THE THIRD DEBATE
HE: pale, haggard, rumpled, frowzy, subdued, a bit grim
SHE: Spritely, confident, rested, crisp, well-dressed, beautifully coiffed, perfectly made up, highly professional, almost attractive, but arrogant
HE: Semi-articulate, limited vocabulary, poor syntax, common "Noo Yawk" guttersnipe accent unfortunate, but may help him appear to be "one of the folk."
SHE: Bright, glib, formulaic, overly-calculated, brazen and palpably insincere. Her normally harsh Midwestern twang seemed less abrasive than usual. I suspect she's been taking elocution lessons from a top Hollywood drama coach.
HE: Restrained, en pointe (focused), but shambling verbal style, defensive, hangdog aura, works against him. Makes many excellent points, but does it poorly
SHE: Never gives actual answers, responds instead with warmed over segments from campaign speeches, and artfully contrived sound bites. Overall she appears militantly mendacious, truculent, and smug. Worse she perpetually filibusters like an automaton who cannot be stopped till it has finished its scientifically-engineered routine
Chris Wallace was the clear “winner” of the evening. He was fair, kind-but-impartial, considerate, but excellent at keeping the candidates moving along on track without seeming rude or agenda-driven. BRAVO, Chris Wallace!