The debates in Hew Hampshire got more attention in the New York Times with yesterday's article by Michael D. Shear titled "Bachmann wins over some Skeptics." Indeed, she wins column inches not for any sensible policy, but for the analysis about whether or not she could "appeal to voters beyond her base in the Tea Party movement, while avoiding the gaffes that have sometimes undercut her efforts to position herself as a credible candidate."
As noted in the previous post, attention often goes to those who make mistakes - whilst those with sensible policies get overlooked.
Hopefully the GOP will not go by theatrics, but will note that Ron Paul is the most sensible candidate, the one with a solid professional background and military service - and that he is also the one with the highest degree of crossover votes; Dems and Greens will vote for him, but the likes of Bachman and Gingrich will only see hardline GOP voters (and/or Tea Party voters..)
Bachmann has hired former Reagan man Ed Rollins, and for a pollster, Ed Goeas; both very experienced political activists. However, that does not make up for what she lacks - though I am not slinging mud - she is a capable Congresswoman; who was not in the military and whose professional experience, while good, is limited to tax litigation and some entrepeneurial undertakings. Dr Paul will be a better leader and has more experience in politics to boot, so as a rational human being, I would choose him over all the rest, some of whom may be clowns.