One consensus on the web is that Obama was not on his game last night. A second is that Hillary seems to be running a lab test on whether negative attacks work, or backfire.
A third is that Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos -- a former Clinton staffer who should not be hosting debates, just because of the appearance -- through sheer volume of personal, hostile questions set a standard that is not likely to be met again:
Tapped: "I mean, can anyone imagine a general election debate this fall where John McCain is asked about his friendship with lobbyist Vicky Iselin, the alleged adulterous behavior that led to the failure of his first marriage, his embarrassing flip-flop of the legitimacy of Bob Jones University, his shifting position on the Martin Luther King holiday and, say, his view of wacko fundamentalist John Hagee--all in the same debate?"
Back to Stephanopoulos: He arises in an era where -- like Tim Russert -- you can supposedly turn from a political aide, who's supposed to skew the truth, into a journalist, who's supposed to tell the truth, just by having a "news organization" sign your paycheck.
But in this case, one of the debate participants -- Clinton -- spent part of her public career serving as First Lady in the White House, and Stephanopoulos served with her, under her husband. How can he pretend to be neutral for that era of his life? It's just not possible.