The second presidential debate is over. The dust is still settling as to who did the best or the worst but one thing is clear: Fox News proved to be a much better debate host than MSNBC.
Stephen Spruiell has a video comparison of MSNBC/Politico questions and those asked by FNC's staff:
I think the MSNBC/Politico questions actually got stupider with age.
contrast, the FOX News questions were serious and the questioners
tenacious in pursuing answers. Even the questions that viewers
submitted to FOX via e-mail were far better than "What do you dislike
most about America?" and the other nonsense that got past the
Politico's electronic gatekeepers.
Watch the video. I
created a montage of MSNBC questions first, followed by a montage of
FOX questions. The increase in the seriousness and difficulty of the
questions is comparable to that between high school and college
Ed Morrissey puts it well:
There is no comparison between Brit Hume and Chris Matthews, and the two networks as well. This was crisp, sharp, with germane and substantive questions and a minimum of silliness. The MSNBC forum was so silly that it almost defied description. Perhaps the Democrats should reconsider their allergy to Fox.
That was simply in a different league than the goofball format and goofball "moderators" on MSNBC. And I'm not just saying that because I work for Fox News. Given the crowded stage and time constraints, the debate still produced memorable moments, spontaneous conflict, and useful shakeouts.