On the first presidential debate 2012...

We don't have TV at home.  (We don't like news and entertainment pushed to us; we like to pull it whenever we want it.)  So, I watched with interest the first (of three) presidential debate on Oct 3 between Obama and Romney.

The Romney campaign has been languishing for a while, and Romney desperately needs to reset the campaign.  There is even talk of reset in strategy.  Talk about late course reversal.  Romney, hence, needs to "win" in the debate, at least to look a bit more presidential than he has presented himself so far.  And he succeeded, not necessarily out of superb performance of his own (yes, he's done reasonably well in terms of debate style), but Obama largely handed over the success to Romney.

It's frustrating to see the impotence of Obama.  Granted that I fully understand his rationale for not going negative.  In fact, I give credits to both Romney and Obama for not going negative in the debate, which is a breath of fresh air, amidst all the negative ad by both campaigns and the super PAC.  But, as Romney has succeeded in showing us, you can be more forceful, without going negative or personal.  To this, Obama has largely failed.  (Well, I wouldn't say he failed miserably, but yes, he failed in this first debate.)

Obama has taken a page out of the playbook in the Bill Clinton's DNC Convention speech.  Clinton, the jack-of-all-trades, shows us all, that you can recite details - stats, even! - and touting your own record, without losing the audience.  Bill Clinton has been praised much for that same speech, that heaps praises to his former nemesis of his wife; the guy who is "cool on the outside, but burning in the inside" for America.  Talk about figurative speech.

And so, that's what Obama has tried to do.  He quoted a lot of statistics.  He tried to show American voters that, while the economy is still in doldrums, we've come a long way from the edge of abyss when the sky seemed to be falling since late 2008.  Along the way, Obama has forgotten to go on the attack of the lies and half-truth (if there's half of it) that Romney, Ryan, and GOP have been pushing.  Obama failed to make a more forceful arguments to even just correct what Romney has said and done.  To be sure, he did attempts; but right when he's just maybe started down that path, he recoiled and go back to his cool shell.  That's really frustrating, to see a man who seems not to have the guts to do it, even though we all know he's capable of doing.

In a way, it's a fine line that Obama has walked since his ascent from an unknown senator in Chicago to the White House.  There is this stereotype of angry black man that he so desperately wants to avoid.  He is a much more methodical and use-your-words-first type of person; surely, it must be frustrating for the GOP diehards who have tried (and failed) in painting him as angry black dude (which Obama is not), or Muslim (which he's not); or racist who favors blacks (which he hasn't shown the inclination).  It's hard, to have a whole tribe (the blacks) and a few hundred years of history (in slavery) on your shoulder, and you have to show the world that you're made of stuffs much better - way better - than what is expected.

In contrast, there is this WASP dude in Romney, who was born with silver spoon in his mouth, whose life is privileged and sheltered.  (Well, it's not exactly WASP; afterall, he's a Mormon.)  Granted that Romney has shown his propensity to be much more moderate than he tried to paint himself to be, in the eyes of the right-wing GOP, and he's had decades of personal history doing good and charity, my problem with Romney is mainly that, he's such a chameleon that I'm not sure what we're getting in this package, should he get to the White House.  Given his lack of backbone, pandering to the Tea Party and GOP right-wingers, and his inability or unwillingness to stand up to his own more moderate belief, lest he would lose a few votes, what else would he do just to get a few more votes?  I'd venture to say, anything.

Pundits made harsh criticisms to Obama for his lackluster performance, including the diehard liberals in New York Times.  The next day after the debate, Obama is in full damage control mode, coming out swinging in rally.  I thought to myself, with much frustration, where were you last night when you're much needed in the debate?  There's no point swinging the bat to a friendly, supportive public crowd; he needs to do the swinging to Romney (for goodness sake!).

From my vantage points, I have expected to hear much stronger rebuttal from Obama of the Romney's arguments; that Romney says he has a vision and plan to the country, but really nothing; that Romney is simply kicking the can down the road, rather than fixing and preparing the country for the future.  I want Obama the world to show how lack of backbone Romney - and the GOP at large - really is.  There are two more debates to go.  Obama, show us the stuffs you're made of.

PS:  In principle, although I'm an Independent, the far-right GOP and Tea Party have scared the crap out of me, and I cannot allow the White House to go to GOP.  I didn't vote for Obama in 2008; but this time now, I'm ready to give him my vote, so that he can finish the job that he sets out to do four years ago.