The Morning After: Obama Takes Second Debate 'On Points'

Charles Krauthammer is a tad more charitable than I would be, but his basic gist is in the same park as my comments last night. Obama had a good night. He was aggressive and clearly wanted to make up ground. And my main agreement with Krauthammer is on the point that Romney was in his wheelhouse on the longer soliloquies. But he mentions that Romney missed his chance on Libya. I too was waiting for Romney to bring up Obama's appearance on Letterman, where he was still talking about the so-called anti-Muslim video two weeks later, and about the same time he was on Univision, where the Mexican journalists stood in as the fourth branch for the American media. Clearly, in the president's mind it wasn't an "act of terror" at all, but a "spontaneous" event, just as Susan Rice was tasked to argue nearly a week after the deaths of our countrymen in Benghazi.

Because it was close, the leftist media will spin that Obama trounced Romney. The New York Times is up to the task this morning, "For the President, Punch After Punch":

But the Wall Street Journal comes back with the sober big picture analysis, "A President Without a Plan":

President Obama bounced off the canvas with a more spirited debate at Hofstra University on Tuesday night, as everyone expected he would. He was animated and on the attack. The question we kept asking as the evening wore on, however, is what does he want to do for the next four years?

At least two questioners put the point directly, yet Mr. Obama never provided much of an answer. Sure, he wants to hire 100,000 more teachers, as if there is the money to hire them or it would make much difference to student outcomes.

He wants to invest in "solar and wind and biofuels, energy-efficient cars," which probably means more Solyndras and A123s (see nearby). He wants to raise taxes on the rich—that's one thing he's really passionate about. Oh, and he does want to pass the immigration reform he said he'd propose four years ago but never did propose in his first two years when his party controlled Congress and he might have passed it.

But otherwise, what's his case for four more years? Judging by Tuesday's debate, the President's argument for re-election is basically this: He's not as awful as Mitt Romney. Mr. Obama spent most of his time attacking either Mr. Romney himself (he invests in Chinese companies), his tax plan as a favor for the rich ("that's been his history") or this or that statement he has made over the last year ("the 47%," which Mr. Obama saved for the closing word of the entire debate).

Continue reading.

More at Memeorandum and Politico.

And at Twitchy, "Romney right, Obama and water-carrier Crowley wrong on ‘act of terror’ claim."