Prez candidates 2nd debate

Scarcely had the 2nd Presidential debate ended than I received an email saying,
"Yes We Can: Voices of a Grassroots Movement is a moving musical tribute featuring the inspirational speeches of Senator Obama interwoven into music created by today's top artists including Sheryl Crow, John Mayer, Kanye West, Stevie Wonder, Jackson Browne, John Legend, Lionel Ritchie, Jill Scott, Los Lonely Boys, Bebe Winans, Yolanda Adams and many more. In a collection as diverse as the campaign, these artists have captured the spirit, themes and ideals at the core of this historic movement for change. This beautiful album is not just fun and inspiring to listen to, it's also a great organizing tool.We hope you enjoy this landmark project." See and hear: http://www.battem.com/
Why am I not remotely shocked or amused by this? The debate might as well have been replaced by a battle of the bands, both teams' pop music brands slugging each other with bubblegum lyrics, for that was the level of the debate, no offence intended; this is the new norm of prime-time politics. What of great import was said, no not said but gleaned by reading between the autocue briefing teams' parrot-puppet lines?
There is a major ideological divide between M and O (and between their respective parties, parties that neither candidate mentioned by name along with not mentioning a lot of other nono words and names.
No mention of the EU, UN, recession, TARP, liquidity, solvency, credit markets, budget balance, GDP, fiscal, monetary, dollar, war on drugs, international cooperation, free trade, free markets, capitalism, socialism, communism, liberals, China, India, trade, Japan, Asia, Mexico, Latin America, Canada, California, New York, Florida, stolen elections, migrants, black, hispanic, white, my executive team, Supreme Court, the Constitution, Sarah Palin, USAAF, the Marines, missile shield, or the G8 - except whether to kick Russia out of it.
They did mention bipartisanship, banks, war on terrorism, Al Qaeda, Taliban & others, growth, Arizona, Delaware, Tennessee, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, ex-Soviet Union, Putin, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Rwands, Somalia, Congo, Lebanon, democracy, peace, holocaust prevention/ intervention, our troops, navy, medical insurance, education, middle class, which means blue collar, poor people, food stamps, cutting spending programmes, lower taxes, higher taxes, protecting Main Street, my voting record, your voting record, fundamental change, GWBush's 8 years of questionable or failed policies, Ronald Reagon, Teddy Roosevelt, Joe Biden, refundable tax credits, tax credits, veterans, spending freeze on everything except military, energy, oil dependency, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, alternative renewables, Climate Change, future generations, our great country, love, privilege, rich people, small businesses, mandating policies or not, when I am President, toughness, hand on tiller, decisiveness, experience, my wife, all children, tough problems ahead, talking soft, big stick, and Israel.
M believes in not increasing any spending programmes except on the military and veterans and is keen to cancel something called earflaps (incidental items) that O says are only worth $18bn. Refundable tax credits are M's solution for Medical Insurance - note 'refundable' (a word concept that O did not challenge). Economic means $300bn higher rate tax cuts, mainly company taxes. M wants to withdraw from Iraq (and Afghanistan) only with big surge victory and honour. Also, more oil drilling to reduce energy dependency and nuclear power plus alternatives.
O believes in no tax increases for 95% of people and businesses and higher taxes on the richest 5% and big corporations. He wants children's education subsidised more, and medical insurance extended to all currently uninsured paid for by tax credits (voluntary for anyone otherwise insured). O wants managed withdrawel from Iraq and Afghanistan when the war effort can be handed over to local national government. He wants more green energy but is ambiguous on drilling beyond saying it can't solve the problem. He wants fundamental change in Washington but what that means is unknown. He will regain international respect for the US in foreign policy, but will do whatever it takes to get OBL and destroy Al Qaeda etc. and will not tolerate nuclear rocket capability in Iran that threatens Israel's destruction.
That's about it I think?