Why ABC's debate tanked: They failed to put a finger on America's pulse.

[hisownpetard]

This time, it's different.

Old Skool politics aren't working and neither are the Old Skool ways of thinking - but, apparently, no one's clued in the clowns at ABC.
They approached the idea of a presidential debate like any other programming situation - i.e., how to get the most viewers, by giving
viewers what they think we want. Only they were dead wrong in their assessment.

Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulis have been watching too much 'reality' TV.
They'd be better off switching over to YouTube and watching some clips of the political campaigns - the unprecedented numbers
of people attending them, waiting hours in line, even in the rain, for the chance to be involved. Voting sites repeatedly running out
of ballots, all over the country. New voters by the thousands, registering and taking an active part in the process.

Apathy? Not this time.
Twenty-one televised debates, and still a huge audience, hungry for more information.
This time, it's life or death.

I guess that, for CG and GS, these facts didn't compute. Why else would they spend an hour of national TV time on drivel and re-hashed
gossip, as thin as re-tread tires, instead of addressing the important and urgent questions facing the country now?

Simple:they think we're stupid. And they talk to us as if we have no collective brain.
Thank goodness, the supporters of both candidates rose up and made themselves heard.

Not this time, bozos. The public is informed, inquisitive, intelligent and intent.

Go sell your condescension somewhere else.

[OzarkDem]

1. It was a preview for the GE

It was but a small sample of the kinds of attacks either candidate will face from the GOP.

[Joe Bacon]

2. Disney wants more tax cuts

and I say lets provide lots of D-Con for the Mouse and his pals!

[PurityOfEssence]

3. DID it "tank"?

By what criteria do you make this pronouncement? Were the ratings horrible? By some of the important standards of infotainment it was rather successful: it certainly caused quite a stir and drew a lot of attention to the event, and it also brought up some talking points that are still fueling the discussion.

Why do you say it "tanked"? Is this because you and other Obama supporters think it hurt Mr. Unassailable? It was a rather brutal and petty affair, but it was a real eye-opener.

The very idea of bias is tiresome; much as it was a nasty little gotchafest, it was pretty brutal on both of them.

Once again, most of the Obama supporters and campaign seem to have the entire world on "ignore", and much as their guy's gotten a free ride over and over, that's not enough; there should be NO hard questions or even the slightest whiff of disbelief in his unsubstantiated claims of what he'd do in various hypothetical situations, regardless of the evasiveness and fence-sitting of his ultra-moderate record.

[hisownpetard]

4. Did you see this sentence in my OP:"...the supporters of both candidates rose up and

made themselves heard."

I made an effort to give credit to both candidates, however undeserved.

You, on the other hand...