Why I don't (usually) comment on debates

Here's what I wrote back in June 2007 about why I don't (usually) comment on the substance of debates -- it still applies in the general election:

I frequently don't have anything interesting or new to say about debates, which are over-analyzed to the point of absurdity. There's usually not a lot of substance to discuss, so you end up offering McLaughlin Group-level observations about who "won," the way the candidates looked, the supposedly important "moments" of the night, or the implications of the debate for the horse race.

I have those (not particularly profound) thoughts just like anyone else, but why share them? You can already get similar stuff here and here and here and on cable news (among many other places). Blogging should be more than amateur hour for aspiring pundits.

Also, as I argued last week, the importance of debates is frequently exaggerated by media commentators.

Comments

[Jim Allen]

After watching Gene Robinson comment on the debates with Keith Olbermann, not to mention numerous other comments on MSNBC and articles he's written in the Washington Post, I am absolutely convinced he can't analyze politics. He seemed so focused on a particular irrelevant point; that McCain wouldn't even look at Obama during the debates, when that obviously was impossible given their proximity on the stage. I think his disgust for McCain inevitably seeps through in all his commentary.