Dumb and Dumberer: When Charlie met George

There was a debate last night at Philadelphia's Constitution Center. Unfortunately, the people who should have been in attendance at the end were the city's vice detectives. That way, at least the fraud that was perpetrated by Charles Gibson, George Stephanopoulos and ABC could be fully investigated.

Yes, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have debated 20 times before. However, it had been almost two months since the Cleveland debate, and as we all know, much has transpired since then.

What I expected was some difficult questions for both Senators. For Obama, I thought he'd have to answer questions on "Bitter-gate", as well as some of his personal associations with people like Jeremiah Wright, Antoin Rezko and William Ayers. Personally, I don't think those are major issues, but they're definitely fair game for a Presidential election. They're also part of the real talking points the Clinton campaign will use in persuading superdelegates to move in her direction.

For Clinton, I thought she'd have to talk about Tuzla, Colombia, and the Peter Paul trial. Again, I am not convinced these are major issues, but they're also fair game for a Presidential election. And Clinton hasn't been made to answer any serious questions about possible conflicts of interest in a third Clinton Administration or the possibility of the next POTUS being found liable in an eight-figure civil suit.

I thought the time limits were a good idea. At least that way, once the tabloid stuff was done, we could move on to talk about such insignificant matters as the Iraq occupation, the possibility of military action in Afghanistan or Pakistan, how to handle Iran, the economy, the mortgage crisis, and the decline of American educational performance.

Unfortunately, three horrible things occured to make this, without question, the worst of the 21 Democratic debates. We'll look at them as questions I would ask to ABC News executives, if I ever got the chance.

(1) What happened to balance? Obama was asked some tough questions. Ayers, again, is fair game. I thought he was correct to bring up the fact that Ayers was doing his work when Obama was still in primary school, several thousand miles away. The point about Tom Coburn is legitimate, though perhaps not politically correct. He might have done better to throw in the fact that he's successfully co-sponsored major legislation with Coburn.

However, Clinton was asked exactly one question that touched on her own controversy - and it didn't even come from the moderators. She gave an answer that, while stilted, finally gave some public declaration of remorse for her Bosnia prevarications. She should have avoided the passing reference to sleep deprivation, but again, at least she owned up to the embarrassment. Then, immediately after her answer, Gibson went at Obama with a different question, allowing no chance for a response on Tuzla. Obama probably wouldn't have gone after Clinton, but it's worth noting that Clinton was given specific opportunities to rebut every one of Obama's responses in the first 40 minutes.

I was stunned that there were no questions on Colombia. Clinton's got three major people involved with her campaign who either have been or are actively involved with lobbying efforts in favor of a free-trade agreement with that nation - a concept that Clinton has actively opposed. This seems to be an issue that is worth examining more fully. The Paul case is also a big issue. How many Presidential candidates have ever been defendants in a civil suit while running for office? A judge thought enough of Paul's case to reinstate Sen. Clinton as a defendant. This alone is newsworthy, yet she's not been asked a single MSM question on this.

(2) Where did these questions come from? Gibson's justification for the questions on flag pins and patriotism is that "they keep coming up." That might be the single most inane line of reasoning I've ever heard him utter. Clinton doesn't wear a flag pin. For that matter, John McCain doesn't wear one either. If it's a non-issue for them, it's a non-issue for Obama. The debate spent several minutes on this manufactured issue. Along with the other inanities, this left 30-60 seconds per candidate at the end to discuss such trivialities as how to keep gas prices under $4 per gallon.

Stephanopoulos, not to be outdone, got in on the idiocy too. What possible import could Jeremiah Wright's patriotism have on the election issues? Never mind the fact that the man volunteered to become a US Marine, and personally tended to President Lyndon Johnson, or that he was one a select group of clergy invited to the White House in 1998 to pray for Bill Clinton at the dawn of the Lewinsky scandal. Wipe those arguments out, and it's still a patently goofy question.

(3) Did anyone bother to consider the moderators? After his putrid performance last night, Gibson should never be allowed to moderate another debate again for as long as he lives. But at least one can understand why he would have been selected. Stephanopoulos, though, should never have been selected. His professional and political associations alone should have disqualified him. His clownish performance should, like Gibson's, be a permanent disqualifier for future moderator gigs. ABC royally blew this part of the debate. They'd have been better off with Joy Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

So, who made better points? That appears to be a draw. I suspect most undecided voters will give Obama a pass for the first 40 minutes. Although I imagine we may see a few more Ayers stories in the media, this will not be an issue again until the Republican attack machine tries to drum it up in the general election, should Obama be the nominee. Clinton seemed to be at her best when pressing issues, and made her main points of electability and detailed policy proposals. However, Obama counterpunched effectively - stopping her on Ayers when he pointed out that Bill Clinton had pardoned two Weather Underground activists. She also walked into a stiff left jab when he ended the Social Security debate by pointing out that the 1983 Reagan commission, which Clinton had just praised, did, in fact, raise the payroll tax to beef up funding - which Clinton had just opposed. The debate was heading for a break before that exchange started, and that was probably fortuitous for Clinton.

Who won? Overall, Clinton will probably come out of the debate less the worse for wear - if for no other reason than the first 40 minutes set the tone for the evening. Neither candidate made any new points or brought up anything new, which probably helps Obama more than Clinton. She didn't get her big break tonight, but did show more humor and personality than she usually does.

I thought the only potential Obama stumble came when Gibson asked a follow-up question about what appears to be Obama's handwriting on a 1996 survey that stated, among other things, his position on gun control at the time. Obama's response was to say that his handwriting wasn't on that survey. However, there's a Politico article by Kenneth Vogel that includes a link to the PDF version of the survey, and the handwriting does look like Obama's. This is potentially another "gotcha" moment. But the debate wasn't a big poll mover, most likely.

Who lost? Without question, the "Dumb and Dumber" moderators - and, by extension, their network. Because of them, what should have been an interesting, mostly issue-focused debate was instead the greatest waste of bandwidth since George W. Bush's last press conference. I just hope the detectives bring latex gloves and galoshes to the crime scene, because there's probably some serious excrement around the moderators' table.