Okay, I am one of those who wished that The President had kicked Mitt's butt every which way to hell.
And yes, I am prepared to move on. what's done is done.
There have been a million suggestions as to how The President should have done things differently.
It was obvious to every political junkie out there, that the positions being taken by Mitt were far from the things he's said for more than a year. He was mendacious. He lied. He prevaricated. He stretched the truth.
If he had been testfiying in a courtroom, he would have perjured himself.
And yes, if this was going to be a courtroom, Jum Lehrer should have asserted himself in the role of judge. Lehrer did not have to determine the truth of what Mitt was saying, only to remind Mitt and the jury ( that would be - us) as to the past instances when Mirtt said somethng differently than what he was saying now.
I think Mitt should be required to swear in on a Bible before he is allowed to speak again.
and finally - I do a lot of teaching over televised classrooms, and one thing I have learned is that people confuse television with showmanship. You can present the data and facts over TV adequately, but people somehow expect that you will be entertaining as well. This forces the teacher who uses TV, to educate the students as to what to expect. In other words, in additon to everything else, he low information voter was expecting The President to act like a caricature of what a President is supposed to be.
In terms of the showmanship, Mitt was cleartly portraying the role of a TV evangelist. I personally wish The President had decided to channel "Matlock" - doing a courtroom-style cross examination of a slippery defendant and allowing him to reveal the truth - but that is water over the dam.