Well, I caught most of the Blackwell / Strickland debate and for the most part it was pretty dry. Blackwell is clearly the better public speaker, but that really doesn't matter when you don't really have anything to say. All Blackwell really said was lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, and paint Strickland as a tax and spender, tax and spender, tax and spender. He didn't seem to have any new ideas on economic recovery.
Strickland did much better than I thought he would and clearly offered a better message than Blackwell, despite his weaker public speaking skills. To be honest, as long as Strickland doesn't make any major gaffes in these debates, they have to be considered wins for him considering his sizable lead.
One thing did amuse me in the debate though. The last question asked of both men was what do they think about Iraq. I've never understood why people ask foreign policy questions of candidates who are running for an office that has absolutely nothing to do with those policies. What can the governor of Ohio do about Iraq? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
Strickland probably did win a few points for saying he voted against the war, and idiotically Blackwell seemed to embrace it. Why would you embrace an unpopular issue when it has nothing to do with being governor?