I'm comfortable with Obama answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. — as long as he's not also in the middle of a debate.  

The kind of debate he would prefer to have — one in which he would be able to exhibit himself as someone thoughtful, honest, forthright, prepared, open to the other side's opinion, etc. — is not the debate he's offered.  What he's offered is an embarrassing romp through the shit-for-brains, lead-to-nothing "talking points" that <b>still</b> pass for politics in the media.  

Why he doesn't accept what <b>is</b>, and then intelligently, forcefully move on to do something effective about it (change his approach or change the debate) — after all, he could -- I don't know.  But I don't like it.  It's as though he's thinking, "I'll do it my way and win anyway."  While he most likely will win the nomination, even doing debates his way, his refusal to change how he debates — how many has been in by now? — smacks of arrogance.  

Meanwhile, back at the media ranch, what news anchors, pundits and commentators across the media spectrum <b>still</b> don't get is that the vast majority of the voting and non-voting public is getting less interested by the minute in what Obama correctly calls "distractions."  

And while it may be amusing, sometimes informative, occasionally enlightening for an increasing number of people, including myself, to discuss or debate one thing and another in fora such as this, the vast and wider public could give a flying fuck about our "discussions."  

There <b>are</b> answers to the problems that are biting more and more of us in the ass.  But no media is succeeding in imposing the kind of political discussion necessary to adequately examine a single one of them.  

Obama lost last night's debate.  It will likely have no effect in his polling numbers.  Clinton won the debate, but because it is becoming increasingly inglorious to win such debates, it might even lower her polling numbers.  

And the real debate?  Has it even started?