Michael Grunwald at Time magazine was disappointed in the moderators because the Democratic candidates didn't take positions in the debate last night. Why is that the moderators fault?
Last night, for example, Gibson tried to nail Obama over capital gains taxes, revealing only his own misunderstanding of the difference between correlation and causation.
So why didn't Obama point that out? It's supposed to be a debate, for crying out loud.
For all the back-and-forth over a crazy Weatherman he once served with on a board, Obama never got to tell voters that he opposed the war in Iraq from the start.
After months of campaigning, who doesn't know Obama gave a speech several years ago where he denouced the war? Seriously, why should he need to remind voters of the same thing he's reminded them of 5 gazillion times already?
For all the back-and-forth over her Tuzla goof, Obama stayed out of it, although he acknowledged that his campaign aides addressed it when asked. Clinton never got to mention anything she's done in the Senate.
Got to mention? Are you saying one of the questions should have been Senator, what have you done in the Senate? Politicians are polished at ignoring the actual question and saying what they want to. If Senator Clinton had wanted to emphasize her Senate record, she could have plugged it very easily.
And the only real constitutional issue that got discussed was the right to bear arms.
And neither candidate actually said anything substantial about that. They both work in DC and neither one is familiar with the DC gun law? Both said something about reasonable gun control, but the moderators never asked what reasonable means. That was one of their biggest faults, not the shallowness of the questions.