I didn't see any of the Couric interview, so I didn't know exactly how ugly a train wreck the debate might have been for her.

...I got an idea, however, when I heard the pundits saying, afterward, how well she had done, compared to expectations.

That was doing well? Every line was coming out of her mouth was delivered with a head cheerleader's grin -- even when she was discussing war, and families on the brink of poverty. And she flagged the issues she didn't understand, by saying out loud that she didn't want to answer that question, so she wasn't going to. True: Politicians have be not-answering questions since the Ancient Greeks invented voting. But they generally don't say that's what they're doing as if it were a good thing.

Now, to be fair, I do have criticisms of the Obama Campaign's talking points.

I wish they'd drop the "Tax Breaks for 95% of Americans" line. The true statistic is, according to FactCheck.org: 95% of working families with children, which is 81% of America's entire population. That's not a lily that needs gilding, in my not-so humble opinion, and the second number sounds less fiscally reckless.

Biden also repeated the line that McCain voted against alternative energy 20 times. Again, according to FactCheck.org, McCain voted against alternative engery outright 11 times, and for the other 9 votes, he simply voted against making alternative energy mandatory. 20 is a nice, round, number, and it sounds impressive. But the Obama/Biden campaign could, if they chose, make the truth just as impressive, if they word their pitch something like this: "In 20 votes that have come up in front of the Senate, McCain has consistantly voted to allow corporations to continue with status quo in regards to alternative energy..."