Foreign tide turns against Obama
David Rothkopf,
Foreign Policy: “Foreign policy was not supposed to matter in this election. … But somewhere en route to Monday night's foreign policy debate, the conventional wisdom landed squarely on its behind. ... The biggest reason (is that) the tide of international events (has) turned against the president. ... The Benghazi incident ... allowed the GOP to fairly ask whether Obama's response to the biggest geopolitical challenge of his time in office had been as adequate as his administration claims. (Benghazi was) not just an attack on American diplomats or the United States; it also shook the foundations of Obama's argument that he was competently and safely getting America out of the Middle East. ... All of sudden, Obama looks vulnerable on foreign policy, his supposed strength. ... All of a sudden, foreign policy is central to this campaign.”
Ben Ambruster,
ThinkProgress: “Mitt Romney has spent considerable effort trying to avoid foreign policy and national security this campaign season. But when he has had to engage, he’s forced to strike a delicate balance between satisfying his neocon advisers and right-wing war base on the one hand, while speaking to the rest of the country, which has no appetite for the militaristic Republican policies that have plagued this country since 2001, on the other. ... The basis of Romney’s foreign policy critique of Obama is that Obama went around the world and apologized for America after he became president. ... This never happened, but the baseless attack has been a hall- mark from Romney’s campaign with respect to foreign policy.”
Stanley Kurtz,
National Review. “Romney came hard at Obama on Iran, Israel, and the general decline of America’s influence in the world. The look on Obama’s face as Romney was discussing Democratic concerns about his Israel policy ... was the first time he lost his confident stare. Then Romney (painted) a picture of general decline in America’s fortunes abroad under Obama’s stewardship. ... It was the pivotal moment of the debate. ... I thought Romney had at least won his tie, and maybe even inched out victory by a nose. ... Romney has now decisively established himself as a credible alternative to Obama. At a moment when the public thinks this country is headed in the wrong direction, that spells serious trouble for the incumbent.”
Josh Marshall,
Talking Points Memo: “The first half hour was a draw, though President Obama scored by default when Romney either didn’t or couldn’t attack on Libya. After that, though, Romney began to falter as Obama became more direct, organized and declarative. Romney seemed increasingly lost. Obama seemed comfortable, happy. The visuals told the story. Romney was sweating a lot and looked like he was in pain. Into the second half of the debate, Romney’s answers seemed more jumbled and unfocused. There was even that rambling and generally uncontroversial digression on Pakistan. Why? He seemed lost. Translated into Romney visuals, he had what President Obama had in the first debate: that look of someone who wanted to be anywhere but on that stage.”