(Because presumably, they're too loaded with policies and content.)
To this I say: have you watched the US debates? You'd have to have been deaf and blind to not be aware of the chasm between John Kerry (who still cut a rather forlorn image) and Bush (eeek).
The debate I saw last night was ill-prepared, ill-staged and, all in all, rather amateurish.
Yes, it did give me an idea of who the candidates were -- how could it not do so, for 2 hours? -- but that's not why I criticized it.
I would have much preferred more "answers filled with facts" (as you aptly put it) and less gerrymandering or pandering.
Like French movies it went on and on, très bavard, with not enough story.
You couldn't possibly have had an insight into their characters if the debate was staged as a 'US talking points' with each candidate being given a timed response. I enjoyed the freedom it allowed the candidates in going back to issues and speaking about anything they wished to.
So we couldn't possibly have had any insight into Bush's character in the US?
Have you actually watched the US debates -- there were actually two, wuith variant formats?
You're either joking, or purposefully obtuse, or arguing in bad faith.
Last night's format would have allowed Kerry to have followed up in such a way where Bush would have been proved more iidiotic thanm even he did in the US debates. Yes indeed I watched the US debates; in fact all of the televised debates since JFK/Nixon and your criticizing me for thinking last night's format is better than any of the US debate formats is pettyy and non constructive. I disagree with you so be it.
"Saved by the bell" made by the moderators saved Bush.
