Originally Posted by Kid A
Agreed. No bones about it, ****ty performance by the President. But the media, particularly the liberal media, were more than willing to categorize it as a historic disaster. I mean, a ton of people watched the debates, but how many watched the whole thing? Or watched closely and came away with a really clear concept of who won?
It's in the days and days of constant media stories about how Obama got beat that the perception really filters in to the general electorate. And that's the media's job, to educate on an event many people couldn't follow live. The ash and sackcloth routine of the liberal opinion columnists, though, seems an odd approach if they feel it is so dire that he be re-elected. CNN afterward had most their panel calling it a decisive win for Romney, but nobody was running around with their head chopped off ala Chris Matthews.
Yep. Basically, liberals wanted Obama to call Romney a lying son of a b****, and when he didn't, it was a disaster as far as they were concerned (I admit, this was my inital reaction as well). And so that became the narrative in the days that followed. Like you said, how many folks actually watched the debates in their entirety, or came away with a strong opinion on who won? If liberals had been more cagey in their reaction, more willing to stoop to intellectual dishonestly like the right, I suspect the narrative would have been different and thus the public perception less damaging.