Quick spoilers for the season premiere of Friday Night Lights after the jump:

(more...)

I will be liveblogging the VP debate tonight, with TIME political and national correspondents Karen Tumulty and Michael Grunwald. Look for it here.

[Update: In response to demand from last debate's commenters, all three of us will be posting in one big thread. So you can watch the trend of discussion as we and your fellow commenters get progressively drunker.]

Only a small and petty man says I told you so. I am a small and petty man.

For a while now, I've been skeptical about the wisdom of the networks' decision not to bring back some of their high-profile new shows last year after the strike. Instead, they kept shows like Chuck, Pushing Daisies and Private Practice off the air for almost a full year—following what had been an anemically-rated fall season to begin with—returning them for a second season do-over. The strategy, as I put it, was: "Remember all those shows you were mildly interested in last fall, America? We bet you'll be even more mildly interested in them this fall!"

Last night, Daisies, Practice and DSM came back. The verdict? Not so mildly interested. Says the Hollywood Reporter:

Despite strong reviews, the return of "Daisies" (6.3 million viewers, 2.0/6) had the steepest drop, falling a roller coaster-style 55% to a series-low fourth place at 8 p.m. "Private Practice" (8 million, 3.2/8), whose critical reception has been unenthusiastic, declined 38% to place third at 9 p.m. Then "Dirty Sexy Money" (7.1 million, 2.5/7) fell 31% to place second at 10 p.m. ("Money" not only dropped the least, but was also the only ABC show to improve upon its last episode, which aired in December).

I'm not right about predicting ratings very often, so allow me me small, petty moment. That said, I do hope Daisies, at least, recovers—it deserves better.

The Gender Factor Is Overblown. From the second Sarah Palin was nominated, there's been breathless talk about how Biden was boxed in: he couldn't debate her too aggressively, or treat her too gently, because he would look like a sexist pig. I'm not sure whether this line of reasoning is more insulting to Palin or to voters, but in any case I think it's outdated. First, Biden did debate a woman—Hillary Clinton—the whole while he was in the primaries; granted, it was not one-on-one, but neither was it particularly an issue. Second, people have repeatedly cited the example of George H. W. Bush, who was accused of being condescending to Geraldine Ferraro. But the issue there, if you go back and watch the debate, is that he actually was condescending ("Let me explain to you..."). Finally, the debate follows a troublesome series of interviews this past week between Palin and the nation's only female network-news anchor. If Biden follows the same rules of decency advisable for debating a man—take your opponent seriously and don't be a jerk—I doubt this will be an issue. (Which is not to say no one will try to make it an issue.)

(more...)

Besides "expectations," that is.

The forum. Beyond the content of her answers, the most damaging element of Sarah Palin's interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric was her self-presentation. She seemed nervous—really nervous—tensing up, running sentences together and seeming to throw out verbiage defensively, like squid ink. Anyone who saw her speak at the Republican National Convention, or has watched her on the stump, knows that Sarah Palin has no such jitters addressing an audience. Now, a debate hall is different from a cheering sea of supporters, true. But it's also different from sitting alone, no audience, in front of an interlocutor whom you believe is ready to trip you up. Not going one-on-one may well make Palin project more confidence even if her answers are the same in content—and TV debates are in part about the projection of image.

(more...)

Bravo Photo: Barbara Nitke

Spoilers for last night's Project Runway coming up after the jump.

(more...)

Jeez. Just... jeez. I'm not quite sure what to say that won't seem like piling on.

Well, one thing. Katie Couric has interviewed Sarah Palin in several rounds now. At least three times (McCain and regulation, Palin's media consumption and Supreme Court decisions), Palin's stumbles followed pretty much the same pattern:

KC: Question?

SP: Vague but confident answer!

KC: Can you give me an example?

SP: Words! Here are words!

KC: But again, Governor: one specific example.

SP: In conclusion, words!

The interviews occurred, and unspooled, over time. Did no one coach Palin: when Katie Couric (or anyone) asks you a question, make a point of having specific examples ready?

Or did they?

ABC

Did absence make your heart grow fonder? Last night, ABC's Pushing Daisies, Private Practice and Dirty Sexy Money returned after an eternity in post-strike suspended animation. The big gamble in keeping these shows off the air in April and May, then "relaunching" now, of course, is that they would neither seem new and exciting a second time out nor, having only aired nine or so episodes, have a dedicated enough fan base to return en masse.

Personally, I found Private Practice even more cloying and pointless than I did last fall; DSM surprisingly fun and improved (though I still can't imagine watching it regularly); and Pushing Daisies equally charming and sui generis, though it still probably stays on my Tivo-and-watch-eventually list. Did you come back?