Am I supposed to doubt the evidence of my eyes and ears? In spite of every poll calling Obama the winner, or calling him the winner within the margin of error, a lot of sites and commentators are calling last night's debate a draw. Like they didn't see a cool and cohesive Obama thoroughly crush the pathetic wet noodle called Mitt Romney. Romney was sweating, with a whiney voice and a creepy laugh and he couldn't seem to string thoughts together, let alone present a coherent outline of his policies. I cite his weird trail of words concerning South America as a prime example, muttering something about time zones and language being used to advantage. What is he talking about? Will he move the date line around as president?
People are calling Obama snarky but he only came off that way because Romney was babbling like an idiot in his customarily half-baked, patronising manner.
I feel like a) Republicans are desperate so they have to spin this no matter how absurd and b) everyone else just can't confront the fact that Obama's opponent was so obviously inferior. It says something potentially frightening about the system if we admit that a lead contender for president of the United States, based on polls, is such a complete light weight. And, sure, Bain rooked a bunch of people, got off with a bunch of swindles, but maybe all that says is that the mechanisms in place are doing that more than the worms in the pilot seats. I think "worm" is a good word for Romney--the blind worm digesting soil, who can't see in front or behind him so perfectly fits this guy who has an air of entitlement despite blatantly failing to hold a consistent position on policy. It's a test now to see how willing the American people are to live with him in his opaque cloud of bullshit.
If Romney becomes president, I think his facileness now is a clear indicator of his performance on the job--I think the guy would be like a ghost while other worm piloted machines would collectively control the office.