Truth in Labeling

Early the Obama campaign reached a fork in the road, whether to serve flip flopping Mitt burgers, or to showcase the Republican buffet at the extreme right corner of the room with Romney as the featured entree.  Hunger for a choice election made them choose the buffet.

The rationale was obvious.  The Obama campaign feared a referendum election because of the painfully slow recovery.  If Romney is doused with stale Bush seasoning, spiked with fiery right wing rhetoric, and overly rich, voters would be forced to make a choice.  For a while this was working so well, that a landslide was in the offing.  The selection of Ryan and the 47% remark fit the Obama menu.

But Obama allowed Romney to post a new menu in the first debate, undercutting months of work and a fortune in advertising.  The one immutable rule in Presidential politics is truth in labeling.  No one knows what, if any, political principles nourish Romney.  It makes it harder to portray him as tainted food, than as mystery meat.  The flip flop line would have been longer.

The result is a nail bitter.  Not the election snack food I was hoping for.

Why the Debate Mattered

Free media either acts as an echo chamber for paid media or as a mute button.  Obama wants this to be a choice election, while Romney's campaign wanted a referendum on the president.  Obama won.

The second part of the game plan was to portray Romney as an uncaring, right wing extremist plutocrat.  Obama enjoyed early success, but Romney's debate success muted that attack.  For that reason the Obama campaign is  attacking Romney as a flip flopper.  That is more consistent with the debate, which featured a "new" Romney.  It is some measure of success for Romney, that for the first time in the campaign, Obama is forced to change course.