So, my review of the reviews of the debate [it's quite revealing the way people with divergent agendas view the same phenomenon as it were not the same at all - parallax? - reading the reviews at times much more instructive than watching the debate itself - certainly less annoying].
Anyway, not much to say really - Obama was more theatrical and abrasive than first debate, not quite Bidenish but 'angry' enough to keep the base somewhat happy one imagines [it certainly has caused Andrew Sullivan to fall back in love with Dear Leader as he has described himself as 'elated' by the performance; it's comforting to know that this disaster of a presidency will not be counted a total loss if those two beautiful souls can manage to reconcile] - don't see the histrionics as helping with independents though - he equivocated on substance and details which of course he had to do since the details are all bad and he has no substance - and thus relative to this 'stylish' gibberish Romney looked like the more knowledgeable guy, the man with the plan as it were. But apparently he made one crucial mistake - when being given an opening on Libya he failed it seems to make the kill shot - possibly because the moderator jumped in the way, as I feared all along would happen [really can't have a viable democracy if the media is compromised in this way]. Still, Obama is so vulnerable on this topic Romney should have been able to hit mark regardless of moderator running interference - I should watch the replay of that moment because I'm feeling Romney should have been able to get around Crowley's bad behavior - apparently his message on Libya was bit unfocused, and that's not good - Obama's really vulnerable here.
Sounds like something of a wash - I'm guessing polls overall will suggest a small Obama win, but among independents probably a slight advantage to Romney - and so essentially a win for Romney since the undecided vote is the one that matters. Of course most popular trending story on Washington Post website is titled 'Clear Victory for Obama' - oh my - like I said, without a free press [and the press isn't 'free' if it has chained itself to a political agenda] there can be no viable democracy - the critical spirit is vital to the defense of freedom - without a critical spirit that is willing to challenge orthodoxy, the status quo and the tyranny of a narrowly focused, agenda driven subjectivity, you do not get Socrates and Aristotle, you do not get Copernicus, you do not get Galileo, you do not get Locke, Hume, Adams and Jefferson - you do not get democracy because in closed societies, which America is slowly becoming [a socialist bureaucracy, propped up by a captured press and enabled by a compliant electorate dependent upon it, equals 'closed'] freedom is seen as a threat, not a right. In essence democracy is merely the expression of a freedom born of criticism - the ability to debate an issue openly, reach a consensus, allow opinions in opposition to that consensus to exist without fear, and then freely change your mind later when and if the consensus proves itself flawed. Closed societies do not like change, therefore they cannot abide objective criticism nor tolerate open debate - they have sustaining narratives that need to be protected from annoying impertinences like honest criticism and truth - Obama has a sustaining narrative that needs protecting so as its inherent flaws, faulty reasoning, delusional assumptions do not undermine the putative overall goodness of it - the press is lending a helping hand - this is not a good thing, this is a very bad thing - in fact so bad that I would say that of all the reasons Obama does not deserve re-election and should most verily not be re-elected at the top of the list may be that a wholly undeserved re-election made possible by a sympathetic left wing press could completely undo the fourth estate in America and send the country down a road that I'm not sure there's any coming back from.
[so, have viewed Crowley incident - another bad moment for the American fourth estate - she was definitely out of line, not to mention quite wrong, and effectively killed Libya question to the benefit of Obama - that being said, Romney should have done better, should have been able move past Crowley's bullshit - there was a big opportunity there to kill two birds with one stone - Obama's withering foreign policy credentials and liberal media bias - and Romney couldn't bring the hurt - has a foreign policy debate to come so he has a chance to correct this blown opportunity - still, it definitely was a miss on his part - Crowley certainly deserves blame and probably owes the Romney campaign an apology - but regardless it's still up to Romney to compensate and refocus the attack - gotta believe he didn't because they haven't quite polished their Libya argument yet and I have trouble understanding why that would be]
