But, as the WSWS notes here, Obama has ALWAYS been this way. It's just the mainstream media, intoxicated with the Wall Street-backed Obama, painted him as the greatest orator and debater who ever walked the earth, somebody who was the second coming of MLK, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and RFK all rolled into one. The man himself was hardly anything to write home about: he was and is an o.k. orator though not any Mario Cuomo and a middling debater who prefers the low-key lecture style to bombast. He doesn't promise to be any better in the next two debates, either. It's just not his style.
I expect more wringing of hands by his fan club.
Far worse, though, than the style was the content. Obama lied about what he intended to do about Social Security, didn't tell the truth about his catfood commission (aka Simpson-Bowles), and continued with his trashing of public education and the teaching profession. What is truly bizarre about the whole thing is that Mitt, for all of his Tea Party pandering, is actually to the LEFT of Obama when one factors in Mitt's record as governor of Massachusetts. Early in his career he said he considered himself a progressive, shocking coming from a Republican but he was actually coming from a long tradition of moderate-to-liberal northeastern and midwestern Republicans that mostly died out after Reagan became president in 1981. His own father was from that tradition and so were many other great Republican politicians. Unfortunately, the party was hijacked by the John Birch crazies, and the party has gone totally batshit crazy in the years since Reagan. I could have lived with Mitt as president if he hadn't put a lunatic ex-personal trainer on the ticket with him. Romney could have actually run to the LEFT of Obama and walked away with the presidency had he had a normal, intelligent running mate, for millions upon millions of people who are not Republicans are fed up with Obama's constant selling out to Wall Street and billionaire interests.
The tragedy is the Democratic Party is now a hollow shell of what it once was thanks to the infiltration of neolibs like Obama who do NOT belong in the party in the first place.
In the debate, however, the real Obama was on display: a man with no significant political background or career, much less independent ideas. An individual who had passed through no real struggles before he was picked up and promoted as the symbol of “change,” while remaining a loyal servant of the state.
No doubt, for someone whose meteoric political rise has depended on rich patrons, being roundly attacked by someone from that social layer was disconcerting.
It is impossible, however, to explain the performance witnessed by 70 million Americans by focusing solely on the political tactics devised by Democratic Party spin doctors or the personality traits of the nonentity in the White House. Like any significant political event, the course of the US presidential election can be grasped only through an analysis of the social forces at work. Only by considering the essential class role of the Democratic Party can Obama’s failure to take the offensive against Romney be understood.
The Democratic Party, like the Republican, is a political instrument of the financial aristocracy that rules America. It has not the slightest independence from the capitalist ruling elite. That does not, however, make the two parties identical. They play distinct, albeit complementary, political roles.
They do, however, have identical goals, just different ways of expressing them. The GOP will tell you right to your face that they plan to ruin your life to further enrich the leeches at the top, while the Democratic Party will knife you in the back for those same leeches in the name of "reform."
The solution is not a third party but a real SECOND PARTY. Someday I would like to see a unification of the various "left" third parties encouraging real Democratic politicians to join forces with them and become such a force that the neolibs poisoning the Democratic Party would be kicked out or the party marginalized altogether.