Oh, that’s what ABC/Disney thinks of us. Got it.

Go out and prove them wrong. You know what to do.

(No links on this post. You really do know what to do.)

UPDATE: I guess I was being a bit obnoxious just now. Taking out my anger at the media and it’s determination to prove The Daily Show depiction of them as mendacious tabloid panderers right at every turn on you nice folks. So here are a couple of links.

The Blogometer has an outstanding, link filled, rundown of blog reaction to the debate, titled, of course, “Worst. Debate. Ever?,” which was pretty much the reaction (minus the question mark, of course) in most places … that weren’t hard right. Rightwingers were, of course, delighted to have their “issues” raised. Yep, this is all they’ve got this year.

And a Former ABC News Employee gives you plenty of email addresses to vent at. Check it out.

Also, Kos, the man, not the blog, has nicely encapsulated his entire career into one post. This question STILL isn’t asked nearly enough: “Why are the “serious” Beltway blowhards always so wrong?” He’ll be on Real Time this week. Should be interesting — he’s one of the few people out there who’s got a mouth to rival Bill Maher’s.

Another Update: Another debate reaction.

h/t mspicata.

Yet One More Update: George Stephanopoulos responds:

“Everything we brought up in that front section had not come up since the last debate. And they all focused on the same theme — which candidate would be a stronger Democratic candidate in Novembber.” (sic)

“This is the core question for the campaigns, and a lot of Democratic voters right now. That’s why we decided to lead with it.”

In other words, it was a prolong “electability” debate. 45 minutes+ focused mainly on one particular candidate that seem clearly intended to harm said “electability.”

Whether or not George — who may, in fact, be a nice guy in real life and is one of the smarter members of the punditocracy for certain — knows this, what he’s really doing here is trying to get everyone in America on the same deeply sick, deeply distorted wavelength that the D.C. crowd is on. No concern for who’ll do the best job, only concerned with winning for its own sake and who cares how the nation is actually governed once your debased candidate actually gets into office. And, isn’t it funny how the assumption is always that the most “electable” candidate is the one who panders the most to the worst instincts of voters, rather than the one who tries to actually talk to us as if we have a brain in our head?

Seems to me, that’s basically the argument the Clinton campaign is making now: “Vote for us. The public is too stupid to vote for a good candidate!”