To call a question-and-answeer-and-rebuttal session with candidates a [I]debate[/I in an academic sense is really stretching a definition.

Both candidates had one job - make the primary candidate look good or better. Anything after that is just a bonus. With that being the job, both did not fail.

The two VP candidates have dramatically different personalities, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's true also of the Presidential candidates as well. People use what best works for them to transmit a message, and the transmission media vary a lot. The question should be whether you understood the content of the message versus whether you approve of someone's accent or vernacular. I try to get value from the content of the message, rather than look at the delivery of the message from an entertainment or showmanship perspective. If you measure a person by how well you approve/like their personality and communications manner versus the content of the message, then you are more concerned with style than substance.

One of the worst public speakers I ever knew was a French engineer/businessman. He would stumble over his notes, mispronounce names brutally and always looked like he was in total fear of the audience. however, behind closed doors he was without doubt the best negotiator I ever met, and rarely came away from the table (no matter how many parties were involved in the negotiation) other than with total success. Most people grossly underestimated him, and he took total advantage of their error.

So, if you are looking for a William Jennings Bryant type who can take the stage and give a mesmerizing performance, get your candidate from Broadway. If you want your candidate to be the one who leaves the negotiating table as the winner, pick the smart poker player with the track record of beating the odds and making everyone wonder How did s/he do that?