Nassir attempts to de-escalate by telling Leo that he knows that Bartlet couldn't admit Israel's complicity during a close election, Leo laughs, responding that to win in a landslide, all Bartlet would have to do is "blow the Sultan's brains out in Times Square, then walk across the street to Nathan's and buy a hot dog". Leo tells the ambassador that he has to turn around the Mastico, and stop attempting to link Shareef's death to Israel. Reaction The debate The A.V. Club'''s Steve Heisler praised the debate in an article published in 2012, writing that the episode "finds not only incredible humor, but catharsis". Heisler praised Bartlet's strategy of attempting to persuade, rather than pander, contrasting it with Ritchie's "ten word" answers. He described the debate as between a "guy in desperate pursuit of simplicity vs. a guy who realizes the simplest thing to do is tell the truth." Heisler also praises Bartlet's dismissal of the debate format, choosing to articulate his ideas before the American people rather than engage with Ritchie's ten word answers. He also poked fun at the opening scene, musing that "Bartlet has decided to spend his precious minutes leading to the debate fucking with Toby."The Atlantic also focuses on the debate and the difference between persuasion and pandering, although it is more critical of the way Bartlet and Ritchie are portrayed. Writing in two articles published in 2016, Megan Garber summarized the difference between the two candidates in the "Beer Question"—is a candidate able to connect with the American public on a personal level, instead of appearing smug and aloof? Would one be able to have a beer with them? However, Garber criticizes the way Ritchie is portrayed as unintelligent as well as folksy, arguing The West Wing is portraying Ritchie as a "walking... straw man, standing in for a great many of the stereotypes within which progressives are fond of packaging conservatives... He seems confused. He seems unprepared—not just for the debate, but for leadership. It is simply not a fair fight." Garber also writes that The West Wing, "for better or for worse", treats the debate as a kind of sporting event. She wraps up her pieces by saying that The West Wing still "makes a pretty good argument for choosing leaders according to their skills and their knowledge, rather than their charm", and criticizes the practice of candidates making personas for