I come with no claim of political expertise, for I don't have it. I'm just a citizen offering my opinion on the first Obama-Romney debate.
The bottom line of all that I hear and read is that the President "choked." It was a moment of great stress and it is claimed that he was bested by Governor Romney. He failed to seize the night; he missed rebutting false or misleading statements; he looked befuddled---and so on, and so on. To which I ask,"So what!"
What are we to draw from this lackluster performance?
"If he can't stand up to Romney, he can't stand up to foreign Heads of State."
"Romney is more intelligent and smarter (there is a difference) and, therefore, more fit to be president."
"Denver's "mile high" altitude threw Obama off-stride. He should have spent more pre-debate time in that city."
"He swung and missed on pitches lobbed right over the plate."...........and so on, and so on.
Perhaps Romney was better prepped with clever zingers successfully designed to throw Obama off balance. But again, who cares? Their opposing positions on social issues remain constant. Their core values are still aligned with different social and economic groups. If voters can be persuaded to switch their vote on the basis of who "won" the damn thing, we are in a sorry mess.
The molds have hardened for each man. They have substantially different outlooks on almost everything, and they ain't gonna change.
Consider the contest (to use a lawyerly phrase) on its merits. Go for substance, not form. Maybe, just maybe, Romney turns out to be the better debater. That's no connecting link to who's got the righter stuff.
Stay focused on the most important issue. They both are patriotic Americans with littlle or no difference in foreign policy. It's their contrasting positions on social and economic issues which confront the nation's decision making process.
And this has nothing to do with who is the better debater.
In almost every closing argument, I would implore the jurors to keep their eyes on the ball.
Same thing here.