I am coming more to the view that it is best to listen not to what each says, but to look at what each does or has done. Take Michelle Bachmann, for instance; one formerly could say about her that she walked the talk, but her talk these days is a bit disconcerting, as in vaccines may cause brain damage. Perhaps she is simply a bad campaigner, considering the speed with which events arise these days preventing a decent interval to accurately gather intel and assess a situation. Does this reflect the way in which she would govern, considering her voting record to date, and the fact that, at bottom, her position on government mandating vaccination is in line with conservative principles?
Each current candidate can be assessed in the same manner; each has a record, some of which can be and is defended, some which cannot be and either isn't or isn't defended very well.
I am aware that the voting public generally is blown which ever way the latest revelations hit them, so there is that to overcome, particularly with the pundits and the media appropriating and disbursing the "proper" view.
Deciding who to support based on debate skills is, to me, using a false measurement; a winner of debates simply means the candidate can debate well, not necessarily govern well.
