Granholm/DeVos Debate 3 analysis

I'm a professional. Just not at politics. My medium of choice advertising. I've picked up a sixth sense when doing "animatics" as to whether an idea is well conveyed, coherent and most importantly clever.
Dick DeVos was none of that last night. I didn't blog the previous two debates, but I did watch them. And I watched last nights as well. Enough yip yap, let's analyze.

Dick DeVos: his opening statement was the only good part of his debate. He was on message and speaking coherently and clearly. I actually give him credit for donning the prop glasses, because subconsciously it is associated with intelligence, and as a visual cue it was a nice touch. Ideally he was looking to convey a confident, competent, aggressive CEO who has ideas and solutions for what ails Michigan. What came across was, I think bizarre. There was a lot of visibly false bravado, stumbling while remembering prepared responses to expected attacks, and he had an odd bob-and-weave thing going on while standing at the podium that was unnerving. He also came across as quick to anger in the way that he rapidly sped up his speaking when either defending himself or attacking Governor Granholm.
In Conclusion: he came across as an ill-tempered, mean, uncomfortable bully/brat. He doesn't seem like the type of person who would give one prescription pill about how YOU are doing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: just watch the debates and tell me this is who you want representing us to the Democratic Majority in both houses of Congress. His body language alone reads petulant child.
And the substance of his debate? When he wasn't dodging or ignoring a specific attack of Governor Granholms, he was levelling blame of the ills of the auto industry at her feet. Truly boring and asinine shit.

Governor Granholm: She was good through most of it. She connects better, whether its asking specific questions of audience members to get a better idea of who they are or that brilliant 2 minute closing statement, she came across well. I wouldn't call the debate flawless, in that a few of her responses were either vague or off topic, but on the whole she read as confident, competent, well intentioned caring and above all engaged. She seemed to have a clear grasp of what is going on in our state and what she planned to do to correct it.

I don't know how anyone can say DeVos did anything but shoot himself in the foot with these three debates. Both the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News have declared that it was DeVos' best performance to date, and truly it was, but that's like giving the kid a lollipop for using the potty correctly. Your supposed to be better as you go along, and it serves to reason that the last one would be his best. But his best was nowhere near competent. Granholm buried him like he was Jimmy Hoffa. Period. There should be no debate about that. Anyone who takes their partisan glasses off has to see that.

Stay tuned, this is going to get exciting.