Either that, or they need to call it something else. The questions seemed to be nothing more than bait- each candidate would bite for a few sentences, but never swallow it, never satisfy the issue set forth. "Answer the question or, at the very least, make a relevant point!", is probably what Tom Brokaw was saying to himself behind those tired little eyes.
Neither candidate impresses me. Is this the best of the best? or the best who want to be there?
I'm reminded of a scene in the movie Gladiator, where the emperor offers leadership of the kingdom to General Maximus, upon his death. Maximus says "With all my heart, no", to which the Emperor replies "That is why, it must be you!".
I believe there are thousands of Maximuses out there, who are qualified and more, but who lack the means and the desire to get to the top.
I guess the moral of the story is: let's not confuse those who want to be leaders, with those who should be leaders.
One's too young. The other's too old. One's too inexperienced. The other has a name that's too damn close to BinLaden. One's black. One's a chick who is being referred to by many blind and hairy palmed teens as a "MILF". They all have great friggin teeth though.. I want that dental plan, please. Who will do the job better? It's a coin-flip. One of them sucks less than the other one sucks, but not by much. It will boil down to the number of "pity votes" McCain gets. Americans love an underdog, especially when it's his last chance. They'll reason that Obama has decades in which to win the position and prove himself. They'll promise to vote for him later, 4 or 8 years from now. They'll vote for McCain now because no one wants to see an old man cry, and there's a more than a little bit of feel-good satisfaction in helping an old man to win what he's fighting for against a young and wily opponent.