Reply #34: I'll address your central point separately, then.

[TexasObserver]

Sorry. I didn't mean to make short shrift of your central theme.

Yes, Obama does need to stop allowing to stand unanswered SUBSTANTIVE statements of position.

I wish Obama had tried a bunch of cases, because he would have a better understand the process of advocacy. He's a fantastic speaker, but he paints in broad brushed strokes. You have to sell a concept by saying unequivocally: "McCain's plan is deficient because of A, B, and C. Mine works because of D, E, and F."

He's got to be more effective delineating his positions and McCain's.

When 12 jurors sit down to judge a case, if you're going to try to sell them your side, you'd better know that one or two of them will think, read and write at the level of a seventh grader. If you cannot explain yourself to them, you will lose them. You cannot talk around issues, and you cannot fail to explain in short, clear, concise terms exactly what you want them to do and why.

In an election the 8-16% in the middle will decide the election, and they are analogous to those 8-16% of the jury who are thinking at a 12 year old's level.