Be prepared for the media to declare Romney the winner of the first debate, unless

[No Elephants]

he steps on his own tongue.

Panel discussions on TV have pointed out that happens in most first debates for a couple of reasons.

One reason is that a challenger appearing on the same stage, and going "mano a mano" with an incumbent President automatically gets an air of importance, as though he is equal or nearly equal in importance to the most powerful person in the world.

Another reason is the self-interest of the political media and what I will call "the pundit industry."

People hang on their every word and drive up the ratings of these shows only if both candidates still have a realistic shot at winning. (Though, this time, they have been preparing us for a while to hang on every word about the race for a Senate majority once it seems clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Romney will lose.)

These same pundits have been telling us that, as of now, Romney still has a realistic chance, his best chance being doing better than Obama in most or all of the debates.

And, once again, the interests of the media are congruent with the interests of the two major Parties, in that the politicians also want us hanging on their every word, and donating and ginned up to vote. All of that falls off if one side loses hope and the other side gets complacent.

So, fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy ride, though perhaps a somewhat artificial one. But, then again, we are addicted to the adrenalin that our own bodies produce, or the horror movie and roller coaster industries would both have gone out of business long ago.





Besides, as P.T. Barnum noted, "There's a sucker born every minute." So, a lot of us, including moi, are suckers for the ride, even if we know why it excites us and how it will end.

And if it weren't fun, it would not be in a place called "amusement" park.

[Enthusiast]

1. I agree that the media

will be inclined to proclaim Romney the winner if at all possible. I mean they proclaimed Bush the winner when he looked like a complete fool.

[No Elephants]

2. Don't shoot me, but I thought Bush was the winner, if appealing to voters = winning a debate.

Listening to Kerry, I tore out my hair. A single sentence went on for what seemed like forever. In fact, he never completed many of his sentences. Also, he kept interrupting his own sentence to go off on some tangent.

Did he sound intelligent? Maybe. Did he make his points? I didn't think so. The next week, did I remember what he said and how he backed it up? Not even a little.

I was on my first message board at that time, one where all political views were welcome. And one of the comments from a Republican poster, which was justified was: "When you ask us Bush's position on something, we tell you what we think it is. When we ask you Kerry's position on something, you tell us to go to his website."

As far as Gore, he, too, came across to me as deadly dull and lifeless. Also supercilious and arrogant.

After the election, when Gore appeared on a program, he was animated. His voice was no longer a tired monotone. He made very clever jokes--mostly one liners. And all that helped him get his points across.

It was as if his handlers had drugged him during throughout campaign.

And I was on the side of Kerry and Gore. I WANTED them to make their points, which were also my points, with the same kind of brevity, punch and memorablity that Dummya made his points, with which I disagreed.

I cannot even imagine what the Republicans and undecideds made of Kerry and Gore.

That said, Gore did win the popular vote, albeit by a razor thin margin in Florida. And maybe Kerry did too.

Then again, they ran against one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history.