Before the high fiving from last night ends, enjoy a minute of pure Schadenfreude. Imagine the poor slob who wrote this; trying -desperately- to avoid the fact Obama proved himself to be clueless and incompetent last night. You can see them at the keyboard, the partisan rage oozing from every pore…

Normally the Times tries to pretend they walk the highroad… on this one they gave up, going into full hate mode, even admitting in the headline that the debate wasn’t ‘helpful’ because the wrong guy won. But give them credit, they hit even liberal talking point they could, even whining about the moderator not saving Obama.

I snipped it pretty hard but you get the vibe of the piece…  And I my interjected snark:

Editorial

An Unhelpful Debate

The first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, so long anticipated, quickly sunk into an unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity. With few sparks [really -ED] and little clarity on the immense gulf that truly separates the two men and their policies, Wednesday’s encounter provided little guidance for voters still trying to understand the choice in next month’s election. [Really? -ED]

The Mitt Romney who appeared on the stage at the University of Denver seemed to be fleeing from the one who won the Republican nomination on a hard-right platform of tax cuts, budget slashing and indifference to the suffering of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. And Mr. Obama’s competitive edge from 2008 clearly dulled, as he missed repeated opportunities to challenge Mr. Romney on his falsehoods and turnabouts.

Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. …

That simply isn’t true. [Romney LIED! ha!]  ….

…In fact, many economists have said exactly that, and, without details, Mr. Romney can’t simply refute them. But rather than forcefully challenging this fiction, Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details [really?] could hold up against blatant nonsense. [No bias here! -ED]

Viewers were not helped by a series of pedestrian questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, who never jumped in to challenge either candidate on the facts. [Read they were not helped because a reliable liberal didn’t save Obama’s ass -ED]

When Mr. Romney accused the president of supporting a “trickle-down government,” Mr. Obama might have demanded to know what that means.[Translation: Mitt is a big ‘ol meanie]

He could then have pointed out that it is Mr. Romney whose economic plan is based on the discredited idea that high-end tax cuts trickle down to the middle class and poor. [NOPE no bias here, move along. Volumes of economic theory have been ‘discredited by the 4 years of this great economy under Obama… are these guys on dope?]

Mr. Romney said he supported the idea of regulation but rejected the Dodd-Frank financial reform law because it was too generous to the big “New York banks.” This is an alternative-universe interpretation of a law [heh… tell me, who has an “alternative-universe interpretation” of facts here?]

On health care, Mr. Romney pretended that he had an actual plan…[nope, no bias here.. no sounding more lefty than Kos, just unbiased commentary is all the NYT has… losers]

There are still two more presidential debates, and Mr. Obama has the facts on his side to expose the hollowness of his opponent

Sure Obama has the facts on his side.. look at what a great job he has done so far. Who you going to believe us or the failing economy?

Note to the NYT… when you make Bill Maher and Michale Moore look non-partisan commentators, you’re pretty hopeless.