This Weekly Standard parody is so precise down to the last detail it even appears on the New Yorker's website! http://t.co/qeLOHt7s— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) October 6, 2012
The liberal post-debate spin on behalf of President Eye Candy has been nothing short of hilarious. Starry-eyed progressives and the media (sorry, redundant) have blamed Obama’s poor performance on altitude sickness, savvy strategy, lady parts, loud noises, Jim Lehrer, the inability to lie and getting high as a kite before taking the stage.
The president’s old friends have their own theories, and The New Yorker couldn’t wait to breathlessly report them.
One of Obama’s professors said he lost because he’s “professorial” and “skews cerebral.”
If only he wasn’t quite so brilliant he would’ve trounced Romney! That’s gotta be Politico-style satire, right? Right?
Twitter users sum up the snort-worthy rationalizations lovingly offered by Obama’s other pals.
One Twitterer goes out on a limb with another explanation:
“Sucks at them”? Clearly this Twitter user just doesn’t “skew cerebral” enough to understand what really went on at the Denver debate.