Too Tough on Obama?

When I asked for feedback about my site a few weeks ago (what do you like, what do you not want here), there were more comments about no politics than anything in the things that people don't want to see here.

So with that, the Democratic debate. Or should I say the debate about the debate.

Seems that there are two schools of thought (maybe three) regarding the debate this week in Pennsylvania:

1. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked red-herring questions in the first forty minutes of the debate, rehashing irrelevant questions of Obama specifically which the media has overblown lately (e.g., his small town quote, the Weather Underground guy, etc).
2. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopous asked tough questions about character and policy; they pointedly pushed the front-runner and brought to light issues which may be the key to whether he will win the General Election or not. Obama and Clinton agree on many topics, so what's the point of rehashing them again?
   
3. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos inadvertently continued to prolong the Democratic Party's mess of selecting their nominee, setting up a train wreck of a National Convention and strengthening McCain's case to be President

The Washington Post has a great summary to check out, complete with comments from every blogger, media analyst, and pundit who's weighed in on whether ABC did a good job with the debate or not.

I didn't watch the debate and currently have no time to dive in, but the summary is a great recap, imo. Thank you, Howard Kurtz.