You are here: Home » Comment »

Debate Verdict: Say hello to “Commander-in-Chief” Obama

October 23, 2012 7:29 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

The big fear for Democrats tonight was that the President of the United States wouldn’t turn up and that Professor Obama would return once more.

Just 90 minutes of Prof. Obama in Denver three weeks ago was all it took to create a strategic opening for Romney which he took for all it was worth. The gap created by a weak, soporific incumbent spewing statistics and struggling to connect with his audience was dangerous to the President.

Then round two happened last week and the President showed up. Prof Obama was retired and the debate was won.

So who would show up tonight? Prof Obama or President Obama? Well, in the event it was neither instead the night belonged to one man:

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OBAMA.

Make no mistake, this Obama was more W. then Kerry, more Reagan then Carter, more JFK then Tricky Dick.

His answers began each time with a strong clear statement of America’s strength (or “’merica” as Obama often said channeling his Texan predeccesor) and went on to recap the story of America’s strength during his four years as Commander-in-Chief. From Afghanistan to Syria his answers were perfectly pitched to project strength and demonstrate America’s power. And yet if you listened on it wasn’t just jingo-ism: Obama would then bridge to explain not with statistics but with clear examples. His language was carefully calibrated to resonate with target voters and the live dial groups and the after-debate insta-polls reacted positively.

But as the former Commander-in-Chief of the Massachusetts State Guard attempted to respond, pleading for as Twitter put it “binders full of ships”, the Commander-in-Chief who, y’know, actually has a nuclear football, turned on the slap down big time: “it’s not a game of Battleship.”

In all seriousness, being an incumbent can be a great asset or a dramatic hinderance. In the first debate, Obama fell into all the trappings of the insider. He was bogged down in data, hampered by detail, flustered and frustrated by the simplicity of his opponent. Romney was able to speak in clear bold lines that resonated with viewers, unimpeded by the minutaie of government.

In the second debate, Obama completely turned it round. He dropped the bureaucratic detail, and played the incumbent card to his advantage by emphasizing the experience and credibility it gave him. Starting answers with “As commander in chief…” made himself sound like the credible candidate, and Romney was reduced to a try-hard outsider.

Obama was presidential. Obama was, and will remain, the Commander-in-Chief.

Marcus Roberts is the Deputy General Secretary of the Fabian Society

Related posts:

  1. Sky News debate: The verdict
  2. Why we shouldn’t be fawning over Obama
  3. You know, they said this day would never come: The Obama Inauguration live blog
  4. Ed to Barack: “call me maybe?”
  5. Letter from America – Boring Barack and Moderate Mitt
  • Serbitar

    For the sake of Europe in particular and the fate of the world in general I hope this article is right.

  • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

    I think this is rather over the top and still has hints of the misty eyed view of Obama.  In the foreign policy debates the incumbent is always expected to do well.  Obama had a clear (but narrowing) lead over Romney in the polls on foreign policy, so all Romney had to do was pass the ‘can I see him as Commander in Chief?’ test.  In a snap poll after the debate, 63% of people could see Obama as doing the job, 60% could see Romney doing the job.  So Romney passed that test and there wasn’t a big enough knock-out blow to stop Romney’s march.

    Both candidates have run incredibly, dispicably negative campaigns.  Obama’s big mistake has been his consistent attempt to portray Romney as evil, and I think part of why Romney is still in the race is because when people have seen Romney in the debates, they simply don’t recognise Obama’s description.  A little odd, yes, a bit outdated, certainly, but not evil.  Obama spent a lot of money on adverts saying Romney was so horrible, setting the bar so low for him, that all he has had to do is appear vaguely coherent for people to think ‘he’s not so bad’.

    It’s going to be very, very close.  But it’s all about the economy.  Whilst I think Obama remains the lesser of two evils – remember people in this country rightly deride Cameron for presiding over a government that has seen too few jobs created, lower living standards, falling incomes, a failing economy, rising poverty and a rising national debt.  So it’s a little odd that Obama is still worshipped by some people here, when he has done the exact same thing in America. 

    I don’t really care about foreign elections, but the stardust view of Obama does grate on me somewhat!

    • Brumanuensis

      The difference being that Obama inherited an economy in the depths of a catastrophic recession and that he’s spent the last two years having to negotiate with an entire chamber of Congress – notably the one where money bills originate from – that is steadfastly dedicated to destroying his presidency, no matter what the cost to the United States. So your analogy with the Coalition doesn’t really work.

      • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

        Have a little think about that. 

        Inheriting a weak economy, burdened with massive deficit and debt.  Having to negotiate with those in other political parties to get an agenda through, and having to struggle with a legislature where many on all sides are determined to get rid of him?  Yeah, you’re right.  Only Obama has that problem.  *cough*.

        • Brumanuensis

          Jonathan, this is silly. The circumstances inherited by Barack Obama and David Cameron are very different. For the analogy to work, Cameron would have had to become Prime Minister in late 2008 or early 2009. Equally, the Liberal Democrats are nowhere near as obstructive as Congressional Republicans and unlike the latter, are actually part of the government – which in turn is run along Parliamentary, not Presidential, lines. Obama did not inherit a massive deficit and debt either, but rather acquired one thanks to the collapse in economic output from the recession. Obama has made mistakes, but he hasn’t made the same mistakes as the coalition and he’s done so under very different circumstances.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            It is silly, and I had promised to give up coming to this site because of these debates so I’ll stop after this. I just think defending and finding excuses for those ‘on our side’ for doing the same things we criticise our opponents for here is a touch hypocritical.  If Obama was a Republican, people on this site would be criticising him for the dreadful state of their economy, and saying blaming the last guy or obstructive opponents is a weak stance.  I know that’s politics for you, but it does my head in!

            PS Obama inherited a debt of $10 trillion, it’s now $16 trillion. You can bet your bottom dollar that we’ll be criticising Cameron at the next election if the national debt rises 60% on his watch.

          • Brumanuensis

            I’m not blindly defending Obama. He pivoted to deficit reduction too early and the economy has suffered as a result, but he did so for different reasons than the coalition. America desperately needs a second stimulus, but in large measure that’s precisely what Obama proposed last year with his American Jobs Act – rejected by Congress. Debt has increased in the UK because of the government’s poor decisions; debt has increased in the US more down to external factors. That’s why I’m defending Obama, not because I have a ‘stardust view’ of him.

  • Amber_Star

    I watched the debate. President Obama was the clear winner. And I think the actual election won’t be as close as some polls are currently showing.

  • rekrab

    I’m no fan of Romney, he’s a loose cannon but on the debate I’ll be honest, Obama was hit with some heavy punches, 2o trillion more spending, 9 million less jobs than projected and the middle east in a shambles, Obama seemed to be an advocate of containment and Romney had a forward plan, I’m guessing this one will go right to the wire.

    • Brumanuensis

      20 trillion more spending? Where is this coming from? I don’t remember Romney saying that and his maths is ‘rum’ anyway. The unemployment projections dated from a time when the severity of recession was underestimated and the Arab Spring is hardly something that Obama can control. 

      I agree with you about it going to the wire, but Obama is ahead in most of the key swing states.

  • Brumanuensis

    The debate last night was absolutely soporific and as Roberts says, it was striking how hawkish Obama was. It’s quite something when a man whose administration has been systematically evasive about how many Pakistani civilians have been murdered in drone strikes, is portrayed as weak and insufficiently aggressive in its foreign dealings.

    http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-drone-death-figures-dont-add-up

Latest

  • Comment Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    By Mike Ion

    Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Seats and Selections Unions Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    By Paul Wheeler

    It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good.  But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we  witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit  aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    Earlier this week we brought you a decidedly dodgy bar chart from the Tories, but it seems that they’re not the only party in Camden adopting dubious use of bar charts. Step forward Camden Lib Dems, with this classic of the dodgy Lib Dem bar chart genre (courtesy of Theo Blackwell). Even by the pretty shoddy standards of the yellows, this is a corker:   Update: Haringey Lib Dems might want to work on their bar charts  maths too (via [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    By Mark Ferguson

    “Work and home is what One Nation is about – family life, how people live everyday life.” That’s what Jon Cruddas – the man who will in all likelihood write Labour’s next manifesto – told the Guardian the party’s policy review is focused on. And it sounds so simple – doesn’t it? Critics will say it’s too simplistic a definition (and they’d be right – I’m cherry picking here), but it’s also a brilliant example of the distance between most [...]

    Read more →