I would ask Mittens nothing, I have no interest in his statements. The remind me of a certain unsafe harbour, and none of those folks are folks I would vote for.
It is a presidential debate in a modern venue. Fuzzy emotive questions, narrow time frames. I look for the folks I support to simply perform well, to see the circumstance as it is, accommodate to the circumstance as it is, and response accordingly with what the circumstance allows.
That, alone, is he only thing this can measure. Can you:
1. see what is
2. adjust to what is
3. accommodate or leverage what is.
It is not about whether hat is is good or bad, sensible or not, a rational measure or not ... it is.
You have a tooth pick, three inches of duct tape and a gun shot victim ... a debate is a measure of qualities I do not normally seek to measure, but it is what it is.
Among those things are being telegenic (see Nixon 1960)being well coached on the adversaries content see Reagan/Carter 1980). of never losing sight of you humanity or getting too caught up in the moment (see Dukakis 198
and otherwise never failing to show respect and consideration for the fact that your viewers are not really just all a bunch of dumb sheep, that many many of those undecided folks are fully capable of of a cogent 5 paragraph essay, and that no matter of what is, decent folk deserve decent consideration.
the American people, bless them, found something in Ronald Reagan, and the Reykjavik summit ended up being a really really important thing.
At some point we have to acknowledge certain qualities that allow things to happen. So in this debate, I believe that Romney is not a person with the qualities to allow certain things to happen, and Reagan was. I believe Obama can let those things happen as did Reagan (I am not a Reaganite).
So I hope this debate exposes that clear fact to me, that I want Obama out there and not Romney should opportunity present itself.
| 
