Well, I Watched The Debate...

If you were a Democrat it sucked, if you were an Obama fan it really sucked.  I realize it can be pretty difficult to counter someone who lies every other sentence and presents about a dozen alternate reality versions of himself - but... really? I know being a Democrat is a fairly complicated proposition and reality has an unfortunate tendency to screw with our desires - but... really?

I have one piece of advice for the President to use in the upcoming debates: Whatever it was you thought you were doing, STOP IT!

Debate Game Change...

Gov. Christie predicted that the Wed debate would be... well, huge.

"This whole race is going to turn upside down come Thursday morning,"

I'm not sure exactly what it is that r-Money could do or get Pres. Obama to do that would turn things upside down.  Mitt had something to say about his strategy, though I'm unsure of its wisdom.

I don't know that a campaign that's said what this one has said about facts should wander out onto that limb.

“Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,”

Now I certainly understand the need to make something as short as an ad pop and dig into the viewer's consciousness but this ad about welfare has run right along side the campaign speeches given by the R/R pair saying the same bullshit.  This isn't some "independent PAC" saying something over the top, it is the team so there is a risk involved in questioning the President's truthfulness.

It seems that the R/R campaign is hoping to gain a special moment.

Mr. Romney’s team has concluded that debates are about creating moments and has equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorized and has been practicing on aides since August. His strategy includes luring the president into appearing smug or evasive about his responsibility for the economy.

I don't know that the President is a trout to be distracted by a shiny object and I'm real doubtful about r-Money pulling off a comedic enterprise despite how funny his family seems to think he is.  I know better than to tell jokes - I can turn a ROTFLMAO joke into... not funny.  It just isn't in my skill set and I've seen no evidence that it is in Mitt's.  I'm sure there are some competent writers at work for Mitt but great lines can't undo piss-poor delivery.

I haven't seen the President thrown off stride by anyone but I have seen him get too far into the weeds answering questions or addressing issues and I have seen him veer away from a question.  I'll say this at the risk of seeming snarky but Mitt going after smug really strikes me as a funny idea.

I don't have any advice for r-Money, I'm not a GOPer shill and I can't fix his ideas or his charisma.  It seems it is Mitt's job to convince people he's not the guy they've been watching since this spring and I have no idea how the hell anybody would do that - much less r-Money.  I'm also not going to wish him any luck.

So, How'd Sarah Do?

The short answer period without follow ups worked better for Sarah than the free wheeling format of interviews. A pretty substance free performance on her part, about the only thing she managed any substance on was gay marriage. It was disconcerting to watch her not answer a question and use the time to say what she wants.

She did not demonstrate the incurious anti-intellect lowest common denominator tenor of her interviews. Some of it was simply rehearsed speechifying that had some relationship to the question. Some of it seemed to be ground she was comfortable with, not flailing about. Whether she demonstrated competence or not is open to question.

"A white flag of surrender in Iraq," is going to go down pretty roughly with any but the BushCo dead-enders. Better to have left that line alone.

Sarah Palin did not fail, she did not prove herself incompetent, she did not win. She survived with some dignity. For those who wished an implosion, disappointment. I did not wish that, I did not wish a factual demonstration that American politics had descended into a morass of politically driven incompetence. I don't believe she'd make anything like a good President, I don't think she'd be a disaster as VP - that is VP. The problem is, VP is a conditional position, it could be something else.

Feel free to call me full of stuff in comments. This stuff is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of perception. Don't forget, the debates are aimed at media coverage and low information/low interest voters. Political junkies like me are around to be amused.