Obama clearly won Wednesday's debate; and Jim Lehrer was awesome

 By

Sean Ewart

In this picture you can tell who is the Liberal and who is the conservative based on where they are located. It's clever.

Apparently I was watching a different debate than these people were. When President Obama and Mittens Romney (isn't that his real name?) took the stage for Wednesday's debate, I was unsure what to expect. And then I saw Mitt Romney's tie.

If you can't tie a tie you can't be president. 

Look at how slightly-off-center that tie is!

In fact, far from being disappointed in the President's lack of offense, I felt Barry did a remarkable job of staying calm, cool and collected. Whereas Willard spent a substantial portion of the evening blustering and talking over Jim Lehrer (I'll get to him), Obama spoke with the coolness of the man in charge.

Aside from the fact that Barry seemed to be running on Bill Clinton's presidential record more than his own, I'd say he has the election in the bag. That's a big aside.

But the debate was very much geared towards proving (for those still unconvinced) that there is an actual choice this year. Right out of the gate the term “trickle down economics” was getting tossed around like an inflatable sex-doll at a Deadmau5 concert.

Obama boldly declared that Romney is the candidate for those who want a deregulated Wall Street.

Romney shot back, saying he believes in some regulation. Just not as much as the President. The audacity.

Pointing out the stammering and blustering on the part of Romney isn't just a jab. That the President was able to offer seemingly reasoned answers is crucial. Because that difference shows who is and who is not in control of the facts.

Yes, the economy is not doing as well as anyone had hoped (although it seems to be doing better than the House Republicans wanted), but the point is that Obama's plan, based on past precedent, works. And while it isn't enough, Obama's plan to cut the deficit doesn't hinge on cutting Big Bird.

By the way, we owe ourselves more than we do China, and it has been proven time and time again that GOP presidencies are the biggest spenders. Trickle down economics has always equaled tax breaks for the wealthy paid for by the rest of the nation.

The red lines, FYI, represent the GOP.

And that's the Romney formula too. He has pledged to cut taxes for the wealthy (which would equal a $5 trillion reduction in revenue) while not raising taxes on the middle class. The New York Times says it best: “...if you cut tax rates by 20 percent, you give the wealthy a multibillion-dollar tax break. Even if you take away all of their credits and loopholes and preferential rates, they still do not owe the government as much as they did before. If the rich are paying less, then the poor and middle class must pay more in order to raise the same amount of money.”

Or you could just increase the deficit. That's what Bush did.

As promised: Jim Lehrer. I was impressed with his performance tonight because he actually allowed for a real conversation to take place, never mind the time limits. While some have criticized his performance, I wish more moderators were like him and willing to bow out to let the candidates actually engage each other.

In Wednesday's debate, Obama, with his cool demeanor contrasting sharply with a barely-in-control Romney, the President demonstrated that tact and restraint we have come to expect from the man who represents us on the global stage.