I think that's only part of it. Dana Milbank laid it out pretty well, I thought:

"...Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

This insularity led directly to the Denver debacle: Obama was out of practice and unprepared to be challenged. The White House had supposed that Obama’s forays into social media — town hall meetings with YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the like — would replace traditional presidential communication. By relying on such venues, Obama’s argument skills atrophied, and he was ill-equipped to engage in old-fashioned give and take."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-president-obama-doesnt-meet-the-press/2012/10/04/ac688c8a-0e78-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html

I think it's more the "Oval Office Bubble" but maybe that's just me.

nypoet22 [4] -

Yeah, SNL was pretty funny this week politically. Even righties probably laughed at the MSNBC sendup...

Chris1962 [5] -

Check out the MSNBC sketch, you'll probably get a laugh out of it.

David [10] -

I thought that was Obama's "four corners" defense.

Heh.

-CW

Probably because it hurt my soul to see Obama playing the political equivalent of the 'prevent defense'.

It showed in his gestures that this was difficult for him. I hope he chooses a different strategy for the next debate.

He also needs to not get bogged down in policy details. He played a few of the cards you mentioned (the math doesn't add up), but they got lost in the minutiae.

I also would have liked to have seen him bring up Romney's sudden shift to the center. Which Romney should we believe?

-David

what does "being a leftie" mean to you? i thought it meant having policy positions that favor social liberty like permitting gay marriage, or economic control like increased regulation of business or taxing the rich at a higher percentage than the middle class. if you seriously think those things cross the minds of most MSM reporters when they decide how to report on a presidential candidate, you're giving them a whole lot more credit than they deserve.

~joshua

I'm thinking his being a leftie might have something to do with it, too.

we're in agreement on that. o's gotten more undeserved love from the press than any candidate since ronald reagan (zing!)

however, the media swoon has zilch to do with his positions on the tax code or gay marriage, and everything to do with how handsome he looks on camera or in a bathing suit. on the whole, today's media simply aren't deep enough to have a political ideology beyond, "ooh, shiny!"

~joshua

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-distracted-by-inner-monologue-and-altitude-during-snlpresidential-debate/

okay so it's not serious, but it's at least as plausible an explanation as CB's "liberal bubble" hypothesis.

"...The great James Taranto . . . long ago posited what is called the "Taranto Principle." In short, it means that the liberal media so coddles liberal politicians that they have no idea how to cope outside that liberal media bubble. . . .

Barack Obama has been so totally coddled by the liberal media that he looked absolutely shell-shocked in this debate. Stunned, unhappy, angry, sour--and at some points genuinely incoherent.

Romney has had nowhere near that kind of treatment. He had serious opponents in the primaries--all of whom in their own way forced him to confront his ideas in a serious fashion. Conservatives were on his heels. The Obama media never let up. The man went through the political equivalent of boot camp.

Tonight, the Taranto Principle kicked in. Big time.

Outside the liberal bubble--forced to be alone on a stage with a very serious, very prepared candidate--Barack Obama was in trouble. Big Trouble."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578036490415028514.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

But their silence lasted one day - the conspiracy nuts were back at it after Friday's jobs report. It amazes me because anyone who follows this stuff (me) knew that analyst projections were for unemployment to be at 7.9% by election date(revised up from 7.7%). While they go nuts about what the rate would be if x/y/z, I really wish Democrats or the media would do a better job of pointing out that without public sector employment cuts the rate would be <6.8%. But leaving them to their lunatic rants is probably fine...

But CW you are wrong: Chris Christie was not the only one to predict a Romney debate win. The day after the debate the 3 most Republican leaning pollsters (Ras/Weask/Gravis) were quick out the gate with polls to catch the Romney bump. This suggests some level of preparation. I can only imagine the reaction from conspiracy nuts if the same had happened in reverse! Personally I think that's fine and part of the game - a very clever play to ensure big money doesn't abandon Romney. These pollsters played their part impeccably and Obama has a fight on his hands now.