[T]here's something odd about Mr Gingrich's specific proposal. The Lincoln-Douglas debates had a highly regimented format: an hour-long opening from one, a 90-minute rebuttal from the other, and a half-hour rejoinder to wrap it up. Unless Mr Gingrich has something different in mind, he's suggesting a format that favours Mr Obama's rhetorical strengths rather than his own.
Live-blogging for three hours? Seven times? Shoot me now. But on reflection, I'm not so sure it's a terrible idea. The primary debates have become reality show contests. Better to change the format entirely. And in so far as Gingrich really does have an expansive, distinctive and intermittently unhinged politics, I think a fleshing out of it would be helpful. One general rule is that the longer Gingrich speaks, the less people like him; another is that he's better at the put-down and come-back than the grand theory. So bring it on!
They should also unshackle the audience. If you are going to speak for an hour, then it's a real speech and works best with a real audience that cheers or boos and generally interacts. Let Obama start and end, with 90 minutes of Newt in the middle. The country does face a choice: between the pragmatic conservatism of the president and the radical reactionaryism of Gingrich. The clearer that distinction is, the better.
The Dish 