pjbogart wrote:Back on planet earth, Mitt Romney spent an hour and a half spitting lies through his wincing, puckered face. Obama needed to be more aggressive. But the sky is not falling, Mitt Romney is still a douche and he didn't deliver nearly the curb-stomping that you're imagining.
Stylistically, Mitt was outstanding - alive, sharp, quick, confident. Obama just the oppositie. The contrast further amplified each side of this equation. If this was not a beat down, I don't know what would be.
You can not seperate style from substance. All of the "lies" you claim have some thin connection to truth. Deceptive points, made in confident and organized rapid succession, are called winning argments.
pjbogart wrote:The media is a business, they need a horserace. They want the advertising dollars. They created a narrative where Romney obliterated Obama
Sorry, not credible. Letterman and Saturday Night Live were not trying to create a narrative, they were reacting to a genuine spectacle. Chris Matthews' outburst came from the heart. The responses to this debate were not contrived, on news channels or eslewhere.
pjbogart wrote:If public opinion actually has changed that much, it had little to do with the actual debate. It has more to do with the incessant whining about Obama's performance on every news channel.
There is a degree in truth to what you say. We're in an era of hyper media that amplifies everything.