Watching the three televised debates for president and vice president followed by the reactions of network analysts and spin doctors, I couldn't help thinking of this line from the late, great Allan Sherman, song parodist extraordinaire. It's from his number about a couple who watch television together every night, set to the tune of "Alouette."

Al 'n' Yetta watched an operetta
Leonard Bernstein told them what they saw.

The joke, of course, was that given the opportunity, the great unwashed might try soaking in a little culture from the comfort of their living rooms but would need help understanding it. The librettos were probably in German or Italian, for one thing, and the plot line a bit more obscure than those of, say, your average episode of "Bonanza" or "Mister Ed." Who better than Mr. Bernstein, the brilliant American composer and conductor, to make it all comprehensible?

"An 'n' Yetta" came out in 1962 -- two years after John Kennedy and Richard Nixon faced off in the first-ever televised presidential debate and 46 years before Joe Six-Packs and hockey moms became a coveted voting demographic.

Mr. Sherman proved prescient in his joke, but I doubt he would have foreseen the rise of a professional political commentariat charged with immediately explaining an exchange between two English-speaking candidates to English-speaking viewers at home.

To some degree, this phenomenon could be read as an insult to the intelligence of voters, implying that they don't know what to think until someone famous tells them. On the other hand, there's something to be said for the voice of experience. Journalists who have covered multiple presidential races and partisans who have labored deep in the bowels of previous campaigns may notice things that would escape the average viewer.

Still, when a Paul Begala or a Bay Buchanan start weighing in at a debate's end, it's hard not to hear Chico Marx in the subtext, asking his famous question: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" The debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin was a case in point. That match-up was deemed a tie by many commentators, mostly because the candidates didn't utterly disgrace themselves or do anything to change the trajectory of the race. But the bar could hardly have been set any lower.

Ms. Palin was rambling and disjointed, running out the clock with phrases that defied logic or coherence. When asked by moderator Gwen Ifill about her Achilles heel, she didn't seem to know the meaning of the term. This, for some reason, was deemed a successful appearance. As for Mr. Biden, he kept the bloviating to a minimum and didn't condescend to his opponent. He also gave viewers whiplash, emphasizing that his disdain for Mr. McCain was nothing personal. No wonder "Saturday Night Live" is having a field day with these characters.

As for Tuesday's second match-up between Barack Obama and John McCain, my own eyes told me that it was repetitious, nonresponsive and, above all, colossally boring. There was one exception, but it only demonstrated why the candidates stick so closely to the approved script. That was when Mr. McCain made his seemingly out-of-the-blue suggestion that the government buy up and refinance bad mortgages. If it was a trial balloon, it didn't go far. Economists from his own party shot it down in short order, calling in antithetical to the free market. The statement also gave Mr. Obama another reason to call his rival "erratic."

Other than that, the evening was more of the same pre-programmed, boiler-plate talking points. More than once I heard myself shouting, "Answer the bleeping question!" at both candidates. Finally I turned the TV off in frustration, muttering "I could pound myself on the head with a hammer and get the same effect in a lot less time." (I knew I could get the rest online later.)

Still, junkie that I am, I surfed the news stations compulsively at the debate's end, wondering if anyone would echo my reaction. Eventually, Jeffrey Toobin on CNN did, but not before others on various channels weighed in with more charitable assessments (David Gergen actually called the event "interesting"). Most believed that Mr. Obama had won the debate, and polling later confirmed that viewers felt the same way by a substantial margin.

As of this writing, every poll I've seen has Mr. Obama beating Mr. McCain by anywhere from 3 to 10 points. Which may explain why it's getting so ugly out there. Mr. McCain is flailing around, throwing everything he can think of at Mr. Obama in an attempt to regain his footing. The guilt-by-association arrows may rile up his base; they did last week at a rally in Waukesha, Wis., where Republicans shouted for more and harsher attacks on the opponent's "soft spots." But this tactic -- or is it a strategy? -- isn't doing much for the independents he'll need to convince. It's also immaterial to the economic issues that are consuming most Americans right now, as they see their savings and retirement wither before their eyes.

The more Mr. McCain gets hot under the collar about his inability to reverse the trends, the cooler and steadier Mr. Obama looks in the crisis. That's one person's opinion, anyway. I wonder what Leonard Bernstein and Chico Marx would say.