Presidents running for reelection have 3 basic strategic options on which to base their campaign. They can:
◼ Argue that the policies are working and we need to "stay the course" to maintain the clear signs of improvementIt is clear which of these three paths Obama chose. Throughout the summer months, Obama unleashed a massive ad war against Romney, painting him as a "vulture capitalist" who only cares about the rich. They tried to make him into an almost other-worldly figure who could related to average Americans.
◼ Admit that things haven't completely worked, but present a new plan for a second term to make things right, or
◼ Disqualify your opponent as unfit or too extreme for the job
They hit him for his tenure at Bain Capital, his tax returns and even hidden video and audio when he talked about the "47%" at fundraiser. The attacks weren't doing anything really to improve Obama's numbers, but they seemed to be keeping Romney from getting traction.
And, then, the debate happened.
The figure onstage at the first debate didn't at all match the caricature painted by the Obama campaign. He was calm and reasonable, moderate in temperament, and had a solid command of the issues and at least an outline of what to do about the challenges we face. In contrast, Obama had, well...nothing we haven't heard for 4 years.
That single 90 minutes in Denver wiped out large chunks of the Obama campaign's foundation. 70 million people tuned in and saw a totally different person than the one portrayed by Obama. Given Obama's legion vulnerabilities, its no wonder that the electorate is starting to move in Romney's direction....
The Obama game plan was to knock Romney out early. It didn't happen. If they don't have another play, and I don't think they do, the Obama Administration is soon for the history books.
