From the NYT:

A serious discussion on pressing national issues may be good for the country. But it isn’t necessarily good television.

That was the prospect faced Thursday night by CNN, which broadcast what may be the final Democratic debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. While the candidates seemed to captivate the A-list crowd of Hollywood stars and power brokers in Los Angeles’s Kodak Theater, in CNN’s control room — inside a crowded truck parked behind the auditorium — the producers were exasperated and at times seemingly bored by their own broadcast.

“She didn’t answer the question at all,” said David Bohrman, the Washington bureau chief for CNN, sighing deeply as Mrs. Clinton discussed immigration.

“It’s a like a press conference,” said Jane Maxwell, a CNN producer, expressing the frustration inside the room.

The showdown was promoted as “fight night” because of the nasty shots each candidate had taken at the previous debate. “Remember last week, the heated debate in South Carolina? Tonight could make that seem like a garden party,” the CNN commentator, Jack Cafferty, remarked hours before the match-up.

Instead, the debate centered on policy and was about as heated as a brown-bag lunch at the Brookings Institution. That left CNN producers looking for ways to stoke the competition, using the tricks they had learned broadcasting previous debates during this long primary season.

The network had good financial reasons for wanting a lively show. This prolonged primary season, with competitive races in both parties, has been enormously expensive to cover. For CNN, a part of Time Warner, the two California debates alone represented a substantial investment — well over a million dollars — with two staffs, studios and anchors. More zingers from the candidates meant more sound bites and potentially a bigger audience.

On the other side, both campaigns thought the South Carolina debate, where Senator Obama disparaged Senator Clinton for being on the Wal-Mart board and she said he had worked for a “slum landlord,” was bad for both candidates. They were determined to avoid a repeat performance.

“These candidates are really smart. They come in with a plan and an agenda,” Mr. Bohrman said. “Our plan pales in comparison to theirs.”