Can extinguished love be rekindled? Can disgruntled lovers reconcile? On November 6, we will find out.           

During the first presidential debate last week, President Obama did his best to break up with us through disinterest.

Over the course of just 90 minutes, he sent Democrats into hallucinogenic flashbacks of the last decade—when John Kerry and Al Gore broke our hearts and reminded us that in politics, warm humans (re: Bush) always beat the best-intentioned liberal statistics.

All of a sudden, the robot that is Mitt Romney, whose blinks used to seem algorithmically orchestrated, was human. Meanwhile, the president seemed to think he was teaching an 8 a.m. organic chemistry class.

In my very first column for the Orient, I argued that conservatives were consistently more successful at engaging the emotions of Americans than the country’s liberals. While the president has essentially played hard-to-get over the last four years, he had, at least temporarily (and with the help of a revoltingly medieval Republican caucus), disproven this as a rule. Despite rampant cynicism, we knew the record was pretty good.

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the stimulus, healthcare, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, finance reform, ending the Iraq War, bitching out the Supreme Court over Citizens United. The president reminded us that governance didn’t have to be a symposium in dread as it was under Bush. If we were frustrated with Obama’s failures, it was because we expected too much of him. And anyways, we could just blame it on the most obstinate, childish, and pathetic Congress in the nation’s history.

The debate changed that.

Yes, Mitt Romney’s lies blazed like a forest fire. But where was the rebuttal? It wasn’t going to come from Jim Lehrer, who was attending Big Bird’s funeral before heading to the unemployment line with the rest of PBS’ former employees.

Had President Obama shown even a little bit of fight, we could have called this an off-night, brooded for a while, and then eventually gotten over it and reelected him. That’s not what happened. He wilted. And the greatest consequence of this, at least in my opinion, has not been discussed in the flurry of post-debate commentary.

Most of the pundits have talked about the president’s exhaustion, lack of spirit, and Romney’s surprising energy. All of this is true, but it doesn’t capture the emotional impact on voters—which I think is the most important thing as we are the ones who do the actual electing.

For 90 minutes, we no longer liked President Obama.

For nearly four years, we have shaken our heads during his ill-fated attempts at bipartisanship. We lamented his scant use of the bully pulpit during the deluge of Republican Senate filibusters. We coughed loudly as our more liberal friends asked about the closure of Guantanamo that never happened. But, during all of this, most of us never stopped believing  in the president.

I am aware that this is a controversial point. Many were predicting a huge fall off in enthusiasm because of the unmet expectations and unfulfilled promises of the 2008 campaign. However, until this week, Obama’s reelection seemed like a sure thing. States like Ohio and Virginia were showing consistent and sizable advantages for the president. And, as Jon Stewart put it, landing Mitt Romney as an opponent made Barack Obama “the luckiest dude on the planet.”

The economy still lagged; the debt still loomed. But, at least half of this country still liked President Obama. And, without a serious opponent, that was going to be enough to coast through to a second term.

Polling data and the increasing volume of Democratic teeth chattering prove that last week’s dream scenario is now totally shattered. For the first time, Barack Obama failed us. He had had his share of losses as president. However, the strength of his character had never been called into question. Bill Clinton had more salient moral failings, but in politics, apathy may be a more unforgivable sin.

Nowhere was this more apparent than in the aftermath of watching the debate in Hubbard Hall’s Shannon Room with about 60 other Bowdoin students. While Bowdoin is not the most fiercely political campus, most of its students are pretty well informed. And in the aftermath of something as important as a presidential debate, a fair share of Bowdoin students will transform into pundits, at least momentarily.

Not this time.

There was only a rustle of jackets and book bags, and some unrelated chatter. The room quickly emptied. 

Everyone knew that Romney could “win” the debate. No one was prepared to walk away feeling cold toward the President.

Most experts still think that the president will win reelection. They are probably right. Let us hope that he and all others that are committed to a country that honors the dignity of every last one of its citizens remembers that statistics and slogans will not set us apart.

It must be our willingness to fight every day and in every debate that will help us change this country for the better.

Can extinguished love be rekindled? Can disgruntled lovers reconcile? On November 6, we will find out.           
During the first presidential debate last week, President Obama did his best to break up with us through disinterest.
Over the course of just 90 minutes, he sent Democrats into hallucinogenic flashbacks of the last decade—when John Kerry and Al Gore broke our hearts and reminded us that in politics, warm humans (re: Bush) always beat the best-intentioned liberal statistics.
All of a sudden, the robot that is Mitt Romney, whose blinks used to seem algorithmically orchestrated, was human. Meanwhile, the president seemed to think he was teaching an 8 a.m. organic chemistry class.
In my very first column for the Orient, I argued that conservatives were consistently more successful at engaging the emotions of Americans than the country’s liberals. While the president has essentially played hard-to-get over the last four years, he had, at least temporarily (and with the help of a revoltingly medieval Republican caucus), disproven this as a rule. Despite rampant cynicism, we knew the record was pretty good.
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the stimulus, healthcare, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, finance reform, ending the Iraq War, bitching out the Supreme Court over Citizens United. The president reminded us that governance didn’t have to be a symposium in dread as it was under Bush. If we were frustrated with Obama’s failures, it was because we expected too much of him. And anyways, we could just blame it on the most obstinate, childish, and pathetic Congress in the nation’s history.
The debate changed that.
Yes, Mitt Romney’s lies blazed like a forest fire. But where was the rebuttal? It wasn’t going to come from Jim Lehrer, who was attending Big Bird’s funeral before heading to the unemployment line with the rest of PBS’ former employees.
Had President Obama shown even a little bit of fight, we could have called this an off-night, brooded for a while, and then eventually gotten over it and reelected him. That’s not what happened. He wilted. And the greatest consequence of this, at least in my opinion, has not been discussed in the flurry of post-debate commentary.
Most of the pundits have talked about the president’s exhaustion, lack of spirit, and Romney’s surprising energy. All of this is true, but it doesn’t capture the emotional impact on voters—which I think is the most important thing as we are the ones who do the actual electing.
For 90 minutes, we no longer liked President Obama.
For nearly four years, we have shaken our heads during his ill-fated attempts at bipartisanship. We lamented his scant use of the bully pulpit during the deluge of Republican Senate filibusters. We coughed loudly as our more liberal friends asked about the closure of Guantanamo that never happened. But, during all of this, most of us never stopped believing  in the president.
I am aware that this is a controversial point. Many were predicting a huge fall off in enthusiasm because of the unmet expectations and unfulfilled promises of the 2008 campaign. However, until this week, Obama’s reelection seemed like a sure thing. States like Ohio and Virginia were showing consistent and sizable advantages for the president. And, as Jon Stewart put it, landing Mitt Romney as an opponent made Barack Obama “the luckiest dude on the planet.”
The economy still lagged; the debt still loomed. But, at least half of this country still liked President Obama. And, without a serious opponent, that was going to be enough to coast through to a second term.
Polling data and the increasing volume of Democratic teeth chattering prove that last week’s dream scenario is now totally shattered. For the first time, Barack Obama failed us. He had had his share of losses as president. However, the strength of his character had never been called into question. Bill Clinton had more salient moral failings, but in politics, apathy may be a more unforgivable sin.
Nowhere was this more apparent than in the aftermath of watching the debate in Hubbard Hall’s Shannon Room with about 60 other Bowdoin students. While Bowdoin is not the most fiercely political campus, most of its students are pretty well informed. And in the aftermath of something as important as a presidential debate, a fair share of Bowdoin students will transform into pundits, at least momentarily.
Not this time.
There was only a rustle of jackets and book bags, and some unrelated chatter. The room quickly emptied. 
    Everyone knew that Romney could “win” the debate. No one was prepared to walk away feeling cold toward the President.
Most experts still think that the president will win reelection. They are probably right. Let us hope that he and all others that are committed to a country that honors the dignity of every last one of its citizens remembers that statistics and slogans will not set us apart.
It must be our willingness to fight every day and in every debate that will help us change this country for the better.Can extinguished love be rekindled? Can disgruntled lovers reconcile? On November 6, we will find out.
During the first presidential debate last week, President Obama did his best to break up with us through disinterest.
Over the course of just 90 minutes, he sent Democrats into hallucinogenic flashbacks of the last decade—when John Kerry and Al Gore broke our hearts and reminded us that in politics, warm humans (re: Bush) always beat the best-intentioned liberal statistics.
All of a sudden, the robot that is Mitt Romney, whose blinks used to seem algorithmically orchestrated, was human. Meanwhile, the president seemed to think he was teaching an 8 a.m. organic chemistry class.
In my very first column for the Orient, I argued that conservatives were consistently more successful at engaging the emotions of Americans than the country’s liberals. While the president has essentially played hard-to-get over the last four years, he had, at least temporarily (and with the help of a revoltingly medieval Republican caucus), disproven this as a rule. Despite rampant cynicism, we knew the record was pretty good.
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the stimulus, healthcare, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, finance reform, ending the Iraq War, bitching out the Supreme Court over Citizens United. The president reminded us that governance didn’t have to be a symposium in dread as it was under Bush. If we were frustrated with Obama’s failures, it was because we expected too much of him. And anyways, we could just blame it on the most obstinate, childish, and pathetic Congress in the nation’s history.
The debate changed that.
Yes, Mitt Romney’s lies blazed like a forest fire. But where was the rebuttal? It wasn’t going to come from Jim Lehrer, who was attending Big Bird’s funeral before heading to the unemployment line with the rest of PBS’ former employees.
Had President Obama shown even a little bit of fight, we could have called this an off-night, brooded for a while, and then eventually gotten over it and reelected him. That’s not what happened. He wilted. And the greatest consequence of this, at least in my opinion, has not been discussed in the flurry of post-debate commentary.
Most of the pundits have talked about the president’s exhaustion, lack of spirit, and Romney’s surprising energy. All of this is true, but it doesn’t capture the emotional impact on voters—which I think is the most important thing as we are the ones who do the actual electing.
For 90 minutes, we no longer liked President Obama.
For nearly four years, we have shaken our heads during his ill-fated attempts at bipartisanship. We lamented his scant use of the bully pulpit during the deluge of Republican Senate filibusters. We coughed loudly as our more liberal friends asked about the closure of Guantanamo that never happened. But, during all of this, most of us never stopped believing  in the president.
I am aware that this is a controversial point. Many were predicting a huge fall off in enthusiasm because of the unmet expectations and unfulfilled promises of the 2008 campaign. However, until this week, Obama’s reelection seemed like a sure thing. States like Ohio and Virginia were showing consistent and sizable advantages for the president. And, as Jon Stewart put it, landing Mitt Romney as an opponent made Barack Obama “the luckiest dude on the planet.”
The economy still lagged; the debt still loomed. But, at least half of this country still liked President Obama. And, without a serious opponent, that was going to be enough to coast through to a second term.
Polling data and the increasing volume of Democratic teeth chattering prove that last week’s dream scenario is now totally shattered. For the first time, Barack Obama failed us. He had had his share of losses as president. However, the strength of his character had never been called into question. Bill Clinton had more salient moral failings, but in politics, apathy may be a more unforgivable sin.
Nowhere was this more apparent than in the aftermath of watching the debate in Hubbard Hall’s Shannon Room with about 60 other Bowdoin students. While Bowdoin is not the most fiercely political campus, most of its students are pretty well informed. And in the aftermath of something as important as a presidential debate, a fair share of Bowdoin students will transform into pundits, at least momentarily.
Not this time.
There was only a rustle of jackets and book bags, and some unrelated chatter. The room quickly emptied. 
    Everyone knew that Romney could “win” the debate. No one was prepared to walk away feeling cold toward the President.
Most experts still think that the president will win reelection. They are probably right. Let us hope that he and all others that are committed to a country that honors the dignity of every last one of its citizens remembers that statistics and slogans will not set us apart.
It must be our willingness to fight every day and in every debate that will help us change this country for the better.