The consensus seems to be that the Las Vegas debate was cloying and unsatisfactory with too many delays, longeurs, and commercials. Clinton improved a bit, Obama was the loser, and Joe Biden was the only one who said anything substantial.
What strikes me reading reports on the debate here and here is a) how counterproductive the format of the debates is, b) how bizarre it is for stuffed media shirts with stuffed egos and only the most superficial knowledge of issues to be the moderators, and c) how sad it is that we continue to put up with fast-food democracy.
The following maybe came closest to being a "moment of truth":
The Blitz asks all the candidates if they will pledge to support the Democratic nominee, no matter what. Everyone agrees, except for Kucinich, who still looks pissed. "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy," Kucinich says. This is sort of a fortune-cookie answer, but Kucinich may be saying he won't support any of the other Democratic candidates, who all endorse the idea of using the military to pursue U.S. interests. The Blitz does not ask for clarification.
By all reports, Hillary came out best in Vegas. The Clintons appear to have organized a boo-squad -- rightwing style -- to give voice whenever things go badly for their candidate. If true, this is not reassuring. Whenever someone suggests Clinton is rather more like Bush than any of the other Democratic candidates, I think, "You got that right!" And I wonder how in hell I'll ever be able to pull the "Democratic" lever in November '08.
