Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

A friend of mine on the golf course driving range yesterday asked me who I was going to vote for for president.

Specifically, he asked, “Trump or that lady?”

I was smart enough not to answer because I try to avoid at all costs talking about politics on the golf course, including such a question as the one above, with the absolutely offensive phrase, “that lady.”

Smart, right?

I report this after reading stories this morning from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times about last night’s presidential debate.

Not watching such “political events” allows me to read the newspapers listed above and get a nuanced perspective on, in this case, the debate.  Perspectives from the right, the left, and the middle enable this nuance.

Reading all three newspapers this morning provided these over-arching perspectives:

• Kamala Harris performed well, showing the ability to get under Donald Trump’s skin and prompt him to go off message.  Which, of course, is what he does all the time, but she helped him appear stupid and disjointed, especially when talking the size of crowds at his rallies.

• Trump reverted to normal themes, casting himself as ever the victim.  He even referred to immigrants eating cats and dogs when they came to America.  Yes, cats and dogs, a social media notation rejected by all sorts of responsible public officials, yet Trump and Trump #2, vice president candidate J.D. Vance still use it.

[On this point and others, ABC News moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis received plaudits for at-the-time fact checking, including when Muir said public officials had debunked Trump’s claims about immigrants eating cats and dogs.]

• The consensus of news media commentators is that Harris won the debate, but they also say it may not matter because both debaters essentially appealed to their political bases without demonstrating too much ability to gather the “undecideds.”  Not surprising in such a convoluted forum as this.

However, one development after the debate could prove to be important.  No less a vaunted public figure than Taylor Swift immediately came out endorsing Harris.  She did so in convincing fashion.  And her endorsement could help to cement the “women’s vote” for Harris, in this case, especially younger women who are following Swift.

I also talked last night with another friend of mine who, like me, a veteran of politics in Oregon, who said he was not watching the debate.

Why?

He responded:  “All I would see is Trump being Trump and I have had enough of that.”

Me, too.

I hope Harris can now pivot from the debate to continue reaching out to Americans who are ready to send Trump where he belongs, which is to the trash bin as a liar, cheater, stealer, and enemy of women.

As I posited above, it is the latter – women – who could tilt this race toward Harris in the next six weeks of the campaign.