Debate Reactions

While keeping an eye on baseball via my TV's picture-in-picture function, I caught tonight's third and final presidential debate. I wasn't wowed by either guy, although I thought that there were times when Kerry clearly gave more thoughtful answers than Bush. This was most evident after the questions about homosexuality and abortion; once the questions centered on a specific issue (that couldn't be tied to Iraq or terror), Bush was outclassed. Bush tended to dodge and divert the question, whereas Kerry spoke with more gravity and sincerity. But in any case this debate isn't for those of us who've already made up our minds. It's quite unsettling to think that that despite the tremendous national interest in this election, it's going to be decided by the citizens Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania-- that's it. Whoever wins two of those three states will win the White House.

The thing that really got me riled up tonight was the the post-debate coverage. I cannot for the life of me understand why every network almost immediately interviews partisan figures from each of the campaigns. Senators, campaign managers, and party chairman offer absolutely no objectivity or insight. The networks are well aware of this, yet they can't help themselves- I just don't understand it. After the second debate, CNN's Jeff Greenfield even brought it up-- but 30 seconds later a powerless Wolf Blitzer began an interview with a Democratic senator. Is it too much to ask to get an extended period of objective analysis?