- was he 'doing better', IMO.

The famous tongue-jut that telegraphs when he's lying, the schizoid rapid topic-change ploys (daring Obama to rebut every er, orthogonal sound-bite jammed-in), his basic pair of modes, patronizing or sarcastic: evidencing that his near-perpetual angry mood also interferes with his ability to maintain a cohesive flow of (relevant) ideas.

No, I don't think he did 'well', graded even on the Palin-curve -- though he fielded some ... almost minutes of competent debating demeanor. Still, even in those, a crucial core of his logic relied upon his mischaracterization of Obama's (usually, though not always) clear-enough statement on the topic.

I've seen nothing to dissuade self from believing that he operates (throughout this campaign, at least) very-near his personal 'safety-valve' trip point; only hearsay is available to describe alleged events of what happens after That blows.

It's possible that he could select some actually competent people to handle the Econ parts he clearly (and admittedly) has little ken about -- yet his choices of lobbyists, the Rove team et al -- as campaign advisors, make that happy-what-if a rather improbable outcome.

Would not want this man near the Bagman's Codes, in The Hunch Gambler's™ pursuit of the Victorious Warfare State, thankyouverymuch.

(Fortunately for us all) he did not achieve that ZINGER-class 'unmasking' of Obama, which alone (via most pundits of any stripe) was the Minimum-level of accomplishment tonight, were he to somehow abort the Obama momentum.



I think it's clearly: President Obama