Obama and Romney Had an 'Awful' Debate Light on policy, full of off-topic talking points and zingers

[postlink]http://america-blogger.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-and-romney-had-awful-debate-light.html[/postlink]

 

The debate verdicts are in, and no one is terribly impressed. Partisans like Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity are mostly slamming the other guy.

Foreign policy analysts have spent the night penning screeds branding the debate a nadir of modern political discourse. It was a "wretched debate with almost no redeeming qualities," writes the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, a scathing critic of both Bush and Obama administrations:

Numerous foreign policy analysts, commentators and journalists published lists of foreign policy questions they wanted to hear asked and answered at this debate. Almost none was raised. In sum, it was a perfect microcosm of America's political culture.

A primary reason this debate is so awful is because DC media people like Bob Scheiffer have zero interest in challenging any policy that is embraced by both parties, and since most foreign policies are embraced by both parties, he has no interest in challenging most of the issues that are relevant: drones, sanctions, Israel, etc.

Since Obama has embraced many Bush foreign policies, it's tough for Romney to distance himself from Obama. Ergo, the debate degenerated into a series of off-topic talking points and zingers, like Obama's "horses and bayonets" line that emerged as one of the most Googled search terms after the debate. In other words, it was a bit like all of the previous debates.