay the course. He needed to be able to roll with the punches and deliver some, and I just don't think that he did it the right way this time around. Because I actually read newspapers and figures, I knew what he was speaking on. But the average everyday idiot out there, all of that information simply went right over their heads.

    He better come correct with this next debate.

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/04/2012 at 3:16 PM

      I think these debates mean more to some people than we give them credit. People aren't out here looking for facts like us, they are looking for who has the most style.

  4. pe.riche.

    10/04/2012 at 10:17 AM

    I have to agree. As an Obama supporter, I was surprised by his lackluster enthusiasm. But neither candidate really produced or shared any new information. It was like they were talking around each other, and didn't feel like they were on the same stage at all. To me, the debate seemed tragically rehearsed.

    Honestly, however, I am not really worried about Obama. This is the same candidate that beat out some of the most seasoned political figures with the most enviable rapports (Hillary, Bill, and John McCain, back when he was actually a viable candidate).

    The moderator, Jim Lehrer, was truly awful. I think after the Big Bird comment he just gave up all hope. Gwen Ifill, the moderator for the 2008 VP Debates, should've moderated this one, too. She had control over the tempo of the debates and wasn't afraid of the nominees.

    But I'm actually more excited about the VP debates. Uncle Joe is going to say something really crazy, then defend his initial statements with something even more outlandish.

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/04/2012 at 3:18 PM

      You should be a little more worried about Obama because this is not the same man or campaign from 2008.

      I agree with you about the VP debates, I think Joe Biden has more original charisma than anyone else debating.

      • mena

        10/04/2012 at 4:35 PM

        Ryan is going to slap the crap out of Biden in the debate.

        Bless Biden's heart by Ryan has charisma.

        • lincolnanthonyblades

          10/04/2012 at 5:57 PM

          Ryan has so much bad PR around him right now its crazy. Fox News even called him a liar!

  5. Abu Husain

    10/04/2012 at 12:50 PM

    Mitt did a good job. Obama looked flat and lost at some points. Instead of coming with decent facts or at least talking points, he brings up anecdotes about his grandmother. He could have went after Mitt when it came to SS, but he said they both have the same plan!

    Mitt did not look like the cold, heartless, greedy businessman that "likes to fire people". They had to debate the issues, not resort to personal attacks. When it comes to domestic policy, Pres Obama doesn't have a record he can boast about. Even the points you memtioned about the 47 (referring to people to focus on during the presidential race), cutting jobs at Bain (can't really blame him, blame NAFTA), his taxes (he pays a capital gains tax which SHOULD be lower than an income tax to encourage investments), etc. He couldn't really mention the other things because they were personal attacks or foreign policy issues
    It didn't matter if you checked to left or right wing channels, they all said Romney won (watching Chris Mathews' nervous breakdown was hilarious). I think it was a good way for him to energize the GOP base and get Republicans or libertarians like myself who were on the fence to go out anf actually vote for him. My vote won't really matter here in Cali (which is dominated by dems), but it makes a big difference in states where it's neck and neck. Romney isn't known for debating, buy Ryan is. I can't wait to see how that one turns out.

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/04/2012 at 3:22 PM

      I think Mitt did a fairly terrible job, but Obama couldn't call him on his BS and was completely unprepared on how to deal with him. Mitt is getting slammed on many of his "facts" but Obama didn't have the ability to call him on it live.

  6. Diana

    10/04/2012 at 2:19 PM

    Yeah. Since so much of the American electorate doesn't read or listen, if we are going with the idea that 'might is right', then Mittens won. I think that Obama's problem will always be that he's "too smart". And I don't mean that in a bad or arrogant way, but that he clearly doesn't like talking to fools. Especially fools who lie right out the gate and then double down by contradicting their own selves. And Obama's attitude and corresponding affect is like, "I'ont have time for this mess. And it's my anniversary, too?!? Puh-lease." He relies on people to have the same level of critical thinking and common sense, but we all know that ain't common…

    • Diana

      10/04/2012 at 2:25 PM

      Oh! I want to add to my own comment – lolol! Last weekend C-SPAN showed old Presidential debates. They showed the 1984 one between Reagan and Mondale. And whilst it was clear that Reagan was cray cray and I had to call my mama like 'how'd y'all elect this fool?!' he also had passion, confidence, and similar talking points as Obama (I inherited this mess, we're doing our best, y'all are better after 4 years) and he made Mondale look blah and boring. Wish some of that had happened last night…

      • lincolnanthonyblades

        10/04/2012 at 3:24 PM

        EXACTLY! Reagan realized that elections are battles of the heart more than the mind of Americans.

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/04/2012 at 3:23 PM

      EXACTLY how I felt he was thinking too!

    • Lia

      10/04/2012 at 4:20 PM

      LOL you seriously gave me a much needed laugh, your whole statement. Every now and then you can tell that he's even annoyed that he even has to explain something that is really simply for those of us who read. I'm inclined to believe that Romney switched his positions and Obama wasn't prepared for that to happen. Sometimes he just looked out and out confused by what was coming out of his mouth. That's the thing about liars though, some of them can spit em out with confidence and have you believing their nonsense.

  7. MistaHarsh

    10/04/2012 at 2:55 PM

    I agree with Abu. Obama can't really toot his horn about the last four years, he has to ask for more time. Romney has the advantage of saying "tell us what you did?" and then having the luxury of saying "well that didn't do a damn thing". I think Obama was waiting for Mitt to have a gaffe of epic proportions and it just never happened. Mitt spoke decisively and showed an agressive(interruptions and all) confidence.

    What I don't understand is that they both kept saying how similar they were. If their policies are similar then all we have to differentiate is style and Obama right now is going to lose that battle.

    Obama needs to toot his horn on his accomplishments and show haste and stop being so self aware(he needs to drink the same confidence juice GW Bush drank in his second term campaign)

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/04/2012 at 3:27 PM

      Obama definitely could toot his own horn about the last 4 years – he just doesn't know how to very well.The stupidest analyzation I currently hear of the economy is when people compare it to how good it USE to be, instead of comparing it to how bad it realistically SHOULD have gotten. Obama did not create a 10% unemployment rate – he prevented a 12% rate. But he never says that.

      I agree he needs to toot his own horn asap, but I don't think he wants to.

      • Lia

        10/04/2012 at 4:28 PM

        "The stupidest analyzation I currently hear of the economy is when people compare it to how good it USE to be, instead of comparing it to how bad it realistically SHOULD have gotten."

        Or how bad it really was. We are very fortunate that we were spared the harsh realities of the economy when it first tanked. I literally saw people crying when they looked at their 401Ks, but I'm sure people would have been jumping out of windows if they would have actually listened to what most economists were saying about the American economy and how long it would take for it to actually recover and expand. Fortunately, I had already taken three different economics classes by the last election so myself and my classmates were well informed. I'm not quite sure if people actually have realistic expectations of what any president is actually capable of accomplishing on his own, let alone in 4 years…

        • lincolnanthonyblades

          10/04/2012 at 6:00 PM

          I worked for a US financial corporation in 2008 during the time of the collapse, and can definitely cosign your statement about 401ks. People wont understand what Obama achieved until a documentary is made about it a decade from now.

      • Abu Husain

        10/04/2012 at 7:06 PM

        So, he put a band-aid over an amputated limb. It's easy to keep using Bush as an excuse for a crappy economy, but at some point, he has to take responsibility for it. Stop spending and make cuts… It's not popular, but it's needed. If you want to see where his policies take us, just look at California. My state is BEYOND (many cities are completely bankrupt) broke and the dems just keep spending and taxing the rich, making them move to other states and taking away fro the revenue the state takes in.

        • lincolnanthonyblades

          10/05/2012 at 12:36 PM

          Disagree. Sometimes an economy has long-lasting effects REGARDLESS of who's in office. This concept that the economy is solely dependent on who's in office is not right. If corporate cash injections set the country into depression for 10 years, that's a 10 year depression that can span 2 maybe 3 presidents, and none of them can actually fix it.

          The financial melt down was NOT just Dubya's fault – you can talk about Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall and add Reagonomics to the list.

          And like I said last night, AMERICANS ARE UNDERTAXED. Yet all you guys do is complain about taxes and want tax breaks and then wonder why the country is so dead-ass broke and in debt.

  8. Arbor

    10/04/2012 at 3:19 PM

    I don't understand how anyone can say that Mitt Romney won when all he did was lie and contradict everything he proposed while campaigning for the past couple of months.

    Check the facts. i.e, Romney said Barack doubled the deficit. The deficit was at 1.4 trillion in 2009, the year Barack was elected. As of last week the deficit is estimated to be 1.1 trillion. The deficit has decrease significantly from 10.1% to 7.3% This proves that Mitt doesn't know what the hell is he talking about or he is really bad at math. Either way, someone that ignorant didn't win last night.

    We can go over the entire debate and fact check anything Romney said and then we can have a conversation over who really won.

    Mitt would do or say anything for the sale. A true businessman at it's finest. To believe everything Mitt said last night and to say he won, now that's anti-intelligent.

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/04/2012 at 6:05 PM

      I'm not saying you're a liberal, but what you're doing is what far too many liberals do: You apply too much common sense to the reality of this race. Go state that second paragraph to an undecided voter and see if they don't look at you with a blank stare and respond with "Ok, but I liked Romney's red tie over Obama's blue tie."

      And therein lies the truth about elections in America. It's not fought with stats, sensible ideologies and realistic thoughts, it's fought with emotion. Most undecideds don't understand a damn thing about derivatives, credit-default swaps, deficit-reduction, offshore drilling, and the totality of the defence budget – and they don't really care. Mitt LOOKED and FELT better last night, therefore making him the winner.

      • Arbor

        10/04/2012 at 6:39 PM

        This election IS based on emotions. How do you think people are going to feel after they hear the facts of Mitt 's untruths he was spitting last night. I think Mitt shot himself in the foot last night.

        Don't think this won't be on blast on everybody favorite day and night talk shows, including national and local news.

        Unless people are going to base their opinion based on this debate alone and completely stop watching television and reading the newspaper until election time, I guess Mitt did win last night.

        • lincolnanthonyblades

          10/05/2012 at 12:39 PM

          You're doing it again – you're being TOO logical. Undecided voters don't give a DAMN about facts, because we live in the age where FACTS have become OPINION. How many scientists unequivocally state global warming is real, yet we are still politicizing it as a qualitative debate issue?

          People don't mind LIARS and that's the unfortunate truth. Mitt's lying and flip flopping has been put on blast everywhere from CNN to the Daily Show for MONTHS and people are STILL considering voting for him.

          People are NOT as hungry for knowledge as you are, or as you think they are.

  9. Arbor

    10/04/2012 at 3:43 PM

    The analogy of Carter and Reagan to Barack and Romney is not the right choice if you are trying to prove a point.

    Reagan came in and did his job, just like Barack and decrease the top individual income tax from 70 to 28 percent. Reagan led the biggest tax reform effort in history.

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/04/2012 at 6:07 PM

      I think you're missing the point I'm trying to prove. Even in 76, people never REALLY took Reagan that seriously. The idea that he would overcome the incumbent president was a big joke to everyone – until it happened.

      • Arbor

        10/04/2012 at 6:48 PM

        Yeah, I completely missed your point. Reagan was an actor in Hollywood, the transition alone to become president was a joke.

        But thank goodness Reagan became president. I can't say the same for Romney.

  10. Kenya

    10/04/2012 at 4:06 PM

    I went into this debate with an unbreakable desire to support Obama. I voted for him before and planned to do so again. Once the debate started, I began to really worry. I think that Barack clearly underestimated Mitt Romney so he didn't prepare for this debate as he should have. He wanted to bury Mitt by pushing the issue of Mitt's inability to clearly define his economic plan. Mitt came prepared for that discussion. While really not being specific about what measures he would take, he was able to clearly give the American public a point by point vaguely-disguised-as-specific plan for improving the economy. Obama's attempts to discredit Romney's strategy was met with denial by Romney minus a strong rebuttal in return from Obama. Barack should have been prepared for this possibility. Instead Obama, continued to regurgitate information taken from a single study in the most ineffective way possible. Romney just kept ignoring the moderator and Obama while restating his points. The President seemed unable to make a clear case for how he would indeed turn this country around either.

    When comparing both candidates and their platforms during the debate, Romney was able to appeal to those that are truly unhappy about the state of our economy and the enormous amount of debt that this country has. This is an issue that crosses party lines. If not, then it should. We cannot continue to go on at this pace. Period. Obama really didn't show that he was willing to fight for his own plan. The only thing that he seemed prepared to speak up for was ObamaCare. Not jobs, not national debt, not much else.

    After last night, I saw that Romney won this round. Obama better be ready to come out swinging next time around and up to Election Day.

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/04/2012 at 6:09 PM

      I completely agree.

  11. Nightfall

    10/04/2012 at 6:32 PM

    This debate was like Romney hitting an in the part solo homerun in the 5th Inning but still being down by 4 runs. It feels good in the moment but when you step and look at how he did it. Lies, flip flops and illogical claims, so its like his homerun was do to an error on the other teams part.

    • lincolnanthonyblades

      10/05/2012 at 12:46 PM

      Agreed. Barack needs a strong showing at the next debate or it will be another in the park home run and that lead will start to dwindle a little.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>