WRONG STRATEGY

Watched the debate with my youngest's mother and some friends. She's a big Yankees fan and when it was over she said, "That was like watching the Yankees lose The World Series." Yes it was.

I watched Axelrod later trying to spin it using the same arguments the president did, all of which were based on real facts. But repeating facts when up against big lies has obviously been proven not to impress a large portion of the electorate.

Once it was clear that Romney had been coached successfully to nail down his lies that refute the facts about his and Ryan's declared plans, coupled with some well rehearsed "zingers" as his managers predicted, Obama needed to drop the defensive fact checking and just call the man out with a few zingers of his own.

He had one or two but his body language most of the time was that of a high school debater waiting for the moderator to enforce the rules rather than the statesman he has proven himself to be and put the upstart in his place.

Deeply disappointing. I suspect Romney's favorables will rise, the race will become even tighter with some polls showing Romney ahead after this, but hopefully fact checking reports will be referred to by the major media outlets as well as the web and Romney's lies and misdirections and reversals of recent statements will be exposed.

But what I'd really like to see is Obama replace his team with people more in touch with their emotions and those of most people, rather than just their intellect. If that had been a seminar in a graduate class on the economy, Obama would have won because he was telling the truth and the other guy was lying. But it unfortunately doesn't work that way with most regular folks out there watching. For them it's a popularity contest in which the guy who reassures them he has the best plan wins, and Mitt did that, even if it was phony, he sold it as though he meant it.

And please, will someone tell the president that you don't nod your head as if in agreement when the other guy is lying! I think what Obama was doing was trying to indicate that yeah, yeah this is the same old b.s., but it came across as if he was in agreement even if he followed it up when he got to talk with him expressing his disagreement. Reagan was the master of dismissing what the other guy was saying while he was saying it by shaking his head no, or looking exasperated, etc.

And the president was way too conciliatory at times as well. Never mentioned the Ryan plan and all its horrible elements that refute half of what Romney was saying he now believes, didn't call the Republican Party and its leaders out for their obstructionism and putting defeating him above the welfare of the country, etc. etc.

Many missed opportunities to kick some butt. He just didn't seem like he wanted the job as much as Mitt did, even if for my taste Mitt came across as the twit he is. I think a lot of uninformed voters who are still undecided, if there are any, and if they watched the debate, would come away thinking Romney has their best interests at heart and the president was just saying he did, even though reality proves that it's the other way around.

Oh feckin' well. We live to fight another day.

[PS: And no mention of Romney's 47% remark! How could Obama and his team not jump all over that!?!]