Kellyanne Conway calls Donald Trump "The Babe Ruth of debaters." Well they certainly share the same waistline.

(The entire interview is chock full of obfuscation and blame shifting but the debate comment comes around the 3:34 mark.)

Courtesy of Politico:

On the eve of the first presidential debate, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, described her candidate Sunday as “the Babe Ruth of debating,” a glowing assessment that’s unusual at a time when both camps typically work to rein in expectations. 

“He's a brilliant debater,” Conway said on ABC’s “This Week.” “Newt Gingrich put it best. The former speaker recently said Donald Trump is the best debater he's ever seen. He's like the Babe Ruth of debating. He really shows up and swings and does a great job.”

Too be charitable Babe Ruth was known for eating poorly and drinking alcohol the night before a game and still knocking the ball out of the park with amazing frequency. So perhaps that is what Conway and Gingrich are suggesting, however in his past debate performances Trump hardly knocked anything out of the park.

And according to a recent article Trump's advisers are either losing faith in his ability as a debater, or are setting the media up to underestimate him.

Here is a link, judge for yourself:

Mr. Trump is largely shunning traditional debate preparations, but has been watching video of Mrs. Clinton’s best and worst debate moments, looking for her vulnerabilities … He has paid only cursory attention to briefing materials.

He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers … He prefers not to do a full-length mock debate, and has no set person playing Mrs. Clinton. He is not using a lectern for mock debate drills, despite suggestions from some on his coaching team that simulating a one-on-one debate is good practice after the primary debates that featured several rivals 

Some Trump advisers are concerned that he underestimates the difficulty of standing still, talking pointedly and listening sharply for 90 minutes. 

He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers. 

He does not like practicing an answer over and over until it is letter-perfect and appropriately brief. But this weekend’s work will be geared to running through questions while Mr. Trump is on his feet and aware of a countdown timer when he is speaking. 

He believes debates are not won or lost on policy minutiae since most viewers will not remember them in an hour. His advisers see it as a waste of time to try to fill his head with facts and figures … Advisers are urging him to focus on big-picture themes rather than risk mangling facts. 

His instinct in debates is often to attack and insult opponents, which had an upside during the circuslike primary debates but could be grating during a 90-minute one-on-one debate. 

Mr. Trump can get bored with both debate preparations and debates themselves. His advisers have been reinforcing the importance of listening and focusing on every word Mrs. Clinton says and looking for ways to counterattack.

Like I said this could all be mind games designed to lull the Clinton campaign into complacency, however much of what is written here looks exactly like what we have seen in past debate performances.

However I do know that Clinton has taken several days off this last week to prepare, and is aware that she might see a completely different Donald Trump show up then the one we are all used to seeing.

But to think that Hillary is unprepared in any way for this debate, or that attempts to psyche her out by lowing expectations or inviting Gennifer Flowers will work, is to have not been paying any attention for the last twenty five years or so.

Once again Sarah Palin benefits from the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Look how proud she is of herself.

This is right after Palin delivered a speech that where she did not start to babble incoherently, or confuse dates and addresses, or become overly defensive and combative.

In other words it was not filled with the kinds of gaffes that we have all come to expect from a Palin speech.

And that has managed to impress a handful of reporters.  Such as Sam Levine from the Huffington Post:

Her latest remarks were certainly clearer than a confusing speech she gave last month at the Iowa Freedom Summit, which was criticized by conservatives and cheekily applauded by Democrats. The focus of her Tuesday speech was also a contrast to her previous two CPAC speeches in which she focused more on lobbing zingers at President Barack Obama.

Yes the speech was clearer, and there were fewer mistakes, while also offering only a crouton or two of word salad, so I guess that makes it a good speech?

Here was how the Daily Beast's Olivia Nuzzi reported on the speech:

A typical Palin speech usually involves props: Dr. Seuss books or Big Gulp sodas. This year, she has none. 

A typical Palin speech is usually an incoherent string of Palinisms haphazardly strung together in her folksy twang. This year, she is subdued and barely has any accent at all. 

What the hell is going on? Have the last six years of Palin’s public life just been performance art? Has she purposefully been lowering the bar for her public appearances so that she could come out and impress just ahead of Republican primary season? 

So the bar for a successful speech by Sarah Palin is simply coherence.  Man I certainly wish this lady had been my professor in college, I would have aced every test.

And look how easily Nuzzi is sucked in.

All it takes is one speech where Palin does not drool all over herself for her to suspect that all of her other incomprehensible speeches were some kind of set up.

Seriously? Has she not heard Palin struggling to answer simple, unscripted questions?

And how does she NOT realize that this entire outing was carefully scripted so as to repair the damage that she caused with her LAST speech in Iowa?

Of course not all journalists were fooled. This from Margaret Talev at Bloomberg news:

Sarah Palin rallied conservative Republicans on Thursday with a charged critique of President Barack Obama's approach to fighting Islamic radicalism, suggesting he is betraying U.S. Christians and ignoring the lessons of the Nazis. 

Yes, she actually DID attack President Obama several times, and invoked Nazis to do so.

No Sarah Palin has not changed, improved, or been tamed. She is now, and always will be the same ignorant, vindictive, grifting lunatic she has always been.

And just because she is occasionally caught without flecks of foam gathering around her herpes infested maw is no reason to think otherwise.

Update: Here's another oh so flattering picture.