are e-mailing with a very different take on the Meet the Press interview. Here’s one, that is characteristic:

I disagree with your characterization, & Michael Graham’s. Perhaps you
all expect too much. After two months of drift, taking punches, &
dispiriting his base while wild-goose-chasing the left-middle, this was
a solid start.
He was calm, in good spirits, affable, sincere, & strong. Without
being belligerent he made sure his answers were complete and that the
premises of the questions were challenged when they needed to be. He was
evasive only on the National Guard service question, but that was
assuaged by the (new?) offer to release all his service record.
What he did do, however, was to lay out – for those of us who have no
intention of abandoning him merely because he is not perfect – the
premises upon which he is staking his re-election, letting us know he is
having no second thoughts about them, and specifying the facts which
support those premises.
The sainted President Reagan failed to do that, opting for a “Morning
in America” touchy-feely campaign. As a result, the Iran-Contra
incident could be treated as a “scandal” when a more thematically
principled campaign would have afforded The President a policy base from
which he could have either (a) provided substantive help to the Contras
or (b) mounted a sound policy defense to the initiatives he did take.
The President has reassured me that I need no longer carp (as I have
done) about over-spending, fair trade, new entitlements, amnesty, and
the like in fear that more appeasement is coming up. He is zealously
committed to won wars and low taxes. I can be satisfied with those two,
big ticket causes plus whatever else can be accomplished at the margin.
So, pre-appearance, what did I think he needed to accomplish? Get off
defense, get on offense, and relieve the dispirited base, i.e. me.
Mission accomplished.