Some Thoughts on the Debate

I watched last nights debate (yeah, masochistic behavior of a political junkie), and here are a few of my thoughts:
The "lightning round" format sucks. Giving each candidate 30 seconds to answer policy questions? Impossible to do. There is no serious policy question that can be answered in 30 seconds. All you can do is spew out a "talking point" or a "sound bite". It's a fine format for a game show, but not a real, important debate. Unfortunately, our media treats the campaign for president as one big game show. Entertainment trumps substance.
Brian Williams was bad, but Tim Russert was absolutely horrible in asking "gotcha" questions. The whole debate was a series of Republican based attack points, designed to provoke fights, mud slinging, or other embarrassments. Russert oozed a slimy contempt toward everybody.
Everybody is running against Hillary Clinton, whom the media have already crowned. It was the "6 guys vs. Clinton" food fight that Russert/Williams were trying to provoke, and they were mostly successful.
Clinton handled it fairly well, appearing confident and unflappable while basically saying nothing (or contradicting herself). She's good at selling an image, but carefully avoided any substance. I hate this type of politics, but it will be tough to beat. She's slick, and no one landed a major blow against her. If the debate were a game show, she won.
Barack Obama came off poorly, looking rather tired and uninspired. His message, which seemed to be "can't we all just get along" while throwing in some subtle digs at Clinton, got mixed results. He was much better at handling questions on policy, and it was clear that he would prefer to discuss substantive ideas over playing "gotcha", but he got sucked into the game. Overall, he was fairly flat.
John Edwards looked good, and he was able to make some arguments with substance while attacking Hillary. In a "real" debate, he did very well. In this "food fight", Hillary was able to duck everything he threw.
Chris Dodd continues to be a fiery constitutionalist. In a true intellectual debate, he would have been tough to beat. In the "game show" debate, he never had a chance.
Bill Richardson continues to be Bill Richardson: calm, intelligent, extremely experienced, and (unfortunately) completely uninspiring. In a serious campaign to choose the person most qualified to be president, he would be a serious contender. In the media circus, he doesn't stand a chance.
Dennis Kucinich...what can you say? The guy makes a lot of sense, but ends up looking goofy at the same time. Let's face it, the media finds him an easy target to make fun of because he's an easy target. Kucinich has some really good policy positions which are completely ignored, as Russert would much rather ask him about UFO's. It's a sad reality.
Joe Biden is verbose. Experienced and knowledgeable, therefore almost invisible, the format of the debate made him irrelevant.
Is Clinton inevitable? No. But she does have a large advantage thanks to the media. For either Edwards or Obama to defeat her, they will need a "blockbuster" performance.
That is the current sad state of politics in America. The person who ends up holding the most powerful office on the planet will be chosen by a process similar to "American Idol".