When even the Europeans concede that Obama lost, you know the liberal base must be shaken. From the Telegraph:
Mitt Romney didn’t just beat Obama on Wednesday night. He also beat the liberal media. So great was his performance that liberal journalists simply had to concede the President’s defeat – a humiliation for an industry that has spent several years setting Obama up as the wisest, most eloquent, most popular politician since FDR. No longer can Romney be dismissed with a gag about a dog strapped to the roof of his car. This uptight rich guy could be the next President of the United States.
Evidence of liberal panic is everywhere. In the hours after the debate, the mood in the MSNBC bunker was near-suicidal – and it’s in tortured moments like these that all pretence of objectivity disappears. Chris Matthews (a former Democrat staffer turned TV motor mouth who undoubtedly talks in his sleep) ranted that Obama ought to watch MSNBC to learn how to fight conservatives. Ed Schultz was “stunned” and Rachel Maddow thought it might be sort of a draw (in the same way that the Titanic's encounter with an iceberg was “sort of a draw”). The New York Times ran with the vague headline, “Obama and Romney, in First Debate, Spar Over Fixing Economy” and called the evening “unhelpful.” Why? Because their guy lost.
Who to blame for the President's poor show? Al Gore put it down to the high altitude of Denver, which would suggest that this was the first debate in history to be decided by topography. Whoopi Goldberg said that Obama was distracted by his wedding anniversary. Many others are pointing the finger at the moderator Jim Lehrer, whose lack of command allowed Romney to dominate. Lehrer sure was useless. At one point he announced that there was only three minutes left of the programme – and took about three minutes to do it. But blaming the referee because your side lost is a tired old excuse. And the President did lose. According to CNN, 67 per cent of viewers thought Romney won, compared to just 25 per cent for Obama.