A quick post on the debate last night. I thought Clinton looked happy and on, while Obama looked worn down and, quite frankly, tired. I’m not sure what was up. This was clearly a huge debate for the candidates, and it was surprising to see him off his A game.

I’m not the only one who felt this way. I also missed the first half of the debate which, from reading the comments over at ABCNews.com, was the really awful part.

I told the guys at work that I had to leave before it started because, if this was anything like Russert moderating, I’d have to throw something at the TV before it was over.

Apparently, Charlie Gibson sucked worse which, I have to say, is hard to believe. Though, on the tax cut/social security question, he did show that he wasn’t paying attention to his own debate. He dinged Obama on not raising taxes on people making less than $250K by implying that there are a large portion of the country making between $100K and $250K. Obama, I think, just finished saying that the portion of people who are above the cap for Social Security was 6%. That includes everyone from folks like me to Bill Gates and Buffett. And, let me add for the record, I think cap is stupid and regressive and, while it would suck to pay more in payroll taxes, I’d be OK with it.

Also, one last thought: One of the blogs I read pointed out that this debate assumed the Republican stance as the implied “correct” choice. The whole framing of those tax questions really bothered me. Why $250K as the cutoff? Why do the candidates need to pledge this? This isn’t a discussion about issues, but a game of gotcha with Republican spin. Taxes will go up on the top tax bracket. They have to, in part because they got the biggest tax cuts under the Bush cuts. I’m not talking in absolute dollars but in simple rate reductions… they got 6% and the rest of us got 4-5%. The top bracket starts in the mid $100K if I remember correctly, so I’m not sure why we’re calling $250K the cutoff for “middle class.”

Anyway, I found the framing there bizarre considering that this debate was a Democratic debate for a Dem primary. Although, I probably would’ve found it weird period. Asking people to take a pledge isn’t the same as asking a question like, “On whom do you think it’s OK (or not OK) to raise taxes, and at what income level would you promise not to raise taxes.” Picking a line puts the candidates in a tough spot for no good reason unless you’re trying to tear them down.

As I said during the Russert debate, this isn’t their role. They’re supposed to moderate, not confront.