All this noise about headlines! A debate that allows a maximum presentation of one minute is the equivalent of making judgments on world affairs on the basis of a newspaper headline. That Obama failed to spell out his response to a possible military strike by Al Qaeda, or to exploit the issue of racism—all in the blink of an eyelid—is a reasonable criticism of the format, not of its participants.

Mr. Moser, as are we all, is appalled by the shallow performance of the media or talk-show pundits who, in effect, preach their wisdom in headlines and thoughtless sound-bites. Why he should now express reverence for (or at least, confidence in) those same non-informational tidbits of talk, making judgments on the quality or insights of candidates on the basis of what is thereby revealed, makes no sense. It is certainly not a substitute for careful thought and substantive analysis and should not be considered as such.

Robert Faber

Ann Arbor, Michigan

I understand your frustration with the Democrats at the debate, but I don't blame them alone. I blame all of us. We don't demand good leadership or care to take the time to find out exactly what that would be. Our interest is only piqued by silly tangential issues like "a bridge to nowhere" that was really to an airport and now a DC madame. If one of the viable candidates really said something that meant something, he or she'd be pilloried in the press with face merged into Osama's in millions of dollars worth of political advertisements and, worse yet, we'd be hearing all the nonsensical complaints parroted by our coworkers at the water cooler the next morning with no inquiry or research. We need to take responsibility for our democracy, not blame the candidates, who are only playing by the rules we set up for them by our ignorance and inaction.

Ellen Beth Gill

Chicago, IL

"There were no big, bold, genuinely progressive ideas at this moment of historic opportunity." I really expect better of The Nation than this kind of stupid article, especially after the Dubya years. Bob Moser completely missed the story!!

Yes, the Usual Suspects behaved in their usually suspicous ways. So we get the usual journalist drivel from Mr Moser. Editors, please instead why not report what else is new ? The story was obviously Mike Gravel. I can't believe you did not cover his remarkable truth-to-power presence. It's really disapppointing.

Anyway, please review the material and try again: Consider the relationship of his tax proposals to those of Henry George and the politics of that time. Consider the state of the nation during Vietnam War and Senator Gravel's role in that (hint: Pentagon Papers). Consider the Howard Beal factor on primetime Demoncratic [sic] TV.

Dsclaimer: I am not a staff member of Mike Gravel for President. I have no previous affiliation with Senator Gravel. Until the other night, I did not know him at all. Like many people I am amazed and absolutely delighted by what I heard from him that night and since (online)--so impressed I may even be printing T-shirts !

Jason Cunliffe

Moissac, France

On the contrary, Mr. Moser, I think that the fact (as you say) that Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich don't have "consultants" is one of the best things about them. What have consultants done for our democracy? You complain about how bland the big money candidates seem, the ones with "consultants" and then bemoan the "fact" that Kuchnich and Gravel don't have them. After following American politics for almost 40 years and supporting candidates who looked good and said the right things I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't work. We just keep getting more of the same. I want someone who is clearly outside the consultants' grip and thinking. The thing that will hurt Kucinich and Gravel the most is if people like you discount their candidacy without even looking or listening to their ideas. They have great ideas and proposals for fixing this country. Really revolutionary stuff. Please, go to their websites and read, go to You Tube and look and listen. More of the same will only get us more of the same.

John Sanguinetti

Mt Shasta, CA

Not a hint of any candidate saying; "Vote for me and I'll get rid of the foaming at the mouth maddog Israel-first influence on the homicidal and suicidal US policy in the Middle East." Really depressing. How could you miss it?

Gerald Spezio

Willits, CA

The most depressing thing Moser illustrates is the fact that Kucinich, who has been "right" (correct) all along about the big issues, is described as "not worth transcribing." There are a lot of Pete Hendersons out there who share my feelings. That's what these candidates need to realize. We are in a mess and I'm mad as hell.

Dan Havely

Athens, AL

I think what Mr. Moser may have missed what was I thought was the most amazing thing of the debate: Governor Bill Richardson and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, two people whose views on foreign policy come from widely different directions, both articulated effectively the same plan for how we get out of Iraq: removing the occupying force as soon as possible; and through aggressive diplomacy, rebuilding our relationships with the EU and the UN, reaching out to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran for help; building a true international peacekeeping force to help Iraq rebuild their country and prevent an escalated civil war. For the most part, the Democratic consensus has finally caught up with the people.

It's the same strategy, with modifications to reflect the conditions on the ground today, that Dennis Kucinich ran on in 2004, and that Green Party candidate David Cobb ran on in 2004, which is why I voted for both of then that year. I am today a volunteer for Obama for America, and though I think the Senator has become too cautious the past two years, especially the past two months, it would be wrong to say he doesn't have the same basic vision for success in ending the occupation and building a stable Iraq.

Alexander Williamson

Waltham, MA

Very intersting that the CNN stenographers take naps when Kucinich talks. Very interesting indeed. What a mess this all is....

Dennis Dalesandro

Bellmawr, NJ

To a large extent I agree with Bob. The two most pressing issues of this election should be Iraq and the economy. The problem is that the candidates either do not have any real ideas as to how to solve these problems or they have been coached to not take a stand because that would cost them votes.

Notice that the candidates who clearly staked out a position on the issues were the ones who were “not viable." I wonder which is the cause--Do they feel the need to stake out a position because they are not viable, or are they not viable because they have taken a position?

I sincerely hope that we are able to get to a point where they cannot duck the issues. It would be wonderful to know where each one stands on the war, terrorism, the economy, jobs leaving our country, illegal immigration, taxes, education etc. And what would be most refreshing would be if one of them would have an original idea as to how we could address any of these issues.

Doug Wing

Coloma, MI

Your article, Mr. Moser, is the best thing I've read and heard about the "debacle." All of it was too soft, too nuanced, too prepped, too consultant-motivated. Although Gravel came off unhinged in his manner of delivery, his emotion about the gravity and impatience of what we face is shared by many. Most of the questions were softballs for the candidates which they rarely specifically answered. They weren't there to shed light or lead,but not to lose.

What's needed in my humble opinion are different moderators. Like a Bill Maher or Jon Stewart--loved his interview with McCain.Those questions were real and come from the lips of millions. Plus there wasn't much room for nuance. The questions had to be answered just from their delivery. Maher does the same thing.

Race is HUGE in this country, along with poverty, and the growing disparities between rich and poor. They either totally ignore the question or water it down with stats to show their awareness of it. Knowledge of, is not a solution to.

Are we really allowed to expect more?

G. Goodson

Beloit, WI

This is an excellent analysis of the debate. I am so grateful to hear a sound, salient and impassioned description of what happened on that stage last night. The fact that Kucinich had less face time than almost all the other candidates is about what I would expect from the big networks. But I am very impressed by your statement that the students were more impressed with Kucinich and Gravel, about whom they knew little previous to this debate. It is amazing how these candidates continue to be taken seriously, as the polls seem to indicate, when they have contributed so little to the real debate about what is happening in this country.

Stephanie Rivera

richmond, rhode island