The atmosphere was evident upon hearing the introductions of the candidates, with their supporters cheering loudly like sports fans. Tester had the "home court advantage" with his partisans outfitted in campaign T-shirts. New West set the scene:

They both wore nice suits, cowboy boots and had their families in attendance, but the debate Sunday afternoon between GOP Sen. Conrad Burns and Democrat Jon Tester highlighted their differences and was extended by repeated comments, cheers and boos from a packed Hamilton Performing Arts Center.

The first hint of the wildness to come were the 100 bright yellow T-shirts Tester supporters handed out at the doorway leading into the auditorium. They said "Fire Burns," in flaming red letters.

Burns' supporters were outnumbered at least 2 to 1 in the overflowing center, which seated 700 people. As many as 200 people were eventually turned back at the door by Hamilton police officers who tried hard to keep fire escape routes open.

The audience was raucous throughout, until this:

Finally, a Burns supporter shouted for the crowd to shut up.

"Let him speak, we don't interrupt (Tester)," the person shouted.

Which brings me back to the blogs. Blogs are frequently criticized for being rude, using coarse language, being unfair, etc. But many are self reflective as well as reflective of the public. Matt Singer admonishes the debate audience in his post at Left in the West:

I've only seen some of the coverage and heaven knows it might be misleading, but where does the desire to yell during a debate come from and why doesn't your brain block the impulse? Tester doesn't need your help up there. He can handle himself in a discussion with Burns and he's demonstrated that repeatedly. Being rude doesn't help our cause and results in media coverage of the audience rather than the participants.

But, as they say, I guess you had to be there, since the first commenter says,

Seems like the accounts are way off. Burns supporters actually kicked off the racket first. Second, Burns' time was not "cut off" by the noise, because he consistently went over, interrupted Jon, and engaged in "illegal" rebuttal. Both candidates did.

As for the crowd noise...well, you had to be there. This was an old-fashioned stump debate my friends. While I didn't actually engage in the yelling or screaming (I had a laptop on my lap), it was refreshing to see the electorate get a chance to call Burns out on his lies. And man this guy was nasty yesterday...

That the media framed it the way they did shows their distaste for people who actually believe politics can make a difference, or who actually believe a candidate. That's their shame.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of tip-toeing around reporters' sensibilities.

The commenters then argue back and forth.

As for me, I would gladly exchange some decorum for more debates, and for a public more interested in attending them.

Finally, a speculation (from someone unqualified on this matter): the fact that Tester's campaign packed more people into the hall is sign evidence that his chances may be even better than predicted. The polls have the race tied. But Tester won his primary on the strength of a netroots/grassroots ground game. He won by a larger margin than predicted. Campaigns need enthusuastic volunteers. Tester has them.