Due to the flexibilities of the English language, that title could have been reversed, without losing its meaning: "Formatting Debates" would have worked just as well. Because while last night I wrote out my insta-reactions to the first presidential debate of the 2012 season, today I'm going to pull back and look at the big picture on the small screen (so to speak).

Last night's debate format was unusual in this day and age. This was reportedly why Jim Lehrer "unretired" to moderate one last presidential debate. It was supposed to be the crowning achievement of a stellar career which included running numerous debates in past years. The overwhelming consensus today is that Lehrer should have stayed retired, and rested on his laurels, because if this was a crowning achievement it was more like a paper crown at a kid's birthday party.

Now, look, I love and respect Jim Lehrer (more so than I do Big Bird). In a world sadly populated by well-dressed, manicured, overcoiffed helium-brains pretending to be "journalists" on television (because they appear non-threatening and oh-so-down-home-folksy while reading lines someone else has written), Jim Lehrer is a giant among midgets. He is usually extraordinarily sharp and has a wealth (and depth) of experience to draw upon. The MacNeil/Lehrer Report (as it used to be called) not only broke journalistic ground, but redefined how good television news could indeed strive to be. The man is a journalistic icon -- with no "scare quotes" necessary around the journalistic bit. Having said all of that, Jim had one of the worst nights of his professional life last night. I've heard some people out there today attempting to defend Barack Obama's performance last night, but I haven't noticed anybody defending Lehrer's.

Which is a shame, because Lehrer losing all semblance of control over the evening masked what had been billed as an experimental format for a modern televised debate. And, I have to say, the format itself proved to be an interesting one. With a different moderator, it could have been seen as a smashing success.

The idea (Lehrer's own, by his account) was simple to explain, although it proved to be tough to implement. The debate would be divided into six 15-minute segments, each with its own subject and question. Each candidate was supposed to get two minutes to make his case, and then the next eleven minutes were to be spent in a back-and-forth which would have completely been at the discretion of the moderator. At the end of the segment, a new segment's subject question would be introduced.

Two things were missing last night which could have made it a better debate (or, at the very least, better television). The first was commercial breaks. No, seriously. If the candidates knew that every fifteen minutes there would be an enforced commercial break, they would have paid a lot more attention to the clock. Heck, the commercials themselves could have been campaign ads from the two sides (one each, for each break) -- this would have added to the whole affair while still providing bathroom breaks for the folks at home. Kidding aside, it would have put an iron-clad framework over the timing of the whole evening, which was sadly missing in action last night.

The second thing needed last night was a dash of rudeness. From the moderator. What was really needed was a moderator who understands the more free-flowing "debate" style Americans have gotten used to on cable television these days. Now, before you howl, I'm not suggesting someone who would allow things to descend to some sort of screaming match, but rather a moderator who knew when to actually interrupt the candidates when they needed it. Someone not afraid to say "OK, Mr. President, your time is up, I'm sorry. Governor Romney, our next question concerns..." (or vice versa, of course).

With a much more strong-willed moderator who is more used to the faster style of debate politicians are used to today, the format Lehrer came up with could have worked much better. Some people today are noticing that the debate was more specific on details and got more into the wonky weeds than previous debates. This could be because of the announced format, or it could just be a measure of the times we find ourselves in during this election (it's hard to say, in other words). But even the chance that the debate itself was an influence should mean giving it another shot in the future.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I hope the baby won't be thrown out with the bathwater. Jim Lehrer blew it last night -- much as I respect the man, it's undeniable on the face of it. But that doesn't mean the format itself shouldn't be tried again. In the right hands (say, a panel of two moderators, one from each side, such as Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly for instance), this free-form debate could be a fantastic innovation which provides for much more interesting debate and much more interesting television.

Debates these days are always full of bizarre rules about timing that nobody but the moderators seem to even be able to fathom. Having just one or two rules is an interesting concept. You get two minutes at the start, and then it's all in the hands of the moderator until the commercial break (which will be taken -- even if you're in the middle of a sentence when we cut away). As I said, it could work with the right moderator. It could even have been spectacular, if the moderator were a quick enough thinker to goad the candidates into directly addressing each other's points -- and refusing to allow any waffling. For one brief, shining moment last night, Jim Lehrer showed how this could happen, when he pressed Mitt Romney on whether he supported -- "yes or no" -- Bowles/Simpson. If he had done that sort of thing all night long (to both Obama and Romney), it would have been much more interesting and informative all around.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant