Despite more than 175 BBC staff being in the USA and spending God knows how much money, they managed once again to produce a programme which was flat, banal and superficial. No one really seemed to have a properly defined role and the choice of studio and interview guests led at times to car crash TV.
Lorna Kuennsberg talked to two of the most boring and insightless bloggers in America while Jon Sopel spent the evening in a Community Hall in Virginia talking to people who generally had nothing to say. By the end of the evening you could almost hear him pleading for a silver revolver.
I am sorry to say it, because I think he has been a great broadcaster of election night programmes, but this should be David Dimbleby's last. During his studio discussions I kept thinking how much better they would have been if they had been hosted by Andrew Neill. And where exactly was Andrew Neill? He is an acknowledged expert on US politics and should have been deployed as one of the main anchors.
I'm not even going to enter the lion's den of bias, but there were several occasions when Obama enthusiasm got the better of one of two reporters. The look on Dimbleby's face when John Boulton said a reporter in Colorado should have been fired was a picture.
At various times during the evening, when I could stand it no longer, I switched over to Sky, and even ITV. Both kept things simpler and therefore informed and educated us far more than the BBC did. Sky's team of Jeremy Thompson, Adam Boulton, Anna Botting, Andrew Wilson and Martin Stanford were all superb. Their analysis and interviews were spot on and Stanford's graphics were far more informative than Jeremy Vine's on the BBC. Sometimes simplicity is best.
It's never easy to get election programmes right and I don't envy those who are responsible for their production. But with the resources and money the BBC threw at this, I must admit I was disappointed by the end result.
UPDATE: Here is the Gore Vidal moment...