You wrote a well-thought out piece, however, I totally disagree with you on some major points. Mitt did let a few things go by, however, he didn’t take the bait being dangled before his eyes. That’s what the left wanted - to drag him down into the weeds and gutters with them. He didn’t play their game.
He also doesn’t have inside information to all that is happening within the WH, so in that regard - he did remarkably well. I do think Mitt let Benghazi slide, but there must have been reasons for it. I think he wanted to show a distinct difference between him and Obama in the area of class. Mitt showed class and respect to a sitting POS, er, I mean president. If he had gotten down in the mud with Obama - he would have looked silly. Zero stayed in the mud and showed himself to be the petulant, snotty, arrogant radical that he is.
If people think this is how you win a debate, then I gesture that many aren’t aware of what does and doesn’t make a good debate.
Now surrogates like Sununu and Giuliani can really let loose on the administration's disarray, six months of prior incidents in Benghazi, gross negligence , skipped intelligence briefings, etc.
And we haven't heard the last of the civil servants who are being thrown under the bus. Leaks will be forthcoming and Obambi won't like them. Especially if from someone who watched the Benghazi drone surveillance vid. What was Panetta doing, and why didn't he order reinforcements? There were AC130s in Sicily, one hour away...