The article is a pretty accurate take-away from the faux "debate" staged by ABC. Shales seems to give too much credit to Gibson and Stephanopoulos. The ABC hosts' trivialized slinging of right wing mud balls at the democratic candidates suggested they had Limbaugh, Hanity, Rove, and McCain dancing in the barely hidden pockets of their genes. The Apparently Biased Conservative (ABC) event was an insult to any hypothetical goal of an informed democracy. Pandering to mud wrestling at its worst, because of the importance of the event.

The only fault with this excellent screed is the underlying assumption that any TV organization *could* conduct a fair, important, or relevant debate. The commercial broadcast media have managed to destroy the possibility of any important issues' being discussed or even mentioned without bizarre , invariably right-of-center slant.

Very good for the currently right of center Washington Post. Shales' comment 'Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.' is a clear and concise adjudication of current media trend.....little political cant from a TV reviewer...GOOD journalism.

This opinion piece has little merit. The author does not know about the Republican debates, where much tougher questions were asked than in this debate. He ignores the importance of character, especially here where neither candidate has any executive experience to evaluate. Obama's credibility has suffered from his inability to recognize how Rev Wright's preaching is thoroughly infused with hatred, and his unwillingness to admit an error in visiting Billionaires Row and talking badly about people he dislikes. The author sounds like he is employed by the Democratic National Committee.