Tonight is the third, and final (thank goodness!) debate.
Usually, I wait until after to review it... but since this is the last one wanted to mix it up a little bit.
I'm curious about three things:
1. What do you think should be discussed tonight?
2. Is there something either candidate can say that might make them appear "the winner?"
3. What the hell are we doing about last month's terrorist attack? How did that even happen??
I have my own ideas of course. This may end up being the most interesting debate simply because it's last. And, how in the world do you talk about foreign policy for 90 minutes?? Correction, how in the world do you talk about BOs foreign policy for 90 minutes? It appears non-existent!
I wonder if perhaps there will be plenty of other topics infused into this conversation....and who will do the infusing.
Here is what I don't want to see:
1. The bickering back and forth. While it satisfies the inner caveman (or woman!) it doesn't really lend itself to substantial discourse. Which may be exactly why it is employed. Hopefully this will be minimized since BO has a record and Mitt doesn't.
2. The moderator, Bob Shieffer, inserting himself into the parlay.
He says this debate will be about:
"how dangerous the world is in which we live...Iran's nuclear intentions, the bloody crackdown in Syria, economic angst in Europe, security concerns in Afghanistan, China's growing power -- all that and more are on the agenda."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/obama-romney-look-for-foreign-policy-edge-in-final-debate/#ixzz2A1j6TfAP
Reporters and anchors by nature tend to be camera hogs. Hopefully Bob won't operate under the false impression we care what he thinks.
Ok, I reserve the opportunity to update after the debate. But not right after. I like to let things brew over-night.