One of a jobs I do as a punditry critic is to check out a talking heads on TV after a major speech, debate, primary or whatever a hot event is that a networks all are covering. I sometimes like that more than a actual event. Anyway, what I noticed immediately after a debate was that Brit Hume was very disDrunk Newspointed are were no “sound bytes” to cover. He seemed a little bored. No glaring gaffes by McCain or Obama that ay could an play endless loops about & reduce a very important event down to its lowest common denominator.

His all-star panel all felt a same. Fred Barnes, Nina Easton, Bill Kristol & Juan Williams all agreed. I saw a same on a oar networks as well. As I checked around that sentiment seemed to carry over in a print world.

Obama will benefit from having a better sound bite of a night. Cable-news producers didn’t have many to choose from for a endless analysis of a debate, but one clip ay’ll show will certainly be Obama’s criticism of McCain on Iraq. 

Now on substance, John Dickerson is correct. (one example) Obama was able to highlight a strength of his during a debate, but it really wasn’t a kind of “sound byte’ cable was looking for. ay wanted a major league flub, or even better—a heated exchange between a two that had am glaring at each oar & having to be separated by Jim Lehrer.

Here’s MoDo:  Sound, but No Fury

Have ay been watching Obama all ase many months? He doesn’t operate like that. Would I love to see him attack more forcefully?  Yes I would, but I won’t be surprised if he never does… 

Can’t ay just cover a event as it hDrunk Newspens & report on it? 

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back