Eran tan bajas las expectativas sobre la actuación de Sarah Palin, que el simple hecho de que no confundiera Pakistán con Afganistán o la crisis financiera con el cambio climático fue suficiente como para que el debate entre los candidatos a la vicepresidencia norteamericana, aún sin tener un claro ganador, signifique una ayuda para la candidatura republicana y, probablemente, una nueva revitalización de las bases conservadoras en un momento en que se extendía el pesimismo.

Al no fracasar estrepitosamente, como había hecho en sus recientes entrevistas en televisión, Sarah Palin le permite, efectivamente, a John McCain seguir creyendo en la victoria. Es difícil, sin embargo, que este debate marque un giro significativo en el rumbo de la campaña electoral.

El candidato demócrata, Joe Biden, tuvo una buena actuación. Demostró mayor conocimiento sobre la mayoría de los temas y defendió con inteligencia y pasión el mensaje de cambio que quiere representar Barack Obama.

Pero era muy difícil para él ganar esta batalla porque enfrente no tenía un contrincante tradicional; tenía un símbolo, un mito aceleradamente creado y educado por el movimiento conservador para hacerlo pasar como el rostro del americano común. Es difícil pelear contra el americano común cuando éste se te para delante y te dice: ojo, que yo soy el americano común, puede que no sepa tanto como tú, pero YO SOY este país.

Eso fue lo que hizo Palin durante los 90 minutos del debate, celebrado en la Universidad de Washington, en San Luís (Misuri) y seguido por cerca de 60 millones de espectadores. Dos sondeos hechos por las cadenas CBS y CNN dieron la victoria a Biden por más de diez puntos. Pero, en ambas encuestas, Palin fue valorada con mayor credibilidad y con una actuación por encima de lo esperado.

Fue una noche en la que lo más importante no fue lo que se dijo sino cómo sonó lo que se dijo. No había ayer en los medios de comunicación muchas frases rescatadas de este debate. Lo que sí hay son muchas sensaciones y una opinión dividida de acuerdo al color político sobre quién fue el verdadero triunfador.

Una de esas sensaciones es la de que Joe Biden le habló a la clase media mientras que Sarah Palin simpatizó con la clase media. Uno se refirió a los problemas económicos que amenazan el bienestar norteamericano. La otra recurrió a todos los tópicos del populismo local y a su etiqueta de hockey mom para identificarse emocionalmente con esos norteamericanos que sufren. Uno expuso algunas propuestas. La otra miró a la cámara de frente, gesticuló con gracia e hizo simple y vulgar populismo.

"¿Puedo llamarte Joe?", fueron las primeras palabras de Palin y las que anticipaban el tono de la noche.

Biden, por su parte, empezó aludiendo al reciente terremoto en el sistema financiero, que describió como "la última prueba de que la política económica de los últimos ocho años ha sido la peor política económica que hemos tenido jamás".

Frente a eso, Palin, en lugar de defender esa política o proponer otra distinta, criticó el hecho de referirse al pasado. "Para una candidatura que dice representar el cambio y mirar hacia el futuro, se apunta demasiado con el dedo hacia atrás, lo que nos hace pensar que es para allá para donde vamos", replicó.

"En este caso, el pasado es el prólogo", insistió el compañero de ticket de Obama. "El asunto aquí es cómo de diferentes van a ser las políticas de McCain de las de George Bush y yo no he oído nada hasta el momento sobre eso".

Palin sostuvo que el verdadero cambio es el representado por McCain y que la única política económica correcta es aquella que arrasa con el Estado. "Tú dijiste recientemente que subir impuestos era patriótico", le reprochó a Biden, utilizando una frase manipulada del candidato vicepresidencial demócrata. "En la clase media de América, a la que Todd (su marido) y yo pertenecemos, eso no es patriótico. Patriótico es decirle al Estado: tú no eres siempre la solución; de hecho, frecuentemente tú eres el problema, afloja la presión fiscal sobre nuestras familias y apártate del camino del sector privado".

Biden parecía, por momentos, perder la paciencia ante la reiteración de generalidades con la que Palin respondía a cada pregunta. "Tome nota de que no ha dicho cuál es su plan de retirada de Irak", le recordó en un momento determinado a la moderadora del debate. "Tu plan es una bandera blanca de rendición, y eso no es lo que nuestros soldados quieren oír", contestó Palin.

La candidata republicana surcó peligrosamente las aguas del conflicto palestino-israelí, Oriente Medio y la amenaza terrorista sin grandes descalabros, aunque con algún atrevimiento, como el de proponer el controvertido traslado de la embajada norteamericana en Israel a Jerusalén.

Advirtió del peligro que supone la propuesta de Obama de negociar con los enemigos de Estados Unidos. A lo que Biden volvió a recordar que el verdadero peligro lo constituye quien no está dispuesto a sentarse a hablar "ni siquiera con un aliado y socio en la OTAN como es el Gobierno de España".

Biden demostró solvencia al hablar de política exterior, buen criterio sobre cómo afrontar las crisis actuales en la economía, la ecología o la energía, y expuso un convincente proyecto de cambio. Claramente era la única persona en ese escenario preparada para el cargo por el que pelean.

Pero la noche no le pertenecía a Biden. La noche era de Palin; ella era la que se sometía a examen, y lo pasó.

"!Un golazo!", dijo Rudy Giuliani como resultado del debate. "Los detractores de Palin deberían ahora de avergonzarse de sí mismos", añadió Fred Thompson, otro ex candidato presidencial. El entusiasmo de los conservadores era evidente en sus palabras y en sus webs.

De parte demócrata, el debate se ve como un mero obstáculo más en una carrera que ya se acerca a su fin; un obstáculo salvado sin demasiadas complicaciones. "Siempre habíamos dicho que Palin era una política talentosa, y esta noche lo ha demostrado", reconoció el director de la campaña de Obama, David Plouffe. "Pero está vendiendo un producto fraudulento", añadió.

Después de esto, es posible que McCain haya respirado con alivio de saber que su compañera de ticket, que había desatado la preocupación general por su inocultable ignorancia y superficialidad, no le ha hundido definitivamente. Pero Palin no va a poder hacer ya mucho más por el triunfo de su candidatura; el resto está en manos de McCain. El próximo debate, el martes.

The contest for the Democratic nomination is being largely portrayed as an historic confrontation between the first ever electorally-credible African American and the first ever electorally-credible woman running for president of the US. That in itself is sufficient to warrant blanket coverage, consuming interest and at times hysterical commentary on what is without question an unprecedented contest.

However, all of the coverage is missing what is most fascinating about this race. It is not the biographies of the two remaining Democratic candidates, or the number of voters who have been energised by the primary process, but the way in which the rivals are erasing and redrawing the lines of demarcation that exist within the Democratic party.

Readers should keep in mind that in parliamentary, multi-party systems in which proportional representation allows parties to cater to smaller subsets of the electorate, contradictions exist mostly within the government. However, the US two-party system makes the parties so broad that it is all but inevitable that contradictions will exist within the parties themselves.

The contradictions within the Republican party are visible on the surface and, in the view of Democrats, have delightfully led to all manner of internecine hand-wringing. The evangelical Christian and social conservatives find themselves in a marriage of convenience (does this violate a marriage’s sanctity?) with economic conservatives, who in turn wonder about the single-minded obsession of the national security-focused conservatives. Consider it as the Pat Robertson Republicans versus the Rockefeller Republicans versus the Reagan Republicans. All represent different wings of the party and, as you might guess, a bird with three wings does not fly so well.

But the Democratic party, like any family, also has its own contradictions. Although the divide is less obvious, it is still significant and is a major factor (in addition to the talent and uniqueness of our candidates) in both the closeness and the caustic nature of the Democratic primaries.

There are two main parts of the Democratic party. The first and fastest growing is what I refer to (somewhat uncreatively) as “Party A” Democrats. Party A Democrats tend to be urban or suburban. They are traditionally better educated, white, more affluent, heavily female, socially liberal and reform-oriented. Examples are candidates such as Adlai Stevenson, Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Mike Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley and Howard Dean.

The other side of the party is a more broad coalition of working class people who are generally less affluent, less educated and look to the federal government to soften the harsher edges of capitalism. They tend to be either urban or rural. I refer to them as “Party B” Democrats. They favour increased funding for federal programmes from Medicare to unemployment compensation to subsidised student loans. This wing of the party has included labour unions, older voters, African-Americans and non-college- educated young voters. Party B Democrats have been much more responsive to classic “I’m on your side” Democratic rhetoric. Candidates from this faction include Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton and (uncomfortable as he seemed in this ideological space) Al Gore.

In the past, the less affluent, pro-government wing of the party has consistently won. But what makes this race so wonderfully complex and textured is that Barack Obama, an almost prototype Party A Democrat, reaches right into Party B and yanks out African-Americans – a group that makes up almost a quarter of the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton, whose message is almost exclusively Party B, pulls a significant vote among older, educated white women, who most of their lives have been firmly in the Party A camp. Those who dismiss this as identity politics fundamentally underestimate the impact – an impact that could be felt long beyond 2008 – of this contradiction within a contradiction in the traditional factions of the Democratic base.

Underlying all of this is the inevitable game of electoral chicken that is almost certain to erupt at the conclusion of the contest. The winner, with help from the loser, is not only going to have to bridge the fissures within the party but also to find a way to re-embrace those racial and gender identity voters who now find themselves aligned with a new wing of the party. If Mrs Clinton wins the nomination, do the Party B African-Americans who have embraced Mr Obama’s campaign feel comfortable remaining in the party and voting for Mrs Clinton? Conversely, are the Party A, older, college-educated white women comfortable embracing Mr Obama’s candidacy after supporting Mrs Clinton so fervently?

Only time will tell and it is certainly not as simple or easy as it seems. When you consider that African-Americans make up slightly less of the Democratic party as self-identified evangelical or social conservatives do for the Republican party (about 25 per cent), you get a sense of how serious this could be for Democrats. One can only imagine where the Republicans would be without that percentage of voters, and the same can be said of the Democrats.

As President George W. Bush could tell you, it is one thing to call yourself a uniter, it is another to actually unite people. For the Democratic nominee, it is going to be one demanding, difficult job requiring an inordinate amount of patience and skill. But then again, that is what a president has to do.

The media consensus (which, as we all know, is never wrong) is that Hillary fell short in Cleveland, doesn't have much hope of winning both primaries, and since her own husband said that's what she needs to do, this is her last gasp.

Maybe it's me, but do you detect a certain glee in parts of the media world? A sense that, finally, we can be done with the Clintons? Especially now that she's throwing the "Saturday Night Live" skit in our faces?

Maybe this is just what happens when campaigns are on the verge of losing. Frustration boils over and relations with reporters turn testy. But in the case of Hillary, possibly the most psychoanalyzed presidential candidate of all time, the process is on steroids.

There seems to me to be a whiff of sexism in the recent pieces about what might be called Hillary's mood swings--that she was friendly to Barack Obama, then denounced him, then mocked him. Hey, it's a campaign. Things happen. You react to each news cycle.

I did have a reaction to seeing Hillary in a sweatshirt on her plane the other day, teasing the assembled reporters. It was the first time I'd seen her in anything other than a pantsuit (except for that long-ago paparazzi shot of her and Bill dancing in bathing suits), but more important, she seemed funny and relaxed in a way she rarely is in public. And I thought, she might have done better if we'd seen more of this person and less of the one who keeps droning on about health-care mandates.

If Obama is indeed on the cusp of beating Clinton, it is a remarkable achievement, given where he started and who she is and what she represents. But in the process of reporting that story, we shouldn't be asking whether he's comfortable and needs another pillow.

"All in all," says Huffington Post's Marc Cooper, "it was a rather ignominious, belittling way to almost certainly close out the Clinton Era . . .

"Thirty-five years of selfless public service, if we are to believe her campaign rhetoric, deserved more than this tin-pan finale. Clinton, in her best moments, is certainly capable of something more than a torrent of peevish, petty, picayune, and intellectually dishonest bickering and parsing.

"Instead, Senator Clinton chose to remind us why she is losing the nomination that she was once so very sure would inevitably be hers. The smell of a loser permeated the entire low-energy event as Clinton tried to pick apart this or that phrase uttered one time or another by her rival."

Página de The Washington Post: Democratic Debate: Analyzing the Details: Watch the interactive video from the Feb. 26 debate and analyze the transcript.

Análisis de Daniel Politi para Today's Papers en Slate Magazine

Extracto en español: A diferencia del terso debate pasado, en éste las referencias agudas surgieron desde el inicio. Los moderadores de la cadena NBC hicieron todo lo que estuvo a su alcance para propiciar el golpeteo. The Wahsinton Post se muestra sorprendido de que no se hayan dado más críticas al papel del moderador Tim Russert.  Este encuentro era considerado como la última oportunidad de Clinton para quitarle a Obama el momentum. Sin embargo, prevalece en los diarios la idea de que Clinton no fue capaz de cambiar drásticamente el rumbo de las cosas con sus críticas a Obama. Los Angeles Times apunta que, quienquiera que gane no la tendrá fácil contra McCain. Ambos aspirantes demócratas se comprometieron a renegociar el TLCAN.

The New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead with yesterday's Democratic debate in Ohio, where Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama clashed over a number of issues, including campaign tactics, Iraq, health care, and NAFTA. As opposed to the largely cordial encounter last week, the sharp words began almost as soon as the debate got started yesterday, although it did remain "generally civil," as the WP points out. There was huge anticipation for the 20^th, and maybe final, Democratic debate of the primary season, which was seen as possibly the last chance for Clinton to stop Obama's momentum before the contests in Ohio and Texas that have been described as must-win states. But, overall, nobody thinks Clinton was able to drastically change the race last night with her criticisms of Obama.

Whoever ends up winning the nomination will face a tough time against Sen. John McCain, notes the Los Angeles Times in its lead story. A new in-house nationwide poll shows 61 percent of voters view McCain favorably. McCain holds an advantages in several fronts as voters are more likely to rate him as the strongest leader who has "the right experience" and would be better at protecting the country and dealing with Iraq. On the economy, McCain gets higher marks than Obama but not Clinton. In a hypothetical matchup, McCain gets more support than either of the two Democratic contenders, leading Clinton by 6 percentage points and Obama by 2 points, which is within the poll's margin of error. Everyone was expecting last night's debate to be confrontational, and the NBC moderators seemed to do everything in their power to encourage the fighting from the beginning by starting out with clips that showed Clinton's criticism of Obama's campaign flyers. After some back-and-forth about tactics, where Obama countered her criticism by saying he has also been on the receiving end of attacks "and we haven't whined about it," the candidates launched into a 16-minute familiar argument over health care. The LAT emphasizes that when the discussion turned to trade, both candidates said they would threaten to opt out of NAFTA if Mexico and Canada didn't agree to renegotiate the deal.

Clinton also directed criticism at the news media and asked why it is that she seems "to get the first question all the time?" In a move that the LAT describes as "a clear ploy for the sympathies of women voters," Clinton then went on to reference a Saturday Night Live skit that portrayed reporters as being madly in love with Obama. "Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow," she said. (In a piece inside, the NYT says: "She has a point." Clinton has been on the receiving end of the first question in all of her one-on-one debates with Obama.) A while later, almost seeming to prove her point, Tim Russert asked her to name the man who Russian President Vladimir Putin has named as his successor, Dmitry Medvedev. (She sort of got it right: "Medved ... Medvedeva ...") The NYT's Alessandra Stanley, who has the only quasi-critical look at the operational side of the debate, notes that the encounter "did look a bit like the SNL parody."

Overall, TP is surprised there aren't more critical stories about Russert's performance yesterday, which included an almost surreal question where he asked the contenders to give a specific answer to an incredibly detailed hypothetical question that involved Iraqis kicking out all U.S. troops, a resurgence of al-Qaida, Iraq going "to hell," and the possibility of a re-invasion of Iraq (but what if it's raining?). When Clinton confronted Russert on the hypothetical nature of the question, he answered: "But this is reality."

In an analysis piece, the LAT notes that while Obama "did not walk away unscathed from the debate, the damage Clinton inflicted was minor." The NYT's Adam Nagourney agrees, noting that "Obama had the advantage" last night and was helped along by Russert's "aggressive questioning" of Clinton. The LAT goes on to say that both candidates "were tipped off balance by tough questions" from the moderators and mentions how Obama "stuttered a response" to Russert's question about whether he would reject the support from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. After Russert found it necessary to remind viewers of Farrakhan's opinion of Judaism, and some interjection from Clinton, Obama said he "would reject and denounce." The LAT says that although this might not matter now, "his hesitancy could provide an opening for Republicans."

The LAT's poll shows Obama is beating Clinton 48 percent to 42 percent, although Clinton still holds a lead in states that haven't voted yet. But "one of the most striking findings" of the poll is that when Democratic voters were asked whom they support now, regardless of what vote they may have already cast in an earlier primary or caucus, Obama leads by 20 percentage points.

 

Blog de The New York Tmes que narra el debate Clinton-Obama

Hillary Rodham Clinton will get her last, best chance Tuesday night to slow Barack Obama before the March 4 primaries in the latest debate of an increasingly contentious Democratic presidential race.

Obama has won 11 straight primaries and caucuses, and even some of Clinton's supporters concede she must win in both Ohio and Texas next week to keep her candidacy alive.

"I think things have gotten a little hotter in the last couple of days," Obama said at a news conference where he collected an endorsement from a former campaign rival, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

There was unlikely to be any debate about that, after a four-day span in which Clinton accused Obama of distorting her record on trade and health care in mass mailings, then criticized him as ill-prepared to take charge of the nation's foreign policy.

Spicing the race further was a photograph of Obama that surfaced on the Internet, an image of him wearing a white turban and a wraparound white robe presented to him by elders in Wajir, in northeastern Kenya.

The gossip and news Web site The Drudge Report posted the photograph Monday and said it was being circulated by "Clinton staffers."

It offered no evidence of that, and Clinton aides said the campaign had not known the photo was being circulated and never sanctioned its distribution.

There were fresh signs of Clinton's campaign woes, including an AP-Ipsos poll that charted significant gains for Obama among male voters and others two months into the primary season.

In mid-January, Clinton held a seven-point lead among all men, a group she now loses by 25 points. The two were about even among college graduates six weeks ago, and Obama now holds a 20-point margin.

The former first lady's most reliable base of support continues to be older voters, women, and lower-income workers.

Clinton campaigned in Lorain, a blue-collar city went of Cleveland several hours before the debate.

One man in the audience waved his arms and spoke emotionally about the legal struggles he has faced trying to hold onto his home.

"I can't help everybody, but I try," Clinton said, after listening calmly. "There are a lot of people who really need help. We can't treat each other like we are invisible."

Obama's only pre-debate public appearance was his news conference with Dodd, who said it was time for Democrats to unite for the fall campaign. He denied it was a nudge to Clinton to quit the race.

In addition to Texas and Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont hold primaries on March 4, with a total of 370 delegates at stake.

Por Daniel Politi para Today's Papers de Slate Magazine

Extracto en español: Slate señala que, aunque el tema de la crisis hipotecaria sigue siendo de gran relevancia para algunos medios,  la atención de la prensa se centró en el debate de ayer entre Obama y Clinton que no respondió a las expectativas de que ésta última mostraría un perfil mucho más agresivo ante su adversario.

Clinton siguió tratando de explotar el asunto de que Obama plagió frases de sus discursos; Obama criticó a Clinton diciendo que es pura palabra y nada de hechos. Aunque The Wall Street Journal elogió partes del discurso de Clinton, especialmente el cierre, ni éste diario ni The New York Times consideran que esto sea suficiente para que recupere el momentum.

USA Today and the Washington Post lead with, while the Los Angeles Times devotes its top nonlocal spot to, yesterday's debate between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which, despite speculation that the former first lady would be more agressive, was a largely cordial affair with a few jabs and disagreements interspersed throughout. Everyone goes high with one of the most memorable quotes of the night, which came when the issue of Obama's "plagiarism" was brought up and Clinton riffed on one of his trademark phrases: "Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox." Obama also criticized Clinton for frequently saying he is all talk and no action, which he said implies that those who have supported him "are somehow delusional."

During the debate, there were disagreements over health insurance (surprise!) and although the resignation of Fidel Castro was tied in to the usual argument over whether the U.S. president should meet with any head of state without preconditions, the LAT notes the contenders "managed to sound similar despite differing views." Everyone mentions Clinton's closing statement, which the WSJ says was "one of her most elegant, memorable moments of the long campaign." Overall though, both the NYT and WSJ say it didn't seem like Clinton was able to do anything that would change the campaign or take away from Obama's momentum.

The WP has a new poll that shows Clinton holds a narrow lead over Obama in Ohio, while the two candidates are pretty much tied in Texas. The polls show that Clinton's traditional supporters have largely stayed with her, "but she has yet to make deep inroads into Obama's core supporters," says the Post. It's difficult to overstate the importance of Texas and Ohio for Clinton, as even her husband said this week it'd be difficult for her to continue without victories there.

The NYT fronts a look at how Clinton's supporters are seeing her latest campaign finance report as a "road map" of the mismanagement of her campaign. Clinton spent lots of money on food and lodging, but what has resulted in the most raised eyebrows is how much she paid her senior consultants. As the LAT notes in its own story about Clinton's finances, the figures reveal that she paid "her communications director twice as much in one month as Obama paid his communications director in a year." Overall, "Clinton has paid vastly more for staff and accouterments and less on the services that directly win votes," says the LAT, which also notes Obama spent more on polling and advertising. There are suggestions that Clinton's campaign spent as much as it did out of the belief that the race would be over quickly and was caught unprepared for the long struggle. But, of course, as Democratic consultant Jim Jordan tells the NYT: "These budgetary post-mortems tend to follow a familiar pattern; winners are by definition smart, and losers are dumb and wasteful."

On the other side of the race to the White House, everyone covers the fallout from yesterday's NYT article that insinuated Sen. John McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist. "Obviously, I'm very disappointed in the article; it's not true," McCain said. (Small quibble: Since the NYT gave such prominent Page One play to the original story, shouldn't it devote at least some front-page real estate to the repercussions and denial? Instead, the paper chooses to reefer the story.) The LAT fronts a look at how the story ignited a debate that "raged across the Internet, cable television, and talk radio." Regardless, McCain and the Republican Party tried to turn the situation to their advantage by mentioning the story in fundraising pitches.

Meanwhile, the Post fronts a look at how some of McCain's key advisers are lobbyists, even as he has often railed against their profession and the influence of special interests in Washington. The WP points out that "lobbyists are essentially running his presidential campaign," which many see as hypocritical. "He has a closer relationship with lobbyists than he lets on," the head of a government watchdog group tells the paper. Coincidentally, the NYT mentioned these types of relationships in its story yesterday, but they were overshadowed by the implications of the affair. Ultimately, even if the allegations of the affair don't get very far, we might end up looking at yesterday's NYT story as the point where journalists began to look at McCain's record with a more critical eye. The Post notes that, by one count, there are at least 59 lobbyists currently raising money for McCain.

As if that wasn't enough trouble for McCain, the Post fronts, and the NYT mentions inside, news that the senator received a letter from the Federal Election Commission yesterday warning him that he can't withdraw from the public financing system. The FEC chairman said McCain has to clear up issues regarding a loan he took out that was partly secured with the federal money as collateral. It's a complicated issue and one that has potentially devastating implications for McCain, who would be limited to spending $54 million during the primary season (he's already spent $49 million). In his letter, the chairman said the senator wouldn't be able to leave the public system until there's a vote, which is impossible since there aren't enough commissioners for a quorum. McCain's campaign contends that the lack of quorum makes the letter unenforceable, which is a view the NYT seems to agree with by saying the issue probably won't be resolved before Election Day.

He couldn't just wait 12 days? "Let's face it. It's over," writes the Post's Al Kamen, who takes a look at the numbers and concludes that, "barring a serious meltdown ... or a sensational revelation," Obama will be the nominee. So, he's opening up the contest to guess whom Obama will pick as his running mate. "Don't worry," Kamen writes, "If Clinton's campaign somehow miraculously resuscitates, we'll do a Clinton veep contest."

By Lisa de Moraes en The Washington Post

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton snuffed Donald Trump and Vincent Pastore Thursday night.    CNN's coverage of the debate between the two Democratic presidential candidates, held at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles, clocked 8.3 million viewers between 8 and 9:52 p.m. -- that's now the record holder for highest-rated primary debate in cable TV history.  

In contrast, NBC attracted an average of around 6 million viewers between 8 and 10, with a consomme of "My Name Is Earl" and "The Office" repeats and the first hour of an original two-hour "Celebrity Apprentice," in which the Donald offed contestant Pastore.  And CNN's debate wasn't just watched by your grandparents. It was neck and neck with NBC among 18-to-34-year-olds, with 1.3 million and 1.4 million, respectively; and among 18-to-49-year-olds, with 3 million and 3.2 million, respectively.  And what of "Lost"?  That series' return to the ABC lineup Thursday night averaged a little more than 16 million viewers.  That's its smallest season-starter ever. Last season opened with nearly 19 million tuned in, the second season averaged more than 23 million viewers and the first season unveiled with 18.6 million viewers back in fall '04.  ABC points out the show had not been on the air in eight months, after the network opted to wait until January and run this season's episodes without interruption, a la Fox's "24."

When "24" returns to the lineup each season, it's usually been off the air for eight months as well, though this year Fox is holding it indefinitely because, owing to the writers' strike, not all 24 episodes for the season have been produced.  Opposite "Lost," a "CSI" rerun on CBS logged about 11.7 million viewers, though "Lost" clocked about 2 1/2 times the "CSI" rating among 18-to-49-year-olds, who are the hot blond chicks to Madison Avenue.