Debate Analysis From Guy Not Watching Debate

Hope is not a strategy and "attacking me is not an agenda."  This the CEO in Romney making Obama look small, like a regular political hack.  He is deflating the bubble - or I should say further deflating the bubble as Obama has self-deflated his own bubble fairly effectively over the last four years.

Plus I caught a dash of Reaganism with the "America hasn't dictated to nations, America has freed nations" bit.

I'm watching intermittently, but I'm getting the sense that Mitt has looked as presidential as he needs to look in this one.

UPDATE:  I've finally figured out my frustrations over the last two debates.  I have been frustrated at Romney's performance but I haven't understood why. I just now realize that what has dogged me is that Romney has had multiple hanging curve balls but hasn't smashed them out of the park.  That is frustrating, our side wants to see that walk-off homer, but if you are playing excellent small-ball, hitting alot of singles and moving runners around the base-pads, the homers are not necessary.  And why should I feel bad about this?  I laid out the over-riding strategy a long time ago and should have seen Romney's small ball strategy.

Mitt Romney (who is FINE btw) chooses a VP nominee that solidifies his support with true conservatives just enough to complete his primary electoral strategy of 1) be the "non-scary" Republican that independents and moderate Dems can feel comfortable voting for and 2) be good enough for conservatives and libertarians to turn out like they need to turn out to defeat the constitutional democracy/individual liberty disaster that is Barack Obama.

Homers are for an aggressive conservative candidate.  Homers are for Chris Christie.  Singles.  Moving around the base pads is Mitt Romney.  Small ball wins games too.  A win is a win.  We'll see.