Noted political philosophers The Jam would disagree with you ("the public gets what the public wants").

and (e) It is potentially the last debate between Clinton and Obama.

You are right, Kevin. And thank you for not posting any cat pictures today.

You are exactly right, Kevin. American people may want it, but you can't tell from the ratings, for the reasons you explain.

I guess this is a boring comment, but I think you've nailed it.

That was a horrible debate in Philadelphia. Not one good question got asked. Charlie Gibson and Hillary Clitnon and George Stephanopoulos ganged up on Obama with no one to defend him.

But you're thinking too hard if you think we need an entirely new system for debates. The problem was with ABC and its bias against Obama. MSNBC did a fine job in the previous debates with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews moderating the debate. They should go back to that format with Olbermann and Matthews being the moderators. Or David Shuster would be a good replacement moderator also.

I agree that ABC stunk up the place with its mock debate, but I fear that the other criticism is also valid. American voters get Swiftboating because we are such lazy fools that we let such nonsense affect our judgement. If Americans didn't eat up National Enquirer-style reporting about our presidential candidates, Steph and Gibson would have actually asked substantive questions. Both of them have shown that they are capable of doing a good job of it. America has made it clear that we want to turn our Presidential contest into American Idol, so ABC is giving us what we want, even it is completely opposite of what we need.

Question - does anyone have the ratings for the entire telecast? I'm curious if people turned the channel as things went on...

I didn't watch the debate, except for a few moments when Obama was schooling Charlie or George about how to ask questions. My wife watched the first half and quit watching about half-way through.

If there's only a lousy selection (on this night, the only debate on the tube), then maybe 10 million out of 300+ million represents only a fraction of the otherwise interested audience. Scientist Kevin, where's the "control" for this experiment?

On the other hand, we know from 50% + 1, rally the base, Off Center, and elsewhere that the political system and politicians' decisions, don't (have to) reflect the interests of we the people.

This election is still subject to the effects of "9/11 changed everything" -- meaning that unpopular policies of the least popular (or according to the first ballot of historians, worst) President ever are not overturned. As an even greater indictment of the conventional political system, they've only been resisted successfully through an alternative voice (see "FISA & the netroots").

And don't get me started on the real third rail of American politics, ass-clay arfare-way.

And just one more thing -- where dem cat pix?

I disagree about the public's curiosity for policy discussions or position statements. Go anywhere, literally anywhere, and somehow poll random adults looking for their knowledge regarding current events, office holders, recent history, almost any category you might want to classify as relevant to moving society along a better path. You'll likely not be surprised when pressed for answers or coherent thought there are damned few to be found. What's McCain's proposed solution for spiraling health care costs? He has one and he's stated it in public. It is out there if you want to know it. What, maybe 1 in 10 could give it to you? Ditto for nearly any position by any candidate. People don't know. The Prime Minister of Russia, Great Britain or Canada? Duh. What does the Federal Reserve do? Duh. How does the dollar's value relative to other currencies affect imports, exports and the trade deficit? Duh. They aren't equipped to know whether any proposed solution to any problem is right or wrong. What percentage of American adults have read a non-fiction book cover to cover in the last 6 months? 2%? 5%? Both guesses might be high. Most people know about 6 basic facts in life. The route to work. The route to the grocery. Where to shit. Where to eat. Where to sleep. Finally, the location of the television remote. Beyond that they're functionally illiterate and can't be bothered with the details. They truly don't want to know WTF Hillary or Barack or McCain are up to. Jesus Christ, "Dancing With the Stars" is about to come on, leave me the fuck alone!

The letter should've gone out last fall, when the debates centered around attacks on Clinton. Would've nipped the unfairness in the bud, I imagine.

The bloggers kept their mouths shut for twenty debates, when Obama was treated with kid gloves and Hillary raked over the coals. Now that he's been treated unfairly, they speak up.

How courageous. Too bad you looked the other way when it wasn't your candidate being attacked, and now you just look like partisan hacks.

Kevin apparently wasn't paying attention during the O.J. trial. Or the Lewinsky scandal. Or any of the umpty-jillion pretty-young-thing-has-been-kidnapped-or-murdered sagas. Americans love gossip.

After Tuzla, Wright, and "cling", the public smelled blood in the water. ABC delivered.

A letter of protest? Are we in high school?

That was not a debate. It was a high tech lynching. I'll leave it to the reader's imagination as to which of the candidates was targeted for the noose.

And as to the public gets what the public wants. The public does not watch political shows. Only 10 million out of 300 million citizens tuned in. BFD! Most of those do pay some attention and deserve an honest production.

The Wurlitzer is big and loud. All dials go to 11. The Wurlitzer is in control and calls the tunes.

high tech lynching

No. In a lynching, people die. Usually horribly.

I posted this over at Tapped regarding this letter:

This is a truly a wonderful time for conversatives.

After telling conservatives for all these many years that the idea the mainstream media was biased in favor of liberals and Democrats was nothing more than an insane delusion, it is amazing how quickly liberals have discovered its existence during a contest between two liberal Democrats candidates for President.

First Dems will not go on Fox, and then they say that Russert was unacceptable as a debate moderator and now little Georgie Steffie and Charlie Gibson have been voted off the island.

God, you guys really are a bunch of whiney pussies who are stuck with two candidates, neither of which will be able to get to 270 in the Electoral College.

Yes, wonderful times indeed.

The most recent polls are showing a clear split. Clinton wins on issues and Obama wins on the character questions. This debate was more about character than issues. The fact that voters are evenly split between Clinton and Obama does not suggest they want more policy wonkery. It suggests that half of them do, the half that support Clinton, because that is her strength. Since you have come out for Obama, Kevin, you should be happy with the recent debate because it focuses on the identity issues that are Obama's strengths (even if he was less effective in his delivery yesterday).

I agree with Alex Trebek .

Celebrity Jeopardy, Susan Jacoby choosing "Ignorant Americans, Political Division," for $1,000, after this fiasco.

And Yep, look up; Kevin posted them, but I have SCATblogging pix linked there, too.

Time was when Eisenhower spoke as if he was talking to rational reasoning adults....about things like the military industrial complex. Kenneday did too, as did LBJ, to some degree. Carter was a bore...and then they are the fantasists, like Reagan, Bush, Cheney & Nixon.
The problem is that having a reasoned discussion is that it requires real and developed intellect. It's easier for everyone involved to devolve to the level of a primary school playground taunting fest.

Time was when Eisenhower spoke as if he was talking to rational reasoning adults....about things like the military industrial complex. Kenneday did too, as did LBJ, to some degree. Carter was a bore...and then they are the fantasists, like Reagan, Bush, Cheney & Nixon.
The problem is that having a reasoned discussion is that it requires real and developed intellect. It's easier for everyone involved to devolve to the level of a primary school playground taunting fest.

Viewership of the Dem debates has been consistently trending upwards this entire election season. Viewership increased significantly when the Dem field winnowed itself down to three then 2 candidates. The last few debates prior to this one, with the remaining two candidates, received very high and increasing viewership and accolades, and were heavily policy-laden in their content. Based upon past debates there is no doubt in my mind the 10 million or so who showed up to watch this debate were there, primarily, to actually listen to the candidates and learn about their actual views and policies. And as is pretty apparent, a very large segment of the audience came away very disappointed, not in the candidates, but ABC and the moderators.

Um, and was there a big petition signed by all the big lefy bloggers to chastise MSNBC when they were hammering Clinton with garbage instead of Obama?

No? There wasn't? Really?

This is just business as usual for the republican owned media (there is no mainstream media). They are all republican owned, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, LAT, Washington Post, (and the others who are openly republican Fox etc.) Whatever is good for the republicans and bad for the democrats, they go with it. Hillary is good for the republicans now, so they love her now. If she should get the nomination they'll turn on her in a heartbeat. Obama is going to be the next president, so they must destroy him.

Steve Duncan,
The federal reserve stores butter. I know that for a fact because I am a low information voter who supports Clinton in the primary.

you guys really are a bunch of whiney pussies

People are hyper-ventilating over a f**king flag pin and we are whiny pussies?

That people tend to watch important and bad things doesn't imply that they like them. If, say, the President of the United States showed up drunk in the press briefing room, ranting incoherently and using ethnic slurs to describe other world leaders, you can bet your ass I'd tune in and watch it. But that doesn't mean I want something like that to happen.

Is that all there is?
Is that all there is to a debate?
If that's all there is, let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
if that's all there is

Framing problems with the debate as an issue of them piling on Obama confuses the issue and leads to the idiotic rationale of "this happened to Clinton too". It's not about how the frontrunner is treated, or how Obama is treated.

It's about the nature of the questions and whether they were appropriate!

"Do you believe in the flag?"

"Does your reverend love America more than you?"

What. The. Hell.

Seriously, if you're a Clinton supporter, can you back this just because it was against a rival?

Don't they list ratings by the hour or half hour?

Seems like a very testable hypothesis.

IE: Where those ratings for the first hour? Did they decline by the second hour (IE people leaving in disgust)?

Good for you, Kevin. It was a fine letter. This debate is a stellar example of why I do not watch network television anymore. The public is so poorly served by these schlockmeisters, who think which flag lapel pins people wear is more important than substantive discussions of fiscal policy and health care.

This is why we are turning into a nation of knuckleheads.

So Sojourner, do you prefer pearls or diamonds?

Don't you guys remember how boring the previous debates were between Obama and Hillary? They agree on virtually everything. If you are going to have a debate, you might as well have it on something interesting and where the candidates have to think on their feet.

Read my latest post on the debate.

Also once people started watching they likely stayed tuned in becasue of the train wreck affect, they couldn't believe how inane it was and wanted to see how bad it could get.

"So Sojourner, do you prefer pearls or diamonds?"

Didn't recognize that statement right off, but I looked it up and remember it now: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/behind-clintons-diamonds-and-pearls/

Obviously that question received a lot of criticism, as it should. One does not need to look far for problems with these "journalists". And I'll be the first to agree that Clinton is treated very poorly by a large number of people in and out of the media.

And that's the point. It's all disgusting. Let's not make it an issue of Obama and Clinton. It's an issue of right and wrong, or perhaps, of watching these networks or not.

Perhaps it is time we stop using the newscasters as moderators. Why does the DNC sponsor its own debate, make its own presentation, and present its own ideas to the public?

This is laughable. How in the hell is this any more of a circus than the NBC debates? The difference is that this time Obama took the pasting.

Why just focus on THIS debate? All of the debates should be more substantive.

The big deal about the ABC Democratic debate is that it won the 8PM timeslot in the ratings. True, it got clobbered at 9PM when American Idol came on, but I think this is a big deal, particularly for a debate for the primary elections.

From TVByTheNumbers blog:

Perhaps it’s just me, but even though I’m extremely apolitical, I take comfort in the knowledge that more people watched Obama face off against Hillary than Big Brother. Even in the 18-49 demo ABC’s coverage of the Democratic Presidential Debate had more viewers than BB during the 8p-9p hour. Overall the debate which ran from 8p-10p averaged almost 11 million and a 2.8/8 in the 18-49 year old demographic.

> Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to
> bring debate back to the real problems faced by
> ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them
> to do this.

Without doubt the questions were a disgrace. But why didn't one of the candidates say "I said at the beginning of my last response, Charlie, that I am not interesting in playing DC media insider gotcha games with these Radical Right talking points straight off Karl Rove's fax. I am going to answer the question you should have asked about health care and invite my worthy opponent to do the same. If you give us any more of this crap I will invite my worthy opponent and any cameras here NOT from ABC News to step out to the parking lot and continue with audience questions. Now on those 40 million Americans without health insurance..."

If these two can't handle two lightweight Radical Right wannabees how exactly are they going to handle the Republicans in the Senate with the full force of Norquist and Rove behind them?

Cranky

steve duncan brings up the information underload of the average US voter. Too true,however, you should note that one of the jobs of the fourth estate is researching and interpreting policy prescriptions,outcomes, tax data, etc. etc.
Maybe if ABC and the other media tried to do their jobs, those average US voters might just be a little more informed. Unfortunately, the media learned the lesson of the 90s:trivia plays quite well with audiences,so why do the hard work necessary to inform the voters.
I hope,elitist that you are,you at least try to have a discussion with those average US citizens so they might be a little bit better informed.
Nah.

Cranky is right.

Why the fuck didn't Obama, who could have benefited from saying that, say it? Beats me. I think it's time to view moderators as potential assholes, no insult meant to Stephy's country of origin.

I'm not sure Hillary had much reason to say this since she was sharpening her knife every time Obama spoke. That smile of delight on her face with each of the questions. That sanctimonious solidarity she felt with all the common people he had hurt, the care with which she chooses her acquaintances, the sermons her pastor would give on lapel pins; it was more than a bit much.

Where were all you policy wonks when people were so interested in Bush's TANG record ? Or the phony cocaine story ? Or the drunk driving story ?

This is hilarious. Pass the popcorn, please.

Yeah right.

Mike K, Was Bush asked your questions in a debate?

More importantly, did anyone ask Bush whether those assertions were true of someone Bush just happened to know? Or is there a separate standard for African Americans who have a funny name?

You get that, moron? Or do you just want to exhibit your stupidity?

"Or do you just want to exhibit your stupidity?"

Do you really need to ask? This is Mike K we're talking about, after all. Exhibiting his stupidity is pretty much all he's got.

"Don't you guys remember how boring the previous debates were between Obama and Hillary?"

No, actually, I didn't.

"They agree on virtually everything."

Not even remotely true, but not too surprising that you would pretend that it is.

"If you are going to have a debate, you might as well have it on something interesting and where the candidates have to think on their feet."

So you're fine with asking McCain about his calling his wife a "c*nt", using his wife's money to buy a Senate seat, his Keating connection, his support for torture, his lies and pandering, and all of those other "interesting" things? Uh-huh, right....

Alex Tabarrok's take on things seems to ring a big hollow for me. Yes, there may be some disinterest in the real issues, but it gets into a 'chicken or the egg' question. Are these really the only things that get ratings, or do they get ratings because they're the only things on?

I'm more willing to blame feckless, sensationalist media than the whole of people in America (as much as my faith in them has been shaken time and time again). The media has proven, time and time again, to latch on to substanceless, sleazy 'controversies' and issues and absolutely ignore real serious stuff, and then instantly turn back and say 'we'd LOVE to cover the real stuff, but the people want to hear about this stuff, and we know because it's on the news already!'.

Look at Edward's 'haircut' kerfluffle. The Politico's basic argument: 'The Politico covering the story because people want to know about it, and we know they want to know about it because the Politico was covering it'.

It's a circular logic of hackery and shame.

I hope your candidate has better responses in the debates this fall that you folks come up with. Mostly you just delete comments that don't agree with you. Otherwise, you try to abuse the commenter instead of producing an intelligent response. We'll see how that works this fall. I'm anticipating 40 states for McCain.

Please be very calm. You are witnessing Mike K out of his native habitat. Notice: he just stumbled upon the unfamiliar behavior of free-thinking people actually disagreeing with one another. He seems startled by the reality. Don't move too quickly or he will flee. Can you see his beady little eyes try to comprehend how adults make decisions without prompting from the party leaders! It's nature at its most raw.

Next on our show: An adult takes a poop without referencing how a popular radioshow host feels about pooping. Ohh.. he had to look up Hannity for poop advice. Shame...

steve duncan is exactly right. And also, it seems like all those who are up in arms about this debate are Obama supporters - only when their candidate loses a debate, they cry foul.. and also, what issue of substance is there to debate? What specifics about Obama's or Hillary's Iraq plan / health plan / economic plan do you not know yet? I can recite their plans verbatim. This is just Obama supporters angry because their candidate was made to look bad. For the record, I don't fully support either candidate.. although I'm leaning towards Obama.

TJM:
Maybe if ABC and the other media tried to do their jobs, those average US voters might just be a little more informed.

There are plenty of resources available if the average US voter wants to be informed, from network news, local news, cable news, blogs, websites, etc, etc - all the news networks have discussed the issues ad nauseum.. the previous debates covered all the issues already, if the average voter was watching. Perhaps it was because the previous debates got low ratings that ABC tried to give viewers a different debate to get ratings a bit higher.

I though all the debates suck. Sometimes they ask stupid irrelevant fawning questions and sometimes they ask stupid irrelevant gotcha questions. Wait for the fall . . .

"Senator McCain, when you were lying on the dirt floor of that North Vietnamese prison . . ."

Anyway, the only unique thing I see here is that Obama is a greater percentage of the stupid irrelevant gotcha questions than he used to.

ignore the typos :)

"You are witnessing Mike K out of his native habitat. Notice: he just stumbled upon the unfamiliar behavior of free-thinking people actually disagreeing with one another. "

Pretty funny. Ask your candidate about the effect of removing the cap on FICA when you have promised to raise taxes only on those rich folks who make more than $250,000. Then his comment that he will raise the cap gains tax rate even if it loses money for the government. That sounds like economics to me.

The weak ad hominem jokes still don't get your guy out of the holes he is digging for himself. He's not ready for a national campaign. It's too bad because he might be a better candidate in four years, assuming, of course, that he actually does something in the Senate.

"I hope your candidate has better responses in the debates this fall that you folks come up with."

Ditto, dear, since your every post here is usually just an ad hominem attack followed by whines about how much you're picked on, a pattern you've followed from your very first post here. This thread is a classic example. Net content from you: zero.

"Mostly you just delete comments that don't agree with you."

No, dear, the moderators delete comments are mindless partisan attacks. Sadly, that seems all you're capable of these days.

"Otherwise, you try to abuse the commenter instead of producing an intelligent response."

Dear heart, since you have yet to produce an intelligent post, why on earth should we be required to produce an intelligent response? Again, this thread is a classic example.

"We'll see how that works this fall. I'm anticipating 40 states for McCain."

Uh-huh, right. So how did 2006 work out for you again?

"high tech lynching

No. In a lynching, people die. Usually horribly.

thersites"

Uh, look alive, thersites.

"high tech lynching" is a reference to the guilt trip that Clarence "the most experienced man for the job" Thomas used to get a life appointment to the third, nine-person branch of government.

Imagine if someone on the Judiciary Committee at the time had told him that no, he hadn't been lynched as he wasn't dead.

Paul, I didn't expect much in 2006 and was pretty pessimistic about 2008 until you folks decided you wanted to have Obama's baby. Things here have changed since I used to participate about four years ago. Since then, you have become intolerant of any but far left opinions so I come by once in a while to see what Kevin has posted. I have a lot of regard for his work and less for his commenters.

That's all. You have settled on a candidate with a zero resume. For that reason, people are paying far more attention to these issues that are causing you so much distress. I was a McCain supporter in 2000 so it's easier for me.

this should have been done when it was Hillary getting all the attacks in the 20 previous debates, but now you're doing it?!?

Insane. You're hurting Obama with this too--he should have been able to answer (and end) all those questions--something he still hasn't done. Just as he lied about Rezko in a previous debate, he lied the other night repeatedly--on Ayers, on that questionaire, and on Wright yet again. And he's not talking about issues but simply talking about talking about issues--still.

Back when the media was piling on HRC, I recall plenty of comments that began with the phrase "I'm no fan of Hillary, but..." and went on to rip on the BS and sexists attacks on her. She lost a lot of good will though when she began her own line of BS attacks on Obama. I was leaning towards supporting her for a long time, but bit by bit she chipped away at that support by her eager embrace of right-wing spin.

What many of you are refusing to understand is that it doesn't matter which candidate is being targeted--we ALL lose when we get distracted by who's wearing a flag pin, or whether the pantsuit is appropriate. If HRC had shown more leadership on the issue, I'm pretty sure most of us would have backed her up on it, even if we weren't going to vote for her. I know I would have.

We have no objection to TOUGH questions--just the STUPID ones that have no bearing on how we're going to get out the mess our last bit of electoral idiocy got us into. But hey--it was important to vote in the guy we most wanted to have a beer with...

Complaining about the media is not leadership, no matter who does it. It's just a reality that they and we have to deal with.

It's not suddenly good because Obama's doing it now too, instead of just Hillary. It's not a sign of strength or character or anything--it's just that he finally got a taste of it and didn't like it so got pissy. We all hate the media, but only one candidate thinks he is exempt--or at least he used to.

Dilan Esper, you're only half right. Later in the song, Weller reverses the sentiment: "The public wants what the public gets". Seems to me that the shift from your point to mine is, in fact, the underlying theme of the song.