How clever

I feel a need to offer an opinion on the debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

While everyone appears to agree on Obama's miserable performance, in my view it was a masterful, strategic move.

Consider these thoughts.

In our highly polarized politics, it is most likely that the undecided few will split 50/50. There were no votes to be gained. No Obama backer is likely to switch sides.

So it now becomes clear that the best goal is to ensure that voters actually turn out. Were Obama to soundly to defeat Romney in the debate it might lead Democrats to fail to turn out, thinking it was less important. By "losing" the debate, Obama has lost no votes on Election Day or from early-voting states.

Further, were Obama to soundly defeat Romney in the debate, it is likely that deep-pocketed Republicans would pull their dollars from the presidential election and instead invest in the House and Senate races, thereby jeopardizing the possibility to gain Democratic control.

I think this was a well-reasoned approach to the realities of the politics of the situation. It may seem to be risky, but to me seems less risky than making Romney a loser and cementing his party's disillusionment with his campaign. Obama had more to gain by losing and less to gain by winning.

That's the kind of thinking I want in a president.

What do you think?

Biden-Ryan was even sweeter.
Ha!