The argument is that for many people, an interview or debate is the only time they will see or hear the politician. Thus what sounds incredibly dull and repetitive to someone who is keyed in, sounds refreshing and comforting to the swing voters, which are the people who tune in at the end of an election.

Take Palin. A lot of hay was made about Palin's responses to Couric, but it's clear that her baffling responses were the result of too many keywords in Couric's questions. The real game is figuring out when a politician is playing dumb, and when they're just a wind-em-up monkey who has nice hair and takes orders well. The standard role of running of president isn't any of the things we would ask for – it's the ability to give the same speech hundreds of times, while raising large amounts of money, and getting the public and other politicians to project their thoughts as your own. That's what a politician does, and the leadership and decision making abilities, you hope are there.

And while it would be nice to have intelligent politicians (Obama's intelligence clearly won over a large number of upper income voters that voted Bush in 2004), it also gives the opposition the chance to seize on things that are said and twist them. When you take a stand, you're alienating someone, and giving your opponent the chance to define you.

Of course, it helps if the media has a story they want to tell, and you know how to play into that. As for Kagan, her lack of response could be the inability to respond, or it could be that she was told not to, and thus never left her comfort zone, no matter how lame it was.

The argument is that for many people, an interview or debate is the only time they will see or hear the politician. Thus what sounds incredibly dull and repetitive to someone who is keyed in, sounds refreshing and comforting to the swing voters, which are the people who tune in at the end of an election.

Take Palin. A lot of hay was made about Palin's responses to Couric, but it's clear that her baffling responses were the result of too many keywords in Couric's questions. The real game is figuring out when a politician is playing dumb, and when they're just a wind-em-up monkey who has nice hair and takes orders well. The standard role of running of president isn't any of the things we would ask for – it's the ability to give the same speech hundreds of times, while raising large amounts of money, and getting the public and other politicians to project their thoughts as your own. That's what a politician does, and the leadership and decision making abilities, you hope are there.

And while it would be nice to have intelligent politicians (Obama's intelligence clearly won over a large number of upper income voters that voted Bush in 2004), it also gives the opposition the chance to seize on things that are said and twist them. When you take a stand, you're alienating someone, and giving your opponent the chance to define you.

Of course, it helps if the media has a story they want to tell, and you know how to play into that. As for Kagan, her lack of response could be the inability to respond, or it could be that she was told not to, and thus never left her comfort zone, no matter how lame it was.

The argument is that for many people, an interview or debate is the only time they will see or hear the politician. Thus what sounds incredibly dull and repetitive to someone who is keyed in, sounds refreshing and comforting to the swing voters, which are the people who tune in at the end of an election.

Take Palin. A lot of hay was made about Palin's responses to Couric, but it's clear that her baffling responses were the result of too many keywords in Couric's questions. The real game is figuring out when a politician is playing dumb, and when they're just a wind-em-up monkey who has nice hair and takes orders well. The standard role of running of president isn't any of the things we would ask for – it's the ability to give the same speech hundreds of times, while raising large amounts of money, and getting the public and other politicians to project their thoughts as your own. That's what a politician does, and the leadership and decision making abilities, you hope are there.

And while it would be nice to have intelligent politicians (Obama's intelligence clearly won over a large number of upper income voters that voted Bush in 2004), it also gives the opposition the chance to seize on things that are said and twist them. When you take a stand, you're alienating someone, and giving your opponent the chance to define you.

Of course, it helps if the media has a story they want to tell, and you know how to play into that. As for Kagan, her lack of response could be the inability to respond, or it could be that she was told not to, and thus never left her comfort zone, no matter how lame it was.