The Debate: Edwards

John Edwards: Rises to the occasion.
Barack Obama: Fails to live up to expectations. Again.
Hillary Clinton: Stumbles.

Questions:
Why are Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden entitled to participate in this argument, but Mike Gravel is not? Are they any more likely to win than he is? Have they had any more impact on the campaign than he has? Are their comments any more material than his? If we're going to start getting serious about these matches, shouldn't the arena be closed to all but Clinton, Edwards and Obama?*
Why was Tim Russert pimping for the Bush/Cheney policy on Iran? And kudos to the Dems for not falling for it.
Lighting Round?** No wonder the networks are losing ground; who can take them seriously? And why does someone aspiring to be the leader of the world submit to this kind of humiliation?

* Maybe we should keep Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson on the program, so we can get to know our vice president.
** If we are going to use the game show as the model for attracting ADD-hobbled viewers, why not go all the way? At the end of each episode, you phone a 900 number (at $.99 a call, the election could end up turning a profit) in the name of the contestant you least want to see again. No voting for candidates, because then the outcome would pretty much reflect the polls, with the more financially endowed campaigns paying organizers to turn out the vote. Debate 1: Biden - gone. Debate 2: Gravel - gone. Debate 3: Kucinich - gone. Debate 4: Dodd - gone. Debate 5- Richardson - gone. Now it gets interesting. Debate 6: Where will the fans of the palookas already eliminated land? Do you try to motivate your supporters to call in against your stronger rival? How do you do that without attracting negative calls yourself? And who really is your strongest competitor, anyway? Finally, Debate 7: One contestant goes home in tears with a bouquet of roses; the other moves on to the next round, bound to be a highlight of the fall 2008 tv viewing season. It would be better than Big Brother.