Vince, say hello to #15, Schweinhundtenor.

Regards,
Peter H.

The Democratic race is over. It’s just no one told the Clintons. She’s going to still be running in Freburary 2009.

C’mon, name one. I double-dog-dare you.

Regards,
Peter H.

“The prime-time debate from Philadelphia on Wednesday was seen by 10.7 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research. That’s the MOST OF ANY DEBATE THIS ELECTION cycle — topping the 9.3 million who watched the Democrats on ABC Jan. 5.”

The “whining” detractors among the punditry included:

Tom Shales of The Washington Post, said Gibson and Stephanopoulos “turned in shoddy, despicable performances.”

Will Bunch, a Philadelphia Daily News writer, who wrote that he was so angry that “it’s hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking.” He said the ABC newsmen spent too much time on trivial matters that didn’t concern most voters…..”By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself,” Bunch wrote.

Greg Mitchell of the trade publication Editor and Publisher said it was “perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate this year.”

And my favorite: one un-attributed poster wrote: “Why not have Paris Hilton moderate next time?” (The potential ratings of a Paris Hilton-moderated debate boggle the mind. Who else could provide a better platform for both candidates to demonstrate their “un-elite” credentials?)

Given the punditry’s visceral anger and intense criticism of the format and line of questions, the statistics underlying the ratings are particularly interesting:

1. The Nielson 10.7 million rating figure is calculated by averaging the four consecutive 30-minute INTERVALS of the two-hour debate, allowing us to compare viewership of these intervals.

2. The format of the debate was divided into three consecutive 45 minute SEGMENTS: the first focused on character (or “gotcha”) issues, the second on foreign policy and the third on domestic issues.

A. If viewers were disappointed with the line of questions during the FIRST SEGMENT, they would have voted with their remote controls. The “GOTCHA” SEGMENT spanned the FIRST AND SECOND 30-MINUTE INTERVALS, so total viewership would have declined.

B. Instead, the number of viewers actually peaked (at 11.8 million) during the second (8:30-9:00) interval, which contained some of the most hotly-condemned portions of the debate.

C. The peak occurred despite difficult competition: the 8:30-9:00 timeslot includes NBC’s “Deal or No Deal,” its most watched program of the season (with an average of over 13 million viewers).

D. Again, if viewers wanted more discussion on foreign policy and domestic issues, viewership would have increased – or at least held steady – during those segments. But to the contrary: the number of viewers declined by 15%, to an average of 10 million during the second half of the debate.

The question raised by the facts is ” Did Americans want more in-depth policy discussions from Hillary and Oback or do they see their policies as so similar they are yearning for insights into their character?

The pundits who dismiss the debate out-of-hand are simply elitists who reject the concerns of American voters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7OFLl3asg

Has it occured to you that someone just gave him a script to read? Geez.. half the stuff he says is taken from other people’s speeches.

See this video for demostration. How do you know who this guy is if what he says on the road is prepackaged borrowed rhetoric.

I’m sure I wont get an answer. None of you respond to these sorts of questions.

what makes him unusual?

his optimism, his spirit, his bravery to say no to lobbyists and washington bigwigs.

what has he accomplished?

many great bills in the senate, saying no to this war.

debate.

it was unfair, he should be questioned but so should billary.

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

Wow. This is a guy who wants to sit down with Satan in Iran and he cant’ even debate Hillary?

What a baby. I love it.. Keep it up Obama.. keep revealing more.

Asking Obama about his associations with Communists, Terrorists, Racists, Jews Haters, America Haters is perfectly appropiate. Only a blind ideologue would say it doesn’t matter.

Can they tell me how they expect a man who they don’t think can handle tough questions

Only a current GOP and Bush apologist, only someone who has imbibed Ted-Kennedy-at-a-host-bar levels of Konservative Kool-Aid, could possibly think that flag lapel pins and “who loves America enough” silliness possibly qualify as “tough questions.”
The sad part is this was a chance for the left and the right to come together and demand that the media stop playing gotcha games with our leaders and their election process, but sadly the right was more interested in doing anything to bloody the man who may well clean their clocks this fall.

[Um, torrent, you didn't answer the questions I posed, instead you attacked. Telling. -Dan]