
The widespread and bipartisan media consensus is that Mitt Romney won Wednesday's first presidential debate. A somnolent President Obama spent most of his time on stage looking down at his podium, handing an easy victory on appearances to the guy who dissed Big Bird. What was reinforced to me, though, is that these debates -- barring the emergence of a popular caricature of one of the candidates -- are aimed at influencing the media's election narrative, not at voters.
These debates are supposed to elucidate a candidate's positions and to help voters distinguish between their choices. But in practice, we're not given much to work with. The candidates present what seem like "Mad Libs", random numbers without context or explanation ("4 million jobs" from energy independence; "2 million more slots in our community colleges"; a "$5 trillion tax cut"; "$2 trillion in additional military spending"; a "$4 trillion deficit reduction plan"). The result is empty speechifying, not debating. And in a generally polite encounter without memorable "zingers" from either man, my eyes were glazing over.

