I thoroughly enjoyed watching your your show today! I did not think that HD would make big of a difference to a NEWS program but I came away a amazed!

The HD detail allows us to clearly see the expressions of the speakers, which adds a whole new dimension to the discussion. There is more truth in the face than in the words!

Thank you for this! It is truly a great pleasure. And your NEWSEUM studio is really great also!

Peter.

Two thoughts on the debate: (1) If you're going to take a tabloid approach, kindly do so in a balanced way so that viewers don't walk away thinking one candidate has more tabloid-baggage than the other; (2) If you're interested in giving Americans something to think about in regard to character, please ask questions that bear on character.

One more thought: Those in our society who lean toward racism must have had treat when watching that debate.

I'm an independent and am NOT a supporter of Barrack Obama (or Hillary Clinton) yet I am one of the millions who believe you did an horrific job moderating the debate.

And yet you chose 3 ABC News employees for the round-table this week, none of whom were (for obvious, if differing reasons) willing or able to offer any criticism of it.

You all but admitted it was one of the major news stories this week by addressing it at the round table, but didn't have the sense to put up an opposing point of view?

All of your guests as well as the hosted stated or intimated that Barrack Obama supporters were the ones complaining about the format when that is utterly untrue. Just this morning on Meet the Press, even Ed Rendell, Clinton's most vociferous supporters, agreed that the first hour of the debate was pointless fluff.

I am not one of those cynics who believe it was an effort to help Hillary in polls and who would complain about the "appearance of impropriety" having George Stepenopholous moderate. I've watched his show enough to know that is an unfair attack.

I AM however, one of those cynics who thinks it was about ratings. And that, I think, bothers me even more. The commercialization of this debate - whether in the form of sensationalism or in the form of disruptive advertising - was its most alarming feature.

I only hope it shines a spotlight on the problem with Television News - particularly taken in tandem with the diminishing circulation and corporate control of paper news. Like most, I gather much of my news from the internet, but clearly that medium has a lot of maturing to do before people learn how to use it as a responsible non-partisan outlet for current truthful information.

So back to this morning's show... Why no dissenting point on the round table? Who made the booking decisions? Was the idea of actually debating ABC's handling of the debate considered verboten by corporate or did G.S. simply not have the courage (or arguments) to defend himself against the genuine non-Obamamaniacal criticisms?

Not because I think he actually should have asked them, but if George thought it was fair ground and really important to voters, he should asked McCain the following (for consistency's sake):

1. Why did he not ask McCain why he was NOT wearing a flag pin??

2. If George Steph. thinks these symbolic issues are really worth discussing, why didn't he push McCain a little harder on Hagee and ask why he wasn't holding himself to the same standard he set for Obama just a few minutes before?

3. Why didn't he ask McCain about his wife's tax records not being released?

4. Why did he spend 2/3 to 3/4 of his time asking him about substantive issues like taxes, Iran and Iraq?

5. Why did he begin with the substance and only ask about that symbolic stuff at the end?

Shame on ABC for not even having the courage to either apologize and move on (in which case, the McCain interview would have been just fine). In the alternative, they could have defended themselves and dealt with McCain as I described for the sake of consistency.

And since they chose not to do either of these and still have no guest that would criticize ABC's coverage, then they should have recused themselves from talking about it at all.

By characterizing and marginalizing criticism as a reaction from "Obama supporters" and dealing with it as they have, is insulting frustrated viewers of every political persuasion.

It seems that a few months ago I remember Donna Brazile (the "unpledged" delegate?)stating that if Barack Obama ended up with the popular vote and the superdelegates overturned it for HRC that she would "quit the Democratic party." Do you have the courage and fairness to rerun this...to correct me or to remind your viewers of her statement? I believe it is important.

I do not understand all this want to drill in our parks and offshore. It only benifits the oil companies. All oil and natural gas goes on the market to the highest bidder. With global use up we need alternatives, the answer is not in something we have to grow we need this resourse for growing food. Wind, solar, hydrogen and maybe even nuculear.

To George Stephanopolis...Thank you very much for having Ralph Nader on your show. Too often he get very little or no exposure. I think that any candidate of his stature should be given due attention. ...possibly his popularity would increase.

George Stephanopolis...Why is it that "This Week", "Meet The Press" and other main stream media only steer the discussions to what Obama has to do to win the election and not what McCain has to do. Another example of media bias.