Contrary to every single story I've seen this morning, last night's debate was the best yet.

Aside from the one admittedly lengthy and nasty spat between Hillary and Obama, this was actually the best debate we've seen yet. The focus on that one fight takes away from the fact that the three candidates actually had a long discussion of real issues both before and after it, especially on the economy and healthcare, while also touching on the candidates' withdrawal plans for Iraq.

And Wolf Blitzer, to give credit in this rare case when it's actually due, was a great moderator. When things got too far from the issues, he brought it back to the important topics. I was flabbergasted. In fact, when divisive, headline-grabbing, shallow topics were raised, it was never Blitzer who raised them, but always Malveaux or that other guy.

Real quick rundown:
Edwards looked best on healthcare

Obama looked best on economic stimulus packages

Obama looked best on the war

Obama had the best one-liner of the night, the bit about seeing Bill's dancing skills. Hillary, however, looked good by taking it in stride and inviting the Illinois senator to, in fact, see Big Dog in action anytime he wants. The man is apparently a dancing machine.

The winner of the spat between Hillary and Obama was Edwards, after he came in saying that this sort of divisive talk is exactly what's wrong with politics. Points off, though for saying there's three people in this race, which just sounded kind of sad.

Winner at the close of the debate: Obama, but mainly because he obviously had the crowd on his side, so all his bits sounded much better received.

Winner by this morning's cup of coffee: Edwards, since the entire debate story is now about five minutes that occurred in the first 15 minutes of the whole show.

Loser at the close of the debate: I mean, I guess you have to say Hillary just through simple process of elimination, but I don't think she had a truly bad night, just a night that was slightly worse than the other two.

Loser by this morning's cup of coffee: The media. Last night, I was blown away that the debate actually managed to stay on substantial issues and policy decisions for must of the time. But then this morning, all of that was cast aside by a media hungry for drama. What a bunch of fuckheads. And I say that as a practicing journalist.

...for those of us who never seem to catch these things on TV. :hi:

Can there exist a worse example of a flaky, spineless, sycophantic cockroach posing as "journalist"?

"30 second reply..."
(180 seconds later)
"Please... umm... ok.... thank you.... thank you... right...."
(180 seconds later)
"We need to keep moving..."

He had no control over the debate. He was so overwhelmed that he had to shoehorn in followups after the fact. The Motion Picture Academy does a better job of reigning in speakers, and that's sad.

regardless of whether they've finished? Maybe play some crescendoing music to give them a little advanced warning? :shrug:

allowed them time to actually say something half-meaningful, other than 'The Spat.'

He gave the candidates time to speak, and he also steered the debate back on topic when it veered to far off on a tangent.

Instead of trying to maybe get some insight on how they view something like 'signing statements', non-enforcement of subpoenas, 'free trade policy', impeachment opinions, and a whole host of other things people would like to know about, they spent the time baiting Hillary and Obama to get some emotional outburst. Maybe they're worried about it eventually coming down to corruption and the part played by the networks in avoiding any reporting on it.

I really do think you have to view these things outside the DU prism. Yeah, most of us are already aware of the candidates' positions on these things. But, first off, unless you're a voracious debate watcher (and that's a slim percentage even of DUers), you have not heard the candidates actually articulate their positions.

Second, even people with knowledge of those positions, despite being a large percentage of DU's population, represent only a tiny fraction of the voting populace.