Courtesy The Age

This morning's Horrible Horck/Bilegrip poll, taken at the local shopping centre, provides the following results for the question, "Did you watch last night's debate?".

Yes: 0
No: 6
A bit: 2

What, you don't consider this a comprehensive poll? Betcha it is.

As we know, Howard always loses debates (because the majority is too disengaged to bother watching) but wins the elections (because the majority is easily bribed or made afraid).

In a similar vein, we often hear commentators saying that voters were waiting with baseball bats for Paul Keating in 1996, but no one actually hates John Howard after eleven years. In a nation where the intellect was even remotely regarded as essential for informed decisions, the opposite should be the case. Since both Keating and Howard are arrogant pricks, the baseball bats meant for Paul were because he was regarded as an intellectual, or at least a man with a vision.

That some commentators have called last night's debate close is cause for despair. Rudd won it in a canter. From Little Johnny you got a pathetic, testy old man whose idea of the future amounts to a restoration of reading, writing and 'rithmetic standards and a return to technical schools, and whose arms seemed to flail about independent of his mind, like the startle reflex of the newborn.

For the first time in this blog/website's thirteen year history, we have a good word for Channel Nine. Bravo for giving us the worm. Even though the ABC and the National Press Club, bowing to the dictates of the incumbent government, pulled their feed after twenty minutes. Of course John "I know Nothing" Howard denied the Liberal Party's responsibility.

As Michelle Grattan intimated, how dare the Howard Government contravene Australia's democracy by insisting the debate be conducted on its terms only. Grattan also gives the best comment on the debate.

I found the debate riveting, and so did Nick Economu, Monash University Politics Lecturer:

A high-quality debate -- two good performers with interesting things to say in front of a big live audience. The hour and a half zipped by -- the best debate I've seen by far and a pity there won't be more.

Even Dennis Shanahan said it was the best debate since 1993.

It could have been even better. Last May, a third of the French population watched Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal battle it out for more than two hours, seated at a table facing each other. As David R. Bell of the New Republic said, "George Bush wouldn't have lasted 60 seconds." And neither would John Howard.

Royal was considered to have barely won the debate. We know what happened to her. And that was in a country which still values the intellect. Good luck, Kev.