The mood here at the debate site -- admittedly irrelevant compared to the opinions of the TV audience at home -- was measured, even bored, throughout much of the evening. Unlike other major debates, there was no singular exchange, be it angry, humorous or otherwise, that the press seized on to define the night. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
Mr. Melber writes a short (too short) summary of the first presidential debate and summarizes the mood of the Oxford audience and that of the attending press. He joins the pathetic chorus of media members who cry that there wasn't a zinger or laugh-line they could seize on "to define the night" (while, as usual, ignoring the more important, rich substantive exchanges that could affect the lives of American citizens). Why do so many journalists ridiculously and superficially wish to reduce the debate winner to one who got off a memorable line? They have done it in prior debates and are always reductive and wrong to do so. That desire places them behind even the more under-educated viewers in terms of grasping the important points of the debate.
