ABC's George Stephanopoulos said Barack Obama did--not on substance, but because throughout he stayed "cool."
Actually the source above was being far too kind. I watched Stephanopoulos' "analysis" last night on "Nightline." And the main difference he spied between the two candidates at last night's debate was that, occasionally, when Obama was speaking and McCain disagreed with what he was saying, McCain rolled his eyes and looked a tiny bit exasperated.
That's right--in the eyes of former Clinton aide Stephanopoulos, that was the difference in the debate.
Now think about this. What's so bad about rolling your eyes? How does that disqualify you to be president? Let's see. If you're in the Oval Office, and an aide or a head of a department or a cabinet secretary says something rather stupid to you, are you to show no signs of irritation? Must you sit there like a sphinx? Since when did that become a requirement to be president?
If someone says something truly silly to you, and you're genuinely angry about it, and all you do is roll your eyes--that's actually very good self-control.
Sheesh. Once again, media "analysis" of these things is driven by style, by looks, by the surface appearance of things, not by real substance and real issues. But then, we all know that Stephanopoulos and most members of the mainstream news media want Obama, they desire him to win, and the only question was on what basis, silly or no, they would claim his victory last night. Eye-rolling is what they found. Many ordinary folks will accept that. It's the world we live in.
But we don't have to like it.
