Yesterday, I wrote that I could have sworn I had read ABC News was the real loser of the Pennsylvania Democratic debate on some blog (probably Andrew Sullivan’s). But, when I checked the blogs, but must have neglected to review all the posts I had read the preceding night. I had to google to find the line.

Turns out I hadn’t read “real loser,” just loser. Had I omitted the adjective, I would have discovered Andrew’s live-blogging where he wrote “The loser was ABC News.” Only discovered this last night when reading Peter Wehner’s excellent debate review, Fisking Barack Obama.

Interesting how when we google, if we had an extra word in order to find more quickly the post we’re looking for, we may not find it at all.

Wehner disagrees with the leftist spin on the debate, commenting that the debate did not focus “exclusively” on trivial issues:

there were questions about Iraq, Iran, taxes, guns, affirmative action, and other topics. This debate, more than most, was enlightening and useful. Obama’s supporters are enraged that he would be treated like any other candidate running for president.

It does seem (as per my conversation referenced in this post) that many Obama supporters get upset at any tough questioning their man has to endure or any criticism to which he is subject as if he is above all that. Yesterday, I read a piece (ergh, gonna have to google again to find it & maybe even the blog that alerted me to it to provide the requisite hat tip*) wondering if Obama supporters just wanted the campaign to focus on how bad Bush is and how imperative it is we replace him with their man.

This, in my view, has become their campaign philosophy: So horrible is the Republican incumbent and so hopeful their Democratic candidate that to scrutinize the Illinois Senator would be akin to sacrilege.

Anyway, I highly recommend Peter Wehner’s comments on the debate, making the case that it was a substantive exchange which did not put the Democratic frontrunner in a very good light. And also take a gander at ILoveCapitalism’s critiques (here and here) of my suggestion that George Stephanopoulos recuse himself from debates involving the Clintons. Despite the appearance of bias, ILC believes the former Clinton aide was fair in his questioning.

——-
*Sometimes I save urls in text files (along with the url of the referring blog) when I think I may blog about them later. Other times, an idea will come to me, inspired by that blog and I’ll have to root around, er, google, to find the needed url.

UPDATE: David Brooks, another writer who thought the debate was fair, has more. (Via Instapundit).