And so it appears I was right. Jim Geraghty, who was no Christine O'Donnell fan during the primaries and immediate aftermath, puts it this way, Did Delawareans Just Endure the Worst-Moderated Debate Ever?
The moderators were pretty awful. Both [Wolf] Blitzer [of CNN]and the local reporter seemed hell bent on… well, the metaphor burning a witch comes to mind.Debates should be important events. But like so much else, the mainstream media simply uses it as an opportunity to shape the field.
Yes, Christine O’Donnell has a lot of quirks, a lot of questionable decisions in her past and a lot of evasive answers about those bad decisions. But it was pretty clear that neither moderator was all that interested in holding Coons’ feet to the fire or interested in what he had to say at all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the better of the two, was hell-bent on pinning down O’Donnell’s view on evolution. And he was the better of the two. This was the moderators’ chance to play hardball with their designated Villain Du Jour, and the fact that CNN aired much of this debate live illustrates that the MSM doesn’t just want to see O’Donnell beaten; they want to see her… well, metaphorically burned at the stake in the town square for her audacity.
Look, you read this site. You know I’m not a fan of Christine O’Donnell. But she deserved better than this, and so did the voters. This was supposed to be a debate, not a show trial.
The big gotcha moment last night? O'Donnell was at a loss to cite a Supreme Court decision "of late" with which she disagreed. When Blitzer mentioned Roe v. Wade, O'Donnell corrected him that that was not "recent." How pathetic, for the questioners and lawyer-bloggers making a big deal about it. I guess only lawyers who follow Supreme Court case law are eligible for the Senate.
(added) The question of dissatisfaction with Supreme Court decisions "of late" was particularly bad. For conservatives, decisions by the Roberts Court "of late" have been, for the most part, acceptable. The Kelo case, from 2005 (pre-Roberts), is being cited as something O'Donnell should have known, but that really is inside the law stuff. Coons didn't exactly exhibit legal scholarship by citing the Citizens United case, considering that for the last several months the case has been the rallying cry of the left.
I realize O'Donnell has an uphill struggle. But if the choice were between someone who wanted to destroy the country by rubber-stamping Barack Obama's agenda but knows Supreme Court precedent, or a nominee who responded as any normally informed person would to a vague question, I'll take normal.
Memo to the Right: "The Lombardi Rule" Is In Effect
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube