“Where do you want me to begin?” asked Kerry sarcastically in response to Lehrer’s request for a list of Bush’s mistakes.

After a classy note on the struggles of Floridians, Kerry cleanly transitions through a several-part answer on the problems of Bush’s leadership. The key’s in anwering qurestions with what answers you brung.

Lehrer asks the prez another question immediately after. This seems appropriate, though it focuses the Iraq question in the context of 9/11-just what Kerry shouldn’t want.

Okay, I’ll just say it: I love Jim Lehrer. But he kind of looks like a muppet.

“Sammy Sosa versus Pedro Martinez.” That’s how Joe Scarborough characterizes the coming combat seconds before the bell.

You think I’m kidding, but I’m not. Go here. Play a game called master and servant. Bring out the gimp, while you’re at it.

This is the best thing on the interweb since Terry Tate and the Roswell Rayguns.

Update 4:58 p.m.: I mean, sweet Mercy, he’s wearing a garter belt!

Over at TNR Josh Benson is suggesting that John Kerry should break the rules of the debate tonight and directly question George Bush. I would suggest this is suicide.

(1) Jim Lehrer has been a TV anchor for decades. You know what TV anchors do for a living? They manage people on camera. Believe me, Lehrer and his team are prepared for any number of scenarios where either candidate tries to get around the rules. And if Kerry (or Bush) tries to break them, Lehrer will put him in his place. Maybe Kerry could handle Lehrer’s rebuke, but even then, it becomes a Kerry-Lehrer fight, not a Kerry-Bush fight.

(2) John Kerry isn’t fighting the wimp factor. He doesn’t need to be seen as combative. Any move to aggressively disregard ground rules and pull a stunt carries with it a pack of unintended consequences. Maybe Kerry would look good. Or maybe he would look desperate. Or a million other things could happen. This race is too close for a Hail Mary pass.

(3) Like much of the Democratic party, Benson seems to misunderstand the public’s view of President Bush. If only the rabble knew what a [prick, dunder-head, evil oil baron, lying crook, etc.] he is, they think to themselves, then they would hate him, too!

Except for some reason, most of the country doesn’t seem to hate Bush. John Kerry doesn’t need to do a Howard Dean imitation. He needs to either (a) run on domestic affairs and attack Bush’s economic record in a coherent and relentless way; (b) run on foreign affairs by somehow convincing America that he will be tougher in the war on terrorism than Bush is; or (c) wait for an intervening event to shake up the race (and be prepared to take advantage of it should it occur).

Benson’s advice is the type of thinking which has put Kerry in this hole in the first place.

Reader S.B. points out this Lawrence Henry piece about the limits of blogs.

No disrespect to Hugh Hewitt or Glenn Reynolds or the other Galley Slaves, but blogging really is several evolutions beneath real journalism. It ignores the craftsmanship of writing as well as the value of reporting. The blogosphere is neither as important nor as aesthetically pleasing as the world of traditional media. And bloggers who miss this point in their own triumphalism are ignoring the bigger picture.

Here’s the thing: Are blogs valuable? Absolutely. Do they contribute to the national discourse? You bet. Have they begun to exert a gravitational force on the old media? Yup. Are they going to continue to grow in importance? I see no reason why they shouldn’t.

But for every AP story that blogs correct or CBS News scandal that they catch, there are thousands and thousands of good stories being written and reported by the old-media journalists whom bloggers so routinely scorn.

Switch on CNN or Fox News or MSNBC during the day, open up the Washington Post or the New York Times at random–heck, pick any page out of any issue of the New Yorker–and you’ll find a fistful of good stories that all the bloggers in America put together missed.

And ask yourself this question: If God came down tomorrow and said He was going to blow up either the blogosphere or the old media, which one would you rather have around? I take the old media. Even with Dan Rather. Even with Jayson Blair. Even with the Columbia Journalism Review. Even with all of its systemic, maddening problems.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The blogosphere is a wonderful tool. But the New York Times is a civilizational advance on the order of magnitude of the Great Library of Alexandria. Anything meaningful that happens anywhere across the globe is chronicled by the Times and the rest of the “old media.”

The blogosphere should continue to hold the old media accountable for its mistakes. And in doing so, they’ll make the old media better. But it would be nice if bloggers would, from time to time, demonstrate an understanding of perspective. And show a little respect for the professionals who do the hard work of good journalism well.

Yeah, that’s right; I’m sick of the pajamas. We’re going al fresco.

Or something. But we will be live-blogging during the debate tonight, so stop by.