New York Times’ liberal ideologues Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich are of course Obama supporters. His performance in Friday’s debate disappointed both of them.
In his column this morning Rich talks about a “deadlocked debate.” You've got to know Rich was hoping Obama would win.
In her column today Dowd gives Obama a scolding lecture. Here’s part of it :
... Given the past week, the debate should have been a cinch for Obama.Ouch!
But, just as in the primaries, he willfully refuses to accept what debates are about. It’s not a lecture hall; it’s a joust. It’s not how cerebral you are. It’s how visceral you are. You need memorable, sharp, forceful and witty lines.
Even when McCain sneered, “I don’t need any on-the-job training, I’m ready to go at it right now,” Obama didn’t directly respond, but veered off into a story about his father being from Kenya and how he got his name. (Thanks, Barack, we got that from your book. It’s great for a memoir, but not a debate.)
McCain kept painting Obama as naive, and dangerous, insisting that he “doesn’t quite understand or doesn’t get it.”
Obama should have responded “Senator, I understand perfectly, I’m just saying you’re wrong.”
On the surge, he could have said that McCain was the arsonist who wanted to be praised for the great job he’s doing putting out the fire he started. ...
Obama did a poor job of getting under McCain’s skin. Or maybe McCain did an exceptional job of not letting Obama get under his skin. McCain nattered about earmarks and Obama ran out of gas. …
Rich’s and Dowd’s reactions left me believing they agree with the 68% of over 400,000 responses at Drudge that named Sen. McCain as the winner of Friday’s debate.
Rich's entire column's here; Dowd's is here.