And the Winner Is? Certainly Not Us.

Maybe I was born in the wrong century...
Maybe I just read too much...
Maybe I just glazed over at the wrong moment and missed something...

I'm trying to figure out why the debate between Obama and Romney is still turning my stomach 18 hours later.  Most people think Romney won, but the analysis of his "win" reveals the deep tragedy of American politics at this moment in history.  Romney "won," because he didn't say anything disastrous, or try to sing the national anthem or basically do anything to reinforce the opinion that he's a stuffed shirt with good hair and a lot of money.  Obama "lost" because he came across as what his detractors (at least the more reasonable ones) are always saying he is: cerebral, aloof and a little bit cranky.

We all "lost" for a whole bunch of reasons.

First, because the debate was structured, first and foremost, to be a television program.  I knew Jim Lehrer was in deep sheep dip as he was outlining the schedule: way too many questions and way too little response time.  I've heard these two talk before and I thoroughly believe that trying to get Obama or Romney to stick state their position on anything, other than who might win the Bears game, in less than two minutes, is a futile pursuit.  We may expect it from a high school debate club, but from two politicians of such profound obtuseness?  For shame!

Second, because they were trying to pack as many soundbites and talking points into their answers, what we got in terms of dialogue was a rhetorical nightmare.  Practitioners of the art of argument from Aristotle to Abraham Lincoln were weeping eternal and bitter tears over the utter disdain for the requirements of basic rational discourse.  They did avoid ad-hominem attacks and spewing profanity, but beyond that it was grim to say the least.  Neither candidate, either in statement or rebuttal felt the need to use many actual facts.  Obama was apparently buoyed by the wildly popular "Math" speech given by President Clinton at the Democratic convention, because he at least made reference to the fact that he had some numbers, arithmetic and possible even some ciphering on his side.  But whatever ground these actual numbers may have gained for him was lost when he doggedly insisted that he had figured out Romney's numbers, despite Romney repeatedly saying that those numbers were fallacious.

Romney and Ryan have persistently avoided giving any details of their economic plan, but they swear to their individual deities that they have one, and doggone it, it's a good plan, it's a new plan, and it's gonna fix everything!  The genius of this strategy became apparent when Obama kept accusing Romney of planning a 5 trillion dollar tax cut.  Romney could, quite plausibly say, "I'm not going to do any such thing you big silly head."  Obama should have seen that coming, but instead of beating a careful retreat he just kept saying it and gave Romney a chance to get in the highly coveted zinger of the evening: "I have five boys, I'm quite used to dealing with people who just keep saying something over and over, in the hopes that somehow I'll believe it's true."

Obama was using a study of the Romney/Ryan plan, but apparently the greatest strength of the Romney/Ryan plan is plausible deniability and Romney proved last night that he is a convincing... let's just say salesman.  Fact checkers and journalists are having trouble figuring out if Romney was being truthful when he denied the 5 trillion dollar tax cut.  The Obama camp, today, is crying foul; saying that Romney was misleading and disingenuous in his descriptions of his policies.

Personally, I thought he was so vague about what his policies might be that it would be hard to make that charge stick.  That's what worries me.  Romney seems pretty sure that he can fix what ails our economy, but his "plan" sounds an awful lot like that car salesman who tells you a 1982 Buick was only ever driven to church on Sunday by a little old lady.  It might be true, but it doesn't quite pass the smell test.

Obama seemed sullen and a little off balance, and unwilling to make the sort of grand promises of a brighter tomorrow that swept him into the White House four years ago.  He seems, to me, humbled (and maybe a little worn out) by the failures of his tenure.  He tries to trumpet his successes, but without telling lies or engaging in artful obfuscation, he can't really say much more than "It could have been worse."

Lehrer's questions were (in design only) supposed to give the American people a clear idea of what it would mean to vote for Romney or Obama.  The actual debate, as off the rails as it was, did give me a fairly clear contrast: Obama has spent four years learning what doesn't work, having his grand plans thwarted by circumstance and an adversarial congress.  He may have finally figured out that grand plans aren't going to work, that only hard work and compromise are going to get the job done.  Romney may know that (in which case he'd be ahead of where O was four years ago), but he's trying his best to confuse, inveigle and obfuscate his way through the election.  If he succeeds I hope his "plan" is actually as good as he keeps saying it is.  Scratch that, I just hope he actually has a plan with actual real numbers and lists of things to do.

I still want there to be a "none of the above" option on the ballot.  Can we make that happen?