Hilzoy has an excerpt of Paul Krugman’s latest column and it’s a can’t miss. The crux of the column is that debate reporting is still terrible, pointing to a statement by professional panderer Mitt Romney who made a preposterous statement:

Mr. Romney said that war could only have been avoided if Saddam “had opened up his country to I.A.E.A. inspectors, and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction.” He dismissed this as an “unreasonable hypothetical.”

Except that Saddam did, in fact, allow inspectors in. Remember Hans Blix? When those inspectors failed to find nonexistent W.M.D., Mr. Bush ordered them out so that he could invade. Mr. Romney’s remark should have been the central story in news reports about Tuesday’s debate. But it wasn’t.

He’s right. A gaffe of that magnitude should be grounds for ridicule and instant disqualification from running for President. It’s basic history and if a candidate can’t understand the basic timeline of the war, they shouldn’t be running. Period.

Krugman’s ultimate point, which Atrios has built an entire blog around, is that the media is still reporting on stupid surface stories rather than actual substantive issues. They should be criticizing both Republicans and Democrats when they make collosal errors like this. Instead, they revel in pointing out the trivial and the theatrical. Demand better.