Debate #2

Once again, I don't watch these events on-air; for one thing, I go to bed too early, and for another, the experience would be bad for my blood pressure. But I do read the transcripts and the evaluations of other commentators.

It appears to me, entirely from the transcript:

• That Romney had a decided edge on substance, forthrightness, and courtesy;
• That Obama was trying to "channel his inner Biden" without letting himself run amok;
• That "moderator" Candy Crowley was just as overtly partisan as many of us in the Right suspected she would be.

The CNN poll of registered voters gave the overall edge to Obama by about 7%. However, a more issue-oriented CNN poll produced results that would appear to contradict that verdict:

• The Economy: 54-40 edge to Romney,
• Health Care: 49-46 edge to Romney,
• Taxes: 51-44 edge to Romney,
• Deficit: 59-36 edge to Romney,
• Foreign Policy: 49-47 edge to Obama,
• Leadership: 49-46 edge to Romney.

I don't know whether that issue-oriented poll used the same sample as the overall-edge poll; CNN's coverage this morning leaves quite a lot to be desired.

Needless to say, the left-leaning Mainstream Media and the various commentators on the Left are all claiming that "Obama is back," that he's reassured the American people of his ability to lead the nation, that this foretells his triumphant return for a second term, and so forth. The right-leaning New Media lean in the opposite direction: that Obama didn't score as heavily as he needed to, that Crowley's partisanry shouldn't be discounted in the analysis, that Obama made many dubious statements that don't square with the facts or his record, and so forth. The arguments will continue until the third and final debate...probably even afterward.

In my opinion, this was a crucial moment for Obama. He had to devastate Romney to reverse his slide -- and he failed to do so. But it's also a crucial moment for the moribund Mainstream Media, the supposed guardians of truth in our Republic. Will they go at all deeply into the substantive statements of the candidates in determining which of them was more honest? And on which topics, at that? Will their evaluations be strictly on a factual basis, or will they be as tendentious as any partisan pundit?

Frankly, I'm not disposed to hold my breath while I wait.

For more on the debate, please read Mark Butterworth's post just below.