Yeah, Obama sucked in the debate, but everybody who's pointing that out is missing the point that it doesn't matter:
Just how bad was Barack Obama's debate performance last night? Not as bad as Britney Spears' song-and-dance routine at the MTV Awards. Not as bad as Bill Buckner's legendary error during the '86 World Series. Not as bad as Bob Dylan's music during his God phase. Not as bad as John Travolta's Scientology cinema experiment in Battlefield Earth. Not as bad as Mike Dukakis' fateful ride in a military tank.
In other words, Obama could have done worse. Neverthless, if he still harbors any hopes of driving Hillary Clinton from the Democratic race by scoring an upset victory in Pennsylvania, he might be wise to get real. It's hard to imagine that he won over the working-class, culturally-conservative Democrats who constitute the swing vote; if anything, his performance during the first 45 minutes of the debate may well have cemented their suspicions.
Just consider what we're learning about Obama. Very good in prepared speeches, not so much in debates, where impromtu remarks are called for. Adored by his followers, dismissed outright by his detractors, who just don't get it. Keeps making gaffes, but is forgiven for them. People simply like him, so they don'te even care what his positions on the issues are. A great communicator, but is there any substance? It's like he's, you know, covered with Teflon or something.
Sound familiar? Obama is the left's Ronald Reagan. No wonder Barack spoke so fondly of Dutch.